Assaulted at B&I

[Grapeshot]

imported post

erps wrote:

Perhaps he was. So is it the general concensus here that being subjected to an"unlawful imprisonment" by an uninformed security guard, or LEO for that matter, warrants drawing one's weapon?

The case law here in Washington that said you can't "resist an unlawful arrest" was in place to thwart escalations of force out in the field and bring the disputed arrest into the court system. (I"ve fallen behind on my case law in the past couple of years)

A couple of responses does not a "general consensus" make.

What many would likely tend to agree with is that there is far to little specific information to reach any definitive conclusions.

At best this is an interesting, but undocumented, personal story, at least up to this point.

Yata hey

 

[erps]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

It's true that the sg's did not have legal authority to detain, and should not have gone hands on.

I would concur with JohnnyLaw here... with one final outcome that could of happened.

At the point sempercarry pulled away AND put his hand on his weapon. He should of remained silent. Simply putting your hand on your weapon to prevent it's taking would be acceptable. Then either simply leaving or waiting for the police would be ok, I think the fact that they grabbed sempercarry would of forced sempercarry to call first!

That's reassuring, as I consider myself pretty reasonable and I was having a hard time reconciling having an oddball perspective on the matter.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

It is difficult of folks like us to not be the 'alpha' in any given situation. We are sheepdogs, not sheep. The SG is probablly a Sheepdog too and he believes he has some authority. Emotions, adreneline and our egos get stirred up in these spots. It is important to take the high road (we are right from the beginning in OC) in these situations. Leaving or staying is up to the individual and how much time do we want to invest in each encounter.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

It is difficult of folks like us to not be the 'alpha' in any given situation. We are sheepdogs, not sheep. The SG is probablly a Sheepdog too and he believes he has some authority. Emotions, adreneline and our egos get stirred up in these spots. It is important to take the high road (we are right from the beginning in OC) in these situations. Leaving or staying is up to the individual and how much time do we want to invest in each encounter.

CYA gentleman, CYA - cover your six - buy and use a good digital recorder.

Yata hey

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

It is difficult of folks like us to not be the 'alpha' in any given situation. We are sheepdogs, not sheep. The SG is probablly a Sheepdog too and he believes he has some authority. Emotions, adreneline and our egos get stirred up in these spots. It is important to take the high road (we are right from the beginning in OC) in these situations. Leaving or staying is up to the individual and how much time do we want to invest in each encounter.

CYA gentleman, CYA - cover your six - buy and use a good digital recorder.

Yata hey

Grapeshot ~

Great advice!

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

I would concur with JohnnyLaw here... with one final outcome that could of happened.

At the point sempercarry pulled away AND put his hand on his weapon. He should of remained silent. Simply putting your hand on your weapon to prevent it's taking would be acceptable. Then either simply leaving or waiting for the police would be ok, I think the fact that they grabbed sempercarry would of forced sempercarry to call first!

No more calls, we have a winner.

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

CYA gentleman, CYA - cover your six - buy and use a good digital recorder.

Yata hey

Absolutely!

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

It's true that the sg's did not have legal authority to detain, and should not have gone hands on.

The issue lies with the response from Sempercarry. I don't have an issue with pulling one's arm away under those circumstances, but placing a hand on one's gun, and issuing the challenge; "stop me"? This hand motionjust escalated the situation to potential deadly force. This was neither the time nor place that warranted that. Even though wrong, the sg's intention was to detain until Police arrived,NOT kidnap, NOT assault, or any of the other asinine conclusions that some have jumped to. Disarming Sempercarry was not mentioned by the sg's either.

If the sg's had continued at that point (called the bluff),drawing would have been inappropriate (and likely led to arrest/charging), and shooting was out of the question (at that point). Forcing a potential gunfight would have been extremely foolish, based on the sg's intentions (any reasonable person knows these weren't gang bangers on the street, whose intent was to harm or kill anyone). Remember that the Courts golden standard is; what would a reasonable person in that situation do?.

Either staying, and sifting it out, or pulling away and leaving would be acceptable, but it wasn't time for any gunplay.

I do agree that the challenge was a bit "over the top" for the situation, but I can understand where it came from. We've all been there; heated, hackles raised, ready for a fight, especially when 2 guys try to grab you. In the end, I'd say the attempt to grab sempercarry was the absolute wrong thing to do, and escalated the situation unnecessarily. They didn't want sempercarry in the establishment or on the property, fine, he was leaving. To attempt to grab him in order to detain him was completely out of line and brought the confrontation to a physical level.

While I don't agree with everything regarding SC's reaction to that, I can't say when confronting 2 armed individuals that just made unwanted physical contact and have already shown an alarming belligerence, that I would not be in a similar situation as far as thinking I may have to draw to defend myself against these two out of control rent-a-cops.

Placing his hand on the butt of his gun shows he is ready and able to defend himself.....AFAIK, it does not rise to the level of brandishing, which would require him to draw said weapon....in that instance, I would say that was going too far and that it was absolutely unnecessary......placing a hand on the butt of said gun however very well could have been necessary in that instance.

 

[Lammo]

imported post

erps wrote:

snip

The case law here in Washington that said you can't "resist an unlawful arrest" was in place to thwart escalations of force out in the field and bring the disputed arrest into the court system. (I"ve fallen behind on my case law in the past couple of years)

Your recollection about the case law in this state is correct:

Even when a citizen believes his State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 21, 935 P.2d 1294 (1997); State v. Bradley, 141 Wn.2d 731, 737, 10 P.3d 358 (2000). When the only harm threatened is the loss of freedom, the person must ‘go quietly’ and sort it out with the court later. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d at 21.


So, you cannot resist unlawful arrest unless you are actually threatened with loss of life or limb - - if you think that's the case you had better be right.

(P. S. - - the links are from Westlaw and might not work unless you subscribe)

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

snip.....
Placing his hand on the butt of his gun shows he is ready and able to defend himself.....AFAIK, it does not rise to the level of brandishing, which would require him to draw said weapon....in that instance, I would say that was going too far and that it was absolutely unnecessary......placing a hand on the butt of said gun however very well could have been necessary in that instance.

That may be true where the OP is located, but in some other states (notably Virginia) that would constitute brandishing.

Yata hey

 

[erps]

imported post

While I don't agree with everything regarding SC's reaction to that, I can't say when confronting 2 armed individuals that just made unwanted physical contact and have already shown an alarming belligerence, that I would not be in a similar situation as far as thinking I may have to draw to defend myself against these two out of control rent-a-cops.

while I hear and understand that response, I personally do not agree. The folks here at open carry appear to be some of the most knowledgeable I've come across when it comes to these types of encounters. It appears a few of you have been through the drill a few times. You're dealing with folks who do not know any better and may believe they are doing the right thing. Why not keep it from escalating further? I believe it would harm the O.C. movement if there were a few armed confrontations that made the news. The news fed to the masses will be from the MSM. Is everyone here confident that it won't be a little biased? I think O.C. folks ought to take the high road in these situations and not make it worse. I realize that everyone else will decide for themselves though.

 

[TheMrMitch]

imported post

"A&P is actually an abbreviation: The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc. (A&P)


Almalgamated MeatCutters And ButcherWorkmen Of North American AFL/CIO Local 227.

HehHeh....I was a bag boy in 1958/59 in Southern Indiana.:celebrate

 

[heresolong]

imported post

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is protecting your firearm. Although that obviously wasn't the case here, "try and stop me", if a SG is grabbing me and has expressed an intent to keep me from leaving, I have no idea that his next move won't be to try and disarm me. I would now be in an untenable position of having to fight two SG to keep them from taking my weapon (which I would not allow under any circumstances) when they may or may not have training in unarmed combat of some sort, or putting my hand on my weapon to force them to back off and to keep them from trying to grab it.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

I am confused about the unlawfull detainment, I understand not resisting an LEO andgoing to court later. I would take this action every time with out exception.

What I do not understand is why would you not resist a security guard especialy when you have not broken any laws. If you could not resist an unlawfull arrest then you could not resist a gang banger or any other BG if they said your under arrest. I personaly will meet force with force while at the same time attempting to leave if I find myself in a similar situation. Escalation would be strictly up to the other person or persons.Ask me to leave and I will leave, if anyonebattersme they should expect an unpleasant reaction from me.

I would also call 911 as soon as possable, preferable during the contact.

 

[erps]

imported post

I personaly will meet force with force while at the same time attempting to leave if I find myself in a similar situation. Escalation would be strictly up to the other person or persons. Ask me to leave and I will leave, if anyone batters me they should expect an unpleasant reaction from me.

It takes both parties to escalate the situation.

 

[McX]

imported post

it's nice to know that the security guards there don't support the us constitution, or the state constitution. maybe they'd like to be security guards in say cuba instead.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

erps wrote:

I personaly will meet force with force while at the same time attempting to leave if I find myself in a similar situation. Escalation would be strictly up to the other person or persons. Ask me to leave and I will leave, if anyone batters me they should expect an unpleasant reaction from me.

It takes both parties to escalate the situation.

Wrong answer - reread the assignment.

Got a light buddy? Nope. Give me your money! Leave me alone. Knife pulled by bg.

Escalation has occurred.

Want to deescalate? Back away and pull gun and watch the bg drop his knife and run. I know I'm playing with words/meanings, but you get the point.

One person can escalate a situation.

Yata hey

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

erps wrote:

I personaly will meet force with force while at the same time attempting to leave if I find myself in a similar situation. Escalation would be strictly up to the other person or persons. Ask me to leave and I will leave, if anyone batters me they should expect an unpleasant reaction from me.

It takes both parties to escalate the situation.

I disagree wholeheartedly sir.......it is entirely possible for one party in a confrontation to escalate the situation without any help from the other. For example, in this instance, the security guards escalated the situation by going hands on with SC unnecessarily......SC had nothing to do with this, and was attempting to deescalate the situation by walking away until they grabbed him. What he did after that is up for debate.....but up to that point, it's absolutely the case that the only party that escalated that situation were the security guards.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

erps wrote:

I personaly will meet force with force while at the same time attempting to leave if I find myself in a similar situation. Escalation would be strictly up to the other person or persons. Ask me to leave and I will leave, if anyone batters me they should expect an unpleasant reaction from me.

It takes both parties to escalate the situation.

I guess your correct because if there is only one party present it cant escalate. If the SG grabs your arm and you pull away and then the SG tackles you how wouldI b e escalating the situation all the SG has to do is watch you leave it is the SGs decision to escalate. I have a right to defend myself from anyone anytime, no one has the right to lay hands on my person ever. Excluding an arrest by a LEO what you are saying is to just stand there and let someone abuse you, that makes no sense to me at all.

 

[erps]

imported post

Excluding an arrest by a LEO what you are saying is to just stand there and let someone abuse you, that makes no sense to me at all.

No, what I'm saying is that you can have an affect on the final outcome by your actions. You can choose to take actions that will potentially escalate or de-escalate the situation.

If you don't believe you can have an affect on outcome, why bother to O.C.? Isn't the whole point of O.C. to have an affect?