Finally, open carry 2nd amendment prevails

[jimnyc]

Colorado man awarded $23,000 for wrongful arrest for open carry in city park

The city of Colorado Springs has had to fork over $23,500 to a man who was wrongfully arrested last summer for openly carrying a firearm in a city park. Arresting officers claimed that the man was in violation of the law, but it turned out that the law they were referring to had been repealed nearly a full decade ago.

According to a local NBC affiliate, James Sorensen and his partner were leaving PrideFest at Acacia Park in Colorado Springs on July 21, 2012, the day following the Aurora theater shooting, when an officer stopped and questioned Sorensen for openly carrying a .40-caliber handgun on
his hip.

The conversation quickly turned into a heated debate and Sorensen was detained and eventually arrested. Sorensen’s partner videotaped 13 minutes of the ordeal and posted it to YouTube, where it’s received nearly 165,000 views.

Sorensen repeatedly questioned the officers about why he was being detained, but they offered him no answers. He also asked them to show him a sign posted in or near the park which prohibited the carrying of firearms, but they could show him no such sign because none existed. One officer even responded to Sorensen’s request to see a sign by saying, “Sir, ignorance of the law is not an affirmative defense.”

But apparently the officer’s statement only referred to Sorensen and not the officers themselves, because as it turns out, the officers were actually the ones suffering from “ignorance of the law.”

The state law which prohibited guns in parks had actually been repealed in 2003. However, according to police spokeswoman Barbara Miller, the officers were not the ones to blame, but rather their outdated 40-page “cheat sheet” on local laws. While being detained, Sorensen even grabbed his cell phone and called the police department in an attempt to get a “real officer” on the scene who actually knew the law, but he was unsuccessful.

Following the arrest last year, Sorensen, an Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, stated, “I knew the law. I knew that it was legal for me to carry. My rights were trampled on.” He even tried to warn the police that their actions were in violation of the law, to which an officer suggested he “hire an attorney.”

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=5a16872fafbd" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[CSM]

Appropriately, the guy hired an attorney and now the cops involved look like idiots (at best) and the city is out a bit of cash. Seems fair to me!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Colorado man awarded $23,000 for wrongful arrest for open carry in city park

The city of Colorado Springs has had to fork over $23,500 to a man who was wrongfully arrested last summer for openly carrying a firearm in a city park. Arresting officers claimed that the man was in violation of the law, but it turned out that the law they were referring to had been repealed nearly a full decade ago.

According to a local NBC affiliate, James Sorensen and his partner were leaving PrideFest at Acacia Park in Colorado Springs on July 21, 2012, the day following the Aurora theater shooting, when an officer stopped and questioned Sorensen for openly carrying a .40-caliber handgun on
his hip.

The conversation quickly turned into a heated debate and Sorensen was detained and eventually arrested. Sorensen’s partner videotaped 13 minutes of the ordeal and posted it to YouTube, where it’s received nearly 165,000 views.

Sorensen repeatedly questioned the officers about why he was being detained, but they offered him no answers. He also asked them to show him a sign posted in or near the park which prohibited the carrying of firearms, but they could show him no such sign because none existed. One officer even responded to Sorensen’s request to see a sign by saying, “Sir, ignorance of the law is not an affirmative defense.”

But apparently the officer’s statement only referred to Sorensen and not the officers themselves, because as it turns out, the officers were actually the ones suffering from “ignorance of the law.”

The state law which prohibited guns in parks had actually been repealed in 2003. However, according to police spokeswoman Barbara Miller, the officers were not the ones to blame, but rather their outdated 40-page “cheat sheet” on local laws. While being detained, Sorensen even grabbed his cell phone and called the police department in an attempt to get a “real officer” on the scene who actually knew the law, but he was unsuccessful.

Following the arrest last year, Sorensen, an Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, stated, “I knew the law. I knew that it was legal for me to carry. My rights were trampled on.” He even tried to warn the police that their actions were in violation of the law, to which an officer suggested he “hire an attorney.”

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=5a16872fafbd" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Great news!!!! :beer::clap::beer::explosion::nudie:--Tyr

[glockmail]

I would have handled it a lot differently, but then again, I'm not an emotional flamer. :laugh:


I would have stated to him that I carefully checked the law before I carried at the park and that there is therefore a misunderstanding. I would have then offered for him to remove the weapon from my belt, have him carry it to the police station and then would arrive there shortly to meet with him and sort it out. This would have avoided the public confrontation along with the legal bullshit and accompanying costs. I would have gained friends within the department and maybe a little favor later on.

I was once detained by MPs outside an Army base because they suspected me of shooting a gun through the fence into the base. I was completely cooperative, respectful, and offered for them to search me as well as my truck. They didn't do anything until the Lt. Colonel arrived, and they were all over him how cooperative I was. They searched the truck, fairy poorly, and after doing so I showed them all the places in the truck that they missed. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

I would have handled it a lot differently, but then again, I'm not an emotional flamer. :laugh:


I would have stated to him that I carefully checked the law before I carried at the park and that there is therefore a misunderstanding. I would have then offered for him to remove the weapon from my belt, have him carry it to the police station and then would arrive there shortly to meet with him and sort it out. This would have avoided the public confrontation along with the legal bullshit and accompanying costs. I would have gained friends within the department and maybe a little favor later on.

I was once detained by MPs outside an Army base because they suspected me of shooting a gun through the fence into the base. I was completely cooperative, respectful, and offered for them to search me as well as my truck. They didn't do anything until the Lt. Colonel arrived, and they were all over him how cooperative I was. They searched the truck, fairy poorly, and after doing so I showed them all the places in the truck that they missed. :laugh:

I've long complained about people that would purposely go out in public to test the police, as if their jobs weren't difficult enough at times. And I agree that rather than jumping to complaining and filming and such, they could have done like you stated. It's just that I'm seeing more and more and more of these types of power grabs on people that are legally carrying, and quite often it turns out that the police simply didn't know the actual law. If they did, or asked the higher-ups for clarification, they could have let this guy continue on his way. In different ways, they were all stubborn, but he was within his legal rights. They know full well they violated his rights and that's why he walked away with some extra cash.

[glockmail]

I've long complained about people that would purposely go out in public to test the police, as if their jobs weren't difficult enough at times. And I agree that rather than jumping to complaining and filming and such, they could have done like you stated. It's just that I'm seeing more and more and more of these types of power grabs on people that are legally carrying, and quite often it turns out that the police simply didn't know the actual law. If they did, or asked the higher-ups for clarification, they could have let this guy continue on his way. In different ways, they were all stubborn, but he was within his legal rights. They know full well they violated his rights and that's why he walked away with some extra cash.

I use to be a Northeast hell raiser Jim so I can see this guy is coming from. But it shows his emotional immaturity. The MP thing that I experienced happened when I was in my late 20's, and even then I was much more mature than this guy. And, as I've gotten older, and more "Southern", I've found it the mature approach to work far better in just about any number of situations.

Come to think about it, this guy reminds me of our buddy Poet. An attitude, looking for confrontation, playing the victim, in-your-face, intolerant.

[aboutime]

I use to be a Northeast hell raiser Jim so I can see this guy is coming from. But it shows his emotional immaturity. The MP thing that I experienced happened when I was in my late 20's, and even then I was much more mature than this guy. And, as I've gotten older, and more "Southern", I've found it the mature approach to work far better in just about any number of situations.

Come to think about it, this guy reminds me of our buddy Poet. An attitude, looking for confrontation, playing the victim, in-your-face, intolerant.


Gotta agree with you on that Glock. And, while playing the victim, in-your-face, and intolerant as you described him. We can also add 'Idiot, and Stupid' to the mix. All of which combine to make the Attitude.

[Arbo]

I would have handled it a lot differently, but then again, I'm not an emotional flamer. :laugh:


I would have stated to him that I carefully checked the law before I carried at the park and that there is therefore a misunderstanding. I would have then offered for him to remove the weapon from my belt, have him carry it to the police station and then would arrive there shortly to meet with him and sort it out. This would have avoided the public confrontation along with the legal bullshit and accompanying costs. I would have gained friends within the department and maybe a little favor later on.

I was once detained by MPs outside an Army base because they suspected me of shooting a gun through the fence into the base. I was completely cooperative, respectful, and offered for them to search me as well as my truck. They didn't do anything until the Lt. Colonel arrived, and they were all over him how cooperative I was. They searched the truck, fairy poorly, and after doing so I showed them all the places in the truck that they missed. :laugh:

Base the the DAILY news stories that can be found of police abusing citizens and ignoring their rights, your method has zero guarantee of not being arrested, may in fact lead to a long battle to get your gun back from the police once you hand it to them, and all sorts of other issues.

The leading factor in the OP story is the ignorance (yet again) of the police WRT the laws. How can someone claim to enforce the laws when they don't know them?

[glockmail]

Base the the DAILY news stories that can be found of police abusing citizens and ignoring their rights, your method has zero guarantee of not being arrested, may in fact lead to a long battle to get your gun back from the police once you hand it to them, and all sorts of other issues.

The leading factor in the OP story is the ignorance (yet again) of the police WRT the laws. How can someone claim to enforce the laws when they don't know them?

Name one thing, douche, that is guaranteed, besides death, taxes, and shitferbrains like you? :laugh:

[Arbo]

You are the jackass that came along with the high and mighty routine of how you would act and how that would end better. I merely mentioned you were full of shit. Deal with it, don't divert from your own stupdity.

[logroller]

The leading factor in the OP story is the ignorance (yet again) of the police WRT the laws. How can someone claim to enforce the laws when they don't know them?
Easy peasy-- they had a cheat sheet. It's just that they didn't have the latest version of law enforcement for dummies. You have to understand that some (and I'd argue many) patrol officers aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.

As I see it the issue is a superior officer, who I'm quite sure was made aware of the arrest at the time, wasn't aware of the actual law. The best man at my wedding is a high-level law enforcement officer and he regularly receives calls from other officers on the legality of seizures, including arrests. Superior officers should be well-versed in, not only the laws on the books but case law as well. This was an administrative failure and that's why they pay. But I completely agree that this guy was in no way at fault, well within his rights to exactly as he did, and was a victim of the law enforcement agency.

[logroller]

The second amendment may have been vindicated but the FIRST takes a hit.

"Plaintiff recognizes and agrees that this confidentiality provision was a significant inducement for City Defendants to enter into this Agreement....Any violation of this section shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement, and Plaintiff will be subject to repayment to City Defendants of the consideration set forth herein without restatement of the claims."
Thus they're free to spew this rubbish.

The settlement between Sorensen and the city also says that the agreement "does not constitute an admission by City Defendants of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any law. Further, City Defendants expressly deny any wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever in its actions and dealings with Plaintiff."http://www.9news.com/news/article/368179/188/Colorado-Springs-settles-lawsuit-after-mistaken-gun-arrest

[glockmail]

You are the jackass that came along with the high and mighty routine of how you would act and how that would end better. I merely mentioned you were full of shit. Deal with it, don't divert from your own stupdity.

Care to answer the question presented to you instead of deflecting by showing that you are an even larger asshole? :laugh:

[Arbo]

Care to answer the question presented to you instead of deflecting by showing that you are an even larger asshole? :laugh:

Your question has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it was deflection, as previously mentioned.

[glockmail]

My question to you was directly related to your inane comment directed at me. You opened the door, douche... :laugh:

[Arbo]

My question to you was directly related to your inane comment directed at me. You opened the door, douche... :laugh:


You read the OP and came forward as if the subject of the article handled it wrong, and laughed that you would handle it different and it would thus have a different outcome. I mentioned you have no guarantee of a different outcome. You responded in a manner that supported my point. You failed. Now if you have something to say about the topic, go for it, otherwise you are wasting everyones time (again).

Your inability to deal with this reality actually marks you as the emotional flamer you say you are not. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Douche, IMO the queer boy did handle it wrong. I gave an example of how a similar error in judgement by police was handled in a much different manner, and thus with a much different outcome. My opinion is therefore justified.

It is your opinion that my post does not relate to the discussion and is 'a waste of everyone's time'. Unless you can back that up with a poll of the audience here I will continue to assert that it is merely your doucheful opinion, as the board douche. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Douche, you then assert that I claimed that my method would have a guaranteed outcome. Care to cite where I claimed that? :laugh:

[Arbo]

As you said, there are no guarantees, and dealing with the cop he dealt with, there is no guarantee your 'method' would have produced different results. You said as much yourself. So what exactly are you arguing about?

[tailfins]

$23,000 is "shut up and go away" money when a frivolous lawsuit is filed. If the case had significant merit how could it be settled for chump change like that?

[glockmail]

As you said, there are no guarantees, and dealing with the cop he dealt with, there is no guarantee your 'method' would have produced different results. You said as much yourself. So what exactly are you arguing about?My method involves reasoning with people, building trust and thus deescalating the situation. It's a tried and true method and in fact used by law enforcement agencies themselves. Your hero queerboy did the exact opposite. What part of that, Douche, are you having trouble comprehending? :laugh:

[Arbo]

My method involves reasoning with people, building trust and thus deescalating the situation. It's a tried and true method and in fact used by law enforcement agencies themselves. Your hero queerboy did the exact opposite. What part of that, Douche, are you having trouble comprehending? :laugh:

Yes, you are yet again repeating yourself. You would go about things different. But to paraphrase what both you and I said "Name one thing that is guaranteed, besides death, taxes"… you will find that your 'method' is not 'guaranteed' to have a different outcome. So again, we agree, you would do things differently, and HOPE the outcome would be different, but you have zippo to show it would, as we both agree, there is no 'guarantee' it would be different. :laugh:

Explain to us again why you continue to argue when we agree?

[glockmail]

No, Douche, I didn't repeat myself. I explained it differently to give you another opportunity to understand. Yet you failed to understand yet again.

And you failed to answer this question as well:
Douche, you then assert that I claimed that my method would have a guaranteed outcome. Care to cite where I claimed that? :laugh:

[Arbo]

No, Douche, I didn't repeat myself. I explained it differently to give you another opportunity to understand. Yet you failed to understand yet again.

And you failed to answer this question as well: :laugh:

Your trolling is beyond boring. So let us recap one last time to yet again shame you and your massive fail. Story about guy and gun and cops, didn't end well, you come along and say you would have done things differently, inferring you would have had a different outcome in the same situation. I pointed out you can't really claim with any sort of validity you'd have a different outcome, you said nothing in life is guaranteed, thus agreeing with me. You then continued to troll on and on in an endless circle as if we disagree, digging yourself further into your hole of shame. Now I'm sure you will respond yet again with the same sort of trolling you have been doing, as a single path seems to be all you understand. Go for it, I like watching those that fail so hard live in denial. But unless you actually have something new and interesting to add, don't expect any further responses, as we have been over this enough that at this point, even you should understand you dug yourself a nice hole.

[glockmail]

Again, Douche, you assert that I claimed that my method would have a guaranteed outcome. Care to cite where I claimed that? :laugh:

[aboutime]

Again, Douche, you assert that I claimed that my method would have a guaranteed outcome. Care to cite where I claimed that? :laugh:



Glockmail. You do know...the best part of this thread is how the 'douche' must constantly respond, and defend against everything you have said.

Proving how the old saying goes..."A Picture is worth a thousand words".

5821 And the proof comes with every new Defensive response.