-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Federal Civil Rights suit filed in Michigan over 'open-carry' ordinance
- Thread starter ruralresident
- Start date
dlofton
Regular Member
imported post
"Any decision made in lower federal courts will eventually come before the supreme court."
This statement is simply not true. Less than 1% of rulings by inferior federal courts are ever seen or come before the Supreme Court. Please cite your sources that shows were "any decision" a lower court makes is eventually made before the Supreme Court. For the purpose of full disclosure, only a few hundred rulings a year ever reach the Supreme Court.
David
"Any decision made in lower federal courts will eventually come before the supreme court."
This statement is simply not true. Less than 1% of rulings by inferior federal courts are ever seen or come before the Supreme Court. Please cite your sources that shows were "any decision" a lower court makes is eventually made before the Supreme Court. For the purpose of full disclosure, only a few hundred rulings a year ever reach the Supreme Court.
David
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
Read the complaint filed in this case here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25793&forum_id=30&jump_to=428464#p428464
Read the complaint filed in this case here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25793&forum_id=30&jump_to=428464#p428464
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Here is a case where a police officer is expected to know clearly established law.
Take a look at the second to last paragraph on page 7...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
SORRELL v. MCGUIGAN
Here is a case where a police officer is expected to know clearly established law.
Take a look at the second to last paragraph on page 7...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
DrTodd wrote:
Like I said, it's going to be hard to get implied immunity when it had been all over the news on TV just a month before, and there is already a Appellate Court ruling on it. While it's possible that the individual officers were unaware that the ordinance was unenforceable, that doesn't get them off for the fact that they should have known. Hasting's got a lot of press. It was on three different networks, and OC had already been in two different Legal Updates.
DrTodd wrote:
Thanks for the link. Good read.
Like I said, it's going to be hard to get implied immunity when it had been all over the news on TV just a month before, and there is already a Appellate Court ruling on it. While it's possible that the individual officers were unaware that the ordinance was unenforceable, that doesn't get them off for the fact that they should have known. Hasting's got a lot of press. It was on three different networks, and OC had already been in two different Legal Updates.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Even of the trial court finds quaklified immunity in this case, the court "should" announce what the law is so that future instances of this abuse of power do not qualifiy. i say should because the S. Ct. made this "announce" step optional in Pearson v. Callahan a few months ago, unfortunately.
Even of the trial court finds quaklified immunity in this case, the court "should" announce what the law is so that future instances of this abuse of power do not qualifiy. i say should because the S. Ct. made this "announce" step optional in Pearson v. Callahan a few months ago, unfortunately.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
If the John Bad Elk approach were to be implemented, reckon THAT would speed up the process of getting the word out amongst the "law enforcement" community?
If the John Bad Elk approach were to be implemented, reckon THAT would speed up the process of getting the word out amongst the "law enforcement" community?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I'm traveling. Colonel George Kenneth Webb died within an hour of my goodbyes.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And their apologists too.
I'm traveling. Colonel George Kenneth Webb died within an hour of my goodbyes.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
DrTodd wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Very interesting. Do you have any information about the final outcome? The opinion affirmed the denial of McGuigan's immunity, but I'd like to know what, if any, judgement Sorrell got after it was decided that the officer wasn't immune.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
DanM wrote:
Amen brother! I could not have said it better my self! ooh plus they treated him like crap I am sure that is not the SOP for law enforcement. It is suppose to be To Protect, & to Serve! Not...To Push & To Shove! I hope these police officers loose their jobs, I hope they reprimand the Supervisor of these officers, & I hope the Prosecutor looses his reelection.
[align=left]McGuigan suggests that a reasonable police officer would not necessarily[/align]
[align=left]know specific Maryland cases on penknives. However, a reasonable[/align]
[align=left]officer is presumed to know clearly established law. See[/align]
[align=left]Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("[A] reasonably competent public official[/align]
should know the law governing his conduct.").
DanM wrote:
Amen brother! I could not have said it better my self! ooh plus they treated him like crap I am sure that is not the SOP for law enforcement. It is suppose to be To Protect, & to Serve! Not...To Push & To Shove! I hope these police officers loose their jobs, I hope they reprimand the Supervisor of these officers, & I hope the Prosecutor looses his reelection.
[align=left]McGuigan suggests that a reasonable police officer would not necessarily[/align]
[align=left]know specific Maryland cases on penknives. However, a reasonable[/align]
[align=left]officer is presumed to know clearly established law. See[/align]
[align=left]Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("[A] reasonably competent public official[/align]
should know the law governing his conduct.").
Lisa Gayle Sikes
New member
imported post
May 20, 2009
If I were Christopher Fetters of Michigan and I got my gun taken away and harrassed by the locals I would eat them for lunch and take this as far as it can possibly go!
Lisa Gayle Sikes
of Austin, Texas
May 20, 2009
If I were Christopher Fetters of Michigan and I got my gun taken away and harrassed by the locals I would eat them for lunch and take this as far as it can possibly go!
Lisa Gayle Sikes
of Austin, Texas
p8ntgames
Regular Member
imported post
DarKRaceR
Regular Member
imported post
Lisa Gayle Sikes wrote:
Lisa Gayle Sikes wrote:
Lthrnck
Regular Member
imported post
Can't they get their story straight?
Early in the article they say....
People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, a department official said.
But later they say....
"No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest," Dulan stated in the announcement of the suit on Tuesday.
So if no allegations were made, where did the SEVERAL verbal complaints come from, and why was he stopped and his gun taken?
Just food for thought.
Can't they get their story straight?
Early in the article they say....
People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, a department official said.
But later they say....
"No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest," Dulan stated in the announcement of the suit on Tuesday.
So if no allegations were made, where did the SEVERAL verbal complaints come from, and why was he stopped and his gun taken?
Just food for thought.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Ignorance is no excuse... Cute.
So, how does this absolve those ignorant persons who created this ordinance?
Such ordinance being instructive by nature to a Police Officer.
Sue the city, every individual still alive who may have caused it to come into effect, and those currently enforcing it.
Why doesn't anyone ever suggest placing the names of the legislators who create the ordinance on the lawsuit? It is, after all, at the root of the matter. And ignorance (or perhaps arrogance) is still no excuse...
Ignorance is no excuse... Cute.
So, how does this absolve those ignorant persons who created this ordinance?
Such ordinance being instructive by nature to a Police Officer.
Sue the city, every individual still alive who may have caused it to come into effect, and those currently enforcing it.
Why doesn't anyone ever suggest placing the names of the legislators who create the ordinance on the lawsuit? It is, after all, at the root of the matter. And ignorance (or perhaps arrogance) is still no excuse...
DarKRaceR
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Yes, that is very true, hold the ones who are the originators of the problem accountable as well.
Anthony_I_Am
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting.
Anthony_I_Am
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for the link. Good read.
Thanks for the link. Good read.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
imported post
see also st. john v alamagordo, pretty much the same thing, the cops lost quallified immunity,
sueing a city sends an important message,
but sueing the "bonds" of the actual officers could have a giant effect on the other officers future actions.
the alamagordo officers eventually settled out of court for 21,000$ !
see also st. john v alamagordo, pretty much the same thing, the cops lost quallified immunity,
sueing a city sends an important message,
but sueing the "bonds" of the actual officers could have a giant effect on the other officers future actions.
the alamagordo officers eventually settled out of court for 21,000$ !
ridgerunner98570
Regular Member
imported post
Lthrnck wrote:
The officers then took it upon themselves to decide that he was dangerous and was violating the law. They were wrong on both counts and that is why the lawsuit.
Lthrnck wrote:
The difference is, No allegations were made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace. There is a difference between someone complaining to the police that you have a gun, and your threatening them with one. You don't have to have been doing anything for someone to lodge a complaint.
The officers then took it upon themselves to decide that he was dangerous and was violating the law. They were wrong on both counts and that is why the lawsuit.