imported post
I'm a little late to this party, but here's what strikes me about this 'controversy':
It all boils down to the difference between 'causing' alarm, and 'warranting' alarm. In attempting to differentiate between the two, I'm moved to concider the extreme. Some months back there was a girl that was featured on some daytime talk show (Oprah? Dr. Phil?) that was deathly afraid of Pickles.
You read that right....PICKLES. Cucumbers preserved with vinegar and dillweed. This girl would get downright convulsive with fear and panic if approaced with a pickle.
Now, looking past the obvious (a pickle does not generally posess a potential leathality) if I were to walk past this girl with a pickle in hand, she'd FREAK. I would have CAUSED her alarm. Is it warranted? I think not.
But according to what I'm reading from Dave Workman, it would be concidered WARRANTING alarm by the simple fact that she WAS alarmed, regardless of the fact that the alarm was purely a result of her own deep seeded fear of a preserved cucumber.
I apply the same litmus to a firearms situation. If the complainant is calling in to say they are alarmed simply because they have a deep seeded fear of firearms carried by someone without a badge (I call 'em Hoplo-phobic Bliss-ninny's), then despite the fact that alarm was CAUSED, it was not WARRANTED, regardless of whether it be a long gun or sidearm. If there was more to it than simply walking down the street (ninja-dress, carried in hand, skulking around, looking around to see if they are being observed, loading the gun/working the action as if preparing to fire, etc.) then I'd tend to agree that it WARRANTS alarm and is actionable.
Think of it this way:
If a situation WARRANTS alarm, then generally there WILL BE alarm. However, just because someone BECOMES alarmed, does not mean that it is WARRANTED. Think of the pickles.