Then apparently you are not entitled to the right of self-defense in Ohio.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57488944/attorney-ohio-moviegoer-had-gun-for-protection/
I am not saying this guy had no nefarious intentions. But if possession of a handgun, two magazine, and four knives while on prescription medication is evidence of intent to commit mass murder, then everyone better avoid me. I have cut back on the knives recently, but only because they were removed from my bag for my flights to France and Columbia and haven't made it back in yet.
Another one.
http://milford.patch.com/articles/cops-armed-man-arrested-at-new-haven-movie-theatre
Pretty sure he was within his right to refuse a pat down. Being in a theatre with a gun doesn't remove my fourth amendment rights. They could ask him to leave. But I am not clear on what the grounds for even a Terry stop were in this case. Having a gun is not illegal.
Other than glancing at headlines, I seldom read any 'news' for a reason. >:( I like the way they slip in the Veteran angle in the first, like it makes any difference. Either story is, at best, local news except for trying to play off recent events. Otherwise you would have seen nothing of either except in their local area news reports. Our basic rights are being quietly taken away, no doubt. Fear mongering is a basic propaganda tool no matter who uses it to further their own agendas.
Looks like the guy in New Haven was an attorney, with a concealed weapons permit. He was within his right to be there with a gun. There was no reasonable suspicion he had committed a crime. He had no legal obligation to comply with commands of a Law Enforcement officer.
That case is going nowhere.
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 08 2012 04:13:32 PM MDT
Another one.
http://milford.patch.com/articles/cops-armed-man-arrested-at-new-haven-movie-theatre
Pretty sure he was within his right to refuse a pat down. Being in a theatre with a gun doesn't remove my fourth amendment rights. They could ask him to leave. But I am not clear on what the grounds for even a Terry stop were in this case. Having a gun is not illegal.
Having a gun may not be illegal for you but it may be illegal for some. LEO have to determine that. Are there more details? If the guy is identifeid as having the weapon or meets the description, they are going to need to check him out. Was he just sitting there ignoring them? Just because someone is legally justified in carrying doesn't mean they do not have to comply, it's an officer safety issue and they can certainly pat him for safety reasons. If he was complying then things could have went differently. If he was just sitting there and ignoring them there is no distinction between him, a law abiding CCW citizen, and a criminal. Just because you are legal and you know doesn't mean everyone else does.
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 01:20:30 PM MDT
Having a gun may not be illegal for you but it may be illegal for some. LEO have to determine that.
...
Just because you are legal and you know doesn't mean everyone else does.
First off, we should discuss this at the range, or over a beer (root variety for me since I don't drink). I don't want this to get heated.
Here is the problem I see.
No one had reported a crime. Someone reported a man with a gun in his pants. That is not a crime. Refusing to speak with a police officer is not a crime either.
The facts we do know: There was a report of a man with a gun. Having a gun in that theater is legal. The police wanted to interview this man to establish his identity as they suspected he may be armed. Brown V Texas informs that absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, the citizens right to privacy trumps the police interest. A reasonable suspicion that this man was either a felon or a non-permit holder has not been articulated, therefore the police had no authority to detain or interview this person.
I am sure there are other facts.
(I finish my root beer ;))
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 10 2012 03:19:53 PM MDT
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 01:20:30 PM MDT
Having a gun may not be illegal for you but it may be illegal for some. LEO have to determine that.
...
Just because you are legal and you know doesn't mean everyone else does.
First off, we should discuss this at the range, or over a beer (root variety for me since I don't drink). I don't want this to get heated.
Here is the problem I see.
No one had reported a crime. Someone reported a man with a gun in his pants. That is not a crime. Refusing to speak with a police officer is not a crime either.
The facts we do know: There was a report of a man with a gun. Having a gun in that theater is legal. The police wanted to interview this man to establish his identity as they suspected he may be armed. Brown V Texas informs that absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, the citizens right to privacy trumps the police interest. A reasonable suspicion that this man was either a felon or a non-permit holder has not been articulated, therefore the police had no authority to detain or interview this person.
I am sure there are other facts.
(I finish my root beer ;))
This is where the sheep dog gets in trouble when out and about. It's not that the guy is right or wrong or there was a crime perceived. The LEO have recieved a call about a man with a gun. It's their responsibility to investigate. They can't show up and say "well, the guy doesn't want to talk to us so we are going to leave"..."let us know if he commits a crime with said gun and we will come back". They need to get the facts, if the guy is legit then fine. By not communicating (if that's the case) the facts or complying he may be charged with obstructing which looks to be the case. By not cooperating you may be suggesting that your intentions are other than honorable and when a firearm is involved...those intentions could be life threatening. Safety for the general public and officers comes first and trumps all.
Luckily for the common sheepdog it is not a responsibility to gravitate towards trouble, LEO on the other hand, have that responsibility. They have the authority to investigate wether or not a crime is afoot and have the authority to make a scenario safe first and foremost before the investigation continues.
Here's what gets me... just because something is right doesn't mean it is prudent. Sheepdogs have a responsibilty to our sheep (if you will). The sheep want to continue through life merrily grazing the grass pretending or hoping that nothing bad happens. We have to remember that they are litteraly scared of everything. Our responsibility is to protect ourselves and those around us in the most prudent manner. We, unfortunately, have to remember to shield the sheep from the things they do not understand for their own good. If that means carrying
concealed in a movie theater after a recent tragedy then so be it. It's not what one might
have to do but maybe what one
should do.
The sheep dogs, private citizens and LEO alike, are all on the same side. When that "bad" thing happens it is up to the sheepdogs to be ready and respond accordingly. We should not ever allow the conflict to be between us... that only makes it easier for the wolf. (Thank you Colonel Grossman for this analogy basis :D)
Enough of my ramlings. I'll have a sip of the beer too, well, the real stuff. ;D
Also, to be clear. A gun in the pants may be illegal. This was one of my original points when I said "Having a gun may not be illegal for you but it may be illegal for some. LEO have to determine that." If he is a felon, this would be a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
Minority report?
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 08 2012 04:08:42 PM MDT
Then apparently you are not entitled to the right of self-defense in Ohio.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57488944/attorney-ohio-moviegoer-had-gun-for-protection/
Ok, the guy did act suspicious, at least in my opinion (although it is likely blown way out of proportion) ... but it is hard to say - we see through a glass even more darkly than usual when it comes to the media!
That last comment by Lt. Arcuri seemed really misguided, in any case. Probably what he "had" to say but way off base. If more people took responsibility for protecting themselves (and were actually, uh,
responsible about it) I think the world would be a much better place.
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 08 2012 04:08:42 PM MDT
Then apparently you are not entitled to the right of self-defense in Ohio.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57488944/attorney-ohio-moviegoer-had-gun-for-protection/
I am not saying this guy had no nefarious intentions. But if possession of a handgun, two magazine, and four knives while on prescription medication is evidence of intent to commit mass murder, then everyone better avoid me. I have cut back on the knives recently, but only because they were removed from my bag for my flights to France and Columbia and haven't made it back in yet.
Way too many unknowns in that writeup to make any kind of judgement from any aspect. Much would depend on the laws of that specific area too. Other than that, I don't really see wrong doing on either side until clear evidence shows up suggesting otherwise.
Guy walks into a movie theater with a bag hanging from his shoulder. It draws suspcision and the guy with the bag submits to two searches without incident. The guy gets jailed and has legal representation. Meanwhile the cops are working to find out if all was kosher. The guy may or may not be charged in the end.
sqlbullet - Not sure how you believe you can judge the prescription medication part of the equation. We don't know what the prescription meds were. There is no doubt it would be poor judgement, if not illegal, to be under the control of a firearm while taking some prescription drugs. Just depends what the prescription drug(s) were, and we don't know. The other question is; What is he taking prescription drugs for?
Either way, who's to say at this point. The guy has no criminal record and has cooperated with police 100%. The police don't even seem to know if they can charge him with anything, or if they want to. In the end, one big puzzle with no definitive aspects, to the time of that article. It appears doubtful at this point that it will turn into the huge upset the media was hoping for, not to mention Lt. Ray Arcuri making some really lame comments.
To the time of that article I don't see that anyone did wrong to anyone yet. There just isn't enough info in the article to say either way.
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 06:10:44 PM MDT
Here's what gets me... just because something is right doesn't mean it is prudent.
I think there is a fine line between doing something because you want/need to and are allowed to... and doing something to make a point just because you can. I suppose that is why, as much as I would like to live in a world where open carry was both acceptable and commonplace, I just cannot get behind open carry as a "movement"... not when most people are so afraid of guns that their brains stop working.
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 06:10:44 PM MDT
The sheep want to continue through life merrily grazing the grass pretending or hoping that nothing bad happens. We have to remember that they are litteraly scared of everything. Our responsibility is to protect ourselves and those around us in the most prudent manner. We, unfortunately, have to remember to shield the sheep from the things they do not understand for their own good.
Well said.
My primary reason for being a concealed carry permit holder is so I can provide for the protection of myself and my family. I feel very strongly about the concealed part, too. I don't know anything about most of the people I come in contact with in the course of a day and I would much rather they not even suspect I am armed, for their peace of mind and mine :-)
Quote from: s0nspark on August 11 2012 01:06:20 PM MDT
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 06:10:44 PM MDT
Here's what gets me... just because something is right doesn't mean it is prudent.
I think there is a fine line between doing something because you want/need to and are allowed to... and doing something to make a point just because you can. I suppose that is why, as much as I would like to live in a world where open carry was both acceptable and commonplace, I just cannot get behind open carry as a "movement"... not when most people are so afraid of guns that their brains stop working.
Quote from: uz2bUSMC on August 10 2012 06:10:44 PM MDT
The sheep want to continue through life merrily grazing the grass pretending or hoping that nothing bad happens. We have to remember that they are litteraly scared of everything. Our responsibility is to protect ourselves and those around us in the most prudent manner. We, unfortunately, have to remember to shield the sheep from the things they do not understand for their own good.
Well said.
My primary reason for being a concealed carry permit holder is so I can provide for the protection of myself and my family. I feel very strongly about the concealed part, too. I don't know anything about most of the people I come in contact with in the course of a day and I would much rather they not even suspect I am armed, for their peace of mind and mine :-)
Couldn't agree more!
Sometimes you need to sacrifice a few "sheep" for the better interest of the flock!
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 08 2012 04:13:32 PM MDT
Another one.
http://milford.patch.com/articles/cops-armed-man-arrested-at-new-haven-movie-theatre
Pretty sure he was within his right to refuse a pat down. Being in a theatre with a gun doesn't remove my fourth amendment rights. They could ask him to leave. But I am not clear on what the grounds for even a Terry stop were in this case. Having a gun is not illegal.
Even
if he had a "right" to refuse a pat down, the police had a presumed responsibility to make sure all was well, which then deemed it necessary to take the guy by force in their estimation based on training, in further pursueing if all was well. In the end, all was well, and in my estimation (opinion) the gun toting attorney should have simply complied instead of insisting on making a scene, making life more difficult for all involved.
Also, having a gun can be illegal, and I believe we would all agree on the reasons why, concerning specific scenarios.
Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 01:12:42 PM MDT
Sometimes you need to sacrifice a few "sheep" for the better interest of the flock!
Sure, there is a balance there. From an activism standpoint, though, I'm not sure it is best tackled solely as an individual. It is too easy to write off a single person as a "nut" or whatever.
^True.
I don't agree with those that have taken the side of the "authorities" on this one. I rarely take the gument's side anyway, but giving up individual rights b/c a crime might possibly be commited in the future.......................c'mon.
MINORITY REPORT!
Jamming you up for crimes that have not yet, and may never be commited?
Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 01:25:31 PM MDT
^True.
I don't agree with those that have taken the side of the "authorities" on this one. I rarely take the gument's side anyway, but giving up individual rights b/c a crime might possibly be commited in the future.......................c'mon.
MINORITY REPORT!
Jamming you up for crimes that have not yet, and may never be commited?
But if the "authorities" would just leave these situations be and people do go on a rampage... the first thing everyone will do is cry because the cops didn't do anything about it.
He didn't get jammed up because he was doing anything illegal, he got jammed up because he wouldn't comply. What differentiates a gun toting criminal and someone legally carrying? There is no way of knowing without interaction, non-cooperation suggests bad intentions. And the potential crime in question here isn't whether or not popcorn will come up missing it's whether or not lives will be lost. I could care less if some idiot that didn't want to cooperate gets hemmed up, he gives all of the good gun carrying citizens a bad name. He sure as $h!t doesn't represent me or anyone I keep company with. As far as rights go, I hope he loses his to CCW since simple interaction with the public and law enforcement is too much for him to handle. I doubt using his firearm properly would be any easier for this guy, I certainly wouldn't want him around if things were going sideways.
Couldn't disagree more! Your way of thinking makes me sick to my stomach! I won't argue with you, but I will tell you, cops are sheep too. The problem is, long gone are the days where cops were around to protect you and yours. Their job now is to make sure you know who has the badge, and who doesn't. This is all I'm gonna say, as I could rant all day on how you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sure you could do the same. Nothing either of us say will change minds, or change the outcome of this tragedy to individual rights!
Good day.
Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 02:27:25 PM MDT
Couldn't disagree more! Your way of thinking makes me sick to my stomach! I won't argue with you, but I will tell you, cops are sheep too. The problem is, long gone are the days where cops were around to protect you and yours. Their job now is to make sure you know who has the badge, and who doesn't. This is all I'm gonna say, as I could rant all day on how you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sure you could do the same. Nothing either of us say will change minds, or change the outcome of this tragedy to individual rights!
Good day.
No, you're right. Our rights are so important that being proactive to save lives should always take a back seat. Gone are the days that people use common sense. Don't bother any one about their gun until they actually start breaking the law. How dare anyone question someone with a gun until at least they maliciously start taking lives, that makes perfect sense.
In point of fact, the supreme court of the united states has said repeatedly that non-cooperation is the the right of the citizen, and that it cannot be used by police to infer bad intentions. Silence is protected under the fifth amendment. If you have reasonable, articulate suspicion that a person has committed a crime, you may detain them. With probably cause you can arrest them.
And, refusing to cooperate is NOT obstruction of justice. While the exact terminology varies by jurisdiction, in general obstruction is when a person conceals information that is not privileged and that concerns the offense, after a judge or magistrate has ordered the actor to provide the information. So, unless there was a judge was present to issue an order, which almost always also indemnifies the person being compelled, this guy could not have obstructed justice.
Worse, due to a conflict between Miranda and Raffel V U.S. a person should absolutely remain silent when being questioned. Raffel held that the briefest moment of cooperation permanently forfeits all right to refuse cooperation.
While I am sure the public may cry foul there is no legal obligation to protect on the part of the police. See Warren V District of Columbia.
But this is a pretty clear DeBerry V US type case. In DeBerry, there was a report of a man with a gun. A terry stop ensued, a gun was discovered, and DeBerry as it turns out was a felon. DeBerry argued that there was no justification for a terry stop, and therefor the search that revealed the gun was inadmissable.
DeBerry lost.
But here is what makes this case different from DeBerry. The judge even called out this distinction. DeBerry was in Decatur, Illinois. Not New Haven, CT. Illinois is a shall not issue state. With the exception of off-duty police, no citizen may have a concealed weapon. So, a call of a man with a gun is a report of a crime. And since DeBerry matched the description and location of the report, the officer had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. That made the frisk legal.
The court specifically said "The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon."
So, DeBerry makes it clear that based on only a report of "man with a gun" there is no grounds for reasonable suspicion, and no grounds for a detention. Mr. Hwang was completely within his rights to refuse cooperation, and such refusal cannot be be grounds for further suspicion.
IMHO good community based policing would have been for an officer to sit down and enjoy the movie. No citizen's rights would have been impacted. The police would have had a presence there if an incident had started. You know. Common sense.
Sorry guys, but there is no right to refuse a pat down if a police officer has reasonable suspicion to think someone may be armed, or can articulate why he/she is in fear for his /her safety.
Frisks, or "pat downs" are not consent searches. If you have an issue with a frisk you can take it up later with the department internal affairs bureau, or a civil court, but you can't refuse them.
The SCOTUS has validated the frisk or "pat down." See Terry vs. Ohio.
I am going to have to disagree with tha above. If an officer has a valid articulable reason to conduct a frisk, not cooperating with same is indeed obstruction of justice. Been there and done that numerous times.
Different strokes for different folks. Some people like a huge limitless government (everyone who agrees with how this was handled). And some, like myself believe in the constitution of the united states, what it stands for, and believe that this can still be a country "for the people, by the people". I feel bad for the cop who attacks my constitutional rights or those of my family.
Okay, that was the last thing. :P
I wasn't present for these incidents, thus I am not making a statement on how they were handled.
What I am doing is clearing up some misconceptions I have read on this thread.
On a side note: Has anyone checked out my new profile picture? You may not be able to tell what it is b/c it's so small, so I'll give you the run down.
It is two senior pictures of some heavy guy with a perm. In the first pic he is wearing a monocle, and looking quite dapper. In the second one he is holding two hands of playing cards, but I can't see what exactly he has. He looks pretty pumped about it though.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/217434_213676551983035_5129642_n.jpg)
Quote from: sqlbullet on August 11 2012 03:46:18 PM MDT
IMHO good community based policing would have been for an officer to sit down and enjoy the movie. No citizen's rights would have been impacted. The police would have had a presence there if an incident had started. You know. Common sense.
We'll just have to disagree, nothing about letting an incident start looks even a little like common sense to me. An incident can start, be tragic and then conlude in just a few seconds. Common sense would have been common cooperation. Officers don't have time to baby sit and watch a movie.A good representative of the gun carrying community shouldn't expect a baby sitter, either.
I'm actually with the marine on this one. I don't want some cop sitting there ruining my good time(my wife is a probation/parole agent). He should be out fighting real crimes that may or may not have been commited.
Quote from: 4949shooter on August 11 2012 03:50:10 PM MDT
Frisks, or "pat downs" are not consent searches. If you have an issue with a frisk you can take it up later with the department internal affairs bureau, or a civil court, but you can't refuse them.
The SCOTUS has validated the frisk or "pat down." See Terry vs. Ohio.
I agree 100% with this these statements.
But, DeBerry ruled that suspicion someone is armed is does not constitute a legal basis for reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place (except in Illinois). And therefore is not cause for a Terry stop. And if you have no cause for a Terry stop, then you have no basis for the frisk.
In other words...You can frisk for a weapon during a Terry stop, but you cannot use suspicion someone has a weapon as the basis for a Terry stop.
This gets back to my core question. What crime did these officers reasonable suspect Mr. Thwang of committing? All I have heard so far from the media is they thought he had a gun, which is NOT a crime, and not a basis for a Terry stop (except in Illinois).
I will somewhat agree with you sqbullet, as far as a subject being armed as the not the sole basis for a Terry stop. It would depend on the location (state as you have mentioned), and the circumstances. In states like NJ, IL, CA, MA I would say yes to a Terry stop. In AZ NV, NM, WY I would say no.
However, in the OP it was mentioned that a frisk can be refused. I will have to say I am sorry but it cannot. As I mentioned, a frisk is not a consensual action. If the officer can articulate why he or she is in fear for his/her safety a frisk can be performed. If the subject deems the frisk to be unconstitutional there are other avenues to pursue the matter.
A follow-up article with slightly more information.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/2012/08/08/conn-lawyer-with-gun-batman-movie-arrested/UPT8oJNs4lhb1LUFqqf1VI/story.html
4949shooter, I do think I have a right to state I don't consent to the search, or seizure of property, unless or until the officer has made it clear I am being detained. I think they should state their suspicion out of courtesy, but understand the are under no obligation to do so. I even understand that under certain circumstances revealing the suspicion may be counter-productive to the interrogation.
If an officer asks me to submit to a search, I will refuse. If he commands me to, I will submit under protest. And everyone should do the same. See Raffel V US. This is what is going to jam up the guy in Ohio. He consented to a search, rather than refusing it or submitting under protest.
But my primary point in the original post is that the news articles did not report ANY crimes committed, or even accused. They merely state the men were carrying guns, which is legal in both states. Yet both these men are being held up as criminals by the news. I am pretty sure we can all see ourselves pretty easily in a similar situation. I went to see Bourne Legacy Friday night and had a gun and two knives.
I understand what you are saying, sqlbullet.
There are situations where most honest people don't find themselves in where frisks and searches are the norm. As a 23+ year LEO I see frisks and searches just about every day, thus my perspective. You look at it from the perspective an honest person, in that frisks and searches are a violation of your rights. This is where we differ.
Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 02:27:25 PM MDT
The problem is, long gone are the days where cops were around to protect you and yours.
I'm not aware there ever was such a time.
QuoteTheir job now is to make sure you know who has the badge, and who doesn't.
Good day.
Have you ever met an officer that wasn't a jerk? I've known ones that are and others that weren't. Some are just like you say. But plenty of others are perfectly decent individuals not looking to give anyone a hard time.
Well, I'm done with this thread. Obviously there is a disagreement and that is perfectly fine. On my way out of this topic I just wanted to say that I apologize to anyone I may have pissed off. Later gents, I apreciate the discussion.
Quote from: REDLINE on August 12 2012 05:51:10 PM MDT
an officer that wasn't a jerk? I've known ones that are and others that weren't. Some are just like you say. But plenty of others are perfectly decent individuals not looking to give anyone a hard time.
You get all kinds. Many of my good friends are law enforcement officers, including one of my best friends. A decade ago we were partners. When we left that department, he went to another department here in Utah, and I went to a different career.
There were two people in particular back in the day we worked with almost every day who used their badge as their license to bully. They had no skills at all in de-escalation, and in fact we would work to keep them out of situations because they would escalate them.
I found that to be true of about every group I interacted with. Out of 10 officers, you would have 2-3 real jerks. You would also have 1-2 that didn't belong and hadn't figured it out yet. The remaining 5-6 were solid, professional officers.
4949 is right. You perspective certainly changes based on who you interact with everyday.
There are good cops(deputies,troopers,agents,rangers,marshalls,etc..), and bad. I was a cpl. at a new supermax in NE of all places, but had friends in all reaches of the L.E. field. Most are good, but the bad ones are EVIL!
Agreed.
Bad cops are like bad apples. It doesn't take many to spoil the barrel. The media doesn't help. (do-gooders don't make news)
Quote from: DM1906 on August 13 2012 09:24:33 PM MDT
(do-gooders don't make news)
I hate that! Well, I actually hate the truth in all of what you said, but even more that. :D