• 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.

Holy ****!

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I am fully aware of how my rights were violated. I also know that I have a good lawsuit were I to pursue it. However, I have been working with the deputy chief and the city attorney.

I'd rather we fix things than I get a payday. .
Ok, then how about you sue and send me the settlement?
 

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
Sounds like quite the fantastic tale. No proof that any of this actually happened im assuming?
 

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
He then asked the fateful question: "Why are you carrying that?" gesturing to my pistol.
I had prepared for this moment, so I knew to appear to cooperate, while not really saying anything. So, I replied, "It's legal, isn't it?"

Bingo.

Its such a simple answer and I love it.

In my opinion, that's probably the best way to answer a question such as that with another question that puts the ball back on their side of the court. Let them give answers and if its being recorded, some of those answers could very well go in your favor if your encounter ends up bringing both parties into court. Why should one even feel a need to explain that its for self protection or argue that public places can sometimes be dangerous.? That's not the issue at all. You shouldn't have to go on the defensive or give your personal reasoning as to why you choose to do something that is perfectly legal. The issue is that he can carry it by law and is carrying obviously because he chooses to. End of story.

I just hope that if I am stopped randomly or stopped for any lawful action such as my O.C. that I can be smooth enough to answer questions in such a way. When you have authorities breathing down your neck, even if you aren't doing anything wrong, it can be stressful.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
A comment was made that I would like to point out and discuss.

He said they have a duty to check you out. What ifhe doesn't check you out and you walk into Dilliards and kill an ex girlfriend, etc. Then it is on him for not at least checking you out.

I disagree that "Then it is on him". Since the Supreme Court ruled that police have NO duty to "protect" then they can't be held liable for not "at least checking you out"

It's ONLY an excuse to cover for them illegally stopping you and asking questions when they have no right.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A comment was made that I would like to point out and discuss.

I disagree that "Then it is on him". Since the Supreme Court ruled that police have NO duty to "protect" then they can't be held liable for not "at least checking you out"

It's ONLY an excuse to cover for them illegally stopping you and asking questions when they have no right.

The essence of the SC ruling was that the police, as an organization and as individuals, cannot be held civilly liable for failing to respond successfully to a call for help.

They still have a moral and policy duty to check out MWAG calls. However, the logic of their argument fails because "checking out" the MWAG does not mean stopping him (unless and until RAS of a crime exists). As I have told the MPD officers repeatedly, they have a duty to respond, not to detain. They can respond, observe the MWAG, determine that he is simply a LAC going about his business lawfully armed, and then move on to their next bit of business.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
The poster, I have to assume, meant that the police could be sued or found otherwise derelict in duty at the very least, by this comment.

Court case after court case has shown that's NOT the way it is.

Everything from 911 calls for help, to restraining orders not being enforced, An MWAG call is no more a "moral and policy duty" than a call from a woman being raped.

If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March 1975: two intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female housemate. After calling the police, Warren and another housemate took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer. The police officers left without checking the back door.
Warren again called the police and was told they would respond. Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the housemate, thus revealing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up all three women. "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual; acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of the intruders.

They sued the police department...AND LOST.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100702092616AAOXNCg

Given that, how is it "on him" for not checking you out?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...An MWAG call is no more a "moral and policy duty" than a call from a woman being raped...

Of course it is a moral and policy duty. That someone cannot sue for failure to respond does not mean it is moral not to respond. And every department following any kind of management procedures has a policy setting standards for responding and measuring how well those standards are being met.

It is important to know that police and departments cannot be held civilly liable for not responding. It is also important to know that, generally, there is no unwillingness to respond.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
With that idea then, you are giving them the excuse to check out EVERY OC'er, go to every MWAG call with guns drawn, to put 'em down in cuffs until they can determine that you are not a threat.

Right? It's their moral and policy duty.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
With that idea then, you are giving them the excuse to check out EVERY OC'er, go to every MWAG call with guns drawn, to put 'em down in cuffs until they can determine that you are not a threat.

Right? It's their moral and policy duty.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

They have a duty to RESPOND, not to DETAIN. This is not even a subtle distinction. It is the heart of the matter, and confusing RESPONDING with DETAINING is the legal mistake that LEOs keep making. Let us not make that error just to "win" an discussion.

When a citizen calls in a MWAG, and if the dispatcher is unable to determine immediately that no law is being broken, the police have a moral duty (and, likely, a policy duty) to RESPOND and check for RAS of a crime. They are absolutely prohibited by law from DETAINING the carrier unless and until they have that RAS.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

They have a duty to RESPOND, not to DETAIN. This is not even a subtle distinction. It is the heart of the matter, and confusing RESPONDING with DETAINING is the legal mistake that LEOs keep making. Let us not make that error just to "win" an discussion.

When a citizen calls in a MWAG, and if the dispatcher is unable to determine immediately that no law is being broken, the police have a moral duty (and, likely, a policy duty) to RESPOND and check for RAS of a crime. They are absolutely prohibited by law from DETAINING the carrier unless and until they have that RAS.

The problem is "a man with a gun" is completely legal everywhere in CO except Denver County. The dispatchers need to learn this and ask questions before sending the cops and wasting everyones time and taxpayers money. In other gun friendly states, it's the same situation. If someone phones in a bomb threat to a military base there is a protocol the person who receives the call follows: questions are asked to the extent the caller will answer. A list of questions for the dispatcher to ask the sheep who called in would be a good first step. If in doubt, ok send the cops, but if I'm walking down my street with a holstered pistol chatting with my neighbors and some Kalifornia subject drives by, let's make a distinction. The other benefit would be the PDR 'subject' would learn that some of us are citizens.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The problem is "a man with a gun" is completely legal everywhere in CO except Denver County. The dispatchers need to learn this and ask questions before sending the cops and wasting everyones time and taxpayers money. In other gun friendly states, it's the same situation. If someone phones in a bomb threat to a military base there is a protocol the person who receives the call follows: questions are asked to the extent the caller will answer. A list of questions for the dispatcher to ask the sheep who called in would be a good first step. If in doubt, ok send the cops, but if I'm walking down my street with a holstered pistol chatting with my neighbors and some Kalifornia subject drives by, let's make a distinction. The other benefit would be the PDR 'subject' would learn that some of us are citizens.

I agree. The dispatchers should be able to shortstop most MWAG calls. In time, the public should become accustomed to folks with guns. In the meanwhile, when the dispatcher sends the officer out, the officer needs to be trained that he may not stop a person simply for open carry where that action is lawful and unregulated (as it should be everywhere).
 
Top