Man Files $3 Million Lawsuit After Being Arrested for Lawful Open Carry


I think you missed an important point in the article.... The suit is filed "personally" against the offending officers, not the Municipality or Police Department they work for. They are sued personally...that means that they will have to fund their own defense. The municipality will run from this as not being responsible for the actions of an individual LEO, leaving the officer to drain his bank accounts, cash out his equity in his house and likely have liens if he loses. The taxpayer will not be footing the bill in these cases.

Just a couple suits like this against the LEO would send shivers through the ranks. I believe they would think twice before making an arrest for a 'questionable' offense (or lack of real offense), or before they enforce a sham of a law (ei: NY Safe Act) which should be deemed unconstitutional.


The Taxpayers still pay no matter what. The Union will pick up the settlement and push for more. The only true way to have responsiable people with the level of trust given LEO's is to throw them in jail, the mere prospect of it scares the crap out LEO's. They are isolated from the rest of the inmates. one of you trample on my rights I will file crimminal charges and sue you to boot and anyone associated with you that might be involved.
 

Anyone have any empathy for the clerks in the "stop and rob" who called it in? Mr. Call's decision to walk into a convenience store open carry no doubt freaked out the staff enough to call police. Maybe the Speedway folks need to educate their clerks about how to deal with open carry customers. Obviously a firearm is gonna cause concern for a stop and rob clerk. But if properly educated they could come to see open carry as "insurance" against being robbed...there are plenty of stories where armed citizens have stepped in to help.

So maybe some training for the store clerks. But open carry folks have to have some common sense and realize they are of concern around schools, liquor stores, stop and robs, banks, etc.
 
I think you missed an important point in the article.... The suit is filed "personally" against the offending officers, not the Municipality or Police Department they work for. They are sued personally...that means that they will have to fund their own defense. The municipality will run from this as not being responsible for the actions of an individual LEO, leaving the officer to drain his bank accounts, cash out his equity in his house and likely have liens if he loses. The taxpayer will not be footing the bill in these cases.

Just a couple suits like this against the LEO would send shivers through the ranks. I believe they would think twice before making an arrest for a 'questionable' offense (or lack of real offense), or before they enforce a sham of a law (ei: NY Safe Act) which should be deemed unconstitutional.
A couple of ways it gets handled. Sometimes the PBA gets involved to provide legal fees for the officer... sometime they don't have the money. The town has insurance and is bonded. The insurance would settle if it were a clear-cut case of a mistake. But if he's found to have violated someone's rights with intent to harm, insurance won't pay. But still the town is bonded to cover damages. The officer is pretty-much indemnified in most cases.
 
Anyone have any empathy for the clerks in the "stop and rob" who called it in? Mr. Call's decision to walk into a convenience store open carry no doubt freaked out the staff enough to call police. Maybe the Speedway folks need to educate their clerks about how to deal with open carry customers. Obviously a firearm is gonna cause concern for a stop and rob clerk. But if properly educated they could come to see open carry as "insurance" against being robbed...there are plenty of stories where armed citizens have stepped in to help.

So maybe some training for the store clerks. But open carry folks have to have some common sense and realize they are of concern around schools, liquor stores, stop and robs, banks, etc.

I don't see it as a common sense realization that someone having an irrational fear of an object is normal. Some one with common sense would know the difference between a firearm in a holster on a calm person and a firearm in the hand of an angry individual pointing it at them. Some one with common sense would know the clerk had no common sense. Or is this too much common sense for the common person?
 
Clerk's reaction probably depends more on how many times they've been robbed and looked down the barrel than common sense.
 
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license.
How about if you're not carrying one... or any other form of ID?

In Ohio, apart from certain specified activities (driving, carrying a concealed handgun, etc.), you have NO duty to carry ANY ID.
 
A couple of ways it gets handled. Sometimes the PBA gets involved to provide legal fees for the officer... sometime they don't have the money. The town has insurance and is bonded. The insurance would settle if it were a clear-cut case of a mistake. But if he's found to have violated someone's rights with intent to harm, insurance won't pay. But still the town is bonded to cover damages. The officer is pretty-much indemnified in most cases.
It depends upon state and local laws.

In Ohio and in Chicago, cops are NOT indemnified for punitive damages. They eat that themselves. That's been cited as the reason why Chicago settles so many suits against police. It almost certainly played a role in the local police union's instructions to its members NOT to obey Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's unlawful order to enforce Cleveland's state preempted "assault weapon" ban.

One Chicago cop who killed an unarmed man for no reason while standing underneath multiple transit authority security cameras, then lied about it, got hit with millions of dollars in punitive damages. He ended up eating his gun.
 
It depends upon state and local laws.

In Ohio and in Chicago, cops are NOT indemnified for punitive damages. They eat that themselves. That's been cited as the reason why Chicago settles so many suits against police. It almost certainly played a role in the local police union's instructions to its members NOT to obey Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's unlawful order to enforce Cleveland's state preempted "assault weapon" ban.

One Chicago cop who killed an unarmed man for no reason while standing underneath multiple transit authority security cameras, then lied about it, got hit with millions of dollars in punitive damages. He ended up eating his gun.

Have to ask. Why wasn't he put to death or at least sent to prison for the rest of his life with no chance of parole?
 
Crimminaly charge the officer's for violation of his civil liberties under USC Title 18 241 & 242 and when they go to jail, or just the battle to stay out of jail will send a message that they need to rethink how they do things. This is the only way to fight police abuse of power. Money comes out of the peoples pockets that employ them (taxpayers). Felony charges elimate the individual from being a leo or voting upon conviction.

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
The towns are well insured, bonded and the PBA provides support. An insurance rate may increase but the taxpayer doesn't foot the entire bill. There's usually a partial payout to protect the city even when the LEO acted illegally.
 
Have to ask. Why wasn't he put to death or at least sent to prison for the rest of his life with no chance of parole?
  1. The victim failed the traditional "paper bag test".
  2. To the rank and file of the Chicago PD, the public at large are at best "prey", at worst reactive targets.
  3. The perpetrator was a friend of the then police superintendent, Phil Cline.
Killed on Camera
 

  • He ended up eating his gun.







That means he killed himself before going to court.
Actually, he ended up killing himself AFTER going to court and being found liable (along with the city) for damages of $12.5 million. That was later reduced to $3 million, as I recall. I don't think he could pay that part of his punitive damages either.

Did I forget to mention that after getting a THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION... for a MURDER (actually being late for work and out of uniform), he was PROMOTED to detective?
 
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?
Do you think someone who is a threat to the officer, who plans on shooting the officer, is going to notify the officer that they have a gun? No! The officer is going to find out when he's being shot at. So if I don't plan on harming the officer, why in the hell does he need to know I have a gun any more than he needs to know that I have my house keys in my pocket? The fact that I own a gun and have one with me is MY business. And if he were a criminal who either was in possession of a firearm illegally, or he was about to commit a crime, then most likely he wouldn't have been stupid enough to be open carrying.

You may not have a problem with giving them your I.D. if they ask for it, but what is it about legally carrying a gun that made them inquire upon his identity? The fact is, some cops think they're the only ones who have the right to carry guns and anyone else who does is obviously a criminal. So you just go ahead and bend over for every cop you come across and spill your guts about your guns thinking you're making a friend. But if they want my respect, they're gonna have to earn it. You're not gonna treat me like an a$$hole and then expect me to give you a bunch if "yes sirs" in return. I can't stand it when people they out the "they work for me" BS, but my opinion is, just because they have a badge, a gun, and draw a government paycheck does not automatically grant them my respect.
 
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the... (bs deleted) ... I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?

All for the 2nd, the 4th not so much, huh? I seriously doubt you are for the 2nd.

The answer is yes, they are unless the officer has legitimate reason to suspect you are about to commit or have committed a crime.

The problem with ignoramuses who don't see the harm in their rights being taken away is that when they condone it or allow it to happen to them, it sets a precedent that potentially affects everyone else.

Fyi, this is America. We're not required to "show our papers" here.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
 
If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition.

If I'm not doing anything wrong, why are they presuming I'm in the wrong and trying to be a nuance? We are innocent until proven guilty by law and giving unnecessary info to cops is asking for trouble. See the video.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...5wnpMSGsLMrNv0nuA&sig2=h80e7iOZuC4OsrDdtmrtJA
 
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?
Doc, we all see your opinion to it being perfectly fine for an officer to detain you and demand you produce a license because he merely sees you openly carrying. I have to ask though, are you of the same opinion that an officer has the authority to detain and demand the license of anyone he merely sees driving?
Why is the licensed activity of driving different than the licensed activity of carrying a weapon? (Assuming that carrying openly is either legal or licensed in your state.)

Of course it's no big deal if the officer asks for your ID, but funny thing is, what do you think will be his reaction if you ask for his state issued ID that shows HIS home address? If he has nothing to hide, why should he object, right?

Now as to why wouldn't I have my ID on me. Why Should I? I'm not buying wine or beer, I'm not cashing a check (and my bank knows me enough not to even want to see identification) and I'm not purchasing any airline tickets. What need have I for identification?

Having identification does not prove or disprove criminal conduct. The ONLY reason Officer Friendly wants identification is to see if he can make an arrest on a warrant if he hasn't probable cause to make an arrest for what he has detained someone for.


In my state, the only time I'm required to produce my driving license is ... when stopped for a traffic violation
The only time I'm required to produce identification papers is .... never.
The only time I'm required to produce my weapons license is .... never.
And I'm quite happy to keep it that way.

Allowing officers to detain and conduct criminal investigations on the basis of "How do we know you aren't a felon?" or "How do we know you aren't _________" completely destroys any protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. If one allows officers to conduct a detention to see if someone is a felon based upon the mere sighting of a legal instrument (in this case a firearm) then where does it end?
Allowing detentions to see if someone is prohibited from driving because they have a DUI based merely upon the police seeing someone drive an automobile?
Allowing detentions to see if someone is consuming illegal, recreational drugs because they see merely see someone pop a TicTac or vitamin pill?
Allowing detentions to see if someone is a prostitute merely because they see someone is female and is necessarily equipped to be $2 crack 'ho'?
Allowing detentions to see if someone is a rapist merely because they see someone is male and necessarily equipped to be a rapist?
 
Law enforcement officers don't need to know the laws, just enforce them.

Yes, part of the above was penned in jest, but part of it is an unfortunate truth in America; many cops need remedial training on many fronts. Start by addressing the God complex, and work their way up to socially accepted, professional service, if that is possible any more.

Is it any wonder that law-abiding citizens who have been illegally treated want to kick their asses?

One officer here couldn't take the taunts (you are a wimp without your gun, I bet I could kick your ass if you took all your crap off) of an arrested man any longer at the station, and removed his firearm, baton, mace, cuffs (and the prisoner's) and other accessories, and they proceeded to square-off and go at it. It was stopped by other officers.

The officer was charged, and fired. His supervisor admonished him, that removing his gear on duty tarnished his reputation, as he was no longer a police officer on duty, but a criminal thug to be jailed and charged.

Now, if only the departments would charge and jail LEOs that engage in this abuse, while still wearing the uniform and tools-of-the-trade.
 
Law enforcement officers don't need to know the laws, just enforce them.

Yes, part of the above was penned in jest, but part of it is an unfortunate truth in America; many cops need remedial training on many fronts. Start by addressing the God complex, and work their way up to socially accepted, professional service, if that is possible any more.

Is it any wonder that law-abiding citizens who have been illegally treated want to kick their asses?

One officer here couldn't take the taunts (you are a wimp without your gun, I bet I could kick your ass if you took all your crap off) of an arrested man any longer at the station, and removed his firearm, baton, mace, cuffs (and the prisoner's) and other accessories, and they proceeded to square-off and go at it. It was stopped by other officers.

The officer was charged, and fired. His supervisor admonished him, that removing his gear on duty tarnished his reputation, as he was no longer a police officer on duty, but a criminal thug to be jailed and charged.

Now, if only the departments would charge and jail LEOs that engage in this abuse, while still wearing the uniform and tools-of-the-trade.

Not so sure that would be a bad thing, maybe we should let a unarmed cop beat the hell out of some ******* that really needs it, even up, one on one, no weapons, problems come up when the cops do this all the time, to anybody,
 
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?

Officer: "Mr. docmath, I am going to have to hold on to that firearm for my safety, until I can verify that your CHL is valid. While I am checking to see if your CHL is valid, I am also going to check the serial number of your gun to ensure that it is not stolen, which I know you won't mind me doing because you have nothing to hide. By the way, do you have any other items that might be used as weapon, such as knives?"

docmath: "Ummm....well, yes, I guess I have a knife in my fishing tackle box."

Officer: "Mr. docmath, you won't mind showing me the knife, after all you have nothing to hide, right?"

docmath: "No sir, I don't mind at all because, like you said I have nothing to hide. Let me pop open the trunk for you, so you can see the knife in the tackle box."

Officer: "Mr. docmath, this knife that you have here has a fixed blade that it 4 and 1/2 inches long."

docmath: "I suppose so..."

Officer: "Mr. docmath, I am going to have to arrest you for a misdemeanor for possession of a fixed blade knife with a length over 4 inches long because that is illegal by the city ordinance in our fair city here."

Just because you have nothing to hide is never a guarantee they won't find something. I refuse to waive my rights to be secure in my papers and personal effects just because "I have nothing to hide."
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top