PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone sucessfully sued LE?


My375hp302
12-25-2009, 4:50 PM
It seems to me that the saying " Ignorance of the law is no defense" goes both ways. If you are in possession of a legal weapon and you are arrested it seems a civil suit should be in order. Law Enforcement is responsible for knowing the laws and enforceing them accordingly. Maybe some say just leave well enough alone after having the charges dropped or being released but I've found that nothing really changes until someone's bank account gets a little lighter. Has anyone on here sued LE for false arrest or anything similar?

Roadrunner
12-25-2009, 5:05 PM
I understand the FBI loves investigating civil rights violations, but that's just what I've heard.

dustoff31
12-25-2009, 5:30 PM
It seems to me that the saying " Ignorance of the law is no defense" goes both ways. If you are in possession of a legal weapon and you are arrested it seems a civil suit should be in order. Law Enforcement is responsible for knowing the laws and enforceing them accordingly. Maybe some say just leave well enough alone after having the charges dropped or being released but I've found that nothing really changes until someone's bank account gets a little lighter. Has anyone on here sued LE for false arrest or anything similar?

Except for cases where the officer acted totally outside the norm, and sometimes even then, they are provided with personal immunity. Civil suits are filed and won against cities/counties/PDs every day. But the taxpayers pay the bill not the individual officers.

Immunity is fine for the cop who acted in good faith but happened to be wrong. It does absolutely nothing to stop those who simply don't care or intentionally do wrong.

bohoki
12-25-2009, 5:36 PM
ive always had a proplem with the "acted on good faith" if they are completely wrong but judging by the DA's here with the calgunslegal defense they seem to be just as bad it seems they just want to make stuff up and have you agree to is or threaten you if you try to challenge their facts

SteveH
12-25-2009, 5:39 PM
A complaint to IA will often achieve the result you desire. If you go for a civil judgement the agency may circle the wagons so to speak around a bad officer.

But in an IA complaint you turn the same machine against him/her. Of course for the complaint to be proven it has to be simple and to the point, and provable. Something tangible like: The officer used profanity. The officer called me a religous or racial slur. The officer did not turn on his microphone and record the encounter.

In other words forget the thing that you are really upset about and instead complain about the thing they can prove and they will hang him for instead. The end result is the same. He gets fired or scared to leave the office for fear of another complaint.

Hoop
12-25-2009, 5:45 PM
the DA's here with the calgunslegal defense they seem to be just as bad it seems they just want to make stuff up and have you agree to is or threaten you if you try to challenge their facts

That's the way DA's are. They try to strongarm people into pleading guilty to some lesser charge.

Telperion
12-25-2009, 5:45 PM
I understand the FBI loves investigating civil rights violations, but that's just what I've heard.

Actually, they love declining 18 USC 242 referrals ... something like 98% of them.

dustoff31
12-25-2009, 5:55 PM
ive always had a proplem with the "acted on good faith" if they are completely wrong but judging by the DA's here with the calgunslegal defense they seem to be just as bad it seems they just want to make stuff up and have you agree to is or threaten you if you try to challenge their facts

To me it would depend on why they are completely wrong. I'd tend to cut some slack to a cop who was truly confused over say, AW laws and seized a legal rifle, honestly thinking it was an unregistered AW.

As opposed to one who tried to seize every gun he saw because "Civilians don't need this type of gun, etc". They just don't care enough to try to educate themselves, or intend to do wrong right out of the bag because "we have to get these things off the streets."

anthonyca
12-25-2009, 6:03 PM
Gene (hoffmang) had a great post with caselaw on why it is legal for LEO agencies so bend us over. I'm on my iPhone and lazy to look
for the post but someone should have it in a while.

My375hp302
12-25-2009, 7:05 PM
While I tend to agree with you in theory, I don't in practice. If we lived in a perfect world everyone would get the benifit of the doubt. But, let's say you just got yourself a new mini 14. It's your first gun and you really don't know a whole lot about them. While brousing through a store you find a nice new Tapco T6 stock and think man that will look cool so you get the stock and install it. You go to the range for the first time to shoot your new gun and get busted by the Police for possession of an assault weapon. Do you think the DA will "cut you some slack"? I doubt it.

World travels fast in the LE community through magazines like Porac and agency to agency bulletins. If a few cops lost their jobs and a few agencies lost a little money word would spread like wild fire about what's legal and what's not. I'm not trying to be a jerk or get anyone in trouble. I'd hate to see anyone lose their job in this economy but in the end LE needs to be held to the same standard as we are. It is their responsibility to know the laws and they need to be held accountable when they falsely arrest someone. Not knowing the law is not "Good faith" and I don't believe a judge would think so either. Imagine getting a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop at a yield sign.

To me it would depend on why they are completely wrong. I'd tend to cut some slack to a cop who was truly confused over say, AW laws and seized a legal rifle, honestly thinking it was an unregistered AW.

As opposed to one who tried to seize every gun he saw because "Civilians don't need this type of gun, etc". They just don't care enough to try to educate themselves, or intend to do wrong right out of the bag because "we have to get these things off the streets."

wildhawker
12-25-2009, 7:28 PM
Here's a thread on this subject by Gene Hoffman:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=206699

I keep hearing through the grapevine that there are gunowners who think that they'll get some state/county/city/law enforcement agency to misbehave, violate the Constitution, and recover money damages.

I want to quickly and fully dispel this myth as it's dangerous to gunowners' legal and personal welfare.

Let me illustrate with something we all think to be illegal. 12031(e) checks are probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. First, California State Courts hate gunowners so you can't sue for a violation of your rights there. If you are arrested and charged in the State Courts, you have to either have charges dropped or win your case. Most California criminal court gun cases that would arise out of e.g. an UOC 12031(e) check are not likely winners in the criminal context.

So, let's assume you can end any state criminal case. Only if you're state case was resolved in your favor can you then sue under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in a Federal Court. Unless you have actual damages (like bail you shouldn't have paid) you will not be able to recover any damages personally against the LEO/LEA/City/County. You might get injunctive relief (e.g. The City and these LEO's can not enforce that code section this way in the future.) However, due to qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity), unless the thing they were doing wrong was clearly established in this Circuit, then they get away scot free the first time.

What is clearly established in this circuit? Well, it has to be a binding decision of the Federal Courts and it has to be very close on the facts to what they did to you. I can tell you, for example, that the unconstitutionality of a 12031(e) check is not clearly established in this Circuit. Also, the Supreme Court changed the qualified immunity analysis for the worse for plaintiffs in Saucier (http://www.federalrights.org/area_folder.2006-05-26.6012943467/scotus-overhauls-qualified-immunity-procedure) last term.

So continuing on the hypothetical, if you do win the injunction (and you might not) then the attorneys will win fees.

Shelly Parker and Dick Heller got $0.00 from Heller. Alan Gura and his other attorneys are still waiting for a payout more than a year after the case. They hope that that case - through 5 years - may end up with a total payout to the lawyers of something north of $1M. However, that is a case that made it all the way to SCOTUS and they won. Most civil rights claims don't get very far. Don Kilmer will be lucky to get $200K for his partial victory in Nordyke assuming he can't get or win cert with SCOTUS. If the Nordykes were to win in SCOTUS they might get some of their lost profits by not running gun shows at the Alameda fair grounds, but that would not be easy and it's not at all clear they'll prevail from here. Mr. Kilmer will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of his time that he could have otherwise given to a paying client.

The bottom line on all of this is that there are two realities of civil rights litigation. First, only a lawyer can make anything on these and if they do it will take them years of very high risk investment. Second, the individual whose rights are violated will usually get $1.00 or $0.00. It's no way to get rich or bankrupt a city or county.

Finally, when you think about wanting to create some sort of civil rights litigation, you need to find a lawyer willing to take a very big risk of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of his time with no guarantee of getting a dime back. There are not a lot of them and they will not take these sorts of cases unless they believe or they are slam dunks. Trust me when I say most of these cases are not slam dunks.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
12-26-2009, 11:47 AM
Well, I am working (unofficially) with a guy on his case where he is suing an LEO and an LE department and it looks like he is going to win it, hands down.

When it happens, I will be sure to post it here :)

anthonyca
12-26-2009, 11:59 AM
Well, I am working (unofficially) with a guy on his case where he is suing an LEO and an LE department and it looks like he is going to win it, hands down.

When it happens, I will be sure to post it here :)

I can't wait.

yellowfin
12-26-2009, 12:04 PM
Make sure he doesn't settle. Too many people have settled and denied others the benefit of precedent.

Maestro Pistolero
12-26-2009, 3:58 PM
Law Enforcement is responsible for knowing the laws and enforceing them accordingly. Sadly, no they aren't.

lavgrunt
12-26-2009, 4:29 PM
A complaint to IA will often achieve the result you desire. If you go for a civil judgement the agency may circle the wagons so to speak around a bad officer.

But in an IA complaint you turn the same machine against him/her. Of course for the complaint to be proven it has to be simple and to the point, and provable. Something tangible like: The officer used profanity. The officer called me a religous or racial slur. The officer did not turn on his microphone and record the encounter.

In other words forget the thing that you are really upset about and instead complain about the thing they can prove and they will hang him for instead. The end result is the same. He gets fired or scared to leave the office for fear of another complaint.

With all do respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about........This is extremely bad advice to give out to others............

lavgrunt
12-26-2009, 4:30 PM
Well, I am working (unofficially) with a guy on his case where he is suing an LEO and an LE department and it looks like he is going to win it, hands down.

When it happens, I will be sure to post it here :)


Same here....Can't wait to hear about it !!! I'm sure it's a doozy........

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 7:44 PM
Same here....Can't wait to hear about it !!! I'm sure it's a doozy........

I think I know the case he speaks of and it is amusing. It'll be a $1 and training plus attorney's fees kind of case but it's still there as the exception that generally proves the rule.

-Gene

yellowfin
12-26-2009, 7:46 PM
I think I know the case he speaks of and it is amusing. It'll be a $1 and training plus attorney's fees kind of case but it's still there as the exception that generally proves the rule.

-GeneBut an upside is that it removes qualified immunity for future similar offenses, correct? IIRC you were telling me the 1st one is light, but the 2nd and every one thereafter can bring the hammer down on them.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 7:49 PM
But an upside is that it removes qualified immunity for future similar offenses, correct? IIRC you were telling me the 1st one is light, but the 2nd and every one thereafter can bring the hammer down on them.

Not really. The reason it's a winner is that QI isn't really there in the first place on this one.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
12-26-2009, 7:56 PM
Not really. The reason it's a winner is that QI isn't really there in the first place on this one.

-Gene

What is QI?

yellowfin
12-26-2009, 7:57 PM
So basically there is little or no disincentive in this for LE and DA's to keep up the harassment and arm twisting. Nothing significant at any rate, nothing with hard enough sting to level the playing field.

leelaw
12-26-2009, 8:00 PM
What is QI?

Qualified immunity.

pullnshoot25
12-26-2009, 8:04 PM
Qualified immunity.

OH yeah...

Gotcha.

yellowfin
12-26-2009, 8:05 PM
What is QI?Qualified immunity, basically a cop's ability to say "Hey, I'm just doing my job" when they accidentally run you through the ringer because they don't know it's legal for you to own guns at all, violate a rule or two of gun safety at the expense of the back of someone's head, etc. and get off scot free. On one hand, they do have to have some leeway so they're not totally petrified of consequences of every single micro detail of everything they do so they can actually do an effective job instead of being too afraid to do anything at all, but on the other hand...

...I will refrain from getting too cynical and crude. But suffice it to say I think QI is abused as it provides perfect plausible deniability for tyranny and it's certainly employed as such in a few states such as, oh let's say CA, NY, NJ, MD, HI, and IL, and known to be actively encouraged in at very least the first 4 of those. Not to point fingers... :whistling:

pullnshoot25
12-26-2009, 8:11 PM
Qualified immunity, basically a cop's ability to say "Hey, I'm just doing my job" when they accidentally run you through the ringer because they don't know it's legal for you to own guns at all, violate a rule or two of gun safety at the expense of the back of someone's head, etc. and get off scot free. On one hand, they do have to have some leeway so they're not totally petrified of consequences of every single micro detail of everything they do so they can actually do an effective job instead of being too afraid to do anything at all, but on the other hand...

...I will refrain from getting too cynical and crude. But suffice it to say I think QI is abused as it provides perfect plausible deniability for tyranny and it's certainly employed as such in a few states such as, oh let's say CA, NY, NJ, MD, HI, and IL, and known to be actively encouraged in at very least the first 4 of those. Not to point fingers... :whistling:

Oh yeah, QI is crap.

I know what it is, I just didn't recognize the acronym.

Vectrexer
12-26-2009, 8:23 PM
It seems to me that the saying " Ignorance of the law is no defense" goes both ways. If you are in possession of a legal weapon and you are arrested it seems a civil suit should be in order. Law Enforcement is responsible for knowing the laws and enforceing them accordingly. Maybe some say just leave well enough alone after having the charges dropped or being released but I've found that nothing really changes until someone's bank account gets a little lighter. Has anyone on here sued LE for false arrest or anything similar?


Unfortunately unless it's a small town or a national publicity matter, your win won't case enough pain to make it hurt. The only thing that will happen is the department crying about increased expenses to justify more tax dollars. Doesn't matter if the increased expense was due to their FU's or not. So if you go for, make sure there is something real to win. Other goe for the dollars (good luck there!) or just give it up.

cbn620
12-26-2009, 9:25 PM
I think I know the case he speaks of and it is amusing. It'll be a $1 and training plus attorney's fees kind of case but it's still there as the exception that generally proves the rule.

-Gene

Where did you learn to speak in these amazing, often prophetic parables? :D

lavgrunt
12-27-2009, 11:35 AM
When I first became a 'CalGunner' one of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a veteran member was;....."Don't ever come to CalGuns for legal advice....!!" He could not have been more right......LOL !!!

What a bunch of FUD on 'qualified immunity !!' Contrary to what most of you think, qualified immunity does not allow a police officer to do what they want then claim a 'kings x' based on qualified immunity!! First off, if an officer claims qualified immunity, it is up to a judge to decide if he is going to allow the claim or not. It is not automatic in every case. The judge usually makes the determination based on a 'reasonable officer' standard, that is, would another police officer with the same level of training and experience possibly have come to the same conclusion and made the same decision? If the offending officer acted in a 'grossly negligent' manner, ie: shooting someone in the back of the head ala 'yellowfin' then qualified immunity would more than likely not be allowed. Also, qualified immunity is almost always claimed in civil, not criminal cases. So lets use the following example: An officer arrests someone for an OLL AR15, thinking it's an illegal AW. The case goes to court and the DA drops the charges, cuz the AR is not illegal. The AR owner files a civil suit for false arrest and the police officer claims qualified immunity. The claim goes before a judge and the judge decides to grant the claim of qualified immunity. The plaintiff has no claim and the civil suit is dropped. This is a very simplistic example, but I hope you get the point. Bottom line, if an officer is found to be grossly negligent or did not act in good faith based on the reasonable officer standard, then there is no qualified immunity, usually. There is another legal theory known as the 'special relationship doctrine' but that is a whole new thread in itself !!!

Mikeinblack
12-27-2009, 11:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brother-in-law (mild mannered early 50's Computer Programmer Type in a newish $50K+ truck) was driving down a residential street somewhere in OC about three weeks ago, and pulled over to take a phone call (had bluetooth, but apparently needed to take notes). About 5 minutes later he was visited by two LEO's who were immediately disrespectful and agitated. They told him that there had been a complaint of a "suspicious vehicle" and then proceeded to roust him. They temporarily took him out of the vehicle, frisked him and then strong armed him to let them search the vehicle, which he finally consented to, since there was nothing in the vehicle. When they were done, they gave him a warning that if they caught him parked along the road again in their jurisdiction, they "would arrest" him... Since the whole situation was so ridiculous, he filed a formal complaint with the PD. The guy on desk tried very hard to have him back off and just file an informal one... But no...

Sniper3142
12-27-2009, 12:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brother-in-law (mild mannered early 50's Computer Programmer Type in a newish $50K+ truck) was driving down a residential street somewhere in OC about three weeks ago, and pulled over to take a phone call (had bluetooth, but apparently needed to take notes). About 5 minutes later he was visited by two LEO's who were immediately disrespectful and agitated. They told him that there had been a complaint of a "suspicious vehicle" and then proceeded to roust him. They temporarily took him out of the vehicle, frisked him and then strong armed him to let them search the vehicle, which he finally consented to, since there was nothing in the vehicle. When they were done, they gave him a warning that if they caught him parked along the road again in their jurisdiction, they "would arrest" him... Since the whole situation was so ridiculous, he filed a formal complaint with the PD. The guy on desk tried very hard to have him back off and just file an informal one... But no...

Can you please tell us exactly where in Orange County this happened and which agency?

I'm also in the OC, have a $40K truck and I LOVE TO @#$! with Arrogant cops!!

:mad:

Sounds like a ROAD TRIP is in order!!

pullnshoot25
12-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Can you please tell us exactly where in Orange County this happened and which agency?

I'm also in the OC, have a $40K truck and I LOVE TO @#$! with Arrogant cops!!

:mad:

Sounds like a ROAD TRIP is in order!!

I love you. Platonically.

Mikeinblack
12-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Can you please tell us exactly where in Orange County this happened and which agency?

I'm also in the OC, have a $40K truck and I LOVE TO @#$! with Arrogant cops!!

:mad:

Sounds like a ROAD TRIP is in order!!

Can't remember, I'll have to ask him... Came up over Christmas Dinner. My Wife is a lawyer and we both chewed him up a bit for agreeing to a search in that situation...

SteveH
12-27-2009, 1:10 PM
With all do respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about........This is extremely bad advice to give out to others............

Let me guess you are a cop? and don't want people to be aware of the "calming" influence of IA complaints.

leelaw
12-27-2009, 1:22 PM
Don't make this personal. Let's get back on track.

wildhawker
12-27-2009, 1:44 PM
Lav, while I think any reasonable person would agree that a competent attorney should be consulted for legal advice, Calguns does offer a unique opportunity and venue for discussion of legal issues- often by and with those qualified attorneys and scholars who are advancing our rights here in California and beyond.

Calguns and its offshoot orgs/groups have brought us substantive results; can you name another California-based gun organization that can say the same? I can't.

-Brandon

lavgrunt
12-27-2009, 7:39 PM
Lav, while I think any reasonable person would agree that a competent attorney should be consulted for legal advice, Calguns does offer a unique opportunity and venue for discussion of legal issues- often by and with those qualified attorneys and scholars who are advancing our rights here in California and beyond.

Calguns and its offshoot orgs/groups have brought us substantive results; can you name another California-based gun organization that can say the same? I can't.

-Brandon


Brandon,

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are many 'CalGuns' members who are well versed in the law and legal legal theory and the track record of CGF is undeniable. However, to be honest, if I were in any kind of legal trouble or had some sort of negative contact with law enforcement, I would put myself in touch with the 'right people' and not simply start a thread with, ".......so this happened to me the other day, blahblahblah.....what do you think I should do....??" Invariably, you will get the usual 'armchair Johnny Cochrans' and ever so voiciferous cop haters/bashers chime in with some really bad advice, but you sure as hell can't beat the entertainment !!!

That said, the true professionals have my utmost respect and admiration and I'm glad beyond words they are out there fighting the good fight !!!

pullnshoot25
12-27-2009, 8:45 PM
Brandon,

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are many 'CalGuns' members who are well versed in the law and legal legal theory and the track record of CGF is undeniable. However, to be honest, if I were in any kind of legal trouble or had some sort of negative contact with law enforcement, I would put myself in touch with the 'right people' and not simply start a thread with, ".......so this happened to me the other day, blahblahblah.....what do you think I should do....??" Invariably, you will get the usual 'armchair Johnny Cochrans' and ever so voiciferous cop haters/bashers chime in with some really bad advice, but you sure as hell can't beat the entertainment !!!

That said, the true professionals have my utmost respect and admiration and I'm glad beyond words they are out there fighting the good fight !!!

Lavgrunt, I think you misrepresent those you refer to as "cop haters/bashers." I think that a great many people (self and brother included) are anti-TYRANT, not anti-COP!

SoCalDep
12-27-2009, 10:00 PM
There is a strong anti-cop perception through. I'm not saying it isn't at least partly deserved.

I ran into a bit of the lack-of-information today. I think a big part of the problem is that we had a law passed in 99 that went into effect in 00 that got modified in Aug 00 and then overturned in 05 but DOJ refused to put out any concrete legal opinion and left it to 58 DA's who don't really necessarily understand the law and the cops are possibly still operating under what was common practice between 00 and 05 with no specific opposing information from official sources (ie: DOJ, DA's, etc.) since then.

The education of LE has come from grass-route effort of people such as CGN but I submit it's highly understandable that many cops are still uneducated on the issues. It's a sad situation that needs to be rectified. I know that the vast majority of my partners are the extreme of good self-sacrificing people who are trying to do the right thing and help people. On the other hand, good people don't deserve to be exposed to the same legal system as the dirtbags of society. If we admit to ourselves these laws are stupid, convoluted, confusing, and designed to 1) take guns away regardless of positive or negative affect on society (combustophobia), and 2) encourage gun and ammo manufacturers to leave, we can see how difficult it is to balance the desire to do the right thing with the need to follow the law as proscribed. I think if we are all honest with ourselves, we can understand how this crap can be misinterpreted.

On the other hand...Sometimes someone needs suing....

Satex
12-27-2009, 10:05 PM
Well, I am working (unofficially) with a guy on his case where he is suing an LEO and an LE department and it looks like he is going to win it, hands down.

There is no such thing as "winning" when it comes to govt agencies, since when you win, we all pay. Puncturing the corporate veil of govt agencies is next to impossible. Winning would be the responsible govt official paying damages from his own pay, or losing his job.

hoffmang
12-27-2009, 10:19 PM
On the other hand...Sometimes someone needs suing....

And that's where CGF comes in...

-Gene

artherd
12-27-2009, 11:13 PM
On the other hand, good people don't deserve to be exposed to the same legal system as the dirtbags of society.

One of the cornerstones of this nation is that the dirtbags of society are deserving of the same protections under law as 'good people'.

pullnshoot25
12-27-2009, 11:29 PM
There is no such thing as "winning" when it comes to govt agencies, since when you win, we all pay. Puncturing the corporate veil of govt agencies is next to impossible. Winning would be the responsible govt official paying damages from his own pay, or losing his job.

When we lose, we all pay as well.

I got an idea, let's treat police officers like any other place would treat their employees! THAT would let EVERYONE be FULL of WIN!

pullnshoot25
12-27-2009, 11:30 PM
Actually one of the cornerstones of this nation is that the dirtbags of society are deserving of the exact same protections under law as 'good people'.

Damn right! The artherd has spoken!

cbn620
12-28-2009, 2:54 AM
There is a strong anti-cop perception through. I'm not saying it isn't at least partly deserved.

I ran into a bit of the lack-of-information today. I think a big part of the problem is that we had a law passed in 99 that went into effect in 00 that got modified in Aug 00 and then overturned in 05 but DOJ refused to put out any concrete legal opinion and left it to 58 DA's who don't really necessarily understand the law and the cops are possibly still operating under what was common practice between 00 and 05 with no specific opposing information from official sources (ie: DOJ, DA's, etc.) since then.

The education of LE has come from grass-route effort of people such as CGN but I submit it's highly understandable that many cops are still uneducated on the issues. It's a sad situation that needs to be rectified. I know that the vast majority of my partners are the extreme of good self-sacrificing people who are trying to do the right thing and help people. On the other hand, good people don't deserve to be exposed to the same legal system as the dirtbags of society. If we admit to ourselves these laws are stupid, convoluted, confusing, and designed to 1) take guns away regardless of positive or negative affect on society (combustophobia), and 2) encourage gun and ammo manufacturers to leave, we can see how difficult it is to balance the desire to do the right thing with the need to follow the law as proscribed. I think if we are all honest with ourselves, we can understand how this crap can be misinterpreted.

On the other hand...Sometimes someone needs suing....

I see no cop bashing in this thread, or any sort of anti-cop rot being talked. People are talking about the prospect of suing LEA's for grossly un-Constitutional and in fact anti-law enforcement behavior. Because yes, it's anti-law enforcement to me, at the core of the definition of such a phrase, to hassle, threaten and in general make people suffer for not breaking the law at all. That is completely contrary to law enforcement.

We give the police the BOTD. But law enforcement is by its nature a professional career, and unfortunately if some LEO aren't up to snuff with the laws, they have failed the litmus test for their job description. I give my doctor the benefit of the doubt too, but that doesn't mean I'd be right p***** if he took out one of my kidneys during tonsil surgery. On purely theoretical grounds, sure, I might see the arrest of a suspected murderer as erring on the side of caution and being somewhat justifiable when new evidence is brought to light that was previously unknowable. But we're talking two different situations; there's a difference between the situation here in California and simply giving the cops a break when they're only doing their jobs. Being shown the facts as to so called "assault weapons" time after time, with the information as prevalent as it is, I think it's a far cry from erring on the side of caution when LEO's arrest people because a gun looks mean.

Surely this is not all law enforcement officers. But there is no defense for the ones who view us as subjects and don't understand the law or our rights. Those are the types of law enforcement officers people are generally speaking of when they talk about wishing they could sue an officer or agency for repeated civil rights violations. I think all anyone here is asking for is that our country respect the Constitution. If a person sees that as cop bashing or demonizing law enforcement, then the problem here is not cop bashing but cop worshiping.

B Strong
12-28-2009, 6:54 AM
In most cases where an individual has a good case against an LEA or LEO, the case gets settled out of court, with a non-disclosure of terms clause in the settlement.

Sometimes the amount paid in settlement gets released through city disclosure, but you never hear of most of the cases that are non-fatals.

From the 1970's, I know of a false arrest case (mid four figures) and an unlawful assault case (medical, damages, gun returned, charges dropped.)

The officer in the second case was eventually fired after he totaled a patrol unit hot-rodding the thing on a night shift outside city limits - beat a guy's head in with a Kel-light, no big thing, wreck a car! Oh! The Horror!.

SoCalDep
12-28-2009, 7:00 AM
Did any of you actually read my whole post?

Sniper3142
12-28-2009, 7:36 AM
Did any of you actually read my whole post?

I did and I appreciate and understand everything you said.

Thank you for adding your voice to this discussion. We need more level headed folks like you around.

OntheRocks
12-28-2009, 10:25 AM
Can you please tell us exactly where in Orange County this happened and which agency?

I'm also in the OC, have a $40K truck and I LOVE TO @#$! with Arrogant cops!!

:mad:

Sounds like a ROAD TRIP is in order!!

Great idea! Just set up your rig with hidden audio and video.:D

I think that we have to look at this differently.

When I get a traffic ticket I fight it. My goal is to cost the system more than they would recover from me. Win or not. I usually win btw.

And eventually, they won't even bother you if you have a "reputation" within the LE community.;)

If everyone that received a ticket fought it, the system would be completely clogged.

If every time we are harassed we file a lawsuit the system would be clogged and lots of money would be spent. Win or lose.

curtisfong
12-28-2009, 11:35 AM
When I get a traffic ticket I fight it. My goal is to cost the system more than they would recover from me. Win or not. I usually win btw.


This is exactly what I do. Every ticket. Every time. Even if I can go to traffic school. I usually win. If I don't initially get a win, I hire a lawyer (damn the cost), and then win.

lavgrunt
12-28-2009, 12:28 PM
Great idea! Just set up your rig with hidden audio and video.:D

I think that we have to look at this differently.

When I get a traffic ticket I fight it. My goal is to cost the system more than they would recover from me. Win or not. I usually win btw.

And eventually, they won't even bother you if you have a "reputation" within the LE community.;)

If everyone that received a ticket fought it, the system would be completely clogged.

If every time we are harassed we file a lawsuit the system would be clogged and lots of money would be spent. Win or lose.

HAHAHAHA !!!......That's FUNNY.......

Liberty1
12-28-2009, 1:03 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Alamogordo-police-pay-21000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit?cid=exrss-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner