General Categories > Newsworthy
Loveland man's lawsuit says cops violated Constitutional rights
equinox137:
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Of course there are 2 sides- and we don't know the details, so rather then inserting fantasy scenarios I'm strictly going off the information actually reported. If the facts are misrepresented (certainly possible) then it's meaningless speculation.
--- End quote ---
That's what I'm getting at.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---However my point is: IF a policeman told a citizen (admitted by all to have done nothing illegal) that he can expect to be harassed by the POLICE for exercising his ACKNOWLEDGED rights, then yes, absolutely that officer should be fired and prosecuted, no question.
--- End quote ---
Prosecuted for what crime? Wouldn't the prosecuting DA be violating that officer's 1A rights for going so? Fired because warning a citizen that open carrying is going to create unnecessary attention and would result in likely being detained to repeat this process again? If if the attorney's claim on the officer's statement was true, sounds to me like the officer was being honest with the man.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Disagree? replace 'man practicing open carry' with 'Black man walking down the street in an upscale neighborhood'. If the cop said 'You have the right- but expect to be questioned and detained every time you excercise that right' would that be okay? What if an Muslim cop decided to harass people attending a church?
--- End quote ---
How about replacing it with 'white suburban family from Millard driving their SVU with Nebraska plates down 10 Mile Road in inner Detroit at 10PM on a summer Friday night'? Do you have the right to do? Yes. Is it wise? You're out of your mind if you say yes. A Detroit cop will find RS in a hurry (i.e. a burned out license plate lamp or something) to pull said family over and advise said family "you have the right to do this, but my advice to you is to get the hell out of here in a hurry." They'll even tell you not to stop for red lights.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Sorry equinox, the police don't get the option to ration liberties. They have a difficult job and I appreciate that, but it doesn't include pressuring people and infringing on freedoms, for whatever reason.
--- End quote ---
Where did the rationing or infringing of liberties occur in this particular case? Where did the pressuring occur?
Where did the harassment occur?
None of it happened.
greg58:
Interesting arguments on both sides, I tend to agree that proving damages in Federal court will be a tall order.
I for one prefer to keep my weapon concealed.
Greg58
Hardwood83:
--- Quote from: equinox137 on August 11, 2010, 01:39:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Of course there are 2 sides- and we don't know the details, so rather then inserting fantasy scenarios I'm strictly going off the information actually reported. If the facts are misrepresented (certainly possible) then it's meaningless speculation.
--- End quote ---
That's what I'm getting at.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---However my point is: IF a policeman told a citizen (admitted by all to have done nothing illegal) that he can expect to be harassed by the POLICE for exercising his ACKNOWLEDGED rights, then yes, absolutely that officer should be fired and prosecuted, no question.
--- End quote ---
Prosecuted for what crime? Wouldn't the prosecuting DA be violating that officer's 1A rights for going so? Fired because warning a citizen that open carrying is going to create unnecessary attention and would result in likely being detained to repeat this process again? If if the attorney's claim on the officer's statement was true, sounds to me like the officer was being honest with the man.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Disagree? replace 'man practicing open carry' with 'Black man walking down the street in an upscale neighborhood'. If the cop said 'You have the right- but expect to be questioned and detained every time you excercise that right' would that be okay? What if an Muslim cop decided to harass people attending a church?
--- End quote ---
How about replacing it with 'white suburban family from Millard driving their SVU with Nebraska plates down 10 Mile Road in inner Detroit at 10PM on a summer Friday night'? Do you have the right to do? Yes. Is it wise? You're out of your mind if you say yes. A Detroit cop will find RS in a hurry (i.e. a burned out license plate lamp or something) to pull said family over and advise said family "you have the right to do this, but my advice to you is to get the hell out of here in a hurry." They'll even tell you not to stop for red lights.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Sorry equinox, the police don't get the option to ration liberties. They have a difficult job and I appreciate that, but it doesn't include pressuring people and infringing on freedoms, for whatever reason.
--- End quote ---
Where did the rationing or infringing of liberties occur in this particular case? Where did the pressuring occur?
Where did the harassment occur?
None of it happened.
--- End quote ---
Obviously we disagree at a fundamental level. As for the officer's '1A' rights, that doesn't apply at all. This wasn't a friendly conversation at a bar after work, he was speaking as an armed official of the government. What the cop said was not portrayed as 'friendly advice' or merely 'being honest'. It was a warning not to cause trouble or pay the consequences, again from a policeman. As for the 'crime' the policeman is violating the citizens civil right to carry. Harassment IS infringing on the right. As for your Detroit scenario- that has no relation to this. This guy wasn't approached or detained for HIS safety or well being. And to answer your question as to how/what right was infringed- the story tells us he was detained for 30 minutes. Against his will. And threatened with more of the same if he dared to do 'it' again. Although what he did was perfectly legal- armed officials of the state 'suggested' he not do it anymore or he would be inconvenienced, questioned, detained again. If being forcibly detained for 30minutes by armed men for NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG doesn't equal harassment, pressure or infringement of liberties then what does? If you don't see a problem with that I'm afraid your discernment is very poor. Do you work for the city of Omaha, by chance?
equinox137:
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---Obviously we disagree at a fundamental level. As for the officer's '1A' rights, that doesn't apply at all.
--- End quote ---
That is completely incorrect. Officers do not lose their rights merely because they put a uniform and badge on. There is plenty of case law on that. Garrity is a good starting point on that one.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---This wasn't a friendly conversation at a bar after work, he was speaking as an armed official of the government.
--- End quote ---
So? This guy wanted attention and he got it. And by stirring up crap like this, as he stated his intentions were in his lawsuit, he's making firearms owners everywhere look bad.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---What the cop said was not portrayed as 'friendly advice' or merely 'being honest'. It was a warning not to cause trouble or pay the consequences, again from a policeman.
--- End quote ---
Errrr......that wasn't what was protrayed, even by Mr. Miller's attorney.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---As for the 'crime' the policeman is violating the citizens civil right to carry. Harassment IS infringing on the right. As for your Detroit scenario- that has no relation to this. This guy wasn't approached or detained for HIS safety or well being.
--- End quote ---
Ummmm....there is not a "civil right to carry." There is a right to bear arms. Just because there are no laws prohibiting something doesn't automatically make it a "right". There is no law prohibiting me from owning a radar detector, but that doesn't that I have a "right" to have a radar detector. Try arguing that "right" in someplace like Virginia and see what happens. If there was an affirmed right to carry, CHPs would be a moot point nationwide, would it not? Had they confiscated his weapon, I would agree with you that his 2A and probably his 5A rights would have been violated, however they returned it to him once their investigation was completed. Therefore, no violation of his rights occurred.
And no, he was detained for the safety and well being of the community at large. No one knew who this guy was or what his intentions were, nor are police officers mind-readers. Yes, it turned it that he and his weapon were clean, but he could have easily been despondent and ready to go shoot up his old work place when he was done eating that apple -because he lost his job of 30 years to some young computer punk. Nobody knows what the deal actually is until someone goes to talk with him and checks him out.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---And to answer your question as to how/what right was infringed- the story tells us he was detained for 30 minutes. Against his will.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's exactly what a Terry stop is. And most courts will find 30 minutes reasonable because at times, it takes that long sometimes to get a response back from NCIC, especially during peak hours of usage. I guarantee you the federal courts will.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---And threatened with more of the same if he dared to do 'it' again. Although what he did was perfectly legal- armed officials of the state 'suggested' he not do it anymore or he would be inconvenienced, questioned, detained again.
--- End quote ---
Threatened? Where was the threat? If they threatened him with arrest or criminal charges for doing the same thing, then yes, I would agree that there was threat...but once again, when someone makes a "man with a gun" call to 911, in a lot of jurisdictions, the police have the DUTY to respond and investigate it. In many places, it's written policy.
It wasn't a threat - it was a dose of common sense. Packing a weapon openly in a lot communities around this country is going to draw a lot of attention & generate 911 calls, that's just being realistic.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---If being forcibly detained for 30minutes by armed men for NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG doesn't equal harassment, pressure or infringement of liberties then what does?
--- End quote ---
Do you even know the definition of reasonable suspicion??? No one knew he was not doing anything wrong until he was checked and the scene was cleared. RS can cover a plethora of things. To use your example of "a black man walking down an upscale neighborhood" - that in itself isn't RS, but "a black man walking down an upscale neighborhood, wearing unseasonable clothing (bulky clothing in 90 degree weather), carrying a bag (that possibly could contain burglar tools), and having passed the same empty house 4 times while talking on a cell phone"....is. The police wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't stop and make contact with him. See how easily the picture changes when a few missing facts are added in?
Let's face it - a person carrying a weapon openly without being in some kind of uniform or wearing some kind of badge unusual in today's society. The very sight is enough to make some people panic. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. I really don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is. Because it's unusual, the sheep are always going to call 911 when they see that. What are the police supposed to do? Ignore the calls? They can't do that. It will be their collective asses if it turns into an active shooter call later on.
And yes, Barry cited a case on PA where their Supreme Court said that open carrying a gun is not RS in itself for that state, but you've also got to consider that the case in question was decided before Columbine, Virginia Tech, Westroads Mall, etc... Not only that, but the federal courts in which Mr. Miller has chosen as a venue is LOADED with Clinton and Obama appointees...His lawsuit is going to go nowhere fast.
By the way, he was not detained forcibly - nobody put hands on him or did anything else but get his compliance via verbal commands (i.e. "can you come here so I can talk to you for a second"). That is not using force. Secondly, once it was determined that he was not doing anything wrong, he was released with his property returned. They did not deprive him of his property, detain, or delay him more than was necessary to ascertain the facts.
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on August 10, 2010, 11:22:09 AM ---If you don't see a problem with that I'm afraid your discernment is very poor. Do you work for the city of Omaha, by chance?
--- End quote ---
Perhaps it's that my discernment is tempered by training, knowledge and experience that differs from yours.
Do I work for the City of Omaha? No.
Hardwood83:
Equinox137 perhaps you are a cop, thin blue line and all that, and are taking this as a personal attack on you/your profession. Please don't- I don't take your attempts to be condescending personally. I'm certain you are a nice guy and upstanding citizen and not a troll, despite all appearances. Notwithstanding (or because?) of all your extensive training, exhaustive knowledge & world-class experience you appear to view everything as a privilege that must be approved by authorities or else you are asking for trouble. Rights certainly come with responsibilities- but not an approval checklist. You are promoting serfdom not citizenship.
Back to the discussion: Are you claiming a policeman can say whatever he wants in his capacity as an officer and it's protected free speech? That is what I understand you to be arguing.
How exactly did he make firearms owners look bad? Please be specific.
To quote you 'Errrr....ummmm..." if 'bear arms" doesn't explicitly & exactly mean carrying a gun what does it mean? Please be specific.
You state the Police had a duty to respond to the call- no argument there. The issue comes from how it was handled. The rub is that you believe, by your words, it is not 'common sense' to exercise your rights (in this case under Colorado law specifically) and doing so is stirring up trouble. It appears you think the Minutemen should have laid down their muskets at Lexington, Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the bus and Dick Heller should have accepted the status quo in DC. After all, again in your words, 'that's just being realistic'. Society has dictated 'guns are scary' the cops are enforcing that and we all need to comply. To do otherwise makes one a rabble-rouser that deserves extra police attention.
As for your assertion that he wasn't detained by force, I again disagree. If he had briefly explained himself then politely refused to submit to further scrutiny would he been free to walk away? No, he was detained and not free to leave. He would have been arrested by force if he didn't comply. Explain to me that implied or threat of force is not force.
Now was this episode the very picture of tyranny? No, but it shows how far we have to go regarding gun rights, obviously including some gun owners in our midst.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version