Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Justified in Bridgeport

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Justified in Bridgeport

    Courant.com

    Bridgeport Police: Restaurant Owner Shoots, Kills Armed Robber

    Christine Dempsey
    The Hartford Courant
    11:00 AM EDT, September 27, 2010
    BRIDGEPORT

    The owner of a restaurant shot and killed an armed robber Sunday night, police said.

    The shooting happened in the Peking Restaurant, 264 Wade St., shortly after 8:30 p.m., police said.

    According to a police press release, two suspects walked into the restaurant and ordered food, police said. When the cashier opened the register, one of the suspects pulled out a handgun and threatened the employees. The suspect, Allen Dixon, 21, of Bassick Avenue, reached over the counter and grabbed money from the register, police said.

    Dixon then turned and pointed the gun toward the owner, who was sitting at a table, police said. The owner pulled out his own gun and fired one shot at Dixon, hitting him on his upper torso, they said.

    Dixon ran out of the restaurant -- dropping his handgun -- got into a Honda Civic and drove away. He made it a few blocks before he died and crashed, police said. Police said they know the identity of the second suspect and they are looking for him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Link to the article:

    http://www.courant.com/community/bri...0,889680.story

    No comment on whether either person possesses a permit? Did I get through to the HPD and the courant?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    I guess WTNH did not get the memo...

    http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/d...obbery-attempt

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Apparently Detective Keith Bryant of the Bridgeport Police Department released the permit status of the owner.

    Rich B
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:25 PM
    To: keith.bryant@bridgeportct.gov
    Detective Bryant,
    I was told by Marc Robbins and Rebecca Santillo of WTNH news that you were investigating the incident mentioned in this story:

    http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/d...obbery-attempt

    Is this correct?

    Thank you,
    Rich B

    Bryant, Keith <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:34 PM
    To: Rich B
    Detective Todd Toth will be able to help on this incident. This is not my case……

    203-581-5244….
    From: Rich B
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM
    To: "Bryant, Keith" <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Detective Bryant,
    Are you not who Marc Robbins talked to on scene?

    Thanks,
    Rich B

    Bryant, Keith <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:36 PM
    To: Rich B
    Yes I am………..

    Rich B
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:37 PM
    To: "Bryant, Keith" <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Detective Bryant,
    Am I correct in attributing you to this information?

    "We're told the owner was licensed to carry the gun."

    Thanks,
    Rich B

    Bryant, Keith <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:39 PM
    To: Rich B
    Yes………..If it is the interview I do with Marc Robbins of Ch.8 news…….

    Rich B
    Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM
    To: "Bryant, Keith" <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Detective Bryant,
    Are you aware of this state statute?

    CGS 29-28:

    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.

    Thanks,
    Rich B

  5. #5
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470
    WICC Radio also reported that the guy had a permit to carry.
    Jim Buchanan said that he is usually against anything gun (Extreme Anti here), but in this case he was all for the owner protecting himself and his employees.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Benedetto View Post
    WICC Radio also reported that the guy had a permit to carry.
    Jim Buchanan said that he is usually against anything gun (Extreme Anti here), but in this case he was all for the owner protecting himself and his employees.
    From some cursory research, it appears Detective Bryant spends a lot of time disclosing this kind of confidential information and that it has gotten his department in trouble at least once.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    terryville, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    110
    Rich, any response back yet from the detective?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by stacks04 View Post
    Rich, any response back yet from the detective?
    Nope. He was replying nice and fast right up until the point I brought the statute up.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    An interesting interpretation of the statute...

    Rich B
    Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM
    To: "Bryant, Keith" <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Detective Bryant,
    I have not received your reply to my question yet. I am sure you are busy, but I am hoping you can take the time to answer me.

    Are you aware of CGS 29-28?

    Were you aware of the statute when you gave information on the permit status of a citizen to Marc Robbins of WTNH?

    Thanks,
    Rich B

    Bryant, Keith <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:24 PM
    To: Rich B
    Rich,



    I think under this circumstance, in which a shooting occurred, the name can be released. The statute only pertains to the wholesale release of all and any permit holders, not ones involved in a specific event.


    Rich B
    Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM
    To: "Bryant, Keith" <Keith.Bryant@bridgeportct.gov>
    Detective Bryant,
    I don't understand where in that statute you get that interpretation. Perhaps I am missing something. Could you please show me the text in the statute that makes a qualification for violation of the statute based on how many people are affected by the release of information?

    The statute is very clear in my eyes. The permit status of any individual is confidential information protected by state law.

    Also, I note that you did not answer my question regarding whether or not you were aware of this statute before the release of a citizen's permit status to Marc Robbins of WTNH.

    Thanks,
    Rich B

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Benedetto View Post
    WICC Radio also reported that the guy had a permit to carry.
    Jim Buchanan said that he is usually against anything gun (Extreme Anti here), but in this case he was all for the owner protecting himself and his employees.
    If he's against anything gun he would be against this guy having the pistol in the first place. Typical, illogical bs from the anti's "Oh, I'm glad he could protect himself. Of course he shouldn't have a gun..."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    More laws

    Perhaps Detective Bryant will argue that the law applies only to the State Police, since the chapter you quoted from is titled "Division of State Police". Obviously that would be a false argument since it says "law enforcement personnel". He may also argue that he gave up the information pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. Below are the relevant passages which Section 29-28 mentions. I think you'll see there are plenty of legal reasons why the Detective should not have given out that information, and even if he were justified I doubt he followed the proper procedure for a FOIA request. I got the quotes from this link: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap014.htm#Sec1-210.htm


    Sec. 1-210. (Formerly Sec. 1-19). Access to public records. Exempt records. (a) Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located or of the Secretary of the State, as the case may be. Any certified record hereunder attested as a true copy by the clerk, chief or deputy of such agency or by such other person designated or empowered by law to so act, shall be competent evidence in any court of this state of the facts contained therein.

    (b) Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

    (2) Personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy;

    (3) Records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known,

    (19) Records when there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person,


    Sec. 1-211. (Formerly Sec. 1-19a). Disclosure of computer-stored public records. Contracts. Acquisition of system, equipment, software to store or retrieve nonexempt public records. (a) Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made. Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.

    (b) Except as otherwise provided by state statute, no public agency shall enter into a contract with, or otherwise obligate itself to, any person if such contract or obligation impairs the right of the public under the Freedom of Information Act to inspect or copy the agency's nonexempt public records existing on-line in, or stored on a device or medium used in connection with, a computer system owned, leased or otherwise used by the agency in the course of its governmental functions.

    (c) On and after July 1, 1992, before any public agency acquires any computer system, equipment or software to store or retrieve nonexempt public records, it shall consider whether such proposed system, equipment or software adequately provides for the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act at the least cost possible to the agency and to persons entitled to access to nonexempt public records under the Freedom of Information Act. In meeting its obligations under this subsection, each state public agency shall consult with the Department of Information Technology as part of the agency's design analysis prior to acquiring any such computer system, equipment or software. The Department of Information Technology shall adopt written guidelines to assist municipal agencies in carrying out the purposes of this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall require an agency to consult with said department prior to acquiring a system, equipment or software or modifying software, if such acquisition or modification is consistent with a design analysis for which such agency has previously consulted with said department. The Department of Information Technology shall consult with the Freedom of Information Commission on matters relating to access to and disclosure of public records for the purposes of this subsection. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to software modifications which would not affect the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

    I have, of course, omitted parts that didn't seem relevant to this particular situation. Hopefully the Detective will realize the error of his ways. I don't suppose we should hold our breath.
    Last edited by Johnny W; 09-28-2010 at 10:12 PM. Reason: Added 1-211

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Plainville, CT, ,
    Posts
    120
    Nicely done. Next time I'm in town I'll be eating at this guy's restaurant. Oh wait, this is precisely why I don't go to Bridgeport. Gun Safety Rule #1...Stay out of the ghetto.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    Good place!

    I am familiar with that restaurant. It's really good. My grandmother loves it. I'll probably give them more business now that I know the owner is also a gun owner and carrier, and that they are almost certain to be firearms-friendly.

Posting Permissions

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