Founder Of ICarry.org Arrested

Gunowers.org ^ | John Birch/Shaun Kranish

[tarawa]

Here's someone standing up for our rights. This cannot go unchallenged.

[tarawa]

2A ping. This needs to get some attention.

[Mr. Mojo]

Outrageous!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

LOL!!!! Oh, what weenie, liberal, laws we have. So if I see John Kerry walking down the street (or roller-blading in his bright orange spandex outfit, I guess would be more likely) I could have him arrested if I am "alarmed" that he may be carrying a tax increase with him.

[Clump]

False imprisonment, and a violation of the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. I would sue for both and I would not use any Vasoline when calculating damages. Go get those SOBs.

[Peace will be here soon]

Its free speech to wear ( or not wear ) certain clothing to gain attention to a specific cause, so the liberals have spouted this over and over through the years. But isn`t this the same thing?

I smell a free speech lawsuit.....I wonder if the ACLU will be meeting with this guy? (I guess we all know the answer to that question ).

[M203M4]

bookmark

[supercat]

There are a few factual issues that I would expect to be applicable in this case:

1. What was the extent of the complainant's alarm, and to what extent was such alarm due to the defendant's conduct versus other factors.
2. Was the extent of alarm such that a reasonable person would have foreseen it.

Based upon the defendant's description of events, it would appear that there was some measure of alarm based upon the fact that police were called. On the other hand, it might be useful to try to get any phone records to establish the chronology of events. If the receptionist called the police as soon as the defendant was out of earshot, that would suggest a much higher degree of alarm than if the receptionist called an administrator first.

As for the second question, that's somewhat trickier. The defendant lays out a pretty good case in mentioning that he had for days engaged in the conduct in question and found that it resulted in friendly conversation and had not seen anything indicating any hint of alarm. This is counterbalanced, however, by the fact that the defendant's attire was seemingly designed to convey the impression that he might be armed.

If the case goes to a bench trial, a lot is going to depend upon the judge. If the receptionist called an administrator before summoning police, a fair judge should find that the police were called not to protect the receptionist from danger, but rather to arrest someone the school didn't want to deal with. The "level of distress" would probably be high enough to preclude any sort of countersuit for wrongful arrest, but not high enough to justify a disorderly conduct conviction. On the other hand, an anti-gun judge might find that the fact that police were called implies that someone must have been distressed.

As for the question of reasonableness, a fair judge would weigh highly the facts that the defendant was attempting to go politely through channels to receive an audience to request a rule change, and that the defendant's attire had resulted in pleasant attention during the previous week. An anti-gun judge would find that the defendant's attire was "itching for a fight".

The most important thing I'd suggest is to find out about the judge to whom the case is assigned. From what I understand, if a defendant requests a new judge early, one will always be assigned, but if an anti-gun judge is assigned and the defendant doesn't request a change soon enough, too bad.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"This is absurd on its face. If one is walking down the street and sees someone who looks like they might be a gang banger and have a gun, may one then call the police, have them searched, and when it is discovered they do NOT have a gun the "gang banger" is then arrested for disorderly conduct? "

Only if the alleged gang banger is a white male. Otherwise the ACLU will threaten to make it very expensive for them. Fortunately for these dopes the ACLU could care less about the rights of straight white American males.

[skimask]

[Thinkin' Gal]

This is absurd on its face. If one is walking down the street and sees someone who looks like they might be a gang banger and have a gun, may one then call the police, have them searched, and when it is discovered they do NOT have a gun the "gang banger" is then arrested for disorderly conduct?

Potential Darwin Award Nominee; Stupidest Tattoo Ever (Vanity)

[PistolPaknMama]

bumping to bookmark. The young man is probably going to need financial help unless he can get a pro-2A attorney to represent him pro bono.

[Drammach]

We obviously need every member of ICarry.org to put on a fanny pack and an ICarry jacket and visit the campus..
I would suggest every one of them visit the security office as well, to register a complaint... while wearing said jacket and fanny pack..

Maybe after 200 or so visits, they would start to get the message.. "this isn't over"..

[GeronL]

I got as far as 'empty fannypack'.

I cannot hear anyone saying 'they can take my empty fannypacks from my cold dead hands'.

[GeronL]

Of course I totally agree with everyone else on this issue.

I am an extreme Freedomist on this issue, I think minor girls with no ID's should be able to buy Stinger missiles at Home Depot. Or Wal-Mart, her 'choice'.

=-)

[Still Thinking]

Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

Geez, talk about poor writing skillz. This guy can't write fer shizzle. While I assume she was alarmed because she believed him to be in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) the sentence reads like it's a violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) for anyone to alarm her. I don't think even Illinois has gotten THAT out of whack (yet).

[Turbopilot]

Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

And he was alone when he went to meet the secretary and the officers? LOL. Someone involved in this situation should actually read 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a).

[Ancesthntr]

Its free speech to wear ( or not wear ) certain clothing to gain attention to a specific cause, so the liberals have spouted this over and over through the years. But isn`t this the same thing?

I'll bet that if the shirt said "Kill Bush" with a picture of a gun, and he was wearing the same fanny pack, that no one would have even thought about arresting him (except the Secret Service, which gets paid to worry about nutjobs).

I smell a free speech lawsuit.....I wonder if the ACLU will be meeting with this guy? (I guess we all know the answer to that question).

The young man couldn't have come up with a better scenario - as much free publicity as he wants, the other side making themselves look like what they are - a bunch of incompetent, intolerant horses rumps - and probably a good fund to begin his organization and maybe to buy himself a house. This is one very juicy lawsuit, which will almost certainly be settled out of court by the horses rumps.

Oh, and there's no way that the ACLU would take this case. It doesn't further their ultra-Left Wing, anti-American agenda.

[supercat]

And he was alone when he went to meet the secretary and the officers? LOL. Someone involved in this situation should actually read 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a).

You mean

(720 ILCS 5/25‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 25‑1)

Sec. 25‑1. Mob action.

(a) Mob action consists of any of the following:

(1) The use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law; or

(2) The assembly of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act; or

(3) The assembly of 2 or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of any one supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional powers or regulative powers over any person by violence.

Is that the section he's charged under? Is he accused of having split personality disorder or what? Or did someone mistype 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)?

[supercat]

Geez, talk about poor writing skillz. This guy can't write fer shizzle. While I assume she was alarmed because she believed him to be in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) the sentence reads like it's a violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a) for anyone to alarm her. I don't think even Illinois has gotten THAT out of whack (yet).

I think the intent of the charge is to say that the alleged act of alarming the person was a violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a):

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1)

Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.

(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or... (4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed; or

The above two clauses are the only two that seem to be even remotely applicable (the latter under the argument that, by causing the secretary's alarm, he indirectly caused the 911 call).

So, aside from the statute number being incorrect, the author really did mean what you suggested.