BREAKING: Man took 5 guns, body armor into Atlantic Station Publix, cops say

No, but he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, either.

The article says the guy complied with officer instructions. There's a solution here that doesn't ruin his name for the rest of his life, even if they can't prove intent to commit a felony.

I don't see where they have reasonable grounds to arrest and charge him. Everything he did was perfectly legal. Your stance is a subjective one, which shouldn't have any place in law. From a legal perspective, this looks like arresting and charging any person carrying a gun, based solely on the fact that they were carrying a gun.

He complied because he had a rifle pointed at him by a cop. You don’t know nearly enough to say he did nothing illegal. Planning to shoot up a supermarket and getting that far into the plan is illegal, for good reason.
 
But even if he was wearing it, there's no law I'm aware of that says you can't carry guns with a mask on at the same time. If there was, we'd be having a hard time with covid.
Possibility this is part of the Anti-Klan laws in southern states. Committing a crime with a weapon while wearing a mask = judge can throw the book at you.
 
He complied because he had a rifle pointed at him by a cop. You don’t know nearly enough to say he did nothing illegal. Planning to shoot up a supermarket and getting that far into the plan is illegal, for good reason.
All I'm saying is that you have to prove he planned to do it. This is how bad legal precedents are set.

"Alright, we got away with arresting that guy with 6 guns. Next month we'll do it to a guy with 4. Then 1. Then anybody with any sort of bulge under their shirt is fair game."

Freedom is freedom, and it's supposed to be allowed to represent itself in a lot of different ways, and you don't have to like them all.

I mean, let's take this example as a "number of guns loophole" and hypothesize a legal solution to it right now. How many guns is too many guns for a person to carry at once? When does it become bad? If not one then 2? 3? Obviously by the time you get to 6 it's too many....
 
All I'm saying is that you have to prove he planned to do it. This is how bad legal precedents are set.

"Alright, we got away with arresting that guy with 6 guns. Next month we'll do it to a guy with 4. Then 1. Then anybody with any sort of bulge under their shirt is fair game."

Freedom is freedom, and it's supposed to be allowed to represent itself in a lot of different ways, and you don't have to like them all.

I mean, let's take this example as a "number of guns loophole" and hypothesize a legal solution to it right now. How many guns is too many guns for a person to carry at once? When does it become bad? If not one then 2? 3? Obviously by the time you get to 6 it's too many....

I think you're ignoring the other details of this situation in your eagerness to defend "the guy with the gun(s)." This wasn't some dude walking down the street with a bunch of gun on him. This was a guy who, the very same week that another guy shot up a supermarket, went into a supermarket with body armor, apparently a ski mask, a bag containing a shotgun, an AR with mags and ammo, and 4 handguns. According to a witness he had taken the AR out of the bag and leaned it against the wall in the bathroom stall and could be heard loading magazines, racking slides, etc. He walks out of the bathroom wearing body armor but is surprised when he sees cops with rifles pointed at him . He surrenders, with the alternative option being getting killed on the spot.

Does he have a good explanation? Maybe, I guess, though loading an AR in a Publix bathroom is tough to explain away. Do the facts add up to a justified arrest? To me, yes. Are you otherwise going to let him go because he didn't actually start shooting yet?
 
They’re charging him with 11 felonies.
The felonies are all based on "intent to commit a felony". If the guy intended to shoot people, he is guilty. If he is a nut case who actually thought he needed to carry that many weapons to protect himself from a real or imagined threat, he is not guilty. Interrogation will no doubt focus on getting him to not understand that, and obtain an admission he was intending to commit a felony. The prosecution could be in trouble if he is a nut case who steadfastly claims he was just preparing to defend himself if someone else shot up the market.

Yes, the guy needed to be taken out of action ... but the legal ramifications under a system that requires "proof of guilt", not just "knowing someone is guilty" are interesting.

It's like that line in Dirty Harry about relations with a horse "Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony". I have no idea if that is true, but it was a great line.
 
No, but he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, either.

The article says the guy complied with officer instructions. There's a solution here that doesn't ruin his name for the rest of his life, even if they can't prove intent to commit a felony.

I don't see where they have reasonable grounds to arrest and charge him. Everything he did was perfectly legal. Your stance is a subjective one, which shouldn't have any place in law. From a legal perspective, this looks like arresting and charging any person carrying a gun, based solely on the fact that they were carrying a gun.
Pre emptive prosecution was used on a few guys from NJ about a decade ago. Two Muslim bros planning a shooting. If they prove intent their good to prosecute I bet. If he doesn't admit anything and they find nothing he will walk. Just my 1 cents.

 
Yes, the guy needed to be taken out of action ... but the legal ramifications under a system that requires "proof of guilt", not just "knowing someone is guilty" are interesting.

Exactly. He needed to be arrested, and there appears to have been plenty of probable cause. We don't know what he said, and the fact that they're charging him obviously doesn't prove anything, but I'm guessing he didn't have a great explanation for what he was doing.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. He needed to be arrested, and there appears to have been plenty of probably cause. We don't know what he said, and the fact that they're charging him obviously doesn't prove anything, but I'm guessing he didn't have a great explanation for what he was doing.
Under our legal system he does not need to explain anything. The state must, in the case of the filed charges, prove intent to commit a felony. It is not his obligation to disprove it.
 
Under our legal system he does not need to explain anything. The state must, in the case of the filed charges, prove intent to commit a felony. It is not his obligation to disprove it.

I understand, I'm just speculating that this guy did intend to shoot the place up, and that there was no alternative explanation for what he was doing (i.e. headed to the range and had to take a dump and couldn't lock his guns up in his car).
 
Georgia law allows open carry of long rifles and open carry of handguns with a permit. If this guy open carried the AR and everything else was not openly displayed, he's in the clear. Many of you proclaim the importance of adherence to the Consitution. 5th Amendment: Innocent until proven guilty. So far, based on available facts, This guy did not break any laws. None!
What the police did is appalling. I understand temporary detention but forcing mental evaluation? IS ANYONE WHO HAS A GUN AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO BE INSANE!?
 
Georgia law allows open carry of long rifles and open carry of handguns with a permit. If this guy open carried the AR and everything else was not openly displayed, he's in the clear. Many of you proclaim the importance of adherence to the Consitution. 5th Amendment: Innocent until proven guilty. So far, based on available facts, This guy did not break any laws. None!
What the police did is appalling. I understand temporary detention but forcing mental evaluation? IS ANYONE WHO HAS A GUN AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO BE INSANE!?

None of us know what he said or didn't say, and I expect we haven't even heard all of the relevant facts around how the incident itself went down. As to concealed v open:

The handguns — three semi-automatic pistols and a chrome revolver — were concealed on his person, according to police. The long guns were found inside a bag.

What did the cops do that was appalling? Arrest him?
 
What did the cops do that was appalling? Arrest him?
As I stated, I don't have a problem with temporary detention(arrest). What I do have a problem with is forcing mental evaluation without any legal cause! Mental evaluation can only be performed when there is a cause. Having(and carrying) guns legally is NOT a cause for a mental evaluation.
 
As I stated, I don't have a problem with temporary detention(arrest). What I do have a problem with is forcing mental evaluation without any legal cause! Mental evaluation can only be performed when there is a cause. Having(and carrying) guns legally is NOT a cause for a mental evaluation.

Again, we don't know what happened or what he said aside from what's been reported.
 
Pre emptive prosecution was used on a few guys from NJ about a decade ago. Two Muslim bros planning a shooting. If they prove intent their good to prosecute I bet. If he doesn't admit anything and they find nothing he will walk. Just my 1 cents.


I don't put that much stock in anything the Commies say. Did you realize your source was the World Socialists?
 
What does happen when someone flat-out refuses to engage during a 72-hour hold?
Well, since the purpose of the examination is to get evidence to use against the subject (i.e., deny a mental illness defense) proper application of the right to remain silent would be to impose no penalty, and refuse to have that exercise of a protected right used against the subject in any court proceeding.

But, the constitution is void where prohibited by law.
 
Well, since the purpose of the examination is to get evidence to use against the subject (i.e., deny a mental illness defense) proper application of the right to remain silent would be to impose no penalty, and refuse to have that exercise of a protected right used against the subject in any court proceeding.
The most obvious SCOTUS ruling is that a shrink can't testify during sentencing in a capital case
if the defendant didn't receive benefit of counsel to advise on submitting to the exam.
Wikipedia claims that SCOTUS said there's no generic right to remain silent during an exam,
but the basis for that that isn't jumping out at me.
 
Again, we don't know what happened or what he said aside from what's been reported.
This right here. If the guy is telling the cops that the "Tarvookians told him to kill all the purple unicorns which nest at Publix stores" than yeah, he should be evaluated. Have to figure the guy was spouting disturbing rhetoric along with carrying more than necessary for personal defense amount of firearms for the popo to order the mental check
 
Under our legal system he does not need to explain anything. The state must, in the case of the filed charges, prove intent to commit a felony. It is not his obligation to disprove it.

As you know, they're likely to be able to get him to confess to something. By fair means or foul.
 
Curious, since you're the one who has pronounced him guilty.

Where’d I do that? When I speculated that he did intend to shoot the place up, or where I said the cops had plenty of probable cause to arrest him? Neither is the same as pronouncing him guilty.

Do you have a problem with the cops arresting him based on the facts as reported?
 
Last edited:
Just so you all know, if you want to continue to look insane to people on the fence about guns, keep defending this one. Any sane person will stop and stare hard at this one. Saying he had to take a shit and was worried about storage laws is top 5 stupidest things ever said on this site. This is when libertarians really embarass themselves while sounding naïve to the max.

Only weak maskholes worry about storage laws to this level. If this guy came out of the bathroom and your situational awareness didn't start going crazy, then you are useless and deserve what happens.
 
Back
Top Bottom