What happened to Minnesota Nice?

[gunthorp]

Although I reccommend AGAINST open carry for a host of reasons, here in MN it is perfectly legal with a Carry Permit. Nevertheless, here is an email I just received from a former student.
.................................................. ......................................

Hello Gardner,

I took your class in April and I just wanted to alert you to an incident that I had with Duluth Police Officers. I work for a private investigation company and do private security work. I'm still in shock at how I was treated by officers and how they actually repeatedly violated my civil rights and committed multiple criminal offenses against myself.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[rocky]

If this is the true and unbiased facts of the situation, I feel the PD did wrong him by the harassment. As for pointing a gun at him, that was for officer safety , most likely. While it may be legal to open carry, sometimes it is much smarter to conceal.

[Black Knight]

If this is true you need to talk to a U.S. Attorney and file a complaint for "Violation of civil rights under color of law". The FBI will do the investigation. The incident number is a great thing to have and that is where they will start. They will verify the contact by this number and the dispatch tapes. Good luck and keep an eye open. Cops this "dirty" are apted to do anything in retaliation. Also notify the Sheriff where you got the permit so he/she knows what to expect.

[Thumper]

As already stated, "Oppression Under The Color of Authority" is a VERY serious matter and NO law enforcement officer ever wants to be charged with that!

[retsupt99]

if what you say is true. You may, worse scenario, at least prevent further 'insult and injury'...

ret

[JimmyC4]

"Minnesota Nice" is alive and well!

If this is accurate, it looks like at least two cops on a power trip.

It's easy to say to pursue it, but lawyers don't work for free. On the other side of the equation, the cops have a whole bureaucracy that is well-tuned in the art of protecting their errant ways.

At risk of offending the well-informed LEOs that frequent this forum, I must say that generally (in this story and many others) LEOs are not well-informed on the critical issue of open carry in their jurisdiction. It's not rocket science, and for me is an elementary set of the law for them to have a good handle on before they go out on the street.

The whole "man with a gun" BS is way overplayed...once LEOs know that this is a law-abiding citizen carrying in a lawful manner they must simply drive away, pure and simple. No detention, no threats, no lectures. I, for one, am very weary of the LEO "...I want to go home at the end of my shift..." reasoning for jacking up law-abiding citizens. We all want to go home safely, and when open carry is legal, don't endanger the person who is legally carrying openly!!!

[palmgopher]

as for the gun being pointed at him.....i agree for officer safety. the cuffs again for officer safety. once complained about being too tight the situation goes down hill from there. They deffinately had a problem and that is the kind of thing that gives police officers a bad name. They need to leave their personal agenda at home and deal with the LAW. He was legal and they should have let him go once they found that no law was broken. As for the breathalizer.....i think BS and would DEFFINATELY file a formal complaint to the department about it. The letter is nice but for the most part unless formal complaint is made they will try to hide it and brush it away. Talk directly to the Sheriff about this incident. This way he knows the POLITICAL problems this could cause. He will make sure things get taken care of from there. It is after all his job if this gets out because chances are he will not get reelected again if the people found out that this kind of stuff was happening and he knew about it.

this is just my suggestion =O) as for lawsuit......your call i wont get into that one but if you dont think that it was handled right....then if you got the pockets for it or a lawyer that will work on what you will get out of it.

[PatrioticRick]

Ever thought about having the letter printed in the local news paper?

[palmgopher]

THAT would give the department a HUGE whack across the knuckles and FORCE them to do something......not a bad idea! make sure to talk to sheriff first as not to make an enemy.

[HotGuns]

If this is an accurate account of what transpired, then I would reccomend hiring a laywer immediatley. Any and all transaction to the dept.would be though my attorney.

An officer must deal with a "traffic stop" in accordance with the circumstances that are presented. Walking up to someone and stopping them at gunpoint simply because they are wearing a holstered weapon is above and beyond reasonable action. If an officer was truely concerned for their safety, the gun should be drawn and held downward by their side...there in no reason to point the gun at the person as circumstance did not dictate it. This appears to be use of excessive force.

There is so much wrong with this thread that it is hard to argue it.

There was NO probable cause to adminster a PBT.
There was no reason to "revoke" said permit or even mention it.
An officer should not interject his opinion of what the law says or what they think it should say.
They refused to give their names.
Any officer that would "fabricate" a charge should not be an officer and one that tells someone that he would just to get something to stick is an idiot.
There is a possibilty of illegal detainment here, as once it was found that the permit was valid, there was no longer reason for detainment.

Im not an expert on such things, but my take on it as a Part Time Deputy is not good.

It is my guess that a good laywer will tear the two cops apart and hand their azzes to them. Unfortunatley threatening to sue the dept. is the only way to recieve prompt attention and insure that the matter is reflected in the records of said cops. Cases like this make it very easy for lawyers to win. The only way to prevent the same thing from happening again is to make it very painful for the city and the dept. and the only way to do that is to hit them where they care...in the pocketbook.

Black Nights reccomendation of a U.S. Attorney is a good one. Sometimes that is what it takes to get the ball rolling.

I hate to hear of crap like this happening.

At risk of offending the well-informed LEOs that frequent this forum, I must say that generally (in this story and many others) LEOs are not well-informed on the critical issue of open carry in their jurisdiction.

That is a fact, but it no way does it absolve any officer for false arrest, excessive use of force, intimidation,slander or any thing else. We've all heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse...and the applies more so to LEO's. It is the responsibility of an arresting officer to know the law. Actions that are contrary to that law are not only irresponsible but serve to erode public confidence. It sounds that this particular Police Dept. may have some issues that need to be addressed in a head on manner.

[MNBurl]

Talk to a lawyer before responding more on the net!

What loosers 440 and 400 are!

[rstickle]

Sounds like you have a couple of officers with a problem, and if accurate should be pursued.

[QKShooter]

Well, I admire any citizen that wants to fight the courtroom fight & go through the legal hassle and the forthcoming BS & expense to open carry.
More power & good luck to him.
I'll let you younger guys fight the good "open carry" fight.
Way back when I did my small, part to help prompt PA. go Shall Issue.
Maybe if I thought open carry was in any way positive and beneficial to armed self~defensive carry I would be more willing to share the pain on this incident.
Hope everything works out well for the dude though.

[enigmaone]

While not condoning the actions of the officers involved, It should be
remembered that Law Enforcement like every other Employer has the same problem they ALL have to recruit from the human race.Aint NONE of us perfect.

[bobfiegel]

Assuming facts are as stated, to include 400's statement of possibly fabricating evidence in the future regarding your permit, it seems to me the writer would be a great defense witness for anyone charged in the future based solely on the accusations of 400 and 440. Maybe not exactly what a DA wants to have around, especially once the criminal defense community gets wind of it?

I've got to admit though, that it's another example of no matter how right, correct, legal, et al, one may be, open carry can tend be an invitation to trouble, which is truly unfortunate, but real. If Florida had OC I'd still carry concealed just to avoid such incidents. Again, unfortunate and wrong, but real.

Hope we'll see an update or two on this one. Particularly interested to hear what the other two officers do. Will they all hide behind the wall?

Bob