B
Bikenut
Guest
Your Pappy was right but he forgot to add:
"Locks and Laws only keep honest people honest, everyone else will do what the dam well want too" as long as we let them get away with it.
Police being tested.
- Thread starter dogshawred
- Start date
"Locks and Laws only keep honest people honest, everyone else will do what the dam well want too" as long as we let them get away with it.
BC1
,
Don't ever think I don't have balls. And a brain. every one of us will have our rights violated repeatedly throughout life. learn when and where to make your fight. Or be prepared for a rap sheet and large legal bills.
lessthan0
Bulldog Pride
Here is a memo put out by CT state police to clear up how you can carry in CT. Although I've heard you most likely will be hassled. seeing how we are such a gun friendly state.........:no:
Connecticut State Police Finally Admit Open Carry is Lawful
Connecticut Carry
Connecticut Carry
Connecticut --(Ammoland.com)- It comes as no surprise to the well informed gun owners across the state, but the State Police are finally admitting something they have been reticent to do so far:
There is no requirement to conceal your firearm when carrying it in public.
If you have a handgun, you need a permit to open carry or to carry concealed., BUT YOU DO NEED A PERMIT.
For several years, Connecticut Carry and its directors along with active gun owners have pushed the state to put an end to bad arrests of people who are lawfully carrying their firearms unconcealed. Police departments have been sued in Federal court over this issue and still the State Police stood by, mostly silent on the issue. Finally, Connecticut Carry has come into possession of a training memo issued to State Police officers across the state that should put the issue of whether someone can be arrested for lawfully carrying a firearm unconcealed to bed once and for all.
Key points from the memo:
“In Connecticut there is NO state statute which makes it illegal for someone with a valid permit to openly carry a pistol in plain view”
“State Police personnel should NOT arrest a properly permitted individual merely for publicly carrying a hand gun or firearm in plain view”
“a complaint from someone that they were merely alarmed or in fear of an openly carried firearm would not arise to the level of a ‘breach of peace’ situation”
The memo simply confirms what informed Connecticut gun owners have known for a long time, open carry is legal in the State of Connecticut.
Read more at Ammoland.com: Connecticut State Police Finally Admit Open Carry is Lawful
Connecticut State Police Finally Admit Open Carry is Lawful
Connecticut Carry
Connecticut Carry
Connecticut --(Ammoland.com)- It comes as no surprise to the well informed gun owners across the state, but the State Police are finally admitting something they have been reticent to do so far:
There is no requirement to conceal your firearm when carrying it in public.
If you have a handgun, you need a permit to open carry or to carry concealed., BUT YOU DO NEED A PERMIT.
For several years, Connecticut Carry and its directors along with active gun owners have pushed the state to put an end to bad arrests of people who are lawfully carrying their firearms unconcealed. Police departments have been sued in Federal court over this issue and still the State Police stood by, mostly silent on the issue. Finally, Connecticut Carry has come into possession of a training memo issued to State Police officers across the state that should put the issue of whether someone can be arrested for lawfully carrying a firearm unconcealed to bed once and for all.
Key points from the memo:
“In Connecticut there is NO state statute which makes it illegal for someone with a valid permit to openly carry a pistol in plain view”
“State Police personnel should NOT arrest a properly permitted individual merely for publicly carrying a hand gun or firearm in plain view”
“a complaint from someone that they were merely alarmed or in fear of an openly carried firearm would not arise to the level of a ‘breach of peace’ situation”
The memo simply confirms what informed Connecticut gun owners have known for a long time, open carry is legal in the State of Connecticut.
Read more at Ammoland.com: Connecticut State Police Finally Admit Open Carry is Lawful
jcreek
New member
Why should I be prepared for a rap sheet or large legal bills? Like the subject here, I don't break the law I just don't tolerate the cops breaking it either. He had his charges dropped and is filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit which I'm sure he will settle for at least several hundred thousand. He doesn't seem to be accruing either.
BC1
,
Why would one want to get arrested? To sue? You do understand that even though charges get dropped you retain an arrest record? The disposition shows the charges were dropped but the incident is available for anyone who checks your background. You pay an attorney to get those charges dropped right? You wouldn't speak to LE without an attorney right?
.
This is the same as wanting to have a car accident so you can sue. No lawsuit is worth blemishing a perfect lifetime record... unless one is destitute. Couple hundred thousand? Not worth the risk, the time and effort. It's one thing if it happens by chance. It's another if one is intentionally provoking it. Not misfeasance, but rather malfeasance. Intent through malicious behavior. Should it be known that someone was baiting the LEO with the intent to sue, that fact would bode badly in a civil trial. I believe it would anger a jury.
.
To get a large civil payout requires more than LE simply not knowing the law. The LEO officer must act in an egregious manner with intent to harm you or otherwise deprive you of a right. He must go farther than misfeasance to commit malfeasance. In most states in order to sue you must prove a tort, measurable damages and a "close-causal-connection" between the tort and damages. Mental anguish damages generally need be attached to some documented physical suffering and be shown via objective findings. The municipality carries insurance for errors and omissions as well as general liability. Errors and omissions coverage would pay settlement compensation when the LEO acted without knowledge of the law, thus violating your rights. Recoverable damages include compensatory, pecuniary, incidental, general, etc. This does not include punitive damages. In such cases most states disallow recovery of court costs and legal fees.
.
In the event the LEO, through evidence or the testimony of witnesses, intentionally harmed someone, deprived them of a right he knew was above his jurisdiction, then the stage is set for a punitive damage. Such damages are used to punish the municipality and to ensure this never happens again. It is only a very, very small percentage of people that ever recover any monetary award for wrongful arrest unless it is proven that the official acted with depraved indifference to your rights and the law. It's generally hard to prove a dollar amount in harm.
jcreek
New member
So, according to you, doing nothing more than walking into a gas station open carrying is "malicious behavior", and just asking to get arrested?
I agree with you that cop baiting is retarded and getting arrested on purpose with the intent of suing afterwards is just as dumb an idea. But you seem to think that a man doing nothing more than going about his daily business while legally armed, constitutes these things, which is completely asinine.
There's a difference between walking around in a legal gray area trying to get arrested for the purpose of suing, and getting arrested on false charges while minding your own business and then suing afterwards. I'm not going to sit in a corner and not exercise my rights because some goon "might" arrest me on false charges.
By your definition of malicious behavior, you could say that those folks shot by LAPD during the search for Dorner were being "malicious" because they were driving around the same color truck as he was. By your thinking they should have just stayed home for a week because LAPD might shoot them if they were seen driving a blue truck and they should have just accepted that as OK.
No US citizen should have to worry about being arrested on fake charges or shot by police when doing nothing more illegal than walking out their front door. If you're ok with that, you're part of the problem.
BC1
,
Now you read everything I wrote and I stated nothing about walking into a gas station. Nowhere did I claim anyone driving around was acting in a malicious manner.
.
In the Dorner case where innocents were shot there may be a different application of intent and malicious behavior. The courts have long held that an act of negligence by someone acting in an official capacity, where the behavior was so negligent, so egregious and caused such extreme harm, and where a person of similar training and experience would not have committed the act, can be held in a punitive damage. Also repeated acts of misfeasance (mistakes) whereby the harmful result is known constitutes malfeasance and thus the element of intent is established by the repeated disregard for the consequences.
.
I'm talking about the LEO behaving in a malicious manner, not the general public. Let me rephrase the point. LEO makes a mistake and you get arrested. Monetary awards are generally limited to the actual damages that can be proven; consequential, compensatory, pecuniary, etc. This means medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of property, loss of income, etc. Generally not much there as mistakes do happen. No one is getting punished. Second example... LEO intentionally, egregiously and maliciously effects an arrest where he knows no law was broken with specific intent to harm someone and the punitive damage could be huge. That behavior may constitute official misconduct. Anytime you can get a criminal misconduct charge upheld against that LEO it paves the way to file a motion for civil summary judgment. A summary judgment, if granted, advises the jury that another court has found criminal wrongdoing, therefor they don't need to decide if the tort occurred, only what damages can be assessed.
.
I believe anyone who's trying to bait LE is the real culprit. But if I were arrested, having not broken a law, and the LEO knows no law is broken but effects the arrest anyway, then yes, I would sue. Drop of a hat I'll rock-n-roll. For many of us lawsuits aren't personal. They're only business.
.
Here's a thought... a drunk rounds the corner and slides into your car. He pushes your car a few feet but there is no damage to your car. LE is called. He's arrested for DUI. Can you sue him? Absolutely not. And those who file frivolous lawsuits are subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 and may be assessed court costs, expenses and legal fees incurred by the person they sue.
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
BC1
,
Well, that's a bad dog. Shoot him.
.
Years ago I took over raising a drug-addicted niece. She didn't clean-up. Eventually she bit the hand that fed her. I filed charges. She went to jail.
tricolordad
Banned
You mean a fear of someone else's fear.
B
Bikenut
Guest
If that is the case then when the cops use bait cars and fake prostitutes to bait citizens the real culprit is......... the cops?
Remember... the public legally baiting the cops is like the cops legally baiting the public because only a criminal, citizen criminal or criminal cop, will rise to the "bait" and take the "hook".
Like it or not... the police do NOT occupy some pedestal over and above the common man. Just as the police are a restraint upon the illegal actions of the common man so is the common man supposed to be a restraint upon the illegal actions of the police.
Not to mention blaming the person who is engaged in a legal activity for the illegal actions of a cop who hassles him is exactly the same backasswards logic of blaming the gun that shot an innocent instead of blaming the bad guy that pulled the trigger. You know... blaming the victim (or blaming the gun) for the illegal actions of the criminal.
ConcealCincinnati
New member
I think the point being made is there is a difference between exercising a right and purposely trying to entrap a police officer. If the officer truly has the motivation to harass and infringe upon the rights of someone open carrying, said officer will do it whether they are "baited" or not. Open carry and go about your business, but don't purposely try to get arrested.
BC1
,
In a word, yes. Certain LE activities in baiting people have been determined to be entrapment. Others like speed traps passed constitutional muster. Odd, considering entrapment and speed trap both contain the word root "trap."
.
I did not blame a person involved in a legal activity. I merely educated some people on the differences in types of liability and the types of damages that can be recovered. If a LEO makes an honest mistake in his knowledge of the law and that results in a wrongful arrest there is little recourse. This is much different than a LEO who intentionally targets someone with intent to harm, injure or deprive someone of a right. People's right are violated by LE hundreds of times per day in America. All but a small number are not intended to harm someone but rather are based in lack of knowledge of the law. No punitive damages or large payouts will be made in such case. Purely a case of errors and omissions.
.
Here's a good one... Last year my wife called me from a grocery store parking lot. She pulled-in, parked and fixed her hair. When she got out a police car had her blocked in. He was standing there. He accused her of parking crooked and suggested she may be on drugs or drunk. She doesn't drink or take drugs. She called me from the sene. I told her to shut-up and start her phone recorder. He administered a field sobriety test but wouldn't let her use her crutches. She had just undergone spinal surgery a month prior and needed the French crutches to walk. He asked about meds. She declined to answer. He advised her that she legally must tell him about certain meds. She refused. He asked if he could search the car. She told him to get a warrant and clammed-up again. I arrived with my best friend who's a criminal defense attorney. He took her phone recorder and went over to the patrol car....................... A few minutes later the officer walked over, apologized. Kind of sheepish. So what did my friend say to him? He advised him that she didn't drink or take drugs and that a DUI arrest would show she was clean. She would likely sue for harm to her reputation and record. Handcuffing her might result in injury; she had rotator cuff surgery six weeks prior. Same auto accident. He advised the officer he was in violation of civil rights law because he disallowed use of a walking device to a disabled person. She couldn't walk without it. Advised him that he may be violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. He played back the LEO advising that under the law she must disclose medications. The cop was a young guy and was very nice. He said he had called his superior who advised him to let her go. A little over-zealous. He told us he was suspicious because she was "quite evasive." My buddy barked "this is America, she has a right to be evasive."
.
She wasn't harmed in any way. There were no damages. There was no lawsuit. There was no complaint to the department. Had he continued with an arrest after being advised of those things I woud have taken legal action. My wife is mad to this day but, hey, we've better thing to do than chase this young country-yokel of a cop for his lack of experience. And I'm normally a guy who doesn't take a crap without a lawyer. I was nice. I'm always nice... until the time comes to not be nice. Hence the attorney.
