Shots Fired at the Marion County Fair? Fact vs. Fiction: Marion Watch Confronts Unverified Claims

Often, false and inaccurate information, particularly when amplified by the rapid and uncritical spread on social media platforms, can quickly cause widespread public panic and foster unreasonable assumptions about community safety and law enforcement’s capabilities. Such unverified narratives, if left unchecked, can erode public trust and create unnecessary division.

To counter this, and in response to a significant volume of messages received from concerned citizens, Marion Watch took proactive steps to investigate and clarify allegations circulating after a recent incident. Our aim was to either prove or disprove the claims through factual inquiry, providing the public with accurate, verifiable information. It is important to note that Ohio is now a constitutional carry state, meaning citizens are not required to have a concealed carry license and can carry firearms as long as they are legally allowed to do so. The OAG 2005-015 document discussed below predates this change, but its interpretations regarding prohibited locations for firearms remain largely relevant.

The catalyst for our inquiry was a widely circulated social media post by “Marion Crime Chronicles,” detailing a disturbing incident supposedly at the local Marion County Fair. The post described an individual’s claim of being accosted by people who “pulled guns” and forcibly moved him onto a motorcycle. Further fueling public anxiety, the post alleged that a police officer witnessed this alarming event but “refused to take reports,” instead stating that the victim “got in trouble” while the alleged perpetrators faced no repercussions. Such narratives, whether accurate or not, erode public trust and demand immediate clarification.

The sentiment expressed in the “Marion Crime Chronicles” post was echoed by numerous other social media comments, reflecting a broader dissatisfaction and confusion regarding local law enforcement’s handling of firearm-related incidents. For example, Daniel Hickman shared a deeply troubling personal experience where someone allegedly pulled a gun on his daughter and dog, even kicking his dog, yet police “did nothing” because the individual was “legal to carry it”. Hickman passionately argued that simply possessing a legal permit to carry a firearm “does not give you the RIGHT to wave it around recklessly”, highlighting a critical distinction between legal carry and irresponsible behavior. Adam White further corroborated this frustration, stating, “Correct, the cop was very disrespectful,” and expressing disbelief that he received an OVI despite not having keys to his motorcycle or being near a vehicle. The overall disquiet was summarized by Dawn Clark, who bluntly commented that “Marion police and Marion Sheriff’s are worthless. They don’t want to do their jobs at all”. These public outcries underscore not only a perceived lack of action but also a fundamental misunderstanding of firearm regulations and law enforcement’s specific powers and limitations in addressing incidents involving firearms, particularly in public spaces.

To address these pressing concerns and provide clarity, it’s essential to delve into the legal framework surrounding the carrying of firearms, especially concealed handguns, in Ohio. Marion Watch directly engaged with Sheriff Bayles, who provided a comprehensive response.

Sheriff Bayles’s full email reply to Marion Watch is as follows:

“Jason,

I have attached an Attorney General’s opinion from 2005 that is directly on point with your question about the carrying concealed in the fairgrounds question.  We cannot stop someone from carrying in the outdoors on fairground property.  We can stop someone from carrying inside a building on fairground property if it is properly posted by the county commissioners. Even if it were allowable to prohibit handguns on the property outside on the fairgrounds, it is not conceivable or practical to expect to search everyone coming onto the property.  There are four gates that are used for entrances, 3 of which are for vehicles.  Would it be practical to expect to search every person that walked up, empty out every car that drove up and searched the people AND search the vehicle that they came into the fairgrounds for weapons?  There would be traffic backed up a mile in each direction.

The cases that you put on here did not happen at the fair. I know that White was an MPD case and I am assuming the other is as well. White happened on Latourette St., far from the fair. I wont comment on an MPD case other than to say that Mr. White’s story about what happened is not backed up by the dozens of witnesses that were there.”

In this direct communication, Sheriff Bayles confirmed that he had attached an Attorney General’s opinion from 2005, OAG 2005-015, which he stated was “directly on point” with questions about carrying concealed weapons at the fairgrounds. He clarified the crucial distinction in the law: “We cannot stop someone from carrying in the outdoors on fairground property. We can stop someone from carrying inside a building on fairground property if it is properly posted by the county commissioners.” The Sheriff also candidly addressed the practical challenges of enforcing a blanket ban on concealed carry in open areas, noting, “Even if it were allowable to prohibit handguns on the property outside on the fairgrounds, it is not conceivable or practical to expect to search everyone coming onto the property.” He elaborated on the logistical nightmare this would entail, highlighting the “four gates that are used for entrances, 3 of which are for vehicles,” and posing the rhetorical question: “Would it be practical to expect to search every person that walked up, empty out every car that drove up and searched the people AND search the vehicle that they came into the fairgrounds for weapons? There would be traffic backed up a mile in each direction.” Regarding the specific incidents raised on social media, Sheriff Bayles stated unequivocally, “The cases that you put on here did not happen at the fair.” He identified the “White” case as a Marion Police Department (MPD) case that “happened on Latourette St., far from the fair,” and while he would not comment extensively on an MPD case, he did note that Mr. White’s account “is not backed up by the dozens of witnesses that were there.”

The Ohio Attorney General’s opinion, OAG 2005-015, serves as a cornerstone for understanding the nuances of Ohio’s concealed carry laws. Under Ohio law, a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed handgun generally possesses the right to carry it almost anywhere in the state, provided they also carry their valid license and identification. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to specific, legally defined prohibitions. For instance, concealed handguns are strictly prohibited in sensitive locations such as police stations, sheriff’s offices, state correctional institutions, jails, airport passenger terminals, and within school safety zones. Other restricted areas include courthouses, any building or structure containing a courtroom, premises where liquor is being dispensed under a D permit (with specific conditions), and any property owned or leased by public or private colleges, universities, or other institutions of higher education (though a handgun may be in a locked motor vehicle or in the immediate process of being placed there). Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, or mosques, are also generally off-limits unless the specific institution posts or otherwise permits the carrying of concealed handguns. Child day-care centers, including type A, B, and C family day-care homes, prohibit concealed handguns, with an exception for licensees residing in the home carrying in parts not dedicated to day-care or when only their own children are present. Furthermore, federal law explicitly prohibits carrying handguns in certain designated federal facilities.

Crucially, OAG 2005-015 provides explicit clarification regarding county-owned or leased properties. It mandates that a board of county commissioners, or the designated officer in charge of a county-owned building or a leased portion of a building not owned by the state or a political subdivision, must conspicuously post a sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns within that specific building or leased portion, unless a person is otherwise authorized by the Revised Code. This requirement is not discretionary; it is a mandatory duty. Consequently, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun is expressly not permitted to carry it into a building owned or leased by a board of county commissioners. Violating this prohibition is a serious offense, constituting carrying concealed weapons, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and in certain aggravated circumstances, it can even be elevated to a felony of the third or fourth degree.

However, the OAG 2005-015 opinion draws a clear and significant distinction: a board of county commissioners cannot prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun on property that is not within a building. This limitation stems from the precise language used by the General Assembly in the Revised Code. When granting county entities the power to ban concealed handguns, the legislature specifically used the term “building,” which commonly denotes an enclosed structure. In contrast, when addressing the authority of private property owners to prohibit firearms, the General Assembly used broader terms like “land” or “premises.” This deliberate choice of language indicates that the legislative intent was not to grant county commissioners the authority to ban concealed handguns in open, outdoor areas. Moreover, the opinion clarifies that merely charging an admission fee for an event held on property not within a building does not confer upon the county commissioners the authority to prohibit concealed handguns on that property.

This legal interpretation, which Sheriff Bayles’s response directly affirms, is particularly pertinent to incidents occurring in open, public spaces such as fireworks displays or the expansive grounds of a county fair. It highlights that while private property owners retain the right to post signs prohibiting firearms, thereby making violation a criminal trespass, this authority does not extend to county commissioners for areas outside of enclosed buildings. It is important to note that the Marion Ohio County Fair has a long-standing and truly excellent safety record, a testament to the diligent efforts of its organizers, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and other collaborating law enforcement agencies who work tirelessly to ensure a safe environment for all attendees. This record is maintained through careful planning, visible security presence, and adherence to established legal frameworks. The ongoing public concern, however, underscores the persistent need for clear, consistent communication and a deeper public understanding of firearm laws, alongside the critical role of law enforcement in upholding these regulations while simultaneously ensuring public safety and respecting the rights of citizens.

Timeline of Actual Events vs. Rumored Narrative

To provide a factual basis for understanding the incident referenced in the “Marion Crime Chronicles” post, we present a timeline based on the official Marion Police Department Case P2025-02543 report, contrasting it with the circulating rumors.

Rumored Events (Marion Crime Chronicles Facebook Post):

• An individual was accosted at the fireworks display.
• People “pulled guns” on the individual and forced him onto a motorcycle.
• A police officer witnessed the event.
• The police officer refused to take a report.
• The victim “got in trouble,” while the alleged perpetrators did not.
• The incident occurred at the fireworks.

Actual Events (Marion Police Department Case P2025-02543):

Incident Location: 400 Block of Latourette Street, Marion, OH 43302 (Not at the fairgrounds or fireworks display).

Primary Officer: Kegan Pelphrey (PD57)

Assistant Officers:

• 54- Greer, Hannah (PD54)
• 52 – Kelly, Ryan (PD52)
• 56 – Kent, Mason (PD56)
• 14 – Kindell, Mike (PD14)
• 60 – Mauldin, Matt (PD60)
• 53 – Scheff, Gavinn (PD53)
• 59-Starrs, Michael (PD59)
• 16- Reese, Dylan (PD16)
• 63-Doubikin, Bryon (PD63)
• 75- Mallory, Devon (PD75)
• 76-Sterner, Patrick (PD76)

Arrestee:

• WHITE, ADAM JAMES (Age 41, Male) – Arrested for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs (4511.19A1A).

Timeline:

• 07/04/25 22:04:15: Call received by Andrew Chidester (Call Taker) reporting a “Person W/Gun” at 400 Block Latourette St. Initial remarks indicate “PEOPLE POINTING GUNS AT EACHOTHER” and “PEOPLE FIGHTING.”
• 07/04/25 22:04:57: Officers PD53 (Scheff), PD75 (Mallory), PD76 (Sterner) dispatched.
• 07/04/25 22:05:05: Remarks added: “GROUP POF [PEOPLE POINTING GUNS AND FIGHTING].”
• 07/04/25 22:05:10: Remarks added: “ALMOST CRASHED A MOTORCYCLE.”
• 07/04/25 22:05:28: Remarks added: “CRASHED MOTORCYCLE.”
• 07/04/25 22:05:31: Remarks added: “NO ONE HAS FIRED YET.”
• 07/04/25 22:05:48 – 22:06:37: Multiple officers, including PD59 (Starrs), PD54 (Greer), PD57 (Pelphrey), PD14 (Kindell), and PD63 (Doubikin), are enroute.
• 07/04/25 22:07:22: Officers PD53 (Scheff), PD59 (Starrs), PD75 (Mallory), PD76 (Sterner) arrive on scene. PD60 (Mauldin) also arrives shortly after.
• 07/04/25 22:08:08: Officers PD56 (Kent) and PD57 (Pelphrey) arrive.
• 07/04/25 22:08:23: Additional caller reports being “SHOT AT ME AND RAN ME OVER ON MY BIKE.”
• 07/04/25 22:08:27: Another caller reports “SOMEONE GET PULLED OFF THE BIKE AND WAS THEN BEAT UP.”
• 07/04/25 22:09:02: Officer PD53 (Scheff) reports the male is “NOT BEING COOPERATIVE // WE ARE TRYING TO GET IT OUT OF HIM.”
• 07/04/25 22:09:36: Officer PD63 (Doubikin) arrives.
• 07/04/25 22:11:04: Officer PD54 (Greer) arrives.
• 07/04/25 22:11:12: Officer PD60 (Mauldin) reports “BLACK REVOLVER IS ALL WE ARE GETTING FROM HIM.”
• 07/04/25 22:20:13: Officer PD53 (Scheff) reports the male on scene is “INSISTING HE WAS DRIVING HIS DAD’S BIKE AND THAT’S HIM.”
• 07/04/25 22:21:21: Officer PD59 (Starrs) notes an “UNRELATED JUVENILE FIGHT THAT HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME // THAT IS WHERE OUR VIC GOT SPRAYED.”
• 07/04/25 22:28:44: Officer PD16 (Reese) arrives.
• 07/04/25 22:35:32: Officer PD57 (Pelphrey) requests a tow for the motorcycle.
• 07/04/25 22:55:23: Tow on scene.
• 07/04/25 22:56:16: Adam James White (Arrestee) is taken into custody by Officer PD53 (Scheff).
• 07/04/25 23:04:20: Adam James White is transported to MCCC (Marion County Correctional Center) by Officer PD57 (Pelphrey).
• 07/04/25 23:57:01: Disposition: Cleared by Arrest – Adult.
• 07/05/25 00:04: Public Narrative completed by Primary Officer Kegan Pelphrey.

Offense: Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs (4511.19A1A) – 1 Count.

Contrasting Narratives:

The official police report clearly demonstrates a significant disparity between the actual events and the narrative presented on the “Marion Crime Chronicles” Facebook page.

1. Location: The incident did not occur at the fireworks display, as implied by the Facebook post, but rather on Latourette Street, a considerable distance away. This geographical inaccuracy alone highlights a critical flaw in the social media account.
2. Police Response: Contrary to the claim that a police officer “refused to take reports,” the official timeline shows a rapid and extensive response from numerous Marion Police Department officers. Multiple units were dispatched within minutes of the initial call, arrived promptly, and actively engaged with the situation, gathering information from various callers and witnesses.
3. Action Taken: The assertion that the “victim got in trouble” while “alleged perpetrators” faced no repercussions is directly contradicted by the arrest of Adam James White for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs. The police report details the process of the arrest, transportation, and disposition, indicating that law enforcement did take action and pursue charges.
4. Witness Accounts: Sheriff Bayles’s statement that Mr. White’s story “is not backed up by the dozens of witnesses that were there” aligns with the police log, which indicates multiple callers providing varied and sometimes conflicting information, requiring officers to piece together the events. The log also notes the arrested individual’s lack of cooperation initially.

This comparison underscores the critical importance of verifying information, especially when shared on large social media platforms. Pages with significant public reach, such as “Marion Crime Chronicles,” bear a substantial responsibility to fact-check information before publishing it. Disseminating unverified or inaccurate accounts can lead to unnecessary public panic, foster distrust in local institutions, and create an environment of misinformation that is detrimental to community cohesion and effective law enforcement. Responsible reporting, whether by traditional media or social media pages, is paramount to maintaining an informed and calm public.