241
Post by: Ahtman
Sauce
Two Gonzaga University students are on indefinite probation for pulling out a gun when an intruder allegedly tried to force his way into their university-owned apartment.
Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were notified Sunday in a letter from the Spokane, Wash., university they had been placed on indefinite probation for violating the school's weapons policy Oct. 24 when a six-time felon knocked on their door and allegedly demanded money.
Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.
"I just kind of popped up and opened the door and see Mr. Taylor standing there and he starts explaining how he's homeless and needs money," Fagan told ABC News.
Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.
McIntosh, an electrical engineering major, said he and Fagan called police after the incident and Taylor was arrested.
McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.
Fagan and McIntosh say they didn't know anything about the policy, but they wouldn't change a thing as they wonder what would have happened to them if they hadn't been armed.
"Because we were just defending ourselves there is no reason that we should be punished for it," Fagan said.
The seniors said they plan to appeal the school's indefinite probation ruling.
I can see dorms having some restrictions, but individual apartments, even if University owned, seems a bit of a stretch to neutralize their 2nd Amendment rights.
23
Post by: djones520
I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun.
University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University.
... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here? Automatically Appended Next Post:  djones520 wrote:I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?
That's what I thought.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.
23
Post by: djones520
I've done some digging around, and it seems that it is legal for landlords to say no to guns.
I'll have to make sure I check on that from now on when the AF sends me new places.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
djones520 wrote:I've done some digging around, and it seems that it is legal for landlords to say no to guns.
Same thing applies with the First Amendment. No right to free speech on private forums and all that.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
-Shrike- wrote:So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun. University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University. ... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here?
Is it the first time you see an (educational) institution punish both parties despite the fact that its obvious one is more guilty than the other? The kids violated the terms of the renting agreement. Guess next time, better just come out wielding a baseball bat. Or the good ol Warjack in a Sock. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Da Boss wrote:Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.
Oh yeah, because a slap on the wrist for violating dorm rules for a feth is completely comparable to potentially losing your registration (and living arrangements) because you defended yourself from an admitted felon.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Kovnik Obama wrote:-Shrike- wrote:So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun.
University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University.
... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here?
Is it the first time you see an (educational) institution punish both parties despite the fact that its obvious one is more guilty than the other?
The kids violated the terms of the renting agreement. Guess next time, better just come out wielding a baseball bat. Or the good ol Warjack in a Sock.
I've got Mulg in a nice wool sock for just such occasions!
I was going to say that it seems weird, but these lads are playing dumb here. When they agreed to live in that University owned housing, they knew that they had to follow the same rules as the poor saps living in cramped dorms. Every dorm on my campus, as well as the 'off campus' university owned apartments have the same rules, one of these are signs posted at the exit that pursuant to the Ohio Concealed Carry law(s), it is illegal to carry a firearm on campus.
23
Post by: djones520
Youngin's these days...
2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Best title of the day Aht XD
Sounds like another case of someone not reading the rules XD Of course given recent high profile shootings at schools and universities maybe this is for the best. Not that every person with a gun is gonna shoot up the place, but maybe having firearms in such an environment isn't the best idea (like no guns within ### yards of a school laws).
34390
Post by: whembly
At least, they won't be expelled. They're on probation at that University until they leave.
Interestingly, they're going to review the current gun-policy as well.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
djones520 wrote:Youngin's these days...
2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.
How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal 
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.
I was going to say that it seems weird, but these lads are playing dumb here. When they agreed to live in that University owned housing, they knew that they had to follow the same rules as the poor saps living in cramped dorms. Every dorm on my campus, as well as the 'off campus' university owned apartments have the same rules, one of these are signs posted at the exit that pursuant to the Ohio Concealed Carry law(s), it is illegal to carry a firearm on campus.
Exactly. my first reaction to reading this was ''Really, and you didn't think it'd be a good idea to, you know, just lie about it? Just say you came out with a hammer in your hand, or something''.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.
Oh yeah, because a slap on the wrist for violating dorm rules for a feth is completely comparable to potentially losing your registration (and living arrangements) because you defended yourself from an admitted felon.
Jeez, chill out man.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
djones520 wrote:Youngin's these days...
2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.
Best post of the day!
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kovnik Obama wrote:
The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.
Well, I do need a weapon to get to my pistol, which is then used to get to my rifle... Though I wouldn't go walking around the tight corridors of my house with a mosin nagant for home defense .
23
Post by: djones520
 Alfndrate wrote: djones520 wrote:Youngin's these days...
2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.
How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal
The weight don't matter, when you've got these in there.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
djones520 wrote: Alfndrate wrote: djones520 wrote:Youngin's these days...
2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.
How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal
The weight don't matter, when you've got these in there.
Really? Those got nothing on this :
I mean, I'd take on armoured knights with this thing in a sock!
23
Post by: djones520
Well, lets test them out.
I'll bring my ork dreadnoughts in a sock, you bring that.
First to fall loses.
I get to go first though.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.
''.
Wait, what?
23
Post by: djones520
 cincydooley wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:
The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.
''.
Wait, what?
Sarcasm.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?
Seriously being this obtuse? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
No? How about this.
Woe betide the fool who attacks the owner of a pewter Thunderhawk.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
djones520 wrote:Well, lets test them out.
I'll bring my ork dreadnoughts in a sock, you bring that.
First to fall loses.
I get to go first though.
I'll agree to a coin toss.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Gracias. My online sarcasm detecter is off.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote:Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?
Because the argument was brought up as to whether or not property owners could strip constitutional rights (such as no having firearms in their domicile).
Though I believe this thread is now about saps made with footwear and miniatures.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?
Seriously being this obtuse? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
I am not. The land lord said no guns, so no guns
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
-Shrike- wrote:
Woe betide the fool who attacks the owner of a pewter Thunderhawk.
Holy fething Mary Mother of Christ.
That supporting pole must be made of adamantium.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Kovnik Obama wrote:-Shrike- wrote:
Woe betide the fool who attacks the owner of a pewter Thunderhawk.
Holy fething Mary Mother of Christ.
That supporting pole must be made of adamantium.
Google tells me it weighs 3.6kg. That's 8lbs.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It doesn't help when the news organizations are claiming that they are in trouble for something that is not the case:
(CNN) - Two Gonzaga University students could be suspended or even expelled after using a handgun to defend themselves from an intruder in their university-owned apartment, an act which the university says violates the school's weapons policy.
They are not in trouble for defending themselves, and certainly not for using the handgun to defend themselves.
They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.
It's like saying "man punished for giving CPR" when he is really in trouble for the illegally carried gun that fell out of his pocket while giving CPR.
Do I agree with the rule the the university has about guns? Nope. But if they didn't want to follow that rule then they should have moved somewhere else. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse either, it's their job to know the rules they have to follow.
Not reading simple rules like that probably means that they don't read food labels either and that they will die soon anyway. They can't shoot those trans-fats to death.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I agree with hotsauce, private landowners can limit you rights when you agree to their terms. You can also sign away you rights in certain circumstances. They have the right to bear arms, but they agreed they didn't when they agreed to the rules.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'd honestly argue that someone at university is a de facto ward of the university. IMO, the university bares a responsibility to keep its students safe. Having guns on campus is dangerous when combined with booze, raging hormones, frat hazing, and other stupid stunts. Now I'm the first person to stand up and say campus cops suck dick. They're terrible and I know from first hand experience more than once. But that doesn't mean we whould be letting people still in the transition to adult hood arm themselves to the teeth.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 d-usa wrote:They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.
Sounds like these kids probably carried purses into classrooms when they were younger.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Alfndrate wrote: d-usa wrote:They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.
Sounds like these kids probably carried purses into classrooms when they were younger.
It's where they kept their guns...
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Thank goodness the intruder wasn't injured!
1206
Post by: Easy E
hotsauceman1 wrote:Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?
Everytime a thread mentions the word Gun it becomes a gun issue.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
-Shrike- wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:-Shrike- wrote:
Woe betide the fool who attacks the owner of a pewter Thunderhawk.
Holy fething Mary Mother of Christ.
That supporting pole must be made of adamantium.
Google tells me it weighs 3.6kg. That's 8lbs.
And finally we have found a proper, off topic, way of settling the PP vs GW (or any other system) pissing match! Minis in socks at dawn!
Now we just need a mod to sanction it and we can enforce it on the rest of the forum whenever some idiots start the "my system is better" bollacks.
Man I feel sorry for the Xwing fans...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
X-wing is more of a board game, it gets a pass.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Why? Just let somebody get hit with a scale star destroyer and we will see who wins!
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
d-usa wrote:
Why? Just let somebody get hit with a scale star destroyer and we will see who wins!
Can you even fit that in a sock?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
For now FF don't make one, and if they do the owner will not need to fit it in a sock asthey will win by having a fething scale star destroyer. That wins everything.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
djones520 wrote:I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?
This seems pretty basic, assuming that the university is private property.
As to the parallel to tenant's rights... I have no idea how that works in Washington State. I'm assuming that landlords do not have the right to evict for rules that are in violation of the bill of rights, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it, either. However, I suspect that student housing on-campus is separate from your standard landlord's agreement in the eyes of the law.
Legitimately curious about this one.,
37231
Post by: d-usa
Stuff found on the internet should not be taken as legal advice, but any who:
http://www.washingtongunrights.com/faq.html
Can I carry at or near a school? Or College?
(RCW 9.41.280) If you have a valid CPL and are picking up or dropping off a student you are allowed on the school grounds. Firearms are not permitted in school buildings. Colleges set their own policies, which ban lawfully carried guns. South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia is the only college in this state we know of that does not specifically ban lawfully carried guns from their campus at this time.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf
Places listed below that have Rules that state no firearms allowed on Premises. Washington State
Administrative Rules cover these areas.
Colleges/Universities, Licensed Child Care Facilities, Racing Association Grounds, An Emergency
Respite Center, Licensed Pregnant and Parenting Teen Residential Programs And Their Facilities,
Licensed Homes and Facilities That Provide Care To Children. Overnight Youth Shelter & Residence
Operated By the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration
People who work or attend school at such places can be fired/expelled if they possess firearms on these
listed properties. Some Colleges/Universities may have storage facilities for those who wish to possess
firearms while attending college. Check with your school.
Note: The Administrative Rules of Washington have the information on carrying on College/Universities.
You can see the code Here and look down to the listed College/University to see their rules on carry.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 azazel the cat wrote:djones520 wrote:I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?
This seems pretty basic, assuming that the university is private property.
As much as I think it's a dick thing for the University to do, Azazel is right in that it's a private institution so the students didn't have a "right" to keep that gun on University property. Same with some homeowners associations. If you are subject to an HOA, read the bylaws. Many stores prohibit firearms on their premises even with a valid permit. It's their right regardless if they are a tenant shop or the landlord.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him 
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Jihadin wrote:Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him
And what happens when the situation escalates and you're stuck with a fake gun?
Edit: Here's my question. Did the University PD actually have the authority to confiscate a legally owned weapon? I wasn't aware a renter's agreement could result in private property being seized.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
I agree with hotsauce, private landowners can limit you rights when you agree to their terms.
While I agree with this in general, and that you bring it on yourself if you break agreed upon rules...well...can't say i'm not hoping that the Uni gets enough bad PR or a legal eagle boots them sufficiently to make them change policy.
Moreover, while private property owners do have some leeway in prohibiting behavior, there are limits there too. Write up a housing agreement that says you can't practice X religion, see what happens. Whether prohibitions on weapons falls into that category is for above mentioned legal eagles to determine. Myself I wouldn't sign a no-weapons agreement, but I am hardheaded.
Did the University PD actually have the authority to confiscate a legally owned weapon?
...Possibly. If they can make it fly that it's evidence in a crime (Pointing a gun at someone could be called illegal brandishing, after all.) yes. If they can't, no, and it's likely he will get a gun shaped lump of rust back in about 6-12 months, and then sue the uni PD for its value.
23
Post by: djones520
Gonzaga has acknowledged that they will be reviewing their policy regarding fire arms. Big step on their part in my eyes.
37231
Post by: d-usa
djones520 wrote:Gonzaga has acknowledged that they will be reviewing their policy regarding fire arms. Big step on their part in my eyes.
Agree. For me this is two completely separate issues (three if you count all the misleading news stories): The first is that these guys broke the rules. That's pretty straight forward in my eyes and a pretty open and shut case. They made the decision to live in a place where guns were not allowed to be present. They made the decision to violate that rule. How these guns were found isn't really relevant to the fact that the rule was broken. They violated a rule that they agreed to, they should take the punishment for it. The second is that the policy should be reviewed and maybe modified. The circumstances under which the guns were found are a bigger factor here IMO. The fact that they had to pull the gun to protect themselves doesn't change the fact that they agreed not to have a gun present, but it does show that the policy might have to be modified to allow people to protect themselves. Especially if this is off-campus university owned housing. At least on-campus the university can make the argument that they can increase police presence to make up for the lack of self protection, but that is something that is a lot harder to do with off-campus housing where campus police would not normally be as visible. Fix the second issue (allowing people to protect themselves) and you will fix future occurrences of the first (people breaking the rules because they feel the need to protect themselves).
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Said pretty well d-USA. I'm right with you on pretty much all points. I think there should probably be some differentiation between on campus and off campus housing.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.
Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
This basically seems to be a case of them being legitimately in trouble, but the rule they violated seems to be a bad one that should be eliminated.
I'd argue that, if I can't protect myself with my Constitutional rights, it is the school's job to provide equivalent protection.
Campus housing should be sufficiently isolated as to prevent people like the assailant in the story from accessing my apartment, if I cannot defend myself with a weapon.
I would issue the following ultimatum, either you let me have a gun in my apartment, or you install fences and combination lock gates around all places where you are restricting my 2nd amendment rights.
I am very sure every school would go with the former choice.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Jihadin wrote:Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him
Trouble is, this will often knock a pistol out of battery.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Grey Templar wrote:
I would issue the following ultimatum, either you let me have a gun in my apartment, or you install fences and combination lock gates around all places where you are restricting my 2nd amendment rights.
I am very sure every school would go with the former choice.
They have a third choice, not letting you sign the rental agreement if you don't agree with their rules.
And you have a third choice, not signing the rental agreement if you don't agree with the rules.
Your ultimatum is meaningless.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.
Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)
It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.
I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.
23
Post by: djones520
cincydooley wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.
Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)
It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.
I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.
Whether or not it was, if it was in the lease agreement, I don't see any legal footing to stand on.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
djones520 wrote: cincydooley wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.
Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)
It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.
I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.
Whether or not it was, if it was in the lease agreement, I don't see any legal footing to stand on.
Oh for sure. Totally agree. That's sort of what I meant
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:
The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.
Well, I do need a weapon to get to my pistol, which is then used to get to my rifle... Though I wouldn't go walking around the tight corridors of my house with a mosin nagant for home defense .
Thats a real problem. Instead of defending the house you'll have the sudden urge to invade the Reichstag....
7942
Post by: nkelsch
I do feel like landlords can say or do things, like in a multi-dwelling unit, I think it is perfectly OK to say 'no firearms'.
We had a 'no firearms on campus' thing at my college. Of course, we had hunters and such as hunting season was big so they allowed students to 'check-in' legal firearms and rifles to Campus Police where you could check them out when needed but not need to store them 'on campus'.
My Roomate got in trouble as he had a 'broadsword' in his closet. They said it fell under the 'weapons on campus' rule and he had to check it in to campus police and check it out at the end of the semester to take home.
If you don't like the rules, don't sign the lease. You lose a ton of rights when living in rented space.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
Landlords have a lot of leeway in terms of what they are allowed to do/allow in their dwellings.
From that perspective, the university was within their rights, and these guys screwed up.
I think a review of the policy for off-campus housing is smart, though, there will be cases where the no-gun policy should remain in place.
For me, the issue concerning university owned off campus housing is how dense is the population of college students is in the area, and how intertwined with the rest of the community the area was.
On the one end of the spectrum, if a university owns a large number of buildings just off campus housing several hundred students or more, the living area is likely sufficiently similar to a campus dormitory setting, and thus it would make sense to ban weapons in said housing.
On the other end of the spectrum, if only 2-3 houses are owned by the university, housing 8-12 people usually, and are surrounded by and intertwined with homes from the community, then it make sense to life the ban on weapons, though in such a case I think it makes sense for the university to implement a rigorous pre-approval process.
68355
Post by: easysauce
last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,
IE: your landlord cannot slip in a "you are my slave now" clause into the agreement, even if they do, and you sign it, you are not bound by it.
so while things like smoking can be prohibited, things that you have a right to, speech, unreasonable serach and seisure, and the 2nd amendmant, are not trumped by your lease.
your land lord cannot tell you not to have guns, any more then they can tell you not to be muslim.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 easysauce wrote:last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,
IE: your landlord cannot slip in a "you are my slave now" clause into the agreement, even if they do, and you sign it, you are not bound by it.
so while things like smoking can be prohibited, things that you have a right to, speech, unreasonable serach and seisure, and the 2nd amendmant, are not trumped by your lease.
your land lord cannot tell you not to have guns, any more then they can tell you not to be muslim.
Maybe that's how the second amendment works in Canada, but it's definitely not how it works in the US. For example, the oft-misunderstood first amendment only protects you from censorship from the government, not from private actors in contract agreements. And you guys already know this. You know if you walk up to your boss, and tell him what an idiot he is, and then say "can't fire me, free speech brah" everyone in the building will be laughing at your stupid ass while you are boxing up your desk.
Landlords can obviously restrict gun ownership on their own property or any other manner of restrictions they like as long as it's written in the lease. You appear to be thinking of unenforceable contracts, which a court will not enforce - these really only cover unlawful acts - you're expanding the scope of them too far.
The disallowal of discrimination based upon religion is tied to various federal housing laws.
68355
Post by: easysauce
hmm, well up here I know that things are different,
take for example, up here, schools put out a ban on knives in schools,
but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school,
so since the school was violating their rights, they were over turned,
OBS in canada we have no 2nd amendmant, so prohibiting guns doesnt violate anything,
could a landlord in the states prohibit you from having a copy of the bible/torah/koran in your house too then?
just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.
221
Post by: Frazzled
easysauce wrote:hmm, well up here I know that things are different,
take for example, up here, schools put out a ban on knives in schools,
but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school,
so since the school was violating their rights, they were over turned,
OBS in canada we have no 2nd amendmant, so prohibiting guns doesnt violate anything,
could a landlord in the states prohibit you from having a copy of the bible/torah/koran in your house too then?
just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.
Well schools are generally public here so they have to generally comply as well. Schools are given additional leeway because they are schools.
Private entities can indeed be hampered by Constitutional rights, however. It depends on the right and if there are constitutoinal statutes that exemplify that. Aka the Bill of Rights prohibits refusals to serve based on race.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
easysauce wrote:last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,
You have a right to your possessions, yet a landlord up here can still legally discriminate against you for having a dog, or a cat, which is just a particular type of possession. It's essentially the same thing. One thing is, a landlord can ask you certain questions, and can legally discriminate against those that give certain answers, but often times lying is not in itself illegal. And depending on your province, it might be too much of a hassle for landlords to evict you because you lied over owning a collection of broadswords, once they figure out you've lied. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:
but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school
Wasn't it that they had to have a knife on their person, and in the end settled to have it sown inside some religious garb they wear, in a way that it was almost impossible to get to it?
68355
Post by: easysauce
not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.
on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
easysauce wrote:not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach. on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.
Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened. Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school. They never did anything serious with them, but one of the girl lost her gak once, and stabbed a fellow girl with one of those tringular thingy that lets you draw circles (sorry, I forget the name).
23
Post by: djones520
Kovnik Obama wrote: easysauce wrote:not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.
on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.
Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.
Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school.
Well, their teens. As if they'd follow the rules to a T.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
djones520 wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote: easysauce wrote:not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.
on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.
Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.
Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school.
Well, their teens. As if they'd follow the rules to a T.
Which, you know, might be an awesome argument not to let them have their knives at school, at least not until they're older. I was fine with it when I was thinking they'd have to spend an hour hacking at their own clothes to get to the knife. The same way we tell chronic suicidals to freeze all their knives in ice so that when they want to cut themselves they have to wait one hour for the ice to melt, and by then they almost always have forgotten what made them want to in the first place. If it's just that they get a free pass from the law, then I'm not so sure anymore.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It would be dangerous to put the block of ice containing the knife in a microwave.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Kilkrazy wrote:It would be dangerous to put the block of ice containing the knife in a microwave.
Meh, I just know it works. I did phone relay services for deafs and mutes, including 911 and suicide watch calls, and we had one lady who would call at least six times a day. Maybe chronic suicidals, like many suicidals, want to leave their life as orderly as possible, and thus wouldn't like the idea of burning down the house because of a knife in a microwave?
67431
Post by: Ninjacommando
hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.
68355
Post by: easysauce
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.
Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school. They never did anything serious with them, but one of the girl lost her gak once, and stabbed a fellow girl with one of those tringular thingy that lets you draw circles (sorry, I forget the name).
its called a "compass" the L arm with a pencil holder on one end and the spike on the other, can you tell im an engineer lol
and oddly enough, everyone I know has a story about someone being stabbed by one... myself included.
ban drafting tools!
while they are at it, they need to remove the 8's and 0's from all calculators intended for use by those under 18
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: If it's just that they get a free pass from the law, then I'm not so sure anymore.
unfortunately thats exactly how it is, they wont get away with stabbing someone OFC, but it just outlines the uselessness/hypocrisy of the 0 tolerance stuff.
Im basing this on my earlier experiences at school with sikhs where they were just playfullying showing them, and manjeet (one of the sihk guys sister) is the one who told me that they basically had a free pass, so thats what I base it on.
also, I remember some seniors, i guess since they were going to graduate, were going around and pushing the juniors/freshmen around during the last week of school, and them literally threatening us/other groups of kids with knives/sharpened screwdrivers, it was the first and only time I ever went to the principal to snitch.
his words were "there is nothing we can do" and thats where it was left
12313
Post by: Ouze
easysauce wrote:just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.
We restrict constitutional rights all the time. It's the only way to have a workable society. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, you can't easily own automatic weapons*, and so on. Your constitutional rights, again, are protections from the government - not protections from other non-state actors in a private covenant. I am licensed to carry concealed, but if I bring my 1911 to work I'd lose my job because we're not allowed weapons on company property. And so on, and so forth.
The Sikh situation you describe, I know little about so cannot comment.
*I said easily, pedants
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 LordofHats wrote:I'd honestly argue that someone at university is a de facto ward of the university. IMO, the university bares a responsibility to keep its students safe. Having guns on campus is dangerous when combined with booze, raging hormones, frat hazing, and other stupid stunts. Now I'm the first person to stand up and say campus cops suck dick. They're terrible and I know from first hand experience more than once. But that doesn't mean we whould be letting people still in the transition to adult hood arm themselves to the teeth.
We actually have a case study, the University of Colorado allows concealed carry on all campuses and students in the DORMS can request assignment to a room with a gun safe.
All that's happened since the carry ban was lifted in 2008 is the sexual assault rates on all campuses have dropped massively.
68355
Post by: easysauce
 Ouze wrote: easysauce wrote:just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.
We restrict constitutional rights all the time. It's the only way to have a workable society. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, you can't easily own automatic weapons*, and so on. Your constitutional rights, again, are protections from the government - not protections from other non-state actors in a private covenant. I am licensed to carry concealed, but if I bring my 1911 to work I'd lose my job because we're not allowed weapons on company property. And so on, and so forth.
The Sikh situation you describe, I know little about so cannot comment.
*I said easily, pedants
hmm, yeah that all is true OFC and you are right, I just find it so un intuitive to me. I guess I could see how the whole "fire in a theatre" could apply if there had been gross abuse of the 2nd amendment in this case,
but in this case there was a fire in the theatre, and someone was not supposed to be able to yell fire. so its bass akwards to me.
thats basically where im coming from i guess.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ouze wrote: You appear to be thinking of unenforceable contracts, which a court will not enforce - these really only cover unlawful acts - you're expanding the scope of them too far.
This is something that actually differs quite a bit from country to country. Here in Australia most pre-nups are thrown out by the court, because your rights in a divorce are things you simply can't sign away. Similarly, contracts of sale that have all kinds of clauses that the manufacturer isn't responsible in the event of malfunction are worth less than the carbon paper they're printed on - your rights under the Sale of Goods act can't be signed away.
12313
Post by: Ouze
easysauce wrote: so its bass akwards to me.
thats basically where im coming from i guess.
Sure, I get that.
An interesting argument would be: if it's a state-run and owned university, can they prohibit firearms on campus? My guess is such a ban in that case is maybe unconstitutional.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
According to case law established in Colorado it is unconstitutional. Which is why you can carry and keep arms (the university provides a safe if you live in the dorms) at University of Colorado campuses.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Ninjacommando wrote:hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.
They are in the aspect of making sure the rented property is structurally sound, has a reliable gas boiler and so on, but not in terms of law and order.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote: Ninjacommando wrote:hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.
They are in the aspect of making sure the rented property is structurally sound, has a reliable gas boiler and so on, but not in terms of law and order.
Nope, off-campus, but university owned housing is still under the 'protection' of the university. The students must follow the same rules and guidelines set down by the school, and in return the students have the expectation that the school's services will still apply to them. University owned off campus housing around here gets regular visits from campus security, and students are given numbers for campus security in case gak goes down.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Frazzled wrote:Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?
On some campuses any property with a hardline the 911 calls go to the university security.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats amazingly sad.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Frazzled wrote:Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?
If it was a major issue, you'd call the cops, if it was a drunk beating on your door, you called Campus Security, then this frumpy old woman that's been working there damn near thirty years would drive up in a golf cart, and then if it was an issue still then they call the cops and they're there in seconds (because there's nothing ever to do in a college town, and this goes for the cops too).
It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, and the school fethed up (though they did say they were going to review that policy). What's that you always say Frazz, when seconds count that lard-ass campus security officer is busting a party across campus? Or something like that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote: Frazzled wrote:Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?
If it was a major issue, you'd call the cops, if it was a drunk beating on your door, you called Campus Security, then this frumpy old woman that's been working there damn near thirty years would drive up in a golf cart, and then if it was an issue still then they call the cops and they're there in seconds (because there's nothing ever to do in a college town, and this goes for the cops too).
It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, and the school fethed up (though they did say they were going to review that policy). What's that you always say Frazz, when seconds count that lard-ass campus security officer is busting a party across campus? Or something like that.
Exactly.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Except they opened the door, and threatened the guy with a gun they shouldn't have had according to university rules. They could have left the door closed, and/or called the police or the university security, or kicked him off by themselves without the use of weapons.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote: Alfndrate wrote:...
It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, ...
...
Except they opened the door, and threatened the guy with a gun they shouldn't have had according to university rules.
They could have left the door closed, and/or called the police or the university security, or kicked him off by themselves without the use of weapons.
The student opens the door yes, and the guy at the door says he's homeless and needs money. The student offers blankets and canned food, but no cash. The guy becomes combative and angry, the student tries to close the door, but the guy tries to barge in. The other student comes in and brandishes his gun. The guy gets spooked and runs off. Nothing about the story says they knew who was at their door until they opened the door.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/guns-returned-gonzaga-university-students-20871618
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
It isn't a convincing argument that students in university residences need to be tooled up.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
It isn't a convincing argument that students in university residences need to be tooled up.
I agree that they don't need to be tooled up, the link I gave says the student that opened the door had his shotgun confiscated (that he uses for hunting). But they were carrying and in the end it circumvented a nasty situation.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
It is worth noting many college campuses in North America have their own small police departments that are no gak sworn LEOs. I dunno if Gonzaga does, I'll have to ask my brother.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
Part of the problem might be how campus security is IRL/is viewed.
I know that, at my university, they had a small fleet of Chargers and the officers packed heat. Admittedly, 90% of the time they were busy busting into dorms for weed and underage drinking, but they were effective the few times they'd get called on for real things. And they were usually patrolling in their cars so they were really more than a few minutes away at most from any given location.
The effectiveness of the campus police force needs to be factored into the equation in terms of allowing guns off campus in university housing. A weak police force weighs in favor of allowing guns, but a reasonably strong one would weigh against it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain. Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble. It isn't a convincing argument that students in university residences need to be tooled up.
I agree that they don't need to be tooled up, the link I gave says the student that opened the door had his shotgun confiscated (that he uses for hunting). But they were carrying and in the end it circumvented a nasty situation.
They will give him his gun back. The worse thing is if he gets suspended from his course or something. In terms of circumventing a nasty situation, it could have been averted by kicking the drunk in the nuts. These incidents can go various ways and not all of them are good. Remember the case of the Texan who shot a Japanese student on Halloween who was lost and came to ask directions?
37231
Post by: d-usa
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:It is worth noting many college campuses in North America have their own small police departments that are no gak sworn LEOs. I dunno if Gonzaga does, I'll have to ask my brother.
Every campus I have been on has actual LEOs, not rent-a-cops.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
It isn't a convincing argument that students in university residences need to be tooled up.
I agree that they don't need to be tooled up, the link I gave says the student that opened the door had his shotgun confiscated (that he uses for hunting). But they were carrying and in the end it circumvented a nasty situation.
They will give him his gun back. The worse thing is if he gets suspended from his course or something.
In terms of circumventing a nasty situation, it could have been averted by kicking the drunk in the nuts.
These incidents can go various ways and not all of them are good. Remember the case of the Texan who shot a Japanese student on Halloween who was lost and came to ask directions?
Kicking the drunk in the nuts would have gotten the kids charged with assault, which might not have worked out too well for them, but who knows. And no I didn't hear about that case, but I did hear about this old guy who shot some kids with a shotgun because they were toilet papering his neighbor's yard. I do agree that not all of them were good, but in this case it was a good thing. I'm not going to play the "what if" game.
d-usa wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:It is worth noting many college campuses in North America have their own small police departments that are no gak sworn LEOs. I dunno if Gonzaga does, I'll have to ask my brother.
Every campus I have been on has actual LEOs, not rent-a-cops.
Whereas every campus I've been to has rent-a-cops
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The cops at one Campus I attended had a larger area of Jurisdiction than the city the main college was in(2 campuses in 2 separate towns 10 miles apart and a 300 acre farm on the outskirts)
37231
Post by: d-usa
Alfndrate wrote:
d-usa wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:It is worth noting many college campuses in North America have their own small police departments that are no gak sworn LEOs. I dunno if Gonzaga does, I'll have to ask my brother.
Every campus I have been on has actual LEOs, not rent-a-cops.
Whereas every campus I've been to has rent-a-cops
I wonder how much of that is a state-to-state thing.
We even have a mutual-aid agreement with the Campus cops that patrol the hospital that is located right next to our facility.
Of course that means that if stuff gets serious you have Federal Police and Campus Police responding together, which will probably make a few heads on this forum explode
37597
Post by: sparkywtf
djones520 wrote:I've done some digging around, and it seems that it is legal for landlords to say no to guns.
I'll have to make sure I check on that from now on when the AF sends me new places.
It depends on the state.
In Minnesota, the law clearly states that a landlord may not prohibit firearms. It applies to residential and commercial.
I recall Wisconsin having a similar law, but I didn't look closely, because my lease never prohibited weapons when I lived off campus.
edit: of the campuses I have been at, all had actual LEOs, plus city police were often around too. Only time they were rent-a-cops was at community college. It was funny at my uni, all the officers were armed, but they weren't allowed to carry tazers. It was all or nothing with them!
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
I think if the kids had kicked him in the nuts or punched him or something, after the guy tried to force his way into their house, they'd have been fine. They'd have been faced with an aggressive intruder, and would have used reasonable force to stop him. No assault or battery there.
As for how well armed cops are on universities, that's all the more reason to institute a balancing test on the issue of guns in off campus housing.
Create a several factor test dealing with:
- how intertwined the area is with the community at large
- the nature of the community at large it is intertwined with
- how well armed and proactive the campus PD is
If we're dealing with a dorm-like area in a safe neighborhood with a well armed campus police force, then it weighs heavily against allowed firearms in the off campus housing.
If we're dealing with a house or two among a neighborhood with a fair amount of crime (above average, perhaps) with a weak campus police force, then it weighs heavily in favor of allowing firearms.
The in between is where things get messy, but at least having a test will make things logical.
18698
Post by: kronk
Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
they should have simply told the cops "When my roomate came to my aid, he ran away." They didn't even have to mention that he came to his aid with a gun. Never give more information than you have to.
Also, the University can suck it, even though they are in the right. BS move on their part.
221
Post by: Frazzled
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It is worth noting many college campuses in North America have their own small police departments that are no gak sworn LEOs. I dunno if Gonzaga does, I'll have to ask my brother.
Yea but they aint Hawaii Five - O. Again, shutting down a party, sure. Stopping a home invasion or reporting a felony? No fething way. Automatically Appended Next Post:
These incidents can go various ways and not all of them are good. Remember the case of the Texan who shot a Japanese student on Halloween who was lost and came to ask directions?
I believe that was Louisiana actually. Admittedly the student could have been mistaken for a Yankee.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Maybe they just watched Red Dawn and thought he was Korean...
221
Post by: Frazzled
 kronk wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
they should have simply told the cops "When my roomate came to my aid, he ran away." They didn't even have to mention that he came to his aid with a gun. Never give more information than you have to.
Also, the University can suck it, even though they are in the right. BS move on their part.
Agreed on all counts. Why even call the rent a cops?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: kronk wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
they should have simply told the cops "When my roomate came to my aid, he ran away." They didn't even have to mention that he came to his aid with a gun. Never give more information than you have to.
Also, the University can suck it, even though they are in the right. BS move on their part.
Agreed on all counts. Why even call the rent a cops?
They didn't call university PD.
They called the City PD who responded. City PD also notified University PD since the crime happened on their property, and that is why they responded.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I don't know about Gonzaga but at the U of W, the campus police are actual uniformed police officers. It's a full-fleged police department in charge of the campus and environs. They got holding cells and everything.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Breotan wrote:I don't know about Gonzaga but at the U of W, the campus police are actual uniformed police officers. It's a full-fleged police department in charge of the campus and environs. They got holding cells and everything.
And when seconds count, are minutes away. The point is taken, though, about the differences between good and poor campus police. The ones here couldn't find their own butts with both hands and a map.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Relapse wrote: Breotan wrote:I don't know about Gonzaga but at the U of W, the campus police are actual uniformed police officers. It's a full-fleged police department in charge of the campus and environs. They got holding cells and everything.
And when seconds count, are minutes away. The point is taken, though, about the differences between good and poor campus police. The ones here couldn't find their own butts with both hands and a map.
To be fair, the same could be said about a lot of municipal PDs and Sheriff Deputies...
121
Post by: Relapse
Kilkrazy wrote:They could have looked out to see, through the security lens, front window or with the door on the chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean there are lots of things the students could have done apart from brandishing a gun which was got them into trouble.
It isn't a convincing argument that students in university residences need to be tooled up.
How many people are that paranoid that they look out a peephole to see who is there everytime the doorbell rings?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I do, although that's because I don't answer the door for salesman. Not that I'm paranoid about there being a criminal waiting outside. I wouldn't expect may people to utilize the peephole, assuming the door even has one.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If only the culprit hadn't told the cops they brandish a weapon at him....or the chuckleheads mention drawing a weapon when being asked questions for the LEO to file a serious Incident Report
33125
Post by: Seaward
Yeah, I can't see myself calling the cops after successfully resolving the situation.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
If only the culprit hadn't told the cops they brandish a weapon at him....or the chuckleheads mention drawing a weapon when being asked questions for the LEO to file a serious Incident Report
There are a thousand different ways this could come out without volunteering anything, or be boxed in verbally.
"Oh, you two chuckleheads drove him off? How did you accomplish that exactly?" This is not an unreasonable question. Besides using the information in court, it allows the officer to add specifics into the description (Example: Bleeding profusely with a steak knife sticking out of his side. PS: Probably armed with a knife now.) and a few other very legit purposes....So what do you say now? You could let this little detail slip, and hello situation...or say nothing about it/lie....
Keep in mind, when they catch the bad guy, he's not going to be in the mood to keep secrets for you. He will say there was a gun involved, and they are going to at *least* directly ask said chuckleheads about it. In all probability someones CPL is going to pop up on a screen, and then VERY pointed questions will be asked.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Yeah, they would have definitely found out about the gun one way or another.
33125
Post by: Seaward
-Shrike- wrote:Yeah, they would have definitely found out about the gun one way or another.
How so? Do we imagine this homeless guy was going to go running to the police?
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
They called the police, didn't they? So if the police catch this guy on the way there, or find him afterwards, he's going to sing like a bird.
Also, as SOFDC says, it could easily have come up during questioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe I should clarify my point - if they used the gun, which they did, I think it would eventually have become apparent to the police. However, if they hadn't used it, I doubt anyone would have found out.
33125
Post by: Seaward
And my point is, once you've driven Crazy McHomeless off, why do you call the police in the first place?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
To let them know that there is a crazy homeless man on the loose? Because it is your duty as a citizen to report a crime?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I can see that SOF. I should have gone further. I was hoping Chucklehead with the C&CP wasn't thinking that permit was a trump all rules.
|
|
