Conn lawyer arrested at Batman for having a gun [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Conn lawyer arrested at Batman for having a gun


rmodel65
08-08-2012, 09:45
Sung-Ho Hwang, 46, a New Haven, Conn. attorney, was arrested at a New Haven movie theater prior to a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" after police said he was seen carrying a handgun in his waistband. Police said Hwang has a permit to carry a pistol, but didn't comply with their orders when they questioned him inside the theater. He was charged with breach of peace and interfering with an officer.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Cops-Man-brought-gun-into-movie-theater-3771556.php#ixzz22yBmacG0

......

wjv
08-08-2012, 10:51
As an attorney he should have known better.

Even if you're 100% right, you don't fight the cops in the street. You fight them in the courtroom.

Douggem
08-08-2012, 11:05
I think he IS fighting them in the court room. To fight htem in the court room you first have to not comply with their illegal orders. If they were giving him illegal commands and he refused so they arrested him, that's how he fights it in court. If they were giving him illegal commands and he consented, they'd argue that they simply ASKED and he complied voluntarily, and he wouldn't have a case.

Just like here Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012 - YouTube

He is given illegal commands by the police and resists. Luckily the supervisor was smart enough to know that they were messing with someone that knew their rights and they let him go.

youngdocglock
08-08-2012, 11:07
I think he IS fighting them in the court room. To fight htem in the court room you first have to not comply with their illegal orders. If they were giving him illegal commands and he refused so they arrested him, that's how he fights it in court. If they were giving him illegal commands and he consented, they'd argue that they simply ASKED and he complied voluntarily, and he wouldn't have a case.

Just like here Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE&feature=player_embedded)

He is given illegal commands by the police and resists. Luckily the supervisor was smart enough to know that they were messing with someone that knew their rights and they let him go.


Portland PD sucks! when it comes to rights. they dont know them, they dont care to know them. but they do scatter like little bugs when YOU know them :-)

RussP
08-08-2012, 11:13
Folks, can we stay in Connecticut, please.

youngdocglock
08-08-2012, 11:15
Folks, can we stay in Connecticut, please.

Just dont bring CT here please :-p I OC sometimes and the loudest screams i get from people fainting when they see my weapon come out of cars with CT plates haha

CA Escapee
08-08-2012, 11:36
As an attorney he should have known better.

Even if you're 100% right, you don't fight the cops in the street. You fight them in the courtroom.

Not all attorneys are created equal, though. I had a friend that was an attorney that dabbled in environmental law. Never went to court, but he was real good at reading contracts and crossing things out in contracts that weren't necessary.

Let me state this, I'm not an attorney. I don't play one on the Internet, etc..., but you can be darn sure I'd listen to a cops commands!

I think you're assuming that because someone goes to school and gets a degree that they're smart. Maybe they are, but they may have zero common sense, though.

Bill

wjv
08-08-2012, 12:15
He is given illegal commands by the police and resists. Luckily the supervisor was smart enough to know that they were messing with someone that knew their rights and they let him go.

Or he could have complied, then filed a complaint, and possibly a law suit if justified.

The fact that 3 people saw his "concealed" gun means it wasn't well concealed. And even if OC is legal there, he could have hung up the phone and had a polite discussion with the cops. Them coming in with guns drawn is a debatable point regarding if it is heavy handed or not. But once they were there, don't act like an ass, and then expect the cops to show you any respect.

Douggem
08-08-2012, 12:55
Terry v Ohio says that for an officer to disarm an individual, three criteria have to be met; the officer must have suspicion that the individual is armed (met) the officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous (not met) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime (not met)

Thus it wasn't a legal Terry stop

Deberry vs US said that a the presence of a firearm where legal to possess cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The police CANNOT detain someone just because they're carrying a weapon if carrying a weapon is legal at that place. It was illegal for the police to detain and disarm this lawyer.

The theater could have kicked him out, then the police could have forcibly removed him if he refused to comply. But the cops can't come up to you because you're carrying a gun in a place where that is legal and start busting your chops - that's illegal.

What good are laws that limit the police if they break the laws and we're just told to shut up and go along with it?

redbaron007
08-08-2012, 13:15
Gotta funny feeling he will be acquitted or charges will be dropped. Apparently OC is legal or they would have charged him with that too.

You can't fight them without having a case in court. A complaint does nothing if there is no case/arrest...it doesn't set precedence.

:wavey:

red

glock_19guy1983
08-08-2012, 13:19
I hope this lawyer gets a huge payday.

broncobuddha1
08-08-2012, 14:00
Stupid question...these cases he cites, do they apply in all states?

youngdocglock
08-08-2012, 14:03
Stupid question...these cases he cites, do they apply in all states?

Yes they are. they are not local rulings but supreme court federal rulings. meaning they apply EVVVVVERYWHERE :-D

series1811
08-08-2012, 14:05
Stupid question...these cases he cites, do they apply in all states?

Short answer: It depends.

If there is any area on the internet where you get more bad information, than legal information, I don't know what it is.

Everyone wants the law to be simple and easy to understand. If that were true, we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

And, I've seen people who hired their family or real estate attorneys to come in to represent them in criminal cases, and then just get buried so bad I even felt sorry for them (and I had arrested them).

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 14:09
Terry v Ohio says that for an officer to disarm an individual, three criteria have to be met; the officer must have suspicion that the individual is armed (met) the officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous (not met) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime (not met)

Thus it wasn't a legal Terry stop

Deberry vs US said that a the presence of a firearm where legal to possess cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The police CANNOT detain someone just because they're carrying a weapon if carrying a weapon is legal at that place. It was illegal for the police to detain and disarm this lawyer.

The theater could have kicked him out, then the police could have forcibly removed him if he refused to comply. But the cops can't come up to you because you're carrying a gun in a place where that is legal and start busting your chops - that's illegal.

What good are laws that limit the police if they break the laws and we're just told to shut up and go along with it?

Investigatory stop by officers, who were dispatched. Since you're quoting case law, how does this differ from Terry?

Refusal to obey officers reasonable instructions. Again, officers were dispatched on a complaint, this was not self generated activity. Given the recent events with shootings in public places, one of which occurred in a movie theater that was showing the same movie as this incident, you don't think it's reasonable for officers to get called and investigate? Further, you actually believe its reasonable to refuse commands given to you? I'll make a sizeable wager with that the following occurs:

1- the department payys a settlement to make him go away, since that's what ALWAYS happens.

2 - The use of force by officers will be found justified since it was lawful and reasonable.

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 14:17
Forgot to ask -

How are the officers supposed to know the gentleman in question is legally carrying the firearm, if he won't comply with the investigation. Again, Terry doesn't really apply (if I'm wrong, hopefully Sam or Been will correct me) since this was a call for service. The officers were responding to a complaint generated by the public. They made an apparent attempt to deal with the subject in question, but he refused to cooperate, and because he's a dick, wouldn't even hang up the phone.

So, put yourself in the officers' position - you received complaint(s) of a man with a gun. Said man is in a theater, watching Batman. Two large scale shootings have occurred recently, one of them IN A THEATER, WHILE THE SAME MOVIE WAS PLAYING. You arrive on scene, ID the person who is the subject of the complaint and make contact. He refuses to comply with you, and won't even terminate his cell phone call.


What are you thinking now?

Gunnut 45/454
08-08-2012, 14:29
wprebeck

"Refusal to obey officers reasonable instructions. Again, officers were dispatched on a complaint, this was not self generated activity.( So dispatching officers by an illegal 911 call is ok? Maybe they should waste there time an go to the caller an file charges for misuse of 911) Given the recent events with shootings in public places, one of which occurred in a movie theater that was showing the same movie as this incident, you don't think it's reasonable for officers to get called and investigate? ( Or maybe they should just hang out at the theater -watch the movie and when nothing happens go back to catching BG's) Further, you actually believe its reasonable to refuse commands given to you?( Yep IF THEY ARE UNLAWFUL) I'll make a sizeable wager with that the following occurs:"( Don't officers have to follow the law just like you and I? If they have to make Unlawful requests that infringe on our freedoms isn't that wrong?):upeyes:

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 14:54
I would like to reply to the above, but I literally don't know what to say.

series1811
08-08-2012, 15:44
wprebeck

"Refusal to obey officers reasonable instructions. Again, officers were dispatched on a complaint, this was not self generated activity.( So dispatching officers by an illegal 911 call is ok? Maybe they should waste there time an go to the caller an file charges for misuse of 911) Given the recent events with shootings in public places, one of which occurred in a movie theater that was showing the same movie as this incident, you don't think it's reasonable for officers to get called and investigate? ( Or maybe they should just hang out at the theater -watch the movie and when nothing happens go back to catching BG's) Further, you actually believe its reasonable to refuse commands given to you?( Yep IF THEY ARE UNLAWFUL) I'll make a sizeable wager with that the following occurs:"( Don't officers have to follow the law just like you and I? If they have to make Unlawful requests that infringe on our freedoms isn't that wrong?):upeyes:

I don't really understand what you are saying, so here is a:

:bunny:

:supergrin:

fwm
08-08-2012, 16:09
But once they were there, don't act like an ass, and then expect the cops to show you any respect.

My experiences are that cops never show any respect except to other cops. Just my experiences though.

TheExplorer
08-08-2012, 16:12
I think he was "testing" the system. He probably has gun law knowledge, and this is good FREE publicity for him.

RussP
08-08-2012, 16:26
Let's see...wprebeck


"Refusal to obey officers reasonable instructions.



Again, officers were dispatched on a complaint, this was not self generated activity.


( So dispatching officers by an illegal 911 call is ok? Maybe they should waste there time an go to the caller an file charges for misuse of 911)



Given the recent events with shootings in public places, one of which occurred in a movie theater that was showing the same movie as this incident, you don't think it's reasonable for officers to get called and investigate?



( Or maybe they should just hang out at the theater -watch the movie and when nothing happens go back to catching BG's)



Further, you actually believe its reasonable to refuse commands given to you?



( Yep IF THEY ARE UNLAWFUL) I'll make a sizeable wager with that the following occurs:


"( Don't officers have to follow the law just like you and I?


If they have to make Unlawful requests that infringe on our freedoms isn't that wrong?)



:upeyes:

I would like to reply to the above, but I literally don't know what to say.

I don't really understand what you are saying, so here is a:

:bunny:

:supergrin:Still makes little sense...

TBO
08-08-2012, 16:29
Q. What is an "Illegal 911 call"?

wjv
08-08-2012, 16:37
Q. What is an "Illegal 911 call"?

I'd like a medium deep dish with sausage and black olives?

:dunno:

H&K 4 LIFE
08-08-2012, 16:37
While open carry is entirely legal in CT it is not often practiced. People have been previously cited for breech of peace for doing so. Whether these cases hold up in court is questionable, but you can be arrested, charged, and in the end you put your carry permit in jeopardy.

I think the real issue here is the lack of compliance...

"Officers identified the suspect and with weapons drawn, ordered the suspect to put his hands up," Hartman said. "He remained in his seat while using his cell phone. He did not comply with the officers commands, and was taken into custody by force. Officers removed a loaded handgun from the small of his back."...

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 16:46
Let's see...Still makes little sense...

And, this is me trying to be good.

Agonizer
08-08-2012, 16:50
I brought a gun into the theater when I saw Dark Knight. But I didn't get arrested, or even kicked out.





.

RJ's Guns
08-08-2012, 19:21
I am a retired litigation attorney and I try to be polite and courteous to the police. I did not read the article, but if I were to have a disagreement with a law enforcement officer, I would state the nature of my disagreement and and if I was ordered to do or not do something, I would state that I was obeying the command under protest, but I would still comply with the order. I reason that until there is someone in greater authority (such as a Judge orSupervisor, etc.) that directs otherwise, the original LEO has the power and I believe that I would be a fool to resist, at that time and place.

Just like in court, I may feel that a Judge’s ruling is wrong and/or illegal, but until I get an Appellate Court to rule that the lower court was in error, it is the lower court’s courtroom and that Judge is in control. I know that Judges want you to “respect the office” and proceed accordingly.

In addition, CA Escapee was dead on the money when he said, “Not all attorneys are created equal”. Quite frankly, in my opinion most attorneys are incompetent when it comes to litigation and they have absolutely no business trying a case.

RJ

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 19:35
Nice post, RJ.

I would also add that, merely because one is an attorney, doesn't mean they know everything about the law. My sister practices family law, and thought it was "entrapment" for police to run radar at night, with no visible lights. I've run into similar situations with other attorneys who don't practice criminal law. Some are upfront about their lack of knowledge, some get arrogant because they have a JD attached to their title. As you well know, tort law is a completely different animal than criminal law. So is real estate, tax, etc.

series1811
08-08-2012, 20:36
And, this is me trying to be good.

Me, too. Your restraint inspired me. So I posted a picture of a funny bunny. :supergrin:

series1811
08-08-2012, 20:39
Nice post, RJ.

I would also add that, merely because one is an attorney, doesn't mean they know everything about the law. My sister practices family law, and thought it was "entrapment" for police to run radar at night, with no visible lights. I've run into similar situations with other attorneys who don't practice criminal law. Some are upfront about their lack of knowledge, some get arrogant because they have a JD attached to their title. As you well know, tort law is a completely different animal than criminal law. So is real estate, tax, etc.

I was serving a search warrant on a business when the owner's normal business lawyer showed up. When we showed him the warrant, he asked when we had presented it to the judge.

"Yesterday," I told him.
"Why wasn't I notified so that I could come and contest this?" he asked.
I didn't know where to even start. :supergrin:

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 23:28
I was serving a search warrant on a business when the owner's normal business lawyer showed up. When we showed him the warrant, he asked when we had presented it to the judge.

"Yesterday," I told him.
"Why wasn't I notified so that I could come and contest this?" he asked.
I didn't know where to even start. :supergrin:

It can be entertaining. I had a bit of an argument with a tort lawyer on another forum. He wanted to debate elements of a crime and how use of deadly force applied with that crime. Yet, he didn't have a clue what "Courtnet" (our statewide court system) was...but, since he was a bigshot trial lawyer who'd once had a case in federal court, he knew way more than a lowly jail officer - who only spends every day dealing with criminal law.

rmodel65
08-08-2012, 23:43
Forgot to ask -

How are the officers supposed to know the gentleman in question is legally carrying the firearm, if he won't comply with the investigation. Again, Terry doesn't really apply (if I'm wrong, hopefully Sam or Been will correct me) since this was a call for service. The officers were responding to a complaint generated by the public. They made an apparent attempt to deal with the subject in question, but he refused to cooperate, and because he's a dick, wouldn't even hang up the phone.

So, put yourself in the officers' position - you received complaint(s) of a man with a gun. Said man is in a theater, watching Batman. Two large scale shootings have occurred recently, one of them IN A THEATER, WHILE THE SAME MOVIE WAS PLAYING. You arrive on scene, ID the person who is the subject of the complaint and make contact. He refuses to comply with you, and won't even terminate his cell phone call.


What are you thinking now?




yeah that pesky 5th amendment gets in the way...tell us youre breaking the law now!! In GA you can resist an unlawful arrest(i dont recommend and wouldnt try) but here that would have been a tier 1 encounter he could have ignored them imho

wprebeck
08-08-2012, 23:58
yeah that pesky 5th amendment gets in the way...tell us youre breaking the law now!! In GA you can resist an unlawful arrest(i dont recommend and wouldnt try) but here that would have been a tier 1 encounter he could have ignored them imho

Well - you obviously don't have a clue. Tell ya what, why don't you clue us in on how much training in criminal law, constitutional law, and making arrests that you've had. Could be that you have an informed opinion. Could also be that you have no clue what you're talking about, no idea how or if the 5th applies here, and are generally talking about things with which you have no experience or knowledge.


That's the polite version, just for Russ.

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 00:02
Did a quick Google search of "tier one encounter Georgia". As I surmised, you have no idea. Tier one appears to be referring to "casual contact" between an officer and a civilian. This was not - this was a call for service, in which the police responded to a call from the public about a man with a gun. Try again.

boyscout399
08-09-2012, 00:15
Okay, here's what I don't understand about people claiming that it was a call for service. How does a call for service override the requirement that the police officer have a reasonable suspicion of crime, especially if the call for service did not allege any crime and merely reported the presence of a legal item?

If I call the police and report that a man in a black shirt is walking down Main street with a potato in his hand, can the police stop him merely because they got a call for service? I think the Supreme Court would laugh that case out... Why is it different if the item reported is a firearm? The carrying of a firearm was legal there. They got a report of a man with a firearm. The report did not allege any crime. Where is their reasonable suspicion of crime?

cowboy1964
08-09-2012, 00:35
I hope this lawyer gets a huge payday.

I don't. For all we know that was what he was after. Yeah, I said it.

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 00:48
Okay, here's what I don't understand about people claiming that it was a call for service. How does a call for service override the requirement that the police officer have a reasonable suspicion of crime, especially if the call for service did not allege any crime and merely reported the presence of a legal item?

If I call the police and report that a man in a black shirt is walking down Main street with a potato in his hand, can the police stop him merely because they got a call for service? I think the Supreme Court would laugh that case out... Why is it different if the item reported is a firearm? The carrying of a firearm was legal there. They got a report of a man with a firearm. The report did not allege any crime. Where is their reasonable suspicion of crime?

Unless you have a transcript or audio recording of the phone calls to police, you don't know what was said, do you? Of course, since you're looking at for any reason to find fault with the police, you'll take the news report as gospel, forgetting how wrong they usually get stories.

There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention. Its a fact, sire as the sky is blue. Deal with reality as it is, not as how you wish it to be. These assclowns getting arrested every other day are making news across the country. One was on MY local station tonight, and it didn't happen anywhere near us.

If you think that's helping - you shouldn't own a gun.

As far as calls for service - if the police didn't respond to a man with a gun in the theater, and he shot up the place 10 minutes later, the know-it-all GT crew would be criticizing them for that.

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 01:04
Okay, here's what I don't understand about people claiming that it was a call for service. How does a call for service override the requirement that the police officer have a reasonable suspicion of crime, especially if the call for service did not allege any crime and merely reported the presence of a legal item?

If I call the police and report that a man in a black shirt is walking down Main street with a potato in his hand, can the police stop him merely because they got a call for service? I think the Supreme Court would laugh that case out... Why is it different if the item reported is a firearm? The carrying of a firearm was legal there. They got a report of a man with a firearm. The report did not allege any crime. Where is their reasonable suspicion of crime?

Unless you have a transcript or audio recording of the phone calls to police, you don't know what was said, do you? Of course, since you're looking at for any reason to find fault with the police, you'll take the news report as gospel, forgetting how wrong they usually get stories.

There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention. Its a fact, sire as the sky is blue. Deal with reality as it is, not as how you wish it to be. These assclowns getting arrested every other day are making news across the country. One was on MY local station tonight, and it didn't happen anywhere near us.

If you think that's helping - you shouldn't own a gun.

As far as calls for service - if the police didn't respond to a man with a gun in the theater, and he shot up the place 10 minutes later, the know-it-all GT crew would be criticizing them for that.

rmodel65
08-09-2012, 01:19
Well - you obviously don't have a clue. Tell ya what, why don't you clue us in on how much training in criminal law, constitutional law, and making arrests that you've had. Could be that you have an informed opinion. Could also be that you have no clue what you're talking about, no idea how or if the 5th applies here, and are generally talking about things with which you have no experience or knowledge.


That's the polite version, just for Russ.



In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661 (1979), the Court said:


When there is not … reasonable suspicion to believe that a driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered we cannot conceive of any legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver. This kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.



So if they cant stop drivers it goes to reason they cant stop a person carrying a gun either for nothing other than a mwag call...



United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), in which the court found that detaining a person reported to be carrying a firearm was unconstitutional, because it was possible that the person possessed a license to carry the firearm and it was therefore not necessarily a crime to do so. The court noted that the situation is no different than if the informant had told the officers that Ubiles possessed a wallet and the authorities had stopped him for that reason


United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993), where the court found that an investigatory detention because someone was carrying a weapon was insufficient reason, “because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

The court said further:

The government’s argument that the officer’s investigatory detention of defendant was justified by concern for his safety and the safety of bystanders would effectively eliminate the Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons. Moreover, the government’s “reasonableness” standard would render toothless the additional requirement that the scope and duration of detention be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. For example, if a police officer’s safety could justify detention of an otherwise lawfully armed person, the detention could last indefinitely because the lawfully armed person would perpetually present a threat to the safety of the officer.”

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 01:41
For your first case cited - that applies ONLY to driving. One cannot extend the ruling to other matters that were not addressed in the case. Your failure to understand that is an issue.

Regarding the latter two cases - neither applies, since the state in question (CT) doesn't fall under either the 3rd or the 10th's jurisdiction.

Also, lacking the actual audio or transcripts of the various 911 calls of this incident, we don't know WHAT the police were told. You think maybe they might have been told something that may have triggered such a response? If so, then they are completely justified.

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 01:43
Got anything relevant to the case from the 2nd?

boyscout399
08-09-2012, 01:44
For your first case cited - that applies ONLY to driving. One cannot extend the ruling to other matters that were not addressed in the case. Your failure to understand that is an issue.

Regarding the latter two cases - neither applies, since the state in question (CT) doesn't fall under either the 3rd or the 10th's jurisdiction.

Also, lacking the actual audio or transcripts of the various 911 calls of this incident, we don't know WHAT the police were told. You think maybe they might have been told something that may have triggered such a response? If so, then they are completely justified.

It's a simple extrapolation. One licensed activity extended to another licensed activity. The connection is there and easily argued.

boyscout399
08-09-2012, 01:53
Unless you have a transcript or audio recording of the phone calls to police, you don't know what was said, do you? Of course, since you're looking at for any reason to find fault with the police, you'll take the news report as gospel, forgetting how wrong they usually get stories.

There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention. Its a fact, sire as the sky is blue. Deal with reality as it is, not as how you wish it to be. These assclowns getting arrested every other day are making news across the country. One was on MY local station tonight, and it didn't happen anywhere near us.

If you think that's helping - you shouldn't own a gun.

As far as calls for service - if the police didn't respond to a man with a gun in the theater, and he shot up the place 10 minutes later, the know-it-all GT crew would be criticizing them for that.

If you read my post, I intended it to be a hypothetical, not necessarily tied to this particular case. However, since you brought it up, YOU seem to think that the 911 call MUST have included a report of a crime... Do you have a transcript of the 911 call?

I'm saying that there are a lot of people that will defend police action saying that they were reporting to a call for service. I'm asking a simple thing. If that call for service does not allege any crime and is merely a report of a man with a gun, does that justify police detainment? Couldn't the police choose another method if they have not received any report of a crime? Couldn't they initiate a consensual encounter instead of a detainment? If the person does not want a consensual encounter, then there's nothing the police can do. The police can go to the management and ask if they want to evict the person. If the manager says yes, then they can remove the person based on trespassing laws. Or couldn't the police have stood in the back of the theatre and checked the person out, watch him for 5 minutes until they suspected him of crime? Did they suspect him of crime? Do police always suspect crime when they get a report of a legally carried gun? Is that right for them to suspect that? Shouldn't the police officers know the law and know the difference between a legally carried gun and someone breaking the law?

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 01:57
It's a simple extrapolation. One licensed activity extended to another licensed activity. The connection is there and easily argued.

Too bad it doesn't work that way in court. The ruling only applies the matter presented to the court. One may return to the court with an argument that the two are similar, but the current case cited would not apply.

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 01:59
The article stated the police responded with their guns drawn. While not a street officer, I know enough about how things usually work to know that is a bit odd unless they were told something to make them suspect problems. In my opinion, the assclown being on his cell during a movie is enough to warrant him being removed....

boyscout399
08-09-2012, 02:28
The article stated the police responded with their guns drawn. While not a street officer, I know enough about how things usually work to know that is a bit odd unless they were told something to make them suspect problems. In my opinion, the assclown being on his cell during a movie is enough to warrant him being removed....

Well, the first time I was stopped by police for open carrying, the police responded with their guns drawn, and I did see the 911 transcript from that incident, and the caller just reported my presence and did not allege any crime. When it's uncommon, officers sometimes do respond with guns drawn, that doesn't make it right...

Bren
08-09-2012, 05:19
Terry v Ohio says that for an officer to disarm an individual, three criteria have to be met; the officer must have suspicion that the individual is armed (met) the officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous (not met) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime (not met)

Thus it wasn't a legal Terry stop

Deberry vs US said that a the presence of a firearm where legal to possess cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The police CANNOT detain someone just because they're carrying a weapon if carrying a weapon is legal at that place. It was illegal for the police to detain and disarm this lawyer.

The theater could have kicked him out, then the police could have forcibly removed him if he refused to comply. But the cops can't come up to you because you're carrying a gun in a place where that is legal and start busting your chops - that's illegal.

What good are laws that limit the police if they break the laws and we're just told to shut up and go along with it?

Actually, all the necessary Terry critera were met for a stop and search and taking the gun. Just because you want to make up your own version of Terry stop law does not make it true. There isn't a court in America that would question the stop and the police don't have to know the person committed any crime. I have personally defended a federal lawsuit over a Terry stop for carrying a gun openly in a place where it was legal and the tip was no more than an anonymour call - I won easily and there was never any doubt about it. You can Terry stop people for open carrying in a legal place, if there is something beyond the gun - like carrying in a place or acting in a way that is suspicious or alarming. The article clearly shows that he alarmed a lot of people other than the police. It was a valid stop.

Bren
08-09-2012, 05:27
Okay, here's what I don't understand about people claiming that it was a call for service. How does a call for service override the requirement that the police officer have a reasonable suspicion of crime,

You realize Terry has never required a suspicion that some crime has happened or is in progress, right? Walking down the wrong alley at the wrong time can justify a Terry stop.

In fact, all Mr. Terry did to get stopped in Cleveland was talk to some guys on the sidewalk in the middle of the day and look in the same store window several times, while the business was open.


The Terry facts, summarized:
The officer noticed Terry talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer decided to stop them because he thought they were planning a robbery and he searched them because he expected robbers to be armed. Terry was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon (only) no other crime was committed by any of the people stopped.

The Supreme Court said, good stop and search and that is the origin of the Terry stop.

Now, you think a crime needs to have been committed?

Not just that, but I'd say OCing at a Batman shpowing, at this particular time, is a lot more suspicious than anything Terry did - Terry wasn't even known to be armed.

series1811
08-09-2012, 05:34
yeah that pesky 5th amendment gets in the way...tell us youre breaking the law now!! In GA you can resist an unlawful arrest(i dont recommend and wouldnt try) but here that would have been a tier 1 encounter he could have ignored them imho

One good thing about reading these posts, is to be constantly reminded, of just how little knowledge the general public has of the law, while they are being completely sure they know what they are talking about and understand it.

I always wonder where, other than TV and the internet, they are getting this legal knowledge. You forget that while we who are in the system are watching some police or legal drama, or reading posts on the internet, and laughing at how inaccurate it is, others are obviously taking notes for later use in real life situations.

H&K 4 LIFE
08-09-2012, 09:22
...There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention. Its a fact, sire as the sky is blue. Deal with reality as it is, not as how you wish it to be. These assclowns getting arrested every other day are making news across the country. One was on MY local station tonight, and it didn't happen anywhere near us.

If you think that's helping - you shouldn't own a gun.

As far as calls for service - if the police didn't respond to a man with a gun in the theater, and he shot up the place 10 minutes later, the know-it-all GT crew would be criticizing them for that.

+1 I agree with all of this.

If you live in CT, you know open carry is very out of the norm to begin with and in light of recent events you can make a sure bet that you would cause some alarm while openly carrying into a movie theater. Like it or not, that is just the current reality we are living in.

rmodel65
08-09-2012, 11:28
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13198412-lawyer-explains-why-he-brought-gun-to-batman-showing?lite

series1811
08-09-2012, 11:49
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13198412-lawyer-explains-why-he-brought-gun-to-batman-showing?lite


Hwang is the president-elect of the New Haven Bar Association, concentrating on immigration law and civil litigation, according to his LinkedIn page.

Problem revealed. I know very little about immigration law. Lucky for me, I realize that.

Gunnut 45/454
08-09-2012, 12:02
series1811, TBO
Is it not a crime to use the 911 system to report something that isn't a crime? Conn. is a carry state so reporting "Legal activity would be misuse of the 911 system". We've went over this many times in other threads, with proper training 911 dispatchers can and should fine out if there is an actual crime before dispatching officers. MWAG calls form stupid/uninformed or rabid anti-gun nuts should not require a SWAT response.

I seen nowhere in the article the Theater manager was the caller- just misinformed movie goer's! He wasn't charged with trespass. He was charged with the COP's catch all charge!

Lampshade
08-09-2012, 12:10
Is it not a crime to use the 911 system to report something that isn't a crime?

No, it isn't.

TBO
08-09-2012, 12:12
series1811, TBO
Is it not a crime to use the 911 system to report something that isn't a crime? Conn. is a carry state so reporting "Legal activity would be misuse of the 911 system". We've went over this many times in other threads, with proper training 911 dispatchers can and should fine out if there is an actual crime before dispatching officers. MWAG calls form stupid/uninformed or rabid anti-gun nuts should not require a SWAT response.

I seen nowhere in the article the Theater manager was the caller- just misinformed movie goer's! He wasn't charged with trespass. He was charged with the COP's catch all charge!
Let's try your logic filter, please answer the following:

A woman looks out a window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified.

The woman calls 911 to report a man with a gun and a possible assault/robbery.

Cops respond. The man with the gun is 14, the gun is a realistic looking by entirely plastic toy gun. The "victim" is his best friend, and they were acting out a scene in a movie they intended to film for a class project.

Should the woman be prosecuted for calling 911? No crime was committed by the people she called on.

Lampshade
08-09-2012, 12:15
Let's try your logic filter, please answer the following:

A woman looks out his window


I don't know if this was part of the test, but I cracked up either way.

simotek
08-09-2012, 12:18
Let's try your logic filter, please answer the following:

A woman looks out his window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified.

The woman calls 911 to report a man with a gun and a possible assault/robbery.

Cops respond. The man with the gun is 14, the gun is a realistic looking by entirely plastic toy gun. The "victim" is his best friend, and they were acting out a scene in a movie they intended to film for a class project.

Should the woman be prosecuted for calling 911? No crime was committed by the people she called on.



That happened to me when I was younger. I had a plastic gun with an OBVIOUS orange tip and some nanny woman called the cops on me and my friends (we were filming a "movie" for a class project). Cops show up and laugh laugh laugh. :rofl:

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 14:04
Problem revealed. I know very little about immigration law. Lucky for me, I realize that.

Yeah, I don't know that much either. I do know how to obtain the cell phone number of our friendly ICE agent who comes to visit out fine facility almost every day. I bet he knows a little about the topic.

series1811
08-09-2012, 14:49
Yeah, I don't know that much either. I do know how to obtain the cell phone number of our friendly ICE agent who comes to visit out fine facility almost every day. I bet he knows a little about the topic.

That's about all I know about it. :supergrin:

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 15:24
That's about all I know about it. :supergrin:

Remind me to post the funny little immigration story from work over in CT, so as not to derail the thread.

TBO
08-09-2012, 17:48
Man with gun who was arrested at movies speaks out

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/man-with-loaded-gun-arrested-at-new-haven-movie-theater#.UCQ996OFl-w

beatcop
08-09-2012, 19:20
The office of the Chief State's Atty releases a policy memo to agencies specifically stating that OC is not a violation...period. There's more technical info, but that's the bottom line.

His pinch is very weak.

http://www.ccdl.us/attachments/100_Memo%20re%20Rally%20on%204-10-10.pdf

Read the attachment...

RJ's Guns
08-09-2012, 20:17
You realize Terry has never required a suspicion that some crime has happened or is in progress, right? Walking down the wrong alley at the wrong time can justify a Terry stop.

In fact, all Mr. Terry did to get stopped in Cleveland was talk to some guys on the sidewalk in the middle of the day and look in the same store window several times, while the business was open.


The Terry facts, summarized:
The officer noticed Terry talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer decided to stop them because he thought they were planning a robbery and he searched them because he expected robbers to be armed. Terry was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon (only) no other crime was committed by any of the people stopped.

The Supreme Court said, good stop and search and that is the origin of the Terry stop.

Now, you think a crime needs to have been committed?

Not just that, but I'd say OCing at a Batman shpowing, at this particular time, is a lot more suspicious than anything Terry did - Terry wasn't even known to be armed.


I am a retired personal injury attorney and I claim no expertise in criminal law, whatsoever, and in fact, I believe that I am incompetent in criminal law. However, from the little that I know, your arguments and statements conform with my very limited knowledge of criminal law. Plus I am informed, by my colleagues that practice criminal law, that the Courts are trending more and more towards your arguments/positions and they are showing a distinct tendency to up hold such police actions.

RJ

Drain You
08-09-2012, 20:19
Folks, can we stay in Connecticut, please.


Well, I hear it is nice this time of year, but no thanks. I hear the police there are buttheads.

ReyFufuRulesAll
08-09-2012, 20:27
"Sometimes just because something is legal doesn't make it right," DeStefano said.

Keefe said it was his understanding that police were not going to arrest Hwang, who lives near the theater, once they realized he had a gun permit, but New Haven Chief Dean M. Esserman ordered the arrest.

Officers then went into Theater 1, where about a dozen patrons were set to watch the "Dark Knight" film, which hadn't started, Hartman said. The theatergoers were told to raise their hands as officers entered and the house lights were raised, he said. They were patted down and escorted outside, Hartman said. It was then that police confronted, and eventually arrested, Hwang.

hm. :eyebrow:

wprebeck
08-09-2012, 21:47
hm. :eyebrow:

Hm, indeed. Starting to sound like somebody 's chief panties got in a twist, and he put his officers in a bad spot.

skippz
08-09-2012, 22:22
I think he was "testing" the system. He probably has gun law knowledge, and this is good FREE publicity for him.

+1
He knew better

skippz
08-09-2012, 22:38
Unless you have a transcript or audio recording of the phone calls to police, you don't know what was said, do you? Of course, since you're looking at for any reason to find fault with the police, you'll take the news report as gospel, forgetting how wrong they usually get stories.

There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention. Its a fact, sire as the sky is blue. Deal with reality as it is, not as how you wish it to be. These assclowns getting arrested every other day are making news across the country. One was on MY local station tonight, and it didn't happen anywhere near us.

If you think that's helping - you shouldn't own a gun.

As far as calls for service - if the police didn't respond to a man with a gun in the theater, and he shot up the place 10 minutes later, the know-it-all GT crew would be criticizing them for that.

I totally agree with you. This stuff ain't helping gun owners/ccw holders at all, it's making us look like A-holes... Donno if it was the attorneys intention, but his actions were disrespectful to the victims' families... Rehashing this over & over is not gonna help the healing process

RussP
08-10-2012, 04:11
Folks, can we stay in Connecticut, please.Well, I hear it is nice this time of year, but no thanks. I hear the police there are buttheads.:animlol:

Bren
08-10-2012, 06:37
I am a retired personal injury attorney and I claim no expertise in criminal law, whatsoever, and in fact, I believe that I am incompetent in criminal law. However, from the little that I know, your arguments and statements conform with my very limited knowledge of criminal law. Plus I am informed, by my colleagues that practice criminal law, that the Courts are trending more and more towards your arguments/positions and they are showing a distinct tendency to up hold such police actions.

RJ

I don't know about "trending" - you can't get much weaker on suspicion than the facts I posted from Terry v. Ohio and that was decided 44 years ago. I'd say they are mostly reinforcing. However, most lawyers don't understand the reasonable suspicion standard, because, unless you represent and train probation and parole officers, as I do, you don't have to deal with it much. I got an email yesterday from an officer who was dealing with a prosecutor who was probably going to lose a suppression hearing because he seemed to have no idea what "reasonable suspicion" is - unfortunately, prosecutors rarely take advice from others, so he'll lose.

A6Gator
08-10-2012, 07:16
"Sometimes just because something is legal doesn't make it right," DeStefano said.

Had to chuckle at this gem. I wonder if the fine, upstanding mayor of New Haven would've said this at Planned Parenthood...

RottnJP
08-10-2012, 07:38
Well, I hear it is nice this time of year, but no thanks. I hear the police there are buttheads.

Actually a lot of them are fine folks. The thing with ct is there's a huge disconnect between the big cities (Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven) and more rural parts of the state. Cops who are "city kids" and the liberal pols can be highly reactive when it comes to guns. Go a half-hour away, and people won't bay an eyelash.

RottnJP
08-10-2012, 07:40
Had to chuckle at this gem. I wonder if the fine, upstanding mayor of New Haven would've said this at Planned Parenthood...

Yeah, he's a legendary piece of work. :eyeroll:

97harley
08-16-2012, 16:05
I can tell you from expieriance that some New Haven CT cops are real pieces of work. I live in North Haven, a burb of New Haven, I was driving down a road in New Haven that was partially closed for construction, did some business at a shop, left going toward home. A New Haven cop was standing there when he was suppose to be directing traffic, I waited for a command for a minute or so, the road was clear ans slowly approached the cop. I had my window cracked and heard him say as I drove by, "F-ing idiot, the road is closed" I stopped the car, questioned him,,,,,,I might have said "your not getting paid to keep the dirt from under your feet from floating away, well, he's now bowing up to me and threatening me, telling me he's gonna toss me in jail for questioning him. I threw a name his was of a very high ranking New Haven officer and how I was gonna ask him about this and all of a sudden he was as nice as pie. A typical idiot with a badge, young wise ass punk not expecting anybody to talk back to him.

TBO
08-16-2012, 16:27
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/images3-2.jpg

Gunnut 45/454
08-17-2012, 11:54
TBO

"A woman looks out a window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified." FAIL -isn't there a Federal law that says said toy gun "Must have a big oranges tip to indicate that it is a toy?" So said woman should have enough common sense to see that it is a toy and not a real gun! If the case is they removed that Orange tip then indeed they did commit a crime!
:faint:

RussP
08-17-2012, 13:51
Let's try your logic filter, please answer the following:

A woman looks out a window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified.

The woman calls 911 to report a man with a gun and a possible assault/robbery.

Cops respond. The man with the gun is 14, the gun is a realistic looking by entirely plastic toy gun. The "victim" is his best friend, and they were acting out a scene in a movie they intended to film for a class project.

Should the woman be prosecuted for calling 911? No crime was committed by the people she called on.



TBO

"A woman looks out a window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified." FAIL -isn't there a Federal law that says said toy gun "Must have a big oranges tip to indicate that it is a toy?" So said woman should have enough common sense to see that it is a toy and not a real gun! If the case is they removed that Orange tip then indeed they did commit a crime!
:faint:Required by law? No, the law states that for import and sales there must be a 6mm orange tip.

"Big"? No, just the aforementioned 6mm. Know how big that is? TBO said "...across the street...", which would be, oh, 36' for the street, minimum setback of 20', 6' for sidewalk and green strip, 62', maybe up to 75', 20 to 25 yards.

Do you think 6mm is "BIG"?

In a typical neighborhood, do you think every woman on the block is going to even know that toy guns should have a 6mm orange tip? Do you believe that in the moment where she thinks kids are going to shoot each other, she is going to pay attention to that fine of a detail, 6mm at 25 yards?

wprebeck
08-17-2012, 21:39
Better question - did Gunnut miss the Leonard Embody nonsense? Has he never seen a Duracoat/Ceracoat/etc finish? If not, I can snap a pic of the Beretta 21 I did for my daughter. Its got a pink slide, pink grips, and a pink mag baseplate. Looks just like a toy.

Some people.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 20:25
- Man does something completely legal
- someone calls cops on man for doing nothing illegal
- Cops respond to completely legal activity, legal activity that is supposed to be protected specifically by the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution and section 15 of his state's constitution
- Cops arrive at the scene of the legal activity with guns drawn
- Cops disarm an American at gun point for doing legal activity
- Cops realize they messed up and he has done no crime, yet arrest him anyway
- Cops have added another example to the definition of "tyranny"

- wprebeck is upset that an American didn't forfeit his 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights that thousands fought and died for immediately and instead argued with the armed men that were violating him.
- wprebeck doesn't understand that the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments aren't written in hieroglyphics on golden tablets placed on the highest mountain, they're written in English that anyone can read.


This guy did nothing wrong, yet a scene was made, he was disarmed, and he was arrested FOR DOING NOTHING WRONG.

EDIT:
There's also the fact that carrying a gun in a theater AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING A SCREENING OF "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" is gonna draw attention.

Can we just keep in mind that we give these young guys/gals badges and GUNS to do one thing and one thing only- ENFORCE THE LAW. We don't give them the power of the state and a firearm to enforce people's personal fears and emotions.

RussP
08-18-2012, 20:37
...he was disarmed, and he was arrested FOR DOING NOTHING WRONG.Actually, you are somewhat correct.

Right up until the point he completely ignored police requests, he was doing nothing wrong. When he refused police orders, that was wrong, he was arrested.

As usual, there are conflicting versions of how things actually happened. Guess we'll find out later.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 20:39
When he refused police orders, that was wrong, he was arrested.

Can the police, or can they not, order you to do the macarena? And if you refuse that order, are you wrong?

Note: this is indeed a serious question.

RussP
08-18-2012, 20:42
EDIT:


Can we just keep in mind that we give these young guys/gals badges and GUNS to do one thing and one thing only- ENFORCE THE LAW. We don't give them the power of the state and a firearm to enforce people's personal fears and emotions.So, does that put you in the camp of those who do not want police responding at all, no way, never under any circumstances when a call come in regarding a person with a gun? You want to wait until the weapon is fired and someone is injured or killed. Is that correct?

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 20:47
So, does that put you in the camp of those who do not want police responding at all, no way, never under any circumstances when a call come in regarding a person with a gun? You want to wait until the weapon is fired and someone is injured or killed. Is that correct?

Lot's of men died so that we may live in a "free" country where we aren't harassed by the government for doing nothing wrong. So, no, I don't want police responding to completely legal activity.

'Freedom,' or whatever is left of it, is a scary thing. You need to take care and be responsible for YOURSELF. If you don't like other people that look scary carrying guns in public, then don't go out in public, or better yet arm yourself before going out! There's an idea! Here's an even better idea, if the idea of 'freedom' scares you and you want the gov. all over everyone's actions that scare you, move to any other country in the world. Go to England, Russia, China, Japan, tons of places hate personal liberty more than we're starting to, and they have for a while. Go there and you will never see a free man bearing arms.

RussP
08-18-2012, 21:11
Can the police, or can they not, order you to do the macarena?In what context is the request made? And if you refuse that order, are you wrong?

Note: this is indeed a serious question.It all depends on the context, the totality of circumstances surrounding the request.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 21:13
In what context is the request made? It all depends on the context, the totality of circumstances surrounding the request.

Someone called 911 because they saw a man NOT DOING the macarena whilst the song was playing over a loud speaking within earshot of the suspect.

Drilled
08-18-2012, 21:19
Short answer: It depends.

If there is any area on the internet where you get more bad information, than legal information, I don't know what it is.

Everyone wants the law to be simple and easy to understand. If that were true, we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

And, I've seen people who hired their family or real estate attorneys to come in to represent them in criminal cases, and then just get buried so bad I even felt sorry for them (and I had arrested them).

Isn't that the truth?

RussP
08-18-2012, 21:20
EDIT:


Can we just keep in mind that we give these young guys/gals badges and GUNS to do one thing and one thing only- ENFORCE THE LAW. We don't give them the power of the state and a firearm to enforce people's personal fears and emotions.So, does that put you in the camp of those who do not want police responding at all, no way, never under any circumstances when a call come in regarding a person with a gun? You want to wait until the weapon is fired and someone is injured or killed. Is that correct?Lot's of men died so that we may live in a "free" country where we aren't harassed by the government for doing nothing wrong. So, no, I don't want police responding to completely legal activity.So the part in bold blue above, that is also true about you.

RussP
08-18-2012, 21:24
Someone called 911 because they saw a man NOT DOING the macarena whilst the song was playing over a loud speaking within earshot of the suspect.Does the law of the land mandate that everyone hearing the song dance the Macarena while the music is playing?

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 21:29
There is a quote that is attributed to Benjamin Franklin that goes something along the lines of;

"those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither"

Liberty and freedom are scary. If you don't like it go live in a country where they hate the idea of personal liberty. That's not like an insult or a 'get bent,' seriously. There are places in this world that are perfect for people that are afraid of personal liberty, but thousands died for it so we could have it here. I don't see the point of abandoning their sacrifices so that some soccer mom feels good when an armed American is dragged out of a movie theater for being armed or so some cops ego is stroked because he was able to cuff a citizen who tried to "stick it to the man" by ignoring orders that weren't even warranted by his actions that night.

EDIT:
You want to wait until the weapon is fired and someone is injured or killed.This is the typical "emotional" stuff that we use to justify throwing rights away for "safety." You won't get the words, "I want someone to be shot first" out of me. I don't want anyone to be shot. What I do want is for every responsible American to do what it takes on a daily basis to protect themselves and their families. I want every American to understand the risks they take when they leave the house without their gun. There are sick people out there that will be armed, and gun control laws aren't going to stop them. Carrying a gun won't make them invulnerable, and wearing your seat belt won't always save you, but it sure can increase your chances.

Most of all, what I do want is for the police to just enforce the LAW and nothing more.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 21:57
Does the law of the land mandate that everyone hearing the song dance the Macarena while the music is playing?

No, in fact, the SUPREME law of this land has an amendment that says, "the right of people to NOT do the macarena shall not be infringed."

TBO
08-18-2012, 22:01
Can the police, or can they not, order you to do the macarena? And if you refuse that order, are you wrong?

Note: this is indeed a serious question.
Strawman, not a serious question.

Mayhem like Me
08-18-2012, 22:01
No, in fact, the SUPREME law of this land has an amendment that says, "the right of people to NOT do the macarena shall not be infringed."

Except on someone elses private property...the founding fathers were a big fan of government not being able to tell private property owners what they could and could not allow.....


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 22:02
Note: this is indeed a serious question.

You didn't read the note!

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 22:03
Except on someone elses private property...the founding fathers were a big fan of government not being able to tell private property owners what they could and could not allow.....


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Correct, but I don't think that was being debated at all here.

RussP
08-18-2012, 22:08
EDIT:
This is the typical "emotional" stuff that we use to justify throwing rights away for "safety." You won't get the words, "I want someone to be shot first" out of me. I don't want anyone to be shot.You do not want anyone shot. Okay, but you do not want any preventative action taken by police.

Okay, what about this question. If tomorrow you became aware of a mentally disturbed, mentally ill person, maybe officially diagnosed, maybe not, but certainly not yet institutionalized, like a James Holmes, knowing the person lawfully owned firearms, knowing the person talked of killing people, but has never actually threatened anyone, would you involve yourself and report that person to authorities?

Yes, I know, perhaps an apples and oranges situation, but it is a starting point.What I do want is for every responsible American to do what it takes on a daily basis to protect themselves and their families. I want every American to understand the risks they take when they leave the house without their gun. There are sick people out there that will be armed, and gun control laws aren't going to stop them. Carrying a gun won't make them invulnerable, and wearing your seat belt won't always save you, but it sure can increase your chances.I do not disagree.Most of all, what I do want is for the police to just enforce the LAW and nothing more.Okay, but that brings us back to police only reacting to a report of a person with a firearm after someone is shot. But, you do not want anyone shot. But, you do not want police intervention until someone is shot meaning the law was violated, now the police can enforce the law...

RussP
08-18-2012, 22:14
No, in fact, the SUPREME law of this land has an amendment that says, "the right of people to NOT do the macarena shall not be infringed."I figured that you were headed here.

To discuss your Macerana Amendment in the same context as the 2nd Amendment, you'll have to apply the same historical alterations to the 2nd Amendment to your Macerana Amendment. With those applied, it again reverts to the totality of circumstances surrounding the report.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 22:39
If tomorrow you became aware of a mentally disturbed, mentally ill person, maybe officially diagnosed, maybe not, but certainly not yet institutionalized, like a James Holmes, knowing the person lawfully owned firearms, knowing the person talked of killing people, but has never actually threatened anyone, would you involve yourself and report that person to authorities?
What is there to report? In the given scenario he "lawfully" owns firearms. Look, I don't like the fact that crazies with clean records buy guns. It's a scary thought, but a crime hasn't been committed. Minority Report wasn't supposed to be an instruction video for government, it was a science fiction movie.

you do not want police intervention until someone is shot meaning the law was violated, now the police can enforce the law...That is what law enforcement is for right?

Now I'm not saying that if this guy is in the theater with you that you shouldn't keep an eye on him.

http://iamthearbiter.com/wp-content/uploads/private_pile-300x251.jpg

But until he commits a crime he hasn't committed a crime.

I regress, freedom and liberty can be scary things. Because freedom and liberty can be scary most people vote it away so they can "feel" safer.

Can I just say that while this debate may or may not have been heated, I do feel this is more productive than posting on a forum where everyone agrees with you.

EDIT:
And if the guy in the theater is really that creepy, and armed....leave?

JimFS
08-18-2012, 22:44
OK, my head is spinning. I occationally carry, with permit. I am not LE and have not posted 3,000 times on Glock Talk. But if a complaint came in to LE, and I were in their shoes, I would question me and ask for ID and carry permit. It may not be according to case law, but it is the right thing to do. They cannot ignore the complaint nor would I want them to. So I do not consider their request to be out of line at all, legal or not. Sorry guys.

Schlitz
08-18-2012, 22:53
legal or not. Sorry guys.
and there begins a slippery slope.

For the record, they didn't just ask an open carrier for his ID. They ruined a movie, held everyone at gun point with their hands up, then ultimately arrested him. This all started by him engaging in legal activity.

RussP
08-19-2012, 04:57
This is all very interesting.if tomorrow you became aware of a mentally disturbed, mentally ill person, maybe officially diagnosed, maybe not, but certainly not yet institutionalized, like a james holmes, knowing the person lawfully owned firearms, knowing the person talked of killing people, but has never actually threatened anyone, would you involve yourself and report that person to authorities?what is there to report? In the given scenario he "lawfully" owns firearms. Look, i don't like the fact that crazies with clean records buy guns. It's a scary thought, but a crime hasn't been committed. Minority report wasn't supposed to be an instruction video for government, it was a science fiction movie.you do not want police intervention until someone is shot meaning the law was violated, now the police can enforce the law...that is what law enforcement is for right? now i'm not saying that if this guy is in the theater with you that you shouldn't keep an eye on him.

But until he commits a crime he hasn't committed a crime.

And if the guy in the theater is really that creepy, and armed....leave?I know you are not alone in your beliefs. Others have posted in the past that they are responsible solely for themselves and their loved ones, no one else. If another does not have the will or the means to do so, so be it. Those people, like you, want no intrusion by authorities into their lives. Nor will they intrude into anyone else's life.

Your last line is, "And if the guy in the theater is really that creepy, and armed....leave?" Is that a real question, or is it rhetorical? You would leave the premises occupied by others leaving an armed person acting creepy with no report to anyone?

The situation warranted your retreat from the scene. Does no one else deserve to know the circumstance(s) that caused you to leave?

It sounds like your conscience would be clear if the suspicious person that caused you to leave then killed and/or wounded one or more persons.

RussP
08-19-2012, 05:00
and there begins a slippery slope.

For the record, they didn't just ask an open carrier for his ID. They ruined a movie, held everyone at gun point with their hands up, then ultimately arrested him. This all started by him engaging in legal activity.You have interesting priorities.

Green Dragoon
08-19-2012, 05:50
it is simple to me. The 2nd ammendmant is a right. However, it carries with it great responsibility.

It was the attorney's right to carry in the movie theatre. I feel he did not act responsibly (at least as the story was reported) when the police arrived.

H&K 4 LIFE
08-19-2012, 06:15
... You need to take care and be responsible for YOURSELF....

A CT permit is a permit to carry, and if you are permitted to carry openly you are also permitted to carry concealed. I would argue that a large part of being responsible is using each method in an appropriate context. No one is saying "do not go armed", I am saying there are times when being armed in a discrete manner is the proper course of action to take.

I live in CT and therefore understand the stigma surrounding openly carrying a handgun in public. This social aspect of the area might be lost on someone who lives in a different state.

In fact, I walked by that very theater last Wednesday night where the lawyer was arrested. Not a place I would even think of open carrying into, especially given recent events.

ImpeachObama
08-19-2012, 06:25
If this guy had his pistol in the small of his back, it doesn't make since to open carry there. At least for me. With that thought, I wonder if maybe his shirt rode up his back over the pistol/holster or something. I haven't noticed these details to be confirmed.

Here is a note on open carry in CT.
http://opencarry.org/ct.html

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 07:41
You would leave the premises occupied by others leaving an armed person acting creepy with no report to anyone?

http://iamthearbiter.com/wp-content/uploads/private_pile-300x251.jpg
Merely resembling private pyle is not a crime, it's just someone I don't want to be around. It's not my job to report to other people that "hey, that guy looks creepy." They're at a movie, they're not blind. They made the assessment and decided to stay.
The situation warranted your retreat from the scene. Does no one else deserve to know the circumstance(s) that caused you to leave?

It sounds like your conscience would be clear if the suspicious person that caused you to leave then killed and/or wounded one or more persons.Since when do they deserve to know my thoughts? And my conscience would be clear. Why wouldn't it? I made a great situational awareness call that saved my family and myself from danger. I'm sure as hell not sticking around to put my family at risk just so that I may attempt to be some hero. All the other people in the theater who aren't carrying made that decision when they left the house. I didn't grab my gun so I could be super man.

I'm responsible for protecting my family, not yours. Anything I do beyond that is be being a good jobin, but not my responsibility and should not be expected from me.


It was the attorney's right to carry in the movie theatre. I feel he did not act responsibly (at least as the story was reported) when the police arrived.
Why did the police arrive? Oh, to arrest him for doing nothing illegal? Our nation is founded on disobeying what is unjust. Thomas Jefferson, the gun nut he was, either wrote or said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Well, in this case he wasn't even breaking the law, the police were. I applaud him for being an ******* when they arrived. Any red blooded American should have been. You should be pissed when you're being violated by armed men from the government when you're 1. doing nothing illegal in the first place, 2. engaging in activity specifically protected by the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution and whatever part of your state's constitution, and 3. when you're being violating based off of someone's emotions, having hoplophobia because they heard of a shooting happening a week ago.
I would argue that a large part of being responsible is using each method in an appropriate context.
Open carry vs concealed carry is a whole other debate.
edit: let me clarify, while the debate is about a man who was open carrying, I don't think we're debating which method is more appropriate. we're talking about if he should have been arrested for behavior that is entirely legal and protected by law

If this guy had his pistol in the small of his back, it doesn't make since to open carry there. At least for me.
perhaps he decided it was his most comfortable mode of carry for that night, i don't know.

I've open carried plenty in different states that allow it and received 0 backlash from society. One couple I ran into at a pizza place was very surprised to learn that it's actually legal for citizens to carry guns. This is because we've spent the past 50 years teaching Americans who carry to think they have to hide their guns, so now the average shmuck thinks we don't carry guns (out of sight out of mind), so now when the average soccer mom see's a gun she freaks out, foams at the mouth, and calls the police. Wish I could say the police knew the laws better than the soccer mom, but they don't, they end up arresting the gun carrier based off the soccer mom's emotions.

The facts remain. This man went to that theater breaking now laws, exercising what is supposed to be a right, and that led to him being arrested. Good job America. Land of the free and home of the brave, right?

Thumpernator
08-19-2012, 08:16
Schlitz, I'm with you 100%. I think there are a lot more people reading this thread who think the same way, but just don't want to post their support because you're debating RussP the "Moderator."

Seems there are people here who support a Nazi style police force. That police have the right to stop innocent law abiding people and ask for their "papers." Gotta make sure they are legal in the name of safety.

Wish I could write as well as you (Schlitz). You do a very good job saying what I am also thinking, but can't put into words. Thanks.

I do think a lot of these MWAG calls could be avoided with more training of the 911 Operators. Hopefully they are trained to get more information to determine if the person is within their right and thus no dispatch is required. A caller simply saying they see a man with a gun should not warrant a dispatch. How about telling the caller that that activity is legal?

I do not want to live in a Nazi Police State, but it sure seems some Americans do.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 10:05
This is all very interesting.I know you are not alone in your beliefs. Others have posted in the past that they are responsible solely for themselves and their loved ones, no one else. If another does not have the will or the means to do so, so be it. Those people, like you, want no intrusion by authorities into their lives. Nor will they intrude into anyone else's life.

Your last line is, "And if the guy in the theater is really that creepy, and armed....leave?" Is that a real question, or is it rhetorical? You would leave the premises occupied by others leaving an armed person acting creepy with no report to anyone?

The situation warranted your retreat from the scene. Does no one else deserve to know the circumstance(s) that caused you to leave?

It sounds like your conscience would be clear if the suspicious person that caused you to leave then killed and/or wounded one or more persons.

I have left, and caused my family to leave with me, many places where I felt things weren’t just right. This has happened at family gathering and in public places. More often than not I don’t have the specifics of what will go wrong, just a gut feeling based on feedback from those present and the atmosphere. Calling the authorities or letting others (not in our group) know my reasons for leaving would not only be imprudent but also illogical. What am I going to say? “Something just doesn’t feel right to me?”

I’m thankful my family doesn’t question my motives on the spot. I’ve been lucky to be right often enough that they trust my instincts. Mind you, that has only happened in private gatherings with people we know and get details thereafter. There have also been times we left and nothing happened. Out in public we rarely get to find out if I was right or not.

There was a recent occurrence when I went out to dinner after work with a couple of friends. Four unruly older teens arrived soon after we were seated. They were kind of harassing a few other patrons and making some unwelcomed comments about a young lady at another table while they waited to be seated. I gave it a few seconds to see if the staff asked the group to leave, they didn’t, instead they were seated. On their way to their table they made out-loud inappropriate comments to others they passed. I could see the man at the table of the young lady they started with getting worked up and about to get up when the lady touched his arm asking him to sit back down.

We had not placed our order yet and I told my group I was leaving. They asked why and I told them that group of teens was likely to make someone lose their cool and I didn’t want to be there when that happened. They said I was being silly, to just ignore them as those type of people feed off the discomfort of others. It was not anyone’s discomfort that concerned me; it was someone acting on that discomfort because they were fed-up that did. Before I knew it I had my own argument going on with my own group, which was illogical, I seldom feel the need or seek understanding for my actions from others. I wasn’t asking them to leave with me; I was just letting them know I was leaving and provided an explanation when asked why. I was a tad irritated with myself for arguing my point when I should have just gotten up and left.

The following day I found out what happened, which my group commented it was not a big deal just a side show and free entertainment with their meal. The unruly teens started to pick on an old couple. Management finally got involved and asked them to leave, they wouldn’t leave until security (?) was called and they were forced out. I do agree that was the best possible outcome for that situation, it could have been much worse. Mess with the wrong people at the wrong time and you can end up with deadly consequences. I certainly didn’t know who in that restaurant had a short fuse and who was armed (I knew I was) so it was my job to not be there if the worst happened.

Should I have called the police on the unruly teens before I left? Technically they had done nothing but make some inappropriate comments. The staff of the establishment was aware and they permitted them to stay. Who am I to say they should leave because I foresee a potential problem with their behavior/attitude? The only thing I felt I had the right to do in such a situation was to remove myself from the equation.

There are times when you feel trouble is near, you just can’t easily prove it to others. If you can’t effectively articulate your concerns or can prove something is definitely not right, I don’t believe you have enough to fairly place that call to the authorities. Someone that looks “creepy” to us may not be creepy at all. It doesn’t mean we ignore it or that we don’t leave. It just means we fairly treat others that don’t conform to our label of “normal”, unless they are just too abnormal to let go. The tricky part is knowing which is which.

.

TBO
08-19-2012, 10:22
People fail to recognize the role of the Police in conducting "investigations".

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 11:03
People fail to recognize the role of the Police in conducting "investigations".

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

I wasn’t there so I obviously don’t know what took place that evening. I have no issues with police “investigating” a call. If a license is required for carrying, asking for and verifying same is in order falls within what I believe to be reasonable while responding to a call.

There are a couple of statements in the article, which if they’re accurate, lead me to believe things may not have happened as they should have. Those are:


Hwang said he fully complied with the law and cooperated with police.


"It's not specifically illegal to be in a theater with a handgun," he said. "But what often happens is that people are charged with breach of peace if you act in such a way that you alarm other people, which, by definition, is breach of peace."

He said since more than one person called police to complain, "clearly he was upsetting people, which makes it a breach of peace."

To make matters worse, Lawlor said, the suspect was apparently by himself at the late movie, which further frightened people in the theater.

And on top of all of that, he apparently was uncooperative when police arrived -- all of that, taken together, is pretty suspicious," Lawlor said



I would like to know what Hwang meant by “cooperated with police” and what Lawlor meant with “was uncooperative when police arrived”. I don’t see how others being upset about a legal activity could constitute a breach of peace where it becomes an offense a person can be arrested for. Making a scene, going on a tangent, unnecessarily prolonging the investigation into the call could be grounds for a breach of peace charge though. There isn’t enough information in the article, from all parties involved, for me to reach a personal opinion.

.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 11:18
People fail to recognize the role of the Police in conducting "investigations".

Investigating what? Lawful activity? Okay. They did. They did investigate and found that he was in fact licensed. He went out and got his special citizen permission slip from the government to exercise what was supposed to be a right. There, fine, you got me, the lawful activity was investigated and found to be lawful.

HE WAS ARRESTED

O'rrr the laaaaaand of the freeeeeeee, and the homeeeeee, of theeee braveeeeeee.

TBO
08-19-2012, 11:23
Police are tasked with investigating reports of suspicious behavior/circumstances/acts.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Thumpernator
08-19-2012, 11:39
People fail to recognize the role of the Police in conducting "investigations".

An investigation doesn't always require a one on one contact. That investigation could have been done by an observation. LEO observes that the person is not breaking the law. Investigation over.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 11:40
Investigating what? Lawful activity? Okay. They did. They did investigate and found that he was in fact licensed. He went out and got his special citizen permission slip from the government to exercise what was supposed to be a right. There, fine, you got me, the lawful activity was investigated and found to be lawful.

HE WAS ARRESTED

O'rrr the laaaaaand of the freeeeeeee, and the homeeeeee, of theeee braveeeeeee.

Based on the article he was not charged because he was carrying. The arrestable (is that even a word?) charge was “breach of peace”. What we should be asking is “which were his actions or words at the time that was sufficient for an arrest on that charge?”

.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 11:47
An investigation doesn't always require a one on one contact. That investigation could have been done by an observation. LEO observes that the person is not breaking the law. Investigation over.

Did the police officers even know who the individual to “observe” was upon their arrival? Based on the article:

he refused to comply with officers who questioned him in the theater after other patrons were evacuated and patted down.

The article gives the appearance that officers didn’t know who the subject of the call was until after they evacuated people from the movie theater and patted them down.

I still don’t know what is meant by “refused to comply with officers”.

.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 11:48
Police are tasked with investigating reports of suspicious behavior/circumstances/acts.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Suspicious behavior? Was he standing outside with tattered clothes and a gun in his hand while yelling at cars as they drive by? Or was he sitting quietly in a theater waiting for a movie to start?

Circumstances? Wasn't a movie theater just shot up a week prior? Wouldn't any person with common sense begin to go to places like this armed for lawful self-defense?

Acts? Is the act of carrying a gun lawful or unlawful? (hint: it is lawful)

TBO
08-19-2012, 11:49
An investigation doesn't always require a one on one contact. That investigation could have been done by an observation. LEO observes that the person is not breaking the law. Investigation over.

Playing your game, "The Police broke no law".
There, now you must support their lawful actions, even if those lawful actions make you feel uncomfortable.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 11:52
I still don’t know what is meant by “refused to comply with officers”.

.
Basically, if you're a cop, you put "refused to comply" in your report when you're harassing someone over involving themself in legal activities. This way you can justify doing anything wrong you did and say it was for "officer safety" because the 'perp' wouldn't co-operate. Also, be sure to include words like, "he was acting belligerent" or "reached for his waistband."

Misty02
08-19-2012, 12:00
Basically, if you're a cop, you put "refused to comply" in your report when you're harassing someone over involving themself in legal activities. This way you can justify doing anything wrong you did and say it was for "officer safety" because the 'perp' wouldn't co-operate. Also, be sure to include words like, "he was acting belligerent" or "reached for his waistband."

A person can refuse to comply with an unlawful order. A person that refuses to comply with a lawful order could be charged for that failure to comply. Which was the unlawful order given to Mr. Hwang that ultimately resulted in his illegal arrest?

.

RussP
08-19-2012, 12:10
People fail to recognize the role of the Police in conducting "investigations".Investigating what? Lawful activity?In this case, yes.Okay. They did. They did investigate and found that he was in fact licensed. He went out and got his special citizen permission slip from the government to exercise what was supposed to be a right. There, fine, you got me, the lawful activity was investigated and found to be lawful.

HE WAS ARRESTEDYes, he was arrested. That is a point no one disputes. The issue is over whether prior to the discovery of his permit status, he did or did not obey lawful orders from the police. If he did not initially, that could be considered interfering with the officers as they attempted to investigate, which is the charge against him.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 12:12
A person can refuse to comply with an unlawful order. A person that refuses to comply with a lawful order could be charged for that failure to comply. Which was the unlawful order given to Mr. Hwang that ultimately resulted in his illegal arrest?

.

I wasn't there. I don't know the exact words the police used when they addressed him, I can only go based off of what I've heard of this on the other side of the country. All I know is a man was peacefully going about his business bearing arms in a nation founded by armed men who made the supreme law to protect armed americans and this somehow led to his arrest by armed agents of the government.

RussP
08-19-2012, 12:15
An investigation doesn't always require a one on one contact. That investigation could have been done by an observation. LEO observes that the person is not breaking the law. Investigation over.I believe that would depend on the circumstances.

Remember, completely legal actions can be red flags.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 12:15
interfering with the officers as they attempted to investigate, which is the charge against him.
If you're not cool with the cops interfering with your life while you go about lawful activity we'll charge you and throw you in jail.

You are under arrest for resisting arrest.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 12:19
I had not done any research on this case. This article provides a bit more information: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/08/conn-lawyer-charged-with-breach-of-peace-after-taking-gun-to-dark-knight-movie/ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/08/conn-lawyer-charged-with-breach-of-peace-after-taking-gun-to-dark-knight-movie/)

About a dozen people were inside waiting for the movie to begin, police said. Officers asked each of them to raise their hands and file out, where they were patted down, according to a news release.

Police said they identified the suspect and with weapons drawn they ordered Hwang to put his hands up. They said he remained in his seat while using his cellphone and did not comply with their commands and was taken into custody by force.

The gun was found in his waistband near the small of his back, police said.

Which leads me to more questions. Did the police state the reason they were asking all moviegoers to raise their hands and file out? Does "file out" mean exit the theater? If they didn’t state their reasons, why did Mr. Hwang stay seated and continued his cellphone conversation? The reason for their presence could have been something entirely unrelated to him. If the moviegoers were told they were responding to a MWG call would it not have behooved Mr. Hwang to state he was carrying and licensed to do so?

Mind you, my questions should not be construed to imply I would have a consented to a search of my person. I would not have physically prevented it either; I would have verbally objected and made it clear I did not consent to the search. If things were go to south, it would not have been right there and then.

.

TBO
08-19-2012, 12:22
I wasn't there. I don't know the exact words the police used when they addressed him, I can only go based off of what I've heard of this on the other side of the country. All I know is a man was peacefully going about his business bearing arms in a nation founded by armed men who made the supreme law to protect armed americans and this somehow led to his arrest by armed agents of the government.
:dunno:

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 12:25
:dunno:
well was anyone here actually there? No. We can only debate what we've heard.

This is armchair quarter backing, THIS, is the internet.

RussP
08-19-2012, 12:29
If you're not cool with the cops interfering with your life while you go about lawful activity we'll charge you and throw you in jail.

You are under arrest for resisting arrest.That is an inaccurate statement when considered in the context of this event.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 12:36
That is an inaccurate statement when considered in the context of this event.

Look, the guy was engaged in lawful activity. For some reason the cops felt that had to "investigate" this man's lawful activity. He obviously thought it was bull ****, as do I, and didn't want to cooperate. According to you he was charged with interfering in a police investigation of his lawful activity.

This is bull crap.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 12:46
I wasn't there. I don't know the exact words the police used when they addressed him, I can only go based off of what I've heard of this on the other side of the country. All I know is a man was peacefully going about his business bearing arms in a nation founded by armed men who made the supreme law to protect armed americans and this somehow led to his arrest by armed agents of the government.


And therein lies the problem, we weren’t there thus we don’t know what actually happened. The press has made erroneous reports before, at times even a completely fabricated lie. Is there any misrepresentation of the facts in this story? I have absolutely no clue, like you I’m going basically on the published stories which may or may not be accurate or complete.

I would accept your conclusion if Mr. Hwang’s arrest was for carrying a firearm, but that wasn’t the charge. He was charged with “breach of peace”. Some of the comments made by Lawlor, which I quoted in post #110, made me suspicious as to the charge. He implied that just because they received calls from people that were alarmed it was clear he was upsetting them, which in his statement constituted a breach of peace. If that is the case then I would completely disagree with Mr. Lawlor.

Some people alarm and upset me while they exercise their 1st amendment rights, regardless of how much I complain I doubt they would be arrested for “breach of peace”.

Again, Mr. Hwang was not arrested because he was carrying a firearm, even if that was the original reason for the police response. He was arrested for breach of peace. What did he do/didn’t do or say that could have justified such a charge? Were there any grounds for that arrest?

Let’s associate it with something different. I’m mugged and a thief takes off with my purse. I have every legal right to pursue that mugger and attempt to recover my purse (I said I had the right, not that it was the wise or prudent thing to do). I’m armed. While following the mugger he draws a handgun from his waistband and aims it at me, my life was in danger and I shot him. Now, did I shoot him because he stole my purse? Of course not, I shot him because he posed a deadly threat to me the second he drew his handgun. Depending on which reporter picks up the story it the headline may be “Woman Shoots Fleeing Mugger”. Heck some of you may go strictly by the article and condemn me in the court of public opinion “he was running away, he no longer posed a threat!” However, did you all know all the particulars before reaching your conclusions? It was not the original act that resulted in me drawing and firing, it was what happened after (which was not reported in any article published).

Now, what happened after the police responded to the MWG call in that theater? If we don’t know the answer to that, then we can’t reach a fair and just conclusion.

.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 12:49
well was anyone here actually there? No. We can only debate what we've heard.

This is armchair quarter backing, THIS, is the internet.

:rofl::rofl:Ok, you got me there! You’re right, this armchair quarter backing while on the internet and without complete information.

.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 12:59
I understand what you're saying. The charge itself on paper doesn't read "possession of a gun." I get that. You're right, we really need to know exactly what was said to "breach the peace." FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT - the peace was breached when law enforcement arrived, turn the lights on and ruined the move with guns drawn in the theater. Their reaction to lawful activity lead to any breach of the peace that happened after this. But, like I said, this is just based off of what I read. My opinion would surely change if some security footage comes out with the attorney making balloon animals while stand on his chair in the theater, then shooting the balloon animals with his gun as they fly up to the ceiling.

EDIT:
i imagine it went down something like this: cops show up oh **** **** guy has a gun, the guy is an attorney and knows its legal so he doesn't comply with the cops while they freak out and soccer moms foam at the mouth, once they realize they can't charge him for his non-crime they throw an erroneous charge at him such as breaching the peace and justify it by saying his gun scared a soccer mom and his failure to cooperate caused a safety risk for officers and the people around him. to show up to the scene of a man with a gun and NOT make an arrest after making a big scene would make them look stupid, and they aren't having that.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 13:15
I understand what you're saying. The charge itself on paper doesn't read "possession of a gun." I get that. You're right, we really need to know exactly what was said to "breach the peace." FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT - the peace was breached when law enforcement arrived, turn the lights on and ruined the move with guns drawn in the theater. Their reaction to lawful activity lead to any breach of the peace that happened after this. But, like I said, this is just based off of what I read. My opinion would surely change if some security footage comes out with the attorney making balloon animals while stand on his chair in the theater, then shooting the balloon animals with his gun as they fly up to the ceiling.

Itsy bitsy step in the right direction there. :)

One of the articles I quoted mentioned the police entered the theater, asked everyone to raise their hands and file out. It is an assumption on my part that “file out” meant they asked people to get up and go somewhere (outside perhaps?) to be patted down.

Assuming people present don’t know the reason, what would most reasonable people do in a situation where police asks them to raise their hands, get up and go somewhere? (and why?)

Assuming people know the reason, what would most reasonable people do in a situation where police indicate they are responding to a MWG call, they ask people to raise their hands, get up and go somewhere? (and why?)

.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 13:22
I understand what you're saying. The charge itself on paper doesn't read "possession of a gun." I get that. You're right, we really need to know exactly what was said to "breach the peace." FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT - the peace was breached when law enforcement arrived, turn the lights on and ruined the move with guns drawn in the theater. Their reaction to lawful activity lead to any breach of the peace that happened after this. But, like I said, this is just based off of what I read. My opinion would surely change if some security footage comes out with the attorney making balloon animals while stand on his chair in the theater, then shooting the balloon animals with his gun as they fly up to the ceiling.

EDIT:
i imagine it went down something like this: cops show up oh **** **** guy has a gun, the guy is an attorney and knows its legal so he doesn't comply with the cops while they freak out and soccer moms foam at the mouth, once they realize they can't charge him for his non-crime they throw an erroneous charge at him such as breaching the peace and justify it by saying his gun scared a soccer mom and his failure to cooperate caused a safety risk for officers and the people around him. to show up to the scene of a man with a gun and NOT make an arrest after making a big scene would make them look stupid, and they aren't having that.

Comment to the Edit part:
If the articles you and I are using to formulate an opinion on are correct, then read the one I just posted. The officers didn’t know who the subject was until they asked people raise their hands and patted them down. It appears there was one person that didn’t get up, didn’t acknowledge what the police asked of all others, he remained on his cellphone for the duration of the interruption and it was not until he too was patted down that the firearm was discovered.

Again, did Mr. Hwang’s actions/words or failure to act constitute “breach of peace”? How long did the exchange last? How heated did it become? Could he have gotten up and left if he knew the police were responding to a call that involved him? Did he know it involved him? I know he had the right to not consent to the search, how did he exercise that right?

.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 13:45
Again, did Mr. Hwang’s actions/words or failure to act constitute “breach of peace”? How long did the exchange last? How heated did it become? Could he have gotten up and left if he knew the police were responding to a call that involved him? Did he know it involved him? I know he had the right to not consent to the search, how did he exercise that right?

.

and all of these questions would be non issues if there wasn't a police response to activity that is legal.

RussP
08-19-2012, 14:04
I understand what you're saying. The charge itself on paper doesn't read "possession of a gun." I get that.That is correct from information in the news articles.You're right, we really need to know exactly what was said to "breach the peace."Have you actually read the Connecticut Code to see what constitutes breach of the peace?FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT - the peace was breached when law enforcement arrived, turn the lights on and ruined the move with guns drawn in the theater. Their reaction to lawful activity lead to any breach of the peace that happened after this.The breach of the peace would have to happen before the police arrived and before the other patrons left the theater. Eye witnesses would provide the basis for the breach of the peace charge.But, like I said, this is just based off of what I read. That and what I perceive is a lack of knowledge of and experience with how LE can/may/does deal with such situations.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 14:23
That and what I perceive is a lack of knowledge of and experience with how LE can/may/does deal with such situations.Well, I do understand that somehow in this backwards country it is legal for police to violate people's 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, I just still call it out as wrong - no matter what some judge rules on it.

We'll just have to see where this ends up going. Reading more about this attorney I'm not sure he is the brightest crayon in the box.


Hwang does not think the patrons who alerted theater staff did anything wrong.
"If they did suspect that someone had a weapon I would expect them to call the police. If I were in their situation, I would have done the same thing," he said.
The real issue is that the city of New Haven is unsafe, he said.I figured he went in there intentionally open carrying because that's how he wanted to carry and he knew it was legal, but apparently he applauds the efforts of uneducated citizens calling the police for legal activity? If he were in their situation he'd have done the same thing? Wait, why didn't he just call the cops on himself? Maybe he did.


I hadn't read the article in a while till just now. The guys sounds like a tool after reading that part. While I feel he is a tool I still stand by previous posts that the cops shouldn't be harassing Americans for doing nothing wrong.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 14:41
and all of these questions would be non issues if there wasn't a police response to activity that is legal.

I don’t dispute that; however, it is up to us to control as much of the situation as it is within our power. We have no control over someone making that call; we know odds are extremely high the police will make contact with us if we are the subject of the call. Were we start to have some control over the outcome is once that initial contact is made. Assuming both officer and the person subject to the call are reasonable and prudent, it can go smoothly without any added drama, so long as everyone keeps their attitude in check and is as cooperative as they can. It could be nothing more than the tone of voice.

It makes little sense to worry about parts not under our control, let’s work through the parts that are. In this particular case, what should any of us have done that could have yielded the least negative outcome?

BTW, there are things which at first sight appear to be legal activities and determined not to be after further investigation is conducted. A felon in possession of a handgun is one of many. Even more disturbing would be a convicted pedophile taking pictures of little children in a park or during school recess. A person making the call for the apparent legal activity, just because something felt terribly wrong, wouldn’t have that additional information at their disposal. Even the responding officers may have no clue until they investigated further.

.

TBO
08-19-2012, 15:17
and all of these questions would be non issues if there wasn't a police response to activity that is legal.You either lack understanding/knowledge of Police conducting Investigations, or dismiss it outright because you have your mind made up.

TBO
08-19-2012, 15:19
Let's try your logic filter, please answer the following:

A woman looks out a window and sees a young hooded person across the street pointing a handgun at a person who has their hands up and looks terrified.

The woman calls 911 to report a man with a gun and a possible assault/robbery.

Cops respond. The man with the gun is 14, the gun is a realistic looking by entirely plastic toy gun. The "victim" is his best friend, and they were acting out a scene in a movie they intended to film for a class project.

Should the woman be prosecuted for calling 911? No crime was committed by the people she called on.

.....

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 15:23
^ strawman

This debate wasn't over a drawn handgun pointed at someone who is visibly terrified. It's over a man who had a holstered handgun who was watching a movie.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 15:26
You either lack understanding/knowledge of Police conducting Investigations, or dismiss it outright because you have your mind made up.

It seems you have YOUR mind made up. We're going to violate Americans based off of the hoplophobia of others, if they don't like it just tell them it is an investigation, if they don't like that just tell them "they don't understand."

Gunnut 45/454
08-19-2012, 15:37
"The officers didn’t know who the subject was until they asked people raise their hands and patted them down. It appears there was one person that didn’t get up, didn’t acknowledge what the police asked of all others, he remained on his cellphone for the duration of the interruption and it was not until he too was patted down that the firearm was discovered."

If this is what happen then this was an illegal search!! So it legal for the cops to search a whole Mall wurth of folks -just cause some one just maybe could be possiblely carrying an illegal weapon. So if this is legal why don't the cops just search everyone walking down the streets in Manhatten! They might be carrying a firearm!

:steamed:

TBO
08-19-2012, 15:37
^ strawman

This debate wasn't over a drawn handgun pointed at someone who is visibly terrified. It's over a man who had a holstered handgun who was watching a movie.
In my example:


There was no firearm
There was no crime

It seems you have YOUR mind made up. We're going to violate Americans based off of the hoplophobia of others, if they don't like it just tell them it is an investigation, if they don't like that just tell them "they don't understand."
You have not substantiated a "violation" by the Police, just that you don't like/agree with their actions.
------------------


"The officers didn’t know who the subject was until they asked people raise their hands and patted them down. It appears there was one person that didn’t get up, didn’t acknowledge what the police asked of all others, he remained on his cellphone for the duration of the interruption and it was not until he too was patted down that the firearm was discovered."

If this is what happen then this was and illegal search!! So it legal for the cops to search a whole Mall wurth of folks -just cause some one just maybe could be possiblely caryying an illegal weapon. So if this is legal why don't the cops jusst search everyone walking down the streets in Manhatten! They might be carrying a firearm!

:steamed:
Another Strawman.

This was not some random search/action/location.

The Police were responding to a complaint identifying a particular location (address/name of theater), and a particular individual viewing location (the room where the man with the gun was), and checked only for the gun.

Your lack of knowledge about Police responding to/dealing with Firearms vs. other types of property limit your ability to understand/process/deal with the issue.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 15:46
In my example:


There was no firearm
There was no crime



There was plenty of straw though...lots of straw.


You have not substantiated a "violation" by the Police, just that you don't like/agree with their actions.

If you stop/detain me while I'm going about by day simply because I was bearing arms you have violated me. From the sounds of it, this fiasco started because this man was bearing arms. He was sitting in the theater to watch a movie when 20+ cops entered the building to bring him out - why? because someone called in and reported that a citizen was in the theater bearing a firearm. (Did I mention that this is legal activity?)
vi·o·late/ˈvīəˌlāt/

Verb:

Break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
Fail to respect (someone's peace, privacy, or rights).

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 15:52
Your lack of knowledge about Police responding to/dealing with Firearms vs. other types of property limit your ability to understand/process/deal with the issue.

TBO, your lack of respect for individual liberties and the bill of rights limits your ability to understand.

Misty02
08-19-2012, 15:53
"The officers didn’t know who the subject was until they asked people raise their hands and patted them down. It appears there was one person that didn’t get up, didn’t acknowledge what the police asked of all others, he remained on his cellphone for the duration of the interruption and it was not until he too was patted down that the firearm was discovered."

If this is what happen then this was an illegal search!! So it legal for the cops to search a whole Mall wurth of folks -just cause some one just maybe could be possiblely carrying an illegal weapon. So if this is legal why don't the cops just search everyone walking down the streets in Manhatten! They might be carrying a firearm!

:steamed:

I would not have consented to the search. Mind you, I would have been very polite, soft toned and proper in my refusal. Personally I am under the impression you have to have a bit more information before a search can be conducted, unless people consent, of course.

The reason I posted that portion was as an explanation to officers apparently not knowing who it was they were looking for.

.

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 15:54
If this is what happen then this was an illegal search!! So it legal for the cops to search a whole Mall wurth of folks -just cause some one just maybe could be possiblely carrying an illegal weapon. So if this is legal why don't the cops just search everyone walking down the streets in Manhatten! They might be carrying a firearm!

:steamed:

They can and they will. Who's going to stop them? YOU? :rofl:get back in line, citizen

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/


Gunnut
http://images.wikia.com/half-life/en/images/2/2a/Pick_up_that_can2.jpg
PICK UP THAT CAN

Gunnut 45/454
08-19-2012, 16:02
TBO
The 4th Admendment - clearly states the police can't search just for the sake of searching! They might have had a justified reason to be there- the 911 call but they had no right to search everyone in that theater! NONE! The call may have been legit- so post the officer in the theater to ensure nothing happens. When the movies over and nothing happens call it good! No need to pursue it further! Instead they decided to through the COTUS under the bus! If you don't have a problem with this -maybe it's time to hang up the badge!:steamed:

Schlitz
08-19-2012, 16:07
If you don't have a problem with this -maybe it's time to hang up the badge!:steamed:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8866/iapprove.gif

RussP
08-19-2012, 17:46
If you stop/detain me while I'm going about by day simply because I was bearing arms you have violated me. From the sounds of it, this fiasco started because this man was bearing arms. He was sitting in the theater to watch a movie when 20+ cops entered the building to bring him out - why? because someone called in and reported that a citizen was in the theater bearing a firearm. (Did I mention that this is legal activity?)
vi·o·late/ˈvīəˌlāt/

Verb:

Break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
Fail to respect (someone's peace, privacy, or rights).
Do you know what was said in the 911 call(s)? Do know what theater management said to police when they arrived? No, and neither do I. You assume what was said. You imagine what was said.

I and others here will wait until the true information is released and verified to accuse anyone of wrong doing.

RussP
08-19-2012, 17:54
They can and they will. Who's going to stop them? YOU? :rofl:get back in line, citizen

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/How familiar are you with that event? What happened there?

RussP
08-19-2012, 18:00
TBO, your lack of respect for individual liberties and the bill of rights limits your ability to understand.Schlitz, you have no idea just how wrong that statement is.

RussP
08-19-2012, 18:04
If anyone finds new information about this incident, please start a new thread.