Assaulted at B&I

imported post

Perhaps he was defending himself against a classC felony:

RCW 9A.40.040 Unlawful Imprisonment. (1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he was. So is it the general concensus here that being subjected to an"unlawful imprisonment" by an uninformed security guard, or LEO for that matter, warrants drawing one's weapon?

The case law here in Washington that said you can't "resist an unlawful arrest" was in place to thwart escalations of force out in the field and bring the disputed arrest into the court system. (I"ve fallen behind on my case law in the past couple of years)

imported post

but having a firearm drawn is also used as a served warning that you are not agreeing with the actions that are being brought against you.

Click to expand...

it certainly is, and there are times when it may not be appropriate, isn't there?

imported post

erps wrote:

but having a firearm drawn is also used as a served warning that you are not agreeing with the actions that are being brought against you.

Click to expand...

it certainly is, and there are times when it may not be appropriate, isn't there?

Click to expand...

Not just inappropriate, but downright illegal!

In this situation, it would be one of those "you would have to be there" to decide.. One cannot properly portray, on an internet forum, the emotions, facial gestures, physical attributes, surroundings, spoken word (verbatim) and other actions to "judge" his choices...

imported post

In this situation, it would be one of those "you would have to be there" to decide.. One cannot properly portray, on an internet forum, the emotions, facial gestures, physical attributes, surroundings, spoken word (verbatim) and other actions to "judge" his choices...

Click to expand...

agreed. That's why I asked him if he was prepared to use deadly force to thwart an unlawful detention. He's the one that said he put his hand on his gun. Must have had some reason for doing so. Just wondering what the reason was.

It appears that enough O.C. folks have been unlawfully detained by the police, that it is almost anticipated in future O.C. events. Is putting one's hand on their firearm and not complying the condoned reaction?

imported post

I agree with mostly what has been said here thus far.
I have seen several state and post different reasoning whey they open carry and the one I addressing is that open carry movement is a way to educate the public in these encounters. If we come off and calm respectful and informed manner, I feel instills a sense of the law abiding knowledge people and confrontation (even if unavoidable) can come away with a negative result.

By all means the Security Guards were way out of line trying to detain someone that has not committed a crime and should be educated on the finer issues of law concerning firearms.

I am wondering, after you distanced yourself from them, and no threat was immediate why not call 911 and report the incident?
You were assaulted and with this an education to the Security Guards and witnesses close by.

By leaving with out contact of Law Enforcement gives a wrong appearance of not being lawful which can come back and bite anyone in the rump roast area.

I see many do not use the AOJP (Ability Opportunity Jeopardy Preclusion) to determine if the use of deadly force is lawful or not.
One can have AOJ and still not have the force of law behind them as when preclusion comes into play, ties everything together on the reasonable man doctrine knowing what you knew at that point in time.

I was happy to read as well you did not go beyond what was needed to stop the threat.

imported post

erps wrote:

agreed. That's why I asked him if he was prepared to use deadly force to thwart an unlawful detention. He's the one that said he put his hand on his gun. Must have had some reason for doing so. Just wondering what the reason was.

It appears that enough O.C. folks have been unlawfully detained by the police, that it is almost anticipated in future O.C. events. Is putting one's hand on their firearm and not complying the condoned reaction?

Click to expand...

Complying is the key word here.

It would depend on the situation. You are carrying, legally, minding your own business, and an employee of..Lets say Best Buy, attempts disarm you, would you comply? Probably not, regardless of the factors. Having security attempt the same feat would yeild the same result as the previously mentioned employee. Just because they are security, does not give them the legal right to attempt that maneuver.

My train of thought would go to the instance of what could/would happen if this person who is accosting me succeed in disarming me. If I am well within my rights, and an individual is attempting to take my weapon from me, I will refuse and retreat as much as possible... If that person continues to advance in my direction, in a threatening manner (not just following), then yes, I would draw my weapon and verbal warnings would follow. At the same time, I would ask anybody nearby to call 911. What takes place after that could only be decided on a case-by-scenario..

Now, same situation and a LEO attempts the same.. I personally would comply. My rights are worth protecting but then to what extent at that time. Do I want the hell that would follow if I attempted to even put my hands close to my weapon?? No. Nor would it look good in my favor in the preceding weeks or trials, attorney's etc. I would simply allow the officer to do what he felt was right at the time and deal with the situation afterwards.

imported post

Complying is the key word here.

It would depend on the situation. You are carrying, legally, minding your own business, and an employee of..Lets say Best Buy, attempts disarm you, would you comply? Probably not, regardless of the factors. Having security attempt the same feat would yeild the same result as the previously mentioned employee. Just because they are security, does not give them the legal right to attempt that maneuver.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about disarming. I was talking about dealing with an unlawful detention. Nobody else questioned the O.P. why he would put his hand on his gun in response to security's attempt to hold him for the police and then drive away "dark" to conceal his license plate. I personally think that was inappropriate and doesn't help the O.C. cause. I'm also beginning to think that my opinion appears to be the minority opinion.

imported post

erps wrote:

Complying is the key word here.

It would depend on the situation. You are carrying, legally, minding your own business, and an employee of..Lets say Best Buy, attempts disarm you, would you comply? Probably not, regardless of the factors. Having security attempt the same feat would yeild the same result as the previously mentioned employee. Just because they are security, does not give them the legal right to attempt that maneuver.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about disarming. I was talking about dealing with an unlawful detention. Nobody else questioned the O.P. why he would put his hand on his gun in response to security's attempt to hold him for the police and then drive away "dark" to conceal his license plate. I personally think that was inappropriate and doesn't help the O.C. cause. I'm also beginning to think that my opinion appears to be the minority opinion.

Click to expand...

The security officers physically assaulted him, one is safe to assume that once physical detainment was achieved dis-arming would be next.

The OP's decision to place his hand on his gun was (in the way I read it) not because of the threat of police being called, but because security had just attempted to detain him unlawfully, and assaulted the OP.

I didn't see where he drove away dark?? In his post, he mentioned getting in his car and heading home, saying that he had no doubt that the guards got all the info of his car and license... Exact opposite to what you are saying.

imported post

I didn't see where he drove away dark?? In his post, he mentioned getting in his car and heading home, saying that he had no doubt that the guards got all the info of his car and license... Exact opposite to what you are saying.

Click to expand...

in a later post, another mentioned that they had his tag. O.P. responded that he kept his lights off and they were too far away.

am not going to pursue it further....I have enough on my plate already. They didn't get my tag...they were way to far away to read it and I kept my lights off until I was far enough away.

Click to expand...

imported post

erps wrote:

I didn't see where he drove away dark?? In his post, he mentioned getting in his car and heading home, saying that he had no doubt that the guards got all the info of his car and license... Exact opposite to what you are saying.

Click to expand...

in a later post, another mentioned that they had his tag. O.P. responded that he kept his lights off and they were too far away.

am not going to pursue it further....I have enough on my plate already. They didn't get my tag...they were way to far away to read it and I kept my lights off until I was far enough away.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ah.. That helps.. Yhea, not what I would do, but every person is different. IMO He just wanted to bug out, didn't like the situation he was in and didn't feel like dealing with it further. It's not like he expected to be accosted that day..

We all have bad days, and from what I have read of the OP's other posts, I would say that overall, he represents the OC community quite well.

imported post

We all have bad days, and from what I have read of the OP's other posts, I would say that overall, he represents the OC community quite well.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do not have the benefit of that kind of history. My first week here I see that one member put a S.G. in the hospital and another member grabbed his gun in another S.G. interaction. Started to wonder how badly someone has to get hurt before someone starts saying "hey wait a minute, is this what we want for the O.C. movement?"

imported post

erps wrote:

We all have bad days, and from what I have read of the OP's other posts, I would say that overall, he represents the OC community quite well.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do not have the benefit of that kind of history. My first week here I see that one member put a S.G. in the hospital and another member grabbed his gun in another S.G. interaction. Started to wonder how badly someone has to get hurt before someone starts saying "hey wait a minute, is this what we want for the O.C. movement?"

Click to expand...

The better question is, "Is this how security guards and police want to be known? Criminal violators galore?"

Not that they care, they bask in fictional movies like Paul Blart: Mall Cop & Observe and Report, and documentary TV shows like Steven Seagal: Lawman & COPS.

imported post

The better question is, "Is this how security guards and police want to be known? Criminal violators galore?"

Click to expand...

There is little doubt in my mind that the S.G. in both incidents acted inappropriately and out of ignorance. Isn't O.C. about educating these types of folks, or is it just about confrontation?

imported post

It is about education, but some people can't listen

imported post

erps wrote:

The better question is, "Is this how security guards and police want to be known? Criminal violators galore?"

Click to expand...

There is little doubt in my mind that the S.G. in both incidents acted inappropriately and out of ignorance. Isn't O.C. about educating these types of folks, or is it just about confrontation?

Click to expand...

OC is about deterring confrontation with criminals without badges. Unfortunately those with badges know that they can get away with just about anything and not be held criminally liable by feigning ignorance.

If they want to fire the first offensive shot and turn the cold civil war against law-abiding citizens into a bloody massacre, we need to be able to defend ourselves. They've received enough real world education: they know they're practically immune from prosecution - at this point, the only thing holding them back from the brink is mutually assured destruction.

imported post

OC is about deterring confrontation with criminals without badges. Unfortunately those with badges know that they can get away with just about anything and not be held criminally liable by feigning ignorance.

If they want to fire the first offensive shot and turn the cold civil war against law-abiding gun owners into a bloody massacre, we need to be able to defend ourselves. They've received enough real world education: they know they're practically immune from prosecution - at this point, the only thing holding them back from the brink is mutually assured destruction.

Click to expand...

I see.

imported post

erps wrote:

Perhaps he was defending himself against a classC felony:

RCW 9A.40.040 Unlawful Imprisonment. (1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he was. So is it the general concensus here that being subjected to an"unlawful imprisonment" by an uninformed security guard, or LEO for that matter, warrants drawing one's weapon?

The case law here in Washington that said you can't "resist an unlawful arrest" was in place to thwart escalations of force out in the field and bring the disputed arrest into the court system. (I"ve fallen behind on my case law in the past couple of years)

Click to expand...

Are you equating armed security with LEOs, or are you just trying to obfuscate the discussion?

imported post

Are you equating armed security with LEOs, or are you just trying to obfuscate the discussion?

Click to expand...

It sounds to me that the armed security was trying to detain the O.P. for the police for what they perceived as a criminal offense that occured in their presense. They were mistaken, so I'm comparing it to a false arrest. Is it your opinion that they were trying to kidnap the O.P.?

Regarding resisting a false arrest, while I do recall that the case law two years ago was that in Washington, it wasn't lawful to resist a false arrest, I do not recall whether that applied to a false citizen's arrest.

imported post

It's true that the sg's did not have legal authority to detain, and should not have gone hands on.

The issue lies with the response from Sempercarry. I don't have an issue with pulling one's arm away under those circumstances, but placing a hand on one's gun, and issuing the challenge; "stop me"? This hand motionjust escalated the situation to potential deadly force. This was neither the time nor place that warranted that. Even though wrong, the sg's intention was to detain until Police arrived,NOT kidnap, NOT assault, or any of the other asinine conclusions that some have jumped to. Disarming Sempercarry was not mentioned by the sg's either.

If the sg's had continued at that point (called the bluff),drawing would have been inappropriate (and likely led to arrest/charging), and shooting was out of the question (at that point). Forcing a potential gunfight would have been extremely foolish, based on the sg's intentions (any reasonable person knows these weren't gang bangers on the street, whose intent was to harm or kill anyone). Remember that the Courts golden standard is; what would a reasonable person in that situation do?.

Either staying, and sifting it out, or pulling away and leaving would be acceptable, but it wasn't time for any gunplay.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

It's true that the sg's did not have legal authority to detain, and should not have gone hands on.

The issue lies with the response from Sempercarry. I don't have an issue with pulling one's arm away under those circumstances, but placing a hand on one's gun, and issuing the challenge; "stop me"? This hand motionjust escalated the situation to potential deadly force. This was neither the time nor place that warranted that. Even though wrong, the sg's intention was to detain until Police arrived,NOT kidnap, NOT assault, or any of the other asinine conclusions that some have jumped to. Disarming Sempercarry was not mentioned by the sg's either.

If the sg's had continued at that point (called the bluff),drawing would have been inappropriate (and likely led to arrest/charging), and shooting was out of the question (at that point). Forcing a potential gunfight would have been extremely foolish, based on the sg's intentions (any reasonable person knows these weren't gang bangers on the street, whose intent was to harm or kill anyone). Remember that the Courts golden standard is; what would a reasonable person in that situation do?.

Either staying, and sifting it out, or pulling away and leaving would be acceptable, but it wasn't time for any gunplay.

Click to expand...

I would concur with JohnnyLaw here... with one final outcome that could of happened.

At the point sempercarry pulled away AND put his hand on his weapon. He should of remained silent. Simply putting your hand on your weapon to prevent it's taking would be acceptable. Then either simply leaving or waiting for the police would be ok, I think the fact that they grabbed sempercarry would of forced sempercarry to call first!