Unlawfully detained at Southcenter mall

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

And I STILL don't get the fact that some people's perception is so FUBARed that they'd call the police and say.. 'there's a guy with a gun, and he... he's shopping.. with.. with a girl.. OMG!'

Criminals by their very definition don't follow the law, so I'm not going to worry about a guy with a gun in the holster shopping with his GF/wife/whatever...

I'm gonna be 'worried' about that 16 y/o kid with the gun sticking down his pants, or in the pocket of his hoodie...


On a side note, does WA have laws against suing those who call 911 to 'report a crime' that doesn't exist ??

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

Flyin_ryan: Please contact me Monday @ 425-454-7012

Lonnie, I'm sure we'll have our usual chat Monday, as you know I'm going to be incommunicado for the weekend.


The rest of you may think this is funny or a great opportunity for chest-thumping. It's not. This could be the new version of Green Lake, except that in this case, we're all assured that "something" actually did occur.

Please don't be so cock sure that you know the truth. There are always two sides of a story and in this case, maybe three or four. What you want to believe may not actually be factual. And then again, perhaps it is. I'm going to find out what actually happened down there before I decide to call anybody a liar.

Jared: Your answer may work in Yuma, AZ. It doesn't quite work that way in Washington. Right now, Lonnie and I are dealing with another situation involving one of your fellow Arizonans that occurred here in Washington because, well, let's just say he was "thinking and behaving Arizona" and "doing it in Washington." And because of that, he's in trouble all the way up to his eyeballs, and I think this is a learning experience more for Lonnie than it is for me.

HankT wrote:[b/]

Different details of the encounter. They cannot both be right....

You're absolutely correct, and it's been my experience that the more one strenously insists that something is so without all of the facts, the higher the odds grow exponentially that he's wrong.

 

[Jared]

imported post

flyin_ryan wrote:

If any of you can change the policy, great, I'm all for it.After all the shootings that has taken place lately, I firmly believe we need it as a country, not just a state. I am forced to carry concealed in most public areas and have myselfbeen subjected to police scrutiny while carrying (wal-mart sure has a problem when you reach for an electric drill and the barrel of a handgun shows under ajacket). Paranoia is rampant inLEO's, they don't go home every night because they treat everyone nicely, I don't think that the stance of the officers was personal, but they reacted in the way they were trained upon contact, maybe not during the argument, but when they approached, they had a right to be suspicious based on the information they received at that time. All weknew was there was a man with a gun, we got a description andPD made contact. No, we got no reports of inappropriate behavior, but oneindividual had been at the Tacomamall shootingthat happened not to long ago, this individual felt terrified, ignorant maybe, but that didn't helpthe feelings the individual was experiencing. I believe ineducating the public but we're not there,and won't be there if liberals have their way, but right now, guns displayed in publicis a cause for alarm not comfort, thats a fact.

Ryan, the city code can call it whatever they want. The mall is a public accomodation. This is a word that has been used by courts all over the United States on numerous occasions to seperate private property from public accomodations.

By the nature of their restrictions and those that courts have upheld. In addition to my examples, your parking lot must have handicap parking areas. There is a fire code, there are OSHA requirements. etc.

If the government can regulate all of these things and tell you who you can and can not do business with, then logically the same applies to doing something legal such as carrying a firearm.

Once private property is commercially open to the public, it becomes a public accomodation and your private property rights are basically non-existant.

 

[44Brent]

imported post

I find it interesting that there is a perception that flyin_ryan is actually who he claims to be (a private security guard employed by a mall). Let's look at what he previously claimed

The fact isthat you were stopped for a violation of policy, had you been compliant and polite, you would have been free to leave, as it happened, you were criminally trespassed for disorderly conduct, arguing with police and security

flyin_ryan claims to "know" what actions the police would have taken, had expvideo been "compliant". How can a private security guard "know" what actions a police officer will take? The answer is that a private security guard DOESN'T "know" what another person is going to do -- only the police officer "knows" what he is going to do, and the police officer may not "know" whatdecisions he's going to make until he actually makes a decision.

In short, there is no reason to believe that fliyin_ryan is who he claims to be unless he actually provides real evidence. I would ignore this guy until such time as he provides some convincing evidence. Anyone can anonymously post messages on the internet and claim to beanother person.

Myself on the other hand, have a pile of cash ready to donate to expvideo to help keep his lawsuit moving.

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

44 Brent, what do you want? Do you need proof? I came here to present one other side. Expvideo was trespassed by the mall, the only thing I refute here in the story is what I told him. If expvideo thinks I am lying, let him say so. The police and judicial system support our trespasses and so far none have been overturned. I don't feel that expvideo should have been trespassed, but there is no trend here. The mall is private property, it falls under regs. for public accommodation, but all policy is dictated by management and supported by the police and the courts. I never said expvideo was breaking the law! He wasn't, he was only in violation of policy,but the security here, the pd and the general public don't know that! I knew but, most of these laws are not common knowledge. (Disclaimer: anyLEO should understand the carry laws in their jurisdiction, I make no claims that the officers in this incident were correct.)I have maintained this entire time that I know a man with a holstered handgun, shopping with a significant other is no threat, no danger, and I am doing what I can to change the procedure, I don't think I need a police officer to speak to a man open carrying. Would any of you shoot a security guard asking you to remove a weapon or conceal it while inside the property? I'm sure that statement will be quoted a hundred times... anyway I invite any of you to come to southcenter, weapons concealed please, as the police are now privy to the laws I hope, but policy is policy, and find a security guard and ask for the courtesy code, any one of us would be happy to help, as I am educating the staff on the law. The fact that open carry is so rare means it is misconstrued by the general public, they don't deal with it often. Most of the public calls constitutionalists "whack jobs" "gunlovers" etc... they are viewed as outlaws in many ways although their main goals are to preserve the rights and freedoms bestowed upon us by our forefathers. I believe in this site and what you are doing guys, but automatically I am called a liar for posting. Why? There was a serious breach of rights here. But the fact remains that the general public still fear guns, whether carried in a retention holster or shoved down the front of someones pants, the mere sight of one to many people is cause for alarm, this is ignorant, but true.Dave, I will call on Monday, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with someone interested in the case as a whole. As for everyone else, I am interested to see how this turns out. The perceptions on a whole need to change, I hope that all of you are helping to further the knowledge of these laws and what they mean.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

flyin_ryan wrote:

I agree with you Lonnie, as I stated earlier,I believed pd was wrong and attempted to intercede, though I guess I failed and I apologize to expvideo. I do not want to paint a picture of righteous indignation here, but as you stated, LEO are given a lot of authority, abuse of that authority should bequestioned through the proper channels, not on the street, that is my only problem with the whole situation. For those of you who disagree, fine, pick a fight with a cop, and see who comes out on top at the scene, maybe not in court, but at the scene, they get their way, I've seen it to many times. Expvideo was right in his attitude, but in my opinion,as wrong in his actions as the police. Honestly, I think expvideo is my kind of guy, we'd get along great, I hope, but filing complaints, lawsuits, and making postings like this is not boot-licking- it's the right way to handle things, again, this is all my opinion, and open to rebuttal. I know some of you get your joy out of blasting people trying to make a point, thats fine, but I will not. I just wanted to present the side of a guy stuck in the middle, doing a job. Policy is policy, and I enforce it as best I can.

Ryan, I remember you. You are the younger, more in shape security guard. First of all I want to thank you for your service to this country. Secondly, I want to appologize if I misquoted you; it was a heated discussion, and I don't remember all of the details as perfectly as I would like. I would like to point out that at no point were you rude to me, and I hope that the board can realize, as I failed to at the time, that you were trying to help the situation. I was confronted by a group of LEOs and the other security guard, so I was kind of on the defensive, and I didn't recognize your attempt to help. I am very sorry about that. I know it's a little late, but thank you.

I know that it is easier to just show id and a permit, but I wanted to make a point of not letting the police pressure me into forfeiting my rights. I hope you can remember that the police approached me in a hostile way and immediately started misquoting laws, saying that I was carrying a gun without a badge, as if that was somehow illegal. I know I could have been more compliant, but I beleive that it is wrong for the police to act in the way that they did. I think Rosa Parks would have had a much easier day if she had just gone to the back of the bus, too. Not to relate open carry to the civil rights movement, I'm just saying that when you are trying to protect your civil liberties, taking the easy road and complying isn't going to help. I also didn't want to budge on the social order that I had set with the police officers. If I had immediately let them be in control of the situation, I may have been treated differently, but let's not assume that differently means better. Letting them see jackbooted tactics work does not help me, since they will continue to be overly assertive.

I urge the members of this board to not turn Ryan away. This is deffinately the testimony of the security guard that I remember, and of the 5 people around me, he was the only person that was not threatening my rights. I just wish I had noticed that at the time. I was a little pre-occupied with the police officers, and I didn't pay him much attention, which is why I'm a little fuzzy on what his exact words were. I owe him an appology for misquoting him.

Thank you for having the courage to confront people on this board, I know that we aren't the most welcoming to people with different views sometimes. You are very good at your job, and I am glad that, even if you didn't agree with my actions, you saw someone's rights being violated.

I'm sorry I made your job more difficult for you, and I completely support your rights as security for a property owner. I am not questioning my trespass notice.

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

PS to everyone, I WAS WRONG when I told expvideo that the courtesy code (rule list)was posted at every entrance, they are not, they are printed on cards that are available to customers from the staff, at one time they were posted at each mall entrance, not ancor store (sears, macys, j.c. pennys etc.) but they were removed during this construction taking place. And again I apologize.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

flyin_ryan wrote:

PS to everyone, I WAS WRONG when I told expvideo that the courtesy code (rule list)was posted at every entrance, they are not, they are printed on cards that are available to customers from the staff, at one time they were posted at each mall entrance, not ancor store (sears, macys, j.c. pennys etc.) but they were removed during this construction taking place. And again I apologize.

No need to appologize. You didn't do anything wrong. You were doing your job, and if anything you were trying to help me. I didn't realize it at the time, but I do now, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

Expvideo, thank you also, I appreciate your comments and I am glad to hear that you are fighting this. As far as your comments on your actions, well, I agree for the most part, I think everyone there could have acted much differently, and I am to blame as much as anyone. 44brent are you happy now? lol

 

[44Brent]

imported post

anyway I invite any of you to come to southcenter, weapons concealed please, as the police are now privy to the laws I hope, but policy is policy, and find a security guard and ask for the courtesy code, any one of us would be happy to help, as I am educating the staff on the law.

Is "Don't ask -- don't tell" a new policy?

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

 

[expvideo]

imported post

I didn't know at the time that Southcenter was a no gun mall. I understand what you are saying, that while the mall says no guns allowed, you personally don't care and turn a blind eye. However, when I open carried, I kind of shoved you into the position of having to care. Had I known it was a no gun mall, I wouldn't have been shopping there. It is unfortunate that your company won't allow you to approach someone open carrying, but I suppose they only mean for your safety.

I'm sorry you were confronted with scepticizm to start off on this thread, but please understand that we've had some imposters on here before, andsome of us tend to becautious of new people claiming to be anything but annonymous. I hope you understand.

 

[BB62]

imported post

Ryan,

How did you come to find this forum and this thread?

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

I was just looking to see if anyone had made any comments on the incident, though I rarely ever actually register anywhere, I like to keep my eyes open in the forums, and I've known about this site for a little while now, you guys are a great source for state laws and the differences beteween them, I thought I'd come out of the woodwork and post my two cents worth is all.

 

[flyin_ryan]

imported post

Expvideo, thanks again, I appreciate your time, hopefully most everyonecanrealize I am who I say I am and we can communicate our views and opinions in a mutually respectful manner from here on out.

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

I just want to take a second to thank Ryan for coming here and trying to offer a different perspective (regardless of whether anyone agrees or not). I'm especially glad to hear that, no matter what happened at the time, he supports the right to carry.

 

[44Brent]

imported post

flyin_ryan:

I'll accept that you are who you claim to be, based on expvideo's willingness to accept your statements. Consequently, I have edited some of my previous comments about you.

As an employee of this business, you seem to be opening them up to liability by pointing out that their "gun free zone" policy is only enforceable against people who carry their pistols openly. That's plenty fine with me and I hope that expvideo will consider filing a lawsuit against this business. You might be interested in taking a look at the following article from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2006/march2006/mar06leb.htm:

Behavioral Traits [of criminals]

In the authors’ three studies, none of the offenders who carried firearms used holsters. They reported frequently touching the weapon with a portion of their hands or arms usually to assure themselves that it remained hidden, secure, and accessible. Such actions become most observable whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting, or exiting a motor vehicle. Their unholstered handguns tend to shift, causing them to adjust or reposition the weapon to its original position. Walking with a concealed, unholstered handgun requires subjects to occasionally use a portion of their hands or arms to prevent the firearm from moving or to adjust the weapon after it moves. When they run, their actions may appear more pronounced and may involve constantly gripping the handgun to maintain control.

What does this mean? In plain English:

Any law enforcement officer or private security officer that chases around people who are openly carryingtheir pistols in a holster, is targeting LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS! Criminals carry concealed. Now why in the world would supposedly "professional" police officers who are current on their training be targeting law-abiding citizens for harassment?

 

[HOLYROLLER]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

I just want to take a second to thank Ryan for coming here and trying to offer a different perspective (regardless of whether anyone agrees or not). I'm especially glad to hear that, no matter what happened at the time, he supports the right to carry.

+1. Its refreshing to hear both sides of a story in a civil manner.

 

[HankT]

imported post

HOLYROLLER wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

I just want to take a second to thank Ryan for coming here and trying to offer a different perspective (regardless of whether anyone agrees or not). I'm especially glad to hear that, no matter what happened at the time, he supports the right to carry.

+1. Its refreshing to hear both sides of a story in a civil manner.

It was interesting to see the pack "welcome" Ryan when he first came in--and said some things they didn't like. Real open-minded, they were...