TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/artic ... icle=35497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Synopsis:

Five members of Wisconsin Carry (WC) meet at restaurant openly carrying, which is legal. Woman in car notices, calls cops. Eight cops show up, demand identification. Two WC guys refuses, are charged with obstructing justice. Two days later those charges dropped and all five are charged with disorderly conduct. Those charges are later dropped.

WC sues city and police chief. I can't tell if the individual officers were also sued. City just settled with all five guys for $10,000.

It's good to see that they got their payday. Just like everything in the free economy, hitting someone in the wallet is better than a court order to get behavior changed.

I just hope that settlement comes out of the individual pockets of those responsible instead of the pockets of the taxpayers.

MasterOfNone wrote:I just hope that settlement comes out of the individual pockets of those responsible instead of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, it won't. I just hope that the entire 10 grand won't be eaten up by lawyer's fees.

denwego wrote:It's good to see that they got their payday. Just like everything in the free economy, hitting someone in the wallet is better than a court order to get behavior changed.

Payday? I'd guess that each of the five have most likely spent more than that on legal services - $2,000 eac doesn't sound like much of a payday to me.

MasterOfNone wrote:I just hope that settlement comes out of the individual pockets of those responsible instead of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Me too but that would require politicians who aren't bottom feeding scum so I'm not holding my breath.

From what I've read over on the OC forum, Madison PD may not dispatch *anyone* to a MWAG call in the future, depending upon circumstances. Imagine! For all the naysayers about this judgment, sounds like real progress to me.

I don't think anyone has said the should NOT have been a judgement. It's just a question of who should pay it.

n5wd wrote:

denwego wrote:It's good to see that they got their payday. Just like everything in the free economy, hitting someone in the wallet is better than a court order to get behavior changed.

Payday? I'd guess that each of the five have most likely spent more than that on legal services - $2,000 eac doesn't sound like much of a payday to me.

I didn't mean that they should be happy due to receiving money, but making the city pay it out. $20 will buy them a couple cups of coffee, but $10,000 down the toilet will keep Madison from running roughshod over people exercising their rights.

The really important thing is that Madison PD is apparently going to modify their behavior towards law-abiding citizens in the future.

Since the article mentions that "Wisconsin Carry" filed the lawsuit, as opposed to just the five individuals who no doubt are WC members, I am thinking that the lawyers were either already paid by WC or were doing this pro bono to support WC. It would not surprise me if part of the representation deal was that any settlement would pay for the five plaintiffs court costs and the rest to WC. Just speculating, no inside knowledge, but sounds reasonable to me.

RHenriksen wrote:The really important thing is that Madison PD is apparently going to modify their behavior towards law-abiding citizens in the future.

...here's the valid reason to file such a suit...to FORCE those who disagree with the laws AS WRITTEN and insist on harassing citizens who are acting totally within those laws to cease and desist...when it costs the offenders big money...their owners (city managers, for instance) order them to start enforcing the law...and then it works as the will of the people legislated it...

ELB wrote:Since the article mentions that "Wisconsin Carry" filed the lawsuit, as opposed to just the five individuals who no doubt are WC members, I am thinking that the lawyers were either already paid by WC or were doing this pro bono to support WC. It would not surprise me if part of the representation deal was that any settlement would pay for the five plaintiffs court costs and the rest to WC. Just speculating, no inside knowledge, but sounds reasonable to me.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1670904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Our lawyer is John Monroe, who is one of the preeminent 2A lawyers in the country. I am not sure if he is exclusively 2A but I know he knows his stuff.

Of course he gets his fee. He doesn't work for free."

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1670223" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Personally, I will be buying a firearm with the proceeds and naming it Noble.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1670388" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I also want to echo Mlutz's words in thanking all the people who supported me (us) and donated to the defense fund."

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nce_of_OOJ.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is the acceptance of the JUDGEMENT.

We split $10K after attorney fees."

RHenriksen wrote:From what I've read over on the OC forum, Madison PD may not dispatch *anyone* to a MWAG call in the future, depending upon circumstances. Imagine! For all the naysayers about this judgment, sounds like real progress to me.

Good for the WI gun rights efforts!

That is usually the real point of these lawsuits. The rather small settlement is usually just enough money to pay the Pro-2A lawyer handling the suit semi-Pro Bono.

Other examples include similar lawsuits against Cleveland Heights OH and Campbell, OH where part of the settlement included the written requirement that the city re-train their police officers that Open Carry is legal in Ohio, does not constitute reasonable suspicion for a stop, and that inducing panic or other charges are not appropriate.

Cleveland Heights OH is really in the soup now. They agreed to do such re-training in a 2008 settlement but now are being sued again for a similar transgressions. So it is "on the record" that the city knew and had previously consented. The door is open to much more significant damages now.