Investigation opens after police misconduct at pawn shop

[Spot72]

"SILVER SPRING, Md. -

A claim of missing phone charger ended with two Silver Spring pawn shop employees handcuffed by cops. Now the store's owner has filed a complaint with Montgomery County police saying the officers went too far."

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2019061...type=printable

[demopublican]

Okosun says the officers began asking questions and asked to see his identification. He says he gladly complied, and since the shop has a long history of working with police, he also invited the officers behind the counter to see footage of the transaction in question.

Okosun says while an officer was behind the counter, he found two loaded handguns. The store manager, Edward, says it is legal for the store to have one. But Montgomery County police say a worker under the age 21 shouldn't have access. Okosun is 20 years old.

The surveillance video shows what happened next. An officer forces Okosun down, then handcuffs him. Moments later, his female co-worker is also handcuffed while attending to a customer.

Here is the basis for the argument. I guess it is a simple question of law. What is the age requirement under law?

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Here is the basis for the argument. I guess it is a simple question of law. What is the age requirement under law?

It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm under the age of 18 for long arms (rifles and shotguns,) 21 for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." However, the key word is "possession." (Having access is not the same thing as posession.) It is also illegal to allow an ineligible person (a person legally barred from owning or using a firearm) to have access to a firearm. The law contains an exception for use by minors when the use is under the direct supervision of an eligible person.

It seems that under the law the person who should have been arrested was the shop owner, not Okosun.

The legality of the arrest would hinge on whether 1) the mere proximity to the firearm is considered "possession," and 2) whether the presence of the store owner can be considered "supervision."

[demopublican]

You have to wonder why the officer felt so threatened.

[Wizard777]

It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm under the age of 18 for long arms (rifles and shotguns,) 21 for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." However, the key word is "possession." (Having access is not the same thing as posession.) It is also illegal to allow an ineligible person (a person legally barred from owning or using a firearm) to have access to a firearm. The law contains an exception for use by minors when the use is under the direct supervision of an eligible person.

It seems that under the law the person who should have been arrested was the shop owner, not Okosun.

The legality of the arrest would hinge on whether 1) the mere proximity to the firearm is considered "possession," and 2) whether the presence of the store owner can be considered "supervision."

You should have read the article.

The two employees were never arrested.

I disagree with that statement. They were handcuffed and were not free to leave for a period of time. During that time they were legally under arrest. That arrest may not have resulted in charges against them. But they were indeed under arrest for a period of time.

There is a possibility of misconduct by the officer. I'm quite sure they will claim that they cuffed them for officer safety. That might float. But I don't understand why they would unplug the phones. That's an action commonly used by criminals to prevent their victims from calling for help. So I can understand why that would cause the employees great concern.

[yeah]

its quite obvious to me why he was accosted and placed in cuffs. hopefully he sues

[demopublican]

its quite obvious to me why he was accosted and placed in cuffs. hopefully he sues

What is this obvious reason?