Arrested for Wearing Body Armor in Public (but it’s not illegal)

.
.

The Christmas Parade Incident: A Battle Between Fear and Freedom

It was supposed to be a peaceful and joyous evening in East Stewart, Florida. The 64th Annual Stewart Christmas Parade was in full swing, with families gathered along the streets, children eagerly waiting to see the floats and marching bands. For the citizens of the town, this parade was a tradition, a time to come together and celebrate the season.

However, one man’s actions would soon cast a shadow over the festivities, bringing attention to a delicate balance between personal freedom and law enforcement in America. Matthew Beagle, an unassuming man from the area, had no idea that the simple act of wearing body armor under his clothes would result in his detention and become a viral news story.

The Encounter

Matthew had arrived at the parade with one thing on his mind: finding his daughter. She was attending the event with her family, and Matthew was eager to meet up with her. He wasn’t there to cause trouble, and as he walked through the crowded streets, he didn’t expect anything unusual to happen. But as fate would have it, his presence was soon noticed by law enforcement.

Deputy Chris Baker, part of the sheriff’s office SWAT team assigned to dignitary protection during the parade, noticed something strange. He observed a man, Matthew, walking along the parade route. Matthew appeared to be following the congressman, Brian Mast, which raised some concerns. His attire seemed out of place—he wore a jean jacket and baseball cap, but it wasn’t the clothing that raised alarms. It was what was hidden underneath.

Matthew was wearing a ballistic body armor vest concealed under his shirt. He also had a concealed pistol on him, and a knife tucked into his belt. These were not illegal items in Florida, but the presence of such gear in a public place, especially during an event with high-profile figures, triggered suspicion.

The Initial Interaction

Detective Baker approached Matthew with caution, shining a flashlight in his face. “Hey, what are you doing here?” Baker asked, his voice firm but not overly aggressive. Matthew replied, “I’m just looking for my daughter. She’s here at the parade.” He didn’t seem upset or confrontational.

As they continued to talk, Matthew’s attire and the outline of the body armor became more apparent. Baker, concerned about his safety and the potential threat posed by someone wearing body armor and carrying weapons at such an event, decided to detain Matthew.

“Are you armed?” Baker asked. Matthew, calm as ever, replied, “Yes.” Baker then proceeded to search Matthew, finding the gun and knife on his person.

The Arrest

While Matthew complied with all the officers’ requests, the situation began to escalate. As the officers continued to check his belongings, Matthew explained his reasoning for wearing the body armor. “I’m wearing this for my protection,” he told them. “People always try to mess with me here in East Stewart.”

Despite his calm demeanor and reasonable explanation, the officers’ concern grew. The situation was now more than just a man wearing protective gear in public—it was a potential security threat, given the presence of a congressman and other officials at the parade.

The officers, trying to piece together the details, questioned Matthew further. He explained that he had been threatened in the past, and he even offered to show them the video footage from his security camera at home to prove it. He had a history of feeling unsafe and had worked as an informant for the sheriff’s department in the past. Yet, all of this was dismissed by the officers who were now more focused on his gear and weapons than his explanations.

The Unusual Situation

As Matthew was handcuffed and escorted to the police vehicle, the officers continued their investigation. They found no evidence that Matthew had committed any crime, but they were still holding him without any clear justification. It was clear from the footage that Matthew was polite and cooperative, answering all of their questions and even allowing them to look through his phone.

Yet, despite being detained for hours, Matthew was not informed of the reason for his arrest, nor was he charged with anything. The officers seemed to be acting out of fear, not based on any illegal activity. Their concern was rooted in the fact that Matthew was carrying a gun and wearing body armor in public, both of which are completely legal in Florida.

The Cover-Up

Matthew’s detention continued for over three hours. Throughout this time, the officers questioned him and even interrogated his family, who were worried about his well-being. They tried to portray Matthew as a potential threat, but the more they interrogated him, the clearer it became that he was not there to cause harm.

The official narrative from the police report painted a picture of a suspicious man wearing a bulletproof vest, a gun, and a knife, seemingly following a congressman during the parade. This was seen as a potential security risk, and Matthew was detained for further questioning.

However, Matthew’s explanation, which he had given multiple times, was that he was simply trying to meet his daughter and protect himself after receiving threats. Yet, this explanation seemed to be ignored by the officers, who were fixated on the fact that he had body armor and a concealed weapon on him.

The Legal Aspect

As the hours passed and no criminal activity was discovered, the situation became more troubling. Was this an unlawful arrest? Florida law permits the possession of body armor and firearms, so why was Matthew detained in the first place? His actions were perfectly legal, yet he had been treated as if he were a criminal.

The officers, while continuing to search for a crime that didn’t exist, decided to keep Matthew’s gun and vest as evidence. But evidence of what? No crime had been committed. The whole situation was based on fear, not facts.

According to Florida law, it is perfectly legal for a civilian to wear body armor and carry a concealed firearm, as long as they are not a prohibited person. This begs the question: why were the officers so afraid of someone exercising their constitutional rights?

The Unjust Detention

Matthew was eventually released, but only after hours of questioning and detainment. The officers had no clear justification for their actions, yet they still managed to hold him for an extended period of time. The officers admitted that there was no probable cause for his arrest, but they had already crossed the line by detaining him without evidence of any wrongdoing.

The whole ordeal seemed to be rooted in fear and misunderstanding of Matthew’s intentions. The fact that he was wearing a body armor vest and carrying a firearm did not make him a criminal—it made him someone exercising his right to protect himself.

The Aftermath

The arrest of Matthew Beagle at the Stewart Christmas Parade raised important questions about the balance between personal rights and public safety. While law enforcement officers have the duty to protect the public, they must also respect the rights of individuals. In this case, the officers allowed their fear to cloud their judgment, leading to an unnecessary and unjust detention of a man who had committed no crime.

The officers involved in Matthew’s detainment later tried to cover up the situation by creating false reports and justifying their actions. However, the truth was clear: Matthew was an innocent man, exercising his rights, who had been wrongfully detained simply because he was legally protecting himself.

This incident serves as a reminder that freedom can be frightening, but it’s a right we must protect. Law enforcement should not fear lawful conduct, and citizens should not have to explain themselves simply for exercising their constitutional rights. It is essential to ensure that fear does not override freedom, and that justice is applied fairly, without bias or unnecessary force.