Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Dayton Kroger store give lame excuse for not allowing open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226

    Dayton Kroger store give lame excuse for not allowing open carry

    The Kroger store on Smithville road in Dayton seems to have an issue with open carry. My girlfriend and I have been open carrying there for over a month and on Wednesday, Sep 21, we were stopped by security and were told to cover up our weapons. After questioning the security person on whether it was securities policies or management, he failed to answer the question and got frustrated. Soon after he said, just finish your shopping.

    Excuses are made very day why open carry is not wanted. I called the management the next day after this encounter. The real excuse is, they want all weapons covered so the customers won’t get excited.

    What a lame excuse!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Do they make female customers wear burqas? Some guys get excited by women in skimpy clothes. Seriously though, that is a lame excuse.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member r.j.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's laws, but what would happen if the person did not have a CCW permit?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    If you're doing nothing wrong and there's no signage and corporate follows state law there is no reason to even talk to security. They are not LEOs, can't detain or arrest.

    I'd suggest you say "I'm not talking to you, go away (...or I'll call the police on you for false imprisonment or harassment)". Now, you want to be a good ambassador, but why waste your time talking to a dingbat who doesn't know the law. What is his function? Or I'd ask just that. 'Excuse me sir, but what are the terms of your employment - to question people suspected of shoplifting? If so, and I'm not doing anything illegal, go bother someone else'.

    Or, learn his name. 'Hi 'Jim', nice day. Now I gotta go; walk away'. To any 'excuse me, sir, may I talk to you', answer 'No, I'm busy'.

    Just like LEOs if he sucks you into discussions, he's probing, or at the minimum wasting your time. If you -can- make friends, do so, of course, with a minimum of effort.

    $.02
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    I'm not sure I understand the problem outside of a moment of frustration. You were not asked/told to leave, nor not to come back. Unless there is a repeat of this type of incident, don't sweat they small stuff.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    " The real excuse is, they want all weapons covered so the customers won’t get excited.

    What a lame excuse!"
    .

    Sure is. Ask them do your customers get excited when they see police with their weapons unovered? Would that **** security officer tell a police officer to cover his weapon so customers dont get excited? Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226
    Kroger security are off duty police officers. They advice Kroger Management, so the management of the store says "cover up"! What does corp say?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by r.j.s View Post
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's laws, but what would happen if the person did not have a CCW permit?
    If he covered up, he'd be committing a crime, a felony I believe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
    What does corp say?
    Kroger corporate says follow state law.

    My advise, buy some stock so you can carry how you please, as an owner.

    Actually, write a letter (snail mail) to corporate and have them correct the offending store management. The real letter (as opposed to email) will get better results.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Sandusky, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    1

    Cool As I unserstand it

    Quote Originally Posted by r.j.s View Post
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's laws, but what would happen if the person did not have a CCW permit?
    You would want to check with your lawyer however technically as long as the Kroger is on private property and doesn't have a no firearms sign. (which most likely it is, then you can conceal carry while in the store if there is not a sign prohibiting it, if the management are ok with it.) So take video of the person telling you to cover up, and you should be fine however remember the moment you step into public property you need to make sure you are openly carrying if you don't have a CCW. So it might be a good idea to know if the parking lot is public or private property

    In the case of Walmart in Sandusky, OH I called Corporate to confirm their stance. Walmart follows the laws of the state in which they are located so that means in Ohio you may open carry in call mart, but if you want to conceal carry in Walmart then you would need a CCW unless management told you otherwise. I recorded my conversation with them to be safe.

    Conceal carry is always a better idea if you are able legally to do so.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I agree with everything you wrote until that last sentence. That is your opinion, and most of the posters here would hold the opposite opinion.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by DeLaguna View Post
    You would want to check with your lawyer however technically as long as the Kroger is on private property and doesn't have a no firearms sign. (which most likely it is, then you can conceal carry while in the store if there is not a sign prohibiting it, if the management are ok with it.) So take video of the person telling you to cover up, and you should be fine however remember the moment you step into public property you need to make sure you are openly carrying if you don't have a CCW. So it might be a good idea to know if the parking lot is public or private property

    In the case of Walmart in Sandusky, OH I called Corporate to confirm their stance. Walmart follows the laws of the state in which they are located so that means in Ohio you may open carry in call mart, but if you want to conceal carry in Walmart then you would need a CCW unless management told you otherwise. I recorded my conversation with them to be safe.

    Conceal carry is always a better idea if you are able legally to do so.
    Please cite the law that allows you to conceal with their permission w/o a permit when on their property.

    Concealed carry is an option for those that have permits, but it is decidely not a better idea. You do realize that you are on the premier OC forum, right?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DeLaguna View Post
    Conceal carry is always a better idea if you are able legally to do so.
    This is, of course, factually false.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by joanie View Post
    --snipped--

    This brings up a question for me about open carrying. What if someone who has a problem with it lies?, they might say the OCer was waiving it around in a threatining manor when it never left the holster. People have been known to lie, I've known cops to lie.
    Yep someone could lie - guess you'd better not leave home.

    Believe me you'd better have a strong case, proof that I was doing something so foolish. If not, I'm liable to make a serious dent in your retirement account and that college fund you have for your kids. I have certain protections beginning with a digital recorder which is always on, definitely would look for security cameras in the area, have a dash cam in my vehicle and other ways of keeping the facts straight.

    You slander me, defame my character, attack my reputation with falsehoods and I promise you I will not roll over and play dead. Might be the beginning of the worst day of your life if you tell such lies about me. Any other questions?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by joanie View Post
    This brings up a question for me about open carrying. What if someone who has a problem with it lies?, they might say the OCer was waiving it around in a threatining manor when it never left the holster. People have been known to lie, I've known cops to lie.
    The site really should sticky this somewhere prominently along with other frequently viewed info:

    Buy a voice recorder, or even better video. There are plenty on here you can advise you what to get. A recorder should be standard equipment for any armed individual.

    And lest you think it only applies to open carriers:

    You're worried about the lies someone might tell merely seeing you in a parking lot: what about if you're forced to shoot them? And they then survive? Or their girlfriend was in the car?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by joanie View Post
    ...This brings up a question for me about open carrying. What if someone who has a problem with it lies?, they might say the OCer was waiving it around in a threatining manor when it never left the holster. People have been known to lie, I've known cops to lie.
    This is why, if you are stopped, never assume the cop does not have RAS. If someone lied, reporting you as having done something criminal, the police have no way of knowing it is a lie until they investigate. Therefore, they have RAS for an investigatory stop.

    Always ask if you are free to go. If the cop says yes, go. If he does not answer, keep asking. If he still does not answer, start to slowly leave. If he stops you, the answer is no. If he does not, the answer is yes. If the answer is no, assume the stop is lawful. Follow the law for identifying yourself. Provide no other information. Repeatedly say that you do not consent to any searches or seizures. Record the whole thing.

    You can fix an illegal detention later. If you fail to follow the law and the detention is lawful, now they gotcha.

    BTW, having a recorder running every second that you are out and about while armed can provide an excellent defense against the lies someone might tell about you. And, if they have lied about you--and stupidly identified themselves to the cops--they can be found for criminal prosecution, and you will have a nice civil suit you can bring against them to boot!

    The keys are knowing how to act during an encounter with LE and having that recorder running always.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This is why, if you are stopped, never assume the cop does not have RAS. If someone lied, reporting you as having done something criminal, the police have no way of knowing it is a lie until they investigate. Therefore, they have RAS for an investigatory stop.
    Slow down, lets not jump the gun.

    Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), held that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply described that person's location and what he or she might look like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.

    The Supreme Court noted that in order to justify a detention, the officer must reasonably suspect that the individual is engaged in criminal activity. When the officer relies on an anonymous tip, this inquiry is more difficult because the anonymous informant’s information, standing alone, “seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity.”

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Slow down, lets not jump the gun.

    Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), held that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply described that person's location and what he or she might look like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.

    The Supreme Court noted that in order to justify a detention, the officer must reasonably suspect that the individual is engaged in criminal activity. When the officer relies on an anonymous tip, this inquiry is more difficult because the anonymous informant’s information, standing alone, “seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity.”
    I bolded the relevant part. If someone lies about what you are doing, I don't want to argue in court that I was justified in not identifying myself because *I* did not think the officer had RAS.

    My point is that you cannot know if he has RAS or not.

    So, how I will proceed remains unchanged. I will ask if I am free to leave. If I am not, I will NOT assume that he does not have RAS. I can fix an unlawful stop later. If I commit a crime based on my erroneous belief that he did not have RAS, I expect to be convicted and to suffer the consequences therefor.

    You may advise otherwise, that is your profession. However, I would be wary of anyone asserting that an ordinary citizen, without full information, can possibly know whether or not a stop he is experiencing is lawful.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I bolded the relevant part. If someone lies about what you are doing, I don't want to argue in court that I was justified in not identifying myself because *I* did not think the officer had RAS.

    My point is that you cannot know if he has RAS or not.

    So, how I will proceed remains unchanged. I will ask if I am free to leave. If I am not, I will NOT assume that he does not have RAS. I can fix an unlawful stop later. If I commit a crime based on my erroneous belief that he did not have RAS, I expect to be convicted and to suffer the consequences therefor.

    You may advise otherwise, that is your profession. However, I would be wary of anyone asserting that an ordinary citizen, without full information, can possibly know whether or not a stop he is experiencing is lawful.
    That's true if you don't ask. As we know “reasonable suspicion” is a legal standard of proof that must be based on "specific and articulable facts". All bets are off if you bump into Daniel Harless in Canton, OH.

    P/S Though I have done paralegal work, I'm not an attorney.
    Last edited by color of law; 04-08-2013 at 10:05 AM.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Even if you ask, I know of no requirement for the officer to explain his RAS. It has to be articulable, but nothing I know of says that he must articulate it to you.

    That actually makes sense. In many stops, the officer has a lot more pressing matters than justifying himself to the potential criminal whom he has stopped. He can be called to answer later, but at the time, my primary concern is not to accidentally commit a crime.

    If the cop is foolish enough to articulate a suspicion that is clearly unreasonable (into my recorder), then it becomes play time.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Even if you ask, I know of no requirement for the officer to explain his RAS. It has to be articulable, but nothing I know of says that he must articulate it to you.

    That actually makes sense. In many stops, the officer has a lot more pressing matters than justifying himself to the potential criminal whom he has stopped. He can be called to answer later, but at the time, my primary concern is not to accidentally commit a crime.

    If the cop is foolish enough to articulate a suspicion that is clearly unreasonable (into my recorder), then it becomes play time.
    You are correct, but so long as a reasonable person feels free to disregard the police and go about his business, the encounter is consensual and is “free to terminate” the contact with the officer. Although the officer is applying coercive pressures during the encounter virtually any restriction on the suspect’s freedom will result in a Fourth Amendment seizure.

    Kaupp v. Texas (2003) 538 U.S. 626, 629 “[A] seizure occurs when the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.”; United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, 201 “If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.”; U.S. v. Buchanon (6th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 1217, 1224 “The relevant constitutional query is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to end this encounter.”

    In other words, you are not obligated to answer questions and not even required to produce a driver license. RAS must be established. If the officer won't answer your question (What seems to be the problem officer?) and you are not free to go then you have been seized/arrested.

    At that point shut-up.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Dayton Kroger store give lame excuse for not allowing open carry

    Hence my tactic to leave if he does not say that I am not free to go. I am going to make him take an overt act to establish that I am detained (or flat-out say so). Once that happens, I will only do what the law requires for a lawful detention--and nothing more. If the detention is not lawful, I will deal with that as harshly as humanly possible after the fact.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member CornfedinOhio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    39

    Dayton Kroger store give lame excuse for not allowing open carry

    My interpretation of the RAS requirement is, the RAS is to be presented to the court. There is no requirement to present the RAS to the person being detained. I would argue an officer that supplies his RAS to his suspect is in need of training.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by CornfedinOhio; 04-11-2013 at 07:47 PM.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfedinOhio View Post
    My interpretation of the RAS requirement is, the RAS is to be presented to the court. There is no requirement to present the RAS to the person being detained. I would argue an officer that supplies his RAS to his suspect is in need of training.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    That is my understanding. The "A" stands for "articulable," not "articulated." They only have to be able to articulate it. They do not actually have to articulate it until challenged in the place for challenges, court.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Hence my tactic to leave if he does not say that I am not free to go. I am going to make him take an overt act to establish that I am detained (or flat-out say so). Once that happens, I will only do what the law requires for a lawful detention--and nothing more. If the detention is not lawful, I will deal with that as harshly as humanly possible after the fact.
    If you read enough case law (and as I pointed out above) being free to leave is based on your belief that you have NOT been seized.

    The courts have made it pretty clear that your position in forcing the officer to demonstrate that your belief is incorrect (not seized), even if he has to tackle you and throw you to the ground demonstrating that your belief is incorrect is necessary. In other words, the courts require you walk away, not debate the issue.

    Hence, asking the question - What seems to be the problem officer? - and it not being answered leaves me with the belief that I'm free to go, I walk away. The officer will have to seize me. Also, courts have ruled that walking away is not fleeing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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