Man caught with weapons at 'Dark Knight' screening

[bill977]

the above post has a plain dealer link re. this story. he must be a expert knife-thrower along with his firepower to defend.

[stroszek]

the above post has a plain dealer link re. this story. he must be a expert knife-thrower along with his firepower to defend.

 

We can only hope this pitiful creature has not reproduced.

[KingOfRulers]

I don't care if the search was legal or not, that guy obviously was up to something.

 

Thankfully the 4th Amendment in our Constitution does not allow for searches just because someone appears to be "up to something".

 

Totally untrue. It is the very nature of appearing to be up to something that allows the police to stop you and question you. If your answers do not add up the police decide from there as to what to do.

 

I can provide numerous examples of this specific incorrect interpretation on current fourth amendment rights as defined by SCOTUS. Perhaps if you were to narrow your scope or definition of "up to something" I would have a better understanding as to what you mean in case I am misinterpreting you.

 

This isn't 1984.

 

Police can stop to ask you whatever they want. Legally, you can say nothing and walk (or run) away. An arrest for simply looking suspicious will lead to a swift writ of habeas corpus and release.

 

Under current interpretations of Terry, the police may not arrest you but can detain you if the individual officer believes that the detainee has been, is, or is about to be part of a crime. you required to provide your name if asked and if you refuse or if you provide a false name the courts have traditionally avoided involving itself in state law in police procedure at that point as far as hindering and obstruction.

 

It is also important that if the police officer who is doing the part of the detaining believes that the person being questioned is being untruthful then they may detain in order to further their investigation. Upholding this in court usually relies on the articulation of intent on behalf of the detaining officer.

 

Also keep in mind that the above applies in most states in regards to pedestrian stops. Motor vehicle stops and questioning are a different animal all together as it is usually classified in most states as a condition of utilizing s drivers license.

 

If you doubt this at this point please take it to private message so neither of us end up with a slap on the wrist. In order not to risk the CGC Message Board God's I will not reply publicly on his subject.

 

I don't fear "slaps on the wrist".

 

Justice White in reference to Terry v Ohio:

 

"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34)

 

Sitting in a movie theater with a bag hardly creates a "special circumstance". There was no mayhem, no nearby crime to suggest that this may be a fleeing criminal.

 

 

Justice White was not part of the majority who decided the case, so his view is interesting, but not particulary meaningful. It certainly establishs no legal status.

 

...it was a concurring opinion.

 

And even if it was not a concurring opinion, dissenting opinions are still used when arguing a case.

[goldust40]

This reminds me of the "Sus" laws that were introduced in Britain back in the ' 70s, which were repealed due to them sparking civil unrest by the early ' 80s.

 

Link...

[TheLiamSturgess]

No matter what the legalities of it are, what he did was very excessive. I completely understand the desire to protect oneself in a potentially dangerous situation and I applaud him for it, but based on my understanding of the laws in most states a simple handgun would have done the job very well. I personally chose the path of martial arts but I know there are some who would rather have a firearm than a strong punch/kick combo.

 

That being said, he had no reason to bring a small arsenal with him.

[shadroch]

I don't care if the search was legal or not, that guy obviously was up to something.

 

Thankfully the 4th Amendment in our Constitution does not allow for searches just because someone appears to be "up to something".

 

Totally untrue. It is the very nature of appearing to be up to something that allows the police to stop you and question you. If your answers do not add up the police decide from there as to what to do.

 

I can provide numerous examples of this specific incorrect interpretation on current fourth amendment rights as defined by SCOTUS. Perhaps if you were to narrow your scope or definition of "up to something" I would have a better understanding as to what you mean in case I am misinterpreting you.

 

This isn't 1984.

 

Police can stop to ask you whatever they want. Legally, you can say nothing and walk (or run) away. An arrest for simply looking suspicious will lead to a swift writ of habeas corpus and release.

 

Under current interpretations of Terry, the police may not arrest you but can detain you if the individual officer believes that the detainee has been, is, or is about to be part of a crime. you required to provide your name if asked and if you refuse or if you provide a false name the courts have traditionally avoided involving itself in state law in police procedure at that point as far as hindering and obstruction.

 

It is also important that if the police officer who is doing the part of the detaining believes that the person being questioned is being untruthful then they may detain in order to further their investigation. Upholding this in court usually relies on the articulation of intent on behalf of the detaining officer.

 

Also keep in mind that the above applies in most states in regards to pedestrian stops. Motor vehicle stops and questioning are a different animal all together as it is usually classified in most states as a condition of utilizing s drivers license.

 

If you doubt this at this point please take it to private message so neither of us end up with a slap on the wrist. In order not to risk the CGC Message Board God's I will not reply publicly on his subject.

 

I don't fear "slaps on the wrist".

 

Justice White in reference to Terry v Ohio:

 

"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34)

 

Sitting in a movie theater with a bag hardly creates a "special circumstance". There was no mayhem, no nearby crime to suggest that this may be a fleeing criminal.

 

 

Justice White was not part of the majority who decided the case, so his view is interesting, but not particulary meaningful. It certainly establishs no legal status.

 

...it was a concurring opinion.

 

And even if it was not a concurring opinion, dissenting opinions are still used when arguing a case.

 

 

I was going to explain the difference between being in the majority and concurring, but why bother. My walls are less rigid.

[Aces]

Wow...

I tough to figure.

If he was planning to do something why he leave his gas mask and body armor home?

 

Was he just a paranoid guy who brought a gun to the movie to defend himself in case something happened?

[shadroch]

We'll never know because some nosey off duty cop interfered with his right to bear arms.

Heck, maybe some yahoo would have shot the place up and this guy would have been a hero and saved the other attendees.

I'm sure the NRA defense fund will cover this good citizens defense bills.

[Mark 1]

Is it possible that he is using the excuse that he had the weapons for protection when he may have had more nefarious intentions had he not been caught?

 

It could just be a BS story to cover himself if he got caught going in.

 

 

 

[Aces]

We'll never know because some nosey off duty cop interfered with his right to bear arms.

Heck, maybe some yahoo would have shot the place up and this guy would have been a hero and saved the other attendees.

I'm sure the NRA defense fund will cover this good citizens defense bills.

The cops did the right thing.

If he doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon he should be charged.

I'm just wondering if he was really planning to murder a bunch of people or not.

[DiceX]

You know, these people used to be locked in mental institutions. Now they're free to roam as they please.

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Even if he wasn't. Does this sound like the kind of guy that should have a CC permit?

I sure would not be thrilled if he was a coworker.

[Hawkman]

Even if he wasn't. Does this sound like the kind of guy that should have a CC permit?

I sure would not be thrilled if he was a coworker.

 

 

exactly. it's not like he had a gun and a concealed permit. he had a satchel of weapons...and the fact that he was at a screening of batman AFTER the colorado incident with it speaks VOLUMES.

[bill977]

Even if he wasn't. Does this sound like the kind of guy that should have a CC permit?

I sure would not be thrilled if he was a coworker.

mondays plain dealer story said he did not have a concealed carry permit.

[Ares]

We'll never know because some nosey off duty cop interfered with his right to bear arms.

Heck, maybe some yahoo would have shot the place up and this guy would have been a hero and saved the other attendees.

I'm sure the NRA defense fund will cover this good citizens defense bills.

The cops did the right thing.

If he doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon he should be charged.

I'm just wondering if he was really planning to murder a bunch of people or not.

Thankfully we dont have to find out

[TeddieMercede]

Scary world.

[Designer Toast]

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 didn't get past the first page in this thread, as I'm about to hit the sack. You'd be surprised at how many people consent to searches. It happens all the time, whether they're carrying something they shouldn't be or not. I've had very few people in my thirteen years of law enforcement/public safety ever tell me no to a search.

 

There is hardly enough info to make a determination about the legality of the search or the intent of the person carrying the firearm. Looks like the theater manager was keeping a sharp eye out (thumbs u Who knows what would have actually went down.

[Beige]

A weapon, concealed or not would get you serious jail time here and in UK if found on you in a cinema.

No politics here - but I could not imagine living in a place where half the population had semi-auto 16 clip pistols upon their person.

Not dissing - just saying.

[Aces]

We'll never know because some nosey off duty cop interfered with his right to bear arms.

Heck, maybe some yahoo would have shot the place up and this guy would have been a hero and saved the other attendees.

I'm sure the NRA defense fund will cover this good citizens defense bills.

The cops did the right thing.

If he doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon he should be charged.

I'm just wondering if he was really planning to murder a bunch of people or not.

Thankfully we dont have to find out

Well we will when it goes to trial.

If he's charged with multiple attempted murders they're going have to prove it.

[Not*Sure*]

If you do not consent to a search won't you then be swarmed by a bunch of cops or taken in and just searched there anyway.

 

I mean my family all owns weapons and hunts/shoots. One son and SIL have CCW.

 

But I have been stopped by cops before and they made it pretty much look like I had no choice but to submit to a search..give consent or face worse ..

 

There was nothing to find but I felt pretty violated. I imagine had I a CCW and a weapon on me I would have been scared outta my bones..because I could see the cops throwing me to the ground and holding a gun on me while I prove myself innocent of wrongdoing after jail time waiting to prove I had a CCW and was not out to kill anybody but protect myself/kill a deer etc