My thoughts also, Jonesy...,
There seem to be several conclusions in this thread that the cops being told that the OP perhaps returned carrying concealed would give the cops RAS. I think this is incorrect. Even if they knew he was carrying concealed that would not seem to give RAS of a crime, but would instead allow them to ask to see his permit.
Now we don't know what security told the cops, they may have asserted things that would give RAS, but I do not think asserting he is or may be carrying concealed is sufficient for RAS allowing for a lawful detention.
because as of right now, do we really know total sum of communications between so called "security" and the first police officer on the scene, and everyone else in-between? That might be an interesting piece of info to have. Not saying that any of it is justifiable, but I've been to too many mountains made out of molehills, and learned not to get too excited until I see or hear for myself, something to actually get excited about.
Absolutely get knowledgeable about the qualifications of these security "guards", because now matter what, no one evenly remotely connected with or may happen to fall under the domain of DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services for those who aren't familiar) wants their involvement. The vast majority of the time, nothing good will ever come from it. It's a government agency, it' like breeding elephants, usually done in high places, not accomplished without lots of groaning, bellowing, pushing and shoving, and usually takes a good long time for results.
These were "guards", it would be interesting to see if they had the necessary credentials to be legitimate Security Officers, because if they did, then it wouldn't only be interesting, it would also be a shame.
If they weren't, POUND them, OWN them, and the people that employed them.
sidestreet
Jeremiah 29 vs 11-13
we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
