Illegal Arrest In Illinois

Status
Not open for further replies.
Security Guards Powers

I know this has been mentioned above- In Australia security guards cannot detain you for any reason let alone cuff you- the most they can do is restrain you while you are a danger to people and escort you from the premises.

I hope you win your criminal case and then go after the individuals and the retail chain civilly (sp).

I am floored at your treatment by the security guards and numbed by the police attitude- how can they not know they were acting illegally- maybe you should go after the cops involved as they should not have the protection of the law for these acts
 
ISP2605 is either on vacation somewhere or he's avoiding these threads. Can't say I blame him. I wouldn't want to be the guy everybody wants to justify LE's actions in this case, especially when he has no connection to the case and no more idea than you or I what exactly the LEO's in this case were thinking.
I think I saw a post from him a day or two ago. I can't say I blame him for not responding to these posts either. Sometimes it is best just not to respond.

It doesn't do any good to get mad at the cops unless they do some grossly unjust stuff--like what happened to John Horstman, when they purposely lied and called him a child molester, knowing he wasnt, or when CPD officers changed their story on Roderick Pritchett and pretended his gun had been loaded.

Once they take an action to arrest someone, they have to justify it. There is no incentive to admit a mistake was made and every incentive to create some scenario to justify the action. Human nature takes over from that point.

In this case, the officers apparently thought they were enforcing the law. They were wrong, but if they tell the truth, Shaun will be acquitted.
I suspect you are right on both counts. The time it spent to decide what to do with him makes me think someone higher up the food chain actually made the decision to proceed. I don't expect these particular cops to make anything up. Its a small town department not known for rogue behavior.
 
sounds like the guards were watching you for some time and manuvered to the exit to wait for you.I suspect their instructions were from a higher up as well...they sound like rejects from the rubber gun squad...based their search on assumptions and preconceived notions for PC.

the video will show what crime has been committted or lack therof.no evidence,no crime on your part,they cant "doctor" a video camera.I hope you win,get a huge cash settlement and expose these clowns for their actions(no offense intended for professional clowns).
 
I do find it rather odd that we are here discussing why this Mr. Kranish 'should' be let off his felony charge and then proceed to seek litigation against those who trampled his liberties... both the ninja cops and the DA.

There are probably 10,000 other people in the IL criminal system right now! Real criminals! People who probably raped, killed, robbed or beat down an old woman. I wonder if they are seriously wondering what's going to happen with them?

Probabably not... I bet they're like "Oh well, I caught another case. I guess I can do a few more months in the joint, I am behind on the bills and need to eat anyways. If I want to earn more loot later I'll just buy a handgun from Joe Shmoe and rob someone else... what are they going to do? Lock me up, force me to exercise, watch TV or educate myself either through the traditional way or through the tutilage of my fellow perps in the art of their "trade".

I can't believe the state even wastes their time on people like this man. Meanwhile, another kid dies on the streets as a victim of violence and the one they're arresting is the man who took the time to read the law, PRINT HIMSELF A COPY, put his UNLOADED gun in a friggen FANNYPACK which is gay as hell to start with and WALK RIGHT PAST thousands of citizens and security guards becuase he knew he was right and he damn well knew he wasn't going to hurt anyone!

This is asine.
 
That is scary. I am sure he will be able to get some money out of the mall.
I hope he gets to strip search the cops who strip searched him. Failing that, I hope he gets enough of their PERSONAL money to make it the most expensive male stripper they ever thought about seeing.

Perverts.
 
put his UNLOADED gun in a friggen FANNYPACK

No fanny pack.

He bought a nylon tactical holster and had it modified so that it completely encloses the gun.
 
ISP2605 is either on vacation somewhere or he's avoiding these threads. Can't say I blame him. I wouldn't want to be the guy everybody wants to justify LE's actions in this case
Fwiw I think he brings a more educated and complete view on illinois law than I feel like many of the rest of us of have and doesn't really act as the guy who thinks all leo's actions are justifiable. I seem to recall in the last thread we had on fanny pack carry he flat out said he views it as legal even if unintentionally so. If he is around, I don't think we'll see him sticking up for this one.

I'd still like to see a picture of what he was carrying in for my own curiosity.
 
If IL security guard regs are similar to CA

Don't know what the regs are for CA but I do know some of the regs for IL.

There are 2 types of security: in house and contract.

In house are the guys who get a paycheck directly from the company they work for, such as the security at Target. They work directly for the company and are paid directly from the company.

The contract security are a dime a dozen. Anyone who can pass a state/federal background check and can take an easy "20 hour" course and pay the roughly $100 fee's can be hired as a contract SO in IL. There are plenty of companies out there who will hire guys like this, pay them $7.00 an hour with no training/education whatsover and let it be.

I work for a PI agency in IL and we have a security division. SO do not want to be trained/educated. I talk to some of those guys and they think learning things pertinent to their profession is a waste of time and money.
 
Don't know why this guy went along. Unless he was planning to cash in on the lawuit.

Of course that's what he was doing. His whole gig is to push for an arrest so he'll see his day in court. The cops knew that and decided to give him the full treatment.

This is not to say he's wrong. He's just turning up the heat on the concealed carry debate. Somewhat risky, both legislatively and for him.

I doubt he's in it for the money.
 
Shaun is 20 years old. He is a bit naive about some things IMO. One of them being that if the law says something, thats the way it is. He has discovered that the guys with the guns don't always care what the law actually says. They have bosses that tell them what to do, and to his astonishment they actually do as they are told, regardless of what the law says.

I strongly suspect that both his arrests were on orders from higher ups. In both cases, he was detained for an extended period of time before any such arrest was announced. Plenty of time for a decision to be reached by someone else and send down the chain of command.

I have reservations about his approach, and I am not convinced that even if he wins it means all that much. After all, the "right" to carry around an unloaded gun is not likely to gain a whole lot of traction. OTOH, it is very difficult to tell just what will spark people to take action to deal with their politicians.

I have jokingly told him it would be "nice" if he arranged to get convicted and then won on appeal, so that a binding precedent existed. Right now, there are a few scattered court cases with similar circumstances where the judges have ruled that the law actually means what it says and tossed it. But no appeals court level decisions.
 
gm said:
the video will show what crime has been committted or lack therof.no evidence,no crime on your part,they cant "doctor" a video camera.I hope you win,get a huge cash settlement and expose these clowns for their actions(no offense intended for professional clowns).


A response to what I've put in bold. You can't doctor a video camera....but you can doctor video footage...it isn't hard and can be fairly simple for even beginners.


As to the whole situation....I dunno why you fools stay in Illinois if you're not pushing for better CC laws. I live in southern Indiana and I refuse to cross the border to Illinois for anything.
 
Sad Days Happen all Across "Amerika"

First, I must say that this is not at all shocking to me. Even in Michigan we have mall jerks who one can tell by facial expression and bodily gestures alone they are just looking for a confrontation. Yes, I am being serious. My favorite ones are the ones who run "back-up" riding on their jet-powered, Buck Rogers UFO "thingy". You know, the two-wheeled things that our Pres. crashed on? Snicker, snicker, snicker. (Off-topic--sorry). :D

Anyhow, even with Michigan's extreme clarity about concealed carry, these fools actively follow and monitor people who they assume to be carrying. Walk into the Great Lakes Crossing Mall (GLCM) in Auburn Hills, MI and see for yourself. Leave your shirttails untucked and shop the hallway stands. They will swarm on you like bees. I have seen it multiple times.

Also, when entering the same mall via Bass Pro Shop, I have seen them stop people at the entrance when they know that they are carrying (i.e. shoot then shop) and ask them "How many guns and how many rounds of ammo are you carrying?" Who the crap cares? I have actually witnessed this with my own eyes and ears. I have also witnessed them stop these same people and make them reveal their CCW when carried off-body as in a tote, then proceed to search it. That they post a sign that says, "All bags carried herein are subject to search..." doesn't cut it for me. One cannot rescind their rights--they are that, rights.

I save the best for last. And this is not cop bashing, it is a factual story told to us as a caution by our Advanced Tactical Shooting Instructor, who is a Sgt. at the Southfield PD. He told us of an officer, who while stopping a driver discovered that the gentleman was LEGALLY carrying three (3) pistols and considerable ammunition. He called into the PD to advise them that he was intent on arresting the man for violating Michigan's MCPL law. The Sgt. asked him what the problem was. When the officer told him that the man had multiple weapons, he said, "No, you're not going to arrest him; it's legal."

He had to argue for five (5) minutes with the LEO about it. Even when the LEO returned at the end of his shift, he was still insistent to the Sgt. that the man only had the legal ability to carry one (1) pistol. The Sgt. had given the officers all of the laws, the legal interpretations, etc., and even with full knowledge, he remained intent that the man should have been arrested.

What is my point? Obviously, the Southfield PD and its Sgt. did a good job of updating its personnel. Only one fool was out of line there, much like this case of the "malldork". While I do believe that Illinois' laws do need changing, I'm not convinced that changing their laws would solve this. One cannot legislate either intelligence or morality. Note the example given above.

Unfortunately, and I do mean unfortunate, the actions of one, single person can cast an ugly shadow over an entire institution. We really must use extreme caution to cast our evil look upon only those involved, and attempt to not stereotype over all like-professionals. I too think that there must be one person at the top of such malls who is calling the shots, in this case, and as in the case of these situations as I have witnessed at the GLCM.

Now, I say that I do not mean to bash the LEO described above, and I assured to clarify why changing Ill law would not solve this problem. So, what is my intent including those comments? Simple, to open the door to the Sgt. advise to us during our Advanced Tactical Shooting Class:

"If you ever encounter this or a similar situation, comply. Do not make a scene or open the door to resisting, etc. Just comply, then sue the s&@# out of the LEO, the department and all involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. Then, laugh all the way to retirement." :evil:

Doc2005
 
The value of fanny-pack carry is that it bothers politicians and influential, "elite" people. It *could* be exploited the way open carry was exploited in Ohio--if we can make it a lot more common and establish that it's firmly on the legal side of the law, it could have trade value.

If we're afraid to do it because we're afraid the law won't be upheld, then it has zero meaning.

If we're afraid to do it because we're afraid they'll change the law to eliminate it, then they'll do it anyway--because we will be admitting to anyone with a brain that we don't think we have the power to stop such a change, and that's the only thing any politician really respects in the end. 99% of politicians are wolves living and dying by votes. If you don't have the votes to stop them, you're lunch. If you do, then they'll bare their throats and show whatever submission they have to--until they can marshal more votes. ;)

Fwiw I think he brings a more educated and complete view on illinois law than I feel like many of the rest of us of have and doesn't really act as the guy who thinks all leo's actions are justifiable. I seem to recall in the last thread we had on fanny pack carry he flat out said he views it as legal even if unintentionally so. If he is around, I don't think we'll see him sticking up for this one.

ISP has told me he's not interested in posting about this topic. I respect that. Bringing a complete and educated view on anything to the internet is often a thankless pursuit.
 
BGlaze250

It's very important to know whether or not the mall had a sign posted banning firearms on their private property. I'm not a lawyer but I question the right of mall security to search whoever they want for whatever they want. They do have the right to ban firearms on their private property. If this was posted they might have a valid case. Again, I do question their right to search him and they have to post signs if the don't want weapons on their property. I think it's wrong what happened and I would have slapped any security guard that tried to lay a hand on me. As far as I'm concerned they assaulted and kidnapped this poor guy.
 
Last edited:
Remember that it was Shaun Kranish ("SAK" on THR and elsewhere) who was arrested, not BGlaze. He just posted the story.

Also, I just want to remind everyone to keep the language PG.
 
I would have bitc* slapped any security guard that tried to lay a hand on me
And then you would have an assault charge added to all the others. (I'm not saying it would stick, but it would be there and you would have to defend it in court.)
As for the mall posting signs.... Why? If, as the law contends, no one is supposed to be carrying (in any form) why would they need a sign to outlaw something that is already prohibited?

Has anybody given any thought that this guy might be working for the other side? Think about it, some of the things he has done are pretty outrageous and would be good fodder for the anti's to argue for even tighter restrictions to keep "kooks with guns" off the streets.
This time, if the charges stick, he may get stuck with a felony (UUW) and would lose his priviliges to own a fiream. If he is truely an anti, this wouldn't mean much to him as he would have done his duty by falling on his sword for the cause. -- Just food for thought--

Dean
 
ILBob: Sean is 21 not 20.

I dont blame ISP for not posting. The people he works for are antis however I do not believe he is. I respect his postings very much as he simply tells you like it is and how it is. For what it is worth I do not believe he personally would have arrested Sean Kranish.

I believe that Sean is pro gun. More pro gun than anyone else I can imagine. He is risking his right to bear arms, felonie charges, and jail time so that we can carry. We should support him more. Whether we agree with him or not he is working for us.
 
Rent-a-cops working as agents for retail merchants only have the authority to detain you if they have probable cause to believe you have stolen or are attempting to steal property and/or remove said property from the merchant's location or the premises.

I can't see letting a rent-a-cop lay hands on me when I haven't done anything. I understand and applaud the "activism" involved here, but I am surprised that rent-a-cops even think they can do that. Reminds me of the Wal-Mart parking lot death a year or so ago, and how many other retailers have a "no-chase" policy.

I wish this young man the best of luck.
 
In '98 when I worked at K-mart my senior year of high school we didn't have a no chase policy. There were times where the security guards had us cart pushers jump in on a chase. By that time it was too late and whoever they were chasing were gone....but still, they chased.
 
ILBob: Sean is 21 not 20.

He was 20 when the incident occurred. it is entirely possible he has since turned 21.

Something that occurred to me is he might get some mileage out of the "not immediately accessible" clause as well as the "unloaded, encased, FOID card" clause.

The case he was using has a snap over cover and than a full zipper. I would not consider that to be immediately accessible. I don't know what Illinois law considers "immediately accessible", but I wonder if someone would be willing to be a test case of just how inaccessible the gun has to be to be legal.

(a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

The second clause does not say anything about unloaded, and you only have to meet one of the clauses to be legal.
 
Illinois courts define "immediately accessible" to mean that reasonable person would think you had it within ready reach. In this case, the gun was immediately accessible.

If the courts had held that buckling a gun into a case made it inaccessible, then you'd be able to carry a loaded gun in a case, which would be interesting. But that's not the way they chose to go.
 
I dont blame ISP for not posting. The people he works for are antis however I do not believe he is. I respect his postings very much as he simply tells you like it is and how it is. For what it is worth I do not believe he personally would have arrested Sean Kranish.

He seems like a very loyal guy and that is a good trait. It does make some people very blind to the faults of those they are loyal to though. I don't know what he would have done with SAK. He has said he believes fanny pack carry is legal, but as best I can tell that is not what the official view of the ISP is.

I am still not convinced that the recent chicanery involving 3-6 month waits to get FOID cards was not at the very least considered acceptable (or maybe even desirable) by the governor with his extremely anti-gun views and the long time anti-gun viewpoint of the ISP and its top management.

If they really wanted to fix the problem, here were all kinds of things they could have done that would not have required any temps to be hired, so money was less of an issue than what they always tried to claim.

For instance, most of the applications are renewals. No reason they have to get new cards. We get a sticker to put on the back of our driver's license when we renew. No reason that could not be done with FOID cards as well. If it took a minor change in the law to do it, I can't imagine that the GA would not agree in about ten seconds if Blago asked for it.

The law states that the FOID must be issued or denied in 30 days. This law had been routinely ignored by the ISP as long as I can remember. They would rather make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens. The lame statement put out by one of their flacks about this issue said something along the lines of gun owners whose cards are expired (because of ISP mismanagement and lack of interest) should just keep their guns at home.

The problem is that it is still illegal to have them with an expired FOID card. As a practical matter, most police agencies in Illinois understand the situation and are probably going to give you a break if it is just expired by a short time, but they could also haul you off to jail. A judge would probably toss the case because by the time you got to court they might have finally gotten around to issuing the card, but you have been hassled in the meantime and get to pay lawyer fees and lose time off work, etc. And even if you are not hauled off to jail, there is just that lingering doubt in the back of your mind that you could.

Do I think this is a deliberate attack on gun owners? Hell yes! This is from a governor that introduced a bill when he was in the GA to raise the FOID card fee from $5 to $500. The claim that it is a budget issue is just to create plausible deniability which he ended up needing when it backfired on him.
 
*Sigh.*

Yes, but ISP2605's point on that score all along was that you keep conflating the Governor and the ISP. They're not the same. If the Governor ensures that there's no money to pay the wages of the people who process FOID applications, then the applications don't get processed.

You and I might think state police officers should have been pulled in to do that work, but that's not what the ISP wanted to do.

There's absolutely no doubt that people at high levels in the ISP are corrupt liars, but since ISP2605 is not one of them, why push him off THR?
 
I have jokingly told him it would be "nice" if he arranged to get convicted and then won on appeal, so that a binding precedent existed.
I'm glad you only spoke in a joking manner.In all seriousness, didn't Gary Sherwood Small ( of Small v. United States fame) plead guilty pending appeal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top