Ironically it wasn't even an issue with "trailblazing" or demonstrating, I didnt' find this group till after the incident while researching my course of action in defending the initial bogus charge. I had been OCing in that manner for years, even at the same establishment before (and even the night of the Aurora shooting). The decision to go to the movie that night was simply because I refused to let James Egan Holmes win and infuse terror and fear in changing my life and how I go about it. Certainly had I or anyone of similar makeup and median skill been on hand 70 people wouldn't have gotten shot, perhaps even none of them depending on how quickly he was brought under fire after the initial shot while he was tossing his smoke bombs. For that reason anyone saying it was "dumb" to bring a firearm with me is just assininely stupid - whether an unrelated incident or a copycat, an armed person willing to resist has in every case we've seen shortened the killing by the madman (Arapahoe HS, Clackamas Mall, OR, or recently Santa Barbara, CA; there are several other mass murderers who took their own lives rather than face an armed person).
Quite simply "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Citizens get that snarky caveat from law enforcement constantly when written up for some odd ordinance. Well given that knowledge of the law would be proffessional job knowledge for a police officer that should cut doubly the other way. They alleged having a firearm in an alcohol serving establishment - to which I informed them at the scene that was legal in Colorado (I'd actually consulted a DA on this a couple years prior). They were dumbfounded at the station when they found I was speaking the truth, so then instead of taking my advice to return my firearm and let me go, they took a pre-empted municipal ordinance and alleged I "brandished or flourished a weapon in a manner calculated to cause alarm" when they in fact knew I had not. They released my name and photo to the press so fast it was on the news before I even got home from the station. I'd call that a clear intent to defame given that in Wheat Ridge and Lakewood there were shots fired incidents that same year (one in which an officer died) and after hours of standoff with the parties, the police arrested them and released no names, no photos at the time. I'd estimate that they let the DA sort out the evidence, and withheld stepping in dog crap for arresting a babysitter or other that was caught in the middle.
Had only the officers in charge that night at Thornton been that wise, but it was a liberal political viewpoint they were "enforcing" without support of law, unless you count the ridiculously liberal manner in how they applied "brandishing or flourishing" to apply to a holstered firearm. Its a liberal viewpoint that got the gun free zone (Holme's accomplice) at Aurora, kowtowing to that viewpoint only puts more people in jeopardy. As most know, executive branch doesn't make law, the legislature does. They cited an obscure statute called the "Too Soon" after Aurora law, of course they couldn't find it to cite it nor quote specifically what "too soon" was nor when it expired which brings the point - a cop's opinion isn't law as much as they may think it is.
As for the award, I agree its really not much of a deterrent to prevent someone else from going thru this again, which after it happened was the goal in bringing the suit as well as mitigating the financial risk I now bear in regards to employment or future employement seeking (not planning on leaving, but there are various factors that can be assigned probabilities that I might not make retirement such as health etc). In this I think the laws need updating, with Google, Yahoo etc and the persistence of stories like this, if one goes to find a job they are likely to be stymied at the resume process simply by the numbers of submitted resumes to an IBM or other similar sized organization which will cull those numbers down by any available criteria to arrive at a manageable number to interview. No HR clerk that Googles your name is going to read any farther than the headline before putting the resume aside. In that regard I'd estimate my chances of finding a position with similar pay and benefits is reduced between 40-60% and my lifetime earnings including retirement (based on 20 years of retirement by age of father and grandfather) from 2012 on would exceed $4 million averaged over the last 3 years (not to mention the eventual promotion that comes with a 20% increase to top of my craft, but bears risk of job loss at the time because of bias by some individuals involved with that process due to this case). Any reasonable person can see that such is a damage to the person though apparently the legal opinion seems to be you can't collect on "speculative damages".
I would disagree with that, the scope should be broader, as in defamation, loss of chance etc and I have talked to a couple of candidates who are running about addressing this in next year's session. If the police (or any party for that matter) take deliberate action to impune one's reputation with charges they know are unfounded they should be liable for possible damages in loss of chance/opportunity that can reasonably be anticipated by portion and proportion. In addition it (the civil rights charge) is in fact apparently a criminal statute - a prosecutor should be following up when this sort of thing happens and hold the government employees accountable - its the failure of this on all levels that is eroding the stability of our country as a whole. As for holding the indivudals responsible for the decision to make the arrest, that would have been my preference as that would prove a deterrent to future misconduct. The city appeared to blanket shield those involved and the specific roles of each officer was never fully defined as to who did what to whom. They had requested that we drop some of them from the suit, and the issue was they never provided concrete information to allow us to narrow it down, that phase was upcoming and due to the legal expense involved had pressure on certain parties.
Its a settlement, its not satisfaction; nor is it appropriate reparations for longterm harm done. While I certainly don't want to have the hassle of such in the future, if the shark should bite again there will be no wriggling off the hook as I'll make sure that however its brought that its brought for justice and not problem resolution/damage control in the cities' favor.
Because honestly, overall they won. Cities are paying out paltry settlement amounts like this all over the place - it doesn't deter them (Longmont, Colorado Springs and there are plenty of others). When it starts becoming hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars for the wreckless use of authority and disregard for the damage to innocent people then perhaps we'll see some change. On an individual basis for some of the officers involved there may have been some accountability, but Thornton was totally opaque on this - the Sgt. and one officer are no longer with the force, but no reason why was provided.
