• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Man caught with weapons at 'Dark Knight' screening

Started by Ares,

123 posts in this topic

Ares

Ares

Posted
Posted

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/08/07/20075611.html

An Ohio man is in custody after he allegedly tried to bring weapons and ammunition into a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in a Cleveland suburb on Saturday.

 

Police say an off-duty cop became suspicious when he saw a man carry a satchel into the Regal Cinema in Westlake and sit down by himself in the theatre showing the Batman movie half an hour before showtime, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

 

Officer Jeremiah Bullins asked if he could search the man's bag and found a loaded Glock 9-mm handgun, two clips of bullets and three knives, as well as another knife on the man, police told the newspaper.

 

That led police to get a search warrant for a home, where they found rifles, handguns and what's being called "survivalist gear" like gas masks and bulletproof vests, the newspaper reports.

 

Scott Smith, 37, is charged with carrying a concealed weapon and three other weapons offences.

 

Police and many moviegoers are on edge after the mass shooting that left 12 dead and more than 50 people injured at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises on July 20 in Aurora, Colo. James Holmes, 24, is charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder and 116 counts of attempted murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOTIcollector

SOTIcollector

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kaylab

kaylab

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

I happen to be in Northeast Ohio this week, so this is getting local media attention... I think the search is based on this rule, or interpretation of the rule for Ohio CC

(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:

 

(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun

 

meaning you can cancel carry a handgun, but can't carry any other deadly weapon - the knives he carried fall under this provision, at least I think that is what is being said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DougC

DougC

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

 

It does not say that he actually consented to the off duty officer searching his person, there are a lot of holes in this article about the events though it is slanted in a way to make the reader assume the man had ill intent.

 

If the man had a conceal carry permit it is very possible that he could have been arrested anyway for carrying it in a place where notices were posted (based on state law, I don't know about Ohio's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ares

Ares

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

 

It's not illegal if he consented. That is the basis of the two options: fool or illegal search.

 

In the article, it says that the officer asked. I just don't know why someone that is carrying weapons without a permit would consent to a search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

 

It's not illegal if he consented. That is the basis of the two options: fool or illegal search.

 

In the article, it says that the officer asked. I just don't know why someone that is carrying weapons without a permit would consent to a search.

 

In this case, what options does the police officer have if the person refuses consent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Park

Park

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

 

It's not illegal if he consented. That is the basis of the two options: fool or illegal search.

 

In the article, it says that the officer asked. I just don't know why someone that is carrying weapons without a permit would consent to a search.

 

Because he wanted to get caught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

 

It's not illegal if he consented. That is the basis of the two options: fool or illegal search.

 

In the article, it says that the officer asked. I just don't know why someone that is carrying weapons without a permit would consent to a search.

I remember one of the state patrol officers here telling a group at work that he was amazed at how many people consent to searches, especially when they have "the goods" on them or in their vehicle.

 

I think in this state, if they have some kind of reasonable suspicion of you possessing illegal drugs, if you decline a search, they can hold you up long enough for a K9 to be summoned and see if he bangs on you or your car. I think most of these dogs are trained for drugs, not guns/weapons.

 

From my understanding, the real drug-trafficers that roll though here are usually doing multiple illegal things at once, like speeding, DUII, and have paraphernalia laying around visible in their car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

If you're going to walk into a theater with a bag full of guns and ammo - chances are, you're probably running a ratio of 98% dumb@ss, 2% normal to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzetta

Buzzetta

Posted
Posted

I remember heading out to Colorado Springs about a decade ago for something. I remember that the people that I encountered believed all New Yorkers to be dangerous gun toting criminals.

 

Crazy stuff going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
I remember heading out to Colorado Springs about a decade ago for something. I remember that the people that I encountered believed all New Yorkers to be dangerous gun toting criminals.

 

Crazy stuff going on.

They're not? :o Where's the proof? :eyeroll:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
I remember heading out to Colorado Springs about a decade ago for something. I remember that the people that I encountered believed all New Yorkers to be dangerous gun toting criminals.

 

Crazy stuff going on.

They're not? :o Where's the proof? :eyeroll:

 

Other than it being the safest major city in America, I suppose there is none.

In NYC, the police use a very controversial Stop and Frisk program, where they literally can stop anyone to ask them a few basic questions, and will frisk them "for their safety".

Where it gets dicey is that if the cop asks( tells) you to empty your pockets and you have a joint or two, they can bust you for public display of illegal substances.

Minor amounts of pot are decriminalized so you can have it on your person, but when you empty your pocket and its exposed, its a criminal act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
I remember heading out to Colorado Springs about a decade ago for something. I remember that the people that I encountered believed all New Yorkers to be dangerous gun toting criminals.

 

Crazy stuff going on.

They're not? :o Where's the proof? :eyeroll:

 

Other than it being the safest major city in America, I suppose there is none.

In NYC, the police use a very controversial Stop and Frisk program, where they literally can stop anyone to ask them a few basic questions, and will frisk them "for their safety".

Where it gets dicey is that if the cop asks( tells) you to empty your pockets and you have a joint or two, they can bust you for public display of illegal substances.

Minor amounts of pot are decriminalized so you can have it on your person, but when you empty your pocket and its exposed, its a criminal act.

All of this sounds 'marginally legal' at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.

 

And why did he agree to a search of his bag? He should have told the officer to buzz off.

They couldn't have charged him with carrying a concealed weapon if he had a permit to do so. So he had no such permit.

 

Three cheers for the observant officer, who probably single-handedly prevented another tragedy!

 

Indeed, three cheers, if the search was legal.

 

Smells fishy to me though.

 

It is either a criminal that is a complete fool or an illegal search and seizure.

 

Probably part one..

If the Officer asked and he consented how is it illegal?

(This is based on consent which I assume was given)

 

It's not illegal if he consented. That is the basis of the two options: fool or illegal search.

 

In the article, it says that the officer asked. I just don't know why someone that is carrying weapons without a permit would consent to a search.

 

In this case, what options does the police officer have if the person refuses consent?

 

I would think, none.

 

Carrying a bag isn't illegal. Watching a movie isn't illegal. There was no warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing