Arrogant Toledo Police

imported post

codename_47 wrote:

And, it might also serve a purpose sorta like an about-to-be-libeled person notifying a newspaper that the story they are about to run contains libelous information. AsI understand it,if the newspaperstill prints the libel despite good evidence provided on notice, itadds support to the libel suit.

IMHO, no. That has no bearingon anything. In a lawsuit, all that matters is if the other side did it or not. You have no duty to attempt to avoid having your rights violated.

It doesn't add support or damages to the libel suit. If it is libelous, then it is libelous, period. If you are damaged, you are damaged. Notifying them in advance doesn't make it any worse.

I could see a formal letter laying out all the legal points if one is going to OC in an area where maybe police don't know better.

One, it gives the cops a chance to come up to speed and saves the possible legal expenses of a lawsuit, or worse a trumped up charge.


IMHO, the formal letter is already written. Just send them a copy of the constitution and hilight the 4th, 14th, and 2nd amendments.



If the cops are going to trump up the charges, they are going to do it, letter or no letter. That's like telling them "I am going to sue you" when they are illegally searching you or whatever. They are still going to do it.

Click to expand...

I understand.

I don't know enough about federal civil rights lawsuits to discuss further on a letter helping a lawsuit. Maybe it helps establish that they knew they were in the wrong, cancelling a good-faith exception or something. I just don't know. Maybe a lawyer like Adamesq or Gunslinger can chime in.

With regard to savinglegal expense, I can see some potential OCers not having enough money to risk legal expenses. I was thinking a letter more as an option for them. If we stop and think about it, we've heard stories about how a perfectly legal activity can be twisted by a DA and the cops. Just ask Legba. He fought it, and is still stuck with restrictions.

imported post

Good faith is no defense to a 1983 claim. Good faith relates to the exclusionary rule, not 1983 defenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[64] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[65] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[66] and state laws requiring pre-suit notification prior to initiating an action against the state or its subdivisions similarly do not apply.[67] Therefore, local governments are left in the unique and unhappy situation of being subject to suit without the benefit of any form of immunity.

http://www.lawmdr.com/docs/42_USC_1983.pdf

Here's an appeals case on a 1983 claim:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041969P.pdf

The key thing that I think you are getting at is Qualified immunity, which the officer MAY have, but in a lot of these cases, it is pretty clear that they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

[ A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law.

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

In an OC perspective, cases where you have officers saying "yeah, OC is legal, but..." are pretty much erasing their main defense to a 1983 suit and qualified immunity.

Further, you or I saying case XYZ allows this or that is irrelevant. Qualified immunity rests on the laws in place and court decisions.

It is a 2 prong test:

1. was the act a constitutional violation?

2. Would a reasonable person have known that the actions taken violated clearly established laws.

The clearly established bit can get a bit murky.

imported post

Combat Veteran wrote:

I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. I was switched to different offices 3 times and finally talked to a member of the Operations Division whereupon I was informed that police would arrest me, and that court costs and legal fees would be quite expensive,and could I afford the arrest record, and all the expenses, and is it worth all that troubleto be a "vigilante."

Hmm, such is the mind set of our Toledo Police.:banghead:

Click to expand...

Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.

Click to expand...

Yup. Same goes for asking people you know.

Advice is worth what you paid for it.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Mike wrote:

Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.

Click to expand...

Yup. Same goes for asking people you know.

Advice is worth what you paid for it.

Click to expand...

+10

Just for kicks I asked the (5 by 5 BOTH WAYS) gate guard on base how I should go about bringing my firearm on base.

She promptly responded, "You CANNOT bring a Gun on Base, are you crazy"?

Mind you the sign that informs civilians HOW to bring their firearms on base to go to the PUBLIC RANGEis about :

10 FEET IN FRONT OF HER !!!

ROFL !

Unloaded and Seperate in the Vehicle.

So instead of educating the LE Officer, I let her remain ignorant and just drove off.

imported post

While I agree with almost everything you said I do have a small issue with this part:

LEO 229 wrote:

It does have the tone of... since there are no cops I am going to go out armed and take up the slack.

Click to expand...

I think this part implies a belief that citizens shouldn't be increasing their open carry as the number of police decreases. I realize it is not the job of regular citizens to act as police but openly carrying a firearm for the safety of the general public is a right and responsibility that should be more common, and viewed as a good thing by the public and law enforcement. Indeed, we should hope and pray that when there are less LEO's around because of budget issue there are as many good citizens as possible willing to open carry and take up the slack by acting as "general deterrents to crime" through their mere presence.

So, basically I agree that you are right that what he was doing and the way he was doing it (when calling the police) was COMPLETELY the wrong way to do things, but I think this particular sentence implies that OC is wrong for the purpose of taking up the slack, which is actually one of the best reasons to OC.

imported post

arentol wrote:

While I agree with almost everything you said I do have a small issue with this part:

LEO 229 wrote:

It does have the tone of... since there are no cops I am going to go out armed and take up the slack.

Click to expand...

I think this part implies a belief that citizens shouldn't be increasing their open carry as the number of police decreases. I realize it is not the job of regular citizens to act as police but openly carrying a firearm for the safety of the general public is a right and responsibility that should be more common, and viewed as a good thing by the public and law enforcement. Indeed, we should hope and pray that when there are less LEO's around because of budget issue there are as many good citizens as possible willing to open carry and take up the slack by acting as "general deterrents to crime" through their mere presence.

So, basically I agree that you are right that what he was doing and the way he was doing it (when calling the police) was COMPLETELY the wrong way to do things, but I think this particular sentence implies that OC is wrong for the purpose of taking up the slack, which is actually one of the best reasons to OC.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my meaning.

Sure, people should be armed if they are comfortable with it. Especially if there is a lack of police to deter crime.

What I meant was he was going to go out and, in a way, play cop since there were less of them. That is where "take up the slack" came into play. He would do the work of the missing cops.

I hope this clears things up for you.

imported post

I was harrassed for open carrying at a restaurant by the police. The next day, I found out from the restaurant that there were very apologetic about it, they did not call the police, I was more than welcome to come back.

If that is the case, and you really felt harassed, you should be suing them. They'll get the picture and leave you alone after that.


The next Sunday we planned an open carry luncheon there. Since I had contacted the Chief of Police already regarding the illegal behavior of his officer, I notified the Chief of Police that a group of us were specifically invited to return the restaurant and that we would be having a luncheon there with our firearms.
Why even bother? The chief doesn't care. Just sue them.

imported post

Combat Vet:

I understood your telephone call to Toledo Police to be a sort of courtesy call so that they would not waste resources on a MWAG call.

Don't worry about the tough crowd around here. I'm not sure which creates more anger, the proofreading error or calling the police before exercising your right to bear arms.

Thanks for your service.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

imported post

Actually LEO, I completely understood your meaning, as you intended it. I just ALSO recognized that what you are saying shows an attitude that private citizens shouldn't go out with the intent to "take up the slack" when in FACT they should, at least in regard to discouraging violent crime via open carry.

For instance, if a county has to cut their sheriff force in half it would be a REALLY good idea if the number of armed citizens increased significantly to make sure criminals don't start coming to the county thinking people there are an easy mark.

So citizens shouldn't just be armed just because they WANT to, they should also take it upon themselves to be armed for the express purpose of deterring crime as a response to a decrease in law enforcement coverage. This concept (more or less) was even espoused by a county commissioner in WA as a response to a decrease in sheriffs deputies in his county...

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/apr/10/sheldon-to-criminals-mason-county-residents-have/?story_detail_north-mason=1

I agree the WAY the guy approached the police could be interpreted to indicate an intent to be a vigilante, but similarly your statement could be interpreted to indicate nobody should go out with the intent to discourage crime as a response to decreased LEO presence.

imported post

I apologize for sending input to the forum at such a late hour that night and misspelling "EXERCIZE." For that, I deserve the shots that came my way.:lol: Please read the article in our news paper quoting what Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said pertaining to the home invasion and murder of the mother of one of Toledo's police officers. = www.toledoblade.com The headline reads: Bold Attack Worries Police. (Thursday,May 7, 2009) Please read it a.s.a.p. as the site changes news headlines.

Quote: "I can tell you what the officers are telling me, it appears that the thugs, the criminals, have taken on a more brazen, arrogant, cocky attitude," Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said. .....They almost think that they can dothings now that they couldn't do before, ------ there has been a lot happening lately."

imported post

Combat Veteran wrote:

"I can tell you what the officers are telling me, it appears that the thugs, the criminals, have taken on a more brazen, arrogant, cocky attitude," Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said. .....They almost think that they can dothings now that they couldn't do before, ------ there has been a lot happening lately."

Click to expand...

...therefore the citizens should set themselves apart in every instance.

Don't act brazen, cocky, arrogant, or with any other negative and/or self-righteous attitude.

Ask - don't tell - the cops what you can do to assist in your community. That lets them know you're on *their* side and interested in information on what you can do *within the law*.

If you don't like the law, that's a matter you take up with your lawmakers. Cops don't like a lot of the laws, either. They'd like to help you change them *properly*. Talk about it.

Join a "ride along" program in your area if it is available (and no, you won't be permitted to carry along - you'll just be permitted to ride along). Ride-alongs afford great community and LE insight and personal conversation, and let them get to know you personally and vice versa.

imported post

Pamiam wrote:

Combat Veteran wrote:

"I can tell you what the officers are telling me, it appears that the thugs, the criminals, have taken on a more brazen, arrogant, cocky attitude," Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said. .....They almost think that they can dothings now that they couldn't do before, ------ there has been a lot happening lately."

Click to expand...

...therefore the citizens should set themselves apart in every instance.

Don't act brazen, cocky, arrogant, or with any other negative and/or self-righteous attitude.

Ask - don't tell - the cops what you can do to assist in your community. That lets them know you're on *their* side and interested in information on what you can do *within the law*.

If you don't like the law, that's a matter you take up with your lawmakers. Cops don't like a lot of the laws, either. They'd like to help you change them *properly*. Talk about it.

Join a "ride along" program in your area if it is available (and no, you won't be permitted to carry along - you'll just be permitted to ride along). Ride-alongs afford great community and LE insight and personal conversation, and let them get to know you personally and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Open carry is completely lawful in Ohio. Toledo CANNOT, I say again, CANNOT pass a law banning it, nor any other gun control laws. That's STATE law. Police cannot harass you for open carry in Ohio without exposing themselves to lawsuit.

I wouldn't have called the cops to tell them I'm open carrying, any more than I'd call them to tell them I'm wearing an NRA ballcap. The simple fact is that what they think about it is totally irrelevant. It's lawful and that's that. They can like it or they can lump it. Lump it the wrong way and they and their families could be doing it from inside of a refrigerator carton, under a bridge.

You don't need "permission" to open carry in Ohio.