Open carry "victory", $25K payday.

MEHavey said:

Exhibit C:

http://www.erikbscott.com/
Erik Scott, Class of `94, shot to death outside a Las Vegas Costco because both Sheep & Sheepdogs "felt" threatened.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/i...tusibbggg66e6&topic=25380.msg493282#msg493282

Never underestimate the Sheeples' (and not a few Sheepdogs') tendancy to overreact to a perceived threat -- real or unreal, ...legal or illegal, ...sensical or nosensical.

And truth is no defense.

Click to expand...

He was ordered to the ground by police, and witnesses say he reached for his gun.

Although tragic, he made a fatal mistake not following the orders of the police.

I fail to see why this tragic misunderstanding is any reason to not exercise a right.

He was ordered to the ground by police, and witnesses say he reached for his gun.

Although tragic, he made a fatal mistake not following the orders of the police.

I fail to see why this tragic misunderstanding is any reason to not exercise a right.

Click to expand...

Bringing Eric Scott's murder/death into this discussion does not help because it injects many peripheral issues into the equation (police corruption, destruction of evidence, bad procedures, etc). There is much to dispute about the events that occurred. He was carrying concealed, but either the gun printed or was exposed at one point. Bringing his case up here derails the thread to the point of uselessness.

Yeah...rather off topic for a multitude of reasons.

He was ordered to the ground by police, and witnesses say he reached for his gun. Although tragic, he made a fatal mistake not following the orders of the police.

Click to expand...

You failed to read the entire background. In near panic, the Costco employee reported an armed man in the store. In panic the cops each gave shouted conflicting orders. In panic at least one of the cops began to shoot. Then in panic both began to shoot-- including when he was already shot and bleeding out prone on the ground.

In panic......



and truth was no defense.

You failed to read the entire background. In near panic, the Costco employee reported an armed man in the store. In panic the cops each gave shouted conflicting orders. In panic at least one of the cops began to shoot. Then in panic both began to shoot-- including when he was already shot and bleeding out prone on the ground.

In panic......



and truth was no defense.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a thread derail. Scott was carrying concealed. The level of panic is in dispute. The police had no reason to panic (that makes no sense whatsoever).

Let's drop the Scott case and move on.

MEHavey said:

You failed to read the entire background. In near panic, the Costco employee reported an armed man in the store. In panic the cops each gave shouted conflicting orders. In panic at least one of the cops began to shoot. Then in panic both began to shoot-- including when he was already shot and bleeding out prone on the ground.

In panic......



and truth was no defense.

Click to expand...

I did read the background and I am aware of what is purported to have happened. I also read the description of events by the 2 witnesses nearby.

Anyways, this thread is about Jim Mapes, not Erik Scott and the confusing circumstances of his tragic demise.

Art Eatman said:

"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."

Based on newspaper editorials, TV commentators and various website commentaries, that statement is 180 degrees off course.

Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't work in Texas or California does not mean that it doesn't work in the majority of states. I can tell you what has worked in Washington.

I get unlawfully removed from a restaurant by the police and the next weekend 10 or more armed customers and their families have a luncheon in the restaurant, giving positive business to the restaurant and a warning to police not to intervene in a gathering of invited guests at the restaurant or a lawsuit will follow. Never a problem again. Win.

Someone gets arrested in Vancouver, WA for openly carrying a gun. Open carry group has a picnic with our guns, a banner, an information table and hand out pamphlets. Police observe, but never approach. Lots of people show genuine interest and talk with us a lot. Win.

Someone gets detained in Bellingham, WA for openly carrying a gun in a park. Same activity as above occurs in the park except this time two police officers did approach us - to tell one of our members that their dog was not allowed in the park after 11:00am. Win. (not to mention the $15K the guy got as a settlement from the city).

Reports of increasing crime in a neighborhood causes an open carry group member to have an open carry party in the recreation room of his apartment complex right smack in the middle of bad neighborhood (in Seattle) again with big banner. Party is a huge success with several of the apartment complex residents stopping in for snacks and socializing. Apartment complex management and many tenants love it, saying it is the most positive thing that has happened there in years. They commented that they felt safer for several months afterward. Becomes an annual event for 3 or 4 years following until the open carry group member moves. Win.

Open carriers confront Oak Harbor city council over illegal prohibition of guns in parks:
www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/185711921.html‎

Two months later Oak Harbor city council repeals ban of guns in parks:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020294850_oakharborxml.html

Win.

Open carry rallies held at WA state Capitol several times each year - especially when anti-gun legislation is up for discussion/vote. Pro-gun bills have been passing while anti-gun bills have been facing defeat.

As much as you won't admit it - most of the rest of the US is not Texas.

And why are you talking about "saying crazy things"?

Click to expand...

I was making a point friend. The point is that there are things that are just bad to do even though they are legal. It isn't that complicated. I said I was making a point in my post so why are you asking me to explain it again? I gave an "extreme" example to show that there are times it hurts us to do things even if they are legal. I don't know why it is that people can't understand when you use an extreme example to prove a point. I clearly said it was just an example and yet you asked me why I said it. I explained it in my post. How many different ways do I need to say it? I'm amazed that you asked me that really. I plainly answered your question before you even asked it.

Cee Zee said:

I was making a point friend. The point is that there are things that are just bad to do even though they are legal.

Click to expand...

And open carry (of a handgun in a holster) is just bad to do?

Cee Zee said:

It isn't that complicated. I said I was making a point in my post so why are you asking me to explain it again?

Click to expand...

I didn't legitimately think your point was that open carrying a holstered handgun was "just bad to do".

Cee Zee said:

I gave an "extreme" example to show that there are times it hurts us to do things even if they are legal.

Click to expand...

When is it ever a good time to go out in public, hold a gun in your hand, and talk crazy?

I'll answer that for you...it is never a good time to do that.

Cee Zee said:

I don't know why it is that people can't understand when you use an extreme example to prove a point.

Click to expand...

Your point doesn't make any sense and is not relevant.

Cee Zee said:

I clearly said it was just an example and yet you asked me why I said it. I explained it in my post. How many different ways do I need to say it? I'm amazed that you asked me that really. I plainly answered your question before you even asked it.

Click to expand...

Your point doesn't make any sense and is not relevant.

This wasn't the Chipotle twins carrying carbines into the restaurant, with one being held at the low ready, for the purpose of showing off on Facebook. Neither was it the Black Panthers grandstanding with rifles in front of the California State House. Nor was it the Erik Scott concealed carry incident at Costco.

It was Jim Mapes, legally open carrying his handgun in it's holster, the way he'd been normally doing it long before the shootings in that town. He was going about his peaceful business trying to attend a movie at the theater that he regularly attends on the other side of town from where the shootings took place. He wasn't acting in a threatening manner, nor was he intoxicated or belligerent, and he wasn't shoving his open carried gun into the faces of the shooting victims and families.

tomrkba said:

Bringing Eric Scott's murder/death into this discussion does not help because it injects many peripheral issues into the equation (police corruption, destruction of evidence, bad procedures, etc). There is much to dispute about the events that occurred. He was carrying concealed, but either the gun printed or was exposed at one point. Bringing his case up here derails the thread to the point of uselessness.

Click to expand...

Actually that much is uncontested by the Girlfriend and Costco (even stipulated to by the DA). His shirt rode up while he was inspecting an ice cooler.

Scott was a CCer not an OCer. Different subject, still frightening.

Mapes told Denver’s Fox 31 that he was in the same Thornton theater watching “The Dark Knight Rises” on the night James Holmes opened fire in an Aurora theater across town, killing 12 people and injuring at least 70. He had his gun that night too. Police questioned him, but didn’t arrest him.

Click to expand...

James Holmes shot up a theater in Aurora, Mapes was arrested in Thornton two different cities.

What I get from reading the above is that on the night that James Holmes shot up the theather in Aurora that Mapes had been in the same theater (he was later arrested for open carrying in) in Thornton watching Batman

Point of Clarification Fellas

These two events happened in DIFFERENT cities

In DIFFERENT theaters

James Holmes =Aurora Colorado

Mapes = Thornton Colorado

Hm

This thread was long, not sure if this was mentioned. I'm sure the police department didn't have to pay for anything. They had to have had some sort of insurance for these types of things. Which was already being paid for. People sue the police all the time.


Anyways I'm also sure that the city/county or whoever certainly educated all officers on the current laws of open carry for the area, so as to avoid anymore suits, and raises in insurance rates. which is GOOD


This is all speculation. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

This thread was long, not sure if this was mentioned. I'm sure the police department didn't have to pay for anything. They had to have had some sort of insurance for these types of things. Which was already being paid for. People sue the police all the time.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you're aware, but if you have insurance and you do something bad, your premiums go up. If you get a traffic ticket, it's not the $150 bill that gets you, it's the $300/6-month premium increase that lasts for the next 3-5 years that kills you. "They have insurance", well, if the insurance company paid $25,000, they'll probably get $125,000 back before they lower their rates back down.

Skribs, Im aware,

"Anyways I'm also sure that the city/county or whoever certainly educated all officers on the current laws of open carry for the area, so as to avoid anymore suits, and raises in insurance rates. which is GOOD"

But i doubt a payout of 25 k would warrant a payback of 125 in surcharges or anything of the sort. Why have the insurance at that point?

"Thornton and Aurora are right next to each other just northeast of Denver"
And exactly how far away from Ground Zero must one have been before it would be 'acceptable' for them to continue on as they had the day before, and not reasonably fear unjust reprisal by authorities? At some point, you gotta admit, the guy did no wrong (depending on exactly how professionally he responded to the police/theatre people, I would submit he was not even doing anything legitimately offensive)

On a related topic; I live near where the Chipotle Twins did their thing. Do I have permission to be seen with my (incredibly) scary-looking STGW57 slung on my back between my home and my car? Because there is a school within shouting distance, and people are entitled to call the cops on me for no reason, apparently...

Does anyone know if there will be a judgment against the theatre or whatever patron called the MWAG in? Seeing as they initiated this whole vile business, and it's a crime to call in frivolous 911 reports, and "ignorance of the law is no excuse" as we so often are told...what're the odds of the police even giving them a firm talking to? PSA's about the legality of open-carry?

TCB

"Wow, way more controversy than I'd expected."
Always this much controversy when OC is involved. There's so much controversy, in fact, I'm calling it what it is; it's a pro/anti gun thing. Same arguments on both sides, same rationalizations on both sides, same hysterics on both sides, same hyperbole on both sides.

Put it this way; when I bring up OC --carrying a gun on your hip in public-- to someone not receptive to it, they inevitably throw out the line "waving a gun around" as though that has anything whatsoever to do with open carry. Sounds remarkably like 'gun toting nut jobs shooting up the streets' logic to me. The other argument I hear, is that the mere presence of a gun on an otherwise-lawful person is inherently "intimidating" and therefore unacceptable. Sounds an awful lot like basic hoplophobia to me (and it's not like I wouldn't have to tolerate some +6ft, 250lb, amateur body-builder giving me the hairy-eyeball in Wal-Mart, who any idiot would perceive as intimidating)

Let's all please not forget that not ten years ago, merely bringing an AR to the range would raise all sorts of eyebrows (and possibly get you asked to leave) and being seen with an AR on the way there would probably bring MWAG calls. But, we made them our own, called them "evil black rifles" and proceeded to rub them in the anti's face any way we possibly could; and now they're basically backed up against the realization that they are the same as any other semi-auto and will have to dare to call for a ban on all semi's if they want the AR done away with (good luck with that)

TCB

JohnKSa said:

This thread has had quite an impact on my thinking. It's actually something of a wakeup call to see that there's so much of a disconnect that a consensus can't be reached even when discussing something as glaringly self-evident as the ill-advised nature of open-carrying into a theater only days after a mass murder has taken place in a theater in that area.

Click to expand...

And this is why there are such rifts and divisions in our group. Because you hold a particular opinion does not mean that others will hold it too, nor does it mean that it is correct just because you and some others hold that opinion. Nor is your opinion necessarily incorrect just because I disagree with it.

The appropriateness of the particular situation we are discussing is 100% a matter of personal feeling. One side or the other's opinion on it cannot be proven by pointing to any FACTUAL information because it is a 100% emotional situation.

The FACT is that the police were wrong for arresting the person and they made restitution for their unlawful arrest of the person in a manner that was agreed upon by the affected parties. That's where the facts end and the emotional opinions begin.

It's actually something of a wakeup call to see that there's so much of a disconnect that a consensus can't be reached even when discussing something as glaringly self-evident as the ill-advised nature of open-carrying into a theater only days after a mass murder has taken place in a theater in that area.

Click to expand...

Why does whether something is, in your opinion, "glaringly self-evident," have any brearing?

The specific behavior was legal.
The specific behavior was harmless. The only way you can argue otherwise is by victim blaming.
The general behavior is positive.

It is glaringly self-evident to many people that only military personnel should have access to weapons, and even then only in extremely limited situations.

It is glaringly self-evident to many people that all religions are based on false premises and should be viewed as myth.

It is glaringly self-evident to many people that the 5.56x45 NATO round is a marginal round unsuitable for large game hunting.


It is glaringly self-evident to many people that human-induced climate shift is a global catastrophe.

It is glaringly self-evident to many people that it is unwise to marry a person you haven't cohabitated with for at least a few years.

It is glaringly self-evident to many people that you shouldn't use a semi-auto rifle for hunting.

It is glaringly self-evident to some people that it is unsafe to leave their house, even to go down the street for coffee with neighbors, without at least a .45acp and two spare magazines.

It was glaringly obvious to someone that radio stations should not play the Beatles song Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da after 9/11.

I could go on and I even agree with some of those...but would I want any of them to control behavior? Would I think it was OK for police to arrest someone for getting married before cohabitating, or even using a 5.56 to hunt moose? NO!

I personally would not have openly open carried in that situation, just as I personally have no plans to hunt with a 5.56, but I do not support the idea that social sensitivity should have the force of law.