“If I’m out on the street with a weapon the public is safer. I’m a trained expert,” Redmon said. (Photo credit: The Lima News)
James Redmon sued Van Wert County Sheriff Thomas Riggenbach after he denied Redmon a license based on a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis from more than six years ago as well as felony charges, which were later dropped.
Redmon accused Riggenbach of abusing his power and misinterpreted the law by denying him his license, which he claims he had no legitimate reasons for doing so.
“The sheriff overstepped his authority and broke the law. I tried twice to tell him before filing the lawsuit and he treated me as if I were not worth of speaking to him and blew me off,” Redmon said.
Had Redmon not won the case, he said would have simply continued to carry openly, as is legal in the state of Ohio and as he has done for the past 14 years.
One of the felony charges was when "Redmon had warned a drug dealer to stay away from one of his friends who was trying to get clean. When the drug dealer didn’t heed his warnings, Redmon kicked in his door and assaulted him. "
The article didn't provide details of the other felony charge that was dropped or pleaded down.
This is exactly why "may issue" is a good thing. Local law enforcement can make informed decisions based on all the information they have and not just rubber stamp those applications that meet rigid guidelines.
Too bad the judge didn't see it that way, because in spite of what the gun nut said about himself, the public is not safer with guys like him carrying guns.
The other thing Ohio needs to do is abolish open carry. That way dangerous guys like Redmon who begin every sentence with "I'm a combat veteran," won't be able to carry guns at all.
"“I was a combat vet who beat up a drug dealer trying to save someone’s life,” he said. Sounds like Moonshine and all the other losers who joined the military because there were no jobs at home and never stopped telling us about their patriotism and heroism.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteMost sane people, of course, deem taking the law into one's hands insane.
DeleteGreggy, aside, who is clearly imbalanced--most folks don't wish to live in a society where people get to interpret the law for themselves and mete out justice as the see fit.
Jade, in this case due process was observed from beginning to end. Both in Mr. Redmon's altercation with the local chemical entrepreneur and with his need to insist the Sheriff follow the law of the land.
DeleteGiven the typical reasoning on the control freak side, are we to conclude, Jade, that you're a drug dealer who is worried about civic minded people?
Deletess, due process is also observed every time a slick lawyer plea bargains his client's charges down to almost nothing. That doesn't make it right.
DeleteMike,
DeleteThere are two lawyers involved in those kinds of deals. If the evidence is there, why would the prosecutor accept a slick deal?
Lawyers make dirty deals for all kinds of reasons. You know that. Justice and evidence often has little to do with it.
DeleteAnd yet, your proposed solution is to take a corrupt system and add a corruption prone, capricious, may issue system on top of everything. Not to try to root out the corruption of the system so that it does its job properly.
DeleteMy opinion is that the sheriff in this case acted right and the judge did not. But, this is exactly how the system should work. There should be another level of appeal to review the judge's rulings, but basically this is how it should go. The fact that no system is 100% perfect does not mean it's worthless.
Delete"Van Wert County Common Pleas Judge"--that sounds like a bottom rung judge who should have an appeals court and the state's Supreme Court over him, but it looks like the sheriff has accepted that the judge ruled according to the law.
DeleteAll that aside, you're sidestepping the issue by talking about how we have a flawed system, but it isn't worthless. Yes, we agree here. HOWEVER: this misses the point that you have identified corruption as a problem in the current system, and your FIX to make sure people who commit felonies are disarmed is to add a corruption-prone may issue system on top of the current system.
This is somewhat like saying: Oh no! I got yeast in this ball of dough for flat-bread! I'm going to use this other ball to weigh it down and keep it flat!
But this wasn't a case of corruption or a capricious denial of rights. The sheriff made a good solid decision based on the person's past record. The judge disagreed, that's all.
DeleteAre you incapable of separating issues?
DeleteIn this case, no, the sheriff had a rational and I wouldn't call his decision capricious. It had no basis in the shall issue law, but he did have a believable reason.
As for the discussion of corruption and caprice, we're talking about your idea of a may issue system. In arguing for the need for such a system, you keep pointing to lawyers making "slick deals" etc. saying that the system has been messed up by this behavior which lets your "hidden criminals" avoid felony convictions. You claim conspiracies including law enforcement and D.A. offices.
Then you say that the answer is to give these conspirators all the power in a may issue system, and that we can expect that they will deny permits to these people they have been conspiring to help keep guns. Moreover, you want us to believe that they will be fair and will not deny permits based on political feuds and other petty reasons--even though this has happened in other such discretionary permitting schemes (which is why the courts typically strike them down).
This is an illustration of why may issue is an injustice. The sheriff in this case had no legal reason for denying the permit, but he ignored the law. Give that person and others like him discretion, and lots of good people will be denied. With discretion, blacks and gays and Muslims will be denied for no reason other than the authorities don't like them. What recourse will those people have?
ReplyDeleteWe know your goal, Mikeb. You want as few people armed as possible, and it doesn't matter how that's achieved. That's one of many reasons why we fight you.
Greg, the kind of guy who kicks in doors to administer vigilante justice is not safe to own guns. The sheriff knew that, it's the judge that acted badly in this case.
DeleteAh yes! He acted horribly by upholding the law as written rather than ignoring the law and judicially instituting a "may issue" system.
DeleteIf only more judges ignored the laws and did what they want!
The sheriff acted within the law. His decision was overturned by the judge. That's they way it works.
DeleteActually, the sheriff disregarded the shall issue system--he disregarded the law. Meanwhile, you said that the judge acted badly here--how is it acting badly to uphold the law as written?
DeleteHow did the sheriff disregard the law? The "may issue" system allows for him to make a judgment call based on all the facts in a person's background not just whether or not the guy is a convicted felon. What exactly did he disregard?
DeleteOhio is a shall issue state.
DeleteAs Sarge noted, Ohio is a shall issue state. Wishing for May Issue with all your might doesn't make it the law.
Delete"This is exactly why "may issue" is a good thing. Local law enforcement can make informed decisions based on all the information they have and not just rubber stamp those applications that meet rigid guidelines."
ReplyDeleteAs happens often, laws are passed to remedy abuses by the government. Not all that long ago, all the states minus Illinois had a may issue permit system. Police Chiefs and Sheriffs had free reign to determine who if any got a carry permit. In some cases, the only ones who got them were political cronies and the social elite.
As a response to this, legislatures passed shall issue laws to level the playing field. It no longer matters who owes you, or how much you contributed to an election. If you meet certain criteria, you qualify and get your permit. The criteria for qualifying for a permit is decided by the state legislatures.
In my state, a Sheriff can deny a permit if he believes the applicant to be a danger to himself or others. There is also a procedure to appeal a denial which involves appearing before a judge. The Sheriff is required to prove with "clear and convincing" evidence that the applicant should be denied a permit. This is a lower burden of proof than that needed for a criminal conviction.
This process keeps everything fair and consistent. So in this case the Sheriff was unable to convince a judge that the permit application should be denied. And according to the article, Mr. Redmon has been carrying legally for the past 14 years under Ohio's open carry laws.
The thing that made this a news item was likely the way the Sheriff handled the denial. If you look at the application process linked in the article it clearly shows that Redmon doesn't fall under the criteria for denial.
How can you say that? He kicked in a door to assault someone, thereby denying that guy his due process and his Constitutional rights. Plus he had another felony charge we know nothing about. I doubt very much if they were isolated incidents. The guy is a hothead who breaks the law when he sees fit to do so.
DeleteThis is exactly the kind of dangerous guy who needs to be denied even though he doesn't meet the felony requirements.
"This is exactly the kind of dangerous guy who needs to be denied even though he doesn't meet the felony requirements."
DeleteKeep in mind that he has been carrying legally under the state's open carry law for 14 years. The only thing the permit does is allow him to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Currently he unloads and secures his firearm when he drives, then loads and holsters when he gets out.
You really believe he does that? A guy who thinks he can dish out justice to a drug dealer is going to be that fastidious with the law?
DeleteIt's possible, Mike; if for no other reason, he might comply to risk getting arrested if he's pulled over.
DeleteBut if we assume that he's breaking the law as you indicate that he probably is, then what's the danger of letting him continue doing EXACTLY what he's been doing for 14 years?
The danger is that he's proven to be violent and a scofflaw. He should not only be denied a carry permit but disarmed entirely. The judge disagreed, too bad.
DeleteOn the one hand, 14 years of legal carry without any gun incidents. On the other, an arrest where charges were dropped, probably because the D.A. knew that there was no jury that would convict this guy--a single incident that few people would want him jailed for.
DeleteOh, yes. You've certainly made a powerful case that letting him legally cover the gun or carry it loaded in his vehicle will cause CHAOS.
This is why you're known as a liar around here.
Delete"On the other, an arrest where charges were dropped. ... a single incident that few people would want him jailed for."
The guy was arrested on felony charges TWICE. We only had the details of the time he violated the rights of the drug dealer by invading the dealer's home and assaulting him. Furthermore, you have no idea why those charges were dropped, you're making up possible reasons that support your biased opinion.
Yes, there was another arrest, and we know nothing about it. I know people who have been arrested on felony charges and had them dropped because the charges were based on slander. Without knowing details of that arrest and why it was dropped, there is no reason to include it in our calculations unless you see an arrest as some sort of disqualifying proof of shadiness of character and think the rest of us are fanatics for believing that Innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and mean that you don't permanently lose any rights until proven guilty.
DeleteAs for your edit of my statement, it's a fun and clever trick to edit out my use of the word probably, make it look like I made a statement of fact, and then call me a liar.
I said that it was probably dropped because of a low likelihood of conviction. It's an educated guess based on how the system works. A D.A. doesn't want to waste time and money on prosecuting a case that could hurt their conviction record, and I can easily see this being such a case where, unlike in others, the defendant might take the stand, explain his actions, and persuade the jury to agree with him and find him not guilty.
There could be other explanations, but I thought that this one seemed most plausible, hence my statement that this is PROBABLY what happened.
I'll be waiting for you to apologize for the tricky editing and accusations of lying when I merely gave an opinion on what likely happened. I won't be holding my breath, though, since your new hobby seems to be false accusations of lying in an attempt to discredit me.
Taking the law into your own hands, is not civic minded. Why didn't he call the police on this drug dealer?
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when the cops won't do anything? That, too often, is the case.
DeleteWhat do you mean, what happens? Are you saying it's OK then to do what he did?
DeleteIn an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have more feeling for the friend struggling with addiction than I do for the dealer.
DeleteIf you really had feelings for that addict and knew anything about addiction, you'd know that the problem is not with his connection it's with him, the addict himself. The vigilante maniac could beat up all the dealers in town and if the addict wants to keep getting high, he'll find a way.
DeleteSo, your thin justification about it not being a perfect world is just more bullshit to defend the actions of another unfit gun owner.
I've known people with addictions. Yes, they're ultimately responsible for their own actions, but drug pushers (paying attention, Jim?) aren't always willing to let a buyer go. Besides, as I said, when a drug dealer gets smacked by a good guy trying to help a friend, I can't work up too much grief over the incident.
DeleteNo surprise you promote lawlessness. According to the article, he never even tried to call the police, he just took it upon himself, an illegal act I would add. "Feelings" do not mean you can break the law, nor do feelings replace the law.
ReplyDeleteI could equally well say that it's no surprise that you are concerned more about a drug pusher than about a combat veteran trying to help a friend.
DeleteYou could, you just did, proving that the law means nothing to you. Again, no surprise. Drug "pushers" as you put it, should be turned into the police. There is no excuse for taking the law into one's own hands. It is illegal, a concept you either don't understand, or outright reject. Again, no surprise.
DeleteI feel for the good citizen trying to help a friend, while you feel for the drug dealer.
DeleteTypical NRA crap.
DeleteI promote following the law, you promote anarchy. What are the police for? I know, you don't nedd the police, you and your gun will be the law.