Ignorance on the part of the LEO cannot be claimed and is NO excuse. Remember, ignorance of the law IS NOT a defense in court.
If I do something illegal, yes, ignorance is no defense whatsoever. If a police officer does something illegal, I guarantee its a very effective defense in court...for him.
Moving on: "In case any police official shall have reason to believe that any person has committed,
or is about to commit, within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof any breach of peace or violation of law and order, or that any person found within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof is charged with the commission of crime in the state of Missouri, against whom criminal proceedings shall have been issued, or when any person may have committed an offense within view of a member of such police force, said police official may cause such person to be arrested by any member of the police force."
Are you saying that a police officer who sees a person with an openly carried weapon can detain you based on the presence of a weapon?
"544.170. 1. All persons arrested and confined in any jail or other place of confinement by any peace officer, without warrant or other process, for any alleged breach of the peace or other criminal offense, or on suspicion thereof, shall be discharged from said custody within twenty-four hours from the time of such arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal offense by the oath of some credible person, and be held by warrant to answer to such offense. "
How would you describe a person who is about to commit a crime? Its all based on
belief which is not clearly defined anywhere by anyone. Everything is up to the interpretation of the police officer. The obvious presence of a weapon v the discreet presence of a weapon is an unnecessary argument. Unarmed people commit crimes as well. Therefore, a weapon that is carried openly may not be basis for RAS. Especially if it is carried in an appropriate manner.
Carrying a blueray dvd player wearing a blue shirt across the parking lot of a Wal-Mart that just called in a report of a man wearing a blue shirt stealing a DVD player IS RAS.
No it is not. If approached by a police officer who believes you committed a theft, he will ask you questions first, because he knows its not RAS. If you provide him a receipt, then he moves on. By your argument, he could detain you for up to 24 hours for wearing a blue shirt and carrying a blu-ray player.
Would you say that openly carrying a weapon is an inchoate offense? It may be considered a substantial step, say to committing armed assault. Should you decide to open your mouth and let the wrong words fall out, like "I would have..." or "I could..." indicating your meditation on effecting bodily harm to an individual, then we have RAS, and a lot more, leading into another debate, much like the one in Maplewood right now.