Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Metro Security

  1. #1
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    I hate to post negative experiences about Open Carry I try hard to resolve issues without the help of this forum.

    I have seem to hit a brick wall and would like your input.

    On opening day at the Utah State Fair I brought my family to the fair to have a good time and enjoy the exhibits.

    It was at 1700 a Metro Security Officer on a golf cart noticed my firearm and decided to follow me into the Photography exhibit. I was approached by Aaron Theriault who asked me to talk with him about my firearm. I declined to talk with him and continued looking at the exhibits with my family.

    By this time their were four total officers and growing following me around till I got to the food court. I was cornered and told I could not leave. I asked several times am I free to go they stated "No" I asked again am I being detained the Female answered "YES"

    I waited till the director of the Fair arrived His name was Kelly. I stated I was not happy I was detained and that I was in the right he agreed. Had a small talk and I was free to go about the Fair with my firearm.

    I approached Detective McGown who stated he would not take my complaint for unlawful detention and that I would have to speak to the City Attorney.

    I recontacted SLCPD later and was able to have my complaint taken down and a case number was assigned to Officer Kircher Case Number 09-163870.

    I followed up with Officer Kircher who told me the case was closed and they were not going to pursue this for unknown reasons. He brought up to me the fact he was aware of other Open Carry Incidents I was involved in and I should conceal my firearm.

    I think that the Officer was biased to me open carrying my firearm and unwilling to prosecute the officers involved with Metro Security. I stated ignorance to the officer Ignorance to the Laws of Utah is no reason to break the laws.

    I am very frustrated with SLCPD who refuses to charge the Individuals who break the laws. And choose to only enforce the law if they agree with the person who files the charges.

    So Monday I will continue to talk with Salt Lake City District Attorney to see if I can file the charges. And speak to an attorney about Civil Actions Against the Fair and Metro Security.

    Any Suggestions I want to make sure I have my bases covered I have Audio from the Detainment and Pictures of the security Officers Involved.

    Thanks
    Zach
    801-448-7574

    Here are just some of the pictures taken
    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  2. #2
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Isn't Metro Security a private company? If they are not a State Entity, why are you wasting the City's time?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  3. #3
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    They were hired by the Fair to provide security. They were going off the direction given to them by a Administrative person at the fair.

    I am not asking for damages just policy change. However Metro Security is the Company who detained me. I do plan on going after the company Civil or Criminal charges whatever gets filled first.


    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  4. #4
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    I waited till the director of the Fair arrived His name was Kelly. I stated I was not happy I was detained and that I was in the right he agreed. Had a small talk and I was free to go about the Fair with my firearm.
    The director of the fair sided with you, not them. If I recall, she even gave you free fair tickets for your trouble.

    If you want to take Metro to court, then do it. But I'll ask again... Why are you wasting the city's time with your problems?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #5
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    Agreed I am not going after the Fair Unless I find it was their directive to detain me. I am mostly upset with how I was treated by Metro.

    My daughters were crying and wasted a 1/2 Hour or longer with Metro and all for nothing.

    On the Fairs behalf they responded appropriately and did a good job. I wanted to know who the person was that directed Metro to detain me or if it was the Officers for Metro who detained me.


    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    If I OC, I would expect to get detained. People are not used to it, and that is the point of doing it. I myself do not think there is any real reason to pursue this. The police have no obligation to do anything. And it sounds like they have no desire to do anything in this situation.

    Kudos to you for OCing. Once we get our handguns, I would love to join your family at events like this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    Still a crime in Utah Security Officers need to know the law. Ignorance of the law is not a valid argument. Metro Security Needs to be held responsible for their actions.


    76-5-304
    .
    Unlawful detention.
    (1) An actor commits unlawful detention if the actor intentionally or knowingly, without authority of law, and against the will of the victim, detains or restrains the victim under circumstances not constituting a violation of:
    (a) kidnapping, Section 76-5-301;
    (b) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1; or
    (c) aggravated kidnapping, Section 76-5-302.
    (2) As used in this section, acting "against the will of the victim" includes acting without the consent of the legal guardian or custodian of a victim who is a mentally incompetent person.
    (3) Unlawful detention is a class B misdemeanor
    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    Still a crime in Utah Security Officers need to know the law. Ignorance of the law is not a valid argument. Metro Security Needs to be held responsible for their actions.


    76-5-304
    .
    Unlawful detention.
    (1) An actor commits unlawful detention if the actor intentionally or knowingly, without authority of law, and against the will of the victim, detains or restrains the victim under circumstances not constituting a violation of:
    (a) kidnapping, Section 76-5-301;
    (b) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1; or
    (c) aggravated kidnapping, Section 76-5-302.
    (2) As used in this section, acting "against the will of the victim" includes acting without the consent of the legal guardian or custodian of a victim who is a mentally incompetent person.
    (3) Unlawful detention is a class B misdemeanor
    Seems to me you were unlawfully detained. Your cause of action is against whoever detained you.

    What's the approximate value of the comped tickets?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Is Metro Security armed security?

    If so, then they are guilty of aggravated kidnapping under 76-5-302.

    76-5-302. Aggravated kidnaping.

    (1) An actor commits aggravated kidnapping if the actor, in the course of committing unlawful detention or kidnapping: (a) possesses, uses, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601; or (b) acts with intent: (i) to hold the victim for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage, or to compel a third person to engage in particular conduct or to forbear from engaging in particular conduct; (ii) to facilitate the commission, attempted commission, or flight after commission or attempted commission of a felony; (iii) to hinder or delay the discovery of or reporting of a felony; (iv) to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another; (v) to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function; or (vi) to commit a sexual offense as described in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses.
    (2) As used in this section, "in the course of committing unlawful detention or kidnapping" means in the course of committing, attempting to commit, or in the immediate flight after the attempt or commission of a violation of: (a) Section 76-5-301, kidnapping; or (b) Section 76-5-304, unlawful detention. (3) Aggravated kidnapping is a first degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of: (a) except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), (3)(c), or (4), not less than 15 years and which may be for life; (b) except as provided in Subsection (3)(c) or (4), life without parole, if the trier of fact finds that during the course of the commission of the aggravated kidnapping the defendant caused serious bodily injury to another; or c) life without parole, if the trier of fact finds that at the time of the commission of the aggravated kidnapping, the defendant was previously convicted of a grievous sexual offense. (4) If, when imposing a sentence under Subsection (3)(a) or (b), a court finds that a lesser term than the term described in Subsection (3)(a) or (b) is in the interests of justice and states the reasons for this finding on the record, the court may impose a term of imprisonment of not less than: (a) for purposes of Subsection (3)(b), 15 years and which may be for life; or (b) for purposes of Subsection (3)(a) or (b): (i) ten years and which may be for life; or (ii) six years and which may be for life. (5) The provisions of Subsection (4) do not apply when a person is sentenced under Subsection (3)(c). (6) Imprisonment under this section is mandatory in accordance with Section 76-3-406.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    Yes they were Armed
    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    good luck on the case..

    their ignorance is no excuse for violation of your rights.

    we had this problem during our fair in boise this year just not as extreme.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    Yes they were Armed
    GET A LAWYER NOW!

    Then push this for the full penalty, go for the first degree felony charges. They carry a prison term of NOT LESS THAN fifteen years to life.

    Take a look at what the Federal Statutes say also. Not sure, but there could be Federal Kidnapping charges that could be brought.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    223

    Post imported post

    Spideynw wrote:
    If I OC, I would expect to get detained.
    You shouldn't expect to get detained simply for OC'ing. It is 100% legal in Utah. You should expect to get detained for OC'ing the same amount of times as if you were to walk down the street while eating a Snickers. Just because an LEO, or a passerby sees you and doesn't like Snickers, doesn't give them a reason to detain you. If you are doing nothing wrong, you should not be detained. Period. You will probably want to be prepared to be questioned by an LEO, because there are people who are ignorant of the laws, but still, there is no reason to detain you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    223

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    Yes they were Armed
    GET A LAWYER NOW!

    Then push this for the full penalty, go for the first degree felony charges. They carry a prison term of NOT LESS THAN fifteen years to life.

    Take a look at what the Federal Statutes say also. Not sure, but there could be Federal Kidnapping charges that could be brought.
    That seems pretty extreme. Put a couple people in prison for 15 years for wasting someones time for 30 minutes? I would agree if they held him at gunpoint and wanted to take his kids. There should be something done to help educate Metro on laws, because they obviously don't know about OC'ing. But why ruin someones life because of this incident?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    mqondo wrote:
    Spideynw wrote:
    If I OC, I would expect to get detained.
    You shouldn't expect to get detained simply for OC'ing. It is 100% legal in Utah. You should expect to get detained for OC'ing the same amount of times as if you were to walk down the street while eating a Snickers. Just because an LEO, or a passerby sees you and doesn't like Snickers, doesn't give them a reason to detain you. If you are doing nothing wrong, you should not be detained. Period. You will probably want to be prepared to be questioned by an LEO, because there are people who are ignorant of the laws, but still, there is no reason to detain you.
    Exactly. So yes, I would expect to be detained. Do you have any idea how many laws the "lawmakers" have made? Hundreds of thousands. Do I expect any LEO to know all the laws? No. Do I expect anyone to know all the laws, even a lawyer? No. Let alone some security guards that probably think they were perfectly in the right to detain someone on property they were hired to protect.

    Marc Steven's book "Adventures in Legal Land" is a perfect example of how inconsistent the U.S. law system is.

    As an aside, I heard a story of someone who is not complying with a state health department's mandate in another state banning smoking in a bar. The department has issued him multiple citations. He has gone to court and appeals court. Both courts found him guilty. The fines are in the hundreds of dollars. He has asked for a jury trial both times, and been told no, even though the Constitution clearly states that for anything over $20, someone has a "right" to a jury trial. Words on pieces of paper do not guarantee us anything. So yes, I would expect people to try to infringe on my right to carry a gun or to not be detained.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    wow...

    I dont think putting or should say perusing a jail sentence on the or multiple people would be the right thing to do but maybe damages where you would benefit

    I'm sorry that happened to you, I was detained once by forest agents not a fish and game person, but it was for about 10 min till he called some one and was told I was in the right, it seemed he wanted to give me a ticket for OC loaded. My situation was pleasant and friendly though.



  17. #17
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    mqondo wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    Yes they were Armed
    GET A LAWYER NOW!

    Then push this for the full penalty, go for the first degree felony charges. They carry a prison term of NOT LESS THAN fifteen years to life.

    Take a look at what the Federal Statutes say also. Not sure, but there could be Federal Kidnapping charges that could be brought.
    That seems pretty extreme. Put a couple people in prison for 15 years for wasting someones time for 30 minutes? I would agree if they held him at gunpoint and wanted to take his kids. There should be something done to help educate Metro on laws, because they obviously don't know about OC'ing. But why ruin someones life because of this incident?
    That is where a plea bargain comes in.

    You see it all the time when they bring malicious charges against gun owners.

    You start out with the threat of 15 years, and the DA (or Utah equivalent) deals it down to a guilty plea for illegal detention with the stipulation of a public apology and hefty fine.

    When you come across an instance where you have a charge with some teeth, you take advantage of it. It hopefully makes the news, and many hundreds if not thousands of people are then educated about OC.

    It's just that I am tired of gun owners being charged with crimes that the DA has no intention of prosecuting, just to get the gun owner to pay bail (read that as pay fine to state), hire a lawyer, lose possession of their firearm for the months it takes the DA to come down and say "nevermind". The gun owner gets no money back for the bail he had to put up, the time he had to take off, or the loss of use of his own property.

    We need to fight back wherever and whenever possible.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Spideynw wrote
    Exactly. So yes, I would expect to be detained. Do you have any idea how many laws the "lawmakers" have made? Hundreds of thousands. Do I expect any LEO to know all the laws? No. Do I expect anyone to know all the laws, even a lawyer? No. Let alone some security guards that probably think they were perfectly in the right to detain someone on property they were hired to protect.
    I don't think any reasonable person should expect Law Enforcement to know of all the laws. There are a great deal. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that they enforce only the one's they do know and not the ones they don't.

    What's unique about this private security company (Metro Protective Agency) is that they are primarily armed on the job. However a security guard is not one of those exempt from Weapons Laws as listed in U.C.A. 76-10-523.

    Meaning 2 Probable Scenarios Exist:

    1. If they are carrying openly and loaded they need to have a Concealed Firearms Permit which would have required a class on applicable gun laws. Their class would likely be provided by the company and emphasis why it's legal for them to carry openly.

    2. They are carrying openly and unloaded and their training should specify why they are able to do this.

    In both these cases they should have been trained specifically on gun laws and should know that it's perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm with or without a CFP as they themselves work in that condition.

    Of course I could be completely off base and all the security guards for this company could very well also be regular LEO's at other times of the day but I doubt it.


  19. #19
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    58-63-307. Use of firearms.
    (1) An individual licensed as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer may carry a firearm only while acting as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer in accordance with this chapter and rules made under this chapter.
    (2) An individual licensed as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer is exempt from the provisions of Section 76-10-505 and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, while acting as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer in accordance with this chapter and rules made under this chapter.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  20. #20
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    58-63-307. Use of firearms.
    (1) An individual licensed as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer may carry a firearm only while acting as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer in accordance with this chapter and rules made under this chapter.
    (2) An individual licensed as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer is exempt from the provisions of Section 76-10-505 and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, while acting as an armored car security officer or an armed private security officer in accordance with this chapter and rules made under this chapter.
    Nice catch.

    Also, you know I just have to throw in my opinion on this one (topic). If you break the law with a firearm, they will prosecute you, so it is only reasonable to return the favor, don't you think?

    I say go for the jugular. I would. Do I need to post Mitch Vilos's number on here again, or do you have that one covered? Does anyone think they would have any mercy on you if the tables were turned? I think not.

    Kevin




    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    IANAL, but IMHO, they clearly violated your civil rights. You have cause for both civil (42 USC 1983) and criminal (18 USC 242) actions against not only the Metro Security officers, but also the SLPD officers who refused to proceed with the complaint as they are now conspiring to deprive you of your civil rights (42 USC 241).

    They violated federal criminal law so you need to file a complaint with the FBI.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php

    http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php

    You also need to talk to an attorney to file a civil action under 42 USC 1983.

    Letting them get away with violating your rights only emboldens them and others to continue to violate the rights of citizens.

    The Federal Courts have already slapped Salt Lake City police for stopping someone for a report of a gun:

    Lund v Salt Lake City (2008) US District Court Civil No. 2:07-CV-0226BSJ MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)

    Footnote 9

    By itself, mere possession of a firearm in public is not unlawful and may well represent the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Utah Constitution (recognizing the “individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes,” subject to the power of the Legislature to define the “lawful use of arms.”). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008) (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”); see also Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-500 to 530 (2003 & Supp. 2008) (Utah Firearms Act). In Utah, the carrying of a concealed weapon on one’s person in public is a matter of State licensing and regulation, and is routinely permitted pursuant to the applicable State statute. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-701 to 711 (Supp. 2008). The legislature has explicitly denied local governmental entities such as Salt Lake City the power to limit or restrict possession of a firearm on public property: “Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.” Utah Code Ann. § 53-5a-102 (Supp. 2008); see University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 2006 UT 51, ¶ 11, 144 P.3d 1109, 1113 (observing that the enactment of § 53-5a-102 in 2004 “dramatically altered the legal landscape, rendering it clear that Utah’s firearms statutes are universally applicable”). The legislature has authorized municipalities only to “regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or any other dangerous or combustible material.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-47 (2007).

    As articulated by the Utah Legislature, public policy in this State may fairly be read to condone and even encourage gun ownership and the lawful possession and carrying of firearms in public places. Salt Lake City’s asserted governmental interest in its police officers’ response to a report of a “man with a gun” in a public park cannot be weighed in isolation from this oft-emphasized public policy. In that context, there may well be more individual constitutional rights at stake than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
    Edit: highlighting

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kaysville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    I was approached by Aaron Theriault who asked me to talk with him about my firearm. I declined to talk with him and continued looking at the exhibits with my familly
    I am the same way. No, I don't want to talk to you about my gun. It's not worn as a conversation starter, I don't want to be your friend so leave me to my business. Use it as a opportunity to teach? Nah, just leave me alone.
    I went the the fair on the 19th and there was no way I was going unarmed. I found great comfort walking to my car in the dark with my 9. I hate to say this but because of my schedule, I'm glad it happened to you and not to me. Pursue what is legal and right and there is a good chance you'll win. Also important to find a good aggressive lawyer.

    -banki-

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    you guys often find trouble when you carry? Seems like I never do.



    WTF?

  24. #24
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    cheese wrote:
    you guys often find trouble when you carry? Seems like I never do.



    WTF?
    If by "you guys" you mean gunsfreak4791, then yes. :P

    I have only encountered trouble twice, and both times the police learned that I was doing no wrong.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    A PRIVATE entity enforcing their agenda whith no authority?

    Hit all parties involved as hard as you possibly can. Show no mercy and no restraint.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •