Cops disarmed and arrested a man for open carrying and now they’re going to pay. (VIDEO) Austin Petersen December 11, 2013 Right to Bear Arms 5199 Share43K +185 Tweet384 Pin14 Share3 Share Reddit131 Stumble EmailShares 44K COLORADO SPRINGS, CO – Police in the City of Colorado Springs were forced to pay $23,500 to a man they arrested by mistake for carrying his weapon in public. James Sorensen sued and won after he was arrested at a festival in July, one day after the Aurora shooting occurred. The entire incident was caught on camera and when the officer who disarmed him told him to get a lawyer, that’s exactly what he did. The three officers and four sergeants involved were not aware of the law that made it legal open carry in city parks since 2003. Officers blamed the mistake on an outdated “cheat sheet” they use, in lieu of actually knowing the law they are charged to uphold. Police Chief Pete Carey ordered an internal review and demanded that the cheat sheet be scrubbed until it was in compliance with the law. “I knew the law. I knew that it was legal for me to carry. My rights were trampled on,” Sorensen said. 9News.com reported that Metropolitan State University criminal justice professor Joseph Sandoval said, “A situation like this could turn very grave if you think about it,” Sandoval said. “If someone, if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” Share43K +185 Tweet384 Pin14 Share3 Share Reddit131 Stumble EmailShares 44K Justin Amash is recruiting with the slogan: Join the Rebel Alliance!Mother Gives Powerful Speech Against Obama’s Military Kidnapping Bill (VIDEO)About The AuthorAustin PetersenFounder Austin Petersen is the founder of The Libertarian Republic, as well as the CEO of Stonegait LLC. Formerly an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano's show "Freedom Watch", on the Fox Business Network. Austin was referred to by the Judge as "The right side of my brain". He built Judge Napolitano's social networks with over 700,000 fans and millions of clicks a month. Austin graduated from Missouri State University. He has written and produced award winning plays and videos, and previously worked for the Libertarian National Committee and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. 318 Responses Bill Stephens December 11, 2013 Cops don’t know the laws they are supposed to uphold just shocked about that one, maybe they should post them at Dunkin Donuts so they have time to read them. Mario Lawrence December 11, 2013 The man was legally in his right to draw his gun on that police officer, because you don’t forcibly disarm someone that has legal right to carry. If he did, that would have made the situation very messy. It’s good that the man kept his cool. Robin December 12, 2013 Yeah drawing a gun on a cop is an express ticket to the morgue. Eric February 14, 2014 or if your dog barks or if you sneeze (sudden movement) or if you stand up for your rights or if he’s just an asshole…. libertyordeath2010 February 14, 2014 That is what they would like you to believe. My brother ran three federal agents off my dad’s land with his 45. Trick is he had it out and hammer back when he came upon them. They left peacefully (pissed but peacefully) He did not even spend a minute in jail, judge said he as within his rights. That was 15 years ago and he has been audited about eight times since. But at least he didn’t cower down and let them wrongfully steal my dad’s things! Mickey John February 14, 2014 that is awesome people do not ever have to allow cops to do anything t whey want, wi Gradivus December 17, 2013 You’re wrong, and if you ever act on that mistaken belief, you’ll probably end up dead wrong. You don’t have the right to draw a gun on a police officer except in very unusual circumstances, for example in self-defense if he’s gone berserk and is wrongly trying to kill you. You don’t have the right to draw on him (or commit any kind of physical attack on him) just because he’s trying to disarm you or arrest you, regardless of whether he is legally justified in doing so. Mario Lawrence December 18, 2013 If you’re going to call me wrong, you may as well call the criminal justice professor at MSU wrong too, ”A situation like this could turn very grave if you think about it,” Sandoval said. “If someone, if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” The “fatal mistake” could have been on either side’s part. What part of me praising the man for his self-control don’t you understand? Unless, you somehow think of police officers as God-like princes… and you are ready to see them get into armed conflicts with law-abiding armed citizens… then a cop enforcing a non-existent law IS a “very unusual circumstance” that justifies one to defend himself. Gradivus December 18, 2013 I wan’t disagreeing with any of that – except for your erroneous conclusion at the end. I was only (and specifically) disagreeing with your assertion that “[t]he man was legally in his right to draw his gun on that police officer.” He wasn’t. Regardless of how unusual the circumstance was, a police officer using non-lethal force to mistakenly enforce a non-existent law does NOT justify pulling a gun on him in self-defense. Not in any jurisdiction in this country. Your only legal recourse in that event is through the courts. Mario Lawrence December 18, 2013 That *seriously* depends on how the situation escalates from “non-lethal”. Qualified immunity only goes so far. Quite a number of States and jurisdictions DO in fact include a provision for using lethal force against police officers, and a SA WILL dismiss an officer’s claim of a subject resisting arrest, if the arrest is unlawful. Bryan February 14, 2014 When the government (police) or anybody tries to remove your property by force you have the legal right to defend that property. dsf February 14, 2014 THat is correct that is why we have the the Constitution PEOPLE, The 2nd protect the 4th and any other rights we have. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Someone correct me if i’m wrong, but I don’t think any states other than Texas allow you to use deadly force to protect your property (only lives.) You should be able to defend your property, but i don’t think that that is the law anywhere else. Andy Green February 14, 2014 Tennessee only allows the protection of life..NOT property. Also, in TN the cops are officers of the court and I do believe that here, you pull your carry on an officer and it would be a deadly mistake if the officer isn’t ouit of his right mind. If they don’t kill you then, you will never get out of Jail. TN courts protects their own, right, wrong or indifferent. I’m not willing to allow my son to grow up without his father over principle. Choose your battles. Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 Who the hell would down vote someone asking a question? It’s not even a rhetorical question. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 i think it depends on the individual circumstances, people more and more are protecting property/money etc and not being prosecuted, just like the punks doing the knock out game they punch and run a few have been shot in the back, no charges files hardly protecting your life shooting someone running away now,and for the record i think these punks all should be shot. just was using that as an example of not so much being in fear for your life Gradivus February 15, 2014 You’re just flat wrong. If the police are legally justified to remove your property by force (and they often do), then you do NOT have the legal right to defend that property from them. The moral right perhaps, but not the legal right. And if you do use force to defend that property from the police then (if you survive) you will be arrested and convicted, and then you can rant from your jail cell that you had the legal right. If you want to try to change the law fine, do that. But meanwhile, that’s the law. Steve February 14, 2014 Physical assault(unlawful disarming and arrest in this case) by an obviously armed individual(the police officer), however misguided, is grounds for lethal force. The clothing or occupation are moot. gamalh February 14, 2014 Glad he didn’t though and got an attorney and sued them and won. That sent a very good message that they all needed to hear. Voogru February 14, 2014 No, the taxpayers foot the bill and the officers responsible carry on. Personally I think these fines should be liens against their personal property. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 agreed, being as fricken money is what motivates them in the first place…. slamradio February 14, 2014 *moot mikeirish February 14, 2014 Abuse of powers..… one… Another is How do we know this is not an imposter….. Too many law enforcement people are overstepping the line…. And the government is encouraging it….. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Not in Texas it’s not and likely not in most other states. There is a difference. maybe there shoudn’t be but there is. Steve February 14, 2014 Do we require pieces of paper, bureaucrats, or stationary gangs(governments) to tell us what is right and what is wrong in regards to our own well-being? I do not, nor does anyone. We are capable of making those determinations. But unfortunately Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Timid men(or women) prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” DanInAustin February 14, 2014 yeah, try telling that to a judge. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 remember folks he is talking texas where its A- ok to strip search females on the side of the road for sexual satisfaction, or club a guy in cuffs already on the ground Gradivus February 15, 2014 I suggest you consult an actual attorney on that point, Steve, before you engage in (or advocate) what will almost certainly result in “suicide by cop.” Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 And you are wrong about that. How many innocents are murdered every day by moronic law breaking pigs? Dozens. But thats because they’ve been brainwashed like you, “Cops don’t have to obey the law because they have a magical suit and tin badge”. Bull. libertyordeath2010 February 14, 2014 I call our criminals in Washington and Austin all the time. The last three years when I call I start with my name, address, and phone number. Then I tell them what issue I am upset about and usually finish by letting them know that I wake every morning and pray that the American people will wake up, drag them out of our offices, give them a brief trial, followed by a speedy execution. After this I let them know that if anyone has a problem with this they are welcome to come discuss it but just bring lots of body bags because Texas is a “no retreat” state and I fully intend to “stand my ground” If what you say is true then surely they would have arrested me by now. Bob Nemtusak February 14, 2014 I guess you’re like “cash & no concealed carry James Bond” with the tuxedo or something Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 Mario Lawrence, I don’t know what the Law in Colorado is. I do know that you put words in criminal justice professor’s mouth. No where in this article is the professor quoted saying it was legal to resist the cops. He said someone may do it but, that does not make it legal. Take a logic class. Mario Lawrence February 14, 2014 The one that thinks it’s okay to violate an institution’s dress code is talking about logic… cute. Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 Dress code? When have I ever talked about a dress code.? What are you talking about? Now you are putting words in my mouth. Even so, what does one’s opinion on dress codes have to do with one’s knowledge of logic? amandaleane February 14, 2014 You might want to research Supreme court rulings when they ruled it right to oppose even police When they’re messing up. …. Gradivus February 15, 2014 No problem. Just cite me a case, amandaleane, in which the Supreme Court said it’s fine to use lethal force against the police in order to protect your PROPERTY from them (not in self defense or to protect human life). slamradio February 14, 2014 police are not much different than non-police. they do not have the right to relieve citizens of their lawful possessions, or to detain citizens with no cause. one is robbery, the other is unlawful detention/kidnapping. they may be indemnified by their department when they make mistakes (you sue the dept, not the actual officer), but they are still breaking the law and can face criminal charges or lawful physical resistance. Gradivus February 15, 2014 You’re right, slamradio, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to use lethal force against them when they are just trying to take your property, not threatening human life. libertyordeath2010 February 14, 2014 That is what they would like you to believe. My brother ran three federal agents off my dad’s land with his 45. Trick is he had it out and hammer back when he came upon them. They left peacefully (pissed but peacefully) He did not even spend a minute in jail, judge said he as within his rights. That was 15 years ago and he has been audited about eight times since. But at least he didn’t cower down and let them wrongfully steal my dad’s things! This was right here in Houston Texas Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 This is a lie. “Citizens ( any individual ) may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. Markrod420 February 14, 2014 take note of well quoted info above. You are wrong. Ha. milehisnk February 14, 2014 Legally in his right? Yes. But fortunately for him, he was in his right mind and chose not to. 1 vs 4 is pretty bad odds if you’re going to pull your gun. Patrick Fallon February 14, 2014 had it been one cop there would have been no problem , there has got to be at least 4 or there afraid DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Where do you get that it was legally his right to use deadly force against the police? There are very few cases where you are legally allowed to kill a police officer and i’m pretty sure this isn’t one of them. slamradio February 14, 2014 you are legally allowed to use force to keep possession of your property, and/or to avoid being forcibly detained without cause. if the person ‘robbing’ you is armed, you can use deadly force. if the person is ‘robbing’ you of your gun you can use deadly force. these cops are lucky they didn’t cause a deadly situation, he was within his rights to shoot. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 no. this is not true and its very dangerous to spread this misinformation. cite the laws that you think allow you to use deadly force in this situation. libertyordeath2010 February 14, 2014 Well Shirley, um I mean Dan, in Texas it is called the Castle Doctrine. Google for yourself. You are not even required to retreat if possible, and in Texas the amount of presumed force someone s using is irrelevant as long as you believe they were going to harm someone Colorado has a variation of this law! DanInAustin February 14, 2014 You are misrepresenting castle doctrine in this case. From the video it’s very clear there was never any fear for his life. The cops were misinformed and/or dickheads, but it does not rise to the level necessary to shoot them. libertyordeath2010 February 14, 2014 Fear, according to the Texas statute, cannot be seen on camera. Fear is the perception of the one being threatened. If that person later recants and says ok I guess I really was not afraid then they are guilty Kevin VanGelder February 14, 2014 If you don’t defend your rights they are worthless. Also notice that the original poster said draw, not shoot. Drawing your weapon can be an act of self defense in and of itself, even if you don’t intend to fire your weapon. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Like i said above. Good luck with that. There is no chance the grand jury will no-bill you in this situation. At the very least you are going to spend a lot of time in jail, lose your job and spend a huge amount of money. If your purpose in life is to be a revolutionary and fight against govt tyranny and abuse, then you don’t need a law for that but be prepared for the inevitable outcome. Charles Mills February 14, 2014 Bullshit just because he doesn’t show fear does not mean there was none. Not to mention fear is irrelevant they took legal rights from this man. They deserved anything they go in return but sadly as noted they travelled in a pack and the man had no choice but he got the last laugh didn’t he? DanInAustin February 14, 2014 yeah, good luck with that. Castle Doctrine does not apply. There is no way he could convince a jury that he was in fear for his life. It’s got to be a reasonable fear. :”when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another” CapnDick February 15, 2014 I have had two officers with semi-auto rifles at fire ready approach me when I was legally carrying a rifle (but not touching or in a position to touch raise that rifle, it was leaned against a wall behind me) You do not know if the police are going to over react and shoot you in this situation. The police are often badly trained, untrained, or purposely misguided especially in this area. The taxpayers always pay for the PD’s mistakes PT Schram February 15, 2014 Many people dies so we can have these rights. If it’s worth dying for, is it worth killing for? Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 You don’t know what yr talking about. Do the research. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. Markrod420 February 14, 2014 Ohhhh and dan stopped talking. Lol. nicely done for justsomeguy 😛 DanInAustin February 14, 2014 No, i’m still posting. KevinJ February 14, 2014 Correct… The cops are BREAKING THE LAW. You have a right to refuse an unlawful order. The cops will of course attempt to use violent force to make you comply, in which case if you resist that force, it may very well escalate to a situation where someone is killed. The citizen is the ONLY one here with his rights, within the law, and level headed enough to prevent an escalation in this situation. Good for him. I hope they do a better job of educating their officers before someone is killed for exercising their rights within the law. PT Schram February 15, 2014 Indiana recently codified it into state law that one my legally kill a LEO who is breaking the law. Mickey John February 14, 2014 people can carry period, the guy had the legal right to shoot and kill, just like the no knock or warrant bull shit, they c an shoot and kill there too satnone February 14, 2014 It’s called the Constitution. Why don’t YOU cite the law that specifically makes that illegal? Charles Mills February 14, 2014 Cite the laws you think don’t. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 I already did Robert O. February 14, 2014 Yeah, what DaninAustin said…. Guest February 14, 2014 If I come try to kidnap you, illegally, do you have a right to defend yourself from me? Of course you do. You have the right to resist my illegal assault, by all means necessary, including lethal force. Now, if I’m wearing a shiny badge and a cool costume, and I come try to kidnap you… illegally (as it was in this case), do you have a right to defend yourself? The answer in both cases is, yes. An officer who is breaking the law is no different than a common criminal who is breaking the law. We’re supposed to pretend that all actions by those wearing cool costumes and shiny badges are legal, and that if they are in fact breaking the law, we’ll be compensated. Trouble with that is the wrongdoers are never punished, and the ones who pay in reality is the taxpayers. Criminals should face justice, regardless of what kind what kind of costume jewelry they have on. Keith Pritchard February 14, 2014 Increasing number of cases of crimes committed by people wearing fake uniforms, who is to know someone forcing themselves on you or potentially robbing you really is who they appear to be. CTH February 14, 2014 You are pretty sure about something about which you do not know a damn thing. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 you add so much to the conversation. Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 “Citizens ( any individual ) may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. Sambo Caesar February 14, 2014 Make him look it up himself. Don’t put yourself out for the likes of him. Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 I hate when people spread lies so I’m obligated to show him the truth. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Good luck with convincing the jury that these court decisions apply in your case. If you follow the advise that has been given. You will be arrested and go to jail (if you are not shot & killed by the cops.) Your bail will be set very high. You will be bankrupted defending your case. You will lose support for the cause. You have a very good chance to lose in court and go to prison. 90% of cops support our right to carry, but if we start shooting them over cases like this they won’t. youdumbashell February 14, 2014 So naive Danny boy. I believe those pipes are calling. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 If you think that you could kill a cop and then walk away without a trial then you are the one who is naive. Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 It would be a lost cause for the prosecution. Good luck finding citizens that think cops are above the law. They’d have to find statist idiots like you. Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 It’s unfortunate but juries give a lot of leeway and deference to cops. Probably because anyone who has ever had contact with cops can’t get on a jurrry. The prosoectution will strike you if you have. Randall Williams February 14, 2014 a guy in texas just got away with killing a cop . your so wrong danny p j boy dan . are you a cop danny boy ?? come to fl and try to pull that crap and see if you don’t get your self killed and the shooter will get away with it . you think you bastards are above the law . well think again you sob . DanInAustin February 14, 2014 I’m not a cop but apparently you are an asshole. maybe you should head back over to the daily kos and be with the rest of your occupy crowd that hates all cops Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 No luck necessary, just law. I’m not even saying that this man should have drawn and blown away these cowardly pigs, but if he had, he would have had been within his rights and the law cited specifically says that. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 you lose all credibility when you refer to the police as pigs. this isn’t a black panthers meeting Justsomeguy151 February 15, 2014 Yawn. The statist fool w/ zero credibility is impugning MY credibility? Tell us another joke. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 thats going to happen even if you shoot an armed robber in most scenarios, also dont take laws that govern someone with a concealed weapons permit into effect they are different than those for open carry. in my state if i didnt not have my concealed weapons license i can legally walk into most schools with weapon on my person and showing, however being i have a cpl i cannot even in an open carry fashion, laws are different for me now, and schools are a gun free zone. the use of deadly force is also different for those not possessing a cpl (concealed pistol license) that is why they have cpl classes and requirements for said license CapnDick February 15, 2014 John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an individual had the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect. In 1889, a tribal police officer, John Bad Elk, shot and killed another tribal police officer who was attempting to arrest Bad Elk without legal authority to do so. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, noting that a person had the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in the case of a death, murder may be reduced to manslaughter. This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law. Most states have, either by statute or case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest. Matthew February 14, 2014 there are several Supreme Court precedents set relating to killing an officer… if he is violating your rights or the arrest is not valid. And the highest charge levied for killing a rogue officer shall be no more then manslaughter. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Last time i checked, manslaughter was a felony. EdC February 14, 2014 Dan, you really need to go read up on what the words “violation of rights” and “illegal activity” means. Also, you should study up on Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat as well. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 I’m quite aware of the castle doctrine and duty to retreat, I have had a CHL for a long time and carry every day. I have read the law but you would have an uphill battle trying to convince a jury that it would apply in this case. For Texas. Sec. 9.31. Self Defense (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. EdC February 14, 2014 Keep reading and studying Dan. Oh BTW, you are aware that there is more than one state in this whole United States setup, right? Read up on Indiana law for instance. Then look into some Federal court cases where officers have been arrested and convicted for violent acts committed in the process of unlawful actions despite claiming that the victims should have just done what they were told. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Yes, and most states are much more restrictive on use of deadly force than Texas. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 violent is the key word. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 Dan dont relize laws are different for those of us with concealed carry permits. he is going by his training from the cpl classes as cpl holders we are held to tighter less open restrictions in when and how we use our weapon, and especially when police are involved,in my state i must immediately inform an officer that i am a cpl holder and in possession of a weapon and at his or her discretion must surrender that weapon until the time the stop, has ended then he must either arrest me or give me back my weapon and move on.open carry does not have that standard, simply because 1 the weapon is in plain view and the officer should be aware of it.2)being as the open carrier has not been issued a cpl he has no laws forcing him to surrender his weapopn upon an officers request. the last part is something we as cpl holders agree to abide by in order to be able to conceal and thats the biggest difference, we agreed to the terms when we requested the license…….thats why we are bound by them. open carrier did not agree to special rules in order to open carry. Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 It could only be involuntary manslaughter and case law supports the citizen. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 there are varying degrees of manslaughter some are mere misdemeanors Barry Parrish February 14, 2014 This would have been one of those cases. This guy kept his cool and collected a cool 23g. If he had not, his family would have collected way more. Cops say ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it. They are not immune to that. If the police do something to you illegally, you have the right to defend yourself with any force necessary. This guy realized he was outnumbered and chose to take a more passive approach. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 His family likely could have gotten a lot more if the cops killed him, but monetary compensation can never be enough for some things. Charles Mills February 14, 2014 He was within his rights ergo they were acting illegally. Pretty simple. Pickedaname February 14, 2014 Why do you make a distinction between someone who is a cop, and someone who is not, as if one is entitled to more right than the other? Replace ‘cop’ with’another person’ and see how that sounds. Same thing. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Because there is a higher barrier when you shoot a cop. maybe it shouldn’t be that way but it is. See the Texas statutes i posted. In most states, police are allowed to detain and disarm you without arresting you if you have a concealed handgun license. Here in Tx they have to give the gun back to you if they don’t arrest you. If they keep your gun and violate the law you file a complaint, but you don’t get a free pass to go to your car and grab your rifle and kill them. Bob Nemtusak February 14, 2014 “Higher barrier,” like the barrier between reality and you DanInAustin February 14, 2014 read the statute. its written in plain english Justsomeguy151 February 14, 2014 Wrong, pigs have the higher standard to bear by notion that they are absolutely obligated to know the law. They get LESS leeway precisely because they should know what they are talking about. Ever heard a judge say “Ignorance is no excuse”.? Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 You are confusing what should be with what is. sick of this Crazy Government February 14, 2014 the key term you used is having a concealed pistol license, and that in itself makes many many differences, why, because yes its our right to carry, but to conceal on our person out in public you have to attend and pass a class in most states these classes cover laws that apply to the cpl itself DanInAustin February 14, 2014 No, that’s not true. You don’t have to right to use lethal force in this situation. The guy did the right thing and let the courts handle it. If someone other than law enforcement tries to take your gun it’s a different situation. gamalh February 14, 2014 yes, I am glad he did also, that sent a very good message and one they needed to hear. Frank Szabo February 14, 2014 … and until that begins to happen, the Gestapo will continue to trample the citizens’ rights. Cops are public servants, not public masters. Public servants are supposed to fear the citizen, not the other way around. Rex Davis February 14, 2014 BS Mario… I hope like hell you don’t carry a weapon and think you can pull it on a Police Officer “Investigating” a suspected crime. Police simply are not required to know every Law, only the basics. They can and will make “Legal” mistakes and these are corrected by the Police Officer, Supervisors or Judges. To even consider the idea you could pull your weapon on a Police Officer who stops you and disarms you is STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Mario Lawrence February 14, 2014 I seriously agree with you. For this particular situation, the outcome could not have been have been better. One day though, and I hope no time soon, our ideals on gun ownership may conflict with our safety. I don’t want to get into a discussion on when to rebel against government, but it’s important to think about. When does it stop falling into the category of “legal mistake”? I’m not encouraging anything. I think it’s stupid to even hold a gun at someone at all. Rex Davis February 14, 2014 Mario, We will know. I don’t like where our Police Powers and attitude have are. I HATE seeing Police with Combat Boots and Black Fatigues…SWAT is overused and misused…but you get not only what you pay for but what you allow. How many times have you organized and reported to City Hall to object to Police Power? In my community the Police are restrained and I know most…The Chief and Elected Sheriff are very good Cops and Supervisors. It’s all Local my friends, point at the Feds all you want but if your Sheriff isn’t backing your Rights it’s your fault…Support Law Enforcement, demand restraint… Mario Lawrence February 14, 2014 Point taken. You’re right. It’s far easier to effect local government. And if local officials respect citizens rights, it’s far easier to resist unlawful federal encroachment. Rex Davis February 14, 2014 Mario, This concept of local control bleeds into all aspects of Government. My Mayor has more political pull that 2,000 protesters in DC…If I give my Mayor, City Counsel and Commissioners Holy Hell on issues and I take 20 people with me it is effective, even if it’s a “Federal Issue” Fact is Nothing is free of the Federal grasp…Local Governments are captive of the Feds, so it is absolutely imperative and proper to demand local government take stands on federal issues. If the City and County don’t support Gun Rights eventually you are screwed Bob Nemtusak February 14, 2014 Why is the word legal in quotes? Never mind. I don’t get how the attitude & the necktie make you smarter than everyone else or something Rex Davis February 14, 2014 How Stupid…Neck Ties make almost everyone smarter…Cops are not lawyers or Judges…It’s impossible for them to be right all the time on “Legal” Issues…If they were always right on “Legal” issues we wouldn’t need Lawyers and Judges… Glenn Galfano February 14, 2014 I agree. ptwaugh February 14, 2014 Actually, you are incorrect. When you are placed under arrest, e.g. notified that you are “under arrest”, you have a lawful duty to submit to that arrest – even if it is unlawful. Meaning, if you resist, and get beat/tased/shot etc., you have resisted arrest and the officers are covered in their use-of-force. Your ONLY recourse when arrested, if your rights have been violated, is the common sense approach taken by this man, submit and sue. Let your attorney straighten it out with the judge. If you attempt to resist, you will end up charged, or worse dead. You will still be dead even if you are dead right. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Finally, someone who actually knows the law. Bob Nemtusak February 14, 2014 No tie! Robert O. February 14, 2014 No Mario, he was not “legally in his right to draw his gun on that police officer”. Not by any law, state, federal or local. The use of deadly force is authorized in most states, when a person feels a REASONABLE threat of death or serious bodily harm, period. Please do a little research before making ridiculous statements based on speculation and conjecture. Jim February 15, 2014 IF a citizen ‘didn’t know the law’ they’d still be charged. “NOT KNOWING, is NO DEFENSE” say the cops. David Anfinrud February 15, 2014 THat is the hard part there are so many laws. The politicians choose which ones will be followed. Who says that a Political agenda from upper management gave the rules to follow. No one can know every law. But in this case the Police were in the wrong. BUt the real problem that should be investigated is who made up the list they used. That person should be fired. banger377 February 15, 2014 The cops new. They break the law by enforcing un-Constitutional laws all the time. froggy19510 February 15, 2014 Dunkin’ donuts…mmmmm so good. leatherneckga December 11, 2013 Not all cops are bad, however, ALL cops should make themselves immediately aware of the Law. Any refusal to do so should result in their immediate dismissal from the force. Any supervisor that does not ENSURE that his officers know the law, should likewise be removed from said force and never allowed to be in uniform or carry a badge again. They serve US, not the other way around. Tim Kellogg December 11, 2013 Excuse me, but rather like expecting the public to know all the laws, it’s silly to expect that cops could possibly, either. Always have to laugh at that wonderful “defense”, though…”they’re not ALL bad…” Sure they aren’t, and sure, it’s possible for cops to actually know and understand the laws they purport to enforce, even though it’s clearly impossible for intelligent people, and those who are “too smart” don’t get to be cops… agiftedcurse December 11, 2013 the cops and the court systems expect us to know the laws, they always us ignorance of the law is no excuse. when its applied to the public it must be applied to them. i say even more for them since its the field they work in and should know more of it since they deal with it and different laws daily. Teerexness December 11, 2013 You are getting close to one of the fundemental philosophical problems with everyone calling themselves “government”. How can they claim powers over people that they could not claim as individuals? Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 That’s why they are paying $24,000. Helena_Handbasket December 11, 2013 Well they might not know all the laws, but they certainly should not arrest anyone for something unless they KNOW for sure it’s illegal. Tannim December 12, 2013 In the CSPD, the 110% that are bad give the other -10% a bad name…these are the same cops that commit ADA violations by parking their motorcycles on handicap sidewalk ramps while camping out for pseudo-red light runners. MaverickCoast December 12, 2013 But the conceal and carry law is a pretty big deal now days. Wouldn’t you think they would be kept updated on that law, especially considering the consequences of what could happen? I’d suggest to that police department……. UPDATE YOUR SHEETS or your officers OR BOTH!!!! Jay Hanig December 12, 2013 Unlike the cops, I don’t earn a living enforcing the law. These people expect to be seen as professionals. They ought to have the knowledge base we expect of professionals. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 You expect too much. We have way too many constantly changing laws for anyone to know them all. The real problem is over criminalization but that’s a whole other argument. PatrickHenry February 14, 2014 This issue has been out so much the last few years there is NO excuse for the cops not being up to date on their state laws reguarding open carry. My brother and I at a rally in Philly for open carry talked to a Lt and his sidekick. They told us they dont care about the oath they took or the law. If they are told to arrest they do and let the court sort it out. This rally was for Mark Fiorino who just won a suit against Philly pd for open carry. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 This is a completely different situation. You can at least make a good faith exception for the cops in Colorado who had old (agency provided) cheat sheets. If a cop deliberately violates your rights the penalty should be a hell of a lot higher than $24k. (and they should be fired/jailed.) Helena_Handbasket December 11, 2013 “I admit that not all cops are bad. It’s really just a few bad apples making the other 5% look bad” Adam Kokesh Sick-of-it-inGREENBAY December 11, 2013 MUCH TRUTH HERE !!!! GypsyDanger December 11, 2013 Being a cop is more of a diagnosis than a profession. Gru December 11, 2013 Ignorance of the law is no excuse to wrongly enforce it. ♞ Castle Bravo ♞ December 11, 2013 Dude they’re cops. They’re not subject to the same rules as us peasants. If you were better, you’d be a cop, but you’re not therefore you are inferior to them. Beepster December 12, 2013 Appears some don’t grasp the tongue-in-cheek humor. I would have sued the individual cops for not being aware of laws they are supposed to enforce, and things that are legal they try to enforce as illegal. Keith Melton February 14, 2014 If you ain’t a cop, you’re little people Sambo Caesar February 14, 2014 Ha! Most of them are military rejects. They couldn’t make the grade. They have an, “Who can I try my shiney new taser out on,” mentality. Better than us? Yeah right… MrDamage December 13, 2013 qualified immunity, because ignorance of the law _is_ an excuse. JimSherwood3 December 11, 2013 The CO concealed handgun permitting law changes enacted in 2003 had nothing to do with this person’s right to OPEN CARRY under Colorado law since 1876. Becky Harker December 11, 2013 Open carry in city parks is the key phrase here. JimSherwood3 December 11, 2013 Acacia Park is an open public access square block of grass and trees bordered on all 4 sides only by public sidewalk. Pretty much what any reasonable person would describe as a “public square”, Colorado law allows a municipality to post “No Carry” signage at “entrances” to public facilities. No facility, no entrances, and no signs. Teerexness December 11, 2013 How does “shall not be infringed” become “except for here, here or here”? JimSherwood3 December 11, 2013 People are naturally cautious about “other people” with loaded guns. The sniper Chris Kyle was shot in the back by another armed citizen who he “trusted” with a loaded gun at a gun range about a year ago.. We tend not to be very trusting of other humans ( wisely – I think). So when we insist that absolutely no restrictions should be placed upon our RIGHT .to go armed in society …..others tend to take exception to that notion. This is why it is so important that those of us that choose to go armed in the public square approach the subject bearing in mind ….the natural reservations that they may have about armed people in their midst. Just food for thought….. Teerexness December 12, 2013 An armed society is a polite society. And I don’t think it’s very logical to let a creation of our imagination (government) in whom’s name it has been conservatively estimated to have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000,000 people in the last century, defining how/where we will be allowed to protect ourselves. I’ll take my chances with the Chris Kyle’s of the world, thanks. And I think the main reason we don’t trust each other is the constant mainstream propaganda regarding how dangerous our fellow humans are, in order to grow police departments and armies and to give the government more power, control & money. Fear-mongering while crime rates have quietly been going down for years. I’d much rather take my chances with my family, friends, neighbors and coworkers than some jack-booted, state extortion funded prick who’s been told that we are all suspects. That’s some food for thought. Nathair /| December 15, 2013 Do you have a source for that 250,000,000 number? I’m not challenging it, I would be surprised if it’s not true, I’d just like to learn more about it. mfitzy111 December 20, 2013 jpfo web site- genocide by government- Conrarian December 12, 2013 “shall not be infringed” is Federal. the 10th Amendment covers states laws…”… powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” Teerexness December 12, 2013 “Shall not be infringed” by the federal government. The states are still welcome to infringe on people’s natural rights. This is why I am an anarchist and not a “Tenther”. Robin December 12, 2013 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to restrict firearms by the states is PROHIBITED by the constitution. Teerexness December 14, 2013 Well, that has worked well. Not. I should be kinder to the tenth though. I do think it’s one of the most effective ways of limiting the government, and I’m in favor of anything that accomplishes that! mfitzy111 December 20, 2013 agreed- people tend to think of the Constitution as what the people can and cannot do- it was written to bind governments from what ‘they can and can not do’. .. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 slowing. They have been chipping away at it for years. Tannim December 12, 2013 Doesn’t matter. See Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 13: “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question…” DanInAustin February 14, 2014 yeah, but the politicians and lawyers have ignored that (and every other constitution that has it) for years. Anon22385 December 11, 2013 So are the cops going to pay the $23k, or the taxpayers . . . .. agiftedcurse December 11, 2013 I imagine that it was on the department and not each police officer. sounds like its the taxpayers that will be paying. 🙁 Heath Currier December 11, 2013 It will be tax payer money that comes out of their yearly budget. it will hurt enough to mandate law training and testing on their “cheat Sheet” I am in the Fire/EMS side, Every time one person in our 240 makes a big mistake we all pay for it. we have to review all protocols and pass testing before being clear to work again. Robert Zraick December 15, 2013 It would still be much better if the cops themselves were punished in some manner. As things stand now. It is the people who pay. If we would realize that, perhaps we would do more to insure that these cops are public servants and not just government enforcers with little regard for the rights of the people. FirstShirt December 16, 2013 Cops arrested? By who, other cops. . .? Same mentality that allows politicians to do any thing they please without consequences. Robert Zraick December 17, 2013 You are absolutely right. How can we make this right? FirstShirt December 18, 2013 There was a time in my father’s generation when things like this would not stand. The lunacy ongoing in Washington, DC would have come to a screeching halt. That was the WW2 generation. But, alas, we live in the Candy-Ass Generation now where the only thing people think about is what is on TV tonight. Can’t miss my programs! Mark Stuber February 14, 2014 They were using the information their department gave them. Robert Zraick February 15, 2014 I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Mark Stuber February 15, 2014 They were given “cheat sheets”, as to what is and is not legal. This was given to them by the department. After this incident, the Chief ordered all the Cheat sheets to be thrown away and ordered new up to date ones to be re-made. I don’t blame these patrol officers. I blame the chief of police and other adminstrators for not making sure that the cheat sheets are not updated after every legislative succession. On other words: the cops were not updated when the law was changed. Teerexness December 11, 2013 It’s always the taxpayers. I can’t think of a single government agency that could sustain itself without extorting hard-earned, debased money from us plebs. johnrhett December 11, 2013 These incidents by power-mad cops would start to turn out very differently if the cops were held personally responsible for paying up. milehisnk February 14, 2014 But there’s the union that pays for their protection. Conrarian December 12, 2013 Obviously the tax payers…most cities are set up that way. Either that or the cop pays and is reimbursed by the union. Beepster December 12, 2013 If the city attorney can “find cause” not to protect them, they are SUPPOSED to pay. Finding a city attorney who won’t protect them will be extremely difficult to find. Four Sergeants?? They need to lose those stripes and go back to pounding the sidewalks. MSG L December 11, 2013 Sandoval said, ”A situation like this could turn very grave if you think about it,” Sandoval said. “If someone, if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” Does anyone see something wrong with sandovals comment? Why would a Legally Armed Citizen, not breaking the law, attack a LEO in this case? Sandoval is attempting to make the VICTIM the bad guy instead of his LEOs. agiftedcurse December 11, 2013 because if he decided that he was not going to be arrested for not doing anything wrong and fought his attackers (police) it would have turned out very differently. he was attacked and falsely arrested illegally. Robin December 12, 2013 Yeah instead of him getting 23k his next of kin would be getting 1-2 million. lineman December 18, 2013 Have you ever seen cops shoot…Four wouldn’t be a problem for me…That’s 4 bullets each and 2 more mags for any of there backup…You have the right to resist unlawful arrest its just everyone is so pussified that they don’t… milehisnk February 14, 2014 Yes, I’ve seen cops shoot, and I shoot better than most of them. But you can’t shoot 4 cops at the same time…4 vs 1 you would be dead. lineman February 14, 2014 Do me a favor and read what happen when the dorner thing was going on…Read how many shots were fired at those two ladies and they didn’t kill either one of them…Also I sure wouldn’t be standing still I would be shooting and moving in between them which would cause even more chaos…Just because they have the numbers don’t mean Jack.. Jeffjr04 December 11, 2013 That would be defending himself, not attacking police. You are the one turning the argument around. the truth is, if James had defended himself in the appropriate manner this cop could’ve been shot. Dan Pianetto December 11, 2013 “If someone, if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” In other words, the police are still assuming that James is a criminal. He did NOT pull his gun on a cop, and he did not resist. crazy farm girl December 11, 2013 to Joseph Sandoval, If cops knew the laws lots of tragedies could be avoided. agiftedcurse December 11, 2013 cops are out of line, this guy could have resisted and turned his gun onto the officers, he had every right to do so and this would have turned out bad for him while the cops would have been made heroes. Gregory Farrington December 11, 2013 I’m going to call B.S. on this not knowing the law by the cops. It is amazing that a law passed in 2003 would not be known to the local cops. In New York if you have more then 7 bullets in your mag you are committing a crime. The SAFE Act was passed in Jan 2013 and many otherwise law abiding citizens have been charged with this new law. So if a more stick gun law is passed then watch out, but if a law is passed giving lawful open carry to law abiding citizens somehow it takes 10 years for some flat footed pig to be told its lawful? JayTee December 11, 2013 Yeah, New York. Welcome to the Big A__hole. Tannim December 12, 2013 Colorado Springs =/= New York. Open carry is legal in this state. Robin December 12, 2013 Open carry is only illegal in 7 states. Robin December 12, 2013 More if you count ones that require licenses. Still it’s legal or mostly legal without licenses in 27 states. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 But in many of those states you will still get hassled or arrested. Things are improving, but it’s slow. Jeffjr04 December 11, 2013 I love that the quote at the end is saying if this he legally defended himself to the point of pulling his gun he would’ve been making a fatal mistake, meaning he’d be shot by the cop. Don’t pay attention to the fact that it wouldn’t have been a mistake as he would have had every right to do so, but the fact that the result would be illegal murder by a cop. I love how these pigs defend each other. Nothing the cops did was legal and to claim the man wouldn’t have had the right to defend himself is sickening. Teerexness December 11, 2013 This is just one of a multitude of inexcusable reasons why you are statistically in more danger with police present than you are without them. We would actually be much safer with more open carried guns and no cops. And this is why anarchy must be portrayed as chaos in the mainstream (collectivist) narrative. Given the statistics regarding democide and the fact that almost everything wrong with the world leads back to governments (or those who control governments $$$), it is getting harder and harder to swallow without choking. drjgarrow December 11, 2013 Did he get his gun back. Did they also go to his home and seize the firearms there? Is there a report made to social services suggesting something amiss with the gentleman? Has another report been made to the schools where his children attend? I ask these questions because “authorities” get out of control and any paper trail can lead to problems later on. We need an “ombudsman” system to address these kinds of issues like Britain and Canada have. They have the power to investigate and force government to undo wrongs done by government against citizens. – Dr. Jim Garrow – rcon1 December 11, 2013 We do its called a Grand Jury. JayTee December 11, 2013 A grand jury is only convened by the system, and they’re not going to willingly go against their own in the good ‘ole boy system. me109g4 December 11, 2013 Saying ignorance of the law is no excuse should go both ways. did the 23K come out of their pockets or did the taxpayers have to foot the bill for this little “adventure”? And I hope these ass clowns were fired. Stoned_Conservative December 11, 2013 Cops, like Muzzies, above the law. Guest December 11, 2013 he should ahve gotten 1 mil and all the cops fire! River Hawk December 11, 2013 he should have gotten 1 mil and all the cops fire! Stubbsme December 11, 2013 Hmm, Colorado passed a law in 2003 to make it legal to open carry in public parks. Well isn’t that nice.I do believe the founders did something like that for the whole damn country in 1789. I think it is called the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States. Brian December 11, 2013 The most hilarious, and by hilarious I mean infuriating, part of the video is the idiot professor at the end of the video saying, “if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake”. Well Professor, he didn’t, and the vast majority of “Law-abiding, intelligent” people wouldn’t either. This is just the some old liberal tactic you and all your leftist malcontents use on every incident where it doesn’t play out the way you wish it had. That professor and all of the anti-gunners would have loved to see that happen so they could point and go, “See! THIS is why we need to ban weapons!” Good for this guy knowing, and then standing up for his rights! 66lima December 11, 2013 And I bet the taxpayer paid the bill instead of he incompetent cops. Dave Infinger December 11, 2013 If I was sitting on a jury, we are looking at $400,000.00 to $1,000,000.00. The city got off with a slap on the wrist. Now I would go after each cop individually. Dave Infinger December 11, 2013 If I were a citizen of that community, I would sue the cops to recoup the loss. I think there is a way for the local citizens to do that. JayTee December 11, 2013 Of course the taxpayers are the ones that will ante up for this–it always is. The cops will have a staff meeting and a memo, but life will go on pretty much as usual. Because they were (a) so wrong, and (b) so assertive, they should be terminated and allowed to apply for positions in something like waste management, where they will not be burdened with over-employment. Police are supposed to have some degree of functional intelligence, but more and more, they’re just substituting a Gestapo attitude instead, and power-hungry, spend-happy politicians are backing them up. They’re all on the same team, you know: the payees. As the PAYERS, we’re a lesser class of citizens, and should accept their off-the-cuff judgments and statements as gospel in every circumstance. Otherwise, we’re just totally out of line you know. Sick-of-it-inGREENBAY December 11, 2013 I smell a new state law coming..If the police violate your civil rights..THEY the INDIVIDUAL Police officers responsible for violating said rights should be held legally & financially responsible NOT THE CITY OR THE STATE…… If that was law the Police would not be violating everyone right ALL THE TIME…..& if they don’t pay THEY go to jail :).but you can’t go around punishing the cops for VIOLATING THE LAW now can you… Tannim December 12, 2013 It already exists as 18 USC 242 federally. Sick-of-it-inGREENBAY December 12, 2013 WHY is this never used against the officers ? Tannim December 12, 2013 Because it requires a federal grand jury and/or a US attorney willing to prosecute. They tend to protect their own. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 Because the people charged with enforcing the law are the same sort of asshats as the ones violating our rights. bedr1 December 12, 2013 Cops are out of control, with the exception of Sheriffs which a majority of still protect citizen rights chivette lover December 12, 2013 Did the officers pay that tab themselves? Nope, the city, aka the taxpayers did. 23k? Thats not nearly enough. The cops should be held responsible themselves as well. It is their job to uphold the law, that means they must know the law. Mark Flaming December 12, 2013 JS should file a 3rd party law suit against the Police as individuals. Steve V December 12, 2013 Police should know the laws they are sworn to uphold thoroughly. They are supposed to be professionals, there should be no excuses! When police make mistakes like this one, they should have to pay out of pocket personally. If the people they work for foot the bill for their lawsuits, there is no motivation to learn the law and improve their service to the public! REVÖ December 12, 2013 So the taxpayers have to write a check for police ignorance? BT December 12, 2013 That will teach em! The tax payers pay 23K and the officers that violated the rights of a citizen are still on the beat? Until Americans wake up and demand that these leaches are removed from the police force, These officers should have all been fired, fined, and opened up for personal suits as ignorance of the law is a two way street. Jonathan R. Hoffmeier December 12, 2013 The asshat liberal professor had to put a spin on the situation, if, if, if. Edwrad D Salk December 12, 2013 Cops don’t know the law? Why is that not surprising? Oh yeah…the lowest common denominator to see if you can be a cop…LOW IQ. deepfriedfunk December 12, 2013 “..if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” EXACTLY – You have the right to resist an UNLAWFUL arrest – So the man COULD have taken these Gestapo out, and be justified homicide in court.. This SHOULD happen in a free country, instead of the COPS constantly killing Citizen’s, they need a few big National Stories of Justified Resistance to wake THEM up to the realities of a free society Ben Jammin December 12, 2013 Does anybody actually think they were carrying around that decade old ordinance by mistake?!? Now they’re just pissed they can’t use it anymore. American Patriot December 13, 2013 Cops never need to know or even understand the laws they enforce, but if we decide to ignore them, and do so enmass, they have no choice but to surrender to their lawful civil master, the people. Allowing cops to gun citizens down, and never paying the ultimate price for the crime, will see a rise in cops murdering citizens, then covering it up as well as gaining protection from the criminal courts. Nothing the people demand, is obeyed by any level of government. These elected people protect government murderers, and enact more laws that criminalize a citizen standing against illegal police actions, even when fully in the right, and backed by constitutional law, the citizen always suffers at the hands of the police. Cops are also NOT protected by the constitution, and they are also OUR employees, meaning that the masters, are now being ordered about by their subservient workers! Pretty insane, right? jimmyt December 13, 2013 Cops are terrorists, and need to be treated as such Ezra Pound December 13, 2013 The solution to these types of incidents is to start making the individual officers PERSONALLY responsible for the damage they cause. Cops acts like asses because they know there are no personal consequences. If these cops had to mortgage their homes to pay for the damages, it would all stop. robertsgt40 December 13, 2013 That $23k should come out of the cops wallets if folks want this crap to stop. We know who will get the bill. Greg Straw December 13, 2013 $23,500 is crap unless it comes out of the cops wage NOT the taxpayer. FirstShirt December 14, 2013 These LEO’s were simply emulating Congress, State Legislatures, Counties, and Cities that cannot read and comprehend the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Hey! Let’s sue the States, too! John Kaelin December 15, 2013 If the government does not follow the law why should we the people have to? Loki Luck III December 16, 2013 Good for him…. this mistake cost the City. onceproudamerican February 14, 2014 Remember cities only have funds that they extract from the productive part of society… Cities are never ‘punished’ by such awards. If States started to revoke municipal charters after such abuses things would change rapidly! Mike Santino December 19, 2013 you didn’t sue for enough Matheus Grunt February 3, 2014 Suing steals from the people who pay taxes and in turn causes more taxes in the future. Suing is NOT justice. Taking the pigs down is justice. Keith Cameron February 14, 2014 All Police officers should be forced to carry (at their own expense) liability insurance so that the taxpayers are not harmed and officers that can’t protect the rights of citizens are rightfully priced out of their chosen field. Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 All LEO’s should surrender to us asap so we don’t have to mess them up even more once this country’s patriots begin revolting again, and rightfully so. As long as we have this domestic army operating with impunity, we will never be able to restore America. We’ll have to go through them to stop the politicians/federal reserve from operating in our country & operating against the Constitution. Zakk Osborne February 14, 2014 So, I guess now we know how much our rights are worth. About $23,500. Myster Bytey February 14, 2014 Another fine example of Ignorance behind the badge. Al_Czervik February 14, 2014 How can one enforce the law without a law degree and bar exam? Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 They enforce unconstitutional laws/codes/statutes, basically crap politicians make up to control us & the idiotic pawns we call LEO’s go out like morons doing that job of enforcing those illegal laws & become criminals in the process. They’re too dumb to think which is why people who are cops are some of the most dangerous and idiotic people on Earth. There’s a reason why smart people don’t become cops or aren’t allowed to be them. onceproudamerican February 14, 2014 Few lawyers know the law or the Constitution as the Obamacare ruling has proven. A test on the Constitution and a requirement for continuing education on it would be helpful to keep public servants informed as to the extreme limitations on their lawful use of authority. Larry Farlow February 14, 2014 Good. Paul Roth February 14, 2014 Yesterday, a CA court overturned restrictions on applying for and carrying a concealed weapon in CA. We’ll see how long this lasts. Hopefully it will remain in tact so law abiding folks have the means to defend themselves against ever increasing crime in CA. Cathy McMahan February 14, 2014 you don’t need a law to open carry, The state can’t take a right away and grant a privilege. This is how dumb people have become. Marbury v. Madison Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 Exactly! Invictus_Lux February 14, 2014 Guns make for a very polite society. drkennethnoisewater February 14, 2014 Get their pensions. pdigaudio February 14, 2014 Local law enforcement has become an arm of Obama’s Gestapo, along with DHS and TSA. EllenBernal February 14, 2014 Interesting, most Gun carrying Individuals know the law. Police need to pay attention to it. DeeDee1213 February 14, 2014 OUTDATED cheat sheets?? nah, this happened because we are making it easy for anyone to be a police officer..as to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Dumb-Ing Down , remember ?? Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 IF LEO’s upheld the Law, aka, the 2nd Amendment (specifically issues related to arms/weapons), they wouldn’t even enforce one single gun control code/statute & they’d not be bothered by people who were armed. Unless someone actually is doing something evil with their weapon (which can be anything, a car, truck, pencil, rifle, knife, etc), there is NO reason to mess with people who are armed and minding their own business. Joel Hertwig February 14, 2014 It surely would have been a fatal mistake if the officer over reacted, got nervous and shot without provocation. That does happen. onceproudamerican February 14, 2014 Betcha if they had shot him it would have been ‘ruled’ as ‘appropriate…! Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 Probably true Onceproudamerican. Randy February 14, 2014 Oh, I think they know the law, they just think they’re above it. Paul Macleod February 14, 2014 or maybe the laws could be posted at the funerals of the innocents that cops have killed .. or on the collars of the dogs they have shot point blank… or on the charts of those they have beat the snot out of, while they recover in the hospital.. jnis45 February 14, 2014 Yeh, get a statement from a moronic “law professor” because all people who legally carry guns are irresponsible and uncontrollable…..what a douche Rationalthinker February 14, 2014 ” criminal justice professor Joseph Sandoval said, ”A situation like this could turn very grave if you think about it,” Ummm, Yeah…sure . Oh WAIT! This was a law-abiding citizen! Those people don’t use knee-jerk reactions in these type of situations. I wonder just HOW liberal this “professor” is. skepticalvoter February 14, 2014 What’s that old saying….ignorance of the law is no excuse? Laws are never cleaned up/replaced/”edited.” They only keep making new ones and NO ONE can keep up with them all. Even so, This type of blooper is bound to happen. Now they will work feverishly to come up with yet another law to address this issue. Aren’t laws meant to protect people from those who choose not to follow laws? billiegirl February 14, 2014 Cops are very bad shots and some cant even run to save their own life, so they should be THANKING this law abiding citizen whos rights they violated…for having patience with their stupidity and not fully exercising his right to defend himself against them… Bodinky100 February 14, 2014 The majority of cops are authoritarian thugs on power trips who don’t want the public to have any type of weapons period! blackirishblonde February 14, 2014 Molon labe ( “Come and get it”) rell87 February 14, 2014 These cops need to be charged for their crimes against that man’s civil rights. Lance Stoppler February 14, 2014 you know it would be easy to fix a lot of these problems. A quick change in city law (ya i know it would never happen) if a cop or city official breaks the law and its going to become a payout of city funds why should it if its there falt they should pay the lawsuit. its just like what each person would have to do. onceproudamerican February 14, 2014 Police unions have negotiated clauses that make the municipalities indemnify LEO’s from having to pay these awards. If such awards caused LEO’s to lose their jobs and retirement they would soon become students of the Constitution and our law. The way things stand today a LEO has little at risk for abusing his power and causing harm to the citizenry… Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 All we need to do is revolt & take the power back since it’s OUR money they’re using against us & it’s OUR country. They’re servants but they don’t believe they are. They believe they can do what they want, when and how they want, and act with impunity against the Constitution for which they violate daily by just being a cop period. Ray Dees February 14, 2014 Should of been awarded $2.3 million…..now that’s ‘consequences’. Rex Davis February 14, 2014 Officers blamed the mistake on an outdated “cheat sheet” they use, in lieu of actually knowing the law they are charged to uphold” Come on now…sure these Police officers made a mistake, if you except our Police to actually “Know” every law they re charge to uphold, the Hire Lawyers. Police use “Cheat Sheets” for quick references to very basic “Law”…To expect more is “Ignorance of Police Science” Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 LEO’s are crooks, plain & simple. They don’t uphold/enforce constitutional law, they enforce/uphold unconstitutional codes/statutes/other things that give the affect of law. IF we stopped tolerating this & took them down, then we could really start changing things for the better and make the criminal politicians/bureaucrats think hard about how they will continue to operate. Gary February 14, 2014 Cops don’t know the law? Big surprise. I sat with detective in Denver and discussed the laws concerning playing poker. He was not only uninformed, he was dismissive, prejudiced and condescending. When I showed him the law, plainly printed directly from the Attorney Generals web site, he accused me of fabricating the page and lying. I filed a complaint with the Denver Police Department. The civilian oversight individual said the subject detective should be disciplined. The Department refused to consider the matter. So this guy getting arrested for lawfully carrying is no surprise. That he won his suit is. Steppahouse February 14, 2014 ““If someone, if James would have resisted to the point of pulling his gun on a police officer, there could have been a fatal mistake and it was uncalled for.” If you truly know the law, why would this happen? The two choices you really have are 1) pull your weapon and die in a hail of bullets or 2) calmly acquiesce to every reasonable demand and sue the second you’re out of holding, if not sooner. If you truly know the law and the officers are insisting on arresting you, you should simply start thinking about which Harley you’re going to buy. Maybe get the arresting officers’ input on color and after-factory options. gson97 February 14, 2014 According to “the law” ignorance is NOT an excuse! Period! Gabriel Alan King February 14, 2014 Perhaps ignorance isn’t the problem. Perhaps we have TOO MANY F’N “LAWS”, and TOO MANY “LAW ENFORCERS”…… ? Alex Masters February 14, 2014 Once again, this proves that cops are some of the dumbest, arrogant cretins on the planet. It’s too bad the tax payers will have to pay the settlement. Things would change overnight if these monkeys in uniform had to pay these judgements personally. mvpel February 14, 2014 The law changed in 2003, you say? I wonder how many more decades it’s going to take before the cops’ bulls*** excuse of “we didn’t know the law” isn’t going to fly anymore? Hopefully it won’t take one of them gets drilled by someone they’re attempting to kidnap, before they’ll take a little more effort to learn what their boundaries are. Jbird February 14, 2014 it’s rediculous what Joseph Sandoval said about resisting to the point of pulling his weapon… the guy was never intending to pull his weapon as he appeared to know how this was going down… now maybe someone else might be so stupid… that said, the city of colorado springs was given a HUGE gift by this only costing them less than $24K and court cost… I’m surprised the NRA didn’t get hold of this and run them into the ground on a multi-million dollar suit like what ACLU has done to other cities who infringe someone’s rights under Constitution (but then ACLU has no desire to defend the second amendment so no surprise there….). I wouldn’t be surprised that the non-disclosure agreement forbade Mr. Sorenson from any future litigation against the city of colorado springs or the state…. they got off easy IMHO. Mike Santino February 14, 2014 they should add a zero to the end of that judgement Ctrl-alt-del February 14, 2014 Good, good and GOOD! Police better get with the LAW and stop making it up as they go along. So tired of the abuses reported everyday! Ctrl-alt-del February 14, 2014 He should take that $23K settlement and go buy more guns and ammo. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right police? That’s what you tell us peons. Better get with it! Gabriel Alan King February 14, 2014 To expect ANYONE, including Lawyers with Masters degrees to know the entire conflagration of American Law… (6 million “laws”… ?), is absolutely ludicrous. Important “laws”, are derived from basic common sense, and Biblical values such as “thou shall not steal”…. “thou shall not kill”…. “Ignorance is no excuse” was created as a mantra to give the authoritarians more latitude to oppress the public and selectively enforce against the sheeple. Steven February 14, 2014 That’s a leadership failure on the part of the LEO’s high-ups. Even DA’s and ADAs who are LAWYERS don’t know every law. I get that they should have checked once he told them the specific law, – they should have, but this reflects on their leadership more than the rank and file. Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 The ONLY law regarding arms that really matters at all is the 2nd Amendment! Then after that only constitutional laws that actually support and defend the 2nd Amendment! Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 The ONLY law regarding arms that really matters at all is the 2nd Amendment! Gabriel Alan King February 14, 2014 DAMN STRAIGHT. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Matheus Grunt February 14, 2014 The problem is, it’s IS being infringed all over America. Infringed by politicians, police, judges, DA’s, etc. The only thing that’s going to stop this is us revolting and beginning our part in this war against them. Gabriel Alan King February 14, 2014 “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Ignorance of the 2nd amendment is NO EXCUSE. Craig1748 February 14, 2014 Sorry excuse for law enforcement officers, don’t even know the laws that they are supposed to uphold. And the police chief says he and his men need a “Cheat sheet”??? He and this group of “merry men” should resign immediately or be fired!! Greg R February 14, 2014 They are not going to pay anything… the taxpayers will! As to the law, the highest law in this country is the US Constitution and fortunately you don’t need a lawyer to understand it because it’s written in plain English! Your right to bear arms will not be infringed upon by government, this includes police. Bob Connely February 14, 2014 “Woulda-coulda-shoulda” is simply BS coming from the Chief. The man did not resist, nor did he pull his weapon. Totally different circumstances from those that gave rise to this lawsuit. Chief-boy would be well-advised to stay on point, and stop “blue-skying.” Ra Armentia February 14, 2014 Sad thing is that most Law Enforcement DO NOT know the laws they are charged to enforce. Many try and make it up as they go, running on personal feelings instead of what is written on the books. MoBetter2 February 14, 2014 One must always use due caution when dealing with the CCATIU – Common Criminals and Thugs In Uniform! TW February 14, 2014 DHS won’t hire “Andys”, they only want “Barneys”! Ozark Ranger February 14, 2014 Or not be a “female cat” and drop that guy on the ground. Stupid badge and pistol means nothing when they EFF with a law-abiding citizen. Cops… John Smith February 14, 2014 The professor made an excellent point; you can be right legally and still be a dead man if you resist police efforts to illegally disarm you. We should all take note of how easily these situations can escalate..and not in favor of the person who is open carrying. Just another reason why I carry concealed…you can’t trust in those who’s job it is to “serve and protect” to even know the law they are supposed to enforce. I know when I get pulled over for speeding…that ignorance is not a lawful excuse. I get cops get to operate under a different standard than the rest of us. FreedomLVR71 February 14, 2014 It was moronic of him to suggest drawing down on the police was a sane option. Curt Pangracs February 14, 2014 What I want to know is why the department is being so lenient on employees WHO BROKE THE LAW! If they had made an illegal citizen’s arrest off-duty, they would get hammered. This is the problem when you “level the playing field’ in the name of “diversity”. You just make sure ALL your cops are equally ignorant. Kim Shimkus February 14, 2014 and this is how to deal with corrupt police Dept. take back there revenues from them make them know the laws if there wrong sue them sclars February 14, 2014 Ironically he will be paying part of his own reward when he pays his taxes. The public ends up paying for ineptness, all they had to do was listen to an informed citizen and check on the law Before arresting him (innocent until proven guilty). It is no longer protect and serve, it’s handcuffs, drawn guns, and arrest first get out of jail (for a price) second. Terry J. Henry February 14, 2014 The cops were armed thugs…..that’s all I need to know Gun toting cracker February 14, 2014 LEO should be held to a higher standard. They will not be paying out of the Police budget or the officers pay. The insurance company will pay. Qualified Immunity should not be used in place of unqualified police officer who claim ignorance of the law, we all know, that’s no excuse. Joseph Taylor February 14, 2014 Like the saying goes, crime DON’T pay, even if your a police officer! Nice to see their paying for their crimes once in a while too! gladtoberetired February 14, 2014 morons…again again and again dinkster February 14, 2014 They have smart phones, they don’t even need ‘cheat sheets’ Tony Campagna February 14, 2014 If you think that he would be within his rights to draw a firearm on a police officer in this instance, you are part of the collective ignorance that makes it difficult to get the federal government to ease restrictions for law abiding, conscientious gun owners. I have no problem with open carry. I live in Pennsylvania which is an open carry state and spend a lot of time in the woods openly carrying my pistol. However, if an officer asks me to relinquish my weapon, lawfully or not, I know that I am committing a felony if I proceed to draw and take aim at that officer with that weapon. If he’s wrong it’s for a court to decide. A police officer isn’t an armed robber and they’re not breaking into your house to steal your property. You don’t have the right to use or threaten to use deadly force against an agent of the law in this case. And you won’t find a president in any American law archive from after 1830 that backs your claim. I’m glad this man won his case and exposed the fact that these particular officers didn’t know the very laws that that are paid to enforce, but it infuriates me beyond words that ignorant fools use the situation as a platform to spread propagandist misinformation that ultimately hurts the cause that they think they’re helping. You really want to help? Invoke your right to remain silent. Bud-Kathy Jones February 14, 2014 Did this man draw his weapon and point it at the officers? Just asking because I don’t know. If he did i’m surprised he didn’t get shot. DanInAustin February 14, 2014 no he did not. he followed the law which is why he is alive and received $23500 in compensation MISS LIBERTY AMERICA February 14, 2014 Finally a piece of GREAT NEWS! Unfortunately; it should have been a higher dollar amount…the mans CIVIL RIGHTS were violated after all!!!! Robert Yarbrough February 14, 2014 Translation, “Police in are a heightened alert” means The police are scared and will shoot you in a heart beat because they can Mike February 14, 2014 “They” will pay? No… government workers don’t pay for their mistakes like the rest of us. That 23 grand comes from the taxpayers in that community. Cops violate a man’s rights and now YOU will pay for it! Phil Gwinn February 14, 2014 Yep. Gonna be some cops in Remedial Law 101. I wonder how long it’ll take to get the check and how fast the IRS will audit this “Right Wing Group”. Nokoolade February 15, 2014 I’ll bet that most, nearly all, police officers across the country don’t know their municipal ordinances and state laws much more that traffic laws and those are posted on signs along every roadway. Ben February 15, 2014 The problem with your thinking in this group, is that you assume that the officers only detained him because of the open carry. You don’t know what the officers are responding to, if they received a call, or if someone described the person carrying the gun as someone that committed, may have committed, or maybe in the act of committing a crime. There are so many laws, an officer can not possibly know all of them. Yes, this man should have been questioned and released. The officers made a mistake. I’m sure none of you folks have ever made a mistake at your job. For folks to tell others that it’s ok to kill police because you THINK they’re violating your rights is ignorant and irresponsible. If the police go to pull over a car, and the driver THINKS that he did nothing wrong, with your logic, it would be ok for him to keep driving and even shoot at the police. VERY IGNORANT. Now sit bravely behind your keyboard and tell me what a badass you are and how you would take on 4 officers. Dave Infinger February 15, 2014 They did not want to set precedent in a lawsuit that would have went to the gun owner. usc1801 February 15, 2014 Of course these stupid pigs didn’t know the law. Cops are dumb as crap. You become a pig because you’re too stupid to get a real job. Wayne Padgett February 15, 2014 I was told by a STATE POLICEMEN that he could search me, my car, my home. I very polity showed him a copy of the “Bill of Rights” pointing out the 4th. He replied that any time he had reasonable suspicion to believe that there may be a crime committed he could search! He then replied that they had “Local LAWS that SUPERSEDED the U. S. Constitution”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now those are the words of a STATE TROUPER!!!!! A STATE LAW enforcement officer that said he had never before read the Bill of Rights! WHAT???? CONSTITUTIONAL law is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND! Mohamad February 15, 2014 It is impossible to expect anyone to be able to know all of the laws all of time, because our legislature’s change them so often. Perhaps it is time we do away with policing and government all together. Not like there is not much more death and violence than there was in the wild west days right now and there was swifter justice. Huel Halliburton February 15, 2014 The local, state and federal laws in this country totally Violate our Constitutional Rights in this case the Right to Carry and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Now some of you clowns may need to learn how to read and comprehend English. If this keeps up there will be certainly civil unrest or even a revolution to protect our freedoms. It is already starting to show up as in Connecticut. Plus the Police are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. But most of them have sworn to it but do not get it etc etc etc. Unless something does not change we are headed to what happened in Nazi Germany the few took away the guns of the majority and took control. WAKE UP PEOPLE HookemHelwig February 15, 2014 To say that this citizen would have pulled is gone on the police is irresponsible…..2nd amendment folks like me, would only shoot if our lives or others were in immediate danger. He handled this well. jabwocky February 15, 2014 Metropolitan State University criminal justice professor Joseph Sandoval is an idiot, WHY would a law abiding citizen draw on an ignorant policeman? ESPECIALLY 2 or 3? He would lawfully comply, and then sue them, as he did, and win, good for him, and the police learn another thing, LEAVE US ALONE, it’s not against the law… Emily Jesse February 15, 2014 As a cop this is disgusting. Know and articulate why you stop someone. Great job as a citizen keeping your cool.