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

[eatsnopaste]

I love the police officer basically saying, I know what he's doing is legal, I know we are violating his rights but we are going to keep doing it! Because someone called, that is disorderly conduct? I'm getting on the phone and calling in "man with a keyboard!" some of you are in so much trouble! You know who you are!

 

[ferg409]

i dont think the mall is a place to take a weapon like this.

 

[stormryder]

I personally think WE need to start open carrying more often.
Until it becomes an everyday occurance and people no longer look at it as something unusual, and
take in stride.
That is one of the ways to make it more acceptable to open carry.

Plus, We need to start teaching people not rely so much on others, when confronted by something that makes them nervous.
There was a time when people took care of themselves and not call the Law at a drop of a hat.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

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





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.

I think there is a double standard here. Ignroance of the law is no excuse. Making phoney 911 calls, becasue you do not know the law, should be a punishable offense. Just like not knowing the speed limit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fyi, reference the whole assault rifle debate. It pretty much fair for the officer to call it such. After all an assault rifle is automatic, and there was no way of telling if the rifle was full or semi-auto. It most certainly is assault-style.

This guy hurts the perception of gunowners. This idiot went to the University Mall, which I assume has a university in very close proximity. If that idiot doesnt understand why people are butthurt about his actions, he needs a mental eval.

 

[mrjarrell]

Fyi, reference the whole assault rifle debate. It pretty much fair for the officer to call it such. After all an assault rifle is automatic, and there was no way of telling if the rifle was full or semi-auto. It most certainly is assault-style.

This guy hurts the perception of gunowners. This idiot went to the University Mall, which I assume has a university in very close proximity. If that idiot doesnt understand why people are butthurt about his actions, he needs a mental eval.

It's not illegal to be armed on a Utah college campus. Carry is not forbidden there, by law. As for going to the mall..I don't see it as any different than anywhere else. Yeah, it may be a bit over the top, but he's trying to make a point about open carry....just like a few members here have done on previous OC walks in downtown Indianapolis. They didn't make us look bad, the cops who interfered with them made the cops look bad. He certainly doesn't need a "mental eval". That's just cop speak for lets take his rights away.

 

[bwframe]

This guy hurts the perception of gunowners.

Yep. If you are gonna make a statement, be prepared to make it professionally!

Don't give the impression you had nothing better to do, (like clean your place before an interview,) so you just did it.

Don't show how inept you are with firearms by sweeping the camera man with your handgun muzzle.

 

[Donnelly]

These things are usually percieved in a better light when done in a group. It appears more as a demonstration than a lone "nut" with a gun. You hardly ever hear about a group of people in this country going on a shooting rampage. It is usually a lone gunman. That tends to scare the sheeple more.

 

[Bubba]

I think there is a double standard here. Ignroance of the law is no excuse. Making phoney 911 calls, becasue you do not know the law, should be a punishable offense. Just like not knowing the speed limit.

As relates to this state, MWAG callers are not ignorant of the law. It is a crime under IC 35-47-2-1 to carry a handgun without a license. It is the armed citizen's responsibility to prove their exemption to this law (whatever you think of the requirement it is not relevant to this discussion). Are you saying 911 callers should be required to confront armed men or women and question them about the status of their LTCH before phoning the police? How would you react if on some random street corner someone ran up and started questioning you about the legality of you carrying? Further, since our legislature just enacted a law making LTCH data private, how would that potential 911 caller go about verifying you were actually legal and not someone with a stock of pink paper and Photoshop?

 

[88GT]

i dont think the mall is a place to take a weapon like this.

Why not?

With all due respect, your statement implies there are acceptable places. Which would those be?

And why does someone's irrational fear and ignorance get to set a standard for me and mine?

 

[Lobo]

.

 

[sj kahr k40]

IMO what hurts the perception of gun owners is sayin a gun owner that isn't breaking the law hurts the perception of gun owners.

He was legally carrying his rifle, once the LEO's knew that they should have left him alone.

 

[88GT]

I don't think he means legally acceptable. I think he means "acceptable" as in proper socially, given the culture of the area.

I don't think that legitimate concern over the intentions of someone who finds it necessary to tote a rifle around a shopping mall is irrational fear or ignorance. Although legal, that kind of behavior is weird, and it's not normal.

So if you saw a man carrying a handgun, would you be equally concerned?

Why is a rifle different?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if you saw a man carrying a handgun, would you be equally concerned?

Why is a rifle different?

It's open for debate....

Utah's Code:

76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;

Now here's the question, did this guy know that by carrying a rifle he would create a physically offensive condition? Did his act serve a legitimate purpose? Would the public be alarmed by his behavior and consider it threatening? I would say yes on all counts.

Did this person have the means to adequate protect himself in another manner.... yes, he's a CCW holder.

Now someone will site the 2nd Amendment, but does that honestly apply in this situation? The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place. This guy is reckless, pure and simple. I agree that one should not view simple open carrying or ownership as offensive. However, it's how you carry that determines what is offensive of not. having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is certainly offensive.

 

[sj kahr k40]

One point I think you missed from the story, he was outside a mall, not in the mall

It's open for debate....

Utah's Code:

76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;

Now here's the question, did this guy know that by carrying a rifle he would create a physically offensive condition? Did his act serve a legitimate purpose? Would the public be alarmed by his behavior and consider it threatening? I would say yes on all counts.

Did this person have the means to adequate protect himself in another manner.... yes, he's a CCW holder.

Now someone will site the 2nd Amendment, but does that honestly apply in this situation? The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place. This guy is reckless, pure and simple. I agree that one should not view simple open carrying or ownership as offensive. However, it's how you carry that determines what is offensive of not. having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is certainly offensive.

 

[Bigum1969]

Isn't disorderly conduct generally a "catch all" that can be widely interpreted?

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it seems an officer has a lot of discretion to use disorderly conduct. Perhaps too much?

 

[Kutnupe14]

One point I think you missed from the story, he was outside a mall, not in the mall

You know, that actually makes a bit of difference, but just slightly. I think had he been walking down a crowded mall, where panic could lead to people being injured, a citation would be valid. However, since he was outside, and consequently had less opportunity to cause mass panic, I would agree that he probably shouldn't have been cited.

However, LE's physical response, I back 100%

 

[Bond 281]

As relates to this state, MWAG callers are not ignorant of the law. It is a crime under IC 35-47-2-1 to carry a handgun without a license. It is the armed citizen's responsibility to prove their exemption to this law (whatever you think of the requirement it is not relevant to this discussion). Are you saying 911 callers should be required to confront armed men or women and question them about the status of their LTCH before phoning the police? How would you react if on some random street corner someone ran up and started questioning you about the legality of you carrying? Further, since our legislature just enacted a law making LTCH data private, how would that potential 911 caller go about verifying you were actually legal and not someone with a stock of pink paper and Photoshop?

Are you suggesting that any time somebody OC's they should be stopped by every officer they see and detained? Should cops also pull over all motorists just to see that they were licensed? Probably cause must be shown. Courts have already determined that OC is NOT probable cause. Ergo, we don't have to PROVE our lawfulness.

Lone guy carrying a gun around a mall might seem odd, but if he were to be questioned and found to be not breaking the law, it is despicable that they throw out a vague bs charge just to punish (control) him.

 

[88GT]

It's open for debate....

Utah's Code:

76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;

Now here's the question, did this guy know that by carrying a rifle he would create a physically offensive condition? Did his act serve a legitimate purpose? Would the public be alarmed by his behavior and consider it threatening? I would say yes on all counts.

Did this person have the means to adequate protect himself in another manner.... yes, he's a CCW holder.

Now someone will site the 2nd Amendment, but does that honestly apply in this situation? The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place. This guy is reckless, pure and simple. I agree that one should not view simple open carrying or ownership as offensive. However, it's how you carry that determines what is offensive of not. having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is certainly offensive.

I reject every premise of your post as asinine and puerile.

However, I am not surprised. Public sentiment has replaced common sense and apparently has the blessing of the legislatures and LE to enforce it.

 

[Whosyer]

You know, that actually makes a bit of difference, but just slightly. I think had he been walking down a crowded mall, where panic could lead to people being injured, a citation would be valid. However, since he was outside, and consequently had less opportunity to cause mass panic, I would agree that he probably shouldn't have been cited.

However, LE's physical response, I back 100%

You're ing me right? "opportunity to cause mass panic"? If a person is engaged in a legal behavior, with no intent to cause harm, it's not their fault if a bunch of uninformed idiots are "panicked". I can remember back in the late 60's/early 70's when the local gas station shut off their pumps, the neighboring business's locked their doors,and 5 County Deputies responded. The cause of this "widespread panic". 6 guys with longhair on motorcycles, stopped in for a refuel and a burger. Oh the humanity of it all. Media hype instilling preconcieved notions in the vacant heads of the sheeple , does not justify citing someone for a legal activity.