LESGTINCT
Regular Member
http://subtlehustle.com/WallingfordLegal/FederalLawsuit/Complaint/Complaint_As_Filed.pdf
The complaint in case anyone is interested. Filed July 2011 in federal court.
Any news of when it's going to trial?
http://subtlehustle.com/WallingfordLegal/FederalLawsuit/Complaint/Complaint_As_Filed.pdf
The complaint in case anyone is interested. Filed July 2011 in federal court.
Just so you know, you can find most of this stuff here: http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed
My case doesn't have a trial date yet. We are still in discovery.
OK, I know that it is easy to be redundant here.
Yup, we just try to put as many sources together into convenient locations. If you have anything else that you think would go nicely there, either post it here or email it to me, please.
A badge will not help a cop when he is breaking the law himself.
Any news of when it's going to trial?
Cops who wish to ignore the law put themselves in a very bad set of circumstances....very bad. A badge will not help a cop when he is breaking the law himself.
"Then I will get sued, it won't be the first time."
He also said that they told him the head state's attorneys are getting together to enact legislation to clarify OC.
Fortunately for all of CT's citizenry, the 'head state's attorneys' can't just change the law as they please.
Yes indeed. I just had another conversation with my fellow SGT from yesterday. He actually called the Board of Firearms and they told him exactly what I told him. You would think he gets it now but all I got is "Then I will get sued, it won't be the first time." :banghead: and that I live in a box, LOL! He's been behind a desk for years and I've been on the street. Who's in the box? He also said that they told him the head state's attorneys are getting together to enact legislation to clarify OC.
Since I dug it up for the other thread, I figured I would post it here as well:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7943178321659144844&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
1) the threatening presence of several officers; 2) the brandishing of a weapon by an officer; 3) some physical touching by an officer; 4) use of aggressive language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer's request is compulsory; 5) prolonged retention of a person's personal effects ...; 6) a request to accompany the officer to the station; 7) interaction in a nonpublic place or a small, enclosed place; 8) and absence of other members of the public.
In my latest interaction I had #1, #2, #4, and #8 .. hence my questioning if I was detained/seized under the 4th amendment
Mr. Doutel had almost all 8 points ...
Ummm... yeah! I think I DO have all eight! Fancy that! :lol:
You would think he gets it now but all I got is "Then I will get sued, it won't be the first time."
And the reason for the other Sergeant's cavalier attitude is that very likely he personally bears almost no consequence from being sued and having a judgement against him.Well there is something we can agree with him about.