Entertainment for the night...

[poor_richard]

WOW!

You mean someone actually thought to read the linked page before making comments that were already addressed?

 

[JesseL]

Wow!

Good work poor_richard and BruceRDucer. That info should really put the whole debate to bed.

 

[poor_richard]

Wow!

Good work poor_richard and BruceRDucer. That info should really put the whole debate to bed.

You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then...

 

[JesseL]

You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then...

Yeah, this late in the thread it's easy to start skimming and overlooking things. Bruce was kind enough to electronically beat us all upside the head with the relevant info enough for me to really take notice and appreciate the value of what you linked.

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Funny , how you assume the dominant posistion instead of attempting a mediate posistion. DOESNT MATER DOESNT MATTER DOESNT MATTER .... CAUSE POOR RICHARD SAID SO! Almost as hilarious as the thread itself.

You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then...

I did read it. Tell me where anything about PRIVATE PROPERTY is mentioned in that article? You are Interpeting!

Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under…(1) (f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
If you like it or not , when the weapon failed to stay concealed it was possible to become considered DISPLAYED RECKLESSLY
Do i believe the OP commited a crime? Of course not , however there was Reasonable suspicion

Since your so versed on the subject , why don't you represent the OP in a civil case Poor Richard?

 

[PTK]

Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

Read that again, friend.

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Read that again, friend.

Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

 

[Treo]

Open carry is legal in Colorado just having a weapon publicly displayed is not illegal.

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Open carry is legal in Colorado just having a weapon publicly displayed is not illegal

I am aware , and I am by no means saying it is. What I am contending is that somepoint a transistion from CC to OC was accidently made (his shirt got caught on a magazine). That the transistion could be interpeted as "reckless display" and hence grounds for "RS" again not even saying its enough for a charge ..... just that it is enough to amount to reasonable suspicion

 

[Big Daddy Grim]

I carry 3 but im not of "normal" size so still support your carry.Mine change from day to day but I always carry one wheel gun. Either way screw wally world.

 

[Soldiersurfs]

What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips" It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. But because he read it on the internet ITS FACT He is not a lawyer and should reconsider his ability to give legal advice.

 

[Kind of Blued]

PTK, I'm selling that giant boomstick because I had my share of fun with it and I NEED a few other guns.

One of these will be a handgun, and I will carry it concealed along with my two EDCs the next time we go to the range/Subway.

 

[Pat-inCO]

(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)

Ahhh, excuse me? As has been pointed out, CONCEALED means just that.

Don't complain because you tripped on your own foot.

 

[poor_richard]

I did read it. Tell me where anything about PRIVATE PROPERTY is mentioned in that article? You are Interpeting!

Interpreting what? Why do you think private property is an issue?

Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under…(1) (f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Read that again, friend. 

Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

No, I think he’s right about that. I did look at, and consider it, but the “or” does not exclude the, “in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm” from the other elements of the sentence. That part of the sentence applies to all elements of the statement. IOW, for DTP to apply, it would be that he is “displaying a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

If you were correct in what I think your saying, then OC would be illegal in all of CO. Just to make sure I’m properly understanding your take on it; it sounds like your saying that it’s illegal to “display a deadly weapon”. While I believe that to be an incorrect interpretation, were it correct, it could effectively make OC illegal in CO.

They would still need RS that he “displayed” it “in a manner calculated to alarm”. If that part is unnecessary, then they had more than RS, but actually had PC for an arrest. I think your reading the law incorrectly. Not saying I‘m right, just that your argument doesn‘t add up.

I am aware , and I am by no means saying it is. What I am contending is that somepoint a transistion from CC to OC was accidently made…

If OC is legal, then it doesn’t matter (as long as it wasn't "in a manner calculated to alarm.").

…That the transistion could be interpeted as "reckless display" and hence grounds for "RS" again not even saying its enough for a charge ..... just that it is enough to amount to reasonable suspicion

I don’t see anywhere in the law you provide where it mentions “reckless display” (or a definition for it). Is there another law that does?

Nevertheless, if the officers had video evidence, or had observed the weapon, then that would obviously be “displaying a deadly weapon”. Were “display of a deadly weapon “ a crime, then it would go beyond RS for a stop, to PC for arrest, because they’d have evidence of a crime. Like I’ve said, if “display of a deadly weapon” is not dependent upon “in a manner calculated to alarm.”, then I don’t see how OC could be legal in CO, since OC is “display of a deadly weapon”.

What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice

Resorting to personal attacks is an indication of a lack of confidence in one’s argument.

…that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips"

Actually, both links I provide clearly stated that the sighting of a gun is not RS where it is legal to carry in such a manner. Had the law you cited not qualified the elements with ,“ in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”, then the sight of the gun may have provided RS. However, where OC is legal, the inadvertent sighting of a gun cannot be used as RS.

It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. But because he read it on the internet ITS FACT

Lie.

Nowhere did I represent the OP‘s story as fact. Quite the opposite actually. I’ve clearly stated on this thread that I am only addressing what the OP stated, as we don’t have all the information.

He is not a lawyer and should reconsider his ability to give legal advice.

I’ve also stated that I’m not a lawyer, and the only legal advice I‘ve given was for the OP to consult a lawyer, as well as asking said lawyer if the OP should remove his comments from this board. I fully realize that I may not have all the facts, or even be correct in my views. That doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to learn. Debate the issue, counter the arguments, but when you resort to personal attacks, its because that’s all your left with.

 

[BruceRDucer]

/

Since your so versed on the subject , why don't you represent the OP in a civil case Poor Richard?----SoldierSurfs

\

Essentially, and by definition, SoldierSurfs, that is nothing other than mocking the THR Member. The comment does not contribute anything of a factual nature to the core issue.

Whether PTK is after the initial event, represented by any particular person, is not critical to the discussion, since nothing in the original post indicates that the critical question involves whether or not PTK is represented by counsel.

By way of affirmation, I would suggest that the critical issue, is whether any citizen is liable to harrassment or unnecessary searches, merely based upon a tip that indicates that someone is in possession of a firearm, in the normative process of shopping in the store.

Do we want that? Do you want that?

--------------------------------------------------------------

What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips" It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. ---SoldierSurfs

This statement also is a manner of mocking a THR Member, and is as far as I can tell, entirely inconsistent with the stated policy for courtesy that you will find situated in the first topics of each and every forum page.


PRIMER ON COURTESY link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=370999

In those guidelines, you will find something written regarding a shift in topic, away from discussion an idea, to discussing a person and characteristics about that person, such as your reference to "Supreme KeyBoard Justice" which you apply to the THR Member.

That is not only fundamental discourtesy, it could be interpreted to imply that the website actually has such an office, when in fact it does not. All of which goes to say you are discussing non-existent titles, irrelevent issues, and displaying a surprising lack of courtesy, in light of which, no justification by way of reason is offered.

(((blink....blink....))))





/





/

 

[FIFTYGUY]

soldiersurfs wrote:

Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

If the "," and the "or" were interpreted so as to parse:

"A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally displays a deadly weapon in a public place.", with no condition that it's "in a manner calculated to alarm",

then the cops who responded should have arrested the manager of the Walmart for displaying knives and guns for sale.