Report of armed man leads to lockdown at Wal-Mart

Report of armed man leads to lockdown at Wal-Mart

A report of an armed man acting erratically in the Wal-Mart parking lot Wednesday led to the store being temporarily locked down before Kirksville Police responded to and diffused the situation with no injuries.

According to Kirksville Police Chief Jim Hughes, a passerby stopped a Kirksville Police officer and said they had seen an individual acting erratically in a truck in the Wal-Mart parking lot shortly before 2:30 p.m. The passerby believed the individual had a gun to his head.

...

KPD responded to control the scene and ordered a lockdown of the store both to keep shoppers in and prevent the individual from entering the store.

After identifying the vehicle and person in question, Hughes said a decision was made on the scene for police to attempt contact. They were able to communicate with him and he voluntarily exited the vehicle. No weapon was found and the individual was taken into custody without incident less than 20 minutes after police arrived on scene.

The individual was talking on a cell phone at the time of the incident. It's likely that is the object the passerby identified as a gun.

The world has gone mad.

Think about this for a moment... You're sitting in your car talking on a cell phone and minutes later you are in POLICE CUSTODY!



I find this part most disturbing:

Hughes said a decision was made on the scene for police to attempt contact.

He was lucky he wasn't shot.

:shk:

What a wonderful world we have built for ourselves....

It's ridiculous that all it takes to call in a swat team and have your life turned upside down if not ended if one paranoid bystander who cant seem to mind his own business.

We should start calling in ridiculous reports of "erratic behavior" and mythical gun sightings all the time.

Run them ragged with their own stupidity and paranoia.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Here's the pathetic video: Link.

Well with DHS "See something, Say Something" video(s) being played on all the checkout screens indoors, this was bound to happen. My only guess is that situations like this will intensify as we go forward.

reply to post by Unmask The Deception






I think based upon the example of the guy above, this "see something, say something" campaign is going to get innocent people killed.

reply to post by loam


"Wow"

I am not surprised. I do not goto walmart, but I have heard there are homeland security tv screens in some locations spreading the fearporn.

Get used to more of this crap.

"Sir, you cannot leave this store, there is danger outside. Sir, trust me, I am a police officer, here have some nestle fluoridated water while you wait"

This is just crazy. A guy was most likely having a heated argument on his phone.

the individual was taken into custody without incident less than 20 minutes after police arrived on scene.

and

said no crime was committed

But he was taken into custody?? Temporarily arrested on scene or actually taken to the station? Since there was no weapon and no crime had been committed, they couldn't just talk to him on scene and release him (if they did in fact do that)?

Of course, we don't have any details about exactly what did happen, but, yeah, i still think it is a bit absurd on both whoever got freaked out and the police..

Geez...

A guy technically having an argument could be considered "disturbing the peace," but i wonder how long anything other than mute, indifferent pacifism will be the expected norm. Walking around like zombies or face consequences...

Man, this is just... *shakes head*

Oh how far will we go.

I am surprised, but i shouldn't be. Guess i am more surprised by the absurdity--and nosiness--of the human race than anything else.

Remember Folks:

If you See something, Say Something.

Ridiculous!

Look at this comment on the page, I lol'd.


radiowave said: 2 minutes ago
Problem is, that it could have been a high capacity cellphone. Who knows how many contacts that phone could have held? I know you may scream "freedom of speech", and "1st Amendment", but really those rights need to be balanced with others, so that unstable people can't contact others at will. How many contacts does one person need on their cellphone? They did right to detain this dangerous person, and I hope they pass reasonable regulations to limit the number of dangerous cellphone incidents. 1st Amendment rights are no excuse.

reply to post by Liquesence


No crime may have been committed at that moment but cops will still haul him in and spend the rest of their day scouring over his life looking for anything to charge him with unless he speaks up and puts the cops on the spot with "am I under arrest or am I free to go?" and even then they'll still be looking into his life trying to validate their reaction anyway they can.

Too much depends on the cops mood.

reply to post by loam


Hasn't this crap been going on since 911 (possibly before), though? I remember after 911, the government want citizens to snoop on their neighbors for suspicious activity, and wanted other people (delivery men, meter readers, postal workers, etc) to do the same thing. I mean, snooping on one's neighbor, especially when they "look Muslim," is just...dangerous to the fabric of our society.

The paranoia of having everyone fear--and suspect--everyone else.

When we can't even trust ourselves and our neighbors, we have a serious problem in our society.

~

Are these "see something, say something" videos actually played in public and in business?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That and he now has an arrest record that will effect his employment prospects for the rest of his life.

This man is very lucky that they didn't shoot first, ask questions later. Maybe these cops haven't seen the recent articles claiming a "War on Cops." Otherwise they may have been more trigger happy.
I did not read that they arrested him. No crime was committed(at least not by the 'suspect'/Victim).
Im sure they detained him while they searched him and his vehicle.

cops will still haul him in and spend the rest of their day scouring over his life

In a reply to thisguyrighthere, I seriously doubt that happened. If they did then he's got a lawsuit.

That and he now has an arrest record that will effect his employment prospects for the rest of his life.

I am also in doubt of this. No crime= no arrest= no record. They detained him and wasted his good time that he could of spent finishing his phone conversation, but there should be no permanent record.

Divide and conquer. Russia used this tactic sucessfully for years with her citizens. Don't trust anyone, report everything. Welcome to the Police state of America. Things are escalating so fast, it is amazing in a sick kind of way.

reply to post by loam


Oh here is a winner...


Tal:

They may have felt there was cause such as a mental illness or possibility of something like that. I hope the man is okay.



Well, lets put it this way...were scroomed.

You guys crack me up. So when the Police receive a call claiming a man has a gun what should they do? Just ignore the call? From reading the article it sounds like the Police handled the situation properly. Yeah the caller was an idiot that cannot tell a cell phone from a gun. I will give you that. No where in the article did it say the SWAT team responded, nor does it say he was arrested. You guys do realize that taken into custody does not necessarily mean he was arrested and charged with a crime. If I respond to a call about a person with a possible gun the first thing I do is place the person into custody aka detain the person for Officer safety. Once I determine the situation is safe and no crime was committed then they are released. The Police responded and investigated the situation. They came to the conclusion that there was in fact no crime committed and they let the guy go. Where did the Police do wrong?

Ahhh after reading the article a little more carefully I can see why people think he was arrested for nothing. The writer of the article wrote "They were able to communicate with him and he voluntarily exited the vehicle. No weapon was found and the individual was taken into custody without incident less than 20 minutes after police arrived on scene." Reading that makes me think they could not find any evidence that a crime was committed THEN they took him into custody.

I think the writer got the chronological order of events wrong. I believe it should read, The individual was taken into custody without incident less than twenty minutes after police arrived. Then a search of his person and vehicle was conducted but they were unable to locate a weapon. The man was then released from custody on scene. Something along those lines. I really think that statement should of been rewritten. However I could be wrong.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
You guys do realize that taken into custody does not necessarily mean he was arrested and charged with a crime.

Arrest: A situation in which the police detain a person in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear she is not free to leave. A person can be “under arrest” even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary. Questioning an arrested person about her involvement in or knowledge of a crime must be preceded by the Miranda warnings if the police intend to use the answers against the person in a criminal case. If the arrested person chooses to remain silent, the questioning must stop.

Link.

And nobody said anything about being "charged".

reply to post by loam


And your point is? Yes he was detained and placed into custody which is in fact taking away his freedom. In that situation the Police had every right to detain or place him into custody for Officer safety. No where in the article did it state that he was charged with a crime. Did I miss that part?

Loam instead of "rolling your eyes" explain what you feel I posted incorrectly so I can rebut. I am in no way a master of law and I could of definitely of posted something incorrect. Please let me know so I can possibly correct.