Open carrier wins $23,500 settlement from Colorado Springs

[A-R]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/36817 ... gun-arrest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James Sorensen sued the city after seven CSPD officers detained and arrested him at a gay pride festival in July 2012, a day after the Aurora theater shooting, after seeing the open gun on his hip. What happened was caught on camera by Sorensen's partner.

The four sergeants and three officers involved were unaware that it's legal to open carry in city parks and has been since gun laws changed statewide in 2003.

[Oldgringo]

Yep, that's kinda' what I've said in several OC based threads. Even in OC states where it's legal; for whatever reasons, we do not see folk OC'ing in the cities. Granted, I've never been to a Gay Pride Festival, so YMMV?

[cb1000rider]

Sorry, I look down my nose at this.
7 officers that didn't know that open carry was legal?
7 officers that didn't care to check after meeting a guy who clearly knew OC was legal?
And we blame an unupdated "cheat sheet"?

Don't worry, next time he'll be charged with disturbing the peace.

I wonder if $27k even begins to cover his legal fees.

[A-R]

Sorry, I look down my nose at this.
7 officers that didn't know that open carry was legal?
7 officers that didn't care to check after meeting a guy who clearly knew OC was legal?
And we blame an unupdated "cheat sheet"?

Don't worry, next time he'll be charged with disturbing the peace.

I wonder if $27k even begins to cover his legal fees.

I agree it's ridiculous and with that many sergeants on scene, SOMEONE should've checked the law (but apparently they checked the "cheat sheet" instead).

But, playing devil's advocate, if you've seen the full unedited video (portions on the news link above, full video on youtube below) the open carrier becomes very belligerent and at one point refuses an officer's command to put his hands in the air. I know some will say "he didn't break the law, why does he have to put his hands in the air" - and that's a fair point, but look at it from the LEO's perspective - far as they know at that point he HAS broken the law, he has a gun, and he is belligerently refusing to follow their commands? The LEOs are definitely wrong here at the end of it all, but his belligerence didn't help him that day.

Best advice, even if you're being arrested without cause, is to politely state your case, then do not resist any command or action taken by the LEO. Side of the road is not the place to passionately argue the law. And he doesn't even really know the law he's protesting anyway. He keeps yelling about violating his 2nd Amendment and something about a sign. His actual get-out-of-jail card was that an old ordinance banning guns in parks had been removed. Sign had nothing to do with it. Thus NOBODY really understood the actual law.

Again, not excusing the LEOs ignorance of law, but the guy was sorta begging to be arrested with his belligerence.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

[C-dub]

Now I'm curious.

1. At what point must I obey an officer's commands?
2. If a LEO tells me to come over to him and I don't, am I breaking the law by not obeying?

[Ameer]

They didn't get the memo? I believe that about as much as I believe George Wallace didn't get the memo about school integration.

[SewTexas]

Yep, that's kinda' what I've said in several OC based threads. Even in OC states where it's legal; for whatever reasons, we do not see folk OC'ing in the cities. Granted, I've never been to a Gay Pride Festival, so YMMV?

How many times must I say this????/ I LIVED there....I saw folks carrying OC all the time! no one thought anything of it. this was from 05-09 or so.

[A-R]

Now I'm curious.

1. At what point must I obey an officer's commands?
2. If a LEO tells me to come over to him and I don't, am I breaking the law by not obeying?

Depends on a lot of circumstances, but one of those is if you're being placed under arrest. As relates to specific incident, see video at about 11:30 mark when the black officer walks up from the street and demands the man put his hands in the air. He doesn't specifically say "you're under arrest", but I think it's at this point that they are going to arrest the man (they do cuff him as soon as he complies, but he does resist verbally and very slightly physically).

Of course, above refers to a "lawful" arrest.

My point was merely that even if you KNOW the officers are dead wrong on the law (which this guy seemed to think he did even though he didn't elaborate the correct reasons himself), being as belligerent as he was is probably not the best course of action. If both you and the officer(s) believe unequivocally that you're right, guess who wins on the street? You can only win the argument in the courtroom, you'll never win it on the street.

[C-dub]

Now I'm curious.

1. At what point must I obey an officer's commands?
2. If a LEO tells me to come over to him and I don't, am I breaking the law by not obeying?

Depends on a lot of circumstances, but one of those is if you're being placed under arrest. As relates to specific incident, see video at about 11:30 mark when the black officer walks up from the street and demands the man put his hands in the air. He doesn't specifically say "you're under arrest", but I think it's at this point that they are going to arrest the man (they do cuff him as soon as he complies, but he does resist verbally and very slightly physically).

Of course, above refers to a "lawful" arrest.

My point was merely that even if you KNOW the officers are dead wrong on the law (which this guy seemed to think he did even though he didn't elaborate the correct reasons himself), being as belligerent as he was is probably not the best course of action. If both you and the officer(s) believe unequivocally that you're right, guess who wins on the street? You can only win the argument in the courtroom, you'll never win it on the street.

That's what I was afraid of. The end result is that we must comply because the LEO "thinks" they are right and on the street that's what matters because that LEO has more friends he can bring to the party than I can. Most of the time this won't be a problem except for when the officer is wrong. We end up with the short end of the stick when the officer is wrong and usually nothing happens to that officer.

[A-R]

That's what I was afraid of. The end result is that we must comply because the LEO "thinks" they are right and on the street that's what matters because that LEO has more friends he can bring to the party than I can. Most of the time this won't be a problem except for when the officer is wrong. We end up with the short end of the stick when the officer is wrong and usually nothing happens to that officer.

Well, in this case, despite his belligerence (or perhaps because of it, perhaps he wanted to be arrested?) he seemed to come out OK in the end - no charges, $23,500 for his trouble. Did that cover his legal fees? Who knows? Maybe his legal fees were paid in another agreement? All that non-disclosure stuff means we'll never know.

Who knows, if he wasn't so belligerent perhaps one of the 5 officers on scene would have actually looked up current law and sent him on his way. But he was presenting a problem they had to contain.

It's not fair and it's not perfect. But what's the alternative? Obviously the LEOs need to know (or look up) the law before effecting an arrest. But they also need some authority to do their job - as safely as possible - in the moment. Once an officer decides to place you under arrest - even if you disagree with it - doesn't it seem best for all involved to just comply and argue your points later? The alternative is to escalate the situation in the moment, on the street.

I'm glad this guy got some money for this. He deserves recompense for an unlawful arrest. And - as he said in the post-arrest interview - the LEO saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" really cuts both ways here.

Again, my only issue was his belligerence.

[A-R]

Another way to think about complying with an officer's commands is to put yourself in the officer's shoes. Most of us have studied a bit of using commands as a first step on a use of force hierarchy (think back to your CHL class).

Let's use the example of an officer telling you to get back in your car on a traffic stop. There is no law stating you must sit in your car. But for your safety and the officer's safety, he tells you to do so. But you keep walking ...

Now put it in a CHL perspective. You're approached by someone you don't know at night in a secluded area (say a Wal Mart parking lot). You ask "what do you want?" and they keep coming. You say "STOP! Don't come any closer!" but they ignore your command ...

Now be honest, how do YOU react in that scenario? In neither scenario has the stranger walking toward you violated any law. But haven't I just outlined textbook articulation of a potential threat?

That's the whole point of heeding officer commands. They need (and have) the leeway to control the situation by virtue of their legal authority for the purpose of their safety, your safety, and the safety of others.

[rotor]

These LEO were sergeants and I would expect that they knew the law about open carry. The taxpayers lost some money, the LEO probably didn't have any reprimand at all. If the LEO are too ignorant of the laws they shouldn't be on the street. Not asking them to be attorneys but they should at least know why they are stopping someone.

[A-R]

City loses $23,500 due to their ignorance and you think the LEOs were NOT reprimanded? I'll have to disagree with you on that.

[PBratton]

This is, yet again, one of those instances where, right or wrong, you ARE going to take a ride.

[SewTexas]

City loses $23,500 due to their ignorance and you think the LEOs were NOT reprimanded? I'll have to disagree with you on that.

that's what I was thinking, there is no excuse for 7 LEO's to not know the law.