• 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.

Policy on Police?

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Kind of a proposition/suggestion.

So far, we've had several successful lawsuits against Vigilante Cops. But how effective is it?

If we ask for as much as we can get, we're accused of trying to profit from it. The truth is, we'd like to make them hurt, because that kind of Cop doesn't listen to anything else, and is likely to be getting a host of unofficial attaboys from his brothers in anti-american hatred blue.

Instead of settling out of court for undisclosed lump sums, why not require the sum be paid one dollar at a time, weekly, until the full amount is paid, and a public apology for being a traitor to go with that immunity from any further prosecution?

The objective is to make him feel it and remember it. If the Department covers it in one day and forgets all about it... That kinda doesn't work...

To each their own... Conventional is rarely effective, so I thought I'd toss out an idea that would possibly be more effective at quelling this underground anti-citizen movement that some cops seem to be part of.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Settlements with confidentiality/nondisclosure clauses generally come about because one side has decided that it is more expedient to settle than to pay the costs of a dragged-out court case. With the government you can be sure it was not because they were worried about the costs involved.

Those whose rights were violated often settle because they are under the mistaken impression that doing so will set some sort of precedent that will keep the government from doing the same thing to anybody else. The worst-case scenario, IMNSHO, is the non-consent decree, AKA "I did not do it and I promise never to do it again."

Heck, if I could get a court ruling that sets precedent in the jurisdiction, I'd gladly accept $1.00 (One Dollar) plus costs. It's not the money, which is to compensate me for the violation of my rights and/or to punish the person/agency that violated those rights. It's the fact that the person and/or the agency they work for, as well as all other similar agencies within the jurisdiction of the court deciding the caseare now under notice that the action violated a right. That way not only does the plaintiff win but everybody else wins as well.

Without the court ruling (as happens with a settlement, which means the parties have agreed to end the case before the court rules on it) the offending individual/agency can commit the same act against another person and claim they were unaware it violated any right.

All that is difficult to do if you are paying your own legal costs. It can get downright difficult to get someone else to cover your costs when the odds are not 100% in your favor. If anybody can point me to a case which was an absolute slam-dunk from the beginning, I'd like to study it.

stay safe.

skidmark
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

The problem is that in most cases the municipality ends up getting sued and that hurts no one but the taxpayers. Then they go on and do it again because it's not costing them a dime. No one should be granted immunity, just look at the officer who shot the folks at Ruby Ridge, he went on to do worse at Waco. The militia have immunity(to, during, and from musters)in Alabama, but I've heard of no case with this involved. I'd like to try it out myself!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
imported post

My only concern with "if you sue the municipality, the only people that wind up getting hurt is the taxpayers" is this ...

If you sue MegaLoMart for a gazillion dollars, who winds up paying that fine? The consumers; you and I.
If FlyByNight airlines settles out of court because they were accused of discriminating against Cariboulimb based on their wearing "Cariboulimb will rule the world" t-shirts, who winds up paying? Again, you and I.

It could be said that you have a choice not to patronize FBN airlines, and you can always go to another, but all airlines get sued, just as much as any other manufacturer or service provider. All municipalities are subject to the same risks, the only question is will they learn something from the loss of spendable revenue, or will they not?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

The REAL problem with these lawsuits is they almost NEVER make it to trial. If they went to trial and ruled in favor of the defendant (against the LEO), they become case law for that state, and THAT is why they never make it to trial. DAs and Judges don't want to be forced to bring a case they know they would lose, and the resulting ruling would become case law for future people. This way, they can keep abusing people's rights...

When a case like this is settled out of court, it might mean a tasty paycheck for the defendant, but it SERIOUSLY short-changes the judicial process, and the rights of ALL law-abiding gun owners...

If you have a choice in such a case, NEVER accept a settlement. If a municipality or LEA is offering a settlement to you, that usually means they KNOW that they cant win in a trial, and therefore you should ALWAYS press for a trial, so that the situation has the MAXIMUM benefit for the entire 2A movement. You will STILL get a settlement, AND it will establish case law to support our rights.
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
If you have a choice in such a case, NEVER accept a settlement. If a municipality or LEA is offering a settlement to you, that usually means they KNOW that they cant win in a trial, and therefore you should ALWAYS press for a trial, so that the situation has the MAXIMUM benefit for the entire 2A movement. You will STILL get a settlement, AND it will establish case law to support our rights.
Most definitely, and well said.:D
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
imported post

The only thing that will actually influence cops, bureucrats, politicians, etc. is if they pay such settlements/judgements out of their own pockets. Don't hold your breath.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

MamaLiberty wrote:
The only thing that will actually influence cops, bureucrats, politicians, etc. is if they pay such settlements/judgements out of their own pockets. Don't hold your breath.
That is not always true. Montgomery, Alabama is a perfect example. Admittedly, dangling the possibility of a lawsuit was probably a strong motivator. But, the deputy chief was willing to check on the law and adjust policy and training when the city attorney told him that OC was, in fact, legal.

In Montgomery, education worked.
 
Top