• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 for open carry. Waiting for a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals

BamaCarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
11
Location
Alabama
All of the court documents and original video can be found here.

http://bamacarry.org/forums/topic/jason-dean-tulley-vs-the-city-of-jacksonville/




Court of criminal appeals audio. Make sure to listen 28:00 - 33:00


http://bamacarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CourtOfCriminalAppeals-1.mp4



<START TIME 34:46>
Prosecutor: "In my opinion Mr. Tulley was not... if 52 is a valid statue... he was not in violation when he walked into the credit union, because in the transcript of the trial in front of Judge Thomason in circuit court in Calhoun county the police officer could not state definitively that there was or was not a sign in the window instructing people not to bring weapons in even though it is credit union policy not to have weapons on the premises. Mr. Tulley became in violation when he did not leave when the security guard asked him to leave, and instead of leaving he stood and engaged the security guard arguing or discussing the ca... whether he had the right to have the gun, and this argument or discussion lasted approximately 20 minutes ( the entire thing only lasted 35 seconds) and the police report it lasted until 1:30 until 1:50, and I feel that that's an unreasonable amount of time for him to have stayed engaging the security guard with a gun on his hip. The proper thing that he should have done that day was take the gun to the car immediately, come back do his business in the credit union, and then if he wanted to engage the security guard in the discussion try to do so then."

Judge: "So you're... you're conceding that notice was required of Mr. Tulley?"

Prosecutor: "And Mr S.... the security guard did give him notice."

Judge: "So if he had immediately turned around and left the premises and put his weapon back in his car he would not have violated the statue?"

Prosecutor: "Yes. Um... focusing on something that is not just the law in our society: we are all concerned with the Bill of Rights and we do have a right to carry weapons under certain circumstances as long as we follow the law in this country, but at the same time we have to think about public policy and the safety of the citizens and I would like to talk about something that happened in Anniston Alabama in 1991. Three men walked into Shoney’s armed with shotguns, they hauled twenty people into the cooler and were threatening to kill them. One man, thank goodness had a gun, a concealed weapon, with a license. Looking at it from a purely common sense view, the law (find)?, if Mr. Terry at Shoney’s that day had had a gun on his hip in plain sight it is very possible that one of those three men would have shot him immediately when they saw that gun, knowing him to be a threat. Thank God he had it concealed and he had the opportunity to save not only himself but twenty other people. One must use common sense when carrying weapons, and because of all the problems that we're having in this country with shootings and things like that I think that when you start carrying a gun just... down the street it.... it scares people. I think that your decision here today will make a lot of difference in society and you should think about all the consequences. Um. Would yall like to ask me any more questions? I think I'm done. Thank you."
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
When the guard asked him to leave, he should have left. The correct title of this thread would be "Arrested for trespass. Waiting for a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That would have been an incorrect title since he wasn't arrested for trespassing, he was arrested for "carrying a pistol on premises not his own".
If that was the charge, I stand corrected on that point. However, he should have left when asked. If -52 has any validity (I don't believe it does), that should be the one instance, where the premises owner does not want carry, he has explicitly stated so, and the carrier does not comply with those explicit demands.

The title should be "Arrested for carry on premises not one's own. Waiting for ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals." The mode of carry was irrelevant to the arrest (save for the fact that concealed carry would likely have gone unnoticed). It was the carry itself that is the violation of the law. It would be nice if -52 gets tossed because of this case. Unfortunately, I think the only possible value of -52 has just been clearly illustrated.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
When the guard asked him to leave, he should have left. The correct title of this thread would be "Arrested for trespass. Waiting for a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals."
I would think that after asking a guy to leave and then engaging him further makes the request moot.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do you really think I'd ever engage you on-topic???

There are plenty of adults around here for intelligent discussion.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,758
Location
Granite State of Mind
When the guard asked him to leave, he should have left.
It sounds to me like there's a serious discrepancy between the defendant's claim (35 seconds, effectively an immediate compliance), and the police report (20 minutes).

(Prosecutor) ... this argument or discussion lasted approximately 20 minutes ( the entire thing only lasted 35 seconds)
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,758
Location
Granite State of Mind
And his video proves him right: 35 seconds, not 20 minutes. He said he would be glad to leave, and he did.

It looks as if these were police officers working a private detail. I have no problem with private details, so long as the police are merely on hand to act as police, limited to their police powers. I have a huge problem with them acting as management's agents to announce (and sometimes create on their own) management policy.

If these were actually security guards, disregard that part.

[video=youtube;Ic5TQ9VM58Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic5TQ9VM58Y[/video]
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Clearly, we are not seeing the whole video. What else happened? Where is the arrest? What else led up to it?

How can a prosecutor claim, even in arguments, that it took twenty minutes if there were such clear evidence of it taking only 35 seconds, without an objection from the defense being upheld? May we see the whole recording?
 

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
Clearly, we are not seeing the whole video. What else happened? Where is the arrest? What else led up to it?
As spelled out in the various attachments the arrest occurred days later after the officer checked with someone about what happened, it was determined there was probable cause to arrest for a crime, and a warrant for such was issued. I don't know if there were any details about how the arrest went down. The accused may have simply been notified and surrendered himself to authorities.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
As spelled out in the various attachments the arrest occurred days later after the officer checked with someone about what happened, it was determined there was probable cause to arrest for a crime, and a warrant for such was issued. I don't know if there were any details about how the arrest went down. The accused may have simply been notified and surrendered himself to authorities.
So, how does a prosecutor get away with contending a falsehood (the 20 minutes) that can be proven false?

There is something going on here that we are unaware of. What is it?

I cannot and will not get indignant until I believe I have all the relevant facts. I clearly don't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Interesting they didn't seek to show that the 'Security Guard' was a part-time employee and not a lawful "agent" of the Credit Union, and thus had no standing to cause an arrest, absent a clearly unlawful act.

Likewise, strange the defense didn't contest the '20 minute' falsehood.

In addition the prosecution's comment
'Looking at it from a purely common sense view, the law (find)?, if Mr. Terry at Shoney’s that day had had a gun on his hip in plain sight it is very possible that one of those three men would have shot him immediately when they saw that gun, knowing him to be a threat'
should have been immediately thrown out (?) by the judge as a prejudicial and purely speculative comment and NOT "common sense". IANAL.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
As spelled out in the various attachments the arrest occurred days later after the officer checked with someone about what happened, it was determined there was probable cause to arrest for a crime, and a warrant for such was issued. I don't know if there were any details about how the arrest went down. The accused may have simply been notified and surrendered himself to authorities.
BTW, I won't go to BamaCarry. I have serious reservations about how they have done things to folks in the past and do things now. So, I have not seen any of the documents. If they were less interested in site-building and more interested in the cause, they would simply have cross-posted everything here. All I know is what I have seen in this thread.

If they are looking for support or outrage or even no criticism from me, then they need to make the information available here that backs up their claims. All I have so far is 41 seconds of video (when I am sure there is a helluva lot more).
 

BamaCarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
11
Location
Alabama
Let me see if I can answer everyone's questions.

That is the entire video.

2 of the officers were on duty and 1 was off duty working as a security guard. The off duty officer went to the magistrate 4 days later and swore out an arrest warrant.

Jason was emailed a notice of the warrant and turned himself in the next day.

Yes we linked the bamacarry page it took quit a bit to try and post all of the documents of the case in order. As you can see it is 4 pages long. If you go to page 4 the very last document is the cities motion to correct record. They lied so much that they started believing it them self's. Officers have told people many stories sense this day including that Mr Tulley was belligerently drunk.


"That, in Oral Arguments before this Honorable Court on April 23, 2013, Attorney
Marilyn May Hudson stated to this Court that the encounter between Mr. Tulley and Officer
Clayton at the First Educators Credit Union on March 31, 2011 lasted from 13:30 p.m. to 13:50
p.m. This statement was made in error based on Mrs. Hudson's recollection of information
contained in a police report that is not part of the Record on Appeal. "
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is quite believable that the 40 seconds is the entire encounter. However, the entire video?? Did he turn it on and off at just the right moments?

Video of a few minutes before and after will help establish the point that the actual encounter was 35 seconds.

By talking about appeals court ruling, are we saying that he was convicted both at the magistrate level and at a jury trial?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

Oh, and I am not going to BamaCarry. I will only consider what is posted here or linked to non-BamaCarry sites.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
There are some places to make a statement and get into a constitutional/legal debate with someone to prove a point. In a bank with gun on your hip while arguing with someone who can lawfully tell you to beat it, is probably not the best place.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Section 13A-11-52 - Carrying pistol on premises not his own; who may carry pistol.

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no person shall carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control; but this section shall not apply to any sheriff or his deputy or police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to United States marshal or his deputies, rural free delivery mail carriers in the discharge of their duties as such, bonded constables in the discharge of their duties as such, conductors, railway mail clerks and express messengers in the discharge of their duties.



Is there another law involved that requires signage? This law speaks nothing to requiring the OP to know if the premises owner allows carry ~ the law notes that carry is simply not allowed by anyone other than that noted in the statue.

And it looks like the cop violated the law .. he was not there in his professional capacity as a cop discharging his duties.

The law does not allow a premises owner to "allow" carry IMO. The Credit Union is not "his own" nor "under his control" for either the OP or the cop.


Another thread in respect to this law..
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?73337-We-ve-misread-13A-11-52
 
Last edited:

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
Is there another law involved that requires signage? This law speaks nothing to requiring the OP to know if the premises owner allows carry ~ the law notes that carry is simply not allowed by anyone other than that noted in the statue.

The law does not allow a premises owner to "allow" carry IMO. The Credit Union is not "his own" nor "under his control" for either the OP or the cop.
The answer is in one of the posted briefs. Short version is that the defendant argues that the uniform firearms act, enacted subsequent to the statute you quoted, is in conflict and permits his conduct.
 
Last edited:
Top