Man with guns detained at Bellevue Baptist Church (Memphis)

[Preacher357]

So basically the police admitted that he did not break any laws,   The question then is, why was there an emergency commitment?  Nothing in any of the reports indicates a reason.  Was he truly acting mentally ill or did they just need to find some reason to justify arresting a man that had not committed a crime?  I am not trying to make accusations, but it makes me wonder.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A man talking about checking things out as well as making statements like that is alarming. Should be no different than yelling fire in a theater. In this day and age anything like that should be alarming and LE should respond quickly to prevent a potential disaster. It is better to get there quickly and have a laugh over overreacting than thinking it is nothing and have people killed.

I wish we could boot real life trolls as easily as we do here.

[Ski]

So basically the police admitted that he did not break any laws,   The question then is, why was there an emergency commitment?  Nothing in any of the reports indicates a reason.  Was he truly acting mentally ill or did they just need to find some reason to justify arresting a man that had not committed a crime?  I am not trying to make accusations, but it makes me wonder.

 

This story says that a woman at his home indicated that he is indeed mentally ill.  I thought I heard that his mother is hacked off that his name was released since he does suffer from mental illness, but this story doesn't include that detail (or even identify the woman at his home).

http://www.fox13memphis.com/news/marcus-donald-the-armed-man-behind-sundays-bellevue-baptist-incident/184000745

[GlockSpock]

A man talking about checking things out as well as making statements like that is alarming. Should be no different than yelling fire in a theater. In this day and age anything like that should be alarming and LE should respond quickly to prevent a potential disaster. It is better to get there quickly and have a laugh over overreacting than thinking it is nothing and have people killed.

I wish we could boot real life trolls as easily as we do here.

If that FaceBook story is the least bit true, it strikes me as odd that a suspect would be so casual about it.

[Omega]

If that FaceBook story is the least bit true, it strikes me as odd that a suspect would be so casual about it.

Doesn't surprise me, once they snap everyone they know says "he was the nicest guy", " I never thought he was capable" etc.  Unfortunately, sometimes the only thing that separates these folks is the act itself.

[Preacher357]

This story says that a woman at his home indicated that he is indeed mentally ill.  I thought I heard that his mother is hacked off that his name was released since he does suffer from mental illness, but this story doesn't include that detail (or even identify the woman at his home).

http://www.fox13memphis.com/news/marcus-donald-the-armed-man-behind-sundays-bellevue-baptist-incident/184000745

If he is being treated for mental illness, then I wonder how he managed to get or keep a carry permit or buy the firearms.  I guess maybe it was never reported.  But if his family knew he was mentally ill then I wonder why they allowed him to have the weapons?  

[GlockSpock]

Doesn't surprise me, once they snap everyone they know says "he was the nicest guy", " I never thought he was capable" etc.  Unfortunately, sometimes the only thing that separates these folks is the act itself.

 

I don't think you took my comment the right way. I was meaning the fact that a guy would be tactically inept as to walk around with a cell phone talking loudly about probing security, etc. I just imagined a suspect being a bit more discreet about it rather than walking around a filled church explaining "checking out security and seeing what we're up against". Seems...counterproductive to his efforts.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't think you took my comment the right way. I was meaning the fact that a guy would be tactically inept as to walk around with a cell phone talking loudly about probing security, etc. I just imagined a suspect being a bit more discreet about it rather than walking around a filled church explaining "checking out security and seeing what we're up against". Seems...counterproductive to his efforts.

Could be he is checking response times from LE.

[GlockSpock]

Could be he is checking response times from LE.

Well, that is true and also likely but also alludes that they are planning something.

Seems it would be a better (more anonymous) test of LE response time to oh, I don't know, pull a fire alarm or go shoot a shotgun into the air in the parking lot.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Well, that is true and also likely but also alludes that they are planning something.

Seems it would be a better (more anonymous) test of LE response time to oh, I don't know, pull a fire alarm or go shoot a shotgun into the air in the parking lot.

But those are against the law while standing around making statements generally is not.

[GlockSpock]

But those are against the law while standing around making statements generally is not.

True. And those were just the first things that came to mind. It just seems like it would be much more beneficial to them to manufacture some sort of event that would overall fly under the radar but still warrant a comparable LE response.

Walking around talking about it like they did seems like giving up a tactical advantage.

Then again, it is apparent that they do not think like I do, nor vice-versa.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Another thing to consider is they could be desensitizing responders. After 3-4 calls about something at the church that turns out to be nothing the first responders might think someone else is crying wolf and slow their response.

Plenty of reasons why they could be doing it but none of us know why.

[GlockSpock]

Another thing to consider is they could be desensitizing responders. After 3-4 calls about something at the church that turns out to be nothing the first responders might think someone else is crying wolf and slow their response.

Plenty of reasons why they could be doing it but none of us know why.

I did not consider this but it makes sense. Although I hold freedom of speech very highly terroristic speech such as that should be prosecutable. It is very much like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room.

[Oh Shoot]

OS is, as usual correct.  TCA 39-17-1307e provides a narrow exception for HCP holders, but only relates to transportation in a privately-owned vehicle.   

 

?? That (e) section regarding the "guns in vehicle" exception does not require a carry permit.

 

- OS

Edited March 30, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[quietguy]

?? That (e) section regarding the "guns in vehicle" exception does not require a carry permit.

 

- OS

That is the code section that allows carry of a loaded long-gun for HCP holders, as long as a round isn't chambered.  Below is how I believe the code still stands - 

 

"(e)  It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, the person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §  39-11-611 or §  39-11-612."

Edited March 30, 2016 by quietguy

[Oh Shoot]

That is the code section that allows carry of a loaded long-gun for HCP holders, as long as a round isn't chambered.  Below is how I believe the code still stands - 

 

"(e)  It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, the person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §  39-11-611 or §  39-11-612."

 

You are quoting a long outdated version of 39-17-1307.

 

As of 2014 legislative session, that entire verbiage was deleted and section (e) reads:

 

"(e)  (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person is carrying or possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition in a motor vehicle if the person:

      (A) Is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) or purchasing a firearm by § 39-17-1316; and

      ( B ) Is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle.

   (2) As used in this subsection (e):

      (A) "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as defined in § 55-1-103;

      ( B ) "Motor vehicle" does not include any motor vehicle that is:

         (i) Owned or leased by a governmental or private entity that has adopted a written policy prohibiting firearms or ammunition not required for employment within such a motor vehicle; and

         (ii) Provided by such entity to an employee for use during the course of employment."

 

- OS

Edited March 30, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[quietguy]

I am sure you are right.  I was looking at my Lexis feed, but it does show a 2014 TCA date.  

Edited March 30, 2016 by quietguy

[Oh Shoot]

I am sure you are right.  I was looking at my Lexis feed, but it does show a 2014 TCA date.  

 

Don't understand. Lexis has had statute correct as per my quote above since late 2014, assuming you mean at:

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

 

- OS

[quietguy]

Don't understand. Lexis has had statute correct as per my quote above since late 2014, assuming you mean at:

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

 

- OS

It is strange.  I tried a couple of other code searches that I know have changed, and am getting current results.  

 

Regardless, the exception only applies to transportation/storage in a vehicle.  

[Oh Shoot]

It is strange.  I tried a couple of other code searches that I know have changed, and am getting current results.  

 

Regardless, the exception only applies to transportation/storage in a vehicle.  

 

And is only an exception to that statute, but not for possession in vehicle on posted or school property, and not an out for violation of employer prohibition. All of that still requires a permit as per 39-17-1313.

 

- OS

Edited March 30, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Scorpion Equalizer]

  Mine was on me this morning in church.  Never go to church without it.

 

The .380 in left front pocket and the .40 in a Bible carry case.