I would take that case all day long, The store manager triggered an alarm with an unknown population of varied health conditions and potentially created a situation where people where gathered in a smaller area and would be easier targets for an active shooter. Lastly we DONāT know if people where harmed or not because people fled the building in terror or confusion.
So from a legal standpoint you are arguing Schrodingerās cat.
If he states his intent was to evacuate the building because someone was in the middle of a legal activity he has effectively admitted to violating the law and willfully and maliciously caused panic. THE VERY THING THEY ARE ACCUSING THE YOUNG MAN OF. His actions where precisely shouting fire in a crowded room when there wasnāt one.
That was my concern as well. Not to mention a personās reaction to a shooter would be different than if they had to react to a fire. So pulling the fire alarm has the armed civilians leaving the building.
But the idiot wasnāt, he was in the midst of the people and from other killings the killer waited until he/she was either in an area of opportunity or at an strategic advantage. Yes a killer working in conjunction with a second killer could have set up an ambush and use the doorways as a defile to funnel the victims - but again by pulling the fire alarm people will tend to use the exits even after gunfire simply because that is where they were heading
.
@ sarge
Yes he was in a State that allow open carry but stop defending the idiot for using bad judgement and the failure of common sense.
Iām defending the actions of a free man, not the logic of a moron.
Its a slippery slope when we attack people who are exercising their rights. This is what they are doing to us everyday.
I hope youāre not on the prosecutionās side. While your points are true you still canāt make a case for malicious intent.
And as far as Schrƶdingerās cat is concerned, I think youāre stretching a bit. We donāt know the state of the cat until we look. We can look at this situation and see that willful and malicious are not both true.
An āAnd Gate vs Or Gateā is a more apt illustration.
Iād like to be on that jury as well.
I agree with @Sarge4206th
This guy was stupid, stupid, stupid, but he broke no laws and didnāt hurt anyone. Just as free speech protect those that say even the most horrific and terrible things. We may not like what they say, and they may be a complete dumbshit, but we have to protect thier right to say it.
This guy didnāt help matters, thatās for sure, but just like the 2A auditors who carry their rifles around town. They have every right to do it and I will defend that right all day long.
Schrƶdingerās cat - refers to the state of the people who evacuated. Until we look for these people we donāt know if they where injured by his actions.
His actions to falsely declare an emergency using an alarm designed to alert for fire, a potential life threatening danger donāt require evidence other than he openly admitted to pulling the alarm and performing said false alarm.
The only thing needed to satisfy the requirements of the law would be for an evacuated person from the store to show damages from the alarm being triggered as prior to the alarm being triggered no one was in fear for their lives sufficiently to flee.
I agree with this for the most part. And why I think youāre correct that he committed no crime. But theamendments that protect these freedoms, protect them only from the government. There are many things that are legal for us to say but can get us in a row about.
My points relate only to the manager at this point.
If the manager is allowed to trigger false alarms every time he feels something is out of his comfort zone he will eventually end up killing someone.
Allowing this level of paranoia to continue will result in someone in a gun shirt with a phone bulge in their belt line triggering swat team response.
Not based on what you say here.
Ok this I mostly agree with. It may have been a dumb move but does not rise to a prosecutable crime.
Willfully -deliberate, voluntary, or intentional:
Maliciously - vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.
Wanton - Grossly careless or negligent; reckless
There ya go bud per legal definition.
with out delving into Walmarts SOP for dealing with perceived threats, you or I can not make that assumption, and on top of it your augment fails when applied to objective mens rea
under common law, mens rea is the mental state required to show that the prohibited act or omission was committed with a āguilty mindā; strict liability crimes do not require a mens rea . malice crime under common law, a malice crime requires that the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or known risk that a particularly harmful result would occur.
Pulling a fire alarm in a crowded store when there is no fire is akin to screaming fire in a crowded room and making that connection is easy peasy.
Now youāll need a definition of āGrossly carelessā
Iād give him some retraining perhaps. But Iād not convict him based on what we know now.
An act or the omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person would, or would not, do under similar circumstances.ā
Well Iāll put up $20 heās not charged with anything. Probably not even reprimanded.
That there is the test - and tested in front of jury of his peers, heād not be convicted of any wrongdoing - the prosecutor will know that and therefore not prosecute.
however without knowing the local ordinance but you may discover that pulling of a āfireā alarm can be used to muster and enact a evacuation especially in a large complex such as retail establishment and sporting complex where large number of people gather.
Having a Right doesnāt make it Right
I agree but, again he is evacuating a facility for no legal reason, the very reason the law was written around pulling fire alarms for no reason.