Asked to Leave Logansport Mall for OCing Off Duty

[mcolford]

The Logansport Mall is a dive. Havent bought anything from there in quite a while. After the jewelry store my wife and I do business with left, that was pretty much it for me.

The "Security" is a joke.

 

[Birds Away]

Well, "private property" seems to have double meanings in Indiana! I know of many people in Indiana that OWN businesses. However there is a sign on the front door stating "STATE LAW - NO SMOKING". I know many of you are against smoking - I have smoked for over 50 years and still do.

I don't hear the clamor about "this is private property - they should be able to tell people what to do on their property" - when smoking is involved!

This is the same "double standard" everyone here really gets angry about when "hunters" don't object to laws banning AR's or High cap mags. Any loss of personal freedoms for a few leads to loss of many freedoms for the many.

If they can pass a law saying it is illegal to smoke in "public places" (owned by private citizens) why can't they pass a law requiring no restriction on firearms.

+1 for the OP, he did stand up for ALL people and let his views be known. Many here seem extremely angry at all LEO's - possibly for the actions of one or two they have had the bad luck to encounter that were Axxholes. It is important for LEO's to understand that there is a lot of resentment against anyone that has the power to foul up a persons life based on their decision alone. Even an unwarranted traffic violation ticket can cost the average person financial heartache. I believe most LEO's are aware of this and try to be fair. (No I haven't had any encounters with LEO's for many years, paid my last traffic ticket over 40 years ago).

I agree. I am also unreformed and unapologetic. I don't believe these laws are really Constitutional but these laws come from the liberal do-gooders who must protect us all from ourselves. What irks me is when people who seem to understand, to some degree, the private property argument will support these laws simply because they don't like smoking either.

 

[Hotdoger]

...and by the way, if I own a mall property, I wouldn't allow firearms either. I'd worry more about my bottom line and liability than being a gun friendly business. Simply put there are enough people that OC (CC people rarely care) that could break my business, but soccer moms? You gotta keep them happy.

Plenty of empty NO firearms allowed malls out there for you to purchase.

Dennys in St Louis who kicked out the open carrying cops sure stepped in it . didn't they?

 

[Dauvis]

There's really only one way to get this "private property" BS rule thrown out....

Open a private property business as a polling place. Then put up a sign that says "no women, blacks, or those over the age of 60 or under 30 allowed". Stand out there and start asking people to leave. Once the s#!^ is stirred up enough, and they tell you the 15th, the 19th, and the 26th overrule your property rights, maybe they'll agree the 2nd overrules theirs.

Oh yeah, let's get another law passed. Let's make big government bigger and more intrusive. While we're at it, let's ban fences and locks because that restricts my right to freedom of movement.

 

[mvician]

And that means exactly what? He never took any position in his post as being better or requesting better treatment because he was a LEO.
You seem to be the one that needs to re-read things.

He took his position of superiority when he called the mall security a "half security", "half janitor guy". And then again when he demeaned the mall manager with "her very broken half English, half Spanish voice".

He was informed of their policy, got huffy about it, returned his purchases, and ran home to make a post about it.


quoted so the story doesn't change

I was asked to leave the Logansport Mall the other day as I was walking out of Dunhams from buying a new eotech 512 and some ammo. I was then approached buy some "half security", "half janitor guy" with a dust mop who told me firearms was not allowed in the mall and I was being asked to leave, (I just came from a few hours of range time with some of my Logansport PD friends of mine) I then identified myself as a police officer (Yes I showed Badge and ID) and was told, "only if I am in full uniform" I could be in the mall with my side arm on.

I requested that this mall security person call the mall manager and have them meet me on the spot to discuss this issue. (Thinking this guys has to be just blowing me smoke) So the person in charge of the mall walks up and I explain the situation to her and asked if this is how the mall treats all guest who carry a firearm and to toss out the fact for the moment that I was a police officer. In her very broken half English, half Spanish voice, I was then told that the mall does not allow people to carry any firearms in the mall and only police officers on duty, but they would "let me slide this time"

I then said, "no need to let me slide for anything". I then opened my bag and explained to the mall manager that the 429.99$ sight and ammo was going right back to the store for a full refund and I would never be back. I then explained to the manager of Dunhams why I was returning the items and that I will NEVER be back in that mall again. I have sent a letter to Dunhams Corp and the Company that runs the mall.....

So, Boycott Logansport Mall at all cost.

 

[Scutter01]

Well, "private property" seems to have double meanings in Indiana! I know of many people in Indiana that OWN businesses. However there is a sign on the front door stating "STATE LAW - NO SMOKING". I know many of you are against smoking - I have smoked for over 50 years and still do.

I don't hear the clamor about "this is private property - they should be able to tell people what to do on their property" - when smoking is involved!

This is the same "double standard" everyone here really gets angry about when "hunters" don't object to laws banning AR's or High cap mags. Any loss of personal freedoms for a few leads to loss of many freedoms for the many.

If they can pass a law saying it is illegal to smoke in "public places" (owned by private citizens) why can't they pass a law requiring no restriction on firearms.

You must not have been on INGO at the time. There was quite the clamor here. I despise smoking. I grew up in cars filled with smoke. I HATED it. I still wrote letters and made calls against that law.

Please don't use your generalities to justify passing even more restrictive laws just to "make things fair".

 

[wetidlerjr]

He took his position of superiority when he called the mall security a "half security", "half janitor guy". And then again when he demeaned the mall manager with "her very broken half English, half Spanish voice".
He was informed of their policy, got huffy about it, returned his purchases, and ran home to make a post about it.

That's about the weakest argument I've read in this thread. You're going to have to do better than that. I 'd say a security man with a dust mop fits his description and Spanish-accented broken English is not uncommon in Indiana and neither has anything to do with "superiority". You are reaching to justify a weak position.

 

[mvician]

That's about the weakest argument I've read in this thread. You're going to have to do better than that. I 'd say a security man with a dust mop fits his description and Spanish-accented broken English is not uncommon in Indiana and neither has anything to do with "superiority". You are reaching to justify a weak position.

I'm glad you find humiliating people humorous.

He should have left out his "descriptions" and just called them by their positions.

Respect is earned not thrown out like candy at a parade.

 

[Thegeek]

Oh yeah, let's get another law passed. Let's make big government bigger and more intrusive. While we're at it, let's ban fences and locks because that restricts my right to freedom of movement.

Are you saying you are against private property rights? You don't think that if someone comes to your house that you should have the right to ask them to leave?

Don't you know that "Civil Rights" trump "Constitution Rights" every time?

You're all missing the point. I just think that places that are "open to the public" (my home isn't) should not be allowed to choose what Constitutional Rights are valid and which ones aren't.

Donnelly, I think you've almost got it. The right to protect one's self and others with deadly force, if necessary, should be a Civil Right. However, if the mall really wanted to, they could put up a sign that says "whites only" and not permit any others to enter. It would be the end of their business, but it's still legal. Which of your Civil Rights do you retain and which ones do you yield when you step foot on my property?

 

[Dead Duck]

I don't understand the mindset or mentality of utilizing open carry in a public arena. What is the purpose ? Intimidation, bluster, or . . . . . ? If the purpose of being armed is for self defense, is a confrontation less likely because an individual is openly carrying a firearm ?

I think this demonstrates a lack sensibility on the OP's part. With the concern(s) of the general public running rampant in today's environment, I think most folks would be either surprised or shocked or both to see an individual walking through a crowded (assumption) mall with a gun while the wearer was not in uniform.

I would think someone in law enforcement would be even more attune to the public reaction. I do take exception to anyone believing their personal right trumps the general consideration for common sense and well being. It brings to mind the theory that it's wrong to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre - regardless of the right to free speech. From a law enforcement standpoint, I suggest your situatinal awarenes would be raised if, while on duty, you encountered someone who was openly carrying a firearm.

Next time use some common sense and don't flaunt your 2nd amendment right. You do a disservice to your fellow gunowners - and to your department for that matter.

I'm a hoping that your Purple is broken.

If you are serious then - Boy is there a thread for you.

Post in HERE.............But not in here.

 

[printcraft]

......I strongly support the 2nd amend...

......Your tactics suck and the only "LE's" that I've seen carry openly like that are new boots or idiots that don't stay in LE very long! It's one thing to be on duty in plain clothes, in your own jurisdiction or working a case. But to be an LE and open carry in a mall is just stupid!

Does not compute.

......I strongly support the 2nd amend., and believe it's a persons right to carry openly if they have the proper documents, etc, etc.........

Yeah, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if they have the proper documents, etc, etc." chokes me up every time.

So you are saying that rights are granted by the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-16

 

[N8RV]

Man, it's like alligators eating their young around here sometimes.

I can read the stories of LEOs hassling law-abiding gun-toters and not get my knickers in a twist because I know that most LEOs are not like that. They're regular Joes who have chosen to perform a task that most of us would not do. They risk their lives on every traffic stop, every domestic call, and certainly not for the money.

I wish that more LEOs participated on INGO, but after seeing how the OP has been criticized and his actions parsed for every possible offense by some, I can understand why most LEOs probably avoid this place like the plague.

Too bad, because as one who carries daily, it would be nice to have solid input from actively participating LEOs on issues that affect us all. Kudos to the OP for sharing his story.

 

[edporch]

When I go to malls, I just carry concealed and keep low key about it.
Am not a cop, and have never had a problem in almost 30 years.

I'd rather risk having to leave, than being defenseless in the unlikely event of a mall shooting.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I'm with you TF. The original post made it seem as if OP expected a break because of his "status." I immediately went into facepalm mode. Only after someone called out OP was there a clarification.

The million dollar question, is what would the OP have done "if" the mall rep had said "oh, you're a LEO, then you're fine to OC here, just not anyone else).

I'm just conjecturing, I'm not trying to offend the OP, but his original post should have clarified why he identified himself.

Further, I also didn't like the reference to the employee. Pointing out "broken English," and "Spanish voice," does what for the story? Even with those apparent "hindrances," the OP obviously got the point. I'm not going to call it bias, but it looks like ..... Well.... Bias. A LEO should be mindful to avoid appearing as such.

Exactly.

 

[jwh20]

I was asked to leave the Logansport Mall the other day as I was walking out of Dunhams from buying a new eotech 512 and some ammo. I was then approached buy some "half security", "half janitor guy" with a dust mop who told me firearms was not allowed in the mall and I was being asked to leave, (I just came from a few hours of range time with some of my Logansport PD friends of mine) I then identified myself as a police officer (Yes I showed Badge and ID) and was told, "only if I am in full uniform" I could be in the mall with my side arm on.

Ok, nothing personal against you as a police officer...

But WHY should LE and Military be given special consideration for firearms when OFF DUTY?

It seems to me that all the attention is being focused on lawful but PRIVATE citizens. But the STATISTICS show that a POLICE or LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER or an ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY are MUCH MORE LIKELY to commit a violent crime with a firearm than a citizen.

Really? YES! Let's look at some recent HIGH PROFILE crimes involving firearms.

1) Private citizens committed high-profile crimes in Newtown CT, Aurora CO, and Tuscon AZ. So that's 3 our of let's say 50,000,000 private gun owners (probably a very LOW estimate!) in the US. So the rate of these crimes is 0.000006%. Pretty darned LOW!

2) That Dorner guy, LE in California, right. So that's 1 out of let's say 1,000,000 law enforcement officers in the US. (That's a very conservative estimate btw, there are probably only 1/2 that many.) So the rate here is 0.0001%. That's a rate that is almost 17 TIMES higher than private citizens!!

3) Military-wise we have the Ft. Hood shooting. Again that's 1 out of about 1,500,000 active-duty military. So our rate of mass-shootings is 0.000067%. In this case almost 10X the private citizen rate.

So if ANYTHING, the case could be made that we'd cut down on the number of high-profile violent crimes if law enforcement of ALL kinds as well as ALL active duty military were DISARMED!

Does this make sense? OF COURSE NOT! It's an absurd argument but it's based on fact! IRRELEVANT FACT but fact nonetheless. But this is how the anti's make their case!

 

[KLB]

You're all missing the point. I just think that places that are "open to the public" (my home isn't) should not be allowed to choose what Constitutional Rights are valid and which ones aren't.

Donnelly, I think you've almost got it. The right to protect one's self and others with deadly force, if necessary, should be a Civil Right. However, if the mall really wanted to, they could put up a sign that says "whites only" and not permit any others to enter. It would be the end of their business, but it's still legal. Which of your Civil Rights do you retain and which ones do you yield when you step foot on my property?

Really? Do you believe that someone should have the right to go into a business and exercise their First Amendment rights too? Just stand in the store/restaurant and rant on about some topic that is important to them?

You have the right to defend yourself by not entering the private property that does not want you to be there armed.

 

[UncleMike]

Man, it's like alligators eating their young around here sometimes.

I can read the stories of LEOs hassling law-abiding gun-toters and not get my knickers in a twist because I know that most LEOs are not like that. They're regular Joes who have chosen to perform a task that most of us would not do. They risk their lives on every traffic stop, every domestic call, and certainly not for the money.

I wish that more LEOs participated on INGO, but after seeing how the OP has been criticized and his actions parsed for every possible offense by some, I can understand why most LEOs probably avoid this place like the plague.

Too bad, because as one who carries daily, it would be nice to have solid input from actively participating LEOs on issues that affect us all. Kudos to the OP for sharing his story.

Yup.....
I've tried for years to get current and retired LEO's that I know to sign on here.
I get pretty much the same response every time.
"Why should I go to a place that bashes my profession regularly. I go to work every day and get that."
OR
"One of the reasons I retired was so that I wouldn't have to argue with people who hate LEO's every day".

It's human nature to avoid unpleasant places.

 

[wolfeden]

Off duty or on, Law Enforcement officers must still enforce the laws they have sworn to uphold. If you were to call the police department, I bet you would find out that department policy requires you to always carry.
I can remember when the mall was being built. At on time the Logansport mall was a flurishing place. I can remember guns being sold at Sears for crying out load.

I am afraid the mall is a dying place as I could see so many empty store fronts the last time I visited.

 

[churchmouse]

It is openly clear as to those among us with LE issues.
I have had more than my share of run ins with LEO but most of those were of my own doing in some way. I know a lot of folks who are dicks outside of the LE.

It is a world of exception and special treatment. If you want to be treated in this way pick a profession that may allow it. If not, get on with it and enjoy what you have......jeesh

 

[Expat]

You're all missing the point. I just think that places that are "open to the public" (my home isn't) should not be allowed to choose what Constitutional Rights are valid and which ones aren't.

I think that private property rights still apply. If I start a business, I can make the rules. If you don't like them, don't enter.

, However, if the mall really wanted to, they could put up a sign that says "whites only" and not permit any others to enter. It would be the end of their business, but it's still legal. Which of your Civil Rights do you retain and which ones do you yield when you step foot on my property?

Really? No. You are wrong. The Gubmint passed laws infringing on private property rights and made discrimination based upon race a crime.