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.
Because the security guard had no authority to tell him he couldn’t leave. Why couldn’t he leave? Someone even posted the policy earlier, which states that you have to leave if you have a gun. What reason was there to prevent him from leaving??
Any case, I wish newcomers to this thread would actually read the thread from the beginning, because these arguments have been made over and over and over again many many months ago when this actually happened.
I can’t believe I’m doing this again with you, Lol.
I can’t believe I’m doing this again with you either. But for the newcomers I will post this again anyway.
Quote:
I am a state or local law enforcement officer. Can I bring my service weapon with me?
No. It is unlawful for armed state or local law enforcement officers to possess a firearm in a Federal facility unless there is an official law enforcement purpose for the visit.
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.
1. The cop violated Federal law when he brought his gun into that office. 2. He had no right to change his mind and leave, after he attempted to do so. The security guard was following the regulations to a T.
1. The cop violated Federal law when he brought his gun into that office. 2. He had no right to change his mind and leave, after he attempted to do so. The security guard was following the regulations to a T.
I can't believe you are doing this either because I noticed you chose to conveniently ignore my last very detailed post (because there is no logical rebuttal to it) which clearly showed how wrong you were.
For the newcomers please refer to Post #43 from me and read the exchange upto post #46 to get the answer to why this security guard was 100% wrong.
Good judgment would be for the cop to know the law, and not try to take his gun into a federal office. If the cop had exercised good judgment, none of this would have happened.
Again, this really is the equivalent of TSA tasering someone for a swiss army knife (or the police shooting a child in a wal-mart with a toy gun); not an appropriate response.
Once again, the other part of that law:
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.
So his response of "I'll come back another time" was appropriate and lawful.
1. The cop violated Federal law when he brought his gun into that office. 2. He had no right to change his mind and leave, after he attempted to do so. The security guard was following the regulations to a T.
This was not a "screening event" It was a regular office building. Screening implies purse through conveyor belt, metal detector, etc. like at a courthouse. Regular office with a receptionist. You post things that don't apply to the thread. See the other posts that have the correct info.
Again, this really is the equivalent of TSA tasering someone for a swiss army knife (or the police shooting a child in a wal-mart with a toy gun); not an appropriate response.
Once again, the other part of that law:
So his response of "I'll come back another time" was appropriate and lawful.
It's right there in the part you quoted. "you may be subject to detention and/or arrest." That is exactly what happened, but the cop tried to leave anyway. The cop violated federal law, then he refused to cooperate after he was detained. He should have cooperated with the security guard and waited for the police to arrive.
This was not a "screening event" It was a regular office building. Screening implies purse through conveyor belt, metal detector, etc. like at a courthouse. Regular office with a receptionist. You post things that don't apply to the thread. See the other posts that have the correct info.
You are going to believe whatever you want. Those regulations are very clear. The cop violated federal law.
All of this might be true but I'm not sure the security guard was with in company policy attempting to use his gun to arrest the officer. Generally security guards are there for defense not to attempt to arrest someone who is leaving. What he should have done was reported the incident to his supervisor who would take a report. The report would be referred to US attorney's office for review if they want to charge the officer they would do that and file a summons to court. You can be charged with a misdemeanor in federal court. Chances are charges would have ended with a phone call to the deputy's office telling him he can't go in there with his side arm on personal business.
Technically police are breaking the law when they point a firearm at someone without reasonable cause their lives are in danger. The officers gun is only suppose to be used for defensive purpose but they tend to use it for offensive propose they draw the gun and any little indication someone might have a weapons results in a shooting. The citizen is reaching for a phone, or car registration. The officer is let off saying he made a mistake killed someone. perfect example of this is the shooting of Philando Castile.
It's right there in the part you quoted. "you may be subject to detention and/or arrest." That is exactly what happened, but the cop tried to leave anyway. The cop violated federal law, then he refused to cooperate after he was detained. He should have cooperated with the security guard and waited for the police to arrive.
Again that was rules regarding a screening procedure, which was NOT the case here. This is just like the TV thread, you take a law that applies to one situation and try to insist it applies to the thread. It didn't apply in that thread and it doesn't apply here.
It's right there in the part you quoted. "you may be subject to detention and/or arrest." That is exactly what happened, but the cop tried to leave anyway. The cop violated federal law, then he refused to cooperate after he was detained. He should have cooperated with the security guard and waited for the police to arrive.
It isn't an "illegal or prohibited" item. Not for a Police Officer. Again, like a pocketknife at TSA. "You just can't have that past this point."
It's right there in the part you quoted. "you may be subject to detention and/or arrest." That is exactly what happened, but the cop tried to leave anyway. The cop violated federal law, then he refused to cooperate after he was detained. He should have cooperated with the security guard and waited for the police to arrive.
The rent a cop doesn’t have the legal power to “arrest” people - or to “detain” them.
Despite their badges and cop-like costumes, TSA “agents” don’t have arrest powers either.
If you bring a gun through a TSA checkpoint, the TSA calls the real (local) cops and they arrest you, not the TSA.
Rent a cops are there to observe and report, not to apprehend anyone.
Their guns are decorative ornaments just like their badges.
You can lawfully ignore any requests they make for you to not leave their presence.
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.
