Horror in Utah! OCer handcuffed, detained, and cited.

[Indy317]

Officials release dashcam video, charge man in gun-carrying incident - ksl.com

There is video at the link. I can't tell if the officer had him at gun point or not. They charged him with disorderly conduct which is a C misdomeanor in Utah. It sounds like some of their misdomeanors are equal to that of an infraction in Indiana, so all he faces is a fine. Wonder if he will sue?

 

[OWGEM]

I believe there are proper ways to exercise ones rights, and inappropriate ways. Taking an "assault rifle" to the mall is inappropriate IMO...

 

[Hoosier8]

I believe there are proper ways to exercise ones rights, and inappropriate ways. Taking an "assault rifle" to the mall is inappropriate IMO...

No such thing as an assault rifle, that definition died when the AWB expired and was the only place that defined "assault rifle". Now it is only urban lingo.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I have no problem carrying a rifle outside a mall, in fact I've done it in Indy

 

[Cemetery-man]

No such thing as an assault rifle

According to the man interviewed on TV last night concerning the recent shootout in South Bend, they're now called "Automatic Machine-Guns".

 

[00BlasterResto]

According to the man interviewed on TV last night concerning the recent shootout in South Bend, they're now called "Automatic Machine-Guns".

Recent shoot out on South Bend? Things going on all around me and I don't even know, got a link?

 

[littletommy]

Automatic machine assault weapon gun sounds better.

 

[Cemetery-man]

But wait...... the cop in the video called it an "assault" rifle. And even though it's legal to OC it in Utah the cop told him otherwise. When are states going to start teaching LEO their current gun laws? At least the lady newscaster knew the law.

 

[OWGEM]

No such thing as an assault rifle, that definition died when the AWB expired and was the only place that defined "assault rifle". Now it is only urban lingo.

I was qouting the link, I have no idea what he was carrying.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Recent shoot out on South Bend? Things going on all around me and I don't even know, got a link?

Here ya go.

Suspect in South Bend standoff dies

 

[jblomenberg16]

Guys its a fine line, and I think the "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" comment applies very welll. Before you make an assumption that I've given into the "Anti-gun" rhetoric...hear me out.

Lets consider the following scenario. You normally excersize your right to bear arms, cc'ing or o'cing your normal carry piece. Lets assume that's a nice 1911 in a OWB holster. You and your wife and middle school aged children are going to the mall to do a bit of shopping, then maybe plan to grab some dinner or a movie while there.

You've just left the Gap and are walking towards the foodcourt when you see a normally dressed civilian carrying an AR15 slung across the front of his body in the "Administrative" position. What is your immediate reaction? Does that reaction change if the individual is dressed head to toe in a variety of mismatched camo clothes (Clearly not military). What about dressed from head to toe in black with a heavy trench coat and a mask on his face?

Be truthful here. Lots of us talk about situational awareness, and carry our weapons for defense of ourselves and our families. Is your initial reaction that this man maybe a potential threat? Do you quickly move your family in another direction to gain some distance and get out of any potential lines of fire? Or, do you immediately assume that he is another person like you just excersizing his right to bear arms and defend his family as well and just pass it off as no threat at all?

A person's intent is very difficult to infer without actually asking or them coming right out and telling you. It is unfortunate that this man actually recieved a citation for excersizing his rights, but I can't say that I'm dissapointed that the officers did at least question him to make sure he had a peaceful intent.

Personally, I don't get bothered when I see another person OC'ing a pistol, and don't immediately react as if they are a threat. I still keep my eye on them to make sure that if they do in fact become a threat that I'm ready to react as necessary. I would see a person carrying a semi auto rifle in a crowded mall as a threat, until or unless I knew that person was doing it as a peaceful demonstration.


This is in no way a flame to those who have done similar open carry demonstrations. I think that the only way folks will ever get more comfortable around guns in general is to see more people doing "good" things with them. Unfortunately many people are conditioned by today's media to immediately equate guns with killing and violence, rather than peaceful defense of one's family and freedoms.

 

[Bigum1969]

Let's face it folks, this doesn't help our cause.

It hurts us.

 

[00BlasterResto]

Here ya go.

Suspect in South Bend standoff dies

Thanks, out of Rep. now but I'll get ya.
now back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[38special]

Do I think it's a good idea? Not really. And I open carry a pistol from time to time.

Do I think he should charged with a crime? Nope. The mall has the right to ask him to leave.

 

[Indy317]

When are states going to start teaching LEO their current gun laws?

...but I can't say that I'm dissapointed that the officers did at least question him to make sure he had a peaceful intent.

My only issue with this is those who demand the cops "do something" yet don't want them to do x, y, or z, but demand they do a, b, and c. I have had this discussion before. Some OCers here think officers should just not even engage any person with a gun on their hip in a holster. Yet you talk about someone OCing an AK around their neighborhood, or OCing their handgun by carrying the gun in their hand, and all of a sudden it turns to "police should check them out." Shouldn't it be that we have police check out all MWAG calls, or they don't check out any MWAG calls?

 

[jblomenberg16]

My only issue with this is those who demand the cops "do something" yet don't want them to do x, y, or z, but demand they do a, b, and c. I have had this discussion before. Some OCers here think officers should just not even engage any person with a gun on their hip in a holster. Yet you talk about someone OCing an AK around their neighborhood, or OCing their handgun by carrying the gun in their hand, and all of a sudden it turns to "police should check them out." Shouldn't it be that we have police check out all MWAG calls, or they don't check out any MWAG calls?

The tricky part of this is social consequences of police not checking out MWAG calls can be disasterous in the very rare cases where that person does have malicious intent. If this particular individual had gone on to shoot a bunch of people at the mall, you'd better bet that there would be a huge public outcry of "Why oh why" did they let this man go.

I really don't think there is a right answer, and think it comes down to public servants using reason and understanding of law to make an appropriate decision. And as a society we have to trust and stand behind those decisions. When we constantly question them, it puts us into the exact situation you described...I want a, b, and c, but not x, y, and z.

In my humble opinion, the ideal ending to this situation would be that the officers appropriately questioned the individual in response to the call (presumably at the request of the mall management), made a decision that he was posing no danger to others, and then let him continue on his way peacefully, with no citation. If the mall asked him to leave, which is their right to do, then they should convey that to him, and if he refused, then and only then cite him for not complying with an ordenance. I don't think the disorderly conduct charge was appropriate at all based on the video that we saw.

 

[JDonhardt]

If people were in charge of their own personal safety AND ONLY their own personal safety, the issue of what cops should and shouldnt do wouldnt exist. Problems such as the one described in the op would never occurr.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

People who make MWAG calls need to start being prosecuted.

I've always been told when I get pulled over for speed and I did not know the speed limit that, IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.

I would be getting the 911 calls pulled and filing civil suit against the people who called. (if anyone called)

 

[machete]

People who make MWAG calls need to start being prosecuted.

and there should be an easy way to sue them

we also need to make it so a cop who makes a stop or arrest on a mwag is guilty of a crime and owes the arrested guy a lot of money...

is it a right or not???

 

[JoshuaW]

Guys its a fine line, and I think the "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" comment applies very welll. Before you make an assumption that I've given into the "Anti-gun" rhetoric...hear me out.

Lets consider the following scenario. You normally excersize your right to bear arms, cc'ing or o'cing your normal carry piece. Lets assume that's a nice 1911 in a OWB holster. You and your wife and middle school aged children are going to the mall to do a bit of shopping, then maybe plan to grab some dinner or a movie while there.

You've just left the Gap and are walking towards the foodcourt when you see a normally dressed civilian carrying an AR15 slung across the front of his body in the "Administrative" position. What is your immediate reaction? Does that reaction change if the individual is dressed head to toe in a variety of mismatched camo clothes (Clearly not military). What about dressed from head to toe in black with a heavy trench coat and a mask on his face?

Be truthful here. Lots of us talk about situational awareness, and carry our weapons for defense of ourselves and our families. Is your initial reaction that this man maybe a potential threat? Do you quickly move your family in another direction to gain some distance and get out of any potential lines of fire? Or, do you immediately assume that he is another person like you just excersizing his right to bear arms and defend his family as well and just pass it off as no threat at all?

A person's intent is very difficult to infer without actually asking or them coming right out and telling you. It is unfortunate that this man actually recieved a citation for excersizing his rights, but I can't say that I'm dissapointed that the officers did at least question him to make sure he had a peaceful intent.

Personally, I don't get bothered when I see another person OC'ing a pistol, and don't immediately react as if they are a threat. I still keep my eye on them to make sure that if they do in fact become a threat that I'm ready to react as necessary. I would see a person carrying a semi auto rifle in a crowded mall as a threat, until or unless I knew that person was doing it as a peaceful demonstration.


This is in no way a flame to those who have done similar open carry demonstrations. I think that the only way folks will ever get more comfortable around guns in general is to see more people doing "good" things with them. Unfortunately many people are conditioned by today's media to immediately equate guns with killing and violence, rather than peaceful defense of one's family and freedoms.

Yes, to be fair I would probably hurry the others in my party off, keep a close eye on him, and GTFO of there.

People who make MWAG calls need to start being prosecuted.

I've always been told when I get pulled over for speed and I did not know the speed limit that, IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.

I would be getting the 911 calls pulled and filing civil suit against the people who called. (if anyone called)

Based on what? Them being a PITA? You cant simply sue people for ignorance, unfortunately. Besides, the media would eat you alive! "Man carrying gun attempts to sue citizen who called the police on him". They would make no mention of the fact that you were legal, and would paint you as some horrible nutcase.