As some of you know, I’m a member of a group that has been trained by our local police to be their “eyes and ears”. Our job is to walk around the neighborhood, taking note of people in the neighborhood who shouldn’t be there (due to their parole specifications), trashed or abandoned property, etc. and turn these into police. We are often time called into court cases to talk about the effect some of these people have on the community.
Anyway - several weeks ago, another group such as ours was on their patrol, in another part of the city, and had a known/convicted drug felon pull a gun on them and threaten them. They were able to leave the scene, and call the police to respond.
On Friday - this perp was brought up before the Grand Jury (without anyone in the group knowing about it) and was only charged with misdemeanors (the particulars of which we’re still trying to find out). He was NOT charged with a felony violation because -
THE GUN WASN’T OPERABLE!!!
Ok - I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know the ins and outs of the law. I certainly wouldn’t be able to tell, in the situation such that I have a gun pointing at me, whether it’s capable of firing or not.
I’ve been trying to search federal law for a definition of “firearm”. Is it true that this definition means it has to be capable of firing? What about all those “zero tolerance” laws at schools and such that have resulted in the suspension of kids for pointing fingers and chicken nuggets at other students?
Does anyone else have a problem with this? How in the world are we supposed to feel good about going out on patrol now that the perps have been told it’s “ok” to point a gun at us, as long as it doesn’t work?
Again - I don’t know what the misdemeanor charges are, but I seriously doubt they will amount to much of anything.
This person has two prior convictions and has served time for cocaine trafficing (at least).
Missy, the fact that your drug pusher got off on only a misemeanor charge is pure horse-sh*t! Check your laws there and see what you can dig up, because I know for a fact that in Utah (one of the most conservative states in the Union) you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if you so much as pull a very convincing-looking squirt gun on someone…that judge must have had his head up his crusty posterior to rule such!
If your laws reflect what ours do, get a Petition of No Confidence going against the judge and ask them to step down…the very least that this action will do is raise awareness of the people that this judge will not act in the best interests of the people and they will be disinclined to elect him again.
Missy, I agree with you and Tyler. This sounds a little strange. I’m not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that the Rational perception from the victim’s standpoint is often a big factor in determining the severity of a crime. If one of the folks who was assaulted (and it was an assault if they rationally perceived there was an imment threat to them from this inoperable weapon) had severely injured this guy in self defense, I believe it would stand up in court as being an affirmative defense. Because most people would perceive any type of firearm to be operable and capable of causing grievous injury, I would think this would carry more weight than a misdemeanor. I’ll have to let our better legal minds weigh in on this one, but that’s what I would bet my two cents on.
Your state statutes have jurisdiction. Look at § 2923.11. Definitions
Does anyone else have a problem with this? How in the world are we supposed to feel good about going out on patrol now that the perps have been told it’s “ok” to point a gun at us, as long as it doesn’t work?
Again - I don’t know what the misdemeanor charges are, but I seriously doubt they will amount to much of anything.
This person has two prior convictions and has served time for cocaine trafficing (at least).
What am I missing here? How does this make sense?
It seems Ohio statute § 2903.21. Aggravated menacing would apply.
I’m not saying this situation is right or wrong, but that these are the laws for Ohio. A possible solution would be to contact your legislators and gathering signatures to change it.
thanks for the numbers, Teri - I had already found some of that…
There’s a LOT of work going on now about this. One of the interesting side-bars is we are in the throws of a mayorial runoff. All of the candidates have stated how they will be “tough” on crime. One is currently in the state legislature. Believe me, every single one of these candidates is going to have a personal contact in the next few days.
Over 20 neighborhoods are being served by these citizen groups. Many are talking about not walking until we have some type of resolution to this. There’s going to be quite a bit said about this - from the rank and file officers if nothing else - if we all decide to stop walking.
Others are contacting media. Especially those that are known to want to take a stance against crime.
I hear what you’re saying, Tyler. Some of these bad-guys are too smart (or perhaps I should say not smart enough) for their own good. They know that they can intimidate others even with a toy gun and believe if they get picked up by the police it won’t be a big deal because the gun’s not real. (Although I still say that I don’t think the law supports that assumption on their part). What they don’t realize (I suppose) is that menacingly waving the toy in someone’s face can very likely put them in a world of hurt, or in the morgue.
I don’t know what you carry, Tyler, but we live in the Chicago suburbs and the few times that my wife has had to travel through the inner city at night coming home from work, I wished that she had an M-60 and a string of hand grenades next to her for security.
Well, what would have happened to that guy if the people he had pulled the gun on were undercover police officers, instead? I believe they would have had the right to shoot/arrest him due the the fact that they were being threatened with a firearm, and not to suffer charges due to the threatening firearm being “inoperable”… It seems like a double-standard being applied simply because they were civilians.
Robin - that was my second thought (civilians vs. policemen). I can’t type what my first thought was!
We are all in bright blue shirts, with white, one inch letters across the back that says CPD - Citizens on Patrol. We have blue baseball caps on with the CPD emblem on it, and Citizens on Patrol on the back. It’s REAL obvious who we are.
I’ll keep you posted - the emails are flying, and I’m not even home to hear what phone calls Tom has been fielding…
I may not have said it that well, but Robin’s ideas are what I was getting at in my original post. Sort of. I’m not able to sift through the wording of State Codes, and I admit I really haven’t tried to find Ohio’s, which I probably should. But is there something in Ohio’s Criminal Code that distinguishes “law enforcement” from the rest of us under their assault statutes? I know that many jurisdictions have stricter penalties when the victim turns out to be a police officer and maybe that’s what you are all discussing here. But I don’t believe it would result in lowering the charges to a misdemeanor. Would it? I’m confused. Could someone with access to Lexis/Nexis clear this up? Or anyone else point out what I’m not picking up on. Thanks.
Also, a lot of these things, I would think are based on case law and precedent, as far as what is meant by “weapon” or “deadly” or “reasonable” or “rational”. Again, I’m not an attorney either. And I’m just throwing out ideas as they come to me (often slowly and jumbled).
The whole idea sounds crazy to me! If the area ye live in is so rat infested then ye need more Polis… who lets face it have more power then ye ever will.
I think I would react adversely to local busybodies( I’m not saying that ye are one ,but the potential sure is there for some) patrolling my neck o the woods..Leave it to the professionals,they are paid well to do it and have the full weight o the law,and if there isnae enough to deal with the situation then lobby for more.Far from helping the community out ye seem to be hindering it by keeping the local Polis under strength!!!
Just a thought.
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam
A quick history lesson of the area may help put things in perspective. The police / citizens communications have been strained in the area for quite a while. This came to a head in the “riots” of April, 2001 - when officers shot an unarmed African-American male (I won’t go into all that, except to say that the officers were aquitted of wrong doing by 5 different groups).
Anyway, to help with this, groups such as Citizens On Patrol, which had been around, but not very effective, were brought to the forefront by both the police and the collabrative formed after the riots. COPs are looked favorably by all the neighborhood (except the punks). We receive thanks from all when we are walking, except for those that are afraid we are going to cut into their territory. We don’t just go after drug dealers - we help with vacant or underkept properties, help with before and after school control, work with businesses and other civic groups in the neighborhood, etc.
We are trained by the police, and are somewhat of a police auxilary - except we cannot arrest or conceal/carry. We often have an plain clothes officer walking with us on patrol.
Believe me, I’d LOVE to see more officers on patrol. We’ve been understaffed for a city this size for years. City council isn’t about to put more police on the streets (although that’s always one of their promises) - there just isn’t money to do it. We aren’t the “worst” area - nor is where the original gun toting that took place. There are several much, much worse - and no COP groups go there - it’s just too dangerous.
Call me stupid (I know you didn’t, I’m just making a comment) but I will NOT stand by and watch my neighborhood taken over by drugs and thugs. I’ve lived here since 1979 - and it keeps moving out, block by block, street by street. We need it to stop NOW - and the only way is to make sure all the neighbors are working against crime and towards a common goal.
Hey, Missy. For what it’s worth, I applaud your involvement and that of your neighbors in working to keep your community safe. Oftentimes people don’t get involved when they see things happening around them and figure that “the other guy” will fight city hall to get things done. Like it or not, we are all “the other guy” and we need to get involved with our communities if we want them to grow and prosper in the direction we would like. Once again, a big
Hey, Missy. For what it’s worth, I applaud your involvement and that of your neighbors in working to keep your community safe. Oftentimes people don’t get involved when they see things happening around them and figure that “the other guy” will fight city hall to get things done. Like it or not, we are all “the other guy” and we need to get involved with our communities if we want them to grow and prosper in the direction we would like.
Thanks Will - I’m just bull headed enough to not let others take over MY turf!!!
Doing this has also given me a much greater appreciation for the police, especially the rank and file. Their job basically sucks - they can’t please anybody - everyone is out to get them - and they are seconded guessed on every move they make.
Plus - at least in this city, in order to have state of the art equipment, they have to buy their own dang bulletproof vests! The issued ones are the huge things that weigh a ton. Most also have their own cell phones, because the radios aren’t all that reliable.
Policemen, firefighters, emergency personnel all do things that I would not want to do occasionally, let alone as part of my job on a routine basis. But I thank God that there ARE people like that who are willing to take on those resposibilities in our communities. I agree with you that being a police officer is often a thankless job, as is the other professions I mentioned. We complain when their presence may result in our receiving a traffic ticket, yet remain silent when they put themselves in harm’s way to serve and protect our families. To any police, firefighters or emergency personnel on this board: THANK YOU.
I just carry a Walther PPK .380 …nothing special.
And yes, I chose that one because it’s James Bond’s sidearm of choice…
spittin, I guaran-damn-tee you if that perp had pulled an “inopperable” gun on undercover officers, they wouldn’t be arresting him…
Well, okay, you got me…
No, really though, that’s a big reason why I DONT drive my brit cars while on a job; way too easily recognizable and these criminal types can be very resourcefull when they want to be… for example, my Mini is one of 8 in the Salt Lake valley…if they want to get back at me for helping cops put them away or helping a PI get the better of 'em all they gotta do is narrow down the list to find me…I have a little Toyota Corolla GT-S that looks stock on the outside for that job, that that get’s parked in storage…
I can surely understand people’s frustration in these cases. The problem is when the law clearly states that a gun must be operable to be considered a firearm and that you must physically harm someone for the charge to be assault, what’s a judge to do? Ohio law says that if you threaten someone with harm (the person believes harm is intended), then it is a charge of menacing. A judge can impose the most severe punishment available, but he can’t apply a law of his choosing. I’d wager the judges are just as disgusted by this as the public.
If the area ye live in is so rat infested then ye need more Polis… who lets face it have more power then ye ever will.
