imported post
Supposedly, OCDO member "mathar1" is the person involved in this situation, and has been discussing this event here on OCDO:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/35955.html
I find it a little difficult to believe there was not a single blip on the media radar with this event. It just seems that now that the situation has been resolved, and the OCer isn't being charged with anything, NOR is the "security guard", that there would be SOME sort of "primary source documentation" that he could produce--a newspaper clipping, a radio interview, MP3 of the police interviews (which could easily be had through a FOIA request)--SOMETHING other than hearsay and internet posts.
What I'm saying is that it seems like a pretty amazing story, and I find it a little difficult to believe, and I'd just like some "real world" proof that this event actually happened...
All that aside, and for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this event DID occur, and ultimately was worked out in the manner that the OP states, and go from there...
The folks on the other forums that use this instance as a reason NOT to OC just don't get it. OC is a right that has been incrementally taken away from the US citizen through creeping legal encroachment, nonsensical laws, social engineering and dubious practices of our courts. OC today IS a form of activism as much as it is a valid form of self-defense. The fact that some "rent-a-cop" doesn't know the laws about OC, doesn't understand proper detainment procedure, and doesn't have a clue when it comes to personal property rights and BASIC firearms safety is NOT a reason to not OC. It's a reason to OC more--to educate people and ESPECIALLY to get local LEOs and private security EDUCATED as to the law.
Folks who may say this is "the case OCers have been looking for of an OCer targetted by a criminal BECAUSE he was OCing" just don't get it either. I've stated on numerous times that I've been looking for a case of OC targeting by a criminal for MONTHS and can't find any. This case does not meet the requirements of that search for many reasons. First, this security guard did NOT do what he did because he was intentionally committing a crime--he did what he did because he was a power-tripping idiot who did not know the law. He wasn't trying to rob the guy, he wasn't trying to mug him or steal his wallet or rape him or whatever--he was trying to disarm him because the rent-a-cop thought he had the right to do that (which he didn't) and because the rent-a-cop didn't understand proper procedure in such situations. His MAIN crime was that he was an uneducated power-tripping a$$hat. So no, this case DOES NOT meet the reqirements for the sort of case I have been looking for, because it does not involve an INTENTIONAL crime of violence--it was a crime of stupidity and ignorance...
So that's my theory and I'm sticking to it...