Man Arrested For Threatening To Shoot iPhone

[Ualdayan]

I love how some morons here are talking about "trumped up charges" and how he didn't deserve to be arrested. Maybe you should...I don't know...LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LAWS to determine if he did anything illegal.

2903.21 Aggravated menacing.

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated menacing. Except as otherwise provided in this division, aggravated menacing is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the victim of the offense is an officer or employee of a public children services agency or a private child placing agency and the offense relates to the officer’s or employee’s performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, aggravated menacing is a felony of the fifth degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence, the victim of that prior offense was an officer or employee of a public children services agency or private child placing agency, and that prior offense related to the officer’s or employee’s performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, a felony of the fourth degree

I'm pretty sure brandishing a gun in a fucking store falls under this definition.

You call others morons, then you post a definition of the law that actually would make the guy completely innocent according to what he did in the article. Note - it says to be guilty you have to suggest SERIOUS physical harm to another PERSON or THEIR property. The guy said he had a half a mind to shoot HIS own phone. That wasn't somebody else's property, and he didn't say he was going to shoot it inside the store.

Before you call others morons and quote something I'd suggest reading what you quote first.

 

[JCDenton]

Seriously? If you're going to go to the effort to find what the law is, read it. He did not threaten the other person or their property. He threatened harm to his property. Based on your definition, he didn't deserve to be arrested.

Sorry Mr. "I'm not a lawyer but I'll regale you with my subjective layman's interpretation about how I think the law should be read." His actions clearly fall within the scope of that law, and the many similar laws in other states. He did two things here. First he said he was going to shoot his Ipod, a threat against his own property and also the property/people around him (unless you think it was a magic Ipod capable of stopping bullets so that they don't pose a threat to anything else after it comes into contact with them). Then he brandished a gun during an argument, which the courts will almost certainly interpret as a threat against a person. You're going to look pretty foolish when he gets convicted.

Remember that the law in question as quoted above requires the person to KNOWINGLY cause someone else to believe they themselves, their family or their own property, are being threatened. If the guy had no intent to threaten, he can not have knowingly threatened someone, and is therefore not guilty.

Knowing and intentionally are two different mental states in criminal law and you shouldn't conflate them. And even the same term can mean something different depending on the particular law and if the term is interpreted subjectively or objectively by the courts. Uniformly though, the mental state of knowingly requires less culpability than intentionally. Someone can do something knowingly without doing it intentionally, but they cannot do it intentionally without doing it knowingly. A relatively common definition for knowingly is that the person should know that his actions are likely to bring about the result. This won't even be a close case. The defendant knew or should have known that pulling a gun on a store employee during a dispute is going to be interpreted as a threat.

 

[eon]

just take his gun license away
anyone who has the term "putting caps in something" in their vocabulary clearly doesnt have the maturity to be carrying a gun

 

[JCDenton]

You call others morons, then you post a definition of the law that actually would make the guy completely innocent according to what he did in the article. Note - it says to be guilty you have to suggest SERIOUS physical harm to another PERSON or THEIR property. The guy said he had a half a mind to shoot HIS own phone. That wasn't somebody else's property, and he didn't say he was going to shoot it inside the store.

Before you call others morons and quote something I'd suggest reading what you quote first.

Sorry, I forgot that laymen like you just read the text of laws in its most literal form and don't have an understanding of how it is actually applied in practice. I should have explained it more thoroughly so people like you who do not have formal legal training could understand.

 

[leSLIe]

just take his gun license away
anyone who has the term "putting caps in something" in their vocabulary clearly doesnt have the maturity to be carrying a gun

indeed!!
cuz we all know that the correct term is "bust a cap in something"

 

[Hurdler]

Hurdler,
You don't think the situation is gray enough that the officer shouldn't have arrested him and the person who felt threatened charged him? The cop and the threatened person are not the judge and jury, Its up to the judge / jury to decide if he broke the law. Cops and civilians don't walk around with law books. Its up to their reasonable judgement to make the call in that situation at that time. In this case - as is illustrated by this thread (since there are 2 sides being argued), there is enough of a concern that the officer did the right thing by arresting him and later everyone can plead their cases, with the law being interpretted by those who are "experts."

I think we have definately gravitated towards being a society that beleives everyone arrested is guilty. Its not always the case folks. When a conviction comes back, you guys can play arm chair lawyer. For now, just enjoy the humor of the situation.

I'll give you that the guy did need to be removed from that situation. I think we can both agree though, that what he was charged for was BS. A charge of disorderly conduct would probably have been more appropriate, and would have a higher likelihood of a conviction. I will say that I'm just guessing, I'm not going to take the time to look up the legal definition of disorderly conduct.

 

[Hurdler]

Sorry, I forgot that laymen like you just read the text of laws in its most literal form and don't have an understanding of how it is actually applied in practice. I should have explained it more thoroughly so people like you who do not have formal legal training could understand.

Ok, stop being a dick and explain it.

The law that you quoted, says that a threat needs to be made against another person. It does NOT say anything about someone threatening their own property.

With how your talking, it appears your a lawyer. If so, you shouldn't have a problem finding a case where a person made a threat against their own property, and were convicted of aggravated menacing.

 

[Stiletto]

Will it blend?

 

[JCDenton]

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem proving you wrong although your premise is a strawman. He wasn't arrested for making a threat against his own property, he was arrested for threatening to discharge a gun while in a store and for pulling a gun. I'm not going to waste money on lexis/westlaw searches to placate you, but a simple google search shows that people are arrested for assault/menacing all the time for pulling guns during arguments.

 

[leSLIe]

Will it blend?

oh yeah

it will

 

[Ualdayan]

Sorry, I forgot that laymen like you just read the text of laws in its most literal form and don't have an understanding of how it is actually applied in practice. I should have explained it more thoroughly so people like you who do not have formal legal training could understand.

Yeah, because if a law says you have to threaten serious harm to another PERSON, and somebody threatens to damage a device THEY own that's only two different things to 'laymen' who just read the law and believe it to mean what it says it means.

Apparently we can't all be like you and have the ability to read something clearly stated (and this particular law was VERY clear about what you have to do in order to be guilty of it) and believe it means something else entirely.

You seem like the type that would run a stoplight that is red, and insist that only 'laymen' believe that means they should stop and that YOU really know better than that. Meanwhile, everybody else is thinking - 'Wow, he's going around calling others morons and laymen when clearly he's the one that has half a brain.'

 

[Ualdayan]

He wasn't arrested for making a threat against his own property, he was arrested for threatening to discharge a gun while in a store and for pulling a gun.

Well, good thing he did neither of those two things then according to the article (and apparently the store's tape.) Even the quoted Apple employee says he told them:
"So mad, I could pop a 9mm at it."

That's a long way off from saying he was GOING to, and miles away from saying he was going to do it right away inside the store.

He also never pulled the gun out of its holster according to the article.

"Goodrich then allegedly opened the right side of his shirt, displaying a black, 9mm handgun. The employee told Goodrich she'd get his phone fixed and walked him over to a technician in the store, then told her manager, who called police."

 

[ZDPhoenix]

Seriously? If you're going to go to the effort to find what the law is, read it. He did not threaten the other person or their property. He threatened harm to his property. Based on your definition, he didn't deserve to be arrested.

If he pulled out his gun, he does in fact deserve to be charged with intimidation.

If he didn't. Bah. It'd be court/officer disgression.

 

[Blown 89]

You don't need to pull the gun out, only threaten to use it. Conceal laws are very strict about threatening to use a gun and brandishing it. Simply showing it and saying that you will use it in any fashion is good enough to land in jail. Unfortunately what he did was illegal and that will be proven during his trial.

 

[bucket]

I'd be a little intimidate by this guy as well, gun or not.
FIX MY PHONE BITCH!

 

[Hurdler]

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem proving you wrong although your premise is a strawman. He wasn't arrested for making a threat against his own property, he was arrested for threatening to discharge a gun while in a store and for pulling a gun. I'm not going to waste money on lexis/westlaw searches to placate you, but a simple google search shows that people are arrested for assault/menacing all the time for pulling guns during arguments.

He didn't pull a gun.

If he had though, then you would be correct.

 

[Kelby]

I believe there should be an IQ test taken when purchesing a gun. If you get a low score, it should not prevent you from your puchase, but it should be tattooed on your forehead.

 

[eon]

come on dude flashing your gun inside a store is still a very threatening thing to do
please dont tell me if some random yelling guy shows his hosltered gun in a store you will just think nothing of it and go about your business

 

[Blown 89]

I believe there should be an IQ test taken when purchesing a gun. If you get a low score, it should not prevent you from your puchase, but it should be tattooed on your forehead.

Some of the people in my CCW class were proof of this. It scared me that some of those people will be carrying guns. The guy in the lane next to me on the shooting portion missed the paper target completely on all 5 shots at 5 yards.

 

[UL]

If i was helping him, id a prolly laughed and asked him to do it out back... i mean seriously people need to calm down.

 

[UL]

out back as in somewhere in a field with no one around... damn edit thing is gone!

 

[Azhar]

He didn't pull a gun.

If he had though, then you would be correct.

Pull, don't pull, he's got the gun. It's only a matter of taking it out of the holster. It's not a hard thing to do and he's deliberately skirting the law in this fashion.

You don't make threats and then show your concealed weapon.

 

[bucket]

lol.

 

[OldBuzzard]

... and for pulling a gun. ...

Which he didn't do.

A frustrated customer at the Kenwood Towne Centre Apple store Thursday afternoon ended up going to jail after police say he showed an employee a gun. ...

... then allegedly opened the right side of his shirt, displaying a black, 9mm handgun. ...

Nowhere in the article does it claim that he actually pulled it out and waved it around.

Now, I'm NOT defending the guy. He's an idiot. I just don't think that the aggravated menacing charge applies. However, that's for the courts to decide.

Since he was in Kenwood, I'm not suprised that the clerk paniced. That's liberal/metrosexual heaven. If he would have done that over here on the West Side, the clerk would have probably told him to hide his 'girly gun' and showed HIS .44 mag

 

[Azhar]

<snipped pic> lol.

This is funny too lol

 

[Ualdayan]

This is funny too lol

The ad the forums are showing me is an ad for an Iphone case, and happens to show a closeup of an Iphone. That's Google's 'show them ads for whatever they are talking about' for you. Too bad it doesn't realize the thread is about how somebody got arrested because he hated his Iphone just that much.

 

[spinelli]

And if he had said.."I'm gonna run this phone over with my truck!!" and showed the rep his keys would that also be menacing? (Ok, maybe that was a stretch...)

While clearly a moron, the guy did not threaten any individual with harm at any point or menace anyone with the potential of a real threat. In reading the article, it sounded to me more like the clown was trying to impress a salesgirl with his 'hard caliber'. (tacky fictional book reference)

As to that lawyer guy..give me a break. Your type of thinking is one of the many things wrong with this country and your profession in particular (assuming you are who you pretend to be). You think laws are/should be written in such a manner as only folks who spent years in law school can understand them. That is absurd. The ability to comprehend the written word is not the sole domain of attorneys. The fact that you seem to feel others are inferior to you because they read a law as it should be read (at face value) while you believe it requires an attorney to explain the real meaning of the words to the unenlightened masses is utter jackassery.

Laws should be comprehensible to the laymen and thinking otherwise smacks of elitism at its very finest. Having laws on the books that can not be 'understood' on a base level without a degree in law should be in and of itself...criminal. Like our tax code for example....but hey, our muddy and incomprehensible tax codes sure do keep a lot of lawyers in business and that's good right? ....Right?!

 

[Draax]

If someone is so incapable of controlling their emotions, to the point where they feel the need to destroy something they are frustrated with, they should definitely not own a firearm.

 

[spinelli]

So what did this guy destroy? Besides his dignity?

I am fairly certain that pretty much anyone who owns or works with technology has at one point or another, wanted to shoot something/break something/go at it with a hammer/set it on fire.

 

[phide]

I kinda know how this guy feels. My iPhone recently quit being able to sync with any machine I've attached it to. Just plain quit working. I kind of, sort of feel like shooting it. With a gun. At point blank range.

Yeah, I know. All I have to do is go to the Apple Store and have 'em replace it. The catch: my nearest Apple Store is a pain in the ass to go to.

Shit.

 

[Greggy_D]

It is illegal to brandish or display your weapon when you have a concealed permit.

Concerning your display reference.....not true in Ohio (which is where this occurred) or Michigan. You can Open Carry legally. A concealed permit does not revoke this right to Open Carry.

The definition of brandishing may vary from state to state.

 

[Blown 89]

And if he had said.."I'm gonna run this phone over with my truck!!" and showed the rep his keys would that also be menacing? (Ok, maybe that was a stretch...)

The difference is that the truck isn't considered a lethal weapon. If I were to pistol whip you I might as well shoot you because the law does not see a difference. CCW classes clearly state that if you pull or show your weapon you sure as hell better shoot it. They're also very clear about showing your weapon in an aggressive fashion like this guy did (don't take "aggressive" too literally) and how the law views that. It's clear most of you haven't ever taken a gun class or know even the slightest about laws governing carrying.

 

[spinelli]

Enlighten me. I am always interested in learning more. What does carrying law have to do with his charge of menacing?

 

[spinelli]

I should have said 'his charge of aggravated menacing' but either way I still do not see the connection. Both Ohio laws have the same wording. One is to be used for a "threat of more serious harm" but both state the following...

2903.21

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family.

So...unless we are considering an iPhone a person or the iPhone was not his own then this law does not seem to apply one bit. I did once (ok maybe twice) see a video showing a um...birth of an iphone (maybe it was a Nokia) but I don't think they really came from there....

Now, the charge he got for not telling the deputy he had a concealed weapon does obviously seem related to carrying law, but I do not think anyone was disputing that charge.

He told the employee he was, "So mad, I could pop a 9mm at it."

So..where is the threat of harm to the Apple employee, her property, or her family?

Do not misunderstand, I am not defending the guys actions. I am however calling bullshit on the aggravated menacing charge.

 

[Blown 89]

Enlighten me. I am always interested in learning more. What does carrying law have to do with his charge of menacing?

Cincinnati requires a CCW permit and he was concealing therefor the laws apply to him. He either doesn't have a CCW permit (in which case he's in a heck of a lot of trouble) or he does which means he had to take a state certified class informing him of the rules and laws of carrying. Take a conceal class and they'll spend about 6 hours going over the law regarding weapons. I'm also willing to bet that the mall had no weapons signs clearly posted as I've yet to see a mall that allows weapons.

 

[mrjminer]

I wouldn't have called the cops on him, I would have killed him.

There's enough maniacs running around to be afraid if someone "offers" to shoot something inside of a store and then show you their gun. Granted, this guy probably didn't mean any harm by it, but you'd be singing a different tune if you making $8/hr dealing with aggrevated customers on a regular basis, then have someone walk in, "offer" to shoot their phone, then show you their gun. This guy is a moron.

 

[spinelli]

Again..what does that have to do with the charge of aggravated menacing?

 

[Blown 89]

Again..what does that have to do with the charge of aggravated menacing?

When he signed the papers to get his CCW he acknowledged that he understood that showing a weapon and threatening to discharge it in any fashion without justification is aggravated menacing. I'm not sure why this isn't clear. You cannot flash a weapon in a situation like that and threaten to shoot it in a crowded store.

 

[mrjminer]

Again..what does that have to do with the charge of aggravated menacing?

What does aggravated menacing have to do with the fact that I'd kill anyone showing off their gun to me after complaining about a non-functioning product they want me to service?

 

[spinelli]

What does aggravated menacing have to do with the fact that I'd kill anyone showing off their gun to me after complaining about a non-functioning product they want me to service?

Nothing, that was a reply to Blown 89 though I did not quote him. Your comment wasnt there when I started typing.

------

When he signed the papers to get his CCW he acknowledged that he understood that showing a weapon and threatening to discharge it in any fashion without justification is aggravated menacing. I'm not sure why this isn't clear. You cannot flash a weapon in a situation like that and threaten to shoot it in a crowded store.

Ive used an Iphone, there was justification

It wasn't clear because until that post, you failed to mention an actual correlation between carrying and agg. menacing.

Now that you have. If you wouldn't mind, please provide a link. I have been reading through this page and as of yet, have not seen anything referencing aggravated menacing in relation to CCW laws besides it being an exclusionary offense.
Linky

This other clown got charged with aggravated menacing because he flat out aimed his weapon at people.
This preacher got the charge for also aiming his weapon at people.
I did find a case where some poor guy got threatened with a menacing charge for doing nothing but asking questions.

So maybe menacing/aggravated menacing is just a charge they like to scare people with or lay on just cause they can. If you can provide a link that shows something different that would be awesome.