TexasCHLforum.com

Retired Army Vet Gets $15,000 From City After Being Threatened By Police
The 64 year old vet was openly carrying a 9mm handgun while walking his dog in the park when he was confronted by an officer who told him it was illegal. When he told the officer it wasn't illegal and offered to show him the law, the officer drew his weapon and pointed it at the vet. Eventually he was allowed to leave the park. The city had to pay the vet $15,000 and provide additional training in the law to their officers and their 911 operators.

Why punish the taxpayers instead of the officer? What would happen to any of us who drew down on someone open carrying?

VMI77 wrote:Why punish the taxpayers instead of the officer? What would happen to any of us who drew down on someone open carrying?

Liability laws. The officer was acting on behalf of the city, so the city pays for his or her mistakes. I'm not saying it should be this way, but AFAIK that's why it is.

Dave2 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Why punish the taxpayers instead of the officer? What would happen to any of us who drew down on someone open carrying?

Liability laws. The officer was acting on behalf of the city, so the city pays for his or her mistakes. I'm not saying it should be this way, but AFAIK that's why it is.

Maybe what I should have said is, how about punishing the officer as well as the taxpayers.

This was in Bellingham, WA which is north of Seattle. You would think a police officer in an open carry state would know the law a little better.

VMI77 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Why punish the taxpayers instead of the officer? What would happen to any of us who drew down on someone open carrying?

Liability laws. The officer was acting on behalf of the city, so the city pays for his or her mistakes. I'm not saying it should be this way, but AFAIK that's why it is.

Maybe what I should have said is, how about punishing the officer as well as the taxpayers.

Delay that cop's pension by $15,000

psijac wrote:Delay that cop's pension by $15,000

I could go for that but would rather the next $15,000 of his salary gets diverted instead. Call it paying his debt to society.

This is a tricky problem. Officers should bear the burden of their own misconduct, like many of the rest of us have had to do. OTOH, given to fast decision making and uncertainty surrounding many of the situations they face, it might not be good thing to have an officer hesitating while (s)he mulls over possible financial angles. It's one thing to risk your life and quite another to risk your paycheck or pension.

JALLEN wrote:This is a tricky problem. Officers should bear the burden of their own misconduct, like many of the rest of us have had to do. OTOH, given to fast decision making and uncertainty surrounding many of the situations they face, it might not be good thing to have an officer hesitating while (s)he mulls over possible financial angles. It's one thing to risk your life and quite another to risk your paycheck or pension.

You mean like we have to do in a self-defense situation, but without a union backup and without presumptions extended to law enforcement?

VMI77 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is a tricky problem. Officers should bear the burden of their own misconduct, like many of the rest of us have had to do. OTOH, given to fast decision making and uncertainty surrounding many of the situations they face, it might not be good thing to have an officer hesitating while (s)he mulls over possible financial angles. It's one thing to risk your life and quite another to risk your paycheck or pension.

You mean like we have to do in a self-defense situation, but without a union backup and without presumptions extended to law enforcement?

Except you and I can avoid such situations while police sometimes are obliged to deal with a sitution whether they want to or not.

Unless there is more to the story, IMHO the officer escalated the situation far more than necessary. The citizen was discussing the legality of the situation with the officer and still had his gun holstered. I'm not sure why that would require a response of a gun pointed at him when the officer didn't immediately get his way. If the officer felt the holstered gun was a threat initially, he would / should have already had the man at gunpoint to begin with, not after demanding ID and telling him he was breaking the law.

VMI77 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is a tricky problem. Officers should bear the burden of their own misconduct, like many of the rest of us have had to do. OTOH, given to fast decision making and uncertainty surrounding many of the situations they face, it might not be good thing to have an officer hesitating while (s)he mulls over possible financial angles. It's one thing to risk your life and quite another to risk your paycheck or pension.

You mean like we have to do in a self-defense situation, but without a union backup and without presumptions extended to law enforcement?

Yes. Exactly like that.

JALLEN wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is a tricky problem. Officers should bear the burden of their own misconduct, like many of the rest of us have had to do. OTOH, given to fast decision making and uncertainty surrounding many of the situations they face, it might not be good thing to have an officer hesitating while (s)he mulls over possible financial angles. It's one thing to risk your life and quite another to risk your paycheck or pension.

You mean like we have to do in a self-defense situation, but without a union backup and without presumptions extended to law enforcement?

Except you and I can avoid such situations while police sometimes are obliged to deal with a sitution whether they want to or not.

Except you and I can usually avoid such situations (sometimes not though) while police sometimes are obliged to deal with a situation whether they want to or not (well, they did choose to become police officers, which suggests that they chose to put themselves into such situations).