Monday, December 2, 2013

Guns Stolen from Virginia Restaurant Whose Owner is a Second Amendment Advocate

CrosswhiteCajunExperience.jpg
Burglars recently took seven guns from a restaurant in Virginia whose owner has drawn attention for his advocacy of the right to bear arms — and to carry guns into his establishment.
The burglary took place Nov. 23 at the Cajun Experience in Leesburg, town police said. About 12:45 a.m., they said, two people forced their way inside, broke into a padlocked closet and stole seven long guns described as rifles and shotguns.
The closet was off a private room and not where diners are generally served.
The restaurant drew attention after Crosswhite began offering a discount to diners for every weapon carried.
A Nov. 20 posting on the restaurant’s Facebook page read: “Today we celebrate the 2nd Amendment! Stop in for Open Carry Wednesday and get 10% off for exercising” the right to bear arms.
The idea of “open carry” generally applies to sidearms, such as pistols and revolvers, and not long guns, such as rifles and shotguns.
Police said they have identified a suspect and are looking for a second person.

19 comments:

  1. So they broke into a locked building, then into a locked closet and you want to ding them on safe storage? They even had video and know exactly who did it.

    Leesburg Police are asking for the public's help in finding two men believed to be involved in the theft of firearms from a downtown restaurant.

    Police are searching for Schuyler Charles Bertolette of Leesburg, a former employee of The Cajun Experience.

    Officers identified Bertolette, who is wanted on burglary and grand larceny charges, through a video surveillance camera from inside the restaurant.

    Police identified the second suspect, also seen on surveillance video, as white, possibly 6 feet tall and approximately 200 pounds. He has a goatee and was last seen wearing a light-colored hooded sweat jacket.
    http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/police_searching_for_downtown_leesburg_burglary_suspects898

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. I dind't "ding" anybody for anything in this case.

      Delete
  2. Maybe the owner should think.
    He promoted guns so much some criminal correctly thought there must be guns on site. That's like letting it be known he leaves cash in his till overnight. They robbed a restaurant, for guns, not cash, not food.
    A fool and his guns are soon parted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You meant to say that a gun owner soon faces fools trying to get the government to take his guns.

      Delete
    2. No, not even close, but usual lies from a criminal like you.

      Delete
  3. "He promoted guns so much some criminal correctly thought there must be guns on site."

    “It’s just my luck,” owner Bryan Crosswhite said Saturday night. “We don’t keep guns there” routinely, he added. He said the guns were left there overnight after a hunting trip as a matter of convenience and were to be taken to a friend’s house in Virginia, where they are usually kept. "

    Actually it seems to be either luck or an inside job here. I'm sure the police are looking at both possibilities, especially since the suspect seems to be a former employee. Again, double locking guns, video surveillance, equals no negligence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe him for a second. Your susceptibility to lies is huge.

      Delete
    2. Anon, There is no need for him to lie. Even if he routinely kept firearms at his business, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. He was storing his legally possessed property in his legally possessed building. They were in a locked room inside a locked building which included video surveillance equipment installed.
      He hasn't done anything wrong and is cooperating with local law enforcement. His actions are both legal and reasonable.

      Delete
    3. I have to agree with the opposition in this case, Anonymous. The guy did lock up the guns. It sounds like an inside job.

      Delete
    4. Legality and common sense are two different things. This what makes gun wackos, gun wackos. I legally can leave money in the till overnight, but to be surprised that money was stolen and think I had done common sense actions to prevent theft (after leaving money in the till over night) is ridiculous. Replace money for guns. If I leave my gun out on the kitchen table loaded, should I be surprised when my 3 year old picks it up, fires it, and kills his 4 year old brother; I didn't do anything legally wrong, but I must have the common sense of a bird, and have no one but myself to blame for the death of my 4 year old. If legality is the only standard, no wonder we have 33,000 gun shot deaths every year.

      Delete
  4. Mikeb, for the record, do you agree with the libel that Anonymous keeps making?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, be more specific.
      I'm still waiting for your attorney's letter suing me for libel. Where is is? Where is the proof of libel? I proved you are a criminal through your own statements, which you refuse to reply to. You lose criminal liar.

      Delete
    2. Ah, big surprise, no response from the cowardly liar.

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, calling a private citizen a criminal without evidence is libel. Now the constant foolishness from these trolls isn't all that defaming, since I doubt that anyone believes them to begin with, but that doesn't change the nature of the act.

      Delete
    4. Still no specifics, just crying from this sites criminal lying coward.

      Delete
    5. Greg, first of all disagreeing with you does not make one a troll. Secondly, he has a good point. On a number of occasions, as he's pointed out repeatedly and offered you plenty of opportunity to rebut, you have condoned criminal behavior. It's not too much of a stretch from that to calling you a criminal.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, it's not the disagreement that is the problem. But calling someone a criminal requires evidence. Calling someone a liar requires evidence. And throwing a mass of quotes without links to their sources is hijacking the thread, to use your term.

      As I've said before, I'll address any comment anyone wishes to discuss, but we have to see the context--given by a URL to the source--to do that. And if anyone can catch me in a lie--not an unintended error, not a statement of my positions, but an actual lie--I'll leave and never comment here again.

      Delete
    7. The proof has been posted many times and weeks ago, yet, you are still here. Another lie.

      Delete