• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

KY: Man arrested in Louisville Arby's after refusing to cover gun, police say

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
vociferously

vo·cif·er·ous (v-sfr-s)
adj.
Making, given to, or marked by noisy and vehement outcry.



In my state, yelling, cursing, or acting "vociferously" is not grounds for an arrest. As long as no threats are made one is fine.

I've had lots of cops threaten me with "disorderly conduct" .. never got arrested. Mainly dealing with civil issues with merchants.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I wouldn't worry too much about the National Guard angle. Unless he pretended to be acting in a National Guard capacity, I think it will be hard to implicate posse comitatus.

I can easily see a citizen helping out who just happened also to be a Guardsman.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
vo·cif·er·ous (v-sfr-s)
adj.
Making, given to, or marked by noisy and vehement outcry.



In my state, yelling, cursing, or acting "vociferously" is not grounds for an arrest. As long as no threats are made one is fine.

I've had lots of cops threaten me with "disorderly conduct" .. never got arrested. Mainly dealing with civil issues with merchants.

Thanks for the dictionary definition. No thanks for the snideness of presenting it. I am perfectly willing to have a rational discussion until that kind of obnoxious behavior that has become so prevalent around here. One more attempt at rationality:

OC in and of itself is not DC. However, the attendant behavior in conjunction with OC can be seen as threatening or inducing fear in reasonable people. Getting into a loud (vociferous) argument with a police officer (even one who is wrong) could result in a DC charge that sticks. So, again, my perfectly rational advice: Disagree with the officer, but don't make a scene.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Pretty simple. The cop does not like to see someone encroaching on his monopoly on OC. The LAC refused to bow to the cops's made-up-laws so the cop bullied the LAC to prove his point.
The idea that "causing a scene" = causing alarm has no basis.
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
When the COP said "You may need to cover that up." ( or words to that effect) That was the CLUE because you are on private property, in a public setting and the LEO gave him some good advice.

This is exactly the sort of behavior that convinces the folks that CONCEALED IS OK - but OC is BAD.

Respect, respect, respect. I know - we want our RTKBA respected too. OK-so do I - but when you create concern in the minds of people for their safety - this is what will happen.

And Yes - he looks strikingly similar to the dude that shot of the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, or some other skin-head white supremist type.

This keeps up , and the state laws WILL CHANGE.

Arby's policies do not carry the weight of law. The officer had no legal authority to demand that the customer conceal his firearm, regardless of Arby's policy. I hope this young man sues the PD and Arby's for violating his rights.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I am just as disturbed by the Guardsman's involving himself. If he was in uniform, which is a reasonable assumption, then he was wrong on more counts than just posse comitatus. I would be having an interesting conversation with his commander and First Sergeant. Pretty sure he left himself wide open to UCMJ action.

IANAL, but I think he would also be included as a defendant in a civil suit.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If the guardsman was in uniform, you're right, a citizen might incorrectly, but reasonably, believe that he was acting as an agent of the government. When in uniform, all military members need to recognize that what we do will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as actions on behalf of the government.

On another note, the officer had no legal authority to demand the firearm be covered. However, he had the right to ask or suggest. If the carrier chose not to cover it and an Arby's agent said they wanted it covered or gone, then he was trespassing, and the officer would have authority to deal with that.

Why do folks insist on staying on private property where they or their firearm are not welcome??? Just leave and take your dollars with you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
If the carrier chose not to cover it and an Arby's agent said they wanted it covered or gone, then he was trespassing, and the officer would have authority to deal with that.


<o>

Yes, the company did not tell the guy to leave ; it appears (appears) as if the cop is in the wrong here. We all know the drill: cops can do anything, they have the authority to make up law on the spot, yada yada yada...judge dredd syndrome.



Gotta have your potato pancakes!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Defining a word I used is pedantic, condescending, and obnoxious.

I am not hurt in the least that you behaved that way. I just won't bother discussing anything with you if you continue to participate in such obnoxious behavior. There are a lot of folks here with whom conversation is enjoyable. Why would I want to discuss with someone trying to stir trouble with his snark.

Moving on. Maybe we'll be able to converse in a purely adult way in another thread.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yes, the company did not tell the guy to leave ; it appears (appears) as if the cop is in the wrong here...

I am not so sure of that. We don't know whether this was communicated to the officer, the carrier, or the reporter, but

Unconcealed firearms are not allowed inside the restaurant, according to an employee of the Arby's.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I am not so sure of that. We don't know whether this was communicated to the officer, the carrier, or the reporter, but

A cop is not an agent of the company .. so if the manager tells a cop and the cop tells a customer I would think it has no legal effect.

The company actually has to provide notice....

Cops can lie, I would just tell the cop I don't believe you ... you are not the company...have the company tell me.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
We don't know whether the carrier was directly told by an agent of Arby's, but the article seems to imply so. I see no reason why an officer cannot be a conduit of information from the owner or his agent. "The manager has asked me to tell you to leave." If you did not hear the owner/agent make the request of the officer and you do not trust the officer as a messenger, then it is reasonable to ask to hear it directly from the owner/agent. However, unless I have reason to disbelieve the officer (as I did at Target), I see no reason not to leave if the officer says he is relaying a go-away message from the owner/agent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I see no reason why an officer cannot be a conduit of information
<o>

I think the law does ... must be told BY the property owner/person in control ...

Interesting ? ... not that concerned about it to look it up though ...

(I heard from bob who heard from george who heard fro francis .. that you cannot be here)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do you ever properly snip a post???

Please do not quote my posts until you know how. Improperly quoting posts is dishonest and a rules violation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
We don't know whether the carrier was directly told by an agent of Arby's, but the article seems to imply so. I see no reason why an officer cannot be a conduit of information from the owner or his agent. "The manager has asked me to tell you to leave." If you did not hear the owner/agent make the request of the officer and you do not trust the officer as a messenger, then it is reasonable to ask to hear it directly from the owner/agent. However, unless I have reason to disbelieve the officer (as I did at Target), I see no reason not to leave if the officer says he is relaying a go-away message from the owner/agent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

KRS 237.115(17) states: (17) The owner, business or commercial lessee, or manager of a private business enterprise... may prohibit persons holding concealed deadly weapon licenses from carrying concealed deadly weapons on the premises.

Only a manager, lessee or owner can ask one to leave if carrying a firearm.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Read the law again. It does not say what you contend. The named parties may prohibit, but the law does not say how that prohibition must be communicated.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking legalities. I was talking realities. Unless you have reason to believe that the officer is not communicating the wishes of the establishment, just leave. Why make an issue of it?

I say this having made an issue of it once because I was fairly certain that the officers were not conveying the wishes of Target. They were not. When I finally convinced them that they could not decide that I had to leave Target, they called the manager over to do it. He contacted corporate and essentially told the officers to pound sand. They were crestfallen.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Do you ever properly snip a post???

Please do not quote my posts until you know how. Improperly quoting posts is dishonest and a rules violation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Other than not putting three elipses at the end (which many non formally trained people aren't aware of), what did he do wrong in quoting you? Perhaps you feel that short quote is taken out of context?

Just wondering.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
At least if he uses ellipses or "snip," then readers know that he has only partially quoted what another has had to say, and can use the trackback link to find and read the whole thing.

His response looks valid juxtaposed with the shortened quote. It looks STUPID in the context of the whole thing, which, I assume, is why he edited what I said down to a single sentence that implied deceptively that I said or believed that one has to take an officer at his word in a matter of trespass. I clearly don't think that, nor have ever said that, since I have related several times in this thread how an officer tried to trespass me at Target, and I wouldn't let him.

It is a rules violation here to misquote another and I am tiring of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
At least if he uses ellipses or "snip," then readers know that he has only partially quoted what another has had to say, and can use the trackback link to find and read the whole thing.

His response looks valid juxtaposed with the shortened quote. It looks STUPID in the context of the whole thing, which, I assume, is why he edited what I said down to a single sentence that implied deceptively that I said or believed that one has to take an officer at his word in a matter of trespass. I clearly don't think that, nor have ever said that, since I have related several times in this thread how an officer tried to trespass me at Target, and I wouldn't let him.

It is a rules violation here to misquote another and I am tiring of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I understand where you're coming from but as a current student I'm here to tell you that even most college juniors and seniors wouldn't have done any better. I'm not sure more than five percent of us even know what an elipse is. They give a lot of lip service to "don't plagarize" (the Crim Justice depatment even says using your own prior work is plagarism....idiots) but then they don't hold students to the standards they decree as "the standard" (APA and MLA generally).

But hey, thanks for the lesson. I never noticed the "link back" feature. Learn something every day....and not usually from my course work.
 
Top