Federal lawsuit against cleveland heights police filed! - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: Federal lawsuit against cleveland heights police filed!

  1. FF,
    Congrats on getting the settlement. A similar thing occured here in Gonzales La. The OCer got much grief from other Ocers as well as gun owners on other fourms for taking the undisclosed settlement. Expect some of the same negativity. What do I think? I think if they have to pay some money to cause them to educate their officers I'm all for it.

    Steve,
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League • Portal

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation yOU SIR ARE AN JACKASS

    Quote Originally Posted by thebrez1 View Post
    Ok, I understand your passion for this topic, but let me say that I WOULD uphold your right to open carry and I WOULD help fight for that right. All I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak.

    Notice I never defended those particular cops. We both do have the same goal, just differing process for attaining them. If you DON"T take the public's opinion and reactions into account you WILL NOT be successful. If you don't have the support of MOST educated law enforcement officers you WILL NOT be successful, no matter how well you believe the Constitution supports your view point. Laws can be changed just as quickly against your cause as they can be changed to support it. Perception of the majority of citizens is what will decide.

    A fox, when hunting, does not stand in an open field and say "I am higher on the food chain than you rabbits and squirrels. It is nature’s way that I am to eat you and survive and in the process help keep you from reproducing too quickly and destroying the natural balance. It is my RIGHT to eat you and to exist, so surrender and come to me." It walks quietly through the woods picking and choosing its battles. If a bear is killing its pup, the fox will fight because it is instinct, and it is not right for a bear to be allowed to kill it. The fox will fight, but the fox WILL loose. It is the same with sheeples. They are afraid of the wolf, but they are just as afraid of sheep dog. If all the sheeples got together as a group, they could easily defeat the wolf without the sheep dog, but they will NEVER do that. If the sheep dog and the wolf get in a fight, even it the fight is over protection of the sheeple, the sheeple will run off a cliff and kill them selves rather than help the sheep dog because they are equally afraid of both.

    "Quote - he will win in court, the police will be chastised for treating a law abiding citizen who was legally exercising a right. Those same people who called the police and most likely observed the whole situation will discover that he WASN"T a bad guy."

    Yes, you are correct. He will win in court, but I beg to differ on the public's perception. Not all of those who witnessed the event will see (or care about) the results. Several may end up knowing it was ok, more will never get that part of the story, and anyone who did not witness the whole event will only read the first few lines and think how stupid for someone to be walking down the street with a gun. On this forum, we all share the same basic views that it is the Constitution that matters. Guns do not scare us. Many others don't even know what the Constitution is; let alone why the 2nd Amendment was included. Heck, most people can't even grasp the concept that "Militia" means them!

    In the end, who was "Right" and who was "Wrong" is of little consequence as to who actually WINS. The ones who think and act in a way that garners the most positive perception, gains the votes and wins.

    "Quote - As I have already shown, most of the above paragraph is without merit and solely your opinion regardless of the actual facts. I don't want to be a part of your version of the cause sir. I don't damn you for CC and I would fight as hard for your carry method as I would my own, for you to damn mine divides us and makes us weaker so you serve no true purpose to our cause other than to destroy from within. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"~ Voltaire. The same idealism applies here."

    As I stated, I too will fight for your right to OC and I certainly don't damn you for it! Not sure where you got the impression I would not support your right. What I said was a reference to human nature. If you get in my face (the public's) with a belligerent Pro-gun attitude (perception), I, (the public) Will get right back in yours with an Anti-gun attitude. If this is what you are referring to, I did not mean ME. I was illustrating human nature.

    Listen, I respect the fact that you and I differ on this. I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion. We (ALL 2nd Amendment, gun loving, country loving, freedom loving folks including BOTH you and I) all need to have that burning passion. I am glad to have you as a brother-in-arms and I am sure you would watch my 6 just as I would watch yours. You want to run a blitz and I want a quarterback sneak. Both plays can be useful and equally effective. The important thing is that we all remain on the same team.

    If I gave you the impression that I would not support your cause, then that is in error. My writing skills leave something to be desired. I did not intend to impugn your viewpoint. We are brother; we may fight like cats and dogs with each other, but if someone else (anti’s) tries to land a blow I will defend you to the death.

    Peace my friend. Fight the good fight as I will continue to do. Perhaps we shall meet our combined enemy in one final battle and we shall fight side by side like Spartans!
    FF did not break the law. He did not run around waving his gun saying look at me...look at me. His weapon was properly holstered. He was on public sidewalks. He was not threatening anyone. I to open carry when I am in a state that allows it. It is much more comfortable. Before you offer an opinion...make sure that you are right and then proceed. You do not have an understanding of rights vs illegal enforcement of laws by sworn officers. We have rules and laws for a reason. If this had been a guy with an Orange AK drawing attention to himself I would have a different tune to whistle. This is clearly not the case. FF was well within the law and operating within reasonable judgement. He was carrying a "normal" looking handgun in a "normal" looking holster. He was exercizing his rights when the sworn officers decided to exercize their brute force by putting him on the ground.

    DO NOT PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE IN THIS CASE...
    KEEP YOUR "we shall fight side by side like Spartans" MOLAN LABE BS.
    FF has done everything right and you sir have poured gasoline on the fire.
    YOU SIR (thebrez1) ARE A JACKASS!

    FF keep up the good work we need more folks like you!
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by freedom_fighter777 View Post
    The case was settled for an undisclosed amount provided they institute an educational policy training their law enforcement officials on Ohio Firearm laws (including 9.68.) I wish I could have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court and make case law, but I did not have the financial resources to do so. I would like to thank the 3 people that donated to my case. It should be noted that the officers involved were Officer Theodis Porter (Unit# 1761) and Officers Falisa Berry (Investigator with 16 years experience with Cleveland Heights Police Department) and Officer Hood (Unit #1169)
    Congratulations sir, I for one, am proud of you.

    Continue the good fight.

  5. #24
    I don't see any problem with taking the setlement if the department is now required to educate their officers reguarding OC laws.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    I don't see any problem with taking the setlement if the department is now required to educate their officers reguarding OC laws.
    Wishful thinking here: it costs a fortune, but taking it to SCOTUS might start the ball rolling for holding all states responsible for the education of all LEOs.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC
    Posts
    457
    Congratulations. Good on you for taking them to task. There will be better case law cases, and one will end up with SCOTUS.

  8. I'm glad the good guy here (apparently) came out on top in the end.

    As to this:
    If I was a cop, what am I expected to do? Just let anyone walk down the street with a gun?
    YES! Everyone should walk armed. The only exception should be government. The "badge of office" of a "civil servant" (such as a Judge, Governor, Legislator, Mayor, etc. - not an ordinary employee of a municipal utility like myself) should be an empty holster.

    But, quite frankly, I don't think this will happen until after this civilization has fallen and risen again.
    “The police of a State should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight is the foundation of civil freedom.” Heinlein

  9. #28
    "thebrez1" expressed his opinion very well and I couldn't agree with him more. If we are going to defend our gun rights, we have to do it with intelligence and not in a provoking manner. No one likes the "In your face" attitude regardless of which side of the fence you are on. We can convert many people to our side with facts but will not do so trying to dazzle them with BS and/or a confrontational attitude. Since reading this thread, I have made it a point to discuss open carry rights with my police department and sheriff's office (backed up with our state law and Attorney General's opinion). A little polite conversation goes much further than a hostile attitude. Naturally, there are some who will disagree with this approach but, try it, you might get somewhere. What have you got to lose?

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by thebrez1 View Post
    I have to strongly disagree with this, but please read my entire response before your crucify me.

    All something like this does is bring unnecessary attention at a time when the current climate politically is creating enough problems. I understand the law, but I also understand common sense. If I was a cop, what am I expected to do? Just let anyone walk down the street with a gun? I am extremely pro concealed carry and I am active in state politics regarding changing the laws to make this easier once a person has qualified, but I am dead set against open carry, at least in residential or heavily populated areas. All it does is give the antis something to work with and scares the H#*$ out of the ordinary civilian. If I was a parent and saw someone walking through my neighborhood, I would want to know who the H#*& it was too!

    I know all the arguments against my viewpoint and I even agree with many of them. However, REALISTICALY, all I see from this is a step backward for those of us trying to make things better and easier as far as getting gun legislation passed. This is counter productive and inflammatory IMHO, whether it is lawful of not, it is not SMART. Come at me with an "In Your Face" attitude for pro gun rights and you will get an "In Your Face, Right Back At Ya” response from the antis AND the average citizen. Also, it will erode our support from the many law officers that are currently on our side. This we can not afford.

    As gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, it is our responsibly to act responsibly and EDUCATE people by setting an example, not by inflaming the situation. Show someone a gun and how to shoot; get them hooked. Get them educated with REAL facts, figures and experiences. If a person’s first introduction to firearms is basically being hit over the head with one while you say "It's my right", I can assure you that I would work quickly and very diligently to make sure you no longer have that right! More importantly, the MEDIA would support me; would you be able to say the same? Would you get the coverage I would get? Just wait until I bring out my crying children that were” scared” of the “bad man with a gun!” YOUR rights do not trump MY rights. Fitting into the stereotype the media has created (wrongly), is not the example we as responsible gun owners should be displaying. We should be working to dispel that stereotype, not reinforcing it.

    To me this situation was unnecessary, counter productive and does NOTHING to increase our ability to lawfully possess a weapon. It does however, make it MUCH harder, if not impossible now to win over the people that called the police and many of those observing. "Look, the police have that gun totter down on the ground and handcuffed, I knew he was a bad guy" is what people observed and that just reinforces their negative view; it has done NOTHING to create a POSITIVE one.

    We all need to be SMARTER than our adversaries and play to OUR strengths, not THEIRS. Confrontation is not the way to achieve anything. Confrontation is EXACTLY what our opposition wants and I for one do not intend to provide them with ANTHING that could potentially hurt the cause whether I am RIGHT or not. In this scenario we potentially lost multiple families that could have been allies, given the media something to scream and stomp their feet over, threatened any rights that currently exist and alienated several police officers. Was this guy right? YES! Was he SMART? NO! Did he achieve anything POSITIVE? NO. Did he achieve anything NEGATIVE? ABSOLUTLEY!
    IF - this was a set-up designed to provoke the police for personal gain, I am definitely against it.

    BUT - if this state/city area is indeed an open-carry zone, then he has every right to carry openly. What is "in-your-face" about this? If he walked into the police station and got a drink from the water cooler, THAT would be provocation! Walking down the street legally armed? What is your problem with that? Did he threaten anyone? Did he scowl at little kids and brandish his gun?

    And the cops who smacked him down - there is NO excuse for their actions, because if anyone knows the law, it's supposed to be them. If people are allowed to carry openly, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! If people are paranoid, that's THEIR problem, and the cops should be informing anyone who calls 9-1-1 of that.

    Open carry is just that. Don't like it? Repeal the laws. Or live with it. There are people in other states who do, without any problems. I'm not a proponent of open carry - I'd rather not let anyone know I'm armed. But that is personal, not legal. Just because you don't like open carry is no reason to diss a guy for standing up for his rights.

    Did he achieve anything positive? Oh, yes he did! If he was legally allowed to carry, he has straightened out the local police force, and publicized the laws. There was a big rally right across the Potomac from D.C. at a VA park, and thousands of people showed up, fully armed and carrying openly. Were they wrong, too, because they stood up for their rights?

    It is precisely times like these that require us to stand up for what we believe in, especially when the current administration is trying to take away our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. It's time to stop being so damned obsequious. Right now, it is the police who are becoming stereotypes of power and corruption.

    Again, if this was a stunt, it was wrong from the start. If it was done in truth and patriotism, God bless him. If I could afford the jail time, I'd probably do the same thing.
    -= Piece Corps =-

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Piece Corps View Post
    IF - this was a set-up designed to provoke the police for personal gain, I am definitely against it..
    Since case was settled for an undisclosed amount & the police must provide an educational policy training of their law enforcement officials on Ohio Firearm laws this is truly a great win for residents of Ohio. I'm sure the "victim" donated the proceeds of this lawsuit to an organization that would continue to fight for our 2nd amendment rights...because it wasn't just for the money.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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