Internet Cafe, Alliance Ohio bans ccw permits

[crappiefrank]

I was in the Internet cafe saturday night 6 pm when a tall black man in a baseball hat very slickly and quietly showed the casher a semi auto he had under his shirt and told her to give him all the money in the register, she slid it to him under her hand, none of us in there saw anything wrong.....several of us had concealed weapons permits,yet the management never knew this, untill I told her later that night that she should come up with a code word to use and I would see to it that several permit holders knew what it was and if that happened again we could stop it, protect ourselves and others from a more serious possible attack...

the next day i showed up , the same Female supervisor asked me formy name and phone number to talk to the detectives, I agreed untill I saw she put a NO GUNS sign on the door.

I became upset and told her that was wrong, she said she didn't need any HEROES in her business,and it was illegal for anyone with a gun to be in a business....

I quickly straightened her out on the CCW laws and 12 hours of police instruction , and the right to carry except in a place that sells alcohol, government building or like HER, a business that places a no gun sign...

I told her she now lost me as a customer since last october, and maybe 8- to 20 other people that have ccw permits....

this business has advertisements that completely blocks out the windows, no one can see in or out,no security cameras,no panic button, and now NO GUNS allowed to protect customers lives........i pointed all this out to her, it is like a neon sign saying, CRIMINALS WELCOME, no guns allowed by law obiding citizens...

would appreciate people calling, sending a letter or stopping by to tell them they lost your business, and how dangerous it now is there....thanks, crappiefrank

Internet Cafe ( 330 ) 680 - 4502
2369 state street
Alliance Ohio 44601

[charben]

I quickly straightened her out on the CCW laws and 12 hours of police instruction , and the right to carry except in a place that sells alcohol, government building or like HER, a business that places a no gun sign...

"police" instruction?

IMHO, I might have taken a different approach with her. You basically offered to provide armed security for her and the legal aspects of that is questionable. For you to engage with your gun, you would have to meet the three conditions laid out in the law.

After she posted the "no guns" sign (which was probably on the advise of the police after she reported the event), I would have had a friendly conversation with her as to the reason you carry (to protect yourself) and that you no longer could do that in her store. Remind her that those signs have had no effect in other gun crimes and many people have died to prove that. The robber may feel MORE comfortable coming back for a second time because he knows that the chances are good that he will be the ONLY one armed. Ask her if she thinks that the robber would have chosen a different store to rob that night had that sign been up.

[captainstormy]

The biggest surprise to me in this story is that there are still internet cafe's out there. I haven't seen one since the late 90s.

[sodbuster95]

First off...Welcome!

Second off, and I may ruffle a few feathers here, but this is exactly the attitude which causes some sheeple to express "concern" with "allowing" citizens to carry firearms.

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

An armed response, particularly by non-law enforcement, would very likely have escalated an otherwise non-violent situation. Perhaps not, and perhaps it would have ended peaceably with him putting his hands in the air and surrendering, but that strikes me as unlikely.

Moreover, the response that there should be a "code word" to alert persons on the premises so that they can respond would raise a vigilante "red flag" with me. Were I a small business owner, the LAST thing I would want would be the potential, based on a customer's statement, to have a gun-battle in my storefront over cash in the till. It's not worth it. Give up the money and walk away. He'll be caught later.

Do I agree with her putting up a gun-buster sign? Absolutely not, that's clearly the wrong response as it only serves to disarm the honest person. But do I agree with soliciting customers to protect the till under threat of deadly force? No.

If he had a weapon out and were actively threatening with it and you were in the store...by all means intervene if appropriate and there is an imminent threat. Protect your (and someone else's) life with deadly force - not a cash register.

Frankly, the response on your part very likely turned someone into a longtime anti-gun person if she weren't one already.

[charben]

First off...Welcome!

Second off, and I may ruffle a few feathers here, but this is exactly the attitude which causes some sheeple to express "concern" with "allowing" citizens to carry firearms.

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

An armed response, particularly by non-law enforcement, would very likely have escalated an otherwise non-violent situation. Perhaps not, and perhaps it would have ended peaceably with him putting his hands in the air and surrendering, but that strikes me as unlikely.

Moreover, the response that there should be a "code word" to alert persons on the premises so that they can respond would raise a vigilante "red flag" with me. Were I a small business owner, the LAST thing I would want would be the potential, based on a customer's statement, to have a gun-battle in my storefront over cash in the till. It's not worth it. Give up the money and walk away. He'll be caught later.

Do I agree with her putting up a gun-buster sign? Absolutely not, that's clearly the wrong response as it only serves to disarm the honest person. But do I agree with soliciting customers to protect the till under threat of deadly force? No.

If he had a weapon out and were actively threatening with it and you were in the store...by all means intervene if appropriate and there is an imminent threat. Protect your (and someone else's) life with deadly force - not a cash register.

Frankly, the response on your part very likely turned someone into a longtime anti-gun person if she weren't one already.

Yep. That's what I was trying to say! I actually choked on my Coke when I read the "code word" suggestion.

[bassin98]

First off...Welcome!

Second off, and I may ruffle a few feathers here, but this is exactly the attitude which causes some sheeple to express "concern" with "allowing" citizens to carry firearms.

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

An armed response, particularly by non-law enforcement, would very likely have escalated an otherwise non-violent situation. Perhaps not, and perhaps it would have ended peaceably with him putting his hands in the air and surrendering, but that strikes me as unlikely.

Moreover, the response that there should be a "code word" to alert persons on the premises so that they can respond would raise a vigilante "red flag" with me. Were I a small business owner, the LAST thing I would want would be the potential, based on a customer's statement, to have a gun-battle in my storefront over cash in the till. It's not worth it. Give up the money and walk away. He'll be caught later.

Do I agree with her putting up a gun-buster sign? Absolutely not, that's clearly the wrong response as it only serves to disarm the honest person. But do I agree with soliciting customers to protect the till under threat of deadly force? No.

If he had a weapon out and were actively threatening with it and you were in the store...by all means intervene if appropriate and there is an imminent threat. Protect your (and someone else's) life with deadly force - not a cash register.

Frankly, the response on your part very likely turned someone into a longtime anti-gun person if she weren't one already.

Yep. That's what I was trying to say! I actually choked on my Coke when I read the "code word" suggestion.

I agree with sodbuster95 100% . You are not a LEO and do not have any authority starting a gun fight.

[McM]

Would a flatscreen duct taped to one's chest stop a .338 Lapua Magnum round ?

Oh, and what sodbuster said too.

[charben]

Would a flatscreen duct taped to one's chest stop a .338 Lapua Magnum round ?

Depends. Is it LCD or Plasma?

[mr-chessie]

First off...Welcome!

Second off, and I may ruffle a few feathers here, but this is exactly the attitude which causes some sheeple to express "concern" with "allowing" citizens to carry firearms.

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

An armed response, particularly by non-law enforcement, would very likely have escalated an otherwise non-violent situation. Perhaps not, and perhaps it would have ended peaceably with him putting his hands in the air and surrendering, but that strikes me as unlikely.

Moreover, the response that there should be a "code word" to alert persons on the premises so that they can respond would raise a vigilante "red flag" with me. Were I a small business owner, the LAST thing I would want would be the potential, based on a customer's statement, to have a gun-battle in my storefront over cash in the till. It's not worth it. Give up the money and walk away. He'll be caught later.

Do I agree with her putting up a gun-buster sign? Absolutely not, that's clearly the wrong response as it only serves to disarm the honest person. But do I agree with soliciting customers to protect the till under threat of deadly force? No.

If he had a weapon out and were actively threatening with it and you were in the store...by all means intervene if appropriate and there is an imminent threat. Protect your (and someone else's) life with deadly force - not a cash register.

Frankly, the response on your part very likely turned someone into a longtime anti-gun person if she weren't one already.

Excellent response! I agree wholeheartily!

[DEFCON1]

By her knee-jerk reaction I'd say she was ALREADY an anti, and just too stupid to post in the first place. Let them get robbed again a few times and see how well that "no guns" sign works on criminals.

Never argue with an idiot, and never get between a determined lemming and the sea.

Chris

[Jake]

Code word suggestions....

Tippy Toes.

[Music Man]

First off...Welcome!

Second off, and I may ruffle a few feathers here, but this is exactly the attitude which causes some sheeple to express "concern" with "allowing" citizens to carry firearms.

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

An armed response, particularly by non-law enforcement, would very likely have escalated an otherwise non-violent situation. Perhaps not, and perhaps it would have ended peaceably with him putting his hands in the air and surrendering, but that strikes me as unlikely.

Moreover, the response that there should be a "code word" to alert persons on the premises so that they can respond would raise a vigilante "red flag" with me. Were I a small business owner, the LAST thing I would want would be the potential, based on a customer's statement, to have a gun-battle in my storefront over cash in the till. It's not worth it. Give up the money and walk away. He'll be caught later.

Do I agree with her putting up a gun-buster sign? Absolutely not, that's clearly the wrong response as it only serves to disarm the honest person. But do I agree with soliciting customers to protect the till under threat of deadly force? No.

If he had a weapon out and were actively threatening with it and you were in the store...by all means intervene if appropriate and there is an imminent threat. Protect your (and someone else's) life with deadly force - not a cash register.

Frankly, the response on your part very likely turned someone into a longtime anti-gun person if she weren't one already.

You hit the nail right on the head! Those are my exact thoughts also.

[v3rs3]

In the situation described, I see neither cause nor legitimacy in the use of deadly force. Not by a CHL holder and not by a law enforcement officer. Yes, the criminal was armed. Yes, he robbed the cashier after displaying what was apparently a weapon. But he didn't "whip it out", run around the store screaming, fire any shots or otherwise threaten or menace with it. Deadly force is not an appropriate response to his actions and deadly force is exactly what should be called for when responding with a firearm.

It says in the CCW handbook that you may defend anyone who meets the same requirements and is in fear for their life. If a criminal displays a weapon at you are you going to be in fear of your life? I would, so I would be right protecting a person in the same situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I've read.

Defense of Others
A person may defend another only if the protected person would have
had the right to use self-defense. Under Ohio law, a person may defend
family members, friends or strangers. However, just as if he were
protecting himself, a person cannot use any more force than is reasonable
and necessary to prevent the harm threatened.

I don't understand how you all are agreeing with this person. It clearly states you can defend others who are defenseless theirselves.

[charben]

v3rs3:

My issue with the OP is the offering of a defacto security service. The license to carry is not a license to offer security protection. That is what the OP implied when he spoke to the lady.

Now, HAD the clerk been in danger of serious bodily harm or death, any CHL holder would have been able to use deadly force in her defense. But remember this: who decides if you met all three conditions? Don't be so naive to think that since YOU perceive the gesture of revealing a gun under a shirt to be a "serious threat" that the JURY will agree with you. The fact that the gun was not brandished would certainly play a role in the defense.

[v3rs3]

v3rs3:

My issue with the OP is the offering of a defacto security service. The license to carry is not a license to offer security protection. That is what the OP implied when he spoke to the lady.

Now, HAD the clerk been in danger of serious bodily harm or death, any CHL holder would have been able to use deadly force in her defense. But remember this: who decides if you met all three conditions? Don't be so naive to think that since YOU perceive the gesture of revealing a gun under a shirt to be a "serious threat" that the JURY will agree with you. The fact that the gun was not brandished would certainly play a role in the defense.

Yeah I understand the whole security thing. That shouldn't have been brought up by the OP at all (especially a code word). Instead tell the owner why they carry theirselves. I just think some of these guys are hanging this guy b/c he came off in the wrong way, but with good intentions. Rather than hang the guy, give him constructive criticism (like you had), we are all on the same side.