leo firsked me today! - Page 8
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 144

Thread: leo firsked me today!

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR:247605
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLM View Post
    Theres an azz hole in every bunch! !
    I hope you were referring to the police officer and his illegal actions.
    I thought it was obvious.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by JohnLM View Post
    I thought it was obvious.
    Some people say that about my posts. I need to quit being so sensitive. :-)
    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.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Hey Navy: You mention that the thread writer should have asked "are you detaining me under suspicion of committing a crime?". His answer, at that point in time, would have been "yes", based on what I read into this thread (possible CC and no CCWP). Now what? This thread, IMO, comes down "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me". Screw the cop and screw the clerk and you just leave--saying "have a nice day officer" is a good ending though--just enough sarcasm--say it to the clerk as well. As far as the cop's actions being illegal---I do not know and you seem to be clear on that. If a cop confronted me when I am carrying a tool belt or a cell phone or whatever but not a firearm, I would answer him, show him and be on my way---am I giving up my constitional rights etal?--as far as I am concerned the answer is no.
    I see no reason to put up with the unprofessional conduct of the officer. He reflects badly on the entire force in particular and Cops in general. His supervisors need be appraised of his conduct and he needs some retraining.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    Is a case like this worth fighting? YES! In my opinion this sorry excuse for a cop was trying to impress the young lady in the hope of her keeping him company later. Did the cop violate the law? YES! This cop NEEDS to be called out because if he is not his attitude and resulting actions will only get worse and the people deserve better. All of us need to stand up for ALL our rights, not just the second amendment. It is too bad that cop-shows seem to always portray anyone who claims his(her)Fourth and Fifth amendment rights in a negative way. The Bill of Rights was passed to protect the individual from an all powerful government. Most of us who are regulars on this site would cry foul(and rightfully so) at the mere hint of more gun control, but it is amazing how many of those same people are willing to give government a free pass regarding 4th and 5th amendment violations. The issue here is NOT CC or OC but is a government agent(cop) who is in violation of the same Constitution which is the supreme law of the land that he is supposed to obey. Any cop who is worth the badge that he(she) is wearing will believe and understand this.

  6. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1:247721
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    What do you mean by "there were no damages?" If his rights were violated, which they were (he was illegally searched), that is a "damage." Any judge would agree.
    Absolutely no damages. Any judge would agree. The case would not withstand a motion to dismiss. The court may even see the attempted suit as frivilous and assign all costs to the plaintiff. Being afraid or taking a different route home is not a damage.

    The violation of his rights is the tort (wrong) committed against him, not a damage. What did he suffer as a result? Humiliation? Fear of a police officer? These aren't provable damages. The courts have determined that one must show much more than embarrassment or humiliation to claim mental anguish and that in some states that mental anguish must be accompanied by a manifestation of some physical illness. Any damage awarded or any settlement for mental anguish is also taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code unless there was a physical injury. Now if he had a breakdown, required hospitalization, treatment or medication he suffered a consequential damage. If he can prove the officers intent was to cause harm through malfeasance or repeated acts of misfeasance (which takes on the element of intent) he may entitled to punitive damages. Had the LEO been arrested for some act he could file a motion for summary judgement using the LEO conviction to prove the tort occurred but still must show a measurable damage to meet the requirement to file a civil action in most states.

    My reply is based on the NYS CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) and the book "Prosser and Keaton on Torts" which explains the historic interpretation of tort law in relation to damages.
    This isn't a product liability case. A citizen can sue anyone for any violation/denial of rights. I've been through this with DCFS. They tried to argue that they operate outside the Constitution. The judge disagreed, saying that no person or entity does not have to obey the Constitution. DCFS entered my home without a warrant and without any probable cause. We sued and won the case. Not once, during all questioning, did we have to testify about how the ordeal was traumatizing or emotionally scarring. They broke the law and violated our rights, that was grounds for a lawsuit.

  7. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by tuts40 View Post
    TekGreg, the OP was Whitetiger.
    Apologies to Whitetiger! Somehow read that wrong. will make changes.
    Edmund Burke: “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – 1784 speech. Taken from Founding Fathers Notes. "The unarmed man is not just defenseless -- he is also contemptible." Machiavelli

  8. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1:247732
    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?
    Our rights don't only apply after we've suffered damages.

  9. I don't think I would pick on OP because he does not choose to go to court over this matter.

    That is an individual decision each of us must make for ourselves and telling a guy that he is not standing up for his rights is pushing it too far.

    Some of us have the money and the time to be crusaders. Most of us do not have either the time or the money.

    However, if any of you feel so strongly that he should go to court and that he is a wimp for not doing so, I suggest that you agree to pay his legal fees if he will donate his time.

    After all, a win for him is a win for everyone...or at least that is the way some of you have put it.


    so how much money are you willing to put up to do your part to save the Constitution?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by old curmudgeon View Post
    I don't think I would pick on OP because he does not choose to go to court over this matter.
    I agree with what you posted, actually. I personally take issue with people who feel it is just too inconvenient for them to exercise their rights in any way, shape or form starting with the need to hide their guns only to avoid hassle, would never ask "Am I free to leave?", and never say "No" to an officer's request because it might cost them a few extra minutes out of their busy schedules.

    Oh... and I should not forget about those who insist law enforcement officers are experts on the law on every subject and you should ask them first for legal advice.

    Anybody who wants to, can certainly take issue with me, and I'm sure you will! :-)
    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.

  11. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR:247897
    Quote Originally Posted by old curmudgeon View Post
    I don't think I would pick on OP because he does not choose to go to court over this matter.
    I agree with what you posted, actually. I personally take issue with people who feel it is just too inconvenient for them to exercise their rights in any way, shape or form starting with the need to hide their guns only to avoid hassle, would never ask "Am I free to leave?", and never say "No" to an officer's request because it might cost them a few extra minutes out of their busy schedules.

    Oh... and I should not forget about those who insist law enforcement officers are experts on the law on every subject and you should ask them first for legal advice.

    Anybody who wants to, can certainly take issue with me, and I'm sure you will! :-)
    Spot on...spot on.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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