Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Cops disarmed and arrested OC'er, cops lose.

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Cops disarmed and arrested OC'er, cops lose.

    FUQ
    "...when the officer who disarmed him told him to get a lawyer, that’s exactly what he did."



    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cops-disarmed-arrested-man-open-carrying-now-theyre-going-pay-video/#axzz2mvd4HgV0
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-13-2013 at 12:42 PM. Reason: Fixed title
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Officers blamed the mistake on an outdated “cheat sheet” they use, in lieu of actually knowing the law they are charged to uphold.
    Of course they blame the "cheat sheet." If ever a case for not settling manifests itself that was the case. Another opportunity down the drain.

    Police Chief Pete Carey ordered an internal review and demanded that the cheat sheet be scrubbed until it was in compliance with the law.
    Uh, chief, how on earth are your minions to enforce the laws if they don't have a cheat sheet. Do you expect them to know the laws they are charged to enforce?

    Chief, you have bigger issues to deal with than a cheat sheet methinks.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    When the article says, "Police in the City of Colorado Springs were forced to pay $23,500," do they mean the officers themselves or the department? I hope it is the officers themselves. The more that officers have to dig into their own pockets, the more careful they will be to respect the rights of people they encounter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    When the article says, "Police in the City of Colorado Springs were forced to pay $23,500," do they mean the officers themselves or the department? I hope it is the officers themselves. The more that officers have to dig into their own pockets, the more careful they will be to respect the rights of people they encounter.
    More than likely, their union.
    Even if the check has their handwritten signature, the union will have reimbursed the officers.

    I'm just amazed that an officer Finally gave such good advice, although I'm sure it was unintentional.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Even if the union reimburses, more and more of these decisions will cause the unions to take a closer look at the portion they pay and even whether they pay. Behaviors that they will not pay for will be defined. Repeat payments may be denied, etc.

    Judgments against the officers will have a more positive effect than judgments against the departments.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Due to first hand knowledge in events of this type, the City, (ie. taxpayers) footed the bill. SVG and I had to drag Bellinghams finest into "lawsuit land" to get their attention. LEOs do not pay.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The LEOs in Alamogordo with found individually liable. That is why I asked. If anyone knows the citation for the case, we can look it up.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Being personally liable, doesn't necessarily mean it will come out of someone's personal pockets.

    If, for instance you are suing me because my SnickerDoodle shebanged your Whatzinator and I was found personally liable to you in the amount of Ten-thousand smackers, there's no point of law that would prevent my Nana from giving me 10,000 smackers to reimburse me. I'd be a lot more happier with a minimal award and having Officer Friendly perform community service (in my community where I could sit back on my recliner and watch, of course.)

    Even having the city/county/state financially responsible doesn't really "come out of the pocketbooks of the citizenry" it comes from funds that have been collected for that year. Either there's going to be a tax increase the next year or those funds will never again be available to the city/county/state. One might as well say any financial penalty for any corporation in the world "comes out of the pocketbooks of the customer" as that's where the money the corporation earns comes from.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    When the article says, "Police in the City of Colorado Springs were forced to pay $23,500," do they mean the officers themselves or the department? I hope it is the officers themselves. The more that officers have to dig into their own pockets, the more careful they will be to respect the rights of people they encounter.
    I thought that you didn't like people who won lawsuits against police ?

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I thought that you didn't like people who won lawsuits against police ?
    You thought wrong he has been clear on that. He may not agree with what constitutes a bad cop but he has always made it clear bad cops should be on the hook.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Due to first hand knowledge in events of this type, the City, (ie. taxpayers) footed the bill. SVG and I had to drag Bellinghams finest into "lawsuit land" to get their attention. LEOs do not pay.
    +1 And apparently our city isn't allowed into the insurance pool created by many cities of the states......we have our suspicions why.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I thought that you didn't like people who won lawsuits against police ?
    I never said any such thing. If you'd like to know my opinion, ask me like an adult, and I will answer you like an adult.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You thought wrong he has been clear on that. He may not agree with what constitutes a bad cop but he has always made it clear bad cops should be on the hook.
    Thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I just had a cop tell me what a law was (incorrectly) .. I told him he didn't know diddly and that he was violating the law.

    Then he said "what law says this" I told him I was not a teacher .... that he is responsible to know every law that is one the books, just like everyone else, so his ignorance is no excuse. So do something or piss off ... oddly, he pissed off.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Several defendants .... and the plaintiff settles for 23K .... that's not a settlement, its go-away money that any suit would be offered that passed a summary judgement portion of pre-trial.

    Don't settle for less than 40K/defendant ....

    I'm sure the guy had to pay lawyers fees (guessing 8K) so that now 15K ... is this income under IRS rules ? If so, now he's down to 10K.

    Ain't worth the 10K in effort really ....

    I let 10K in my pocket cases pass all the time ...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Several defendants .... and the plaintiff settles for 23K .... that's not a settlement, its go-away money that any suit would be offered that passed a summary judgement portion of pre-trial.

    Don't settle for less than 40K/defendant ....

    I'm sure the guy had to pay lawyers fees (guessing 8K) so that now 15K ... is this income under IRS rules ? If so, now he's down to 10K.

    Ain't worth the 10K in effort really ....

    I let 10K in my pocket cases pass all the time ...

    Under a USC 42 section 1983 litigation, the defendant is responsible for any and all attorney cost(s) hence the beauty of a 1983 litigation.

    In my opinion the best redress against any government agency is USC 42 section 1983..

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The best redress is the ending of the offending cop's career in LE. That mitigates any future litigation due to his nitwittery. Insurance companies like risk mitigation. Cop unions need to pay these insurance rates, not tax payers, if tax payers pay them that is.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The best redress is the ending of the offending cop's career in LE. That mitigates any future litigation due to his nitwittery. Insurance companies like risk mitigation. Cop unions need to pay these insurance rates, not tax payers, if tax payers pay them that is.
    We ended Officer Harless' career in Ohio!

    Oh...wait...no, we didn't. He belonged to a union.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The best redress is the ending of the offending cop's career in LE. That mitigates any future litigation due to his nitwittery. Insurance companies like risk mitigation. Cop unions need to pay these insurance rates, not tax payers, if tax payers pay them that is.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    We ended Officer Harless' career in Ohio!

    Oh...wait...no, we didn't. He belonged to a union.
    Good reasons to show why public unions are just plain wrong.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Regarding personal liability of cops, at least in Chicago and Ohio, cops are NOT indemnified for punitive damages. They own them PERSONALLY, as was the case in which Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD shot and unarmed, unresisting Michael Pleasance and lied about it. He was found liable for some portion of $3,000,000. He shot himself.

    That's why, in Chicago at least, civil suits against police are typically settled with obscene haste, regardless of how ludicrous they might seem.

    Of course paradoxically, they do seem to fight airtight cases against cops. Hence the civil judgment against the Chicago PD and Officer Anthony Abbate for the savage and cowardly beating of barmaid Carolina Obrycka. An added bonus was the finding in the case that the Chicago PD maintained a "blue wall of silence". Everybody KNEW it, now it's been confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction. I predict that it'll be a gift which keeps on giving...
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Regarding personal liability of cops, at least in Chicago and Ohio, cops are NOT indemnified for punitive damages. They own them PERSONALLY, as was the case in which Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD shot and unarmed, unresisting Michael Pleasance and lied about it. He was found liable for some portion of $3,000,000. He shot himself.

    That's why, in Chicago at least, civil suits against police are typically settled with obscene haste, regardless of how ludicrous they might seem.

    Of course paradoxically, they do seem to fight airtight cases against cops. Hence the civil judgment against the Chicago PD and Officer Anthony Abbate for the savage and cowardly beating of barmaid Carolina Obrycka. An added bonus was the finding in the case that the Chicago PD maintained a "blue wall of silence". Everybody KNEW it, now it's been confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction. I predict that it'll be a gift which keeps on giving...
    Good points.

    A recent conversation with a lawyer here in my state (who is suing the cops for an invasion of his rights) informed me although we do have some immunity in this state that if we prove they acted unconstitutionally they are not exempt from being personally liable.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good points.

    A recent conversation with a lawyer here in my state (who is suing the cops for an invasion of his rights) informed me although we do have some immunity in this state that if we prove they acted unconstitutionally they are not exempt from being personally liable.
    Gunner

    Read up on USC 42 section 1983

    The whole story is in that law..

    Best regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  23. #23
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    42 USC 1983 is the most quoted of the federal civil rights violation lawsuits; but it is just the first rung of a step ladder if you will

    42 USC 1983 alleges that a right violation took place
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ion+1983+Claim

    42 USC 1985 alleges that 2 or more acted in concert to deprive rights and allows suing every officer present and perhaps upper eshelon management if they knew the indecent was taking place
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Section_1985
    With respect to the discriminatory motive, a plaintiff must establish that a class-based or racially discriminatory motive lurks behind the conspiratorial activities.
    How about the class of lawfully armed citizens.

    42 USC 1986 allows a lawsuit against
    Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do
    So every official of an anti-second amendment jurisdiction can be sued, chief/sheriff, mayor, city/county attorney, city/county council.......

    Sue 'em all; let the courts sort 'em out!
    Last edited by F350; 12-13-2013 at 04:41 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Gunner

    Read up on USC 42 section 1983

    The whole story is in that law..

    Best regards

    CCJ
    Yes I have. But that is more useful in federal courts.

    Some times it is more beneficial to sue on the state level.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Several defendants .... and the plaintiff settles for 23K .... that's not a settlement, its go-away money that any suit would be offered that passed a summary judgement portion of pre-trial.
    Truth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •