Man Sues Cops Over Legal Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we only exercise our rights after X amount of time after a crime takes place, we will never be able to do so.

Police arresting people for "crimes" that are not crimes is unacceptable, and they and their departments should be made an example, via media and/or legal action.

As always, being polite goes a long way...so be polite, even if the other side is acting like fools.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
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?
Click to expand...
I think you took the statement out of context. He said he "took issue with how he went about it " not that it had to be done his way or not at all. There is a difference in exercising and flaunting and IMO he (Sorenson) was flaunting. It is not a legal point of view but a caveat to conduct ourselves like responsible adults else we give the Anti's ammo.
 
Step outside your arena of what is acceptable "manner" and the Constitution and Bill Of Rights can be violated?
Click to expand...
I never said that, and there's no need to put words in my mouth.

I have the right to buy a white panel van, paint "FREE CANDY" on the side, stick a NAMBLA sticker on the bumper, and drive around in front of the local elementary school. If I get hassled by the local officials, I doubt the ACLU or anyone else is going to be in a hurry to help me out.

Does that make them sellouts? I suppose by some very arbitrary metric, it might. The difference is that they understand two things: the importance of public perception and the utility of backing horses that can win.

Those who can't understand that will continue to splash around in a small pool and make noise, but they won't effect change.
 
Some of you are condemning his actions for open carrying just one day after the Movie theater shooting in Colorado, claiming that his goal may have been to inflame the masses.

You may be right, or you may be dead wrong.

He was attending a "Homosexual-Pride Festival". It is not uncommon for these "Festivals" to attract protesters on the opposite side of the fence. Often times these turn violent.

It is possible that Sorensen after seeing what happened in a "Gun Free" movie theater Aurora was concerned that the same thing could happen at his Homosexual-Pride Festival. He was not going to be shot down unarmed in the park so he legally armed himself.

What if he was right? What if a Gunman came crashing into the park and stated shooting? What if Mr. Sorensen was able to draw his pistol and take the BG out? Would you still be so quick to judge him as to why he was carrying that day? Or would there be praise and admiration for another permit holder saving the day?
 
I doubt the ACLU or anyone else is going to be in a hurry to help me out.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that; I think the ACLU would jump at the chance.


He was attending a "Homosexual-Pride Festival". It is not uncommon for these "Festivals" to attract protesters on the opposite side of the fence. Often times these turn violent.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed your reference to all the mass shootings at Gay Pride festivals. Can you please cite a source? Maybe at least "often times turn violent" source with some loose definition of "often".

He knew well what he was doing and it was dumb and foolish.
 
MTT TL said:
He knew well what he was doing and it was dumb and foolish.
Click to expand...

You may very well be right. Then again you might be wrong. We will never know as neither one of us were there nor have we had any contact with Sorensen. We can only assume.

Since we are assuming to know the reasons for Sorensen's actions, I guess it would be acceptable to assume we know the reason for the LEO actions.

The law was changed over 9 years prior to Sorensen's arrest. There is no way this city and it's LEO were unaware of the change in the Law. No way these officers are carrying around a "cheat sheet" that is almost 10 years old.

So, now that we know that these officers knew the law, we can assume they arrested Sorensen because they did not wish to follow this law. They knew he was within his Constitutional Rights, yet they arrested him anyway. They intentionally violated his rights.

So who is wrong here?
The citizen that was legally exercising his Constitutional Rights, or the LEO that intentionally and knowingly violated those rights?

BTW here is some Gay Violence to view if you are truly interested.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=hom...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=vio...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
 
The law was changed over 9 years prior to Sorensen's arrest. There is no way this city and it's LEO were unaware of the change in the Law. No way these officers are carrying around a "cheat sheet" that is almost 10 years old.

So, now that we know that these officers knew the law, we can assume they arrested Sorensen because they did not wish to follow this law. They knew he was within his Constitutional Rights, yet they arrested him anyway. They intentionally violated his rights.
Click to expand...

That is quite possible or it is just as likely that they did not know. Since there were no other arrests noted for openly carrying a rifle in the years after the law change it is quite likely that either:

- The police fully knew the law and did not arrest the throngs of other people carrying rifles, singling out our hero....

or

- There was no one else carrying a rifle making this a non-issue and something that was likely overlooked as unimportant


BTW here is some Gay Violence to view if you are truly interested.
Click to expand...

Those are google searches pointing to protest crack downs by the police in foreign countries. So you are saying he was so concerned about police brutality in Montenegro and Russia that he felt had to carry rifle around in Colorado? To protect himself from Russian riot police? Really? :confused:

I can only stretch my imagination but so far.
 
steve4102 said:
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?
Click to expand...


Is it possible to be within your rights and still be stupid, inconsiderate, irresponsible, exercising poor judgement, etc?
 
Did Mr Sorensen open carry on a regular basis?

Did he have his carry gun on him at all times.

Was this just another day for him?

How many of you that carry would have put your carry gun in the safe and left it at home because of a mass shooting miles away?

How many of you that carry occasionally, would have made sure you were protected after the Movie theater massacre?
 
He knew well what he was doing and it was dumb and foolish.
Click to expand...

You know, after what happened in Aurora, I think I would be with Sorensen on this if I was attending a gay pride event as well. I would not be unarmed and I would be carrying legally.

With that said, I think Sorensen was out to milk this event. He didn't just think this was a 2A issue, but proclaimed it to be a gay issue as well.

Note that the City did just about everything it could after the fact to get things right once it realized the error. The error should NOT have been made. I agree. They admitted the error, apologized, had the officers apologize, returned the gun, expunged the record. There is no indication it was done with malice against gays or for being anti-gun. The cops thought they were upholding the law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/james-sorensen-wrongfully-arrested_n_1790725.html
 
There are two aspects of Sorenson's behavior I would not laud or recommend. Yelling and outrage.
Click to expand...


If those who swore to uphold the laws which recognize my rights not only fail to do that, but actually VIOLATE my rights; I'd scream bloody murder from the rooftops.
 
Allowing a tragedy to stop you from exercising your rights is for lack of a better word... DUMB. That's the same as admitting all the anti-gun nuts are right. If you don't see that, then you probably aren't as PRO 2A rights as you thought you were.

We've given up enough, no more. You don't want to be NJ, trust me on this one.
 
NJgunowner said:
Allowing a tragedy to stop you from exercising your rights is for lack of a better word... DUMB. That's the same as admitting all the anti-gun nuts are right. If you don't see that, then you probably aren't as PRO 2A rights as you thought you were.

We've given up enough, no more. You don't want to be NJ, trust me on this one.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to be within your rights and still be stupid, inconsiderate, irresponsible, exercising poor judgement, etc?
 
Bad Cop file, Casey Anthony....

I'd put this news story in the "bad cop, no donut" file. :D
It's good that he got a civil judgement. I'm surprised it was just $23,000.00.

It just shows that many sworn LE agencies do not stay current on the laws or changes to the ordinances/statues.

In 2011, I spoke to a uniformed LE officer in the metro Orlando Florida area you informed me that no one in Florida is allowed to own or use body armor(bullet proof vests).
I asked the officer how then Casey Anthony(a convicted felon) was allowed to wear body armor(as suggested by the Orange County Sheriff's Office) when she was in the Orlando area. :rolleyes:

Some cops(like some citizens) think things are laws that really aren't or they do not learn what changes/updates have been made.

ClydeFrog
 
Some cops(like some citizens) think things are laws that really aren't or they do not learn what changes/updates have been made.
Click to expand...

This is true. Police are not lawyers and even lawyers do not know all the laws or the proper exercise of them. Police do not know all the ins and outs of every law. They make themselves knowledgeable on the ones that are most relevant to their job on a daily basis. Surprisingly enough, people don't carry rifles in public parks every day to protect themselves from Russian storm troopers at a gay pride rally the day after the largest crazed mass shooter event in the same state.

You would think the police would be spun right up on that. Shocking, but they are also human and make mistakes. If people want to be vexatious towards the police to prove a point they can go ahead. Just keep in mind who it is that is being vexing.
 
If I was LE and came across someone openly caring in a place that I do not normally see that and that place also has a potently contentious event going on I am going to take a much closer look at the situation, even if I know it is legal for them to do so. If the person is non compliant from the start that is going to increase my level of concern and I would likely detain them until I am certain their intentions are not destructive. It is also the duty of LE to look out for the welfare of all citizens not just dogmatically adhere to the letter of the law.

What if the guy had showed up at this potently contentious event, legally carrying, and then decided to shoot it up? Then we find that the police had contact with him at the event, saw he was within his rights, and did nothing to ascertain his demeanor or intentions. Would we be saying good job to the police for not interfering with him in any way when they would have had reason to believe that this event might bring out people with bad intentions?
 
Last edited:
MTT TL said:
Surprisingly enough, people don't carry rifles in public parks every day to protect themselves from Russian storm troopers at a gay pride rally the day after the largest crazed mass shooter event in the same state.
Click to expand...

This is the second or third time you have made reference to "Carrying Rifles" in parks at a Gay Rally!

Where did this "rifle" come into play in this situation?
Sorensen was simply carrying his handgun on his hip, just like many of us here do every day.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
Is it possible to be within your rights and still be stupid, inconsiderate, irresponsible, exercising poor judgement, etc?
Click to expand...


Brian Pfleuger said:
Is it possible to be within your rights and still be stupid, inconsiderate, irresponsible, exercising poor judgement, etc?
Click to expand...


Brian Pfleuger said:
Is it possible to be within your rights and still be stupid, inconsiderate, irresponsible, exercising poor judgement, etc?
Click to expand...

So I take it you put your carry gun in lock-up after each and everyone of these tragic shootings to show how considerate, responsible and smart you are?

How long should one wait before carrying again after such and event?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top