• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Police Sued Over Open-Carry Incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

esq_stu

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
966
Location
Michigan
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/11/dickson-city-incident-update/

I have long felt that it was only a matter of time until 42 USC Section 1983 would be used to sue governmental officials for the harm they do in persecuting gun owners. If Heller comes out the way it should, those that would still unreasonably search and detain gun owners and take their property will hopefully be deterred by the possibility of many many more such lawsuits against them personally, just as wrongful death and excessive force lawsuits have been instituted in those cases.

This is not a statement against police. It is a statement about anyone that denies constitutional rights or people lawfully possessing or carrying guns. What comes to mind is New Orleans and anywhere else where government searches for and seizes guns without probable cause that a crime was committed with those guns and then has to be sued to get them back. What also comes to mind is BATF persecuting FFLs, and BATF's "Always Think Forfeiture" slogan. (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/395646.html)
 
Bivens actions would be too much to hope for. [The Bivens decision gives federal courts the power to award damages for violation of certain "constitutionally protected interests."]
 
I'm pretty sure they'll win, but it cannot be said as to what they'll win. At best they may only win a letter of apology and court cost reparations or whatever. At best on the other hand, they could quit their jobs promptly after the trial concludes. Who knows.
 
This should be interesting. Any of the legal eagles care to hazard a guess on their chances?
Click to expand...
The city has had it. They just didn't know when to keep their mouths shut and have created a LOT of evidence not at all helpful to their defense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The city has had it.":banghead:

Hence the problem..............the poor TAX-PAYER eventually foots the bill. What chance the these suits can be placed on a personal/civil-rights basis.......go after the INDIVIDUALS and not just the public-funded entity??
 
Hence the problem..............the poor TAX-PAYER eventually foots the bill. What chance the these suits can be placed on a personal/civil-rights basis.......go after the INDIVIDUALS and not just the public-funded entity??
Click to expand...

If the cities don't man up and fire induhvidual cops who violate rights, how can they complain when they get to pay for them?

The city should hire citizen minders for these guys.
 
What chance the these suits can be placed on a personal/civil-rights basis.......go after the INDIVIDUALS and not just the public-funded entity??
Click to expand...

Both the City and the individuals are named in the suit.

Employers are often held liable for the acts of employees, unless their acts do not arise in the course of employment. And although the individuals may also be held personally liable, they won't end up paying for 2 reasons: 1) they don't have any money to pay with; and 2) they were acting in the course of employment on behalf of the City. In most places, those circumstances end up with individuals making their employer pay, even if the employer is not directly liable.

If the City had clearly instructed the individuals not to roust innocent people openly carrying sidearms and made it very clear that the police were not authorized to arrest or hassle such people, there's a slight chance the City would wash it's hands of liability. I think judges tend to be sympathetic to employees and make the employers pay most of the time. If the police had rousted people while off duty, it would be a different story.
 
18 USC 242 is a criminal statute, and would have to be prosecuted in Federal criminal court. A U.S. Attorney would have to bring federal charges.

Unless someone was assaulted or killed or some other serious crime was perpetrated and it was considered worth a U.S. attorney's time, I would not expect to see criminal proceedings in this case.

IMO the NOLA gun confiscations should have led to criminal prosecutions.
 
I see a large increase in the City's Liability insurance coming. Hopefully next time around the voters will see fit to rid themselves of the whole lot.
 
I don't know anything about PA law but I wish them well. Clearly the police chose poorly when they sided with the political machine instead of the people and the law. If they have to take personal liability than more the better; it could well serve as a lesson for others who would do the same.
 
Missing from the suit

I'd ask for the revocation of all commissions involved in the suit. When individual LEOs realize that they can lose their commission for violating their oath, there will be a lot less of this kind of nonsense.

Abuse color of authority and go work somewhere else- NOT in the LEO business, which obviously they weren't cut out for in the first place.

If the CHIP officer that assaulted Patricia Kronie in New Orleans had to worry about losing his badge over it, he wouldn't have done it. Until they do, they will continue to follow illegal orders, period.
 
PA law and court decisions have stated clearly that open carry is fully legal in PA except in Filthadelphia (a city with over a million people.) Hopefully this will mean a large award and will get police depts to actually train their people on what the law is.
 
You wonder whether the decision to hassel the open carry citizens was politicaly motivated or just a rouse by the individual officers.

Many time an officer will detain someone illegaly just because they can. Almost all don't sue because of the cost and the police know that.

I wonder if the plantiffs are funding this case or its pro bono?

I know lawyers have to eat too, but it would be nice through some sort of dues paying organization to have a bank of attorneys ready to fight for individual cases.

As been said before, more of these suits will stop this action.
 
Open carry IS legal in Philly, only you need a license to carry in order to do so, whereas in the rest of the state you do not.
 
feedthehogs said:
I know lawyers have to eat too, but it would be nice through some sort of dues paying organization to have a bank of attorneys ready to fight for individual cases.
Click to expand...

Good news! The section referred to in the original post, Section 1983, is a type of federal civil suit where the losing side (generally) has to pay the attorney's fees of the winners.

So even though the plaintiffs may only get nominal (read: small) damages at the end of the case, the attorneys will get paid by the loser too. That may seem too nice for sleazy attorneys to some folks, but the bright side is that it encourages attorneys to take cases to enforce constitutional rights in civil court when they wouldn't otherwise expect to get paid.

I love Section 1983, and I feel that any time a police officer makes an arrest that is unsupported by the law or probable cause, the person should file a suit under 1983 for violation of their constitutional rights. You'd see a lot more cops educated on the law and acting honestly if that happened.

Aaron
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
New Orleans Police to Return Seized Guns
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
alan
A
A
  • Locked
Rutland, VT police sued for use of taser
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
Police harassment over open carry in VT
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Indiana: "Court: Gun owners may be sued"
Replies
11
Views
1K
rock jock
R
T
  • Locked
Police use Taser on pregnant woman
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
O.F.Fascist
O
Back
Top