Massad Ayoob on call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read "In the Gravest Extreme" and have watched "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" which is an expansion on the book. Both several times. I find the information to be sound.

I have also read other books and watched other training videos and they pretty much reiterate what Ayoob teaches.

Duke, what part of what he teaches do you disagree with?
 
Duke, I'm going to part with you on this one. Just because you're a lawyer and he's not doesn't mean that a lawyer knows better than he does what is going to happen. To me it sounds like a junior army captain blowing off the advice of a veteran E-7 "Because I'm an officer and he's not." If I were in a bind, and I had one phone call to make, and I had to choose between a local criminal lawyer out of the yellow pages I know nothing about, or Ayoob, I would call Ayoob. HE would KNOW what lawyer to call.
 
mljdeckard: "Duke, I'm going to part with you on this one. Just because you're a lawyer and he's not doesn't mean that a lawyer knows better than he does what is going to happen. To me it sounds like a junior army captain blowing off the advice of a veteran E-7 "Because I'm an officer and he's not." If I were in a bind, and I had one phone call to make, and I had to choose between a local criminal lawyer out of the yellow pages I know nothing about, or Ayoob, I would call Ayoob. HE would KNOW what lawyer to call."

Believe it or not, I'd probably endorse your choice -- somewhat. I dont advertise or post a sign anymore. No, I'm not the A-Team, but for several years I wasted too much time shooing people out of my office which persons I couldn't help or who had too much money to qualify for court appointment and yet too little money (or determination) to hire me privately. So I eventually went with private referrals and an awful lot of OC work.

The better lawyers, in my not-so-humble opinion, have little use for the Yellow Pages, let alone for television advertisements ("Morry's wigs won't come off!").

As to which lawyer Ayoob would call -- I don't know. But I'd be highly interested in who he might call, in Maine. Heck, I'd take his call.
 
Duke of Doubt said:
...Actually, when you have an off-the-record conversation with the Chief of Police, a friendly conversation over a few with a lead Detective, and you talk all the time with Patrolmen, and you fight and negotiate and bull all the time with the District Attorney and his/her Assistants, some of whom you call friends, and you've tried umpty-ump cases in various and assorted local criminal courts, you kind of get an idea as to how it's going to go....
Sure, that's fine for you when something has already taken place, and it can help plan on the off chance that something happens locally. But what about the guy you've counseled and taught who knows absolutely everything about how the local detectives, DA and judges feel about things, and who has the misfortune to be attacked and have to defend himself while he's on vacation in some other part of the country?

In any case, people move. Even when people don't move, detective, DAs and even judges retire and are replaced by people with different attitudes and styles. And sometimes a higher court shuffles the deck. It's okay for you since your knowledge of the specific is built on a solid foundation of the general -- making adaptation to change more manageable. But what about the guy who knows only the "tab A goes into slot B" version?

And in any case, I and my colleagues have had our own experiences with personal relationships, and we've found that they can help but only go so far. A lot depends on the particular cast of characters, but sometimes one has to actually practice law. It's not always all about schmoozing.
 
fiddletown: "Sure, that's fine for you when something has already taken place, and it can help plan on the off chance that something happens locally. But what about the guy you've counseled and taught who knows absolutely everything about how the local detectives, DA and judges feel about things, and who has the misfortune to be attacked and have to defend himself while he's on vacation in some other part of the country?"

You advise him to seek and retain competent local counsel.

"In any case, people move. Even when people don't move, detective, DAs and even judges retire and are replaced by people with different attitudes and styles. And sometimes a higher court shuffles the deck. It's okay for you since your knowledge of the specific is built on a solid foundation of the general -- making adaptation to change more manageable. But what about the guy who knows only the "tab A goes into slot B" version?"

He's screwed, if he doesn't hire competent local counsel.

"And in any case, I and my colleagues have had our own experiences with personal relationships, and we've found that they can help but only go so far. A lot depends on the particular cast of characters, but sometimes one has to actually practice law. It's not always all about schmoozing."

Too true. Eventually bargaining can break down in some cases, especially in certain types of cases if the DA is insistent on impersonating a Tyrannosaur. That's what we get paid for. Trial, conviction, less onerous sentence than had we took the deal. I love those cases, and can spot them a mile away.
 
Wow...there sure is a lot of catch-up to play when you come in late.

In no particular order:

I'm not an attorney...have been a cop on three small municipal police departments for a total of 35 years (eight, eight, and nineteen years respectively), all part time. Have been mostly a full time researcher and trainer in the field, and a part time cop...did "ride alongs" with DEA when I was in Miami teaching for them, but was not along for any raids. That particular story was unadulterated BS.

I totally agree with Duke of Doubt that it is wise to know the mood of the courts (and the "mood of the prosecutors"!) in your own jurisdiction. If the Duke had ever taken an LFI-I class, he would know that students get the consumer's guide to picking a good local attorney beforehand; researching their local law and caselaw; and then bringing their questions to said attorney BEFORE they're involved in an incident.

However, I also agree with Fiddletown that knowing the current mood of the local court right now is not enough. None of you are hermits who never cross the town line. We are a mobile society, and however well the Duke may know the prosecutors in Bangor, that will be of little use to him if he's involved in a shooting upstate, or while visiting friends in Indiana, or while vacationing in Florida. That's why the deadly force training in LFI is generic and designed to cover key elements that will be in effect in all jurisdictions. And, as Fiddletown also makes clear, the chief prosecutor and the mood of his office can change with the next election...if not before.

A really good attorney who has done lots of gun/shooting cases could perhaps give you that, but you'd be paying $300 an hour or so instead of $20 an hour at LFI. It's y'all's budget and y'all's call.

Finally, on the open carry thing: we can't expect police dispatchers to simply answer a man with a gun report by telling the caller it's legal. The dispatcher has no way of knowing who the man with the gun is or what his intentions are. It's the sort of call that has to be checked out. It ain't a pro- or anti-gun thing, it's a "police response to frightened citizen's call for police service" thing.

Best to all,

Mas
 
It's not always all about schmoozing.

I was a defendant in a traffic accident lawsuit. The insurance company took the issue to a mediation procedure which, as you guys are well aware, is sort of like a private trial. I was somewhat put off by how chummy the lawyers and "judge" were, but even more surprised by the extent to which some of the key arguments in the proceedings were carried out in a sort of legal short hand.

It was sort of like getting caught up in a bridge game with expert players, and having the declarer look at the opening lead and lay down his hand saying, "I take 10 tricks."
 
This guy is a former DEA agent who worked Miami, and met Massad when he came to visit their unit. The unit just happened to be going on a raid that day, and invited him along. According to my instructor, he talked a good game en-route to the raid, but for some reason couldn't be pried out of the backseat of their vehicle upon arrival at the scene of the raid.
Obviously I wasn't there, but this sounds like genuine, 100% unadulterated horse poop.

Observations:

1. No one "participates" in a raid unless they are a sworn LEO in the jurisdiction where it happens. They could be shot (and the agency sued) or they could shoot someone (and get the agency sued). If, on the off chance this actually happened, the reason he could not be pried out of the backseat of the cruiser is because he recognized the intense, blistering stupidity of what was being suggested. I mean, really. This doesn't even pass the smell test. Raid teams train together constantly. No one is going to be in favor of adding some new guy to the stack with zero training time with the team.

2. Once the raid is conducted, there is literally no reason NOT to go inside, from a personal safety standpoint. I'm sure that raid teams have non-sworn individuals accompany them inside once the actual dangerous part is over. Witness the proliferation of "*insert town name here* SWAT" shows. The camera crew watches from the outside and then proceeds inside to film the aftermath.

It is possible that Mas Ayoob went along with a team on a raid, sat in the car while it was conducted, and then went inside afterward (or not...they're really not all that interesting once the entry is done), and someone not in the know may have mistaken his actions for cowardice. It's probably more likely that it is authentic urban legend hokum.

Mike
 
I totally agree with Duke of Doubt that it is wise to know the mood of the courts (and the "mood of the prosecutors"!) in your own jurisdiction. If the Duke had ever taken an LFI-I class, he would know that students get the consumer's guide to picking a good local attorney beforehand; researching their local law and caselaw; and then bringing their questions to said attorney BEFORE they're involved in an incident.

I totally agree with that. I see there are two groups of thought on this issue, the always talk to the cops group, and the never talk to the cops group.

IMO I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and depends on where you live. I think you should cooperate to the point that the police get the gist of the situation (ie what you would tell the 911 operator) but for any official statement it would be best to have a lawyer present.
 
I thought Mas gave a good interview. I always enjoy reading what he writes. I'm not real big on accepting everything any one person says at face value but about everything I have seen him write seems to be pretty much spot on.
I also agree with the whole riding along for the raid story sounding like bs. There are just too many reasons why anyone not on the team has no business being there.
 
massad ayoob said:
...That's why the deadly force training in LFI is generic and designed to cover key elements that will be in effect in all jurisdictions....
And let me add that much of it is, from my perspective, in the nature of:

[1] what sorts of things can I reasonably do ahead of time so the the deck will be stacked in my favor to the extent possible if something happens; and

[2] what to do until the cavalry (my lawyer) gets there.

It's the avoidance of foreseeable, avoidable risks beforehand and mitigation of risks during and after. And some of it is about being a wise consumer of legal services. And of course, Duke of Doubt, one needs a competent lawyer. What Mas covers is supplemental to that.
 
I just finally had the chance to listen to the tapes posted by Sheldon J, the original poster. (The folks at the radio show were kind enough to send a copy, but I hadn't found time to listen to it.)

And, Sheldon, you were right: I misspoke twice, as far as I could tell. As soon as I'd said "HazMat" (in discussing the ludicrous impossibility of the "ammo identifiability legislation") I had felt an internal "jargon alert" and thought I'd said "hazardous materials" to explain the contraction, but it turns out I said "HazMat materials." Kinda like saying "pizza pie": definite redundancy.

More important, as noted by other posters, I inadvertently said "shall issue" when I should have said "may issue" when describing a policy of giving permits only to the wealthy, white, and politically connected. I think I made it clear thereafter what I was saying, but you're right, I clearly misspoke there.

When mistakes are made, people need to know, and no one needs to know more than the guy who made the mistake. So, thanks for the catch and the feedback, Sheldon J. It is seriously appreciated.

Cordially,
Mas
 
"Finally, on the open carry thing: we can't expect police dispatchers to simply answer a man with a gun report by telling the caller it's legal. The dispatcher has no way of knowing who the man with the gun is or what his intentions are. It's the sort of call that has to be checked out. It ain't a pro- or anti-gun thing, it's a "police response to frightened citizen's call for police service" thing."

if the gun is drawn then it is illegal and the cops need to show up, if the gun is in a holster then there is no crime. This can be determined by one simple question by the dispatcher "is the gun in a holster?" or "is the gun draw?" or "is the gun in the mans hand?" or "is the gun on the mans belt?" any of these questions would give the dispatcher the knowledge needed to properly dispatch or not dispatch officers.

the dispatcher and officers do not need to know the person or the persons intentions. besides you mean that when an officer shows up and asks about the gun the person with the gun couldn't lie about his intentions? The person could be planning to shoot someone in the head, but until they pull the gun out off the holster they are committing no crime when open carry is legal.
 
the dispatcher and officers do not need to know the person or the persons intentions. besides you mean that when an officer shows up and asks about the gun the person with the gun couldn't lie about his intentions? The person could be planning to shoot someone in the head, but until they pull the gun out off the holster they are committing no crime when open carry is legal.

You've never listened to some of the 911 calls that come in have you? Very few of them say "There is a man with a gun in his holster at Main and Broadway." The dispatcher has no way of knowing what the man with a gun is doing. He may have his gun in his holster or he may be menacing someone with it. The system will always err on the side of caution. And I don't think you'd want it to be any other way if you think about it. The dispatcher is not there, he or she doesn't see what the caller sees and the dispatcher has no training in what's legal and what's not. Officers will be dispatched to find out what's really happening. It's not ever going to change. All calls for service are checked out. You have no idea how many wasted runs I've made when someone called 911 or dispatch direct with an off the wall complaint. It's always checked out because no one wants the liability that happens when a call for service is ignored.
 
In the end, this thread has developed into a nice discussion. I would note that the advanced search function, and the Members List option are great starting points to see who frequents THR. We have some bona fide experts here. It never hurts to get an answer straight from the horse's mouth. A couple of times it has saved me from looking the horse's anatomic opposite...I never needed much help achieving that one.

Interesting discussion. Seriously, thanks for keeping it The High Road! We all look appripriate here.

Geno (formerly Doc2005)
 
on the contrary I think erring on the side of caution is what is wrong with this nation.

and as I said in my post it would take one question from the dispatcher to find out where the gun is.
 
Actually, I think VCDL has pursued the OC reports issue in the past around the Norfolk VA area?

If memory serves, the police overreacted when called about someone open carrying-rather than merely “checking him out”, some intimidation was involved (not uncommon for the Norfolk/Tidewater region from what I hear). VCDL used FOIA to get the reports/phone calls etc, and worked with the local PD on how such a situation could/would be handled in the future.
Not too long after the original event (and much discussion between VCDL and authorities), a similar call was received and this time the dispatcher asked a number of questions (where is the gun, what is he doing, etc) before informing the caller the person OCing had broken no laws. I’m pretty sure I listened to the actual dispatcher calls back when a stink was raised ‘bout this (think VCDL had ‘em posted online).
I don’t expect the way the second call was handled to be the norm!

‘Course, the folks at VCDL in the Tidewater area have an OC outing ‘bout once a month(?) where a group of ‘em meet and eat at a local establishment while OCing (which you have to do in VA if alcohol is served-no CC where alcohol served).

I have no problem with OC, prefer not to do so, but when I do (usually warm weather/rural areas/family restaurants where alcohol is served), it’s much more of a “discreet carry”.

BTW…one of the stories that came outta their monthly OC meet and eats was a bartender told one of ‘em he felt pretty safe with all the LEOs in the restaurant.
Bartender kinda freaked out when he was informed “Oh, we’re not LEOs”!
 
f the gun is drawn then it is illegal and the cops need to show up, if the gun is in a holster then there is no crime. This can be determined by one simple question by the dispatcher "is the gun in a holster?" or "is the gun draw?" or "is the gun in the mans hand?" or "is the gun on the mans belt?" any of these questions would give the dispatcher the knowledge needed to properly dispatch or not dispatch officers.
Allow one dispatcher to dismiss one call of a man with a gun, in a holster, on his hip, threatening no-one at that time, and later have that guy be a bad actor in a shooting, and then listen to the posters on THR and various other internet fora spout on at great length about how the police have no duty to protect you and how they just chose not to respond to a gun run, and you'll realize how silly an idea that is.

If a citizen calls in a man with a gun run, the cops are going to go. Period. How they respond when they get there will depend upon what information is relayed to the dispatcher and what they see when they get there. Certainly the dispatchers will attempt to find out everything possible (like how it is being carried, what he is doing and what he is not doing) and relay that to the officers, but at no time will they just go "oh, it's nothing" and not respond.
and as I said in my post it would take one question from the dispatcher to find out where the gun is.
You assume that question will be answered, correctly, honestly, or at all. It is not unusual for a panicked citizen to just scream "JUST SEND THE COPS!" and hang up when they think the questioning has gone on long enough (usually about one question past "I gots me a man wif a gun here an I needs tha poh-leece"). Seriously. 911 calls are often not long on coherence.

Mike
 
SpecialKalltheway said:
...and as I said in my post it would take one question from the dispatcher to find out where the gun is...
The dispatcher is not going to try to figure out what's going on based on what the guy on the phone tells him/her. It is not going to happen, period, and nothing is going to change that. Someone was bothered enough to call it in, and the dispatcher is not going to risk having to explain why he/she didn't send an officer. If someone calls in a "man with a [holstered] gun" call, it's something on the order of 9999 to 10,000 that the guy with the gun will be talking to a cop before too long.
 
why didn't the dispatcher send an officer the first time this lady called then? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0303091mcnugget1.html

oh because a big bad evil gun wasn't involved! A gun being present is not a sign of evil doing. I still say NO! this is WRONG! I do not wish to continue to cater to the lowest common denominator and will not accept "well that's the way it is/has to be" as an answer.
 
SpecialKalltheway said:
...I do not wish to continue to cater to the lowest common denominator and will not accept "well that's the way it is/has to be" as an answer...
That's too bad, because sometimes that's the only answer there is in the real world. And that will be the answer whether you accept it or not.
 
oh because a big bad evil gun wasn't involved! A gun being present is not a sign of evil doing. I still say NO! this is WRONG! I do not wish to continue to cater to the lowest common denominator and will not accept "well that's the way it is/has to be" as an answer.

Sometimes you have to accept the fact that things just are the way they are. McDonalds being out of Mcnuggets is not a potential emergency in anyone's book. However an man with a gun call is and always will be.
 
Pardon moi if I interject a few actual cases!?

This is an oldie, but covers a couple of cases involving OC cases in VA-unfortunately, the links no longer work (actual 911 call, etc).
Sorry if it’s long, but it is pertinent to the discussion (and it really happened)! It's from a VCDL e-mail newsletter dated 10/16/2006, and I've cut a few useless items?

Chris Graham, a reporter with the Augusta Free Press, wrote an extensive article on a problem that some VCDL members had with the Staunton police while openly carrying in a restaurant. I knew of the incident from the time it happened, but did not bring it up on VA-ALERT because at least one VCDL member was contemplating taking legal action at the time.

Note that VCDL has no problem with the police coming to the restaurant to make sure that a crime wasn't being committed. The problem comes when the police, seeing and hearing of no actual crime being committed before (they called the manager on the phone before arriving and were told that there was NO problem) and after they arrived at the scene, proceed to treat the VCDL members like they had actually been doing something illegal. Once it was clear that the VCDL members were minding their own business and the restaurant was quiet, the police should have simply left - as has been done by police in other localities. Instead they ask for ID, post an officer who is told to keep the members in their seats, pressure the management to ask the members to put their guns in their cars, and then, finally, leave.

You can listen to the 911 tape audio by clicking here: http://www.mrs-tech.net/rip.mp3 NOTE: The audiotape is no longer at the site!

Delegate Mark Cole, standing up for gun owners, is quoted in the article as well.

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$40750 NOTE: The story is no longer at the link!

A violation of constitutional rights?

Staunton incident highlights gun-rights debate

Chris Graham
[email protected]

"Three guys came into the restaurant, and two of them had guns in their belts. And, I mean, they didn't look like undercover police.
But then again, what does undercover police look like? But ... uh ... it just looks kind of odd. They kept getting up and going to the restroom and coming back and forth. They went to the restroom at least twice each. And I'm just a little concerned about it."

The 9-1-1 call was logged at 6:31 p.m. the evening of July 15.

The caller was a patron at Casa di Scotto's in downtown Staunton.

"Black or white?" the emergency dispatcher asked.

"White."

"One of them?" the dispatcher inquired.

"Three of them."

"Can you describe them any more than that?"

"They're sitting in the corner table," the caller answered. "One of them ... I should say two of them ... are about six-foot, six-foot-two, maybe, mid-30s. One looks like he's carrying either a Glock or, I'll say, a .45."

"Are two of them armed, or all they all armed?"

"I can only tell if two of them are armed. The other one, I couldn't tell. The one that didn't look like he was armed is the one that is in the red shirt. The other two appear to be definitely armed." [The complainant was right - two were armed and one was not - PVC]

'Weird call'

Alexandria resident David Yates was one of the men sitting at the corner table at Casa di Scotto's that evening.

"We sat down for dinner, and I would guess that maybe 10, 15 minutes after we sat down, one of my friends said he had seen a bunch of police cars rolling up. We kind of figured that something had happened. What really made it surreal was finding out why they were there," Yates told The Augusta Free Press.

Yates has listened to the tape of the 9-1-1 call numerous times. To his ear, it sounds that it all comes down to a couple of trips to the bathroom. [They had been to a shooting range and needed to wash their hands before eating and then again, later to , er, use the facilities ;-) - PVC]

"When you listen to the call, the whole premise of going to the bathroom being suspicious is kind of really out there. I know that that isn't the only thing - but I think the salient point is that I think the caller was reaching for a problem," Yates said.

Yates also thinks the dispatcher and the officers sent to the scene were themselves reaching for a problem - and a second call logged on tape a few minutes after the initial 9-1-1 call in which an unidentified Staunton police officer phoned Casa di Scotto's and asked to speak to a manager there to find out what was going on
inside the restaurant might back him up on that point.

"I don't want to alarm you or anything, but I just got a weird call, and I've got officers on the way to your restaurant because of it, and I wanted to see what you see - what's going on out there. I mean, does everything appear OK right now?" the officer asked the manager once she got to the phone.

"Yes, as far as I can tell," the manager responded.

"I had somebody call me and tell me there are a couple of armed men sitting in one of the booths in the corner."

"Yes, yes. I know one man has a gun."

"OK, do you know who he is? Are they causing any problems?" the officer asked.

"I didn't notice anything bad. I know they are drinking."

"They're drinking alcohol?"

"Yes. Only one ..." [The one of the three who wasn't carrying a gun - PVC]

"They're drinking alcohol. All right. But they're not causing any problems?" the officer queried.

"No, no, no, no, no."

"If you could tell the officers. We do have officers on the way to check on them, OK?"
The manager's next reply was unintelligible on the tape.

"I want to ... you're sure there's nothing going on? You're OK?" the officer asked next.

"We are fine."

"OK. If anything changes, go ahead and call us right back."

"What I have an objection to, shall we say, is that the call was not handled well at the various stages," Yates said. "You can hear the words that were actually said - at dispatch, in the cruiser, right up to the point where they got on scene. I think anybody can draw their own conclusion that the officers knew what this was about - and they certainly were not in any hurry to get involved in it."

According to a police report filed on the incident, it took 12 minutes until the first units arrived on the scene at Casa di Scotto's - an intriguing amount of time given the restaurant's proximity to the police department's headquarters in the downtown district.

The actions of the officers once they had arrived were also intriguing in the eyes of Yates.

"The officer in charge greeted us by indicating that they had received a call of armed people in the restaurant. At this point, the officer in charge asked, 'Do you have identification?' " Yates said.

Yates replied that he did have ID, as did his dinner companions.

The officer in charge then told them that he needed to see them.

"He then ordered a younger officer to remain with us and 'make sure they stay put,' Yates said.

"The officer in charge returned after a few moments and said they were in the process of running background checks. When they were complete, he again approached us, returned our respective IDs and said, 'Gentlemen, I understand that you have a right to be here, but the owner has said that they want you to remove the firearms from the restaurant, and that's their right," Yates said.


'A hassle'

There has been a good bit of discussion in the Virginia General Assembly in recent years on the guns-in-restaurants issue. Current Virginia law does not place any prohibitions on the right of residents to openly carry weapons in restaurants - though, curiously, to some, there is a stricture on the books on carrying concealed weapons in restaurants.

Yates has a valid Virginia concealed-handgun permit.

"I'm astounded that this kind of thing can still happen in Virginia - because it's no secret that state law requires open carry in restaurants, it's no secret that open-carry is legal, and it's no secret that people wash their hands before they eat dinner," said Mike Stollenwerk, an Alexandria resident who got caught up in a similar kind of encounter with police in Reston when he and a group of friends, including Yates, sat down for dinner at a Champps restaurant in 2004 with guns strapped to their hips in plain view.

"That was a relatively mild encounter. It was just a little bit dramatic. A bunch of us after shooting had gone to eat at Champps in Reston, and the Fairfax police got called by somebody out in the street. At the end of the day, basically, they came, they saw, and they left. It was played up by The Washington Post as this huge, dramatic incident that illustrated that the General Assembly was out of control by continuing to allow people to open-carry in restaurants - but that was nothing to what it appeared to what they went through," Stollenwerk said.

"The Fairfax County police responded to a man-with-a-gun call. They didn't demand our IDs. They didn't demand or tell us to stay seated. There was none of that. It was a little bit weird - but oh, well, they left. This Staunton thing is, I think, much more intrusive," Stollenwerk told the AFP.

Yates has been pressing the issue of apparent intrusiveness in a string of communications with the Staunton Police Department in which he has requested that the city come up with and implement a policy for dealing with 9-1-1 calls involving reports of "armed citizens" who are not otherwise engaged in suspicious activity that does not include the kind of heavy-handed police measures that he feels he was made to fall victim to.

"I really think that more than likely this was an issue of standard procedure that doesn't fit the specific situation. Nothing that was alleged was wrong. There has to be a nexus to some kind of wrongdoing, and there was none," Yates said.

"This encounter could have been handled at a much lower level - with greater simplicity. This could have and should have been so much less of a hassle for everybody," Yates said.

Staunton police chief Jim Williams, for his part, doesn't like the description of his department's handling of the Casa di Scotto's incident as a hassle.

"We were responding to a citizen's call for service. This wasn't something that we initiated," Williams told the AFP. "A citizen had called and said that there were individuals who were carrying guns in the restaurant, and there was something about them that didn't look right. This isn't something that you see every day in Staunton, and in the mind of the citizen making the complaint, the subjects seemed to be acting suspiciously. So they asked us to come check it out.

"I don't know that you can ignore what was said by the person who initiated the call for service," Williams said. "There is a balance in these kinds of situations between a citizen's rights and the protection of the public. There has to be that balance."

Staunton Commonwealth's attorney Ray Robertson struck a similar chord in a Sept. 1 response to a letter from Yates asking for clarification of details of the police department's response to the July 15 9-1-1 call.

"It was a patron of the restaurant who considered the activity of Mr. Yates and his friends suspicious enough that he made a 9-1-1 call to the police department," Robertson, who serves as the chief legal advisor to the city PD, wrote in the letter. "It is disconcerting to many people to see laymen in public with guns strapped on their hips, although it is legal in many cases.

"The gun-toting patrons were also alleged to have left the open portion of the restaurant and gone to a back room (presumably the bathroom). In this day and age, when so many robberies occur, with so many disturbed people opening fire randomly in establishments like restaurants, and in which the threat of terrorism has become more and more scary to many citizens, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a patron not used to observing such activity might place an emergency call.

"Complaints of this nature do not have to allege an illegal activity. All they need to show is an articulable suspicion. I would analogize with the case of a patrol officer late at night who observed a car driving very slowly, alternately going off the side of the road and then crossing the center line, and making wide turns. None of these actions constitute an illegal activity. However, they do arouse suspicion, and that is enough to give the officer the right, and indeed the responsibility, to investigate further.

"It seems to me that this is what the officers did in this case," Robertson said.

Robertson declined to offer further comment on the matter when contacted by the AFP.


'A constitutional right'

Fredericksburg Republican Del. Mark Cole has been working with fellow state legislators to add some common sense to the laws regarding open-carry and concealed-carry.

"The current law makes absolutely no sense," Cole told the AFP. "What the current law does is prohibits someone who has had a criminal-background check done, and has a demonstrated proficiency in the safe handling of a gun, and has been issued a permit to carry concealed by the state, it prohibits them from carrying the gun concealed in any restaurants that serve alcohol. However, if they open-carry, if they show everybody that they've got a gun, they can carry - as can anybody who does not have a permit and can lawfully carry a gun. The current law is just plain stupid.

"We place way too many restrictions on concealed-carry," Cole said. "You ought to be able, if you have a permit, to concealed-carry anywhere that you can open-carry. To place additional restrictions on concealed-carry makes absolutely no sense."

Guns in restaurants - particularly those that serve alcohol, like Casa di Scotto's - don't make much sense, either, in the eyes of John Shanks, the director of law enforcement relations at the Washington, D.C.,-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"You think about barrooms and barroom brawls - and so many times away from bars, conflicts that are typically an exchange of words or maybe a pushing or shoving match, you introduce a gun into that, and it
automatically turns into a deadly type situation. You do that, and then introduce a gun and alcohol into it, and not only are you putting the two people that are fighting who are in disagreement at risk, but you're putting everybody in that room at risk. Because where are those bullets going to go if you miss the person, one, and two, if it goes through that person and comes out the other side at close quarters, where is that bullet going to go? What other innocent victims are going to be taken down by having a drunk with a gun?"
Shanks told the AFP. [Hey, permit holders! The Brady Campaign is saying that you are all a bunch of drunks with guns! We all know who has really been doing the heavy drinking (and weed smoking), don't
we? - PVC]

"Police officers are trained to think before they pull the trigger - am I justified in pulling the trigger? Has the use-of-force continuum been met to where I'm authorized in using deadly force? They also have to think about - what's behind my target, and what are the consequences of pulling the trigger, where is that bullet going to go if it goes through the suspect, if I miss the suspect? They think about that as well - and when you talk about people who are concealed-carry, or people who are carrying with no license at all
openly, that thought process does not necessarily take place. They just have this kind of macho chip on their shoulder, and they say, Oh, there's somebody who's a threat, I'm going to shoot them. And they don't think about the consequences and where that bullet is going to go," Shanks said. [Mr. Shanks - show me where there has been a problem with America's 2.5 million permit holders who can legally carry in restaurants in their home states. He can't, but he has a good imagination that could happen, but never do. - PVC]

Bob Ricker of the advocacy group Virginians for Public Safety said state law needs to be updated to reflect these new realities.

"We're opposed to guns anywhere there's alcohol served - whether or not it's open-carry or concealed-carry," Ricker told the AFP. [And Mr. Ricker calls US extreme! - PVC]

"The state of the law in Virginia is that under the concealed-weapons-permit law, if you're a permit holder, you're prohibited from taking your gun concealed into a restaurant or bar. The open-carry part of it is there's nothing that says you can't do it, and there's nothing that says you can do it - it's just not covered under the law. So what's happened is, a lot of people who I think are really irresponsible gun owners, what they do is, if they go into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol, if they have a concealed-weapons permit, they simply unconceal the weapons and claim that they are legal. [So, Ricker says that all of you who open carry in restaurants TO OBEY THE LAW are acting IRRESPONSIBLY! We didn't write the law, Mr. Ricker, we are simply obeying it. I wonder if Mr. Ricker only views gun owners obeying the law as irresponsible? - PVC]

"Everybody who is an expert in firearms recognizes the fact that guns and alcohol don't mix. We think this is a very, very dangerous situation - not only the fact that somebody would have a gun in a bar and may be consuming alcohol, but especially a gun that's openly carried. Even someone who goes into a bar or restaurant openly carrying who is not consuming alcohol, that gun sticking out there is an open invitation for anybody who's had one or two drinks too many and can grab at it or do anything else. [Ricker has made a great argument for him to SUPPORT VCDL's efforts to allow concealed carry in restaurants! Of course Ricker can't show where open carry has ever actually been a problem. - PVC]

"It's one of those situations where it's just not a safe firearms practice to have guns around alcohol," Ricker said. [Gun owners carry guns where alcohol is served all the time in Virginia - openly in restaurants or concealed (with CHP) at special events, all without incident - PVC]

"We think that this whole kind of Wild West atmosphere that the gun lobby is promoting is really very counterproductive," said Jim Sollo, the vice president of the advocacy group Virginians Against Handgun
Violence. [Oh, here comes the old 'Wild West' analogy. After all these years, you would think Mr. Sollo would come up with something better than that. But, there probably isn't anything else for the gun banners to use as they bluster at us. - PVC]

"Most of these people are not trained in when it's legitimate to use their weapons. The whole thing is just rife with problems. The more you get guns out in places where there are lots of people, the more you get them out in public, the more likely things are likely to go bad," Sollo said. [Oh, please. And where has there been any trouble stirred up by Virginia's 130,000 permit holders in all these years?
After VCDL meetings every month we have up to 50 people open carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol. There has never been a problem, completely contradicting Sollo's statement. More smoke and mirrors and not facts. - PVC]

"I know people are always saying, well, they're going to be the hero, they're going to run in there and stop the guy who's robbing McDonald's - but those things almost never happen. And so it's just kind of a macho thing that doesn't do anything except create danger," Sollo told the AFP. [Sollo just doesn't understand that gun owners carry not to be intimidating (that can get you put in jail), but to protect ourselves in the case of an emergency. What is so complicated that he can't get his mind around the concept? - PVC]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top