He's Got a Gun! or not . . .

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    255
    83
    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5099999

    Man with a gun call, but he does not have a gun. They order him to raise his hands, and he desparately tries to explain that he cannot raise his hands above his shoulder due to an old war injury (Korea), so the police decide to "go hands on" and tackle him, with at least one officer kicking him in the ribs while he was down.

    74 years old.

    Oh, and the officers thought he had a gun on him. In Utah. Turns out he had a copy of the park rules.

    The police will not release the names of witnesses so this guy can investigate.

    The first officer at the scene is reported to have looked like this:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    did the LT on the scene look like:

    [​IMG]

    :D
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I guess they didn't have a Taser.
     
  4. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,656
    3
    38
    UPDATE!! UPDATE!! UPDATE!!

    From Volokk at

    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1228842974

     
  5. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,656
    3
    38
    S.L., 2 officers not liable in '06 incident

    http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705268261,00.html

    I don't get the "It's just a beautifully reasoned decision" stuff when the deep pockets just got let off. :?
     
  6. Mafuta54

    Mafuta54 Active Member

    2,243
    2
    38
    Liberty park is a drug park (full of pushers and users) and not a very safe place to be from my experience and that of relatives still in the area.
     
  7. TecRsq

    TecRsq New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    That ruling reeks.
     
  8. Opus X

    Opus X New Member

    348
    0
    0
    "Officers responded to Liberty Park after a man and his wife called 911 and said Lund had pointed a gun at them when their dog scared away some ducks."

    That obviously was not the case. I hope these people were charged with making a false report.
     
  9. GotUrBack

    GotUrBack New Member

    5,585
    0
    0
    I agree with both posts! :shock:
     
  10. stryder717

    stryder717 New Member

    3,567
    0
    0
    :rotfl2:

    Dang law abiding citizens.
     
  11. jeepsterwannabe

    jeepsterwannabe New Member

    684
    0
    0
    Somewhere those idiots live with the knowledge of what happened to this war vet....
     
  12. shamalama

    shamalama New Member

    2,576
    0
    0
    Re: UPDATE!! UPDATE!! UPDATE!!

    Public open carry could be protected by the 2A. That's big, folks.

    Seems like we're hearing more and more of these MWAG calls that escalate into drawn weapons and aggressive LEO behavior. Someone smarter than me has got to figure out how we can protect the cops while also protecting the innocent (even though the cops think, at the time, that the person is NOT innocent because mere mortals just cannot openly carry lethal firearms of death and puppy killings and blood-in-street makers).
     
  13. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Re: S.L., 2 officers not liable in '06 incident

    But the deep pockets weren't let off. The chief offending officer is very much still in the case, and, while he is still the named defendant, SLC is still very much on the hook. The way civil rights lawsuits work, they have to proceed against individuals, as cities & states generally enjoy sovereign immunity. If this fellow prevails against the officer, the city and its taxpayers will have to pay, as the departments almost always indemnify their officers. If they didn't, they would likely have a really hard time hiring anyone or dealing with the unions. The deep pockets are still very much in this one.
     
  14. blind_shake

    blind_shake Active Member

    5,295
    1
    38
    Re: UPDATE!! UPDATE!! UPDATE!!

    I think we should start by looking at the statistics of all the police officer shootings by permit carrying citizens openly carying. Then we could decide what to do.
     
  15. coney_hatch

    coney_hatch New Member

    1,577
    0
    0
    :righton:
     
  16. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,656
    3
    38
    Re: S.L., 2 officers not liable in '06 incident

    So even though the news says the judge declared they aren't SLC can still end up paying? (This is why I'm not a lawyer - my head hurts).

    Salt Lake City and two of its police officers are not liable in the case of a disabled veteran who says officers used excessive force in arresting him two years ago at Liberty Park, according to a U.S. District Court decision filed Thursday.
     
  17. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    it left the third liable didnt it?
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    255
    83
    Liberty Park is renamed Loss of Liberty Park, and they are unveiling a statue of Mr. Lund face down in the goose poop at the unveiling ceremony, complete with armed officers dog-piling him.
     
  19. mayoke

    mayoke New Member

    275
    0
    0
    I can't even picture in my head a threatening looking 74 year old war veteran. I mean....was the guy built like Bolo Yeung or Hulk Hogan or something? I wonder if there was any other disciplinary action. It seems the community would be concerned that a disabled war vet got SERIOUSLY mistreated. I mean...I'm a disabled Vet. I wonder if something like that will happen to me some day. Eventually, there will come a time where I will probably need some type of waling assistance. That's just crappy to even think about. I can't wrap my head around it.