If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[lucusloc]

This is not a crime prevention case, this is only a self defense case.

which is predicated on the crime prevention case. If not for the crime prevention aspect he has no justification for self defense after starting the altercation.

 

[Koda]

Per the police after they watched the video he didn't 'reach for the gun' He lowered his right arm but they didn't say he reached for it

This is the questionable part. How the police seeing the video is moot, the question is around how the mall cop saw it and was it reasonable to believe he was reaching for it when his arm lowered. The thing that stands out to me is that now that its proven he had a (second) gun and lowered his arm it does in fact validate the mall cops claim he had or reached for it.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

which is predicated on the crime prevention case. If not for the crime prevention aspect he has no justification for self defense after starting the altercation.

Fruit Of The Poison Tree

 

[Yarome]

Also, what is the law about carrying a concealed airsoft gun? Does anyone know? Does the law consider this a concealed weapon?

That does bring up an interesting question. Many folks may be getting hung up on "it was just a toy", but most jurisdiction classify them as either a "firearm" or "dangerous weapon".

Dangerous weapons and generally more allowed, but under qualified conditions. IE., On private property with the owners permission or an area where they are designated for lawful use. Like an airsoft or paintball course. I have no idea about the laws around open or concealed carry though.

In many places, even "dangerous weapons" are prohibited in public areas, in state and national parks, etc.

Good question!

 

[Koda]

which is predicated on the crime prevention case. If not for the crime prevention aspect he has no justification for self defense after starting the altercation.

Again, respectfully disagree. There was no crime committed by the mall cop by detaining the kids at gun point since the kids were brandishing guns first.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This is the questionable part. How the police seeing the video is moot, the question is around how the mall cop saw it and was it reasonable to believe he was reaching for it when his arm lowered. The thing that stands out to me is that now that its proven he had a (second) gun and lowered his arm it does in fact validate the mall cops claim he had or reached for it.

Pointless argument. He had no reasonable justification under WA law for getting out of his perfectly safe car and confronting them.

 

[Koda]

Pointless argument. He had no reasonable justification under WA law for getting out of his perfectly safe car and confronting them.

Yes he did, thats where we see this story differently. Ultimately it will be up to the jury of course but its not unreasonable to believe someone walking into a store with a gun in hand is not going to commit a crime.

 

[lucusloc]

Again, respectfully disagree. There was no crime committed by the mall cop by detaining the kids at gun point since the kids were brandishing guns first.

Stupidity is not a crime, the presumption of illegality was not his to make. At best he had reason to call the cops, not take action himself. Hate to say it, but if he was an actual cop he would be in a much better position, because then he would have had reasonable justification to confront what, at that point, was nothing more than obvious stupidity with no concrete evidence a crime was in the process of being committed. But as it stands he had not such right to make that presumption, and this seems to be spelled out in WA law; no crime no justification for a non-LEO to confront. He could call it in and respond only after it was clear a crime was actually in progress. That seems to be WA law on the matter.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yes he did, thats where we see this story differently. Ultimately it will be up to the jury of course but its not unreasonable to believe someone walking into a store with a gun in hand is not going to commit a crime.

This you?

This is not a crime prevention case, this is only a self defense case.

So which one is it? There was absolutely no reason for him to get out of his car which is what created the 'self defense case' except to prevent a crime that wasn't happening but he though could *might* happen, and not to be a broken record, but . . .

In Washington state, a citizen's arrest can be conducted to detain someone you see committing a misdemeanor or felony, like when store employees restrain a shoplifter. Private citizens don't have the authority to detain someone or take them to jail for believing a crime COULD be committed. If a person detains someone they didn't see commit a crime, it could be considered false imprisonment.

 

[Koda]

Stupidity is not a crime, the presumption of illegality was not his to make. At best he had reason to call the cops, not take action himself. Hate to say it, but if he was an actual cop he would be in a much better position, because then he would have had reasonable justification to confront what, at that point, was nothing more than obvious stupidity with no concrete evidence a crime was in the process of being committed. But as it stands he had not such right to make that presumption, and this seems to be spelled out in WA law; no crime no justification for a non-LEO to confront. He could call it in and respond only after it was clear a crime was actually in progress. That seems to be WA law on the matter.

Disagree again. There is no Wa. law that prevents intervention here and there was enough evidence to reasonably believe a crime was in progress. It makes no difference if he was a real police officer or not.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

 

[Yarome]

But there kinda is: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/if-you-carry-do-not-be-this-idiot.483813/post-3880194

Not really. That is addressing a "could/might" situation. IE., a person can't be detained because they "might" be carrying a concealed weapon, but no one saw anything that would indicate that. The reasonable suspicion must be witnessed.

In this case, it's correct that the teens couldn't be detained or arrested for robbing the store until they were actually robbing it. However, they CAN be detained for carrying what appeared to be a handgun (that was witnessed) and there existed an additional presumptive assumption that an imminent threat may exist for those within the store.

Maybe that's where the confusion is? Some folks only considering that if the store wasn't actively being robbed then anything leading up to that was moot? That would be an incorrect assumptions but they would be correct that the teens wouldn't be charged with robbing the place if they hadn't been actively engaged in doing so.

If there comes to light any evidence though that they did intend to rob the place, they "could" face attempted robbery charges. All that's required for that is showing that they took steps and intended to do so... even if the crime never occurred.

Heck... walking toward a store with what appeared to be firearms... that might be sufficient for an attempted robbery charge, but I doubt it would stick without an admission from one of them.

 

[Koda]

This you?


So which one is it? There was absolutely no reason for him to get out of his car which is what created the 'self defense case' except to prevent a crime that wasn't happening but he though could *might* happen, and not to be a broken record, but . . .

In Washington state, a citizen's arrest can be conducted to detain someone you see committing a misdemeanor or felony, like when store employees restrain a shoplifter. Private citizens don't have the authority to detain someone or take them to jail for believing a crime COULD be committed. If a person detains someone they didn't see commit a crime, it could be considered false imprisonment.

Its a self defense case because the first gun was secured, that incident was over. The second gun is a separate incident. Based on how I understand the law the two events are considered separate incidences. Eg, he wont be charged with false imprisonment or detaining the first kid. I would be surprised anyways.

The rest about citizens arrest law has already been covered and disagree that applies here too. As far as I know a teenager walking around with a gun in hand is a crime, so its reasonable to believe a crime could be committed walking into a store. Replica guns are moot here. The confusion in this discussion I think, stems from the fact that the kids intended no crime but thats not required to be false if its reasonable to conclude otherwise.

 

[Koda]

Not really. That is addressing a "could/might" situation. IE., a person can't be detained because they "might" be carrying a concealed weapon, but no one saw anything that would indicate that. The reasonable suspicion must be witnessed.

In this case, it's correct that the teens couldn't be detained or arrested for robbing the store until they were actually robbing it. However, they CAN be detained for carrying what appeared to be a handgun (that was witnessed) and there existed an additional presumptive assumption that an imminent threat may exist for those within the store.

Maybe that's where the confusion is? Some folks only considering that if the store wasn't actively being robbed then anything leading up to that was moot? That would be an incorrect assumptions but they would be correct that the teens wouldn't be charged with robbing the place if they hadn't been actively engaged in doing so.

If there comes to light any evidence though that they did intend to rob the place, they "could" face attempted robbery charges. All that's required for that is showing that they took steps and intended to do so... even if the crime never occurred.

Heck... walking toward a store with what appeared to be firearms... that might be sufficient for an attempted robbery charge, but I doubt it would stick without an admission from one of them.

Agree again, Yarome explains it better than I can...
this is where I think the confusion is on the "could" crime. The gun in hand was the reasonable evidence.

 

[Koda]

View attachment 1896095

That open carry trend back then never did gun rights any favor either...

 

[lucusloc]

That open carry trend back then never did gun rights any favor either...

stupid or not, would be hard to justify shooting them over it. I disagree that a gun alone is justification to presume malice over stupidity. There are lots of reasons to walk around with a gun, some of them good some of them stupid, but none of them malicious. The trick is proving that reasonable assumption of maliciousness. I do not see that here absent other factors.

 

[Koda]

I disagree that a gun alone is justification to presume malice over stupidity.

To clarify, I never said that.

 

[Yarome]

....the fact that the kids intended no crime...

Which is not an established fact and there is certainly reasonable grounds to argue that the did in fact intend to do so. In light of the prevailing public opinions about stuff like that and the fact that a teen died.. which is tragedy enough that no prosecutor would want to touch that, anyway.. I very highly doubt anyone is going to try and argue position.

It's curious how many seem to buy their story at face value though. Even though their incredibly odd choice of carry method for a store return is highly suspect.

I'm not saying I don't believe it, but I certainly have doubts that's the truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[lucusloc]

To clarify, I never said that.

Isn't it though? He had the gun in his hand, but in no other way was acting as if something was going down. Just carrying it (into the store where he got it from). Stupid way to carry a gun sure (even a fake one), but not in and of itself enough to establish criminal intent.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

To clarify, I never said that.

So what else were the 3 teenagers doing to justify presumeing malice over stupidity?