Overreaction?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mightymoose

mightymoose

Moderator
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/colorado-man-arrested-openly-carrying-gun-movie-theater-193011379.html?_profileOut=comment#ugccmt-comment_1343782964333-eb9354e0-1fc4-48d3-884d-6be0f470c5c4

Here is a link to a news story out of Colorado this weekend. A man openly carrying a holstered handgun was arrested inside a movie theater just a short drive down the road from where the shootings in Aurora took place.
the man was arrested for violating a municipal code prohibiting possession of a "dangerous weapon". I get the impression the police really had to dig for something if they broke out the municipal code.

There is a link to the code in the article. It clearly defines what a dangerous weapon is, then goes on to separately define firearms and handguns. It seems pretty obvious that the handgun in this case is not a "dangerous weapon" as defined in the code, especially since a subsequent section prohibits juveniles from carrying a dangerous weapon OR a handgun.

Anyway, after reading it over I wonder why the guy would openly carry in a theater so soon after Aurora. Was he trying to make a point? Then I figured, it doesn't matter what his reason was, he was apparently legally carrying the handgun and his reasons are his own.

Though the aftermath of Aurora is still fresh, did the police in this case overreact by making an arrest on a misapplied obscure municipal code when the guy was clearly not a threat and was in possession of a CCW? I wonder how people would have reacted if the police checked him out and walked away, allowing him to keep the gun and go back to his movie?

For better or for worse, I think the arrest was a bad move. Though it will likely be quickly dismissed it will encourage others to openly carry, or concealed carry, and test the police, possibly producing bad results. I hope the arrest was an honest bonehead misinterpretation of the municipal code, because incidents like this only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.
 
Sometimes municipalities try to be too clever.
They write laws that are unnecessary, and they often are written by younger, lesser experienced attorneys.
The old "disturbing the peace, causing alarm" is an often better way to address these oddball situations.
You also have to remember, this case will be tried before a municipal court judge.
In essence, this will be disposed of much like a traffic citation.
The police had to do something, as what this jack ball did had to be addressed.
And, I'm sure you know that the standard for arrest is far less restrictive than the standard for conviction.
Yep, my friend, we're looking at that reasonable man or woman, again.
These officers restored the peace by removing this lout from the premises, thereby clearing it by arrest.
The guy was sent to test the gun laws.
In the end, the case might get kicked, but I'll bet the sheriff that issued his "carry" permit will yank it, ASAP.
All in all, the police could have done many things, and the arrest was the quickest, most effective solution.
They had, after all, probable cause to effect the arrest.
They covered their department's liability, because what if the guy went wild after the police had left?
What if the guy was asked to leave, and refused?
The arrest was righteous in my view, even though the case could get kicked.
 
army judge said:
The police had to do something, as what this jack ball did had to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Jack ball or not, he was legally carrying the handgun!
I agree they needed to address it since people were getting all panicked over it, but I think the arrest was bad. I read in another article that he was later cited and released, but still bad.
He could have agreed to leave. He could have secured the gun in a vehicle. The arrest was unnecessary.
People just started flipping out at the sight of a gun even though it was a lawful open carry.
Recent events don't make this situation any less legal.

I don't know... I can just picture those cops flipping through books trying to come up with some statute and getting nowhere. They then blow the dust of the ol' Municipal Code on a whim to see if anything applies- which there isn't but they make the arrest anyway by totally ignoring the definitions of the terms used.

Hooray for them... they took another gun off the streets from one of the good guys.
 
I am, not only a proponent of the second amendment, but the entire constitution.
I'm also very fond of our common law traditions, like keeping the peace.
I don't know if the arrestee was a good guy or not.
I've known a few bad guys that obtained carry permits.
I have a carry permit.
One of my daughters is an agent with the GBI (GA Bureau of Investigation).
She never carries her firearm in public view, unless she's in her duty uniform, most of the time she wears street clothes.
Most of the public retains a healthy fear of firearms.
But, they recognize law enforcement officials carrying them in uniform.
This guy had an agenda.
I suspect he was sending a message to potential bad guys.
But, he was behaving as a bad guy by not concealing his sidearm.
I rarely carry my sidearm, but when I do, I make sure it's concealed.
And, as a sitting associate judge in Texas, we can carry on the bench or just moving around the state.
I've put a few guys away for years, and don't worry about running into one if them, which is a more likely event than a jack ball cutting loose in a movie theatre.
Nevertheless, it's a good story and provoked an interesting dialogue.
I'm interested to see how this plays out.

mightymoose said:
Jack ball or not, he was legally carrying the handgun!
I agree they needed to address it since people were getting all panicked over it, but I think the arrest was bad. I read in another article that he was later cited and released, but still bad.
He could have agreed to leave. He could have secured the gun in a vehicle. The arrest was unnecessary.
People just started flipping out at the sight of a gun even though it was a lawful open carry.
Recent events don't make this situation any less legal.

I don't know... I can just picture those cops flipping through books trying to come up with some statute and getting nowhere. They then blow the dust of the ol' Municipal Code on a whim to see if anything applies- which there isn't but they make the arrest anyway by totally ignoring the definitions of the terms used.

Hooray for them... they took another gun off the streets from one of the good guys.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.9news.com/news/article/281079/339/Man-who-brought-gun-into-theater-defends-choice

An update.
It seems that just prior to the shooting in Aurora he had been at the same theater with the same handgun, had his CCW checked, and was allowed to go inside without incident. All of a sudden after the Aurora incident he gets arrested for doing what he had been doing legally for years.
The police comment about flourishing and displaying the weapon to cause alarm is a bunch of crap. It was holstered the entire time. It's not his fault people are so spastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top