| Northwood Police Chief Changes Story, Still Has a Weak Plot |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Monday, 15 September 2008 | |
|
In response to OFCC's announcement of an Open Carry Walk in Northwood, Northwood police chief Thomas Cairl told The Press that not only do they have "a witness not affiliated with police" who supports their version of events, but that open carry wasn't the issue they had with Mr. Farbrother. Police Chief Thomas Cairl was at the shop at the time with his family and called on-duty officers when he saw Mr. Farbrother wearing a holstered weapon the chief says was about "85 percent covered" by a vest... After scouring the Ohio Revised Code, I can find no mention of an 85% rule that delineates between what is openly carrying and what is concealed carrying. However, were I to find such a standard of measure, would that mean that the chief is admitting to causing this incident over the fact that Mr. Farbrother was carrying a concealed firearm (which he does have a license to do)? Or, does the fact that the chief saw 15% of the firearm mean that it was, in fact, openly carried and that he will now admit they were at fault? In the original story, we reported that the first officer on the scene told Farbrother the stop was for "openly carrying a gun where children were present, and told Farbrother that he was breaking the law by doing so". A second officer showed up and made the same claim. A third officer showed up and not only told Farbrother that open carry was illegal, but that "the Ohio Highway Patrol had lied to him" when Farbrother had asked if open carry was legal and the OHP confirmed that it was. One of the threats made during the confrontation was that Farbrother could be arrested for impersonating a police officer. I guess the claim could be made that plain clothes officers carry concealed, but I think the argument was being made that since his firearm was openly carried that people could mistake him for a police officer. I'm also not sure why the Chief and I ended up in an argument on the phone over the legality of open carry if this incident had nothing to do with open carry. Perhaps he just enjoys a good debate. I think perhaps the strongest argument is the police report. As seen here, the police report lists it as a "carry concealed weapon" violation, later explained as "a concealed weapon that is not properly concealed." Two questions arise from this documentation. First, what constitutes "proper concealment"? This may be where the mystical 85% rule comes from, but I sure can't find it in the law. Second, if the firearm is not properly concealed, doesn't that mean that it is being carried openly? Either the police report and first hand accounts of the conversations that took place are correct and Ed was carrying his firearm openly, or he was detained for carrying a firearm concealed. If the former is true, then by the chief's own words they were at fault. If the firearm was, in fact, concealed, then Farbrother certainly wasn't breaking any laws and contact should have not been made in the first place. Either way, Farbrother is owed an apology. The more the chief's story changes, the more plot holes are exposed. |