Another Open Carry arrest lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimDandy

New member
The story itself is a little too police bashing but the video itself is revealing from the beginning. The Operator/Dispatcher was especially "entertaining" for lack of a better word. I had to smile while listening to them explain the legality.

ETA the rest of what I was thinking about it, as well as details. Guy walking home from where ever in his own neighborhood has the police called on him(Which we get to hear at the beginning of the video- assuming it's accurate and not a hoax). They approach with arms drawn, order him to the ground, etc.

Luckily he's smart enough to comply right away. He gets detained, and run through the process.
 
They approach with arms drawn, order him to the ground, etc.
Click to expand...

At which point law enforcement committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Sigh.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but we do not want to live in a society where the police are allowed to attack people on a whim.
 
I don't have a pacer subscription but for those that do, here's a link to get you to the complaint. Deffert v Moe et al

Here is Michigan State Police Update 86 from Oct. 26, 2010

Which provides the guideline that
Carrying a firearm is generally legal, and officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a citizen carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is a afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Click to expand...

And here is a link to what I think is the complaint filed, with the defendants reply. Deffert v Moe et al
 
Last edited:
WOW, that sure could have been handled differently! The dispatcher should have explained the law to the officer she dispatched as was the original caller. The guy was obviously not a threat.
The lawsuit seems a little steep and the attorneys are the big winners, but I guess it's a hard lesson learned.
 
[Condescendingly] Now, now, now. We must place some blame on the perp, recklessly exercizing his rights and freaking out the uninformed populace whose trust WE NEED (!), lest our rights are legislated into oblivion without their support.

Blah, blah, blah, people who open carry are the ones doing the 2nd Amendment a disservice. LOL!




(Ahem) In all seriousness, I love stories like this. He might not get $600,000. but I'll wager he gets enough to make this experience worthwhile.

Go on; tell me this guy was looking for trouble. He was going to rely on the police dash-cam for is burgeoning youtube career.
 
Last edited:
The problem I see with this whole thing is the mentality of the Officer that first made contact. IT also supports my belief that the mentality of many LE in many places share the same mentality. IT is pretty evident that they don't like the law as it stands. Looking at it from their side (LE) they have good reason to feel that way but it doesn't justify breaking the law. Being a big supporter of LE, I don't support everything they do. This is one of those cases where I don't support them.

This is what happens when people have been denied these rights for so long now in so many places. IT makes it much easier to form an opposing opinion to 2A in any form when it hasn't existed for so many years. When you add the "Psychological Campaign" that has shed a negative light on this right for so long by demonizing the gun, a negative response is not out of the ordinary.

If the LE would have followed through in this case as was started by the dispatcher and put personal beliefs aside there would be no reason for this case.
 
Legally speaking didn't a court (in Ohio I think?) rule that possession of a Firearm in and of itself is not probable cause for a LEO to believe anything illegal is/has transpired?
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about United States v Black from the fourth circuit.

Michigan is in the 6th circuit, and has for precedent, Embody v Ward. where a man wandered a park with an AK pistol
The barrel
was a half-inch shy of the legal limit, and, when coupled with the thirty-round
ammunition clip, it reasonably could look more like a rifle than a handgun
Click to expand...
and
Making matters worse (or at least more
suspicious), Embody had painted the barrel tip of the gun orange, typically an indication
that the gun is a toy. An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to
disguise an illegal weapon. On this record, an officer could reasonably suspect
something was amiss.
Click to expand...

Now that may be enough to make this case different enough to be what the professionals call Distinguishable, or it might not.
 
Now that may be enough to make this case different enough to be what the professionals call Distinguishable, or it might not.
Click to expand...
I don't see how, the law is clear on what constitutes a legal cause to stop, disarm, and detain. There would need to be more reason IMO an I see nothing in this video that suggest anything other than the fact that LE wasn't use to seeing it (given the response by the LE who made first contact was being truthful) which still is no excuse for an illegal stop. The law is very clear that LE needed more and they didn't have it from what I have seen from where I am standing.

There is a chance that a judge will find a loophole for probable cause and rule in favor of LE if this goes to court, who knows. Should have never went down this way to begin with.
 
There is a chance that a judge will find a loophole for probable cause
Click to expand...

That's how. One judge says another judge in this same area said an AK-47 pistol was reasonable suspicion to stop, so this pistol was reasonable suspicion. If this guy is lucky that doesn't happen. If everyone else is lucky at this guy's misfortune it gets bumped up via appeals, where we win eventually, and the standard for Reasonable Suspicion gets an overhaul in across the nation.
 
That's how. One judge says another judge in this same area said an AK-47 pistol was reasonable suspicion to stop, so this pistol was reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
That single interpretation is different and one judges interpretation of a different case with different circumstances doesn't give cause for me to think this one will be seen the same way. Plus two different types of weapons and an ak47 sets off more alarms than a pistol strapped to someone's side while appearing to legally be doing so. It should have been a consensual search unless there was evidence to the contrary and I still see no reason . Show me the money!
Carrying a firearm is generally legal, and officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a citizen carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is a afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Click to expand...
Where was there reasonable suspicion? Why not a consensual search? Mindset and the LEO's response says a lot IMO. From the other cases mentioned one was borderline suspicion.
As the officers patrolled, they observed a vehicle parked at
the pump of a gas station. Though neither officer saw the
2 UNITED STATES v. BLACK
vehicle pull into the gas station, during the approximately
three-minute observation, the officers observed that the driver
and sole occupant of the vehicle did not leave the car, pump
gas, or go into the convenience store. Officer Zastrow
believed this type of behavior was "unusual" and indicative of
drug transactions. On this basis, the officers ran the license
tag of the vehicle, which retrieved no outstanding traffic violations,
and followed the vehicle as it traveled to a nearby
parking lot located in between two apartment complexes.
At the parking lot, the officers observed the driver of the
vehicle, later identified as Dior Troupe, park his vehicle and
walk toward a group of five men in a semi-circle who were
speaking and laughing with each other.
Click to expand...

In that case, because he parked at the pump, did not get gas or even get out of the car then leaving knowing that the LEO was present could be suspicion and is or is not depending on how you want to look at it. It is normal behavior for someone who forgot his wallet or counted his money and realized he did not have enough for what he had planned to purchase. He evidently did not care if a LEO was present or not. This was at least borderline.

I need something here on this case that gave reasonable suspicion and have yet to find it. Someone help me out here! I will keep my mind open, but give me something reasonable here that you saw that was reasonable suspicion under the law...all ears.:)
 
Garycw said:
The lawsuit seems a little steep and the attorneys are the big winners,
Click to expand...

How so?
The Attorneys that take these case should be commended. IMO not enough of them around. Sure they take a % of the settlement, but that doesn't make them the "Big Winner". It gets them paid for services rendered and in most cases only if they win.
 
You sound like an attorney
Click to expand...

Not at all. Out of work Carpenter recovering from back surgery. I just get a little irritated when people complain about how much the other guy makes. Kinda reminds me of Obama and his spread the wealth crapola.
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
The problem I see with this whole thing is the mentality of the Officer that first made contact. IT also supports my belief that the mentality of many LE in many places share the same mentality. IT is pretty evident that they don't like the law as it stands. Looking at it from their side (LE) they have good reason to feel that way but it doesn't justify breaking the law. Being a big supporter of LE, I don't support everything they do. This is one of those cases where I don't support them.
Click to expand...
Please explain how it is that LE has good reason to dislike the Constitution they ALL swore to uphold?

Please explain what's not to like about honest, law-abiding citizens having the means to defend themselves against the criminals the police are powerless to protect us against?
 
"It was kinda scary because he's wearing camouflage!!"
"It was alarming!!"

I also noticed that the police officer got an instant message while he was driving. For safety, I'm sure.

Bunch of self righteous ignorant hacks with immunity and a "Respect my AUTHORITY" attitude.
 
The way to dissuade these officers is to file suit and seek punitive damages, thereby bypassing their 'scope of employment/qualified immunity' defense and insurance protection, and personally bankrupting them.

Lot less laughing in the squadroom after the first few of those, I'm guessing...

Larry
 
I need something here on this case that gave reasonable suspicion and have yet to find it. Someone help me out here! I will keep my mind open, but give me something reasonable here that you saw that was reasonable suspicion under the law...all ears.
Click to expand...

Besides being armed, the guy appeared to be talking to himself. Sid the caller to 911 say the guy was suspicious or doing anything other than walking down the street with a holstered gun? Had this church received threats?

Still, at this point it looks like the officer may not have had reason for his treatment of the guy.
 
Let us NOT descend into cop bashing. Nor is it appropriate to say a particular individual committed a felony against a person.

If you have knowledge of such, contact the appropriate authorities as compared to making unfounded claim on TFL.

I have deleted such. Next time will lead to an infraction.

I fear this thread is going down the drain. Post again if you have something useful to say about the specifics as compared to general rants.
 
The only recourse the Leo would have against the guy would be if gun was concealed. It was clearly stated by the 911 caller twice it was clearly visible. That fact alone would make me not suspect any wrong doing. I've seen several times OC in Walmart , krogers etc in Ohio & ky. No one was spread eagle face down in the snow,panic or 911 calls. just a few funny looks. The only time I OC is on the farm, even though its legal. I prefer the element of surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top