TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

WildBill wrote: I wasn't very clear, but I was referring only to Grisham not being able to successfully win a lawsuit because of his loud mouth and alleged obnoxious personality.

I apologize for the confusion. :

My apologies for the lack of comprehension..
I didn't see any coverage of Grisham's trial, but I'd be surprised if his attorney let him say anything.
Liking / not-liking Grisham not withstanding, I was shocked by the outcome of that trial. Goes to show you that even criminal outcomes can be very unpredictable..

cb1000rider wrote:

WildBill wrote: I can imagine how his testimony would endear a jury so that they felt he was an innocent victim who was wronged.

WildBill, I can present it from either side. Don't confuse my ability to do that with my opinion on right or wrong.

If you think I'd present my case indicating that I felt the LEO who arrested me was probably covered by qualified immunity, then you're right, I'd have a very poor outcome. You have to understand that I'm not arguing my opinion. My opinion is that arresting someone for doing something perfectly legal is wrong and should be cause for civil action.

I'm pointing out that if you think you can walk into a place that's 30.06/30.07 posted and government owned, get arrested, and believe that you'll have a good outcome in a civil trial, you might want to reconsider. If it was that simple, it'd be a money-maker and people would be doing it....

The difference in the cases pointed out above was that those arrests were very absent of legal context. That is, they violated something pretty fundamental - such as arresting someone for carrying a gun in public. Every officer should know that one.. Arresting at a 30.06 / 30.07 posted location when it's government owned - you have to know about the government owned exclusion. It's something that you and I talk about every day, but it's possible that a jury might believe that a "reasonable" person might not be aware of it...

You guys are welcome to do as you wish. And honestly, I fully support people being test subjects and I might even contribute to your legal defense. That's really the only way these issues get worked out long term.... My point is that if you expect a positive civil outcome in a case like this, your optimism exceeds mine. Please, don't confuse my personal opinion on right and wrong with speculation on civil outcomes...

cb1000rider wrote:Thanks for posting those. The more cases that throw out qualified immunity, the better.

I'd argue that these are pretty egregious cases - basically indicating a lack of basic legal knowledge about the right to carry a firearm. Cases where there is a valid 30.06/30.07 sign on government owned building is a bit more nuanced... You and I know, but I'll bet lots of LEOs don't know - or may indicate that they have no first hand knowledge of who actually owns a building.

Last, I'd point out the Temple open-carry case of Grisham, where he was arrested, was convicted, and was unable to successfully sue - as you've linked to other open-carry incidents.. It's a risky proposition. Or at least, it was...

locke_n_load wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: Personally, if a super-vision LEO arrested me when 30.06 wasn't valid in the first place, and took me to jail even though it is a class C and not an arrestable offense, and I had to sit in jail until arraignment because the DA stated they had cause to keep me, I would be suing everyone involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. And I'd have a good shot at winning too.

You have a very poor shot at any civil remedy against the LEO. Remember the burden is what a "normal" person would know in terms of legal knowledge. If a normal person wouldn't know it, then the LEO is indemnified for doing his/her duty, albeit incorrectly.
The DA doesn't keep you there until arraigned, that's just standard process.... No one to sue there.

The only way this would work is if the arresting officer stood up and admitted that he/she knew the law and arrested you anyway. What are the chances of that happening?


I think the chances of this happening are pretty good your firearm was able to be spotted... Outside of that, lightening is about right.

See below for people being arrested where carrying was lawful, then they sued and won some good money. It happens.

http://affluentinvestor.com/2015/06/cop ... gets-sued/

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s ... gun_s.html

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/gun-owner-ge ... al-arrest/

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cops- ... pay-video/