Gonzales (LA) settles gun-carrying man’s lawsuit
- Thread starter Bud Helms
- Start date
- Status
Currently the incidence of open carry is pretty low. The article did not say if the gentleman's gun was loaded, but I'll presume it was (unlike California's idiot laws). So this forms an unusual circumstance - at least visually. In Nevada, Az and NM, people get used to the sight of a holstered weapon.
Citizens today are fearful of "unusual" strangers because they lack the ability to defend themselves or rely on nearby good citizens for help. Last night, listening to the scanner a call of a "homeless man" in front of a supermarket that a citizen said was "scary looking and he had a big stick". Yeah, being scary looking is a crime.
Dispatch updated saying the caller felt threatened but was not actually threatened by the man.
When cops arrived, they cleared the call in about 5 minutes. He was waiting for his wife, wearing dirty clothes after bathing two dogs and his "stick" was a cane to ease his weak back. If the guy had been OC'ing, instead of 2 cars it would have been four and no doubt they would have run his ID, gun serial number, and asked lots of questions.
Disorderly Conduct charges usually require some kind of knowledge that the conduct is likely to cause panic or alarm on the part of a reasonable person. D-C charges might be appropriate if you park a pickup downtown next to the curb with boxes in the back labeled "Dynamite", "explosives" or "Radioactive".
However a man with a holstered weapon just walking calmly down the street should not cause alarm or panic by a reasonable person. They may be concerned, wary, watchful or curious. That concern may be enough to prompt a 911 call, but not such that he urges others to move away immediately.
Citizens today are fearful of "unusual" strangers because they lack the ability to defend themselves or rely on nearby good citizens for help. Last night, listening to the scanner a call of a "homeless man" in front of a supermarket that a citizen said was "scary looking and he had a big stick". Yeah, being scary looking is a crime.
Dispatch updated saying the caller felt threatened but was not actually threatened by the man. When cops arrived, they cleared the call in about 5 minutes. He was waiting for his wife, wearing dirty clothes after bathing two dogs and his "stick" was a cane to ease his weak back. If the guy had been OC'ing, instead of 2 cars it would have been four and no doubt they would have run his ID, gun serial number, and asked lots of questions.
Disorderly Conduct charges usually require some kind of knowledge that the conduct is likely to cause panic or alarm on the part of a reasonable person. D-C charges might be appropriate if you park a pickup downtown next to the curb with boxes in the back labeled "Dynamite", "explosives" or "Radioactive".
However a man with a holstered weapon just walking calmly down the street should not cause alarm or panic by a reasonable person. They may be concerned, wary, watchful or curious. That concern may be enough to prompt a 911 call, but not such that he urges others to move away immediately.mark marchiafava
Inactive
There's more to this story...........
............than what's been published.
I know, I'm the victim here.
Mark
............than what's been published.
I know, I'm the victim here.
Mark
armsmaster270
New member
ESI Agent: You can blame your situation on Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigativ Services
A lot of your problem is with Bureau passed admistrative regulations which have the effect of law although not passed by the Legislature per se.
A lot of your problem is with Bureau passed admistrative regulations which have the effect of law although not passed by the Legislature per se.
mark marchiafava
Inactive
What this Advocate article failed to mention was the way these rogue cops took me into custody.
AFTER their 6 week ROOKIE RESERVE OFFICER checked me out and RELEASED me, four car loads of his thug buddies "captured" me at gunpoint. The first words off the lead officer's lips were "are you a law enforcement officer?"
This question told me all I needed to know. They realized I was not a criminal and also conveyed it's their opinion only THEY can carry guns.
AFTER their 6 week ROOKIE RESERVE OFFICER checked me out and RELEASED me, four car loads of his thug buddies "captured" me at gunpoint. The first words off the lead officer's lips were "are you a law enforcement officer?"
This question told me all I needed to know. They realized I was not a criminal and also conveyed it's their opinion only THEY can carry guns.
To mskdgunman:
If you are the LEO you assert yourself to be, you mus know that this statement is totally wrong:
In Florida, open carry is illegal under 790.053 there are exceptions to this, such as being on your own property, at your place of business, going to or from fishing, hunting, etc. There are a host of exceptions. I suggest you become acquainted with them, or you may be the next LEO on the other side of a lawsuit.
Your other statement shows another lack of understanding of the law:
You are a LEO, and you don't already know? If OC is not illegal in the state the LEO is in, then no. Not anymore than than it would be to pull over every driver to do a license check, or stop everyone within 1,000 feet of a school to see if they are a sex offender.
If you are the LEO you assert yourself to be, you mus know that this statement is totally wrong:
In Florida, open carry is illegal under 790.053 there are exceptions to this, such as being on your own property, at your place of business, going to or from fishing, hunting, etc. There are a host of exceptions. I suggest you become acquainted with them, or you may be the next LEO on the other side of a lawsuit.
Your other statement shows another lack of understanding of the law:
You are a LEO, and you don't already know? If OC is not illegal in the state the LEO is in, then no. Not anymore than than it would be to pull over every driver to do a license check, or stop everyone within 1,000 feet of a school to see if they are a sex offender.
You know divemedic, that was my impression as well and I addressed it in my earlier post. Having read these statements, and all the recent case law that is appearing concerning this topic, I can draw only a couple of conclusions;
1) LE agencies are not training their officers on the laws concerning OC, or CC.
2) The agencies are aware of the laws but choose to thumb their collective noses at it in order to forward some "agenda"
Or, a combination of the two.
Last edited:
NightSight
New member
Mark, thank you for standing up for all of our rights.
Outcast, I agree with you 100%. I cannot even relate how disturbed I am to hear of our LEOs with the attitude of mskdgunman. I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to peacefully, after having fully obeyed the officer,
Hmmm. I wonder why that is. Maybe if some of our LEOs wouldn't harass the general law abiding public we would have more people willing to OC. Then maybe it wouldn't scare the sheep.
I certainly hope you reconsider your position on OC mskdgunman.
Outcast, I agree with you 100%. I cannot even relate how disturbed I am to hear of our LEOs with the attitude of mskdgunman. I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to peacefully, after having fully obeyed the officer,
mskdgunman said:
I am also pleased to hear that I wouldn't be arrested for breaking no laws, only a stearn "talking" to.mskdgunman said:
mskdgunman said:
Hmmm. I wonder why that is. Maybe if some of our LEOs wouldn't harass the general law abiding public we would have more people willing to OC. Then maybe it wouldn't scare the sheep.
I certainly hope you reconsider your position on OC mskdgunman.
mark marchiafava
Inactive
mark marchiafava
Inactive
Here are two of them............
Mark, while I understand why you cannot discuss the settlement, unless the court records are also sealed, can you discuss the case?
Such as; 1) The violations in the original complaint, 2) the City's rebuttal arguments, 3) discovery and motions, and 4) anything that happened at trial (assuming it went that far).
As I understand it, generally the settlement agreement will state that the City/County/State does not admit to any wrongdoing, regardless of any monetary settlement made. That's a given.
I am most interested in items #1 and #2 above.
Such as; 1) The violations in the original complaint, 2) the City's rebuttal arguments, 3) discovery and motions, and 4) anything that happened at trial (assuming it went that far).
As I understand it, generally the settlement agreement will state that the City/County/State does not admit to any wrongdoing, regardless of any monetary settlement made. That's a given.
I am most interested in items #1 and #2 above.
mark marchiafava
Inactive
The ONLY violation I was booked with was 14:95, illegal carrying of a weapon.
If any of you guys read the statute, you'd realize in short order it didn't apply to me.
There was NO attorney ( I could find) who was willing to take this matter to trial, so I had no choice but an out-of-court settlement. I know, not my first choice, either.
There were no depositions, nothing. The sheriff's office managed to get itself removed as a defendant during the preliminary motions.
I have no qualms about posting my plate. If they or any of their thugbuddies want to show their true colors, go for it.
If any of you guys read the statute, you'd realize in short order it didn't apply to me.
There was NO attorney ( I could find) who was willing to take this matter to trial, so I had no choice but an out-of-court settlement. I know, not my first choice, either.
There were no depositions, nothing. The sheriff's office managed to get itself removed as a defendant during the preliminary motions.
I have no qualms about posting my plate. If they or any of their thugbuddies want to show their true colors, go for it.
- Status