PDA

View Full Version : Brookfield pays woman who brought gun to church $7,500


oldsmoboat
01-04-2011, 4:04 PM
ha ha /nelson

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/112841934.html

The woman who was arrested at gunpoint after she wore her gun to a church in Brookfield, and a gun rights group, have settled a lawsuit against the city and the officers who arrested her for $7,500.

Very interesting article, but ...
Please do not post whole articles - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=363956
// Librarian

383green
01-04-2011, 4:09 PM
With regards to Gunta, I'll take "people unclear on the concept" for $7500, please, Alex.

Munk
01-04-2011, 4:13 PM
Gunta, the city's lawyer, said if the lawsuit is really about the principle involved, the plaintiffs should consider donating the money back to Brookfield for gun education.

... Only if that donation is sent to a pro-gun education program. Most "Gun education" is just propagand and lies from the antis. Glad she won out and came out of it ok. Go wisconsin.

Super Spy
01-04-2011, 4:13 PM
Nice....that'll teach 'em! a few thousand more cases like this and a SCOTUS case and maybe people will start to realize the 2nd amendment means what it says.

press1280
01-04-2011, 4:14 PM
This was completely avoidable by the PD. I may have given them some slack if they had just stumbled upon someone but the person called and told them they had it throughout the church service and nothing happened. They should have told the caller that yes, its legal, give us a call if that person starts making threats or actually shooting.
I'm wondering if the dispatch people have to share some of the blame here?

Patrick-2
01-04-2011, 4:23 PM
Brookfield has some upper-middle class residents and better tax rolls than some neighbors (I know the area somewhat), but not enough to be doling out thousands for every OC call. Especially now that: everyone knows OC is legal; everyone knows Brookfield will pay at least $7500 for harassing you when you do it.

Of course, once a pattern emerges with intent to harass (sounds like they admitted that in the interview)...damages get larger.

I see lawyer's drooling somewhere in central Wisconsin. This is only a short drive from Milwaukee (40 minutes). Tough economy and easy money? Nah, nothing can go wrong for Brookfield here. ;)

The Shadow
01-04-2011, 4:24 PM
ha ha /nelson

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/112841934.html

The woman who was arrested at gunpoint after she wore her gun to a church in Brookfield, and a gun rights group, have settled a lawsuit against the city and the officers who arrested her for $7,500.

Good for her. :party:

An attorney for the city said police will still always respond in force to calls of a person with a gun, and if turns out to be an open carry situation, that's just the cost of doing business.

If they are willing to put out 7500.00 everytime they violate someones rights, then perhaps the citizens of Wisconsin should up the ante.

"These are kind of 'gotcha' cases," said the attorney, Greg Gunta. "The courts are being used for a political stage."

No Mr. Gunta, these kind of cases are meant to punish those who have no regard for a persons Constitutional rights.

Krysta Sutterfield sued the city and officers in October. She was arrested in July after attending services at the Unitarian Universalist Church while wearing her holstered handgun. There was no disturbance, but after the service someone called police to inquire and they responded, stopped Sutterfield as she was driving away and arrested her.

What arrogance.

Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel later decided not to file charges.

Well that's big of him. He didn't file charges because she wasn't guilty of any crime.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc., a gun rights advocacy group to which Sutterfield belongs, joined her as a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit. Group president Nik Clark announced the judgment in an e-mail Monday night.

The group "will continue to use legal recourse to deter unlawful treatment of law-abiding Wisconsin residents who currently exercise their right to open carry, and soon will exercise their right to concealed carry in Wisconsin," the announcement read.

Other members and Wisconsin Carry have pending federal cases over police response to members wearing guns at a Madison Culver's in September and challenging the state ban on firearms within 1,000 feet of school zones.

:hurray:

Brookfield's offer of judgment was "not an admission of liability on behalf of these defendants, and should not be construed as such," according to the offer. The judgment was entered Dec. 30.

It never is, but just the same, they knew they had no leg to stand on.

Gunta, the city's lawyer, said if the lawsuit is really about the principle involved, the plaintiffs should consider donating the money back to Brookfield for gun education.

I have a better idea Mr Gunta, educate your police department or risk losing more money in punitive damages.

stix213
01-04-2011, 4:34 PM
Between Wolanyk and now Sutterfield, open carry is turning into quite a money maker. Maybe I should quit my job and just OC all day until my money train pulls up and unjustly arrests me

cineski
01-04-2011, 4:48 PM
WI has some incredibly corrupt police. There's been all kinds of trouble with open carriers vs. police in this state.

Fjold
01-04-2011, 5:36 PM
I wish that the police were forced to admit they were wrong as part of the settlement.

I would have held out for just lawyers fees and an admission of guilt by the PD and the City.

CCWFacts
01-04-2011, 5:38 PM
That's cool! I love all these pay-outs. I also love how much SF had to pay to the NRA legal team of Prop H, and how DC is going to be forced to buy Gura a new Bugatti or any similarly expensive toy he wants.

choprzrul
01-04-2011, 6:00 PM
I wish that the police were forced to admit they were wrong as part of the settlement.

I would have held out for just lawyers fees and an admission of guilt by the PD and the City.

I agree, and would add that they should start pursuing a % of the offending officer's retirement package. If 5% to 50% chunks of retirement started being awarded to the aggrieved, officers would start to think twice before stomping all over people's civil rights.

Just my $.02.

.

The Shadow
01-04-2011, 6:02 PM
Something to keep an eye on; there's every indication that Wisconsin WILL be shall issue before the end of 2011, and there is a push for Wisconsin to be Constitutional carry shortly after that. Brookfield better get with the program or they will have big problems in the future.

CCWFacts
01-04-2011, 6:14 PM
Something to keep an eye on; there's every indication that Wisconsin WILL be shall issue before the end of 2011, and there is a push for Wisconsin to be Constitutional carry shortly after that.

I don't mean to nitpick, but their strategy right now is to skip the CCW phase entirely, and go to AZ / AK style "constitutional carry". That means you can carry without a CCW, and you can get a CCW if you want one. The optional CCW would be useful mainly for reciprocity purposes.

As the CCW movement has gathered strength the NRA is pushing for stronger and stronger CCW laws. "Constitutional carry" is the new "shall issue"!

Glock22Fan
01-04-2011, 6:14 PM
Just part of the cost of doing business as usual. The city's lawyer said as much. Clearly they have no intent to change their minds.

Hand the money over for firearm education, for crying out loud? How about handing it over to educate the police and politicians that laws mean what they say? Hand it over, that is, to the nearest FFL. 7.5K will buy a nice custom 1911 (or whatever you fancy) and some ammo to go with it.

Wear a badge: "Custom 1911 kindly donated by City Council and your local Police Department. Ask me how you can get one."

The Shadow
01-04-2011, 6:41 PM
I don't mean to nitpick, but their strategy right now is to skip the CCW phase entirely, and go to AZ / AK style "constitutional carry". That means you can carry without a CCW, and you can get a CCW if you want one. The optional CCW would be useful mainly for reciprocity purposes.

As the CCW movement has gathered strength the NRA is pushing for stronger and stronger CCW laws. "Constitutional carry" is the new "shall issue"!

Well, whatever they end up with, it will still be better than California. The fact that Constitutional carry is being considered is leaps and bounds ahead of where California is at. At this point, no one in California would even consider going for Constitutional carry and are just now realizing that shall issue is achievable in the PRK.

gratefuldog
01-04-2011, 7:06 PM
I agree, and would add that they should start pursuing a % of the offending officer's retirement package. If 5% to 50% chunks of retirement started being awarded to the aggrieved, officers would start to think twice before stomping all over people's civil rights.

.
Agreed, the taxpayers should not be responsible for the offending officer's "mistake!"

FF/EMT Nick
01-04-2011, 8:27 PM
Maybe I should quit my job and just OC all day until my money train pulls up and unjustly arrests me

well isn't that Sig worthy :D

N6ATF
01-05-2011, 12:29 AM
LMFAO!

Patrick-2
01-05-2011, 6:02 AM
I agree, and would add that they should start pursuing a % of the offending officer's retirement package. If 5% to 50% chunks of retirement started being awarded to the aggrieved, officers would start to think twice before stomping all over people's civil rights.

Just my $.02.

.

You were being sarcastic, but the truth of US civil rights law includes the ability to hold government officials individually responsible for their part in a deprivation of rights action. This means that they cannot hide behind the government shield and claim they were following orders. You can hold them personally responsible.

This is most frequently used in suits against police for racism and brutality.

2A is protected under 42 USC 1983. It is a civil right. And when the right is ruled to include public carry...officers may well be targeted for their individual role in denying your rights.

How many of them do you think will put their house and personal bank accounts on the line for the political desires of their bosses (or even themselves)?

Guys and gals...there is a plan. Sit back and let it unfold.

Wherryj
01-05-2011, 7:44 AM
... Only if that donation is sent to a pro-gun education program. Most "Gun education" is just propagand and lies from the antis. Glad she won out and came out of it ok. Go wisconsin.

Well, that and the fact that she obviously lost some time, personal and/or business. She may have lost $7,500 financially, if not at least in frustration.

It's not a ludicrous amount, so in my opinion she deserves the money. There's no shame in it, and it doesn't diminish the "principle". The lawyer is just blowing smoke after losing a dog of a case.

robcoe
01-05-2011, 8:23 AM
So they arrested someone for not committing a crime and they act shocked that she sued them?

Admittedly I am not big on open carry, but the police acted like idiots here.

CCWFacts
01-05-2011, 9:10 AM
You were being sarcastic, but the truth of US civil rights law includes the ability to hold government officials individually responsible for their part in a deprivation of rights action. This means that they cannot hide behind the government shield and claim they were following orders. You can hold them personally responsible.

Yes but...

How many of them do you think will put their house and personal bank accounts on the line for the political desires of their bosses (or even themselves)?

None.

I'm not familiar with their contracts but I would assume that, as part of their employment, they get liability insurance from their employer. It's another free, untaxed benefit that they get. So even if the guy is found personally liable for $1mil, it's paid by the insurance. And going further I would guess that many of these insurance policies are "self insurance", meaning that the county / city just picks up the tab, drawing from money it has set aside for that purpose.

It's the same as with doctors, for example. They all need hefty malpractice insurance policies. Without those policies they wouldn't be able to do their jobs. Their employers pay for it. When a doctor loses a $1mil malpractice suit the money comes from the insurance carrier.