mark5019
Regular Member
but it wasnt mc ds who did this was idiot leo
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Arrested as a result of Open Carry
- Thread starter Fallschirjmäger
- Start date
but it wasnt mc ds who did this was idiot leo
jegoodin
Newbie
It was a McDs employee who rolled to LEO pressure. McDs should have a corporate policy like Starbucks , which would prevent most of these incidents from taking place.
wrightme
Regular Member
No kidding. See the post above yours.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
To be accurate, we can't really be sure of this.
There is no mention in the official police report that any McDonald's employee acquiesced to any officer's entreaties. I strongly suspect that the "It's too late (to pack up and leave), you're under arrest" was planned. Any experienced officer would know that the charge would immediately be tossed out as soon as the county solicitor saw it, .... and that the officer would likely face absolutely no repercussions for abusing his authority with the goal of discomfit someone who did not kowtow properly.
Difdi
Regular Member
So basically, if you're told to leave, you must leave your coat in the booth. If your wallet falls out of your pocket as you stand up, you must leave it where it falls rather than dilly dally to pick it up. If your 2-year old is in a high chair, you must abandon the kid rather than dilly dally. If you stop on your way off the property to get into your car to drive away, you are dilly dallying.
Right.
copper top
Regular Member
Leaves me to question was there a victim enriched sign on the door? No guns allowed.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
As signs carry no legal weight in Georgia, what does it matter?
The only unauthorized locations are in OCGA 16-11-127
copper top
Regular Member
As i was told by a marion cty deputy the sign is your warning just as the speed limit sign is your warning. And yes falls i know its b.s. but wasnt in the mood to argue with the monopoly on force in front of me. Which now has me questioning if on duty sherriffs deputy is performing security at a location. Is it illegal to carry there? By the fact he is a gov official performing official duty?
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
You're correct about it being b.s., if such were true then signs would carry legal weight in Georgia. But we're both aware that isn't the case.
I had a Ocf. Adam Garth Bell of the Gwinnett County Police Department tell me that it was illegal to carry a firearm on government property, i.e. a public park.
I had Dep. K. See of the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office tell me that it was illegal for me to refuse to disarm on my own property when he told me to so so.
They were both wrong.
To your question- - "Which now has me questioning if on duty Sherriff's deputy is performing security at a location. Is it illegal to carry there? By the fact he is a gov official performing official duty?"
Nothing about a police officer eating lunch while on duty, nor being paid to provide security transforms private property into a government building as defined in 16-11-127.
My local Publix has had officers both performing on duty chores and off duty paid security, neither makes that an unauthorized location. Same goes for Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, just because they have officers and security does not make it illegal to carry in the airport (beyond the Security Screening area is another matter).
I had a Ocf. Adam Garth Bell of the Gwinnett County Police Department tell me that it was illegal to carry a firearm on government property, i.e. a public park.
I had Dep. K. See of the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office tell me that it was illegal for me to refuse to disarm on my own property when he told me to so so.
They were both wrong.
To your question- - "Which now has me questioning if on duty Sherriff's deputy is performing security at a location. Is it illegal to carry there? By the fact he is a gov official performing official duty?"
Nothing about a police officer eating lunch while on duty, nor being paid to provide security transforms private property into a government building as defined in 16-11-127.
My local Publix has had officers both performing on duty chores and off duty paid security, neither makes that an unauthorized location. Same goes for Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, just because they have officers and security does not make it illegal to carry in the airport (beyond the Security Screening area is another matter).
Last edited:
cmr287
Regular Member
there are a few good LEO's, if you a good one don't take this personal, however the ones I have delt with are As***. They try to stomp on you rights....
What most of them forget is who empowers them ..... which is the average, everyday citizens ......
I wish there was a way that we throw them out and keep the good. They are there to protect our rights and help inforce them, or so I thought??????
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
What most of them forget is who empowers them ..... which is the average, everyday citizens ......
I wish there was a way that we throw them out and keep the good. They are there to protect our rights and help inforce them, or so I thought??????
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
JoeSparky
Centurion
I agree with you! There are indeed good LEO's and there are bad. The problem is there IS VIRTUALLY no way to determine which is which in the midst of an encounter!
....But of course there is = by the way they act/conduct themselves.
Last edited:
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
disposition
So what happened were the charges dropped?
So what happened were the charges dropped?
JoeSparky
Centurion
And, of course, you are correct... silly of me to fail to say that!
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
So basically, if you're told to leave, you must leave your coat in the booth. If your wallet falls out of your pocket as you stand up, you must leave it where it falls rather than dilly dally to pick it up. If your 2-year old is in a high chair, you must abandon the kid rather than dilly dally. If you stop on your way off the property to get into your car to drive away, you are dilly dallying.
Right.
The law in Georgia is that you have a "reasonable" amount of time to leave once you are told to do so by the owner. Refusing to leave results in instant violation. As long as one is not refusing to leave, none of the things you recited should result in an arrest and conviction. Picking up your coat, wallet, two year old, or retrieving your car are all permissible.
I do not believe this discussion has anything to do with the lawsuit or the arrest for carrying openly. He was, in fact, charged with criminal trespass, as well as disorderly conduct and obstruction.
ALL charges were bogus and were DISMISSED.
Last edited:
McD's employee, you mean the zit faced kid that couldn't make change without the computer telling him how much change was due?
NASA has never recruited McDonalds employees for the next generation of rocket scientists for a reason.
Last edited:
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
The obstruction charge was over refusing to show a Georgia Weapons Carry License. His defense attorney told the judge very simply that he did "not need to." Apparently the judge agreed.
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Officers are likely much more familiar with traffic laws, as that is a part of their daily routine, than they are with those rare individuals carrying firearms for the protection of themselves and others.
Georgia's traffic code in regards to having and displaying a license reads as follows -
"...(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20..."
An officer who is doing only as much research as necessary to do what he believes is his job, may believe that what applies in one code section (to driving licenses) may probably apply to another code section (to weapons licenses). Additionally, such an officer, used to being authorized to demand a license in one setting (interacting with a driver) might believe that he has the same authority to demand a license or identification in another (interacting with a pedestrian or other non-driving individual). Said officer may not even be aware of sub-paragraph (a) of the referenced Code which reads -
"...(a) Every licensee shall have his driver's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle..." [emphasis mine.]
[Edit] Not only officers, when I was deposed by the attorney representing the security guard at Gary Pirckle Park, he asked if I was aware of the "Georgia law that requires you to display your license upon demand of an officer" as well. He seemed to be unaware that it only applied in a singular instance.
Georgia's traffic code in regards to having and displaying a license reads as follows -
"...(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20..."
An officer who is doing only as much research as necessary to do what he believes is his job, may believe that what applies in one code section (to driving licenses) may probably apply to another code section (to weapons licenses). Additionally, such an officer, used to being authorized to demand a license in one setting (interacting with a driver) might believe that he has the same authority to demand a license or identification in another (interacting with a pedestrian or other non-driving individual). Said officer may not even be aware of sub-paragraph (a) of the referenced Code which reads -
"...(a) Every licensee shall have his driver's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle..." [emphasis mine.]
[Edit] Not only officers, when I was deposed by the attorney representing the security guard at Gary Pirckle Park, he asked if I was aware of the "Georgia law that requires you to display your license upon demand of an officer" as well. He seemed to be unaware that it only applied in a singular instance.
Last edited: