Another GA OC incident - Page 4

Another GA OC incident

This is a discussion on Another GA OC incident within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Jaystekan Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-11-36 - Georgia Attorney Resources - Georgia Laws This particular incident ...

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 298
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Another GA OC incident

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-11-36 - Georgia Attorney Resources - Georgia Laws

    This particular incident of a man in the mall parking lot with a gun on his hip easily falls into this!!!

    Under section a) this man easily caused alarm to any passer-by in the parking lot. Section b states that he could be considered loitering simply by refusing to identify himself. Section b also states that this could easily have been fixed by allowing the person to identify himself, hich the officer did, but he refused to do.





    explain how that is?? he was not loitering or prowling?? its does not fit and that is the reason he wasnt charged with it.

    and to satisfy the code only your verbal name is required.
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994) (holding that radio call alerting police to presence of two people in vehicle with guns did not provide reasonable suspicion because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime).

    Quote:
    Agreed, the sight of the Dudleys' truck, overloaded with goods and converted into a camper, together with a report of guns is somewhat odd; but some mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’, id., without more, is simply not enough to justify an investigatory stop.” In short, the Government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable facts, justified this seizure. And, if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v. Long authorize the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the officers reasonably fear for their safety.

    (emphasis added).

    Quote:
    . . . investigatory Terry-stop. To justify this conduct the officers must have had a “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” that the Dudleys were engaged in criminal activity. Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-off shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in “suspicious” activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of crime.
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  3. #48
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,824
    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994) (holding that radio call alerting police to presence of two people in vehicle with guns did not provide reasonable suspicion because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime).

    Quote:
    Agreed, the sight of the Dudleys' truck, overloaded with goods and converted into a camper, together with a report of guns is somewhat odd; but some mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’, id., without more, is simply not enough to justify an investigatory stop.” In short, the Government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable facts, justified this seizure. And, if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v. Long authorize the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the officers reasonably fear for their safety.

    (emphasis added).

    Quote:
    . . . investigatory Terry-stop. To justify this conduct the officers must have had a “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” that the Dudleys were engaged in criminal activity. Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-off shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in “suspicious” activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of crime.
    None of the above is pertinent to your brothers situation, he had interaction with other individuals/individual "in person" while armed, to wit, the security guard/s.

    The Dudley's had not. They were also in vehicle, your brother was not.

    If you are trying to use the "Terry stop" decision in your brothers situation, you aren't going to go anywhere with that line of thinking in the courts.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  4. #49
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,824
    "A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity."

    All the security guard/s have to claim is that they had an immediate concern, which apparently they did for some reason, as they called the cops.

    "afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself"

    Doesn't mention anywhere in the above that a verbal identification and only a verbal identification is acceptable. Even if that were true, it is the officers discretion to further investigate the identification if he isn't satisfied with the answer and by doing so would be within the law to ask for further identification to verify the person is telling the truth.

    He only has to be reasonable in his request by being able to articulate his reason for further action to produce proof of identification. Nowhere in the above statute that seems to suggests he can't or has to accept the subjects verbal answer as truthful.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  5. #50
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by stickybeatz View Post
    I know in Arizona, you're required to present ID when requested by a police officer. This guy deserved to get arrested, imo
    ONLY if GA law requires him to provide ID. If it ain't against the law then it ain't against the law!!

  6. #51
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    They have the right to ask for identification based on responding to a call of man with a gun.Brownie

    NOT if OC is legal in that jurisdiction.

  7. #52
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,824
    From what has been used in defense by others to support their own idea of identifying oneself, the Ga. statute cited does not specify how one will identify himself.

    As there's no specificity in the statute, an officer may ask you for identification which would then have to be produced upon that request. It's open to interpretation, and guess who the courts are going to side with when it comes to trial?

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  8. #53
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,824
    "NOT if OC is legal in that jurisdiction."

    Really? The statute clearly states one will identify him/herself or be subject to a violation of the law. What form that identification takes is not specific, and the statute is written with full knowledge of OC in that state.

    Can you cite in the statute where OC being legal in Ga., the person who is being questioned based on a field inquiry initiated by a complaintant absolves that person from identifying themselves when asked?

    I can't find it in the cite of the statute anywhere, perhaps you'll have better luck supporting that position by statute for us.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  9. #54
    Member Array Jaystekan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Bouquett View Post
    NOT if OC is legal in that jurisdiction.
    It was private property. The police were called by represantitives of that property. Therefore OC was not legal in that particular area. I believe there is more to this story. If this person was asked to leave, and the police were called, by the time the 911 call was placed, the dispatcher sent a patrol car, and the police got to the scene, and this guy still didn't make it back to his car in that amount of time? There is something missing here. Oh, wait, I know, the ENTIRE other side of the story is missing. I guarantee you, there is more to this story than we are being told.
    Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

  10. #55
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I don't undestand why these troublemakers simply don't show their ID. The incident would be over in seconds. Clearly they have nothing better to do with their time and waste other's time in the process.

    These people endanger our rights and give all gun owners a bad name.

  11. #56
    Member Array ekillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Conroe, TX
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by mzmtg View Post
    As a matter of fact, NO, there is no such law in GA.
    Then what is the point of the permit if you don't have to produce it? Anyone could say "I have one, but you're not gonna see it today." At which point the officer would have 2 options. Option 1 "Ok sir. I trust you bye." And how are they gonna be deciding who they believe. If it's not mandatory then it's one more circumstance for the officer to be accused of the dreaded racially profiling. Cuz who's he gonna trust more? The gangster looking guy or the good 'ol boy?
    Option 2 arrest the guy and gain the right to search incident to arrest. At which point if he has the permit he's already under arrest.
    They might as well not have any permit laws.

  12. #57
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    [QUOTE=JAT40;950439]Is it possible that because of conflicts like this more restrictions and less freedoms could result? Wouldn't want a backfire. [QUOTE]

    Some people just prefer to not lead their lives running scared.

  13. #58
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466

    Well Said

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't undestand why these troublemakers simply don't show their ID. The incident would be over in seconds. Clearly they have nothing better to do with their time and waste other's time in the process.

    These people endanger our rights and give all gun owners a bad name.
    Amen my brother!

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    [QUOTE=Rusty Bouquett;950733][QUOTE=JAT40;950439]Is it possible that because of conflicts like this more restrictions and less freedoms could result? Wouldn't want a backfire.

    Some people just prefer to not lead their lives running scared.
    In this fight with the anti-gunners, WISDOM trumps loose cannons!
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  15. #60
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    This particular incident of a man in the mall parking lot with a gun on his hip easily falls into this!!!

    They were not charging him with loitering, they were charging him with trespass.

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Incident at 7/11
    By wolfshead in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2011, 12:26 AM
  2. Incident at the 7-11
    By FloridaShooter in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 10th, 2007, 11:33 AM
  3. Dog Incident
    By harley91 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 17th, 2007, 06:34 PM
  4. Just Had an Incident
    By gordo23 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: September 27th, 2006, 10:23 AM

Search tags for this page

failure to produce id georgia

,

ga obstruction for failure to produce id

,

obstructing or hindering leo (misd) statute 16-10-24(a)

,

oc show id georgia

Click on a term to search for related topics.