U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2014, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Covington, KY
1,879 posts, read 2,121,445 times
Reputation: 590

Advertisements

The chief of police is the highest authority in a community. ...And, I didn't realize it, either, until I read that one day in the Dayton Daily News. Cops act with his/her authority.

 
The one thing that is absolute is that the cop is the authority with enforcement powers, and if the cop says scratch your head, you are advised to scratch your head.

 
Now, first of all, no two cops are alike. You can't generalize. And, you can't expect the same reaction from even the same cop if he/she gets another job in another jurisdiction because departmental attitudes, procedures, etc., are different from place to place.

 
Secondly, it's a very jittery society out there, and one has to question the level of social responsibility in any company that is selling toy guns as well as parents who buy them. If a kid wants to know about guns (and tanks) the army will teach him/her when the time comes. No? Well, weapons courses by police departments make sense while the manufacture of toy guns doesn't.

 
Are there racists cops? Probably, but the odds are excellent they act very carefully with their beliefs. And, will the police make mistakes? Probably. That's one reason for a court system.

Last edited by CarpathianPeasant; 08-09-2014 at 09:05 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2014, 09:32 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 15,786,024 times
Reputation: 17142
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHKID View Post
^I'm talking rule of law, you're talking emotions.

I looked up aggravated menacing:

It's a first-degree misdemeanor. Max punishment cannot even include a prison sentence. The ultimate sentence in this state is death, and even then death by shooting is illegal.

So' let's lay it out:

Does the law forbid carrying a gun into Walmart? No.
Does the law forbid taking out that gun and pointing it? No.
Does the law forbid manslaughter? Yes.


Again, not all of the facts are in. But from what facts have currently been presented, the officers acted in defiance of the law. That should scare us all.

I'm not saying the law shouldn't be changed. And I'm not talking ethics. I'm just saying if I understand the law correctly, then the police acted outside of it. No one should act outside of the law, that is a judgment statement but our rule of law exists for a reason. It is wise for one to question the law, but not for one to act outside of it.


And yes, if I had a family member that was shot by a madman with a gun, of course I would sue the police, the store, and anyone else whom had a reasonable case against them. I wouldn't necessarily seek monetary damages, but I would seek some form of justice, whether that be prison time, community service, policy changes, whatever. I think the law needs to be changed so people cannot wander into Walmart or other places legally with a gun. Then the guy could have been shot, because having the gun would have meant he was violating the law. And I would 100% stand behind the guy being shot. I just don't think under current law the police acted justifiably, and on a personal level I suspect some of the reasons why were racially driven, whether that be knowingly on the police force's part or from subconscious bias.
Again, no, you do not understand the law correctly and you simply do not know what you are talking about. It is against the law to point a firearm at someone. That is a fact/rule of law -- not emotion. The police response was not "in defiance of the law," it was clearly within the confines of the law. A first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 09:46 AM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,781,531 times
Reputation: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant View Post
The chief of police is the highest authority in a community. ...And, I didn't realize it, either, until I read that one day in the Dayton Daily News. Cops act with his/her authority.

 
The one thing that is absolute is that the cop is the authority with enforcement powers, and if the cop says scratch your head, you are advised to scratch your head.

 
Now, first of all, no two cops are alike. You can't generalize. And, you can't expect the same reaction from even the same cop if he/she gets another job in another jurisdiction because departmental attitudes, procedures, etc., are different from place to place.

 
Secondly, it's a very jittery society out there, and one has to question the level of social responsibility in any company that is selling toy guns as well as parents who buy them. If a kid wants to know about guns (and tanks) the army will teach him/her when the time comes. No? Well, weapons courses by police departments make sense while the manufacture of toy guns doesn't.

 
Are there racists cops? Probably, but the odds are excellent they act very carefully with their beliefs. And, will the police make mistakes? Probably. That's one reason for a court system.
Thanks for the clarification, CP! I never realized the Chief of Police is actually the highest authority, I always thought the relationship was one where the police only acted according the the specific laws set within state code, by legislation, and by past precedent. Very good to know.

Joe - I would like proof that it is against the law to point a toy firearm at someone. Because, we are not discussing a real gun, whether or not that was known at the time. Individuals who manufactured the toy, relatives of individuals who manufactured the toy, and owners of the toy surely could recognize it from a real gun. Who is to say the officers involved do not fit into any of these groups?

And jail is not prison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 10:43 AM
 
Location: In a happy place
3,707 posts, read 6,564,999 times
Reputation: 7331
We used to use the type of gun that was reportedly being waved around and pointed at people all the time when I was a youngster growing up on the farm. IT IS DEFINITELY NOT A TOY! True, it is not as powerful as a rifle or shotgun, but we used them to kill rodents and such around the barn. If they can kill small animals, they can certainly injure a human.

I wish the weapon would have never been referred to by the media as a "toy". BB guns and Pellet guns are NOT toys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Five Oaks
430 posts, read 447,524 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrtechno View Post
We used to use the type of gun that was reportedly being waved around and pointed at people all the time when I was a youngster growing up on the farm. IT IS DEFINITELY NOT A TOY! True, it is not as powerful as a rifle or shotgun, but we used them to kill rodents and such around the barn. If they can kill small animals, they can certainly injure a human.

I wish the weapon would have never been referred to by the media as a "toy". BB guns and Pellet guns are NOT toys.
I understand the a BB gun is not a toy, but I also know that they are certainly pushed as a "children's product".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 08:51 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 15,786,024 times
Reputation: 17142
A BB gun is not a toy, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. If you point it at someone and they are in fear you will cause them serious physical harm, you have committed an aggravated menacing. You have all of the proof you need in the Ohio Revised Code, but you refuse to accept it because you do not understand the law. It is really quite simple. The only reason I can think of that you are willfully being so misinformed on the subject is because you need to be right in order for your preconceived notion to have any validity. Let me make it easy for you, call up your local prosecutor's office and ask them if it is legal for you take a BB gun that looks like a real gun (as was used in the Wal mart shooting) and started pointing it at people, who then called the police because they are afraid that you are pointing a gun at them. Or better yet, why don't you put your certainty of knowledge of the law to the test and walk around sticking said BB gun in people's faces and see if you get arrested. If it is not against the law, you won't be arrested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Five Oaks
430 posts, read 447,524 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
A BB gun is not a toy, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily harm.
Oh, I agree it's not a toy, but all the boys in my extended family got one before the age of ten. I really don't see why they have to look like real guns, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 02:55 PM
 
Location: NKY's Campbell Co.
1,818 posts, read 3,888,735 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amandarthegreat View Post
Oh, I agree it's not a toy, but all the boys in my extended family got one before the age of ten. I really don't see why they have to look like real guns, though.
This.

I think most of the good points have been hashed out here. Just one thing of note. OHKID, unless you are barred attorney, I wouldn't go around trying to preach Ohio Revised Code. Your welcome to interpret for your own defense. But don't sit there and say "Aggravated Menacing" by your interp of ORC and expect to get away with it in a forum. I guess that is one thing about anonymous forums. You could be barred to practice law and we would never know, but my guess is you are not.

As a final note on this, it's easy to arm-chair lawyer all of this. Everyone, leave this one to the BCI office. It's the way stories like this are rushed out half-arsed by DDN and those at Cox (yes, WHIO and 1290 and media in general today too) to incite people. It's one thing to create a meaningful conversation. It's another to incite people to jump to stupid conclusions before all the facts are given. Apparently "meaningful conversation" is defined differently by me versus the DDN editor.

If it wasn't for grocery and other coupons, I would cancel my DDN subscription for this rouse. May still since most things are online today, even coupons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,012,544 times
Reputation: 2334
I think I have the most credible claim to being an attorney having just taken the Ohio bar last week.
Aggravated menacing happens when you create in the other person a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harm or contact. And if a reasonable person (eg a police officer) has such a belief, they are entitled to use force in self defense in proportion to the perceived threat - here, deadly force with deadly force.

Beavercreek PD was in the right. No assistant prosecuting attorney will waste his time going after the officers. Next question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 10:52 PM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,781,531 times
Reputation: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightflyer View Post
This.

I think most of the good points have been hashed out here. Just one thing of note. OHKID, unless you are barred attorney, I wouldn't go around trying to preach Ohio Revised Code. Your welcome to interpret for your own defense. But don't sit there and say "Aggravated Menacing" by your interp of ORC and expect to get away with it in a forum. I guess that is one thing about anonymous forums. You could be barred to practice law and we would never know, but my guess is you are not.

As a final note on this, it's easy to arm-chair lawyer all of this. Everyone, leave this one to the BCI office. It's the way stories like this are rushed out half-arsed by DDN and those at Cox (yes, WHIO and 1290 and media in general today too) to incite people. It's one thing to create a meaningful conversation. It's another to incite people to jump to stupid conclusions before all the facts are given. Apparently "meaningful conversation" is defined differently by me versus the DDN editor.

If it wasn't for grocery and other coupons, I would cancel my DDN subscription for this rouse. May still since most things are online today, even coupons.
Good point. I'll make the classic claim:
"I am not a lawyer not do I play one on TV."

I do have some very basic legal knowledge from undergrad classes in business and environmental law. But yeah, anyone who is taking my statements as fact has rocks for brains, if there is anyone out there who would do such a thing. I mean, I try to not sound stupid when I type posts (the iPhone normally makes me sound incompetent though with spelling and GUM mistakes) but yeah, I tried to make a point that I don't claim full knowledge of the case or how it should be interpreted. That's why I always stated "if I understand correctly".

And additionally we can all be tracked on here via our IP address. Or simply by the content we post, I can say with certainty I know the identities of about 25-50% of the regular posters on this forum with no effort put in on my end. And the other half I could find easily in a couple steps. So yeah, it's important to watch what we say here, so I guess I should clarify you are dumber than I don't even know what if you take what I say as 100% fact. That's why I normally try to back what I say with references, like links to other published sources.



Back on topic - I think my overall point got muddled. What I'm basically trying to say is:
1. I don't see why a civilian with a toy gun had to be killed. Especially with concealed carry laws an other loose gun policies. I think this should be a good reason to question what gun pilicy should look like in the US.
2. In general I am tired of the small faction of police who practice the "cop as vigilante" attitude. This seems to be more present in some communities around here than others, in particular Huber Heights, but possibly Beavercreek too.
3. Something is very wrong with this case. There's a reason why it's a big deal, because it just doesn't add up. Why would someone with a toy gun, even if they were pointing it menacingly, be shot in cold blood? Why did the victim not respond to police commands? What does this say about racial attitudes towards police and towards civilians (sorry, it had to be considered. I know we are supposed to be post race, but each an every one of is subtly racist in one way or another because I'm willing to bet each and every one of you believes at least one stereotype about a race different than your own. Considering the strong stereotypes present in this case, it can't be avoided). What's wrong here? I suspect it goes deeper than menacing.


Also, this thread is broad for a reason. Other issues will come up, they always do. Or there may be times out law engorcement just shines in excellence, and we should praise that too. But it is important for citizens to at least understand the law well enough to follow it and be smart enough to question it. I don't think that's too much to ask.

So take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm questioning the law, like any good citizen should do. Continuous improvement is about asking why it doesn't work. The law didn't work in the Beavercreek shootjng. I want to know why it did not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top