testtest

Cleveland Gun Owner Sues City & Police Over Wrongful Arrest for Legally Carrying Firearms

So why not place the firearm on the ground and listen to what the officers had to say? Until he got argumentative with the officers I'm in the mindset they would have ask questions and left him alone and gone on their way. Instead he got mouthy an argumentative, which makes the officers ratcheted up a notch
Am I the only one with that thought pattern?
 
Pitdogg2 said:
So why not place the firearm on the ground and listen to what the officers had to say? Until he got argumentative with the officers I'm in the mindset they would have ask questions and left him alone and gone on their way. Instead he got mouthy an argumentative, which makes the officers ratcheted up a notch
Am I the only one with that thought pattern?
Click to expand...
Well I’m not in law enforcement, but I worked around them for over 16 years, I know the mind set of some of them, it’s there way or no way, not all think or act like this, but I have know a few that did, but yes, I agree the guy could have just put the gun down and not get argumentative, cause that never works.
 
1. Don’t walk around a neighborhood openly armed with multiple guns “on patrol” without informing the PD of what you’re doing. I’m not saying he has to, he has a right (I’m going off the article) to do so. But it makes sense.
2. The time to argue with cops is not on the street in an armed confrontation. That’s what court is for, redress of grievances.
3. That Sgt needs to be fired.
 
Pitdogg2 said:
So why not place the firearm on the ground and listen to what the officers had to say? Until he got argumentative with the officers I'm in the mindset they would have ask questions and left him alone and gone on their way. Instead he got mouthy an argumentative, which makes the officers ratcheted up a notch
Am I the only one with that thought pattern?
Click to expand...
Once a leo decides to write you a ticket or put you under arrest any resistance just puts you further in the hole. You're not going to win the argument standing on a city sidewalk or beside a country road. The best chance you have at that point will be your day in court.
 
The man was not breaking the law . He was simply walking down the sidewalk and he wasn't sneaking around. There was no reason for 20 ( don't know actual number ) squads and at least the same number of LEO to be there. Last but not least , he certainly should not have been arrested. The comment at the end and and the group reaction just really P's me off.

I support law enforcement but there are things done by LEOs that just shouldn't be done. This showed one of those things.
 
Even STL PD wouldn't do that. I know this because I was on a job on the north side where a guy was walking up and down the street with an AK strapped. Someone called the police. When they got there they came over to us and were standing around talking. The guy wasn't breaking any laws. They never even walked over to him.
 
HansGruber said:
I’ll put money that the cops get off due to qualified immunity.

Which is why it needs to go away.
Click to expand...
Some of the officers may get qualified immunity, but the Sgt. and the officers who admittedly knew that this subject was not breaking the law most likely do not qualify. Qualified Immunity does not apply nearly as often as the media leads people to believe. Qualified Immunity only applies when officers do not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

As recently demonstrated in the Bruen case, the 2nd Amendment is clearly enumerated and established. The fact that the first responding officers knew that the subject was not violating any laws, shows that reasonable officers either know or should know that the listed behavior is not an arrestable offense.

There is a solid chance that all of the officers involved will be denied qualified immunity. Some late-arriving officers who did not actively participate in the arrest may get lucky, and any officers who did not know the law and were following what they believed to be a lawful order from a superior may also skate. Even this is unlikely, but it is possible.

Always remember that whenever the news runs a story about officers receiving qualified immunity for apparently appalling behavior, you are only receiving one side of the story. If there is any possibility that police behavior violated a clearly-established civil right, courts will deny qualified immunity.
 
Here's the thing. They held the guy for 36 hours. That means it isn't even possible that a couple of cops just didn't know the law. After 36 hours there are lawyers and DAs and police captains involved. They clearly knew he hadn't broken the law and they held him against his will anyway. I wonder if they gave him his gun back. I predict this guy is going to get paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top