Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 'Altoona man files suit against officers.' LeaderTelegram.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-...id=BIEL689EGSD

    Altoona man files suit against officers


    By Christena T. O'Brien Leader-Telegram staff An Altoona man who was jailed after police smashed down the door of his home over the 2006 Thanksgiving holiday is suing four police officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligence and defamation.

    Arthur J. Thompson, 6461 Surrey Lane, has filed a civil lawsuit in Eau Claire County, which names two Eau Claire Police Department officers, the city of Eau Claire, two Eau Claire County Sheriff's Department deputies and Eau Claire County as defendants.

    Thompson, who is seeking an unspecified amount of damages, filed a notice of claim with the city and county prior to filing suit, but neither city or county officials acted on the claim, City Attorney Stephen Nick and Eau Claire County Corporation Counsel Keith Zehms said. The suit has been referred to the city's and county's insurance carriers for defense.

    According to Thompson's complaint:
    He and Patti Gosnell were relaxing at their home on the evening of Nov. 22 in anticipation of the Thanksgiving holiday when police officers smashed in the door of the residence with their guns drawn and pointed at the couple and a minor child. Thompson was taken to the ground and handcuffed.

    Thompson asked an officer why police were in his home looking for firearms, and the officer said Thompson was a convicted felon.

    Earlier in the day, the officer had been advised by another officer that Thompson was a convicted felon who had pawned a firearm at National Pawn and then later redeemed the gun in question, violating the law.

    While officers were at his home, Thompson told an officer he was not a convicted felon and that his gun wouldn't have been returned to him if he was.

    Officers seized two rifles at Thompson's residence and transported him to the Eau Claire County Jail, where he was detained until Nov. 24, the day after Thanksgiving.

    Thompson claims he was arrested without probable cause, and police either knew or should have known the facts didn't justify his arrest by a check of records contained at the Eau Claire County Courthouse, where the Police Department is housed, or on the Wisconsin Circuit Court Web site.

    O'Brien can be reached at 830-5838, 800-236-7077 or christena.obrien@ecpc.com.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    In this day, all it takes is for some bozo to call the police and tell them lies, and then the police come to your house and sieze all your guns. Then your defenseless and now it costs you money to get your guns back. The state gets its jollies from disarming people, honest or not.

    It's complete bull$hit.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    That's why you make sure it costs them a lot of money.

    See: Danladi Moore; Chet Szymecki. Check the Virginia section here.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    5$ says somehow they're going to come up with a BS reason why what they did was OK...

    ETA: EVERY officer on that raid should be fired, and held personally accountable.... lets not make the taxpayers foot the bill...
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    After seeing some of the BS my family members and their friendswent through (LEOs) I had, for quite some time, supported the legal protections for LEOs against civil suits. I now know how naive that is; if LEOs were toactually live the situation that we face every day (I may get arrested and railroaded on a trumped-up charge), they may be more prudent in their actions against their fellow citizens.

    I'm sure that "all departmental policies were followed" in this case, and while the cops should be all be fired and criminally charged, they won't be. I love how in this country a soldier is responsible for following illegal orders, and they have no specific legal training. Cops can do whatever the **** they want and they're always shielded by "department policies," even illegal ones.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    EVERY officer on that raid should be fired, and held personally accountable.... lets not make the taxpayers foot the bill...
    I disagree with taxpayers not footing the bill. Eventually, at least in theory, taxpayers will tire of bailing out public servants who commit offenses under color of law and stop supporting such miscarriages of justice. Having the general populace of taxpayers on the side of freedom would be a powerful alliance, would it not?

    I'm a strong believer in allowing the market to adjust to the needs. In this case chipping away at the support for unlawful actions by pubic servants that impinge upon the rights of citizens in order to further the cause of freedom by allowing taxpayers to shoulder the burden. If indeed the taxpayers have elected to shield the perpetrators from the consequences.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Don't even try to apply logic to law enforcement operations. In my opinion law enforcement is a excess of pent up adrenaline that is just waiting for an opportunuty to vent itself. When it does, emotion overpowers reason and commmon sense. Remember about a year ago when eight swat cops broke into a wrong house in Minneapolis, in the middle of the life. Being in a crime neighborhood the homeowner feared his family was being attacked and open fired on the cops. The cops returned around 30 shots at the homeowner who was only protecting his family. When all was straightened out and it was determined that the cops had indeed stormed the wrong house the city decided it would not press charges against the homeowner (very nice of the city don't you think)? A few months later the eight cops that "screwed up" received commendations and medals from the Chief of Police who said he was "proud of my men" and also said his men showed extreme courage and restraint while under fire. Don't even try to comprehend the logic and mind set of city government and law enforcement.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    cccook wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    EVERY officer on that raid should be fired, and held personally accountable.... lets not make the taxpayers foot the bill...
    I disagree with taxpayers not footing the bill. Eventually, at least in theory, taxpayers will tire of bailing out public servants who commit offenses under color of law and stop supporting such miscarriages of justice. Having the general populace of taxpayers on the side of freedom would be a powerful alliance, would it not?

    I'm a strong believer in allowing the market to adjust to the needs. In this case chipping away at the support for unlawful actions by pubic servants that impinge upon the rights of citizens in order to further the cause of freedom by allowing taxpayers to shoulder the burden. If indeed the taxpayers have elected to shield the perpetrators from the consequences.
    It's not a market. It's government, the anti-market. A police force is a forced government monopoly. If the taxpayers were able to shop around for a better police department, than this might make sense. As it is, the taxpayer gets hosed regardless of who sues who, so it's all academic.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    For some reason this is making me think of Shadowrun, with police forces contracted with the city....
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's not a market. It's government, the anti-market. A police force is a forced government monopoly. If the taxpayers were able to shop around for a better police department, than this might make sense. As it is, the taxpayer gets hosed regardless of who sues who, so it's all academic.

    You're right, it's not a market. In my analogy however, the currency of the taxpayers is their votes. I was implying that the taxpayers can shop around by voting out the offending Chief of Police, Sheriff or city council member and vote in leaders who better reflect the ideals of the community (i.e. protect individual rights) so that such infractions can be avoided in the future.

    Likewise, if the community has voted for or otherwise allowed for offenders to be shielded, they/we should bear the burden of such protection of misdeeds. Once the taxpayers tire of financially supporting bad behavior in their LEA they can and should change or remove the ordinances, laws or policiesenabling such behavior.

    It is incumbent upon the taxpayers to be proactive to defend against getting hosed. Still I understand your sentiment.

    I didn't mean to disagree with TechnoWeenie. If citizens can seek redress against the offenders without involving taxpayers then that would be ideal.


  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    how hard is it for the cops to run his name and birth date and see if he indeed was a felon.

    something is really missing to this story. no cop is going to lockup someone on a felon in possession charge solely on the word of some random stranger, especially when the felon part can be checked very easily.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    cccook wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's not a market. It's government, the anti-market. A police force is a forced government monopoly. If the taxpayers were able to shop around for a better police department, than this might make sense. As it is, the taxpayer gets hosed regardless of who sues who, so it's all academic.

    You're right, it's not a market. In my analogy however, the currency of the taxpayers is their votes. I was implying that the taxpayers can shop around by voting out the offending Chief of Police, Sheriff or city council member and vote in leaders who better reflect the ideals of the community (i.e. protect individual rights) so that such infractions can be avoided in the future.
    That's just a version of the "we're still free because we can vote" fallacy. It's like saying you have to buy shoes from one company, and only one company, every month whether you need new shoes or not, and your only choice is to vote for new company officers every few years.



  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    That's just a version of the "we're still free because we can vote" fallacy. It's like saying you have to buy shoes from one company, and only one company, every month whether you need new shoes or not, and your only choice is to vote for new company officers every few years.
    So I understand that there is only one shoe company to buy from (one municipality or PD). Can I not vote for new company officers that would support legislation to allow me to buy shoes when I choose (CoP that would train LEOs to respect the rights of the individual and punish those who violate individual rights)?

    I'm not saying this is a perfect solution. But what am I missing? What other options do you suggest? I mean, what are you telling me?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    cccook wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    That's just a version of the "we're still free because we can vote" fallacy. It's like saying you have to buy shoes from one company, and only one company, every month whether you need new shoes or not, and your only choice is to vote for new company officers every few years.
    So I understand that there is only one shoe company to buy from (one municipality or PD). Can I not vote for new company officers that would support legislation to allow me to buy shoes when I choose (CoP that would train LEOs to respect the rights of the individual and punish those who violate individual rights)?

    I'm not saying this is a perfect solution. But what am I missing? What other options do you suggest? I mean, what are you telling me?
    At the risk of blowing the ship further off topic, I'm talking about the government's monopoly on the use of force. Free people would be able to reject a police department, or even the government itself,and find some other means of securing their liberties. All hypothetical at this point.

    Relevance to your original post: the taxpayers have no real choice. They can vote for another police chief, if it's an elected office, or for a new police chief's boss, if it's not, but that is usually ineffective at instituting real change in the actions and attitudes of the PD. You commented that taxpayers should be punished for not choosing a better PD chief, but the taxpayer really doesn't have that kind of direct control. And the taxpayer who didn't vote for the current goon doesn't deserve to pay anything at all.

    Group punishment may work in kindergarten and boot camp, but it's not just treatment of free citizens. Tax the bad cop, not the taxpayers.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobsons_choice

    Hobson's choice is different from:
    • a true choice between two (or more) options,
    • blackmail (Have something rendered a way you do not want),
    • extortion (do something or suffer unpleasant consequences of some other sort),
    • a False dilemma situation (only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options),
    • a Catch-22 or Morton's Fork situation (all choices yield equivalent, often undesirable results).

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    I wonder where this case went.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    I wonder where this case went.
    Here you go!

    http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails...1&offset=0
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    So much for a "speedy trial" and the ability to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" [in a timely manner, at least]. I applaud him for taking the plunge and bringing a suit against the state.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I thought that the trial date was a bit odd to say the least.
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

Posting Permissions

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