Man Sues Cops Over Legal Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steve4102

New member
Colorado Springs arrested James Sorensen in July 2012 for openly carrying a gun, even though it was legal.

Sorenson was openly carrying in a city park, three officers involved were simply unaware it’s legal to open carry in city parks. He was arrested and charged. He later sued the City of Colorado Springs and won 23K.



In previous interviews with local news stations, Sorensen said, “They had the gall to say, ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse,’ and yet they are the ones that are ignorant of the law.”
Click to expand...

Link.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/12/bang-payday-for-man-suing-cops-over-guns/
 
I have a few problems with the case.

One was when Sorenson refused to put his hands in the air. Though it was his right, it wasn't the smartest thing to do. It was obvious that the police were not going to take his word for it, and any resistance beyond that point was futile. Better to have sought justice in the court room at that point. But that is just my opinion and the way I see it best being handled. I am not saying his behavior was over the top, just that realizing the situation would have been a better alternative.

Secondly, I believe the police could have done a double check on the law after detaining Sorenson to insure his rights were not violated. Also for them not to have known the changes is inexcusable. Anytime there is a change in the law, having a printout of it on paper whenever exercising the rights of the new law might be a good idea, at least after seeing this case. It never hurts to look ahead. This has lessons to be learned on both sides of the argument, no one really won hands down IMO.
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
One was when Sorenson refused to put his hands in the air.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is just stupid. Absolutely uncalled for. Compliance while verbalizing your objections is much safer for everybody involved. This is the same sort of nonsense as the kid who refused to put his window down going through the checkpoint. It's using your actions rather than your words to directly ask for an escalation, knowing that if you comply you won't get a cool video to post on YouTube. If it's "your right", comply and state categorically that the request is illegal and will be challenged in court.

Wreck-n-Crew said:
Also for them not to have known the changes is inexcusable.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true, especially considering that the change was made 9 years prior to the incident and the police stated that the "cheat sheet" that the officers carry still contained the old law.:eek:
 
The saga of James Sorensen began in July 2012 at a homosexual-pride festival, just one day after the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado
Click to expand...
That bolded part is what matters. There's either a certain tone-deafness or a desire to inflame the masses among guys that do this, and I have a hard time supporting their actions.

Hey, at least he got a paycheck out of it.
 
Given the timing to the Aurora shootings, this was a "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" moment.
 
If it's "your right", comply and state categorically that the request is illegal and will be challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Then shut your mouth. I know of a lot of situations where people kept running their mouth and ended up convicted of charges that could have been avoided if they shut their mouth after asserting their objection to a rights violation. Often by subsequently waving their rights by consenting to what would have otherwise been an illegal search.
 
SVO said:
Given the timing to the Aurora shootings, this was a "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" moment.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the PD now have a better idea of the current state of the law.
 
Last edited:
Chaz, no need to be rude.
Click to expand...

Sorry???? I was not trying to be rude, just saying that after you assert your right to the police and objection to the violation you should then keep your mouth shut and comply with the LE instructions. Running your mouth after that often gets people into trouble that would have been avoided if they kept their mouth shut and dealt with it in court.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the PD now have a better idea of the current state of the law.
Click to expand...
That's the plus side of the end result.

His actions may not have been, "smart" or they may have even been "defiant", but they were legal.

You do not support his/our legal rights?
Click to expand...

If LE doesn't know your within your rights, your non-compliance does nothing to prove it and they have only limited choices based on what they see and know at the time. They were right in their handling of the situation due to the circumstances. Still, the manner in which this this thing played out was not productive to anyone and remains the elephant in the room in the do's and don'ts for both citizens and LE. More so by Sorenson's behavior which could have escalated the response by LE. Things could have been very different. Escalating the tension through your behavior is just bad and within your rights or not it usually ends up being a loss on the part of the citizen when they do it.
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
If LE doesn't know your within your rights, your non-compliance does nothing to prove it and they have only limited choices based on what they see and know at the time. They were right in their handling of the situation due to the circumstances.
Click to expand...

There may be smarter and more convenient ways to handle this situation, but that should not suggest that the officers handled this correctly in all respects.

One would hope that part of the training for these episodes now includes an admonition that if an officer knows he is being recorded, not to warn someone that “You’re about to get the **– kicked out of you".

On the bright side, the portion of the video I saw contained no violent assault, and did not show any of the officers attempting to stop the videotaping or confiscate the recorder.
 
zukiphile said:
There may be smarter and more convenient ways to handle this situation, but that should not suggest that the officers handled this correctly in all respects.
Click to expand...
Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to this situation.

We should know that when the police arrive on a scene (regardless of the reason), their first job is to control the scene. That being the case, you do not argue the finer points of civil rights at a traffic stop, or an encounter on the street corner. You will lose that argument, every single time.

Now my opinion of the citizen? He was just plain stupid to do this, the day after the Aurora shooting.

Having said that, he wasn't wrong. But I can and do call his judgment into question.
 
There may be smarter and more convenient ways to handle this situation, but that should not suggest that the officers handled this correctly in all respects.
Click to expand...
I agree for reasons I stated earlier in the thread.
I believe the police could have done a double check on the law after detaining Sorenson to insure his rights were not violated. Also for them not to have known the changes is inexcusable.
Click to expand...
and especially given the detail pointed out by Brian
This is absolutely true, especially considering that the change was made 9 years prior to the incident and the police stated that the "cheat sheet" that the officers carry still contained the old law.
Click to expand...

However I don't se the threat of force with the terms used out of line as you quoted as out of line to any real extent :
One would hope that part of the training for these episodes now includes an admonition that if an officer knows he is being recorded, not to warn someone that “You’re about to get the **– kicked out of you".
Click to expand...

It is necessary IMO for LE to communicate in a manor which gets their point across to someone in a way that they can understand that something is about to happen if you don't comply. Reason being that many people will resist up to a certain point and sometimes (you could say often if you wish) people respond to it and even listen or look for it. Not wanting to give way, but ready to concede if they see there is no win in their argument. This is part of the escalation process that plays out to different degrees in almost every noncompliant encounter.

If LE has to say nicely to someone who is not %100 coherent for whatever reason things like "sir if you don't comply I must fulfill my duty and deem you a threat and will discharge this Taser until you become compliant" it is likely not to register. Whether upset, Mentally ill, High on drugs, or half drunk people won't respond as well because %90 of communication is nonverbal and how you see someone acting towards you is more recognized than what they are saying.

In short, being polite will get you no attention when dealing with hard heads and it better serves LE to deescalate the situation than to allow it to continue where it could get out of hand. In the given situation, it was a coin flip call I would guess. Maybe LE could have first handled the situation better by saying " Sir, I promise I will see if your claim checks out if you will first allow me to secure the firearm to insure the safety of everyone." But once they made the judgment call based on what they saw, the noncompliance called for strong verbal commands IMO.
 
Al Norris said:
Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to this situation.

We should know that when the police arrive on a scene (regardless of the reason), their first job is to control the scene. That being the case, you do not argue the finer points of civil rights at a traffic stop, or an encounter on the street corner. You will lose that argument, every single time.
Click to expand...

How can the issue of whether the POs handled the matter correctly be "irrelevant to this situation"?

The amount of the settlement involved is not a fortune, but it is not a mere nuisance settlement either. It was a prolonged and inconvenient argument, but the fellow in the video doesn't appear to have lost the argument.

The general demeanor of the officers involved appears calm and controlled, which is to their credit. Telling a fellow he is about to get a beating appears inconsistent with that general demeanor.
 
Bravo, Sorenson. I admire your unwillingness to shut up and get in the back of the bus. Get that check photocopied and framed for it might have been the finest moment of your life which you will never forget.
 
Last edited:
This is just like that moron that went around Miami pretending to be a zombie after the face eating incident down there in 2012. You can't fix stupid.
 
Bravo, Sorenson.
Click to expand...

There are two aspects of Sorenson's behavior I would not laud or recommend.

The first is yelling. A person who yells is generally not in full control of himself. Whether a police officer is right or wrong, he is bound to be more on edge if he believes the person with whom he is dealing is not able to control himself.

The second is body language that communicates exasperation and outrage. If a police officer believes that a person is so emotional that he is not in control of his physical movement, it will be much more difficult to reason with that police officer.
 
Tom Servo said:
I support his right to carry. What I take issue with is the manner in which he exercised it.

Sorry folks, but that matters.
Click to expand...

So you only support "Rights" if they are "exercised" as you see fit? Step outside your arena of what is acceptable "manner" and the Constitution and Bill Of Rights can be violated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top