Macomb Daily cites to OpenCarry.org re lawsuit against police harassment

[Mike]

Macomb Daily - Michigan man sues police for open carry harassment
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/...ewmode=default

SNIP

"A Warren man who is an advocate for firearm “open carry” practices is suing the city and its police department, claiming officers violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Jeffery Haman, 54, seeks a $100,000 judgment and $500,000 in punitive or exemplary damages, as part of the lawsuit he filed recently in U.S. District Court.

With a semi-automatic pistol holstered at his waist, Haman, a former firearms dealer, was walking home from a local drug store at 12 Mile and Hoover roads in August 2009 when a patrolman quickly drove up to him.

. . .

The Warren man is a member of the national Open Carry organization. He acknowledged that people who see him practicing his Second Amendment right ask him if he is carrying his gun legally. Haman said he explains the law in Michigan, provides a pamphlet and suggests they visit www.opencarry.org. He said people typically thank him for the explanation and admit they didn’t know the law."

 

[Aknazer]

That link didn't work, bit here is one that I found that did.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/09/10/news/doc4e6c0c62350f3444380143.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

[Haman J.T.]

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/new...right-to-bear-arms-was-violated-20110912-wpms . Here's some more on Fox 2! CARRY ON!

 

[since9]

A forensic psychologist would have a field day with this officer's choice of words. It's no wonder they edited out the earlier portions -- they were probably highly incriminating. Subpoena them! If they refuse it, it's grounds for dismissal (suppression of evidence, obstruction of justice).

MO - Main Officer (loud in video)
OO - Other Officer (quiet in video)

MO - "You can express your rights in the way that you guys are doing it at the parks and doing all this other stuff, but walking around like this..."

Like what? Like not at the parks? Like where one is in more need of self-protection than at the parks?

MO - "...is just going to end up getting you hurt somehow. So you take your own risk, carry your gun the way you want to carry your gun, express your rights the way you want to express them. But when you get hurt..."

Notice it's "going to get you hurt" not "might get you hurt." It's also "when" and not "if" you get hurt. Either the officer has knowlege of a felonious assault, or he's in mind of committing it himself.

MO - "...don't cry to somebody who hurt you..."

Hmmm... Who might this be Mr. Occifer? You? One of your buddies?

MO - "...because you were expressing your rights. You're just asking for trouble, brother."

Actually, I think he's asking to be left alone from the likes of your Constitutionally-violating sorry (deleted by user).

OO - "Especially with the extra magazine... you look like you're ready for war."

The main defense here is why cops carry spare magazines... Their response that they may get into a firefight is both identical to the reason why we carry spare magazines (bad guys hunt in packs), but it's also to our benefit to carry more ammo than cops! Seriously - if they get into it, a simple radio call will bring LOTS more cops. We don't have that option, which is why we SHOULD carry spare ammunition.

MO - "What to you need a CCW for if you're going to walk around here with it hanging off your hip?"

Uh, because OC is legal, a deterrant, more rapidly accessible... and because CCW may be indicated in some circumstances, but not all?

OO - "It's a violation of your CCW."

This is such complete bullfeathers the lawsuit should win on this statement alone.

MO - "Bottom line is, I believe in what you're doing."

Yeah, right. Nice dixie two-step, but woefully inadequate after your gross statements and actions to the contrary (pulling a firearm on a lawfully-armed citizen).

MO - "But there's a time and place for doing it, and this isn't the time and place, walking through 12-mile and parking lots."

Oh, so you'd prefer he OC in pretty green pastures where the lilies are guilded?

These two law enforcement officers don't get it. Neither "believe in what you are doing." They grossly violated your rights under the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the city of Warren, and Michigan State Law, and entire lot of them deserve to get the crap sued out of them. As a legal recourse for beginning to set right something that's very wrong, I provide my utmost encouragement for you to continue your legal actions against them.

One more:

"Emphasizing that he was not commenting on the Haman case, the city’s top police administrator said any officer who sees a person carrying a firearm must quickly assess any potential threat."

Here's a guide:

1. Properly holstered: No to low threat.

2. Concealed: No to high threat.

Thing of it is, how in the world are you supposed to spot a concealed weapon? It's concealed! There's a reason CC was outlawed in most states more than a century ago: Only criminals have something to hide!

Please, Mr. Top Police Administrator - grow a brain.

 

[michaelm_ski]

Warren PD Lawsuit

Bravo to you for not letting them get away the gross violation of your rights , Way too many vetrans have paid the ultimate price for our rights to have them pushed aside . If the police were so gung ho and treat the criminals like that maybe they would not have the crime rate they do in Warren and surrounding areas , I wish you the best in your lawsuit and hope that Warren police will realize that law abiding citizens have all the rights in the world to defend their family and self as well as home . Carry on sir with all the respect from this vetran !