Joined
·
75,122 Posts
http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2016/March/Gun-Rights-Tested-in-Parks-and-Public-Spaces/
Baker v. Officer Randall Schwarb, 40 F. Supp. 3d 881; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114685 (E.D. Mich. 8/19/2014)
Two men carry openly in a park. 911 calls. Officers detain them for 20 minutes.
Two men sue in federal court.
Officers file a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Granted.
Baker v. Officer Randall Schwarb, 40 F. Supp. 3d 881; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114685 (E.D. Mich. 8/19/2014)
Two men carry openly in a park. 911 calls. Officers detain them for 20 minutes.
Two men sue in federal court.
Officers file a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Granted.
Sounds like the judge wanted to teach the two men a lesson, or at least that is what I take away from his snarky tone in the quote above.In the opinion of the federal district court, “Officers in the position of defendants reasonably could have believed that plaintiffs were in violation of the city’s disturbing the public peace ordinance.†As defined in the ordinance: “Disturbing the public peace consists of causing a public disturbance,†i.e., “any act or series of actions causing an interruption of the public peace and quiet, including the direct endangerment of the safety of persons or property.†Under the circumstances, the court found the men were indeed intent on creating a public disturbance.
By plaintiffs’ own terms, they were “walking while open carrying their firearms in local communities to desensitize the public to open carry, and to educate police officers with [sic] whom they may encounter on the legality of open carry.†It is reasonably clear that plaintiffs knew that, in the face of their intended behavior, the public was likely to be highly sensitive (else why seek to “de-sensitize†people?). The single reasonable conclusion is that plaintiffs were knowingly acting in a provocative manner, hoping to foment an interaction and cause a disturbance. As events show, they succeeded nicely.