Do you own a Maxpedition bag and take prescription drugs?

[sqlbullet]

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.

[sqlbullet]

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.

[EdMc]

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.

[sqlbullet]

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.

[uz2bUSMC]

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.

[sqlbullet]

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  )

[uz2bUSMC]

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 )

Enough of my ramlings. I'll have a sip of the beer too, well, the real stuff.

[uz2bUSMC]

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

[hillbillyhans]

Minority report?

[s0nspark]

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.

[REDLINE]

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.

[s0nspark]

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.

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 :-)

[uz2bUSMC]

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.

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!

[hillbillyhans]

Sometimes you need to sacrifice a few "sheep" for the better interest of the flock!

[REDLINE]

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.