Posted on 12/05/2007 12:23:01 PM PST by PrivateIdaho
We can go with the "or something".
Much like your post is a waste of time too.
Well let's see...
Oh look!
CO:18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
Statute text
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(c) An offense under paragraph (e) or (f) of subsection (1) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Re: If the state doesn't require unloaded transport in a case, then exposed transport should be restricted to those rare strip malls where the practice is common. Otherwise a disorderly conduct charge is warranted, on the justifiable grounds folks would be extremely nervous.
"I said, "Should be". That's your OPINION. Above you stated "should be restricted" -- you are making an OPINION statement here. You're making a statement here that isn't FACT. You're ASSUMING it OUGHT to be like this (or it IS like this), OR you're stating this is what YOU want it to BE like. Well, it's NOT like this, thus this is an opinion.
As indicated by the specifics of the CO disorderly statute, you're wrong. In addition, CO has a menacing statute, which would cover clymers that think they can walk through a Mall with an exposed rifle in hand, as they see fit to.
CO:18-3-206. Menacing.
Statute text
(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:
(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or
(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.
History Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 421, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-3-206. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 961, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 694, § 5, effective July 1.
Annotations
Statute did not unconstitutionally violate the defendant's equal protection rights, despite the defendant's claim that the conduct proscribed by this section, a class 5 felony, was indistinguishable from the conduct proscribed in § 18-9-106 (1)(f) (disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon), a class 2 misdemeanor, in which the actus reus is less specific than the actus reus in this section. People v. Ibarra, 849 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1993).
Felony menacing is a specific intent crime. People v. Lundborg, 39 Colo. App. 498, 570 P.2d 1303 (1977).
The actus reus of felony menacing is "placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon", an act more specific than the actus reus of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon, which is displaying a deadly weapon in an alarming manner in a public place. Therefore, it does not violate the equal protection clause of article II, section 25, of the Colorado constitution to subject defendants to potential criminal liability under both statutes. People v. Torres, 848 P.2d 911 (Colo. 1993).
Court did not err in denying motion for acquittal when defendant charged with felony menacing and evidence showed the victims believed themselves to be in danger of imminent serious bodily harm. People v. Manzanares, 942 P.2d 1235 (Colo. App. 1996).
Failure to instruct jury on "imminent" element was harmless error where prosecutor argued fear was imminent and defense did not challenge whether fear was imminent. Evidence clearly showed fear was imminent. People v. Geisendorfer, 991 P.2d 308 (Colo. App. 1999).
The phrase "use of a deadly weapon" is broad enough to include the act of holding a weapon in the presence of another in a manner that causes the other person to fear for his safety, even if the weapon is not pointed at the other person. People v. Hines, 780 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1989); People v. District Ct., 17th Jud. Dist., 926 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1996).
Felony menacing requires use of deadly weapon. The elements of misdemeanor menacing and felony menacing are identical but for the added requirement of the use of a deadly weapon. People v. Lahr, 200 Colo. 425, 615 P.2d 707 (1980).
Under the felony provision of this section unloaded firearm is a deadly weapon. People v. McPherson, 200 Colo. 429, 619 P.2d 38 (1980).
An unloaded firearm is a deadly weapon. People v. Lahr, 200 Colo. 425, 615 P.2d 707 (1980).
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to felony menacing, which is a general intent crime. People v. Breland, 728 P.2d 763 (Colo. App. 1986); People v. Esparza, 757 P.2d 1164 (Colo. App. 1988).
An essential element of the offense is a specific intent to cause fear. People v. Stout, 193 Colo. 466, 568 P.2d 52 (1977).
The specific intent of the defendant to cause fear is the gravamen of the offense of felony menacing. People v. McPherson, 200 Colo. 429, 619 P.2d 38 (1980).
Menacing is a general intent crime requiring only that the defendant be aware that the defendant's conduct is practically certain to cause the result. People v. Zieg, 841 P.2d 342 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. Segura, 923 P.2d 266 (Colo. App. 1995); People v. District Ct., 17th Jud. Dist., 926 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1996); People v. Saltray, 969 P.2d 729 (Colo. App. 1998); People v. Shawn, 107 P.3d 1033 (Colo. App. 2004).
It is unnecessary for the victim actually to hear or to be cognizant of any threat from defendant; instead, if there is evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that the defendant knew his actions, if discovered, would place the victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by use of a deadly weapon, then the intent element of the offense may be established. People v. Saltray, 969 P.2d 729 (Colo. App. 1998).
Intent to inflict injury not gist of crime. Whether the defendant had the intent of ability to inflict injury is not the gist of felony menacing. People v. McPherson, 200 Colo. 429, 619 P.2d 38 (1980).
The term "use" is broad enough to include the act of holding a weapon in the presence of another in a manner that causes the other person to fear for his safety. People v. Hines, 780 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1989).
The term "use" necessarily includes the physical possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the crime. People v. Adams, 867 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1993).
Actual subjective fear on the part of the victim is not a necessary element of this crime. People v. Stout, 193 Colo. 466, 568 P.2d 52 (1977); People v. Williams, 827 P.2d 612 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. District Ct., 17th Jud. Dist., 926 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1996).
Nonetheless, what the victim saw or heard, and his reactions thereto, are relevant considerations in determining whether the defendant had the requisite intent to place him in fear. People v. Gagnon, 703 P.2d 661 (Colo. App. 1985).
Rather, it is only necessary that the defendant be aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause fear. People v. District Ct., 17th Jud. Dist., 926 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1996); United States v. Blackwell, 323 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2003).
The crime of menacing does not require proof of the intent to rob. People v. Marlott, 191 Colo. 304, 552 P.2d 491 (1976).
Intoxication as defense. If at the time of the incident in question, felony menacing was a specific intent crime, intoxication is available as a defense to negate the requisite specific intent. People v. Sandoval, 42 Colo. App. 503, 596 P.2d 1225 (1979).
No error where court excluded evidence of actions of victim after menacing occurred, since, in determining the issue of reasonable belief of imminent injury, it is the actions and demeanor of the believed assailant which first occurred that are relevant. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).
A violation of this section qualifies as a violent felony under the federal Armed Career Criminals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). United States v. Herron, 432 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 1895, 164 L. Ed. 2d 579 (2006).
"No, I don't deserve to be attacked if I walk into anyplace with a rifle."
Anyplace is overly broad and distracts from the fact that we're talking about a Mall here. The felony menacing statute applies to any clymer that walks into a Mall with an exposed rifle, or shotgun, or a handgun drawn and in hand.
"If someone pulls a gun out on me, I'm going to shoot to kill, no matter what I am carrying, and I will be the one DEFENDING MYSELF."
We're talking Mall genius. You'll be drawn on and probably shot for felony menacing. Note that intoxication is no longer a valid defense as it was in 1979. It's allowed here though to explain postings.
"For the record, *I* am not afraid to walk into a mall, even if someone is walking around with a rifle on his shoulder, visible. At least I can see him, know what to expect.
What you think don't matter. It's the normal practice that occurs at the location that does. The regulars will react as per the local custom, in the Mall and in the jury box.
"The REALITY of the situation is that I have a right to carry my weapons. Period. No you don't have a right to tell me not to "cuz your skeered"."
I don't get skeered. I ask myself, WTF is this, then make conclusions. If I conclude clymer, I act on that basis. Clymer includes those morons who've determined they have a right to act in a way that's indistinguishable from a homicidal maniac.
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
LOL. you can ACTUALLY READ!!!!!!!!!! Cool.
“Reasonably”. When someone is walking down a street with a rifle SLUNG on his shoulder, this is my point, it is not a threat and anyone that can’t see that is BEING UNREASONABLE as YOU ARE continuing to be.
/shrug.
I’ll carry any weapon, anywhere I want (and have) and yet to be harassed by dumb asses that THINK they can “hit someone on the head” because they don’t like what they see.
If you tried that, you’d get shot. A lot of people wouldn’t stand there and let you attack someone, and I sure wouldn’t either.
By the way, I just LOVE how people like you take the threads so far off topic most can’t find their way back.
1) The attacks happened in Omaha. Not Colorado.
2) Regardless of how many rules, regulations and statues you quote, you’re still ASSUMING a lot of things. You’re stating “this is how it should be”. If you’re so damned scared, STAY HOME.
3) I know the regulations for weapons here in Colorado. I know what “menacing is” as defined by the regulations, and you’re ASSUMING someone simply carrying a weapon in the open is menacing. YOU’RE DEAD WRONG>
I’ll be out all weekend doing errands. I’ll let you know if I get arrested or make the papers Monday. I’ll be OPENLY carrying all weekend.
I was quoting you. So 2/3s the post I made was yours... /shrug.
"2) Regardless of how many rules, regulations and statues you quote, you’re still ASSUMING a lot of things. You’re stating “this is how it should be”. If you’re so damned scared, STAY HOME."
I assume nothing. What I referred to as should be is based on law and concerns of civil behavior.
"3) I know the regulations for weapons here in Colorado. I know what “menacing is” as defined by the regulations, and you’re ASSUMING someone simply carrying a weapon in the open is menacing. YOU’RE DEAD WRONG>"
Yeah, whatever Mr no disorderly. You want to ignore the fact that the place of carry and topic here is MALL, fine. It's your right to choose to behave in a manner indistinguishable from a homicidal maniac and others have the right to respond to that accordingly.
"I’ll be out all weekend doing errands. I’ll be OPENLY carrying all weekend. I’ll let you know if I get arrested or make the papers Monday.
If your errands take you through a MALL, there'll be a thread and we have your screen name. If they jailhouse supplies internet access, you can make replies.
Looks like you have your hands full.
I’ll check back later for the progress.
Looks like you have your hands full.
I’ll check back later for the progress.
This one is starting to stink to high heaven:
www.omaha.com...
—At 1:42 p.m. Wednesday, 911 operators received the first call about shots fired at Von Maur, Warren said. The first Omaha police officers were dispatched two minutes later and arrived at 1:48 p.m. Warren said the two minutes were used to verify the address and callers’ information, which is normal procedure.
[Comment: Phew! That was a close one! If they had been dispatched immediately they could have been confronted by the living gunman! Luckily, they got there just as he died. Apparently frantic 911 calls falsely reporting a gunman firing at the mall are a regular occurence in Omaha.]
This is getting better and better:
AP 12-7-07
Police did not release video of the shooting, but released a still image from the tape that showed Hawkins with his sleeves rolled up, aiming the AK-47 to fire in front of a store mannequin. The photos appear to contradict earlier reports that the gunman had a military-style haircut and entered the mall wearing a camouflage vest.
[...uh.... two shooters?]
“I’ve just snapped” Hawkins wrote in his suicide note.
[Well, that explains everything. No need to question further.]
(Kevin)Harrington, 45, said he told police in Bellevue about a month ago that one of Hawkins’ friends offered to sell Valium to his 13-year-old son. Harrington said he also told police that Hawkins had previously shot at a car during a drug deal gone bad. “We told them about the drugs, we told them about the guns, and nothing was done,” Harrington said.
Bellevue police said the house where Hawkins lived is in an unincorporated part of the city and not in their jurisdiction. Police Chief John Stacey would not talk about Kevin Harrington’s complaint, but said normally officers pass complaints from that neighborhood onto the Sarpy County Sheriff. Sheriff’s officials said they never received the complaint.
[Pass that buck! Oh yeah, you can bet the cops knew all about this guy.]
Sorry, getting to this thread rather late, and I have not had any time yesterday or today (Saturday) to look at much of the latest data. But I did pick this up on Thursday night.
They said that the shooter had stolen his stepfather’s rifle while the stepfather was out of the country vactioning in Thailand and the shooter’s mother was still at home. My antennae went up on that one. I don’t know much about Thailand, except what I have seen about their so-called sexual tourism. I suspect that this guy is a pedophile and was there vacationing alone for that purpose. (Note: the report I said specifically said he was on vacation, so I don’t think he was there for business purposes. May explain — no, doesn’t excuse — part of this shooter’s problems.
By that time two officers with AR-15’s had already secured all three floors, and allowed EMS personnel access to the victims for treatment.
TWO highly trained police officers who entered with known fatalities and the potential for more, risked their own lives and became fish in a barrel...not knowing the assailant was down by his own hand. This is the story that MSM needs to look at.
See my post 853
Personally I’ve observed the parents who believe it’s alright to sedate their out of control children (because they are lousy parents who refuse to discipline the kids) are the same type that believe in global warming, every 5th kid is autistic, conservatives want to barbarque poor people and all hollywood stars are mental giants.
Exactly. These officers responded quickly and well. Without a care for their own safety, they rushed in as soon as possible.
Not like that disgusting Sheriff and his fat deputies out there at Columbine, who stood around doing absolutely NOTHING while a teacher and several students bled to death.
msm has moved on. It also proves once again that the closer we are to breaking news, the more details we are privy to that we will never forget.
I just saw the photos last night for the first time. First thing I said was "wait a second that's a white guy in a T-shirt not a black guy in a camo vest".
My gosh it does absolutely no good to give description of bad guys to look for if they can't get the description even close.
I heard several times he was “a black male in camo”.
And later, I heard they had detained that particular man, hiding under a bench. My thinking is that the guy they detained was former military (or current) and was taking cover like any one who has a lick of sense (and unarmed) would have done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.