The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2009, 02:31 PM   #26
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,994
That's what I thought, but since that incident there hasn't been a single word of follow up on whether he's pursuing a damages claim/discrimination suit or not.

I certainly hope that he is.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 11, 2009, 02:44 PM   #27
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
Quote:
What is worthy of note, is that there is now a growing body of case law, against unreasonable searches and seizures, simply because you are lawfully carrying a gun in the open.
This is a good thing in general, not even related to guns. The courts need to show some backbone. They have been giving police carte blanche for 50 years, regardless of what the constitution actually says.

Absent some especially good reason, police should not be detaining anyone for any reason.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old September 12, 2009, 02:26 AM   #28
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
I'm in agreement about the police having their "magic fairy shield" removed on this one. But before people jump on the bandwagon and say it ought to be abolished, consider what it was really intended to do.

The qualified immunity police enjoy is there to protect them from so-called "honest" errors. For example, an officer stops someone for "public consumption" of alcohol because he sees the man drink what appears to be a Budweiser can. But after detaining him, the officer finds it's a Coca-Cola can inside a foam insulator with the Budweiser logo.

It also shields officers when some activity might be a crime if certain elements are met and in good faith he intervenes. But after establishing the facts he realizes one or more required elements are missing or dubious, he lets the person go. Such could be the case of someone selling "fake ID's" and the officer not noticing the fine-print that says "Novelty Use Only" and the prosecutor rejecting the charges.

Now... accusing someone of a crime that isn't even on the books is different. That's most likely why the judge stripped them of their immunity. Had they made a mistake -- i.e. if an O.C. statute required a holster and they couldn't see his deep-tuck IWB holster until they were outside -- that would be covered by the immunity.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old September 12, 2009, 07:31 AM   #29
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
No one has mentioned the police chief, who should be responsible for making sure his officers receive the required training they need to stay current on changes in the law, as well as the old laws themselves. He, along with the police department trainer if it is another person, should also be held responsible.

Here in Missouri we are allowed open carry. There are times when I go to pick my wife up at work that I still have my sidearm belted on. I have one convenience store I like to stop at and get my coffee and argue with the clerks on duty about politics (They are wrong all the time!). If I do not show up for a few days, they actually have a list of things to 'argue" about. I love that place. But I digress.... Anyway, the owner finally posted a 'No firearms' sign and I explained I would not be back as often.

I guess I can understand some of these places not knowing about open carry, but I can not excuse a police officer who does not know state law.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old September 12, 2009, 11:52 AM   #30
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
What would really deter the police from overreaching like this would be not just potential civil but criminal liability. What happened to the victim in this case could be compared with kidnapping - he was targeted, under the color and authority of the law and in bad faith, and illegally detained.
Agreed. It would also take the tax payer off the hook when LE agencies screw up.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06764 seconds with 7 queries