• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
Wife and I were doing laundry. Apparently, someone made a MWAG (or possibly WWAG) call. Ashland PD entered, one on each side of us, through two separate doors. Conversation went something like this: (ps, recorder battery ran out, must have been not 5 minutes before this happened... lesson learned? Check your batteries!)

Officer: Can I talk to you?
Me: No, I'm busy doing my laundry.
Officer: You're not in any trouble, we just want to talk to you.
Me: Well, what is this regarding.
Officer: Well, we just got a call about somebody with a gun. You may get some strange looks.
Me: Well, other people's looks are not my concern. The safety of my children is my concern.
(Wife turns and officer notices that she's carrying as well)
Wife: And mine.
Me: We aren't breaking any laws, we have explicit permission from the owner of the laundromat to carry, so we just...
Officer: That's fine, we just want to check... do either of you have any felonies?
Wife: We don't even have to answer that without reason, but no, neither of us are under disability.
Officer: How old is the little one?
Wife: 3 weeks.
Officer: Well, you folks have a nice day.
Me: And you as well, officer.

Right after the officers left, i went outside to grab a smoke, and saw some weaselly little butt munch on the phone, i overhead "...worthless cops barely even talked to them..." he then shut up as i started smoking, then he left with soaking wet clothes from the washer... i kinda had to laugh...
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Officer: That's fine, we just want to check... do either of you have any felonies?
Wife: We don't even have to answer that without reason, but no, neither of us are under disability.

Great story. Um what does 'under disability' mean wrt felonies?

I do find it hard to believe they'd not ask for IDs and would expect a felon to self-incriminate.

Too bad your recorder ran out.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Glad it went well.

The fishing expedition question about a felony was absurd.

You did, however, miss a golden opportunity.

When you first said, "No,...laundry", the cop said, "You're not..."

My next question would have been, "Why am I detained?" You clearly did not consent to an encounter with him, yet he wanted to play weasel games with you to try to get you to waive your rights. And, even though he could see you were just a husband and wife doing laundry and carrying for your child's protection, he wanted to fish for a felon-in-possession.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
I realize that I could have been a little more brusque, and could well have ended (or escalated) the convo right after I made it clear that laundry concerned me more than talking with him... I was about to go into a pro 2a/4a tirade, but chose not to in front of my children... perhaps if there is ever a similar encounter, I will respond dif. Note that Mrs. Kuz DID let the officer know that she did NOT feel COMPELLED to answer... I can't TYPE a tone, but the way she said it, she was making it PERFECTLY clear that that was the LAST question she would be answering... Only way she would've made the officer MORE uncomfortable at that point was to whip one out and feed our son... they already realized that there was nothing wrong, and I think they realized that any more fishing was going to lead nowhere good, so they chose to disengage at that point. I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.

I'd like to know how you found out the name and contact info of the owner of the laundromat. I mean that's really thinking ahead, lol.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I realize that I could have been a little more brusque, and could well have ended (or escalated) the convo right after I made it clear that laundry concerned me more than talking with him... I was about to go into a pro 2a/4a tirade, but chose not to in front of my children... perhaps if there is ever a similar encounter, I will respond dif. Note that Mrs. Kuz DID let the officer know that she did NOT feel COMPELLED to answer... I can't TYPE a tone, but the way she said it, she was making it PERFECTLY clear that that was the LAST question she would be answering... Only way she would've made the officer MORE uncomfortable at that point was to whip one out and feed our son... they already realized that there was nothing wrong, and I think they realized that any more fishing was going to lead nowhere good, so they chose to disengage at that point. I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.

Good points.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
I'd like to know how you found out the name and contact info of the owner of the laundromat. I mean that's really thinking ahead, lol.

Funny you should ask, as that's ANOTHER funny story. After a few weeks of doing our laundry there, a handwritten sign appeared on all of the doors. One of the "rules" was "No toy guns, bbs, airsofts, or lasers. No guns of any kind" Well, that COULD be taken as a ban on real weapons as well, so I dropped the owner a call, basically a verbal "NGNM". Come to find out, there's some busybody customer who keeps putting all sorts of ludicrous signs up. The owner says that he has no problem whatsoever with our carry. He also asked me to tear the signs down, but I respectfully declined, and the manager came and removed them (they were back in various form for a few weeks... the owners and/or managers keep taking them down)
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
BriKuz said:
...I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything...

The goal is to get to the point where we are only surprised when they DO ask for ID.


On other topics...

...would the Mrs. have been charged with "brandishing a gun" had she started breastfeeding in front of the LEO?

...If they have cameras, can the owners ID the vigilante sign poster and trespass them?

...Did you offer to help the weasel find a more liberally-minded laundromat?

...If he was afraid of your guns, why did he hang around for the LEO to arrive? Or maybe you unintentionally ID'ed the sign poster for them?
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
More like brandishing a Howitzer, MWSY... new baby, milk came back in with a vengeance, if you know what i mean! lmao
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Maybe the owner should put signs announcing that his private property is a lawful carry zone.

Personally, I wouldn't want customers who try to make the rules for me. They can discuss them with me, complain about them, tell me what they think the rules should be, etc. But, if they are putting up signs that would be interpreted as coming from me, I want them off my property immediately and permanently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
My next question would have been, "Why am I detained?"
I don't see where there was any detention.

Citizen said:
You clearly did not consent to an encounter with him, yet he wanted to play weasel games with you to try to get you to waive your rights.
Not a consensual encounter?

Encounters are consensual where the police merely approach a person in a public place, engage the person in conversation, request information, and the person is free not to answer and walk away. *** The request to examine one's identification does not make an encounter nonconsensual. *** The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officer has by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person's liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. State v. Taylor (1995), 667 N.E.2d 60, 64-65, 106 Ohio App.3d 741, 747-748 (2d Dist.)

Sounds to me like that's exactly what happened.

Citizen said:
And, even though he could see you were just a husband and wife doing laundry and carrying for your child's protection, he wanted to fish for a felon-in-possession.
In Ohio, it's called "having weapons while under disability," just like BriKuz said. He handled it well; no reason to stir the pot. And I'm glad to see that he scared off the little wanker who was stirring the post.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The OP claims to have said a very clear "no" to an encounter. The officer ignored that "no" and continued the encounter. Many reasonable people would consider the ignoring of their refusal to participate in an encounter as the encounter not being voluntary.

I wouldn't. I would have repeated the "no." If the officer persisted, I would have become more clear, more blunt, and what would be taken as ruder. I will NOT participate in an investigatory stop of my carry other than to establish that the encounter is a seizure of my person and to provide only the ID required by law.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
The OP claims to have said a very clear "no" to an encounter. The officer ignored that "no" and continued the encounter. Many reasonable people would consider the ignoring of their refusal to participate in an encounter as the encounter not being voluntary.

I wouldn't. I would have repeated the "no." If the officer persisted, I would have become more clear, more blunt, and what would be taken as ruder. I will NOT participate in an investigatory stop of my carry other than to establish that the encounter is a seizure of my person and to provide only the ID required by law.

The encounter would NOT have remained nearly as civil had the officer pushed the matter ANY further(farther) (which one is proper English?) That being said, Eye is correct, I DID allow the encounter to continue longer than was necessary. Even though I declined to be interviewed, I then partially threw out that decline by responding to more questions. I was willing to make VERY small concessions in order to spare my children the sight of an ugly encounter. I do believe that the officer's choice in ending the interview when he did saved some heated words. I also think part of his reason for extending the interview(interrogation) was to try to see if there was any obvious RAS for a detention. Upon observing that we we not visibly impaired by alcohol or drugs of abuse, or acting in a suspicious manner, I believe he chose to end the interview.

One note: The entire time this was taking place, I still had my cell phone out, and was calling to my daughter to get back over by us. ( she did, then ran again. Any of you who met her at Ytown walk remember that she can be VERY insistent about walking when she wants to walk lol)

Werz, I think that Citezen suggested the question "Why am I being detained?" to elicit either and statement that a detainment was taking place, or that no detainment was in progress and that I was free to go about my business without answering questions or making statements.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your choices at all. I do not have the same concerns that you do.

My goal was to point out that the citizen clearly saying "no," followed by the officer pressing the encounter, could reasonably be seen as the citizen not having a choice, i.e. being detained.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

fjpro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
280
Location
North Carolina
excellent encounter

BriKuz, In my opinion, you handled the situation perfectly. A few agreed while a few wanted to give you pointers on how to handle it absolutely perfectly. It is time those who nitpick step back, and first, applaud open carriers like you who handle themselves very well. Kudos, my friend.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations.

The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.

Hey, this is a good point. I missed that. Blocking the exits or the route to the exits.

Note to self: If a cop appears in front of you, look behind you to see who's sneaking up.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations.

The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.

re farther further... duh! I look at it now that I've had a pot of coffee, and it's obvious... thanks for the reply, though! lol

As for the arguably non-consensual, that is a good point... we had two of our three freedoms of movement restricted (there was still a third direction that could have been taken) Another issue is that we were not really free to walk away, as we had laundry in the dryer, and we should not have been forced to abandon our property to avoid a conversation with officers. Since we never really HAD to do so, I would still say that I did not FEEL detained at that time. My wife tells me there was actually a little more said to end the encounter. Apparently, I in some way stated that we didn't feel like talking anymore, and have a nice day, officer. For some reason, I forgot that, and still only vaguely remember it now. Another reason to keep the batteries in your recorder fully charged! I could have gotten better feedback from y'all and from myself if I had a darn recording! :banghead:
 
Top