Open Carry FED Lawsuit Pro Se defendent wins (Oregon)

This is a discussion on Open Carry FED Lawsuit Pro Se defendent wins (Oregon) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/at...8&d=1380931543...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70
Like Tree156Likes

Thread: Open Carry FED Lawsuit Pro Se defendent wins (Oregon)

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,478

    Open Carry FED Lawsuit Pro Se defendent wins (Oregon)


  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,002
    Seems a fairly solid support of the fact that mere open carry does not itself constitute any cause whatsoever to detain, frisk, arrest. Not even merely being in a spot where crimes have occurred previously, walking along and going about one's lawful business. Not even merely wearing some standard clothing that some criminals in past have opted to also wear. And not even asking what the point of the stop/detainment is, via reluctance to be subjected for no reason to a grilling.
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and Ghost1958 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Actually it was not an "Open Carry" lawsuit, it was a 4th Amendment Lawsuit. The only thing that the open carry had to do with it, was that open carry doesn't make a valid reason to stop and detane a person.
    gatorbait51 and Hopyard like this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,478
    LOL "as if" the OC didn't play a huge role in this? The outcome favors rights to OC - I don't think this is even up for debate

    More specifically (IMO) it shows that those " resourceful LEO" who actually believe they can do "whatever" and "articulate" themselves out of it may need to rethink that idea

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,002
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Actually it was not an "Open Carry" lawsuit, it was a 4th Amendment Lawsuit. The only thing that the open carry had to do with it, was that open carry doesn't make a valid reason to stop and detane a person.
    Sure, it was a 4A case.

    But the point of it all was that there's gotta be some basis for being detained or searched, not merely one's going about one's business along a roadway known for other crimes/criminals, wearing normal clothing millions wear that's suitable for the weather/season, and being openly armed in a state/place where it's lawful to be openly armed.
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and Ghost1958 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Stoveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    PRM
    Posts
    2,632
    I am pro LE but also pro "resourceful" LEOs getting a beat down by the Constitution....

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array gatorbait51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Loozianna
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
    I am pro LE but also pro "resourceful" LEOs getting a beat down by the Constitution....
    True this.. hopefully the younger coppers will begin to learn exactly what they raised their right hands for .
    Aceoky, ccw9mm, atctimmy and 2 others like this.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array oldman45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,272
    Sorry but I just read the entire 25 pages of their pleading. The guy was looking for someone to give him grief so he can sue.

    I am in law enforcement on a high level and I have been stopped by officers. I have surrendered my sidearm during a traffic stop but I produced identification to the officer and I am not talking about my commission. I answered his questions politely. I was also warned about my speed and let go without a citation.

    I have had TWO officers pull me over and approach with guns drawn. Again, I was polite and when they saw I only had a vehicle like was used in an armed robbery, they thanked me for understanding and left.

    If one is not looking for trouble, there wil not be any to be had. Had Mr Hall answered the questions and been polite with the officer, there would not have been an issue. The officer could not identify Mr Hall because he refused to give his name. There could have been warrants out for him or there could have been a BOLO on him.

    If one wants trouble, they can find it. Mr Hall found what he was looking for and now wants a lot of money.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    A 9mm might expand but a .45acp never shrinks.

    "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,478
    Well, I guess that "is one way to look at it' , the court does not seem to agree with "giving grief out without cause" which is the entire point IMO It does not matter "his attitude" in the least either whether LEO "like it or not" , either they can stop, detain and question or they can't - and often they know they can't and do anyway (thinking they'll articulate their way out of anything that comes from it)

    An abuse of power is not to be tolerated and no one should advocate such IMO

  11. #10
    Member Array mjbeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    111
    Because Officer Dodge lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Hall under ORS 131.615(1), 18 he was not privileged to use force to effectuate the violative stop.

    Sounds like Officer Dodge shouldn't go around stopping, frisking, and questioning people when he has no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,688
    Quote Originally Posted by oldman45 View Post
    Sorry but I just read the entire 25 pages of their pleading. The guy was looking for someone to give him grief so he can sue.

    I am in law enforcement on a high level and I have been stopped by officers. I have surrendered my sidearm during a traffic stop but I produced identification to the officer and I am not talking about my commission. I answered his questions politely. I was also warned about my speed and let go without a citation.

    I have had TWO officers pull me over and approach with guns drawn. Again, I was polite and when they saw I only had a vehicle like was used in an armed robbery, they thanked me for understanding and left.

    If one is not looking for trouble, there wil not be any to be had. Had Mr Hall answered the questions and been polite with the officer, there would not have been an issue. The officer could not identify Mr Hall because he refused to give his name. There could have been warrants out for him or there could have been a BOLO on him.

    If one wants trouble, they can find it. Mr Hall found what he was looking for and now wants a lot of money.
    I think that's naive, although I wish it were so.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,478
    Quote Originally Posted by mjbeam View Post
    Because Officer Dodge lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Hall under ORS 131.615(1), 18 he was not privileged to use force to effectuate the violative stop.

    Sounds like Officer Dodge shouldn't go around stopping, frisking, and questioning people when he has no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.
    Figured "articulate a way out of it" and that would be "that" - but not in this case we can all just hope the message is "loud and clear" LEO should not harass folks for legal OC- period and there is no good going to come from it for LEO this less "should" go much further than Officer Dodge
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array oldman45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,272
    A law enforcement officer can stop one for a variety of reasons. Not speaking with them is asking for trouble.

    Had Mr Hall gave his name and showed ID, he would have been on his way in a very few minutes. I compare this incident to those where guys are walking around with video cameras hoping to be arrested or detained so they can get their 15 minutes of fame. Yet even a person verbally giving a name does not mean it is their name.

    I bet that most here, if they were an officer working in a high crime area seeing a man wearing a hoodie, carrying a gun and acting in an unusal manner would have stopped the guy. Profiling?? Yes but then profiling has uncovered a lot of criminals. Had an officer not somewhat profiled Timothy McVeigh, a homegrown terrorist may have done more damage.

    Please note, Mr Hall was never arrested once he was identified and there were no warrants found on him. He simply wanted to push the envelope.

    Again, this guy is looking for taxpayer money.
    A 9mm might expand but a .45acp never shrinks.

    "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array oldman45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by mjbeam View Post
    Because Officer Dodge lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Hall under ORS 131.615(1), 18 he was not privileged to use force to effectuate the violative stop.

    Sounds like Officer Dodge shouldn't go around stopping, frisking, and questioning people when he has no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.
    Where did it say that he frisked Mr Hall until after Mr Hall refused to identify himself? Did you read where Mr Hall was acting strangely and appeared to be trying to evade the officer? That my friend is reasonable suspicion.

    How badly do you want to tie the hands of the police? A Terry Stop has revealed a lot of wanted criminals.
    A 9mm might expand but a .45acp never shrinks.

    "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,478
    A law enforcement officer can stop one for a variety of reasons
    OC where it's legal is NOT one of them (that is the whole point) "because they do it" (or might do it) doesn't make it right OR mean one loses their rights (as the court I think made clear)

    Had Mr Hall gave his name and showed ID
    With NO cause to question him there was no requirement for either

    Where OC is legal the abusing of police power needs to be ended- no LEO is out there stopping legal red trucks "just because" - but they (some) are for legal OC - illegally and for what? This is not the first such case- it should be "common knowledge" by now that it's not proper (nor legal even) to question folks for legal OC

    The argument "he should have waived his rights and SHOWN HIS PAPERS" is not the correct answer here- the LEO had no right to even ask him much less demand or hold anyone for legal OC and nothing else. Law Enforcement Officers need to obey AND enforce the laws - not have personal agendas - about legal activities they may not like; they don't get to write the laws they want or make them up on the spot either (not bashing LEO at all - just reinforcing the facts)

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

cops who refuse to honor open carry

,

open carry in oregon probable cause to detain on oregon

,

open carry lawsuit

,

open carry lawsuits 2013

,

open carry lawsuits oregon

,

pro se carrying concealed firearm

Click on a term to search for related topics.