OC individual sues police for false arrest

[Sam1911]

Don't you think police have been trained to know what to do in such a situation? They knew before the call came in, they knew before they arrived on the scene, and they knew long, long ago what to do with OC proponents acting in such a way.

No, and the assertion is either facetious or alarming.

Unless this is some keystone cops caper, trumping up charges that get thrown out and land the department in court is a rather ridiculous thing to do on purpose.

But the greater concern is your seeming suggestion (which I'm sure the officers would go to great lengths to deny) that they knew all along this person was no threat to anyone and was acting in full accordance with the law but they harassed and arrested him anyway just to show him that they don't like that kind of perfectly lawful activity in their town.

Which is the more awful scenario?

 

[Deanimator]

Don't you think police have been trained to know what to do in such a situation?

No, actually.

And I don't assume that "trained"="properly trained".

Nor do I assume that any individual cop will follow his training, proper or not.

I'm pretty sure that Tony Abbate was trained, at least in general, not to:

• get stupid drunk in public.
• stomp barmaids.
• try to intimidate witnesses.
• lie under oath.

I guess all of that training just didn't "take"...

 

[AKElroy]

Quote:
How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check? Or do we just give someone fresh out of prison on parole or recently released from a mental institution a pass on this one?

Wow. The same way they are to assume that anyone doing anything is none of their business, unless that person is breaking the law. I'm not a cop. How ridiculous would it be for me to approach random citizens on the street, demanding to know who they are and what they are doing? You think a uniform and a badge gives them that right? No. What he should have done, given the patrons complaint about the OC'ing individual, was to either explain to the complainant that the man was not breaking the law, or to advise him to take it up with the owner of the store. This was not the cops business anymore than yours or mine.

 

[RustyShackelford]

YouTube clips.....

I suggest rolling over to Youtube.com & watching a few OCer vs patrol cop clips.

The Sydney NE(home of www.cabelas.com ) video is worth viewing. A college age kid & his female passenger get a small town cop so riled up even his patrol supervisor can't control him.
There are videos I see where the OCer(armed citizen) behaves poorly but a few have troopers or police that are way out of line.

Rusty

 

[henschman]

Police need to be careful with these situations. Here in Oklahoma, and many other states as well, a false arrest has the same legal status of an assault, and gives rise to a right of self defense on the part of the victim. With both parties armed, it could easily give rise to a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury on the part of the victim, and a legal right to use deadly force in self defense.

 

[coyotehitman]

<.....>

I'll vote for legislation prohibiting open carry right now! Why? Because a percentage of gun toters are idiots who don't know how to behave, like to create problems, and find it amusing when others do so. There are many who feel the same way and the list is getting longer. Keep it up boys, cuz you can, for now!

 

[coyotehitman]

a false arrest has the same legal status of an assault, and gives rise to a right of self defense on the part of the victim. With both parties armed, it could easily give rise to a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury on the part of the victim, and a legal right to use deadly force in self defense.

Yeah....sure it does....

 

[Davek1977]

I'm not sure I follow the logic about being loved enough by mommy that I don't care about officer's knowing/following the law. Those two subjects see far enough away from one another to be mutually exclusive, and not lumped together as if they are one and the same. While I don't agree with the open carry controversies of late, there are CERTAINLY times and places where cops have overstepped the law and made arrests that were less than lawful based on their own ignorance of the law. Lets just say I have as much patience for the fools open carrying assault rifles as I do police who have the power to seize someone's freedom, or believe they do, based on their misunderstanding of the law. Both positions are inexcusable if you ask me. If you have the power to instantly deprive someone of life or liberty based on your understanding of the law, is it really too much to ask that you actiually comprehend the laws that you are tasked to enforce??!

 

[zxcvbob]

Quote:
a false arrest has the same legal status of an assault, and gives rise to a right of self defense on the part of the victim. With both parties armed, it could easily give rise to a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury on the part of the victim, and a legal right to use deadly force in self defense.


Yeah....sure it does....

There was a Supreme Court ruling on this very topic: John Bad Elk v. U.S. It's an oldie but goody; hasn't been overturned yet.

 

[rdhood]

Do you find those who bait the police into confrontations amusing Rusty?... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

If the police know the law and know their job, they cannot be baited.
Period.
The rest of what you are describing is stroking the egos and ignoring the ignorance of the police, and deferring to authority they do not have in order to appease them.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Hmmm...

Difficult to render an infomed personal judgement because I wasn't there and didn't witness the event...video not withstanding. (Which I haven't watched yet anyway, being at work.)

I should think that the key to handling such an encounter with a police officer is knowing what to say in the first place. As a person who carries concealed, I have run myself through many different scenarios and try to think ahead for any given circumstance. Such as being pulled over for a "safety stop" late July 4th. Or getting gas. Or walking through Walmart.

What one says (and how one says it) has a great impact on how people view them and what actions they may take. Anybody who chooses to hide behind arrogance and a belligerant attitude, even if they're in the right, is setting themselves up for a fall regardless. And, like it or not, the officer with the gun is NOT someone to play stupid, silly games with.

If you carry a gun, playing stupid and silly games shouldn't be on your agenda in the first place.


If I'm questioned by a police officer, one of the things I always consider is I may not know why I'm being questioned. Did the officer get a call about me? From whom and for what reason? Did something else happen in the area that I don't know about? Does my basic description match something/someone he's looking for?

When I'm pulled over for a traffic violation, odds are pretty darned good that I know why. But my basic manners should not be any different.

In any case, my answers and my demeanor should not be engineered to trip any precipitous response from the police officer. I want to come across as polite, clear headed, and reasonable while protecting my own rights.

There are all kinds of ways, and advice, about answering questions an officer asks. But I would say that one should start with the actual questions the officer asks and not go off into tangents. If the question is "what are you doing?" while you're standing in line to pay for gas, then the answer should be something along the line of "Paying for some gas, officer" because THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING! Going off on a tangent about exercising your right to open carry is off topic and very quickly leads the officer into questions about that based on YOUR responses. Make HIM segway into that.

If it's a request to identify yourself, whether simply giving him your name or showing an ID, then answer politely in accordance with whatever local laws are in effect for you. If such a request is bound by law based on a reasonable suspicion of some criminal activity, then politely ask why and what you're suspected of. If you refuse, then do so POLITELY and ONLY in compliance with the law. Your response should ALWAYS be calm and polite, never giving reason to upset or incite. And even so...your technically legal and polite response may STILL cause you problems.

YOU are the one to decide how much to say to the police and how it is said. If you do say something, you had better engage your brain first before you end up eating your own feet as a result.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'll vote for legislation prohibiting open carry right now! Why? Because a percentage of gun toters are idiots who don't know how to behave, like to create problems, and find it amusing when others do so. There are many who feel the same way and the list is getting longer. Keep it up boys, cuz you can, for now!

While I quite understand your concern, especially with respect to cop baiters, your closing statement is EXACTLY what the gun control crowd is pushing...because there are ALWAYS idiots, they feel they MUST disarm EVERYBODY.

Sorry, Charlie...I can't go along with that. There are ALWAYS idiots for EVERYTHING. We don't take away the rights of everybody based on the few. If we do, then they're not rights...they're privileges and the privilages will be only for the select few in power and at the detriment of everybody else.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check? Or do we just give someone fresh out of prison on parole or recently released from a mental institution a pass on this one?

Holy cow, how do we know the officer isn't a power hungry, undiagnosed mental case?

If the cops were worried as suggested by the quoted post, they would be stationed at gun ranges, especially public gun ranges, to card everybody they saw with a gun, you know, just in case the person is fresh out of prison or a paroled mental case. The cops would want to make sure such individuals aren't getting a pass on this, huh?

 

[Arkansas Paul]

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?

The same way they confirm that everyone riding down the street on a bicycle didn't steal it. They don't. You don't look at a citizen walking down the street and automatically assume the worst.

You don't harass citizens when they're engaging in a perfectly legal activity. You can't pull over every car just to make sure they have a valid drivers license.

I'll vote for legislation prohibiting open carry right now! Why? Because a percentage of gun toters are idiots who don't know how to behave, like to create problems, and find it amusing when others do so.

So would you vote right now for a prohibition on alcohol because a percentage of people who drink are idiots and don't know how to behave, like to create problems and find it amusing when others do? Drinking irresponsibly leads to increased incidents of domestic violence, traffic fatalities and dangerous accidents. Wanna ban alcohol? After all it will make us so much 'safer'.

 

[itsa pain]

It is apparent we have almost as much to worry about from cops and some gun owners as the antis. One retired cop saying you are not a citizen for not submitting to their egomania and another guy wanting to vote to further limit gun rights.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Apparently, some do.

 

[Deanimator]

There are all kinds of ways, and advice, about answering questions an officer asks.

Other than my name and address (and CHL status, ONLY if armed), I'm not answering ANY questions without a lawyer present.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?

The same way they confirm that everyone riding down the street on a bicycle didn't steal it. They don't. You don't look at a citizen walking down the street and automatically assume the worst.

I'm wondering how Officer Friendly is supposed to confirm that someone o̶p̶e̶n̶ concealed carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?
To be safe, we need to empower the police to stop and detain anyone, anywhere, at any time to make sure they aren't felons in possession of hidden weaponry. They'd even need to be able to enter a person's home of course, since felons also keep weaponry at home.

 

[joeschmoe]

I'm wondering how Officer Friendly is supposed to confirm that someone o̶p̶e̶n̶ concealed carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?
To be safe, we need to empower the police to stop and detain anyone, anywhere, at any time to make sure they aren't felons in possession of hidden weaponry. They'd even need to be able to enter a person's home of course, since felons also keep weaponry at home.

We should appoint someone who can decide when and how to use such broad powers. Just to make sure he's not swayed by pubic opinion or partisanship it should be a lifetime appointment.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

We should appoint someone who can decide when and how to use such broad powers. Just to make sure he's not swayed by pubic opinion or partisanship it should be a lifetime appointment.

King George III was a wimp.

Put me in charge with absolute power and authority and you'll see changes you've never dreamed.

 

[Hanshi]

Op AND ccw are protected by the Constitution and recognized by most jurisdictions. However, op does make some people nervous and this is to be avoided. Ccw makes no one nervous simply because it's hidden from sight. A visible weapon draws unwanted attention and not just from a pampered public; trouble makers see it too. Personally, I save op for the bush and concealed for everything else.

 

[moxie]

Hanshi,
Using terms like "pampered public" is just so much condescending dreck. There are plenty of "unpampered" citizens who are either scared of or just don't like OC. This type of talk just further alienates the antis and can indeed push some pro-gun folk over the edge.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Personally, I save op for the bush and concealed for everything else.

Personally, I do the same thing. However, I'm not for government restriction for those who do choose to OC. It's not my thing, but the right should be there.

 

[Deanimator]

This type of talk just further alienates the antis

And I care WHY?

My condemnations of child rape have "alienated" NAMBLA members. They've told me so.

I can't think of ANY reason why I should care any more about what Moms Demand Safe Working Conditions for Rapists think about what I say than I care what NAMBLA thinks.

 

[Art Eatman]

Deanimator, such talk does not alienate antis; it alienates voters. People who are neutral or who are only mildly anti: Name calling of whatever pejorative sort can have them voting or lobbying against us instead of being quiet.