Man who reports MWAG charged

Status
Not open for further replies.
People are dumb. What bank robber comes in with a holstered gun and commences to do normal business? Critical thinking skills are your friend.
 
I'm not sure any charge is appropriate. In situations like this imparting a little knowledge to the reporting party would be more appropriate. A little prosecutorial discretion goes along way.
 
vranasaurus said:
I'm not sure any charge is appropriate. In situations like this imparting a little knowledge to the reporting party would be more appropriate. A little prosecutorial discretion goes along way.
Click to expand...
But this was in Glastonbury, Connecticut. If memory serves (which is does with decreasing frequency these days), I believe it was in Glastonbury, CT, that a legal gun owner was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace a couple/few years ago because he was open carrying ... which is legal with a carry permit in CT but the State had been teaching police officers to believe the opposite. It became a cause celebre, the guy was either acquitted or the charges were dropped, and the CT State Police have had to back-track and send out informational notices to all local PDs explaining that open carry is legal.

In this case, Mr. Twistedknickers apparently caused a bank robbery alarm to be sent in, with a resulting police response. I think it's entirely appropriate that the idiot be held accountable for creating a furor and wasting police resources. The way it played out rated an article in the newspaper circulating in the state's capital city. If Mr. Twistedknickers had just received a moderate tongue-lashing, it would not have been "news," and other people would not be able to (hypotetically) learn from it.
 
Was it the bank customer or the bank teller that is at fault for raising the robbery alarm? If the customer screamed "GUN!!" Then he is to blame. If he quietly notified a teller and the teller decided to raise an alarm then the teller us ignorant and us to blame.
 
vranasaurus said:
I'm not sure any charge is appropriate. In situations like this imparting a little knowledge to the reporting party would be more appropriate. A little prosecutorial discretion goes along way.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Part of me wants "revenge" for all the hassles law-abiding gun owners endure at the hands of such hoplophobes.

The other part of me thinks that simply charging him with a crime, and putting a little fear into him, is enough, and there's no grounds to actually convict him of a crime.

Having said all that -- I wasn't present, and maybe the guy really went off his chain, and the charge is warranted. Certainly the hoplophobe owes the law-abiding gun owner, and everyone else in the bank, an apology.
 
I suspect that, since the man who notified the teller was trying to act in good faith, and the word now being out in a big way that open carry might well be lawful, charges will be dropped before long.
 
I don't have any problem with the guy being charged for causing the unnecessary fuss. He caused the teller to panic, for the police to be dispatched to a emergency that was not, all because he didn't use some reasoning and common sense. Now, with that being said, I also have no problem if the DA drops the charges as it should have taught the guy a valuable lesson.
 
Was it the bank customer or the bank teller that is at fault for raising the robbery alarm? If the customer screamed "GUN!!" Then he is to blame. If he quietly notified a teller and the teller decided to raise an alarm then the teller us ignorant and us to blame.
Click to expand...
The reports I have seen say he was attempting to write a note to the teller, but she didn't understand it. He tried to press the issue (with the note), but she didn't respond. So, he wadded up the note and threw it away as he quickly left the building.

From the teller's point of view, they may have considered him to be the bank robber.



I suspect the charge will be dropped, and I'm fine with that. It's a good lesson for everyone - antis, especially:
Paranoia may backfire.
And... Think about your actions. No matter how good your intentions may be, your actions may not be interpreted as such.
 
Legal or not, civilian open carry in an urban/commercial environment is really, really stupid. OC is fine for the field, and only for the field. The jittery customer was right. I too presume anyone open carrying to be dangerous, if only because stupid people are inherently dangerous.
 
I hear you. Part of me wants "revenge" for all the hassles law-abiding gun owners endure at the hands of such hoplophobes.
Click to expand...
I hear about these "hassles" all day long, but in 20-odd years of carrying a firearm, they haven't happened to me. Am I doing something wrong? :rolleyes:

That said, the idea of punishing people is something the other side wants to do to us. We shouldn't sink to that mentality.

Yes, the guy deserved to get his butt chewed by responding officers.

No, I don't think it does anyone any good to charge him, whatever comeuppance that may seem.
 
horselips, I respectively disagree. To say someone is stupid because they chose to carry in a way you disagree with shows how narrowminded you are, just like the fellow who reported the legally open carrying gentleman. That is what created this story, and his lack of common sense.

I think charging him, making him appear in court to get a bit of education and then dismissing the charges would be ok. And to be honest, the way the story reads, at least to me, the tellors might have been actually reporting Mr. Twistedknickers, as someone so aptly named him, instead of the MWALG. Thus making his charges all the more earned.
 
FDIC...

I've brought the topic up before but it's a important point for any TFL members/armed license holders.
I had a security co-worker in NW Florida who informed me that you could not "CC" in banks or financial institutions because they were FDIC or federal deposit of insurance corporation. :confused:
He said banks were "federal property".
I've held a CCW license & toted a sidearm in banks with zero problems.

It's not a mystery or complex but some license holders/armed citizens still live by these weird theories & rumors, :rolleyes:.

CF
 
horselips said:
The jittery customer was right.
Click to expand...
How and why was Mr. Twistedknickers "right"?

Open carry is legal. Why is some pantywaist "right" to cause a major furrball over a completely legal and Constitutionally-protected act?
 
Lots of things are legal, and still in poor taste, deliberately provocative, or simply asinine. If the OC guy was just carrying a holstered sidearm, fine. I guess I'm still wired over the pics of the bubbas carrying AR15s, AK-47s and riot shotguns into Starbucks. Look where that got us. Legal, and almost legally banned.

We don't need any bad press, lets let the antis look like hysterical idiots.
 
Why is some pantywaist "right" to cause a major furrball over a completely legal and Constitutionally-protected act?
Click to expand...
That depends. I don't know Connecticut too well, but from what I've gathered, it's hardly a hotbed of acceptance and support for the 2A.

Like it or not, we need to conform to local norms to some extent if we're to be taken seriously and not labeled loons.
 
Horselips,

Just to pick a small nit. I doubt anyone walked into Starbucks with a AK-47. The last time I looked an AK-47 was select fire. perhaps some other firearm modeled after it but not a true blue AK-47. In principle I agree some have been over the top. But for me, it seems Starbucks has gone over to the dark side. I have only been in a Starbucks once. but i don't do coffee so for me They can't loose my patronage because they never had it to begin with.
 
Michigan?

Even though this event happened in CT, I just re-read the Michigan prohibited places and it states, "a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: (a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution (blah blah blah) and then at the end "This section does not apply to...A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon."

This was in the open carry section. So, does that mean that you can not open carry in a bank, but you can concealed carry in a bank? When I got my permit 10 years ago and renewed it 4 years ago, I could swear that the instructor said no carry of any kind in a bank as it is considered a federal building, which is a prohibited area for concealed carry in Michigan.

Any clarifications would be helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top