leo firsked me today! - Page 7
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 144

Thread: leo firsked me today!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I believe St. John v. Alamogordo disproves BC1's theory.
    Interesting case. I read the original complaint as filed in Fed court.

    That case ended in a settlement for $21,000. There was no admission of wrongdoing by any party as part of the settlement. The police were in violation of state law as well as a constitutional right which means they would have to fight on two levels. The state law violation, if determined to be true, would have allowed the plaintiff to submit a motion for summary judgement. This means the tort does not have to be proven in civil court and the judge would be free to assign damages. But it never got that far. The insurance carrier for the PD settled for a fraction of the defense costs, which is how most law suits end. In the end it's about dollars and cents, not right and wrong. The insurance company would never take such a chance at trial, especially when the case can be settled for less than the cost of the defense. A settlement is not a judgement, it's a mutual agreement between the parties.

    Had no settlement offer been made and the case went to trial, the plaintiff would have been required to prove damages. Physically injured? Destruction or loss of personal property? Mental anguish? Hardly. But this would have been very expensive for the city in legal fees. Most corporation counsel related litigation is handled by external law firms specializing in municipal law. They tend to charge many hundreds of dollars per hour to municipalities. It was simply cheaper to dispose of this case because it WAS a loser for the city.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    BC1,

    Why do you keep posting this B.S.? You are wrong. The police officer committed a criminal act. Just because you can't file a case in New York State court does not mean that the officer and city cannot be sued.
    If my research is correct the officer was not convicted of committing any criminal act. There was no award or judgement on any lawsuit... the city settled. Yes, he could have been sued but the key is here is that the reason for detaining him was OC, which was legal in NM. That would have resulted in a motion for summary judgement in the civil case.Would he have won? Only if he could show damages occurred and a close causal connection. One must understand the distinction between tort and damages. Yes, civil practice varies from state to state. But you cannot compare the OP to this case as they are completely different. The OP had nothing to do with OC so the reason for the LEO action was different. And That's the key.

    Now I'm a businessman not an attorney. My wife was wrongfully detained several months ago by a young LEO who insited she was DUI. She doesn't drink at all. She had just begun recovering from a bad auto accident and couldn't walk very well. He would not let her leave the scene and would not respond when asked if she was being charged or could she go. He made her do a drunk test without her french crutches (arm braces), which she could not do. I arrived on scene with an attorney (my best friend) who explained to the LEO that she was badly injured. The LEO apologized... very nice kid, just unclear on where the line is. After arriving home my attorney said we should not have intervened. Should have let him effect the arrest. After all, I'm a businessman and this was an opportunity to make money. When her blood and urine came back clean the police agency would have been looking at a major problem. What did we do? Let it go. Can't bang every jerk on the nose.

    Now the OP can go ahead and sue. Many states and fed won't allow the recovery of attorney costs in a judgement and the settlement is taxable at the fed level (unless for physical pain and suffering and related mental anguish). In the end? Not worth the trouble, which is precisely why I opted to let my wife's incident go.

    Tell you what... I'll print a copy and give to our attorney later today. Let's see what he thinks. He's a heavy hitter NYC attorney who regularly appears on FOX and CNN as a contributor. Based on my experience with civil litigations I think I already know the answer. --> Could he sue? Yes. Winnable? Probably not. Worth the time and attorney's investment? No.

    Now, if I missed something that connects the OP and your case let me know. BTW, can we get a post that DOESN'T involve OC?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_S View Post
    Godd summary. NavyLCDR's family crest is probaly a shaking fist adorned with a placard saying "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!" You have to fight the battles that need to be fought and you have to let the small stuff slide while laughing at the pin heads who can'y understand that some things just aren't worth the hassle.
    Absolutely. Public employees should be totally free to forcibly (and illegally) manhandle and publicly humiliate anyone they want, at any time they want.

    I mean, it's not like you're a human being with rights or anything.

    You should be GLAD to be demeaned by an arrogant cop. After all, your sole reason for existence is to provide amusement to low IQ bullies.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    If my research is correct the officer was not convicted of committing any criminal act. Civil practice varies from state to state. You cannot compare the OP post to this case as they are completely different.

    Your case relates to OC? The OP has nothing to do with the state legality of the open carry of a gun. Can't compare the OP to the case you cite. Apples and oranges.
    BC1,

    You didn't read very carefully. St. John's case had nothing to do with open carry. St. John's case was about unlawful detainment without reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime committed. Period. Absolutely nothing to do with open carry. Exactly what happened to the OP, IF the court determines the OP was detained, and not a voluntary encounter. Because the OP answered the officer's first two questions without protest, it might be difficult to prove a detainment vice voluntary encounter.

    Open carry in St. John's case only provided the reason for the call to police made by the manager of the movie theater, just like the buldge in the OP's coat provided the reason for the officer's attention. EXACTLY the same situation.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    The case had everything to do with OC. If the guy would have concealed his gun or didn't have a gun the entire incident would never have occurred. The mere presence of the gun keeps getting you OC guys detained and then everyone screams about their rights. It's laughable to some extent. Now I understand that OC is legal so it's fine with me. I'm not at all concerned by armed citizens. But as my father taught me... the person who will cause me the most trouble in my life watches me shave every morning.

    The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. So the presence of a firearm was paramount. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place” (because OC was legal), also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.

    What would the LEO state as a reason for his actions in the OP? He would have lied and claimed the actions of the OP were suspicious, same as my wife's case... he claimed she didn't drive straight yet the video from the mall showed differently. The LEO in the OP was definitely a wanker. He shouldn't have belittled the OP. But it was like heckling a comedian. The OP's reply was priceless.

    If we're going to pursue every incident where the police detain someone and then let them go, it will clog courts and cost taxpayers enormously. Can't bang every jerk or we'll spend our entire lives banging jerks. There's no absolute when it comes to the law.

    Just sayin.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The LEO in the OP was definitely a wanker. He shouldn't have belittled the OP. But it was like heckling a comedian. The OP's reply was priceless.
    1. Comedians CHOOSE to put themselves in the public spotlight.
    2. Comedians get heckled for MONEY.
    3. Hecklers who are sufficiently disruptive get ejected or arrested.

    In the OP's story you don't even have the false issue of open carry. He did NOTHING to provoke EITHER the illegal search, OR the verbal humiliation.

    AT A MINIMUM, the cop needs a formal complaint. That allows the OP to come and go when and where he pleases. Further unlawful harassment by the cops provides an iron clad cause of action for retaliation.

    You may consider yourself an appropriate butt of unprovoked derision by eunuchs with badges, but a lot of us don't.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    1. Comedians CHOOSE to put themselves in the public spotlight.
    2. Comedians get heckled for MONEY.
    3. Hecklers who are sufficiently disruptive get ejected or arrested.

    In the OP's story you don't even have the false issue of open carry. He did NOTHING to provoke EITHER the illegal search, OR the verbal humiliation.

    AT A MINIMUM, the cop needs a formal complaint. That allows the OP to come and go when and where he pleases. Further unlawful harassment by the cops provides an iron clad cause of action for retaliation.

    You may consider yourself an appropriate butt of unprovoked derision by eunuchs with badges, but a lot of us don't.
    Yet you've only heard an unofficial account from one of the parties. Maybe there was probable cause.

    I heard back from the attorney I promised to send this to. His response was typically funny. in a round-a-bout way.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Another one. Nearly every perp didn't do it. Nearly every perp claims there was no cause for police action. Nearly every perp claims his rights were violated but they never tell you the whole truth. You discover that after the legal action begins. It's claimed so often that few attorneys take it seriously. There are legitimate cases all the time but the percentage that are BS is so overwhelming that no one cares. He also thought we can't fight every claim of detaining without cause as it would be almost every police stop in every state. Overwhelming for the courts. And what's next? First amendment rights violated because someone is arrested for threatening another? Exactly what I thought he'd say.

    Some responses on these chatboards are almost sociopathic in nature. Unreasonable in many cases. Many posters want a full investigation of every little detail in every thread claiming even the slightest questionable violation. They want the damn Supreme Court because somebody said the wrong thing or treated them poorly. What a bunch of little girls society has become. No different than the protesters on Wall St. constantly crying foul. They want witnesses & sworn statements. They want to file a formal complaint that goes nowhere. Many times it's the same folks who argue in favor of shooting up the place in every BS robbery scenario. It's an inability to let things go. People need a little thicker skin, more tolerance of jerks and the sense to keep life as simple as possible. For Christ sake, some of these guys need to grow a pair. The world is an imperfect place. We can't run to daddy (the courts) every time someone bruises our precious ego. Maybe I should be selling baby passifiers.

    Is the LEO in the OP a wanker? If he made those comments he is. But there's wankers all around us. Move on. Don't know about others but my life is too full of important things to soil myself over the behavior of a jerkoff.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. BC1,

    How do you propose we police the actions of the government when they violate the rights of the citizen? We just let the government police itself?

    That being said, the first step is for the citizen to actually assert and exercise their rights in the presence of the government.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    BC1,

    How do you propose we police the actions of the government when they violate the rights of the citizen? We just let the government police itself?

    That being said, the first step is for the citizen to actually assert and exercise their rights in the presence of the government.
    Well LT that is the quandry we're in. In reality you're 100% correct. That's why I like to hear from you. Your posts make ME think twice about my own values. I play devils advocate and provoke a response but yes, we the people must police the government. As you know the entire purpose of the second amendment is to preserve freedom and liberty for the people, by the people. The question is how do we do it without causing ourselves more grief. Experience has taught me that being right isn't enough. One must have the support and wherewithall to make the fight and that's a pretty strong committment. Most of us can barely keep our heads above water with the constant demands of life. Most can't fight back against injustice. I find that no longer does protection come from the police, justice from the courts, fairness from our laws or liberty from the constitution. It's all become twisted into some strange new set of rules for society in which we can't fight for ourselves without tremendous resources. That fork in the road causes one to pause and ask should I do something about this for the good of a society that no longer cares or should I focus on protecting myself, family and future.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The question is how do we do it without causing ourselves more grief. Experience has taught me that being right isn't enough. One must have the support and wherewithall to make the fight and that's a pretty strong committment. Most of us can barely keep our heads above water with the constant demands of life. Most can't fight back against injustice.
    Unfortunately, many people use that as an excuse to never even begin to fight. It all starts with, "Officer, am I free to go?" and if the the answer is "Yes", then walk away. Just because a person with a uniform and badge approaches you and asks a question does not mean you are being detained. For some people on here, though, that simple question and action is too inconvenient for them and others, for some reason, claim it to be disrespectful.

    You can always waive your rights at any time, when you decide the fight is no longer sustainable.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast