• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Examiner.com: Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Please CLICK, SUBSCRIBE, and DIGG this news column to help spread the word!

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Alamogordo-police-pay-21000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

SNIP

As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today,the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater. This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia(see another settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in . . .
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Mike wrote:
...the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater...
That will get the message spread within the Alamogordo police department...
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
From the newspaper article on the case:

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?

TFred
Read the opinion - judge explains it.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
TFred wrote:
From the newspaper article on the case:

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?

TFred
Read the opinion - judge explains it.
Hmm... I read it through when it was first released, I thought he was explaining why those portions weren't in the summary judgement, not that they were denied altogether. I was under the impression that they would proceed to trial.

TFred
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Carondalet wrote:
What happens if one does not accept a settlement and takes this all the way?

Then one takes the risk of getting all, some, or none of what one is asking for. That is what settlement is about: eliminating the adverse risks of getting little or nothing, at the expense of giving up your shot at getting most orall.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
Statkowski wrote:
As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
That is rather irritating, but nothing says "I was wrong" quite like a five figure check...

Precisely. If wrongdoing is done, a five figure check from thewrongdoer is about the clearest admission of wrongdoing I can think of, in my book.

In my opinion, when someone admits a wrong or apologizes, that's nice but it's just words. But if they agree topay significantlyfor their mistakes, then the restitution isreally sincere.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

DanM wrote:
TFred wrote:
Statkowski wrote:
As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
That is rather irritating, but nothing says "I was wrong" quite like a five figure check...

Precisely. If wrongdoing is done, a five figure check from thewrongdoer is about the clearest admission of wrongdoing I can think of, in my book.

In my opinion, when someone admits a wrong or apologizes, that's nice but it's just words. But if they agree topay significantlyfor their mistakes, then the restitution isreally sincere.

I agree; Didn't M. Jackson settle? Who thinks he was guilty? It's not often that someone settles and people don't think they are guilty of whatever wrong doing was accused in the suit.

I do think it is important though, that these settlements are made public. The one thing a guy should do when settling his case is make sure of that. Otherwise no one knows how much it's costing to infringe on others rights.
 

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
From the newspaper article on the case:

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?

TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."
 

Jizzzle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
394
Location
Holloman AFB, , USA
imported post

Sup guys. Yes that's me. I am glad it's over. Well everything is over besides the media part of it. I did a newspaper interview on friday and a TV news interview this morning. They ask more questions than the defense lawyers..
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
imported post

flintlock tom wrote:
TFred wrote:
From the newspaper article on the case:

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?

TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."

Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

brboyer wrote:
flintlock tom wrote:
TFred wrote:
From the newspaper article on the case:

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?

TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."
Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
Yes, that is what I remember reading... so why is that part not continuing to trial?

TFred
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
Yes, that is what I remember reading... so why is that part not continuing to trial?

TFred
because they settled the case - all claims.
 

PaxMentis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
53
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon, USA
imported post

Jizzzle wrote:
Sup guys. Yes that's me. I am glad it's over. Well everything is over besides the media part of it. I did a newspaper interview on friday and a TV news interview this morning. They ask more questions than the defense lawyers..
Does the $21K cover the attorney fees?
 
Top