Isn't it possible that even if this ex-felon was a bad guy and ultimately engaged in behavior which justified the shooting, that his behavior of carrying the gun in hand was peaceful for some time and eventually became threatening and dangerous?
That is possible, certainly.
The legal standard here in Arizona for a charge of disorderly conduct would turn on whether such handling is "reckless".
In Utah the standard for a
DoC charge would include intending to or alarming the public while engaging in tumultuous, or threatening behavior, or if one disobeys the lawful orders of a peace officer; Among other possible conduct.
"(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) the person refuses to comply with the lawful order of a law enforcement officer to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;.."
The statute specifically exempts the carrying of a holstered or encased firearm:
"(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed with criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. Nothing in this Subsection (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in a voluntary conversation."
My own opinion would be that merely carrying the gun in hand, provided other safety rules were adhered to, is not reckless.
Obviously a gun can be carried in hand without being reckless. I think it is also possible to carry a gun in hand in such a way that a reasonable person would not take alarm.
But I think it is also very possible (and in an urban/sub-urban environment perhaps more likely) for a person to carry a gun in hand in a way that violates basic safety rules and/or gives reasonable men cause for concern. I think as my baseline, I'd say a properly holstered handgun should not be cause for concern in the absence of some other unusual conduct; while a firearm in hand (outside of hunting in the field) is likely to be cause for alarm barring some unusual circumstance.
IOW, I would come down on the side that walking up even a rural road in Utah with a pistol in hand is cause for police to investigate. If a handgun is not immininently needed, it should be in a holster, in a pocket or backpack, or even shoved into a belt. If there is no other reasonable option, I think it should be carried unloaded with the barrel exiting the hand opposite the thumb--carried around the breach/cylinders rather than by the handle. This make clear is it not intended for immediate use. But these are just my opinions.
It does not sound like he was a gun rights activist who would be interested in participating here at OCDO, though may have shared some common behaviors with members here, such as OC'ing a handgun.
[/quote]
Who's to say? And certainly his rights or the propriety (or imprudence as the case may be) of his conduct with firearms do not hinge on whether he considered himself an "activist" or not.
I guess there are a couple of different angles we might take on a case like this.
1-What is it in his conduct that separates him from "legitimate" OCers?
Obviously, his violation of gun laws by having a gun while being prohibited person is the most obvious as we OCers are strict about obeying the law. At the same time, many of us do believe the lifetime ban for felony convictions is unjust....
If the cops did not misbehave, then we must assume something in his conduct was grossly out of line with legitimate OCers as he presented a credible threat to the life and limb of officers who found it necessary to use deadly force.
But if the cops did misbehave--as WW and Citizen alluded in their initial posts--perhaps the deceased did nothing more than refuse an unlawful order while having a gun in hand.
2-What is it that causes some to so quickly condemn the cops involved, but then just as quickly distance themselves from the "victim" of the police misconduct they allege?
I've been fascinated by the responses to this one, and in some cases by the non-responses.
Charles