Man who clashed with cops over legal gun was also armed with audio recorder

[Predicto]

Clearly, the officers were wrong, but I doubt this guy is going to get a "big payday" out of this. He doesn't have any damages.

You don't get a big payday just because the cops are rude to you, even if you record it. You might get a big payday if the cops rough you up for no good reason.

[SnyderShrugged]

Clearly, the officers were wrong, but I doubt this guy is going to get a "big payday" out of this. He doesn't have any damages.

You don't get a big payday just because the cops are rude to you, even if you record it. You might get a big payday if the cops rough you up for no good reason.

I dont think he'll get a big payday in monetary damages (though they did seem to be a little rougher with him when the backup arrved). Where I suspect he will get "paid" is in principle plus the pleasure of seeing the officers who were so rude and way out of line get their due. Hopefully, they will have learned a little something about the law from this.

[zoony]

Clearly, the officers were wrong, but I doubt this guy is going to get a "big payday" out of this. He doesn't have any damages.

You don't get a big payday just because the cops are rude to you, even if you record it. You might get a big payday if the cops rough you up for no good reason.

Being harassed and then prosecuted for essentially nothing. I dunno, I think a jury will see it differently. The article mentions he and his lawyer are preparing a lawsuit.

[Predicto]

I'd agree that they arent biased against conservatives as individuals at all. They are more biased against the second amendment. I always found it strange that they protect some of the individual rights in the BOR yet take opposite stances on the others.

I think they are a good organization as a whole though and do well in so many areas of fighting for the individual rights for many. Just wish they could be consistent.

That's not "bias." That's their interpretation of the scope of the individual right at issue. Just because the NRA used a broader interpretation doesn't mean that the ACLU is required to do so.

The ACLU doesn't defend people when they shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, because that goes beyond the scope of the First Amendment as they understand it.

The ACLU doesn't push for unlimited individual gun rights because they interpret the "well-regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment to be a limitation on the individual rights to bear arms. A lot of people agree with them, including many legal scholars, and it was only last year that the Supreme Court finally weighed in on the issue after over two centuries of dispute.

Besides, gun owners don't need the ACLU to take up that cause - the NRA and GOA already have those bases well covered.

[Ellis]

PistolPackinTim is not the guy who was harrassed by the police... he is just a gun advocate who posted the audio.

thanks for clearing that up.

Still seems really bizarre to walk around with a recording device all the time.

[Predicto]

Being harassed and then prosecuted for essentially nothing. I dunno, I think a jury will see it differently. The article mentions he and his lawyer are preparing a lawsuit.

I'm sure they are, and I don't blame them.

Nevertheless, being prosecuted wrongfully might add something, but I still don't see much in the way of tangible damages. A jury can't just award you whatever they feel like - you have to have suffered a compensable injury.

[zoony]

I'm sure they are, and I don't blame them.

Nevertheless, being prosecuted wrongfully might add something, but I still don't see much in the way of tangible damages. A jury can't just award you whatever they feel like - you have to have suffered a compensable injury.

could there be a punative award against the city?

(there should be, imo. That's the only thing that will get their attention. So far their answer to this has been "well, we don't focus on that", followed by a prosecution :doh: )

[SnyderShrugged]

That's not "bias." That's their interpretation of the scope of the individual right at issue. Just because the NRA used a broader interpretation doesn't mean that the ACLU is required to do so.

The ACLU doesn't defend people when they shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, because that goes beyond the scope of the First Amendment as they understand it.

The ACLU doesn't push for unlimited individual gun rights because they interpret the "well-regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment to be a limitation on the individual rights to bear arms. A lot of people agree with them, including many legal scholars, and it was only last year that the Supreme Court finally weighed in on the issue after over two centuries of dispute.

Besides, gun owners don't need the ACLU to take up that cause - the NRA and GOA already have those bases well covered.

I wouldnt equate most of the second amendment cases as anywhere near yelling fire in a theater. The context is very different.

Like I said, I just think they should treat each right equally, and they clearly dont. I think they would have a better reputation among the right if they did that too.

I get the interpretation thing too, but it doesnt make sense to me considering how they treat other explicit rights.

[The 12th Commandment]

thanks for clearing that up.

Still seems really bizarre to walk around with a recording device all the time.

One of the first (and continual) things they harp on in concealed carry class (at least here in NM) is the weight of the responsibility in choosing to fire at someone. You're going to be looked at as a suspect if you shoot and kill somebody, no matter what they did, the more evidence you have that you were justified the better.

[Predicto]

I wouldnt equate most of the second amendment cases as anywhere near yelling fire in a theater. The context is very different.

Like I said, I just think they should treat each right equally, and they clearly dont. I think they would have a better reputation among the right if they did that too.

I get the interpretation thing too, but it doesnt make sense to me considering how they treat other explicit rights.

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. They treat each right equally, but that does not mean that they have to push the envelope on interpreting the Second Amendment in the way that the NRA wants it pushed.

I understand that if you believe that the Second Amendment is very broad, it will seem to you like they are not defending it properly. But that comes from the fact that YOU believe the Second Amendment is broad, so you are projecting on others the requirement that they interpret it in the same way as you do, and are biased if they don't. However, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not automatically the right one.

In addition, the ACLU is a mostly volunteer organization with very limited resources. They tend to take cases where there are rights at issue that otherwise would not be defended. Even if they agreed with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, they wouldn't take Second Amendment cases because there are a ton of well-funded organizations that already do that.

However, if you got into trouble because the government tried to take away your First Amendment right to ADVOCATE for greater gun rights, chances are the ACLU would be all over that in a flash. And it wouldn't matter a bit to them that you were a conservative gun owner fighting for gun rights - they would view it as fighting for First Amendment freedom of speech, and right in their wheelhouse.

Does that distinction make sense?

.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. They treat each right equally, but that does not mean that they have to push the envelope on interpreting the Second Amendment in the way that the NRA wants it pushed.

I understand that if you believe that the Second Amendment is very broad, it will seem to you like they are not defending it properly. But that comes from the fact that YOU believe the Second Amendment is broad, so you are projecting on others the requirement that they interpret it in the same way as you do, and are biased if they don't. However, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not automatically the right one.

In addition, the ACLU is a mostly volunteer organization with very limited resources. They tend to take cases where there are rights at issue that otherwise would not be defended. Even if they agreed with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, they wouldn't take Second Amendment cases because there are a ton of well-funded organizations that already do that.

However, if you got into trouble because the government tried to take away your First Amendment right to ADVOCATE for greater gun rights, chances are the ACLU would be all over that in a flash. And it wouldn't matter a bit to them that you were a conservative gun owner fighting for gun rights - they would view it as fighting for First Amendment freedom of speech, and right in their wheelhouse.

Does that distinction make sense?

.

It does, and I get it completely. I disagree still (but thats just my lil opinion)

[Predicto]

by zoony

could there be a punative award against the city?

(there should be, imo. That's the only thing that will get their attention. So far their answer to this has been "well, we don't focus on that", followed by a prosecution )

I don't know Pennsylvania, but you probably couldn't get punitive damages against the City in a California court, at least not for the harassment at the beginning.

California Civil Code section 3294 provides that punitive damages are available against employers for the act of an employee only if the employer:

1) had "advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others"or

2) authorized or ratified the bad conduct; or

3) commits acts of deliberate oppression or malicious conduct, or

4) commits fraud, such as a "cover up" or lying about events;

Unless you can show that the City actively instructed its officers to harass law-abiding open carry gun owners, or the City knew in advance that these particular cops had problems, or the City tried to do a cover-up, then it's going to be hard to satisfy those standards. The fact that the cops were ignorant and douchey probably isn't going to get you there.

Maybe the filing of the subsequent suit against the guy might be found to be a oppressive or malicious act. That looks like the best shot at it - but I wouldn't bet the farm on winning that one.

Of couse, I'm winging this a bit, but that's how I see it. It's a lot easier to sue to make a City stop its cops from doing something wrong that it is to get punitive damages out of a City for something wrong that the cops did in the past.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't know Pennsylvania, but you probably couldn't get punitive damages against the City in a California court, at least not for the harassment at the beginning.

California Civil Code section 3294 provides that punitive damages are available against employers for the act of an employee only if the employer:

1) had "advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others"or

2) authorized or ratified the bad conduct; or

3) commits acts of deliberate oppression or malicious conduct, or

4) commits fraud, such as a "cover up" or lying about events;

Unless you can show that the City actively instructed its officers to harass law-abiding open carry gun owners, or the City knew in advance that these particular cops had problems, or the City tried to do a cover-up, then it's going to be hard to satisfy those standards. The fact that the cops were ignorant and douchey probably isn't going to get you there.

Maybe the filing of the subsequent suit against the guy might be found to be a oppressive or malicious act. That looks like the best shot at it - but I wouldn't bet the farm on winning that one.

Of couse, I'm winging this a bit, but that's how I see it. It's a lot easier to sue to make a City stop its cops from doing something wrong that it is to get punitive damages out of a City for something wrong that the cops did in the past.

I understand the focus around "deliberate" actions, but could there be a case for negligence of the PD for their officers not knowing the law?

[Predicto]

I understand the focus around "deliberate" actions, but could there be a case for negligence of the PD for their officers not knowing the law?

Yes, absolutely, but you can't get punitive damages for negligence. You can only get compensatory damages for negligence. Which means you get compensated for the actual injuries you suffered.

Which is why I didn't think this guy was going to get a big payday, because he hasn't suffered much in the way of tangible injury. He didn't get roughed up, they didn't close his business or knock down his house.

He definitely has grounds for a lawsuit, but I don't see the big payday at the end. Like I said, I'm just going on what I'm hearing so far. There may be more to it.

[redskinss]

Man I must live in the most backwards state in the country cause every time a thread pops up like this one i say to myself thats not the way it is here.

in mass you not only have to have a very good reason but you also have to have a special permit to conceal, otherwise you have to open carry.