[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Leonard Embody makes an appearance later in the article. :|

 

[gunsmoker]

If a white many takes a black woman to an all-white country club and kisses her in front of everybody to "desensitize" them to interracial relationships, can the offended old white guys have them arrested for disturbing the peace?

If a woman decides to breastfeed at a public place just to make a point, and she openly admits that it would be easy to cover up while doing so, but she chose to bare her boob to desensitize the public to breastfeeding, would she be arrested for disorderly conduct?

Of course, when it comes to guns, we not only have anti-gun bias in the legal system, but pro-police bias. Cops get every break imaginable from most judges.

That being said, I think some "open carry" stunts really do cross the line into threatening behavior. Some of the things that KwiKrNu has done, I would have assumed I had a green light to kill him on sight before he did his public massacre. That is if I had not been familiar with his style of "open carry activism." If I had not been a regular reader of 2A chat sites like this one, I would not have considered that a bunch of men wearing tactical vests and carrying AK-47s and combat shotguns approaching a shopping mall or restaurant--with these men are obviously NOT law enforcement, nor carrying LEO type weapons-- were doing some kind of publicity stunt. I would have assumed that they were domestic terrorists or jihadists.

A well dressed person wearing a holstered pistol is not the same as a ******* commando with an assault rifle in his hands or slung across the front of his chest in a tactical sling, ready for use.

 

[gunsmoker]

If the Court's summary of the facts of what these guys did is accurate, they should have expected to be detained, even if they weren't actually breaking a law and weren't charged with any crime.

QUOTE: "....what looked like two young, heavily armed men walking on a city street" past a public park.

Responding police officers found the two men - one "dressed all in black and sporting sunglasses, and both carrying impressive looking rifles and handguns in full view."

The officers approached and, after an initial discussion, peacefully disarmed the men. They were then briefly detained, their identification was retrieved and verified, and they were questioned.

... After establishing that the firearms were lawfully possessed, the officers returned plaintiffs' weapons and released them. The entire encounter lasted about 20 minutes...

(Emphasis added)

 

[gunsmoker]

A quote originally from the part of the 2012 federal court opinion about Leonard Embody (KwikrNu), cited favorably here in 2016:

"Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park,
Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.
The officers stopped him only as long as it took to investigate the legitimacy of the weapon
and, at his insistence, bring the supervisor to the park. "

He kicked the hornet's nest and cannot now complain that it's unfair that the insects surrounded him and harassed him.
Remember, he's the attention whore that carried an AK-47 looking handgun and a cammie suit in a public park, and also carried a big black powder revolver IN HIS HAND, walking down a public street in a city (it was also legal, specifically approved of due to some 150 year old law nobody but him knew about); and he also carried a "handgun" that looked like a Soviet-bloc submachinegun and a combat-ready tactical vest (and body armor? He often wears body armor when he's out provoking confrontations with cops) into our Atlanta airport (where he didn't get anybody to take the bait and the trip was uneventful).

 

[EJR914]

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 another thread I thought you said that this just doesn't happen. That judges don't just do things just to teach you a lesson, that it just doesn't happen, not here in America anyway.

Anyway, this is despicable, buy what can I say? Some judges are just scumbags, I've met them in court. Also, this immunity BS is just this idea of authority run rampant and needs to end. Anyone that kept people their against their will kidnapped needs to be prosecuted. That's the crime I would be charged with if I went around illegally doing this. The only reason people think this is ok is the idea of authority and the fact it's been done this way for a while now. Nothing makes this ok.

 

[phaed]

keep thinking government is a good idea, and you'll keep getting disappointed.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Item 1. again....

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In another thread I thought you said that this just doesn't happen.

Your emotions are interfering with your thoughts. I never wrote any such thing. Please do not chase me around making an issue out of something that is not an issue. You and I have different views on the subject, and so it shall remain. I have not commented on your threads on that subject since I declared I would not, in spite of many ranting posts by you since then. Please do not start dragging that crap into threads in which it is not relevant and trying to engage me when I have specifically disengaged. I do not wish to discuss that subject with you on this forum.

 

[EJR914]

Your emotions are interfering with your thoughts. I never wrote any such thing. Please do not chase me around making an issue out of something that is not an issue. You and I have different views on the subject, and so it shall remain. I have not commented on your threads on that subject since I declared I would not, in spite of many ranting posts by you since then. Please do not start dragging that crap into threads in which it is not relevant and trying to engage me when I have specifically disengaged. I do not wish to discuss that subject with you on this forum.

That's fine, don't, but my emotions are certainly not, you most certainly did say that it just does not happen. You assured me you had more experience in the manner than I did, and knew for sure.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In another thread I thought you said that this just doesn't happen. That judges don't just do things just to teach you a lesson, that it just doesn't happen, not here in America anyway.

I reread my posts in that thread, and no, I did not write that. I am posting this again since you are insisting.

(A) It did not happen. I did not write it. You are lying (or really, really deluded by clouded emotion). Go back and refresh your memory with what I actually wrote, if you care to. I did. Your claim is incorrect.

(B) Post your comments about that other thread in the other thread. This is a thread about qualified immunity in a federal court case for detaining persons carrying openly, in a subforum about methods of carry. Stop dragging it off topic for your own personal "internet crusade" on an unrelated matter. Please. This is the second time I have asked.​

Please keep this thread on topic.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2:2014cv10784/289024/22/

Court case, if anyone wants to read it.

The first paragraph tells you which way this one is going to go. You know something is up when a judge uses words like "vittles" and "commandos."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Color of one of the persons stopped in the opinion. All black clothing. Sunglasses. Long hair. No sleeves. The all black clothing motif even gets a footnote stating that this might lead officers to conclude that a mass shooting is about to occur.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Upon reading further into the opinion, it appears qualified immunity was not needed. The judge found reasonable suspicion relating to two different crimes.

Embody's bad case law gets cited . . . I believe some of us informed him all he was going was creating bad precedent for later cases.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

It appears he even finds reasonable suspicion of mass murder. See page 13.

 

[phaed]

Not only did the officers have reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiffs were engaging in criminal activity, but they also had reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiffs may have been about to commit a crime. Moments before James Eagan Holmes entered the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, he had not yet killed twelve people and injured seventy others. Similarly, before Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School he had not yet fatally shot twenty children and six adults. Reasonable officers may well have been concerned with what Plaintiffs would do next, not what they had already done, or were doing.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Are they planning to appeal?

 

[EJR914]

I reread my posts in that thread, and no, I did not write that. I am posting this again since you are insisting.

(A) It did not happen. I did not write it. You are lying (or really, really deluded by clouded emotion). Go back and refresh your memory with what I actually wrote, if you care to. I did. Your claim is incorrect.

(B) Post your comments about that other thread in the other thread. This is a thread about qualified immunity in a federal court case for detaining persons carrying openly, in a subforum about methods of carry. Stop dragging it off topic for your own personal "internet crusade" on an unrelated matter. Please. This is the second time I have asked.​

Please keep this thread on topic.

You said I must be withholding something and that would be the only reason that a judge would be abusive to me, and here you say that the only reason you could tell a judge would be abusive would be to teach them a lesson. One possibility is that the judge was punishing me and teaching me a lesson because as a male I dared to fight for custody of my daughter, so no, I'm not lying. Here you admit that you think a judge was teaching someone a lesson, and that's possible that's what the judge was doing in my case. You should have seen the disdain from the judge at me and also the collusion between her attorney and the judge.

So yes, you now admit that that could be the case here, a judge being abusive and teaching you a lesson.

Why can that not be the case in my situation as well, why this one and not the other?

I am certainly not lying, sir.

 

[EJR914]

Wow, this is a terrible precedent for anyone who carries a gun, I imagine eventually this same BS rationale will be used against well dressed men openly carrying hand guns. It's only a matter of time.

You even have people agreeing they could have reasonably been shot on the spot by cops because it was reasonable they were on their way to a mass shooting. This is insanity. Like they are mind readers and surely anyone who would dress and arm like this must be a terrorist or mass shooter.

Funny enough now days there are cops dressed like this even for patrol sometime, and many do keep AR15 or tac shotguns in their cars for more dangerous situations.

It's ok for them to dress like this on patrol with a vest, but don't dare you do it with a long gun slung.

 

[EJR914]

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2:2014cv10784/289024/22/

Court case, if anyone wants to read it.

The first paragraph tells you which way this one is going to go. You know something is up when a judge uses words like "vittles" and "commandos."

Wow, that's a terrible finding, it just kept getting worse.