Second time open carrying- ARRESTED!!!

[Tony4310]

I think you are correct. :banana:

 

[Gunslinger]

After watching the segment on Fox news, I doubt it. He talked too much in the cell. Honestly, I think it's going to be case closed.

He was bs-ing in the cell. Probably didn't know he was being recorded. The TV station did a hatchet job on him, although they made it clear OC is fully legal. The cops had no PC to arrest him, traffic warrant is a non-issue to that part. As I see it, he violated no law and the cops action was a violation of his 4thA and 2ndA rights. That part about a child's head was at the level of his pistol is utter BS. So what? Did the kid have a parent. His head would be at the level of my Corvette's hood, so maybe I shouldn't drive it. Without passing judgement one way or the other on him, I think he has a very strong case.

 

[Richieg150]

Well................if he would have kept his mouth SHUT, instead of running it,Fox news wouldnt have a story,because they probably would not have aired the story if it didnt show negativity to the Open Carry Movement. I'm sure if they edited the video,it was to make it more on the anti-gun side. It takes LOTS of positive encounters to sway those who dont know their rights, and a episode like this will wipe all that away. When he said something about shooting the guy,then said he had 17 rounds....kinda summed up his thought process for me.....I deal constantly with people who argue that just because you have the right to carry a firearm,doesnt mean everybody should.....that video,will do more to support that kind of thinking,than I am by trying to convince them otherwise.

 

[ChiangShih]

The cops had no PC to arrest him, traffic warrant is a non-issue to that part. As I see it, he violated no law and the cops action was a violation of his 4thA and 2ndA rights.

The LEOs actions during the initial stop and questioning may be questionable but apparently the caller sounded panicked and the store owners did not want to approach him. Although it may not seem fair, a bunch of people freaking out within a private property all pointing fingers at a scary man with a gun pretty much gave them reasonable suspicion to stop and ID. You can argue that all day but cops have a lot of discretion on what constitutes their reasonable suspicion and panicked eyewitnesses claiming they feel unsafe will probably cover that in court.

The probable cause to arrest was based on a warrant, to further complicate the matter is,

571.070. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if such person knowingly has any firearm in his or her possession and:

(2) Such person is a fugitive from justice, is habitually in an intoxicated OR drugged condition, OR is currently adjudged mentally incompetent.

The question imo becomes, does simply having a warrant constitute the label "fugitive from justice", even if he gets off on the allegation that the warrant was wrongfully issued it wouldnt make a difference, his arrest will have been justified and the PR damage was done.

 

[4sooth]

If you were approached on the basis of a legally carried firearm then the whole incident should be tossed. Since there was no RAS to approach in the first place the issue of the warrant should have never have come up.

 

[ChiangShih]

If you were approached on the basis of a legally carried firearm then the whole incident should be tossed. Since there was no RAS to approach in the first place the issue of the warrant should have never have come up.

Attendant circumstances surrounding the legal action may have created RAS. RAS is not clearly defined and is often left to the discretion of the responding officers. Patrons and management of the store claiming they are in fear or that he seemed particularly menacing, maybe he touched it gun, etc. etc. there are many variables that led to officers feeling they had RAS....The fact that their stop and subsequent detainment actually turned up a warrant, and the fact that having a gun on ones person while having an active warrant is a crime, whatever the RAS the officers claim they had will most likely be upheld.

 

[peterarthur]

... and the fact that having a gun on ones person while having an active warrant is a crime, whatever the RAS the officers claim they had will most likely be upheld.

Not sure I agree on this point. Fugitive status implies intent to avoid the law. I don't think that has been established, quite the opposite since he has been to court to deal with it. So fugitive CANNOT apply if he is trying to get it resolved, and if he is not a fugitive, he broke no open carry law.

He is still a jackass for making those comments and I suspected he was a little off when I saw the youtube video where he made a smart ass comment as he bolted out the door... but I say he broke no law and had his rights violated, 2A, 4A and 5A.

 

[peterarthur]

Sent this email to the chief of police at s-kruse@cityofmaplewood.com


"Chief,


Brett Darrow is an idiot for the comments he made. But police of all people should know that citizens have rights and an officer cannot demand ID unless RAS exists. MO 84-710 is quite clear on this point. I don't care if you don't "like" what they are doing. Open carry is not RAS of itself. If he "did" something weird or scary by the way he acted, that would be one thing. But just carrying a weapon does not suffice. No wonder people distrust police so much. Maybe you should address the illegal detainment that occurred BEFORE the warrant was found, maybe call out the questionable actions of the officers. Instead you play on the public fear of guns to make it appear that Mr. Darrow had done something wrong. What would you have done if someone had called you because they were afraid of some black guy in line? Some people have just as much fear of that.


By the way, I have law enforcement in my family and have great respect for many officers. But people like you make the good cops look as bad as Mr. Darrow does the open carry movement.


We are calling Mr. Darrow out for his foolish actions. I would hope that a police chief has the same level of integrity."

 

[MK]

Wow, so lancers = Brett Darrow?

This media report is incredibly biased both against him and open carry. They are trying to spread alarm at what should be viewed as a normal and safe activity as if shoppers should be fleeing in mass panic at the sight of any citizen with holstered hangun out in public.

I have no problem with what Brett's done even if he's went about it in a way that is open to some valid criticisms from some of you. The guy has been a harrassed and wanted man ever since his first run in and exposure. I wish we had many more people out there willing to go the extra mile. Even if some of his decision appear to fit an agenda that parallels entrapment, that's the same method police use to flush out bad guys in the community. I see no harm in reversing that role to highlight bad police, bad departments and/or bad policies.

I wouldn't doubt that the warrant was out there strictly due to who he is and the media attention his earlier attacks from the police had created. It could very well be just another method of setting him up for further abuse and harrassment. Good luck with your battles Brett.

 

[lancers]

Wow, so lancers = Brett Darrow?

This media report is incredibly biased both against him and open carry. They are trying to spread alarm at what should be viewed as a normal and safe activity as if shoppers should be fleeing in mass panic at the sight of any citizen with holstered hangun out in public.

I have no problem with what Brett's done even if he's went about it in a way that is open to some valid criticisms from some of you. The guy has been a harrassed and wanted man ever since his first run in and exposure. I wish we had many more people out there willing to go the extra mile. Even if some of his decision appear to fit an agenda that parallels entrapment, that's the same method police use to flush out bad guys in the community. I see no harm in reversing that role to highlight bad police, bad departments and/or bad policies.

I wouldn't doubt that the warrant was out there strictly due to who he is and the media attention his earlier attacks from the police had created. It could very well be just another method of setting him up for further abuse and harrassment. Good luck with your battles Brett.

Thank you MK. Contrary to what most people thing, I am not out to get the police. They just happen to keep doing stupid things in front/to me. Here is a letter from the St. Louis County Commander of professional standards:

That was sent after I got stopped at a checkpoint taking my girlfriend home from a concert. The cop saw my ID and immediately knew who I was. I was recording with my cell phone in my cup holder. The cop reached in, took it, and turned it off. He then ordered me out of the car where the cops had a chat about me, moved my car way down the road with my girlfriend in it, and proceeded to cuss me out. After I told them they were doing because they knew who I was, they said, "Yeah, we know who you are, we all do." I was allowed to leave after about 20 minutes, never being testing for DWI or being suspected of it or any other crime. A sgt. on scene actually threw the other cops under the bus to same himself even though he was part of it and reported it to the professional standards division.

Some other things include calling me "video-boy" out in public places when they see me, towing my car illegally which forced the county council to write an apology letter and pay me back, a couple officers spending several minutes shining flashlights at me in my car as I video taped someone fighting with the police, and the list goes on and on. That doesn't even include the time the drunk off duty cop almost shot me in the head in a parking lot back in 2005. Did the media care when the cops were openly talking about how they were going to kill me on their message board? No. Did the FBI? No. These incidents didn't involve me doing anything illegal, or being an ass. The respect I still give them is very generous considering the amount I get from them.

Now, I've had good encounters with police before. These include the city police, Shrewsbury police, Webster Groves, and an especially good encounter with Jefferson County. Even when I got the speeding ticket I am appealing which caused the warrant, St. Louis County Police Officer Major was very professional. A little shady on the facts in trial, but professional during the stop.

I've got nothing against cops and haven't and don't ever plan to "set them up" as a lot of people claim. Truthfully, if I wanted to do that, I could do it everyday around here- anyone could. The cameras and other steps I take are merely for my own protection when I engage in exercising my Constitutional Rights in a sometimes uncommon or unexpected way. It's sad I have to do it or even expect trouble, but it's the way of life around here if you don't go with the flow they expect you do.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

<snip>

So you either have the worst bad luck of anyone I've ever even heard of, or your baiting. I have not even had to talk to the cops in over 15 years, how does all this stuff happen to YOU ALL THE TIME ?

Somethin' don't sound right ....:uhoh:

 

[Tony4310]

I can bet you anything it was what he said in the jail cell that got this ban rolling so fast. Every cop that heard what he said in the cell is going to become VERY nervous around an OCer now.

 

[xc9subcompact]

Passing judgement to quickly IMHO.
The video is edited. Notice the lack of a time stamp? That is because FOX2 zoomed in on the original video. You can tell some of the things he says are picked up on in mid sentence. Without seeing the unedited video, we can't be sure of the context of the conversation. It looks kinda bad on TV if the time on the stamp keeps jumping around.
Everyone of us could find ourselves in the same situation. False arrest and in a holding cell. It would be extremely frustrating. The stress level would be off the charts. I doubt anyone here would do much better.
FOX2 slanted the story towards the police. Why accept what you see on TV as the truth?
The police have seen the video and know FOX2 edited what he said. They also know Maplewood has civil liability. Trying now to cover their rear end. This is why the city is moving so quickly to pass the NO-OC law. It's a foolish reaction that further proves the city must have known OC was legal.

 

[ChiangShih]

Not sure I agree on this point. Fugitive status implies intent to avoid the law. I don't think that has been established, quite the opposite since he has been to court to deal with it. So fugitive CANNOT apply if he is trying to get it resolved, and if he is not a fugitive, he broke no open carry law.

He is still a jackass for making those comments and I suspected he was a little off when I saw the youtube video where he made a smart ass comment as he bolted out the door... but I say he broke no law and had his rights violated, 2A, 4A and 5A.

His lack of intent was derived from his lack of awareness of the warrant. If the warrant pans out to have been legitimate, ignorance of said warrant would be no defense. Lack of mens rea due to ignorance is a pretty weak defense, as he was aware of legal circumstances that may have spawned the warrant, which he ignored on the word of a court clerk who does not have the power to issue or block the issuing of a warrant.

 

[protias]

Passing judgement to quickly IMHO.
The video is edited. Notice the lack of a time stamp? That is because FOX2 zoomed in on the original video. You can tell some of the things he says are picked up on in mid sentence. Without seeing the unedited video, we can't be sure of the context of the conversation. It looks kinda bad on TV if the time on the stamp keeps jumping around.
Everyone of us could find ourselves in the same situation. False arrest and in a holding cell. It would be extremely frustrating. The stress level would be off the charts. I doubt anyone here would do much better.
FOX2 slanted the story towards the police. Why accept what you see on TV as the truth?
The police have seen the video and know FOX2 edited what he said. They also know Maplewood has civil liability. Trying now to cover their rear end. This is why the city is moving so quickly to pass the NO-OC law. It's a foolish reaction that further proves the city must have known OC was legal.

Just reminds me of this Simpsons episode.

His lack of intent was derived from his lack of awareness of the warrant. If the warrant pans out to have been legitimate, ignorance of said warrant would be no defense. Lack of mens rea due to ignorance is a pretty weak defense, as he was aware of legal circumstances that may have spawned the warrant, which he ignored on the word of a court clerk who does not have the power to issue or block the issuing of a warrant.

The warrant was issued wrongly since that issue was/is still pending.

 

[zekester]

Damn!!!

I take a nap for a few months and look at what i have missed!!!!

 

[Grapeshot]

Indeed all of this would be funny ............ if it were funny.

That's not intended as a flame to anyone, just an observation.

 

[kcgunfan]

Passing judgement to quickly IMHO.
The video is edited. Notice the lack of a time stamp? That is because FOX2 zoomed in on the original video. You can tell some of the things he says are picked up on in mid sentence. Without seeing the unedited video, we can't be sure of the context of the conversation. It looks kinda bad on TV if the time on the stamp keeps jumping around.
Everyone of us could find ourselves in the same situation. False arrest and in a holding cell. It would be extremely frustrating. The stress level would be off the charts. I doubt anyone here would do much better.
FOX2 slanted the story towards the police. Why accept what you see on TV as the truth?
The police have seen the video and know FOX2 edited what he said. They also know Maplewood has civil liability. Trying now to cover their rear end. This is why the city is moving so quickly to pass the NO-OC law. It's a foolish reaction that further proves the city must have known OC was legal.

We know that Brett (now that everyone knows his name) has a voicemail from the City Manager saying that OC was legal. So, the city did know that. Now, whether or not the aldermen and mayor knew this is a different matter completely. And, either the police didn't know it, or just wanted to try to make an example of someone. If it's the first, then they're morons, and if it's the second, they're evil.

I've always believed that Brett was acting in the right before he was detained. I have no proof of that, but I don't have any reason to think otherwise either. And, you're innocent by default. If he was waving his gun around or anything, I suspect that Fox 2 would have gleefully told us. The worst they said about his time in Wal-Mart was that there was a kid at holster height looking at him. Big whoop, my kids are at my hoster height. The only time they mention it is when they're on my lap and it pokes them. So, he did not do anything wrong, other than using very poorly chosen words in the cell. I even said there's a good chance they were edited to make them sound worse than they actually were. There's no doubt that Fox 2 is carrying the MWPD's water here. Unfortunately, they did a very good job of making Brett look crazy in the video.

Brett, have you made a Sunshine Law request for the MWPD's video of you in the cell? They were certainly happy to give it to Fox 2. How about trying to get any video of you in Wal-Mart? I know they have cameras everywhere. I would be interested in hearing a few minutes before and after what Fox 2 showed. Have you considered going to another station, with your side of the story? You said you have plenty of contacts. Based on what you've told us, there were plenty of 1/2 truths in the Fox 2 story, and with sweeps coming up next month, another station might be interested in knocking those down.

From what i understand, if the LEO's did not have RAS, then the search and seizure was illegal. If the search was illegal, then the arrest was illegal. Since all of this came from MWPD's illegal search, I'm sure they would at least owe you an apology, which in this case would be good as gold. Plus, you couldn't be charged as a fugitive in possession, because it would be fruit of a poisonous tree. You are going to need lots of proof that there is no RAS though, because the MO courts have been pretty liberal what LEO's can call RAS.

Seriously, it's now time to get a lawyer and start pressing. If you don't, you're going to leave this vast black mark on the state of Open Carry in MO for a long time.

 

[lancers]

So you either have the worst bad luck of anyone I've ever even heard of, or your baiting. I have not even had to talk to the cops in over 15 years, how does all this stuff happen to YOU ALL THE TIME ?

Somethin' don't sound right ....:uhoh:

Well, mainly 3 reasons...
1) I'm young
2) It's St. Louis
3) I'm on their list

Like I said, it's amazing when you get just outside of St. Louis County how much nicer the police are. I recall one time as a kid riding my bike out in Washington, MO. A police officer came up and stopped at the curb and motioned me to stop. He asked how I was doing and gave me a card for a free ice cream because I was wearing my helmet.

Then the time down in Jefferson County last summer, I was stopped at a checkpoint (which I hate), but the cop was so friendly, I let the department know. He asked for my ID and where I was headed. I pointed ahead and said, "that way." He just laughed, handed me back my ID and said to have a good night. Had that been in St. Louis County, I probably would have been dragged out of the car.

I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that exercising your Constitutional Rights is baiting. I mean, you are doing the same thing then if you open carry. Decline a police officer's search? Baiting! Refuse to be interrogated by a police officer? Baiting! Videotape/watch something exciting the police might be involved with? Baiting! Give me a break. I don't do anything illegal, yet the cops treat me like a criminal and have a hard-on for nailing me. Why is that? Are there not enough criminals out there to worry about?

 

[cash50]

Brett, did you ever consider a public or written (to the MPD) apology for talking about shooting them??

Maybe you could explain your frustrations and share some of your stories, and people could grow and move beyond this crap?

I don't want to be at odds with the cops - who are just people like you and I - and it obviously hasn't helped you either.

Perhaps you write a letter or make a call to a news station...just an idea.