imported post
paramedic70002 wrote:
I read over on defensivecarry.com that the guy was filing his suit Pro Se (no attorney) and how this could be dangerous for progunners (I agree). You know what they say about fools and their attorneys! I initially read about the case thru NRA so hopefully some attorney somewhere can hook up with the plaintiff.
...
I looked up the case (PACER wants the case number in the form, 7:09-525, by the way), and took a look at the docket sheet and filings.
My first thought was, "Oh, hell, another
pro-se case." My view, if I may be frank, is that
pro-se cases make for bad law. People who don't understand the rules of procedure and evidence, in particular, engineer themselves into horrible positions, which the Court will then enshrine as a precedent. This only makes things worse for everybody. Cops behave the way they do, in part, because they know what judges will let them get away with. So I was pretty discouraged when I saw the plaintiff was going his own way with it.
Then I read the complaint. I thought one paragraph (44) was excessively editorialized, and doesn't state a fact that the defendant can either admit or deny. And I wonderedhow the plaintiff intends to prove thathis allegationsregarding the city's police department having a policy or practice of unlawful dentention. Finally, I would have added state law claims for conversion, trespass to chattels, action for insulting words, and slander per se.
But overall, I thought the complaint was very well written, in proper form, and ought to be very effective. I can't wait to see the defendants' responses. Probably motions to dismiss. It looks to me like the plaintiff is an attorney, or has a good friend who is an attorney. Or else he's a really smart guy, a quick study, and knows how to do research.
I hope he's got some discovery ready to go out. Like, NOW. When you file in USDC, you're already behind the eight-ball with scheduling, so you'd best get your preliminary discovery ready before you even file suit.
It occurs to me that the cops involved, based on the facts stated in the complaint, are themselves criminally responsible, and ought to be indicted. First on the list: extortion, robbery, and grand larceny. When they took the plaintiff's personal property by use of threats, coercion, and physical violence (grabbing him and slapping handcuffs on him), that was both extortion and robbery. It's a felony, because taking personal property from the person of another valued in excess of five dollars is grand larceny. Then there arethe misdemeanors of disturbing the peace, assault and battery. I would also argue that, when they were off on their own personal mission of roughing up a gun owner, they weren't actually engaged in their duties as police officers, and are thus also guilty of the crime of impersonating police officers. But that one's a stretch.