It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report of armed man leads to lockdown at Wal-Mart

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


I'm inclined to agree with you. I think likely the order was probably, the guy stepped out, was taken into custody, questioned, car searched, guy was released without charges. But you say, the article doesn't make the clear and without more info there is no way to tell.

For what its worth I'd like to think I avoided similar a few years ago. I bought a deer rifle at the local Wal-mart. Buying it was major process. Then of course, the announcement "firearm leaving the store" over the intercom. The manager carrying the boxed rifle (accompanied by another employee) all the way out to my car and putting it in the trunk. From start (saying I'll take it) to finish the whole thing took about 2 hours.

I get home and see they have left the wal-mart trigger lock on it and naturally did not supply a key. I call Wal-mart and after much run around finally get the manager. He says, "Oh Sorry, no problem, just bring it in and I'll unlock it."

I say, "Remember what a hassle taking this out of the store caused? Can you imagine the possible scene it would cause if I tried to carry it into the sore?" Basically I was picturing something like in the article happening except with some cop shooting or tasing first and asking questions later. I said, "Do you really want all that hub-bub again? Look - I live about 2 miles from the store. Why don't you just come here and unlock the thing and save everyone a headache?"

He agreed that was the far better way to go and came by and removed the trigger lock.

A few months later they stopped selling firearms at the local wal mart. Probably because of stuff like in the article and incidents like what happened to me.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


I'm inclined to agree with you. I think likely the order was probably, the guy stepped out, was taken into custody, questioned, car searched, guy was released without charges. But you say, the article doesn't make the clear and without more info there is no way to tell.

For what its worth I'd like to think I avoided similar a few years ago. I bought a deer rifle at the local Wal-mart. Buying it was major process. Then of course, the announcement "firearm leaving the store" over the intercom. The manager carrying the boxed rifle (accompanied by another employee) all the way out to my car and putting it in the trunk. From start (saying I'll take it) to finish the whole thing took about 2 hours.

I get home and see they have left the wal-mart trigger lock on it and naturally did not supply a key. I call Wal-mart and after much run around finally get the manager. He says, "Oh Sorry, no problem, just bring it in and I'll unlock it."

I say, "Remember what a hassle taking this out of the store caused? Can you imagine the possible scene it would cause if I tried to carry it into the sore?" Basically I was picturing something like in the article happening except with some cop shooting or tasing first and asking questions later. I said, "Do you really want all that hub-bub again? Look - I live about 2 miles from the store. Why don't you just come here and unlock the thing and save everyone a headache?"

He agreed that was the far better way to go and came by and removed the trigger lock.

A few months later they stopped selling firearms at the local wal mart. Probably because of stuff like in the article and incidents like what happened to me.



That would of probably caused a hassle lol. I absolutely see what you are saying. Let us change this scenario. The same call comes in and the Police respond. Without doing an investigation they shoot the guy because he makes some "akward" movement only to find out he was reaching for his ringing cell phone. That is wrong and a horrible situation that I hope I never encounter. I am not naieve and do know those situations have and will continue to happen. I feel for everyone involved.

However in this situation that did not happen. From reading the article the Police responded and properly investigated the situation. They were well within the guidelines of the law, no one was hurt, and no ones rights were violated. Yet people still come on here and say they can't believe what happened. They scream Police state. It really cracks me up. The Police come and properly do their job and still are viewed as the bad guys. You gotta love it!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I haven't read all of the posts...
Now,it seems,that anything you do in public
could get you arrested.
I couldn't believe that someone confused a
cellphone with a gun.With all the cellphones
getting so tiny.The only guns they can be
confused with are the derringers.
How much longer before someone is arrested
for breathing?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


Yup. I admit I'm vocal when I think police are corrupt or abuse their power. But I really try to be fair and when I think the police acted correctly I'll stand up for them - and it looks like they did here. I honestly don't know what else they could have done.

If anyone is really at fault in this mess its probably whoever the knucklehead is that couldn't tell a cell phone from a pistol and the general climate of fear that exists today.

It turned out to be a tempest in a teapot - but someone reported a gun so the officers had no choice but to check it out.

On your comment about the "awkward movement" - yes - that was actually what I was most afraid of. I could just picture myself carrying it in. Hearing someone yell, going "huh?" and turning slightly toward them and ..boom.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 






When the day arrives that simply sitting in one's car talking on a cell phone can land you in handcuffs and a police car...and people call that normal...I'd say there is something seriously wrong with this country.




edit on 2-2-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I love how people make up their own facts or wish away the ones that don't fit their view.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
What facts am I making up? Yes the Police cuffed him and placed him in the back of the patrol car. That is what you do when you perform a search for a weapon. It is for Officer safety.Would you want a person that is SUSPECTED of having a firearm and brandishing it an unsafe manner loose while you perform the search? You detain the person and once it is determined that a crime was not committed then you let them go. Is that a civil rights violation? If it is please let me know. I agree that the caller is an idiot for mistaking a phone for a gun, but still fail to see what the Police did wrong.

Loam what do you feel the Police did wrong?

I also love when people make up their own "facts" in an attempt to make their own "truth."
edit on 2-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Loam yes you are correct. "When the day comes when you can be placed into handcuffs for simply talking on your cell phone" would be a sad day. However you are failing to realize that he was not placed into handcuffs for talking on his cell phone. He was placed into handcuffs because an idiot said that he was sitting in his truck holding a firearm to his head. The Police made contact with him and placed him into handcuffs in case the call they received was true. Once it was determined that the complaint was unfounded they let him go. It was for the public and their safety. How were they supposed to know that he didn't have a gun? Are you going to take their word for it? Are you psychic? If you are I could use your help on a couple of cases I am working right now. That would be sweet.

I can't believe people are flagging this. I almost spit my coffee out seeing that. Tell me Loam how would you have handled the situation?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
For what its worth - I did find another article on this. Its short but it does give something missing from the others - the amount of time involved.

Man threatening to harm himself taken into custody at Wal-Mart, lockdown lifted


Kirksville, Mo. —

A lockdown at the Kirksville Wal-Mart was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.

The male had been reportedly threatening to harm himself at about 2:20 p.m. Tuesday on Wal-Mart property. The man, who was found to be unarmed, was believed to have a gun. He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.

The man's identifity has not been released.


The whole thing lasted about 20 mins it sounds like.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 



Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Is that a civil rights violation? If it is please let me know.


Probable cause



In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.

There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to stop and frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.



Illinois v. Gates




Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.

...

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Illinois courts. Justice William Rehnquist delivered the decision. In a 6–3 ruling, Illinois won the case. Justice Rehnquist stated:

We agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that an informant's "veracity," "reliability" and "basis of knowledge" are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report. We do not agree, however, that these elements should be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case[...] [T]hey should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is "probable cause" to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.

This rejected the Aguilar–Spinelli test and put in place a totality-of-the-circumstances standard. This was put into place because the court recognized that there was more evidence that the Gateses were involved in drug trafficking than just the letter standing alone. The court agreed that if the letter had just stood alone it would not be probable cause to get a warrant. The court also recognized that under the Aguilar–Spinelli two-pronged test, it would be very hard for the “reliability” prong to ever be satisfied from an anonymous tip so it therefore should be abandoned.

This case is a landmark case in the evolution of probable cause and search warrants. In this case, the Supreme Court abandons the Aguilar–Spinelli test.



So even in the landmark Supreme Court case addressing the issue of what constitutes 'probable cause' couldn't find the detailed letter as meeting the standard in the absence of more, but it's your view a mere accusation is now sufficient for probable cause?


ETA:


Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
The Police made contact with him and placed him into handcuffs in case the call they received was true.


It's not supposed to work that way-- except in totalitarian countries.

edit on 2-2-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



Originally posted by Frogs
For what its worth - I did find another article on this. Its short but it does give something missing from the others - the amount of time involved.

Man threatening to harm himself taken into custody at Wal-Mart, lockdown lifted


Kirksville, Mo. —

A lockdown at the Kirksville Wal-Mart was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.

The male had been reportedly threatening to harm himself at about 2:20 p.m. Tuesday on Wal-Mart property. The man, who was found to be unarmed, was believed to have a gun. He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.

The man's identifity has not been released.


The whole thing lasted about 20 mins it sounds like.


When the lockdown was lifted has NOTHING to do with when the man was released. Your source simply says:




A lockdown...was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.

...


He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.



edit on 2-2-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Loam you do know that a Police Officer does not need probable cause to detain someone. They only need reasonable suspicion. en.wikipedia.org...

Also check out Terry Stops en.wikipedia.org...

Also legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Read around the 12th paragraph.

Due to the witnesses statement, the description of the "ALLEGED" firearm, the vehicle being in the same location the witness stated, the "suspect" appearing the same as described by the witness, and the possibility of someone being shot, was reasonable suspicion to believe something might be going on. The Police then confronted him and immediately detained him. The search was performed and nothing was found. He was then released. Is the detained man complaining?




edit on 2-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Loam you are right though. If they placed him into custody and then CHARGED him with a crime they would need probable cause. If they did CHARGE him with a crime without probable cause that would obviously be a violation of his civil rights and the Officers involved should be punished accordingly. However he was not CHARGED? Was he?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


Do you actually read the relevant portions of your own links?




Terry stop

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons; however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.



No where does it state you can be handcuffed and placed into police custody, and your belongings and vehicle searched, merely because some random citizen alleged you might have done something wrong.

In fact, this guy's example is the worst of fact pattern to support your position. There was NO evidence of any kind that a crime had been committed.

No injury... No property damage... No NOTHING! ...Just the mistaken assertions of a random citizen....

Honestly, do you even realize what you are advocating?



Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Loam you are right though. If they placed him into custody and then CHARGED him with a crime they would need probable cause. If they did CHARGE him with a crime without probable cause that would obviously be a violation of his civil rights and the Officers involved should be punished accordingly. However he was not CHARGED? Was he?


Complete gibberish.


edit on 2-2-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
During a Terry stop you can detain a person in handcuffs.
fourthamendment.com...

Also check out.

www.patc.com...

Handcuffing during a Terry stop does not turn into a full blown arrest unless you detain him for more than a reasonable amount of time or start asking him questions outside the scope of the original complaint.

The Police did have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime had been, was being, or would of been committed. They also had reasonable suspicion to believe that the man posed a physical threat. For example a witness states that they saw a man with a gun acting erratic and then give the description and location of said person. When the Police arrive and that person that matches the description is in the same location as described by the witness IS reasonable suspicion. They did not have a reason to believe the information they were given was unreliable. Now if the information was given from a person that they dealt with on a normal basis that they knew was usually full of crap that would change things a little.

As for as searching the ENTIRE vehicle/trunk area you are right they would need probable cause. However if you further read the wikipedia link I posted you will find this "If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment."In the news article it does say that he voluntarily exited the vehicle. I would venture to say he probably gave consent to search his vehicle. I however could be wrong.

It seems to me we are involved in a tennis match. It is only going back and forth. We are both entitled to our opinions right or wrong. I respect yours and it was a pleasure reading your posts.
edit on 3-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text

edit on 3-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text

edit on 3-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text

edit on 3-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Grammar fo sho



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 



Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
It seems to me we are involved in a tennis match. It is only going back and forth. We are both entitled to our opinions right or wrong. I respect yours and it was a pleasure reading your posts.


Now you've made me feel like an ass.

My apologies. I've had a bad week. I am capable of debating without being unpleasant.

Until next time.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


No need to feel like an ass. It is all in good fun. I try as hard as I can not to respond to Police threads because I am one. It is very hard though. I just want everyone on this site to know I am part of the good fight. I will always be against a totalitarian society. I am for sure not stupid and know there are a lot of Police out there that are bad. However I can assure you most are not and are against a totalitarian society. Especially the ones I know. It actually is a very common lunch topic! We always have some plan in place! Keep fighting the good fight man!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join