Good to hear. Opencarrybilly is a great guy.
Didn't post the link to the original thread, but some good news.........
Good to hear. Opencarrybilly is a great guy.
"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs of freedom" -- Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)
Sorry I have been absent for so long from the forum. But, now I am free to talk about the case, so, please ask questions, and I will try to give some helpful answers :-)
I have been here daily, reading and learning. And, I do appreciate all of you.
use some of the money to buy the biggest pistol you can find,
then lets all have a OC BBQ in loveland!!
"The motivation of the city of Loveland and the Police Department in settling the lawsuit for a nominal amount is to avoid the excessive cost of on-going litigation at the expense of Loveland's taxpaying residents," the city said in a statement.
Why did you settle?
Last edited by cscitney87; 03-17-2011 at 11:02 PM.
“Miller’s Denver lawyer, Nelson Boyle, said the settlement was likewise the wisest move for his client because of the uncertainty of the trial’s outcome.”
“The problem was the economics of it, from the plaintiff’s side,” Boyle said. “You could easily spend $10,000 to $20,000, on the cheap side, for a case like this. Odds are that a jury is not going to make a substantial award in a case where there was no personal injury.”
That is great news. My sincere congatulations!
They wanted to "save the taxpayers money." 15 large may be nominal to them, but I'll take it! And if I was a taxpayer, I'd want some answers right now, or the resignation of the head stormtrooper. The cops acted properly..." after all, they only violated Bill's rights a little...$500 a minute for their 30 minute 'little' violation.
Last edited by Gunslinger; 03-18-2011 at 11:51 AM.
'“Our officers are going to have to make informed decisions, but quick decisions. They have to take the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the public safety and their own safety into account right now, and make a decision right now.”
Miller was sitting on a lakeshore bench when officers approached him, took his gun and emptied it, then ran the serial number through a police database.
Hecker said police were correct in acting to empty ammunition from the gun to ensure public safety.
“They had the obligation to determine what his intent was, what his state of mind was,” Hecker said.'
BullbullbullBULLpuckey! Contacting him? Sure. A 70 year old man eating an apple and enjoying the sunset? Unusual sight, I'll grant you. I don't know if people in Loveland tend to hate apples and sunsets. You might want to just say hi. He's got a gun? Sure, look him over and see if his behavior indicates anything untoward. IF he gets beligerent (not saying Billy was), maybe you'll do an official contact. Is he acting like a lost mental patient? Yeah, MAYBE then you want to do due diligence and check his ID. Is he agressive? Sure, disarm him if it's in procedure and you have RAS.
But....the SERIAL number???? WHAT RAS did they have to check the SERIAL NUMBER??? They don't have RAS to "check everything out". Did they also take a vial of blood for BAC and make sure he wasn't wearing black market Calvin Klien chones?? Contact could MAYBE be justified. Disarming probably not. Running the serial number hangs them with harrassment and not looking for anything "suspicious" and instead looking for anything to give them an excuse to interrogate him further. I don't give a damn if they did it "too make sure he's okay". They didn't have RAS. Our system of law does not allow them to "make sure things are okay" preemptively.
The discussion is taking place at this thread:
You have to sign up to be able to post, but I find freerepublic to be a valuable resource, and I would love to have you defend yourself against the poster IrishCatholic.
If you and your friends on this and other forums want to work toward similar cases coming out better in future, may I suggest that you look into the process - check on restrictions and obsticles that make pursuit of cases cost prohibitive and excessively time consuming for most ordinary people. Have a close look at court proceedures. Closely examing police training in your jurisdiction. Dig deep. Speek loud:-)
Thanks. And, I'm glad you're engaged in this discussion.
Last edited by opencarrybilly; 03-19-2011 at 09:23 AM.
Wow... wish your case had settled before mine; I would have gotten more from the city that harassed me, & I went through more!
Good for you, though. That $5K extra would have been tempting. Telling the truth is more important.
HAH!The officers briefly took the gun for their safety and those in the park, the city stated.
When they started handling an unfamiliar pistol they made the situation MORE dangerous.
It was perfectly safe sitting undisturbed in its holster.
And since they gave it back, obviously he wasn't a danger... and hadn't been, so they had no reason to take it in the first place.
Substitute "car" or "religious object" for "gun" and see how far that'd fly.
Do they randomly stop people driving cars there, just to make sure they're licensed?
Do they randomly stop people out & about with children, just to make sure they're not registered sex offenders?
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
If my previous tongue in cheek post didn't quite convey the point (and after a couple days it doesn't to me); CONGRATS!
Job well done!
Thought occurs to me though, running the serial number on a legally carried weapon is not the same as running the plates on a car. The plates are a license. Get it, "license" plates? He didn't need a license so his "license" checked out. He wasn't forbidden from carrying based on his ID that would say he was a felon. Running the serial is more akin to the cop pulling you over in a routine traffic stop and saying, "I don't believe your registration, pop your hood and wait until I can get a mechanic here to inspect the VINs on your car." Additionally, there is ZERO information that can be gotten from running the serial number except the off chance that it was stolen AND the rightful owner recorded the serial number.
I'll end the rant there before going into how that database wouldn't be accessible to "running" it, much less checking it for resale. Yep, that's right, for all the hooplah a huge percentage of stolen guns are resold despite being "run" at POS.
Last edited by mahkagari; 03-19-2011 at 01:33 PM.
And, it was real scarey when cop #2 racked the slide as he held the gun (1911 cocked and locked) perpendicular to the ground just about 6" behind the first cops hind leg :-0 I winced in anticipation of the bang and the shouting. I was quite relieved when that last round ejected.
Thanks for your post.
(I'd be interested to know more about your experience if you want to share it.)
This is my first post here. I also live in Loveland. Good job opencarrybilly. Do you know what training (specifically) they will be giving their officers? Also, do you know what other procedures about dealing with an OC'er they will be enacting?
"'STRIKING THE BALANCE'
A training session to explore the interplay between a citizens’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and a police officer’s right to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment for officer safety purposes.
Topics to be Covered
• A citizen’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
• A police officers right under the 4th Amendment to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures.
• The three types of police/citizen contacts.
o Consensual contacts
o Investigatory stops
• The constitutional underpinnings for those police/citizen contacts.
o Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
o Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).
o Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)
o Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
o People v. Ealum, 211 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2009)
o United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid investigatory stop.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting an investigatory stop.
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid frisk for weapons.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting a frisk for weapons.
• The legal requirements for a consensual search for weapons.
• The difference between probable cause for an arrest and reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
• Relevant Colorado statutes dealing with weapons offenses.
Presented by Clifford E. Riedel
Assistant District Attorney
8th Judicial District of Colorado"