Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except this is what the IRS employee who was in the room throughout told 911 when she called:
“We've got a taxpayer at the IRS office that has a gun and he won't leave the premises," the employee tells the dispatcher in an audio recording of the call. "... He's got a gun and he won't leave.”
You can’t post a law about how they aren’t allowed to leave the premises once screening has begun and apply it to s situation where that is not what happened and that procedure was not used. And “a taxpayer”, really? No mention of the fact he’s a cop? She should be fired just for that 911 call, as a regular person in the building with a gun is far different than a uniformed police officer and would be treated very differently by responding officers.
Something is very wrong with the way this situation was handled.
Do we know for certain that the employee/manager? who called 911 could see the Sheriff's Deputy?
Possibly the guard just yelled to the employee to call and left out the bit about it being a Sheriff's Deputy.
The only video I saw was right in the entry way and the hall/elevators.
Not sure the layout of the office and whether the employee had a clear view of what was going on.
They may come when called, but who knows how long it takes them.
They aren't standing guard at federal bldgs. or facilities.
Wanted to correct myself on this. Actually if federal employees want a federal police presence they would call Federal Protective Services not US Marshalls.
Again, depending on the office who knows how many are available in the area or how long it takes to respond. Generally, they would call local police first imo.
The security guard was 100% in the right and following Department of Homeland Security policies. The cop had no right to bring his weapon into a Federal Office and he had no right to leave once he was detained for it. Everyday people get arrested for trying to bring weapons into Federal Facilities. Most all of them would love to be able to just walk out the door after they were caught. But that is not the way the law works.
Either you don't understand how laws related to entry into a federal building work or you are purposely leaving out information to fit your agenda of "police hate." Either way the moron guard is 100% wrong. There is a reason he was fired AND arrested. What he did was illegal, which is why he was arrested. The part you conveniently left out regarding the screening process in federal buildings is the following:
Quote:
What is the consequence if I attempt to access a Federal facility with a prohibited item?
The consequence will depend on the prohibited item. If it is an illegal prohibited item, you may be subject to detention and/or arrest. If the item is legal, but included on the prohibited items list, you will be required to remove the item from the Federal property before you are allowed to enter the Federal facility.
The officers firearm was a prohibited item. But it was not an illegal item. The guard has no authority to arrest/detain someone who possess a legal prohibited item. The most he can do is tell him to take the prohibited legal item out of the building. He can't draw his gun, chase a person pointing the gun at his back and attempt to hold him until the police arrive.
Its irrelevant that he was a uniformed officer. The guard counln't even do that to a private citizen. Replace the officer with a guy who is concealed carrying a pistol. As long as the guy has a CCW valid for the state the federal building is located in; the most a guard can do is tell him to secure the gun outside of the federal property and come back. He can't play Rambo and try to detain the him.
Either you don't understand how laws related to entry into a federal building work or you are purposely leaving out information to fit your agenda of "police hate." Either way the moron guard is 100% wrong. There is a reason he was fired AND arrested. What he did was illegal, which is why he was arrested. The part you conveniently left out regarding the screening process in federal buildings is the following:
The officers firearm was a prohibited item. But it was not an illegal item. The guard has no authority to arrest/detain someone who possess a legal prohibited item. The most he can do is tell him to take the prohibited legal item out of the building. He can't draw his gun, chase a person pointing the gun at his back and attempt to hold him until the police arrive.
Its irrelevant that he was a uniformed officer. The guard counln't even do that to a private citizen. Replace the officer with a guy who is concealed carrying a pistol. As long as the guy has a CCW valid for the state the federal building is located in; the most a guard can do is tell him to secure the gun outside of the federal property and come back. He can't play Rambo and try to detain the him.
You are cherry picking the article and ignoring the parts you don't agree with. Here it is again.
Quote:
FAQ Regarding Items Prohibited from Federal Property
Can I change my mind and decide to leave the facility once I have initiated the screening process? No. You may not terminate a screening event once the screening process has been initiated.
The cop did not have a right to leave. He was being detained, for trying to bring a gun into a Federal Facility. Any trained law enforce officer understands what it means to be detained. They do it to other people every day. The cop should have known that he was not free to leave, and he should not have tried to leave.
Everyday people try to bring guns through TSA checkpoints. When caught, they all try to leave, but they are arrested anyway. Which is what should've happened to this cop.
You are cherry picking the article and ignoring the parts you don't agree with. Here it is again.
The cop did not have a right to leave. He was being detained, for trying to bring a gun into a Federal Facility. Any trained law enforce officer understands what it means to be detained. They do it to other people every day. The cop should have known that he was not free to leave, and he should not have tried to leave.
Everyday people try to bring guns through TSA checkpoints. When caught, they all try to leave, but they are arrested anyway. Which is what should've happened to this cop.
Then why did the person who called 911 to twice, specifically “He won’t leave. He has a gun but he won’t leave”
You are cherry picking the article and ignoring the parts you don't agree with. Here it is again.
The cop did not have a right to leave. He was being detained, for trying to bring a gun into a Federal Facility. Any trained law enforce officer understands what it means to be detained. They do it to other people every day. The cop should have known that he was not free to leave, and he should not have tried to leave.
Everyday people try to bring guns through TSA checkpoints. When caught, they all try to leave, but they are arrested anyway. Which is what should've happened to this cop.
I didn't ignore/cherry pick parts. I thought it was fairly indisputable what occurred. The security company and the responding police department both concur that the guard was dead wrong. So I'm trying to understand how you think that you know better then both first parties in the situation. This is especially true for the security company. They would do everything in their power to NOT FIRE him if he was even remotely correct because firing him is basically admitting that the guy messed up.
The reason I didn't mention his "right to leave" was because his right to leave was indisputable. Every source confirms that the guard told the officer to "leave and secure his weapon and then come back." At this point he was free to leave. The screening was over when the guard asked him to leave (not that this situation was a screening to begin with...see below). You can't ask someone to leave and detain him at the same time. That's just silly. Or are you saying that if the officer simply said "ok I will leave, put my weapon in the car and come back" but then just left; that he committed some sort of crime? That's the only way your statement makes sense but that interpretation is ridiculous because him simply leaving and not coming back is not a crime. So again the guard had to right to try to detain him.
Furthermore, there was no real "screening" in this story. He guard approached the cop to ask him about his weapon. That is not how screening at federal building's work. The guard merely made an inquiry. I should know, I have had to go into federal buildings numerous times for work purposes. I hate to play the "personal experience" card but it seems I have to. I have worked with both the DHS (where you link came from) and the FBI. When you are officially being screened/detained you are asked a series of questions in a certain order at a designated checkpoint that restricts the ingress and egress into the building.
One of those questions is are you in possession of any weapons? They ask this question because many people who legally carry do not know that they can't carry in a federal building. If you say yes 1 of two things happen:
1. The screener can ask you to verify that you are carrying the weapon legally. If you are then you are told to leave, take the weapon off premises and then come back.
2. Some laid back screeners will just ask you to leave, take the weapon off premises and then come back.
Either you your detainment ENDS the moment you are told to leave the premises to secure the weapon. Just kind of makes sense right? Seeing as you have to leave to take out the weapon so you can't be detained if they want you to remove the weapon. As I stated before, even a mere civilian CANT BE ARRESTED provided that the weapon he possessed is legal. Lastly, the even guard admitted that he asked the officer to leave to secure the weapon (thus ending any imaginary detainment) so this is a very clear cut case. See the body cam footage of the officers below where the guard states this:
This is a very clear cut situation. The guard is a moron who doesn't understand the policies he is supposed to be enforcing. Hence, he was fired and arrested.
Do some more research (and I'm looking for a more complete video).
1) The building is a federal facility; it is illegal to bring a weapon into the building. If it's like a post office, it is illegal to even have it in a car on a parking lot.It's an office, in a private office building, rented by a Federal Agency.
2) LEO ignored the law and brought his weapon into the building. This while taking care of personal business, not official, work related business.
3) He was informed that he couldn't bring his gun into the building. He was given an option (that civilian CCW carriers wouldn't have) to leave his gun secured in the patrol car. He refused. Not quite. He said "I can't do that and I'll have to leave." There's no difference. Leaving the gun in the car would require him to leave the office and the building
4) A worker (not the security guard) called 911 and reported that there was a man with a gun that refused to leave.
It appears that the cop broke the law, refused to leave, and when confronted, rather than admitting that he had committed a crime-instead plays the race card. And of course the MSM goes along with the story instead of investigating facts.The video shows him leaving
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
The security guard was 100% in the right and following Department of Homeland Security policies. The cop had no right to bring his weapon into a Federal Office and he had no right to leave once he was detained for it He wasn't really detained for it initially; he was told he could leave it in his car and said "no can do, I'll come back later out of uniform". Everyday people get arrested for trying to bring weapons into Federal Facilities. Most all of them would love to be able to just walk out the door after they were caught being caught implies an evasion from detection. It was right there on his hip/. But that is not the way the law works.
We know he was treated differently. If he was not a uniformed police officer, he would have been arrested on the spot for illegally bringing a weapon into a Federal Facility. A cop should not be treated differently than a regular person who is breaking the law. There was no reason for them to tell 911 he was a uniformed police officer. At that point he was just another lawbreaker, and should have been treated as such. Instead the responding cops elected to arrest the security guard who did absolutely nothing wrong, instead of the cop who violated federal law.
I agree that a cop breaking the law shouldn't get special treatment, but he isn't exactly stealing a Laptop computer. The fact that he's an officer, in uniform, clouds the interpretation and application of the law.
Consider the ambiguity of the law. "In Uniform" and "Off Duty" don't totally go together. If you're wearing the uniform there's a certain expectation of diligence even if one isn't taking calls on the radio.
Then there's the exception to the law:
Quote:
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
A uniformed officer on his way to our from work is surely a "Lawful purpose."
I agree that a cop breaking the law shouldn't get special treatment, but he isn't exactly stealing a Laptop computer. The fact that he's an officer, in uniform, clouds the interpretation and application of the law.
Consider the ambiguity of the law. "In Uniform" and "Off Duty" don't totally go together. If you're wearing the uniform there's a certain expectation of diligence even if one isn't taking calls on the radio.
Then there's the exception to the law:
A uniformed officer on his way to our from work is surely a "Lawful purpose."
If he shouldn't get special treatment, then the exact same thing should have happened to him that happened to this woman. It should have happened exactly the same way. But we all know that cops do get special treatment.
If he shouldn't get special treatment, then the exact same thing should have happened to him that happened to this woman. It should have happened exactly the same way. But we all know that cops do get special treatment.
They get "Special Treatment" in the same way that a hockey player get's special treatment. If a civilian swings a stick at someone, they go to jail. If he does it on the ice at a hockey game, he gets a timeout. If a policeman swings a baton at someone, he could be in trouble but he could be legally right in doing so.
He got special treatment because he is required to carry the gun and not leave it in a car, and have it on him in uniform.
They get "Special Treatment" in the same way that a hockey player get's special treatment. If a civilian swings a stick at someone, they go to jail. If he does it on the ice at a hockey game, he gets a timeout. If a policeman swings a baton at someone, he could be in trouble but he could be legally right in doing so.
He got special treatment because he is required to carry the gun and not leave it in a car, and have it on him in uniform.
Under Federal law he is required to leave his gun in his car, just like any civilian is. The regulations specifically say that local LEOs can not bring their guns into a federal facility, unless they are there on official law enforcement business. But as usual even when the law is directed at them, the cops are still above the law. That is not the way it's supposed to work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
