Posted on 05/31/2017 6:02:52 AM PDT by marktwain
In 2011, on November 2nd, The Lincoln City Police Department received a call about a young man displaying a firearm in an Astro van outside of a convenience store. The call lead to the felony stop of an Astro van about 4 hours later.
In the van was 58-year-old black pastor who was a double amputee. The officers forced the pastor, Leroy Duffie, to exit the van with his hands held up, after he had told them that he could not do so because of his disability.
At gunpoint, Duffie opened his door, and twisted his body in an attempt to comply. He then fell face forward to the pavement, suffering significant injuries including loss of two teeth and a torn rotator cup.
Duffie sued the police department for depriving him of his constitutional rights, of using excessive force, searching his van without his consent, and placing him in danger of physical harm without due process.
The trial court granted qualified immunity to the officers and granted summary judgment against Duffie on all counts. Duffie appealed to the Eight Circuit.
The Eighth Circuit, on 23 August, 2016 reversed the trial court decision, finding that police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Duffie, because the open carry of handguns is legal under the law in Nebraska. The Court referred to open carry as a right. On March 30th, 2017, Duffie and the City of Lincoln reached a settlement, with Duffie receiving $160,000.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August reversed that decision and ruled Officers Nathan Kaiser, Tobias Hite and Shane Jensen violated his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The judges took issue with the reason for the stop,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
In modern civilian terms, you are describing “detained”. Per SCOTUS, a person may be detained if there is suspicion or knowledge of a criminal act. This is supposed to be tempered with a test for reasonableness. In this case, the reasonable test failed as the stop occurred 4 hours after the report -AND- the reported activity is not illegal.
The detained authority is quite broad. For example, a bank robbery is reported. Within a reasonable time and a reasonable distance from the bank, any person my be detained for questioning and pursuant to the detention, may be patted down for weapons to ensure the officer’s safety. However, no search for evidence may be conducted if the detainee asserts their right to not be searched. The target of the detention is not free to go, however, they are under no compulsion to respond to any questions asked.
If I am encountered and do not want to cooperate, I will use the following sentences:
“I do not wish to be engaged or have a conversation”
If I am detained:
“I do not answer questions from law enforcement or agents of the state without the presence of my attorney” and “I will assume that I am NOT detained unless you tell me otherwise and will be on my way.”
Thank you for your expertise.
In regards to the comments about open carry I would note that it applies to long arms as well as hand guns (though that is mostly what everyone thinks of first). If you can’t legally open carry a long arm - how would you hunt with one?
“A measly $160k means the cops will do it again, and again.................”
Suing them personally won’t get them much except an empty bag of donuts.
He sues, he wins, they declare bankruptcy, it’s over.............
There you go assuming bad guys are clear-thinking logical people. Almost all bad guys are impulsive optimists with a talent for ignoring the obvious...Any apparent rational behavior on the part of street criminals is usually the result of traditional criminal lore or evolutionary pressure. Just body language that suggests you might resist a mugging is usually enough to send the predator looking for easier game, and that's probably an in-born behavior, and the toll on muggers that ignore it is high enough to take them out of the game permanently...
Yeah, he got the job. Edged me out, barely, according to the bigger boss.
When the weasel left, less than a year later, they re-opened the job. When they got the applicant list, my name wasn't on it. Apparently, they were assuming that I was going to go for it again, and they really wanted to pick me. I got more attention for not putting in for that job a third time (first time I put in for it, I was unconcerned that I didn't get it, as I liked the guy they picked, and life went on - no worries). When I explained to them that everyone except management saw and understood what weaselboy was up to, they actually agreed I was right. I left about a year later for a better job and never looked back.
Yeah, faulty premise. People that are rational realize that crime doesn’t pay. At least for 99% of us. I remember reading “Unintended Consequences” years ago where the author states that 90% of crimes are solved because the criminals can’t keep their mouth shut. Only something like 1% of the population has the intelligence to make crime pay and less have the ability to shut up. But those few are real “super criminals”. But even they have traded a “real life” with friends and family for their predatory existence.
But there are indicators that it happens with some regularity.
First, we have numerous anecdotal accounts that the display of a firearm stops crime. It seems in about 90 to 95% of defensive gun uses no shots are fired. The numbers are inferred from surveys that show 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses, but only about 1,500 to 3,000 justifiable homicides.
Second, there are cases where witnesses are convinced that deterrence happened.
Here is one:
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=147404
I have had students personally tell me deterrence stories where they were convinced they would have been attacked except the attacker noticed they were openly carrying.
Here is an article which lists a number of anecdotal events such as that.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/the-pro-liberty-choice-dispelling-the-myths-of-open-carry/
Finally, we have the studies that show that criminals generally look for soft targets.
Here is one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200901/marked-mayhem
All of this shows that there are “plenty” of criminals, (admittedly an ambiguous term) that are deterred by open carry.
I normally do not open carry but when I do, I also carry a concealed, under the should, second hand gun. While I might be a target with the open carry, should someone get it from me, I won’t be left defenseless.
I’ve been surprised that since Texas allowed open carry, I have yet to see anyone carrying a gun that is openly visible.
Open carry is a deterrent to a bad guy looking for an easy mark. But it may draw unwanted attention from a nutcase Muslim looking to murder his way into heaven.
It ruins their credit rating.
It costs them legal fees to defend against the suit.
It costs them legal fees to do the bankruptcy.
It aggravates the piss out of them.
It causes marital problems.
All of those things will serve as a deterrent to other cops doing the same thing...which, if you ask me, is the biggest reason to do this. Besides, you really never know how much a person is worth - they may have inherited money, or have invested well from past income. Or maybe the cop and his wife are DINKs (double income, no kids), etc.
If the cops involved weren’t fired, stripped of their pensions, and prosecuted for Federal civil rights violations this doesn’t mean squat.
This money came out of taxpayers hides. Until that changes, nothing will.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.