| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
Please CLICK, SUBSCRIBE, and DIGG this news column to help spread the word!
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Alamogordo-police-pay-21000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit
SNIP
As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today, the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater. This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see another settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in . . .
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 01:12 am |
|
Mike wrote: ...the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater...
That will get the message spread within the Alamogordo police department...
|
rodbender
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Elgin, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 01:50 am |
|
| And, hopefully, a few others.
|
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 01:57 am |
|
Was this 'Jizzle's' incident? Either way, Great job! Spread the word!
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 03:22 am |
|
| Glad to see that City officials are looking into this in an effort to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
|
TFred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2448 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:49 am |
|
From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:53 am |
|
TFred wrote: From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
Read the opinion - judge explains it.
|
TFred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2448 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 06:14 am |
|
Mike wrote: TFred wrote: From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
Read the opinion - judge explains it.
Hmm... I read it through when it was first released, I thought he was explaining why those portions weren't in the summary judgement, not that they were denied altogether. I was under the impression that they would proceed to trial.
TFred
|
Statkowski
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 12:38 pm |
|
| As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
|
Carondalet
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 01:01 pm |
|
| What happens if one does not accept a settlement and takes this all the way?
|
TFred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2448 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
Statkowski wrote: As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
That is rather irritating, but nothing says "I was wrong" quite like a five figure check...
We all know what really happened.
TFred
|
DanM
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
Carondalet wrote: What happens if one does not accept a settlement and takes this all the way?
Then one takes the risk of getting all, some, or none of what one is asking for. That is what settlement is about: eliminating the adverse risks of getting little or nothing, at the expense of giving up your shot at getting most or all.
|
DanM
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
TFred wrote: Statkowski wrote: As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
That is rather irritating, but nothing says "I was wrong" quite like a five figure check...
Precisely. If wrongdoing is done, a five figure check from the wrongdoer is about the clearest admission of wrongdoing I can think of, in my book.
In my opinion, when someone admits a wrong or apologizes, that's nice but it's just words. But if they agree to pay significantly for their mistakes, then the restitution is really sincere.
|
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:20 pm |
|
DanM wrote: TFred wrote: Statkowski wrote: As always, the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
That is rather irritating, but nothing says "I was wrong" quite like a five figure check...
Precisely. If wrongdoing is done, a five figure check from the wrongdoer is about the clearest admission of wrongdoing I can think of, in my book.
In my opinion, when someone admits a wrong or apologizes, that's nice but it's just words. But if they agree to pay significantly for their mistakes, then the restitution is really sincere.
I agree; Didn't M. Jackson settle? Who thinks he was guilty? It's not often that someone settles and people don't think they are guilty of whatever wrong doing was accused in the suit.
I do think it is important though, that these settlements are made public. The one thing a guy should do when settling his case is make sure of that. Otherwise no one knows how much it's costing to infringe on others rights.
Last edited on Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:22 pm by Brass Magnet
|
flintlock tom
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:40 pm |
|
TFred wrote: From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."
|
Jizzzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Holloman AFB, USA |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
| Sup guys. Yes that's me. I am glad it's over. Well everything is over besides the media part of it. I did a newspaper interview on friday and a TV news interview this morning. They ask more questions than the defense lawyers..
|
brboyer
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 04:57 am |
|
flintlock tom wrote: TFred wrote: From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."
Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
Last edited on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 04:57 am by brboyer
|
TFred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2448 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 05:05 am |
|
brboyer wrote: flintlock tom wrote: TFred wrote: From the newspaper article on the case:
St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering, why were the false arrest and battery portions denied?
TFred
Judge Black threw out the False Arrest and Battery charges because St. John was not actually "arrested" and the physical contact did not rise to the level of "Battery."
Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
Yes, that is what I remember reading... so why is that part not continuing to trial?
TFred
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 05:21 pm |
|
Actually he denied St. Johns request for summary judgement on the battery portion of his lawsuit:
Whether Defendants' actions would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, and would thus constitute battery, is a question best left to a jury. Simply stated, a reasonable person—working with the limited factual record before the Court—may, but would not necessarily, find Defendants' contact offensive to their sense of personal dignity.
Yes, that is what I remember reading... so why is that part not continuing to trial?
TFred
because they settled the case - all claims.
|
PaxMentis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
Jizzzle wrote: Sup guys. Yes that's me. I am glad it's over. Well everything is over besides the media part of it. I did a newspaper interview on friday and a TV news interview this morning. They ask more questions than the defense lawyers..
Does the $21K cover the attorney fees?
|
Current time is 09:32 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
