A password will be e-mailed to you.

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 Officers blamed the mistake on an outdated “cheat sheet” they use, in lieu of actually knowing the law they are charged to uphold.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. 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.”

  • Bill Stephens

    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

      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

        Yeah drawing a gun on a cop is an express ticket to the morgue.

        • Eric

          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….

          • American Patriot

            And if he draws his GUN, I’ll DRILL HIS BRAIN in under 3 seconds!
            Draw that gun, you DAMN SURE better be prepared to ANSWER for your actions!

          • PRDiddy

            You talk so much crap, if a cop were to draw his weapon on your fake thug ass, you’d be crying like a little baby.

        • libertyordeath2010

          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

            that is awesome people do not ever have to allow cops to do anything t whey want, wi

          • American Patriot

            No cop has a free license to steal.
            Any that assume they do, MUST be killed to PROVE THEM WRONG!

        • American Patriot

          Only if your aim is worse, and slower than a cop. Most are lousy shots, and I am certain all I know I would face, can easily be defeated by me in a gun fight, but cops HATE being fired back at, and their reflexes suffer just as badly as anybody, so I have few issues if I feel I need to shoot back.

      • Gradivus

        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

          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

            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

            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

            When the government (police) or anybody tries to remove your property by force you have the legal right to defend that property.

          • dsf

            THat is correct that is why we have the the Constitution PEOPLE, The 2nd protect the 4th and any other rights we have.

          • DanInAustin

            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

            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

            Who the hell would down vote someone asking a question? It’s not even a rhetorical question.

          • Ronald Green

            Georgia is another that allows for the protection of property.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            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

          • Rusty

            Only life here “imminent death or serious bodily harm(rape counts)” “a reasonable person would have to believe”

          • Gradivus

            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.

          • Ronald Green

            If they have a warrant and only if they have a warrant, can the police ‘remove your property’ except in certain emergency situations where public safety or other dire circumstance requires it. You seem to believe that the Police in the US have all the powers of the Gestapo. They do not, but maybe you’re wishing they did?

          • Rusty

            Lot of epitaphs could read “But I had Right of Way” as with a car one must exercise “due diligence” when using a firearm. It is a tool to protect yourself your family and others in your community … what it is not is a tool to punish anyone ever.

          • PRDiddy


          • PRDiddy

            That’s COMPLETE BS. You can meet force with force to defend your life, but your property? No…where do you get this stuff from. Even here in Texas, if you see a guy walking down the road with your TV that he just stole from your house, you can’t just shoot and kill him and think that you’ll get away with it.

          • Steve

            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.

          • 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

            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

            agreed, being as fricken money is what motivates them in the first place….

          • slamradio


          • mikeirish

            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

            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

            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

            yeah, try telling that to a judge.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            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

            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

            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

            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

            I guess you’re like “cash & no concealed carry James Bond” with the tuxedo or something

          • Mark Stuber

            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

            The one that thinks it’s okay to violate an institution’s dress code is talking about logic… cute.

          • Mark Stuber

            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

          You might want to research Supreme court rulings when they ruled it right to oppose even police When they’re messing up. ….

          • Gradivus

            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

          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

            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

          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

          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

          take note of well quoted info above. You are wrong. Ha.

      • milehisnk

        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

          had it been one cop there would have been no problem , there has got to be at least 4 or there afraid

          • Jimmy

            They’re 😉

          • Free 2 Think

            Grammar nazi

          • salvatore


          • Shannon Parker

            Somebody has to be… if you are going to get on here and state your piece.. learn how to spell!!! Ignorance is not a virtue!! So don’t be hating on the grammar police!!

          • Johnny Rebel

            Its doesnt always mean ignorance i went thru highschool during the time of diversity where every class u took was about blacks or the jews and teaching white hate even english class so i didnt learn much but that blacks were slaves and jews were put in death camps in english class

          • bnetts

            Your comment is why people don’t take libertarians seriously. What an incredibly RACIST response liked by your comrades. Liberty I love, internet bullies are a joke.

          • Bill Lewis III

            The problem with using poor grammar and spelling is not that you become a victim of the Grammar Nazis. The problem is that you do a disservice to your own position. Be assured that many see and take note of your errors, but never comment on them.

        • DanInAustin

          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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

          • Sean Downey

            maybe you should do some actual research…. Castle DOES apply. fear is relative to situation… outgunned 5 to one… VERY reasonable to fear them…

          • Case

            Take your own advice high speed, the Castle Doctrine applies to your home, not a public area

          • Sean Downey

            search google for “castle doctrine away from home”… multiple states… stand your ground IS Castle docterine….. so again… just a lil research… all of 15 seconds worth…………

          • PT Schram

            Many people dies so we can have these rights. If it’s worth dying for, is it worth killing for?

          • PRDiddy

            Your lack of common sense is going to get you killed.

          • Case

            Well said Dan.

          • Troy Dimick

            texas penal code 9.31 section 3b you do not have the right to resist an arrest made by a peace officer even if the arrest is unlawful. you can say what you think the law should be all you want. but the law is clear you cant resist an arrest unless greater force than necessary is being used against you to effect that arrest. ie you are not resisting and they are beating you. same thing applies to deadly force against a peace officer, in this case like hitting your head with an asp when you are not resisting

          • Case

            Nicely said sir. I referenced the same law earlier in Wisconsin.

          • American Patriot

            When OUR armed Nazis are surrounding me, that IS the very meaning of the word ‘excessive’ when force is going to be applied to MY body without MY permission, so yes, I WILL SHOOT! Four against one is the very definition of the word ‘excessive’..

          • PRDiddy

            Thank you for schooling all these internet tough guys! LOL

          • Case

            The Castle Doctrine refers specifically to your home, not a public park.

          • Justsomeguy151

            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

            Ohhhh and dan stopped talking. Lol. nicely done for justsomeguy 😛

          • DanInAustin

            No, i’m still posting.

          • KevinJ

            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.

          • James Thompson

            Don’t spew this drivel. You’re going to get someone to shoot a cop and end up imprisoned for life. Equal force is permitted when a citizen responds to an IMMINENT threat. If a cop tries to cuff you, he’s not attempting to kill you. You’re not legally justified in drawing and fire. I carry a concealed gun every day and I support CCW, but let’s not be ridiculous.

          • baldy522

            It’s not drivel. See my above post about the Amendment to our Castle Doctrine here in Indiana.

          • James Thompson

            Colorado Springs is not Indiana. The Indiana statute is actually the exception to the rule. Few if any other states recognize it, and for good reason.

          • baldy522

            Uhm? Don’t really care about other States. If they cared they would adopt it. I live in Indiana and believe it is a good thing here. We don’t live in a Liberal hell whole where cops can beat and rape you and violate your Rights and you have to let them do it. We realize that cops aren’t Gods and don’t have more Rights than others.

          • Zachary Wills

            The Indiana Statute is actually a restating of already recognized and understood “Common Sense Law” in regards to resisting an illegal arrest.

          • Brian Kelsey

            The Indiana law merely affirms our rights under the Fourth Amendment against unlawful entry. It was passed because the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that you could not resist unlawful entry no matter what the cop was doing and that your only recourse was through the courts. Our legislators recognized that this was a blatant violation of the 4th and did something to correct it. Not one cop has been shot by someone using this law as a defense.

          • American Patriot

            Education on the constitution MUST be primary, as NO citizen can be denied their rights, NAZI COPS, INCLUDED!
            Shall NOT be infringed means just that, and no cop has more authority than the constitution, NONE!
            If they used force, he would be RIGHT to use whatever force he required to use to DENY the cops the CRIME of ARMED ASSAULT!

          • BradleyHill

            Listen JackWad… The courts determine wrongful arrest, not the person being arrested.

          • Redd_Melendez

            No the facts under the common law do. Reasonable fear of being shot is enough.

          • BradleyHill

            PLEASE, I dare you to come close to “Reasonable” fear of being shot by a police officer. He will shoot you dead as a door nail before you get your piece out of your holster. Then after he shoots you dead, he will set the scene like it was YOUR fault to protect himself from YOU & Lawsuits.
            AND if you happen to get the draw on the police officer and you shoot and kill him, YOU will have every law enforcement officer in the county taunting with you until enough of them get together and put you 6′ feet under.
            So, be the tough internet blogger why don’t you, while you can.

          • Redd_Melendez

            WTH are you talking about?

            That’s not legal even though I agree with you. In an age where everybody has a video phone, that scenario is a lot riskier though..

            None of that is legal and its irrelevant to my points.

            How is citing the law as it is intended being an internet tough guy?

            I never said there weren’t two standards of law.

            I cited what a Defendant needs to prevail in court.

          • PT Schram

            Indiana recently codified it into state law that one my legally kill a LEO who is breaking the law.

          • Case

            False, Indiana passed a law that is specific to law enforcement officers entering a home illegally. Which is absolutely ridiculous (see my previous post)

          • Justsomeguy151

            The only thing that’s ridiculous about it is that they even felt that it was needed. A free man/woman NEVER has to ask the State for permission to defend their own life.

          • James Thompson

            Being arrested = defending your life, since when? Quit exaggerating. If the police entered his home at night with their weapons drawn, you might be able to make that stretch.

          • Pase’ Doble

            You could ask Brian Terry about that James Thompson….. Oh wait, that’s right he’s DEAD.

          • James Thompson

            For every several thousand arrests, one turns out that way. I work as a defense lawyer and I see all sorts of police misconduct and brutality. Extremely rarely does an arrest ever turn fatal for someone. At most, it’s some rough handling. Pointing the exception to the rule doesn’t validate your point. Move along now.

          • Pase’ Doble

            And yet they’re still DEAD. Your pomposity is breathtaking. “Move along”…. I assume it’s great comfort to the families that statistically they are 1 in a 1000. I could post stories of abuse like Terry’s all day long every day. I don’t think they meant to kill him, those thugs are just used to abusing people. Most aren’t fatal but “roughly handled” is hardly nothing to be concerned about. If it happens to your family or friends I hope you take a moment to think of your very hollow words.

          • Justsomeguy151

            If you are indeed a liaryer, then you are the last one who should chime in, you are a career criminal. People get murdered ALL THE TIME by police and that’s a fact. You sound like an apologist lying scumbag.

          • Lord Mannyrossa

            You should be disbarred if you are a lawyer and are unaware of false arrest and the legality of self defense arising from it should the police use excessive force (which includes drawing weapons with imminent threat of harm) during said false arrest. Indiana is hardly the only jurisdiction with this rule. Nelson vs US stated it pretty clearly as well. You are frankly just wrong and I pray for your future clients if this is the level of service they can expect from you.

          • James Thompson

            You are being ignorant of the law. The vast majority of jurisdictions don’t allow the lethal use of self-defense even for false arrest, and it’s likely to stay that way. What you don’t understand is this — even when a person HAS a right to self-defense, it’s often legally inexpedient to use it. You may wind up being prosecuted and risking a protracted trial just because you were so hellbound on exercising your self-defense rights that you couldn’t seek other remedies with less exposure. Just because you CAN shoot someone in self-defense does not mean it is in your best interest. Please think twice before you give fallacious legal advice to people. Using a firearm is a LAST resort, not a first one. Get your head on right, because people like you are giving ammunition to nanystaters and antigun advocates.

          • Redd_Melendez

            What? Just because you can shoot someone in SD does not mean you should? How does a lawyer mangle such logic? SD is only legal if you face an IMMINENT threat so tell me what alternatives someone in that position has? No lawyer would say something so legally illogical. I know because I am one. Nice try Junior! That made no sense

          • James Thompson

            Go back and read this. The right to self-defense is not mandatory. If you are facing an imminent threat but can use non-lethal force, you should. Even a clean defensive shooting WILL be charged by most prosecutors. It’s a simple concept and I’m sorry if your miniature mind can’t handle it. Look at the George Zimmerman case. He DID have the right to self-defense according to the jury, but if he hadn’t drawn his gun, he could have avoided the media blitz and saved himself months of grief.

          • Redd_Melendez

            He would have been dead my friend. That’s another stupid comment. Also, i am a lawyer and I am familiar with the laws of SD but one will not be charged in cases where there are no questions as to the need for deadly force. There must be probable cause to suggest otherwise. PC can not be established in cases that lack any contrary evidence to suggest the shooter was not within his rights.The only reason why Zimmerman was charged was the media pressure from CR groups.

            You are giving away small hints that you lack an understanding of common law SD.

            Zimmerman would be dead had he not used deadly force.

            A shooter has no common law duty to avoid deadly force if his life faces an imminent threat.

            You are not a lawyer.

            Quit saying you are as your legal analysis is deeply flawed.

          • James Thompson

            Whether the shooting is legally justified or not is usually a question for the jury. This was a close call for Zimmerman. Most legal experts were divided on the validity of his SD claim. He was being beaten, but if the gun was not introduced, there’s a good chance he would have remained unprosecuted AND unmutilated.

            Are you a criminal defense lawyer? Do you even carry concealed? Any lawyer worth his salt knows that probable cause is a very low standard that is often abused by police. The issue is not the nature of common law or MPC SD, it’s the problem of PROVING you have the right to SD in either of those jurisdictions.

            I find it difficult to believe that you don’t see the danger in even a justified defensive shooting. There’s a difference between facing an imminent serious threat and being able to convince a factfinder about that. Most CCW instructors tell students that they stand a high chance of being charged if they ever use their weapons. You are deluding yourself if you believe that prosecutorial discretion weeds out defensive shooting cases. If it’s even a close call, prosecutors will proceed in most jurisdictions.

            If you are even slightly in doubt about the imminent nature of the threat, you shouldn’t be drawing your weapon. It’s a last resort. And if it looks like anything LESS THAN THAT to a prosecutor or jury, you are facing a protracted legal battle.

          • Redd_Melendez

            I am a former LA county DA.

            I used to carry CCW plus I am a former Marine.

            I couldn’t even get a warrant unless I show enough probable cause that the shooting MAY NOT have been justified. You are skipping steps here. First, Zimmerman did not pull the gun out until he was in fear for his life. Your whole shoot to wound theory is flawed both tactically and legally.

            The three main reasons why we are taught to shoot until the threat stops and not shoot to wound are:

            1. If you are shooting to wound you don’t feel your life was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death

            2. Wounded people can still hurt or kill you.

            3. The law may not see shooting to wound as justifiable self-defense.

            4. A fourth reason we don’t shoot to wound is because attempting to hit a specific part of the body, such as the arms or knees, might be next to impossible when your adrenaline is pumping and you have tunnel vision. In this case, you would be unlikely to stop the threat..

            You can’t even pull out a gun until your life is in imminent danger and pulling out and brandishing without a justified threat IS the use of force in the eyes of the law. Should you be in imminent danger, you have every right to use deadly force at that point.

            I don’t know where you get the idea shootings are automatically charged because Judges don’t issue warrants without some kind of argument the shooting may not have been justified.

            That must clear a Judge before it can be charged and Prosecutors have that burden.

            The Zimmerman case would never have been charged if it had not been for Angela Corey.

            Don’t argue with me on that one but rather Dr. Alan Dershowitz.

            Then you can argue with my buddy civil rights Attorney Leo Terell.

            Both of them are ultra liberals and both say that PC did not exist for a warrant in the Z case.

            Your knowledge of procedure is lacking for a defense Attorney.

            The low standard of PC is still a burden if there is no evidence to suggest the shooting was NOT justified.

            Judges just don’t sign off on loose allegations even with a low burden for PC.

          • James Thompson

            Your understanding of the law, as it is written, is not that far off from mine. We disagree about how the law is actually carried out though, which shouldn’t be a surprise given your former employment versus mine. The difference is that you have faith in law enforcement and judges to respect the probable cause standard. I used to, at the first couple public defenders I worked at. I’ve handled at least a dozen self-defense cases where PC was lacking, and the ones involving firearms were more likely to have issues. These cases should not have been bound over after the preliminary hearing either. I had minimal problems in San Bernadino or San Diego, where the judges usually do hold the state to even the low standard of probable cause, but that’s not to say that other jurisdictions (especially the midwest) are equally vigilant about respecting the rights of defendants. The other two state I’ve practiced in feature judges and prosecutors who will sign off on anything that crosses their desk and then let the legal system sort it out later. That’s what citizens need to be concerned about, and it happens more often than you’re probably comfortable to acknowledge.

            I never stated that a person should shoot to wound, bad inference on your part. If the gun comes out at all, it needs to be used to maximum effect. Lethal self-defense is all or nothing. If you’re shooting to wound, you weren’t justified in using your firearm in the first place. The bigger question is whether the threat is actually 1) imminent and 2) serious enough. The real problem is all these gung-ho CCWs who magnify every single threat to that level. I had a client once whose side mirror was clipped and then pointed a gun at the other driver, because he felt threatened. Back to the original post, do you think that someone is entitled to fire on officers who are falsely arresting them? That’s how the argument started.

          • Redd_Melendez

            Not unless their life is in imminent danger. Oh and can you name me ONE REASON why the Zimmerman case was a close call absent evidence he drew the weapon before he was being pummeled? Legal experts are not split on this as there was zero evidence of the one mitigating factor that would cause this split. I know of a few gun control advocates who inject this claim but no legal “experts”. At least none with intellectual honesty. Also, the law does not require a Defendant to PROVE his life was in danger, The law merely requires HE BELIEVE his life is in danger. Your claim Gung Ho CCW’s is fiction too. Your views on the Zimmerman case show me that you have a bias.

            Once again, what mitigating factor would lead one to believe Z was “Gung Ho”. when there is no evidence he pulled out the gun until he was being assaulted MMA style? There is zero evidence that he pulled out the gun before getting his head bashed in on the concrete which is a de facto weapon in every jurisdiction in America.

            Your Gung Ho claim exhibits anti gun bias because there was NOTHING Gung Ho about the way he used his weapon.

            Your client was just an idiiot but thats hardly typical of CCW holders.

            Bias is not a legal argument.

            How could Zimmerman have done anything other than what he did?

            Oh and you did say one should shoot to wound.

            You made that clear.

          • James Thompson

            And how does a person PROVE that his life was in imminent danger? That’s a call that the factfinder gets to make. You’re missing the very obvious problem in defensive shootings. There’s a difference between what the defendant/suspect actually felt and how his actions are actually interpreted.

            If you read my last several posts closely, you’ll see that I’m not debating the Zimmerman verdict. The jury made the right call. It was NOT relevant that he may have followed or confronted TM. The only issue was whether he had the right to self-defense when TM was on top of him MMA style.

            Hero-complex is exactly what got Zimmerman prosecuted. Angela Corey would have had nothing at all to hang her hat on if he had behaved in way that appeared more responsible. When you carry a firearm, you have to automatically become a meek person and accept that you have to walk away from all arguments. There is no room for pride or being an overly-concerned citizen. The moment that you forget that, you’ll escalate an otherwise very AVOIDABLE situation and possibly have your weapon taken from you. Prosecutors are not stupid — they will expand their timeframing and theory of the case to include everything, not just how you felt at the moment you pulled the trigger.

            If there is the slightest doubt that your life was actually in danger, the case will be prosecuted by people, regardless of law and procedural protections. Any defense lawyer or CCW instructor will tell you that using your weapon defensively may keep you alive but also present legal issues. WHY do you think so many CCW classes now have a legal component now? i.e. shut up and lawyer up after you pull that trigger. Far too many people fire and think that their woes are ended after that point. You labeling caution and distrust of the legal system as me being biased, that’s simply being intellectually dishonest. You don’t think there’s every been someone who made a justifiable defensive shooting who was also misprosecuted and later acquitted?

            I had one client who was beaten to within an inch of his life without provocation by some meth users. He crawled home and tried to barricade himself inside. Unfortunately, the aggressors chased him inside and pummeled him further. He ended up with several broken ribs and skull fractures. He picked up a double barrel shotgun and pointed it at the attackers, but didn’t get a shot off. Sounds like a clear case for self-defense, huh? When the police arrived, do you want to guess who ended up in jail? Who ended up being charged with terrorizing and spending several months with a felony charge hanging over his head? My client, because the attackers gave the first statement to the police and they didn’t interview the roommate or other witnesses. After depos, the state’s case was so clearly weak that they dismissed most the charges with prejudice. NOW, try to imagine a defense scenario with muddled facts, and hopefully you can understand how a citizen should be worried about being wrongly prosecuted. Do you see the difference now between having a valid self-defense claim and being able to actually prove it? The truth may come out, but not until months of angst and expenses. Your view of how the system works does not mean that it actually comports with your ideals.

            Until you’ve been on the defense side of the aisle and seen victims charged for defending their lives, you cannot appreciate how broken the criminal justice system can be. Call me biased again against self-defense and gunowners if that makes you feel better. I’m not biased simply because I’ve had enough experience to tell you how legally persecuted people are for using self-defense .

          • Redd_Melendez

            Good Lord!

            Hero complex?

            He was calling the Police before he was attacked. If thats a HERO complex then lets just do away with security altogether. Zimmerman was not out of line in any way and was a pure victim of some thug who failed to walk away. Zimmerman was not the one who did not walk away.

            What got him prosecuted was the race baiting Reverends as Z breached NO DUTIES in how he handled the situation. He called the Cops on a suspicious person. If that’s hero complex then we should all just surrender to crime.

            Of course carrying has its risks but so does not using a weapon if you have one when your life is being
            threatened. The alternative is death.

            What is intellectually dishonest is your claim that the great majority of CCW do not retreat when its required or in the best interests of their safety. You show this bias in your claim that Zimmerman’s conduct was anything other than what security guards do every day.

            Of course you want to lawyer up as there is a possibility you will be charged. However, lets not make it sound as if its automatic because it is not.

            Your bias is shown in your claim that CCW holders acting in ways you believe are typical when they are not.

            Are you actually saying a security guard should not call the Police like Zimmerman did?

            What exactly did he do that supports your claim of him having a HERO COMPLEX?

            I am aware of the reasons you do not trust the system but Judges still check prosecutor abuse and still require some type of PC to issue a warrant.

            The Zimmerman case did not even rise to the level of probable cause and the Cops on the scene acknowledged this fact as there was NO evidence Zimmerman WAS NOT ACTING IN SD.

            You keep saying that his conduct got him there but fail to cite what duties he breached.

          • Redd_Melendez

            Extremely rarely? I hope your legal writing is better than that.

          • James Thompson

            One in 250 cases this year that I’ve handled. Is that statistically accurate enough for you?

          • brbroberts

            The police kill people in the process of arresting them fairly frequently, they also kill them fairly frequently after the arrest has been effected.

          • Rusty

            I think Daily or so it seems …. the other long list of abuses could likely be 1 or 2 in the time it takes to read this.

          • Ray186

            “Rough Handling.” You mean assault. If someone is assaulting you you have the right to defend yourself.

          • James Thompson

            If they are assaulting you with nonlethal force, you can use nonlethal force. Not deadly force. Not all self-defense comes in the same intensity.

          • baldy522

            Yes, if they are arresting you under false pretenses and are violating your Rights by doing it. It is called Kidnapping and False Imprisonment. And yes, the Amendment to the Indiana Castle Doctrine would cover that.

          • PRDiddy

            WTH…man where are you getting this nonsense fed to you?

          • baldy522

            What nonsense? The fact that cops aren’t Gods with special Rights to beat us at their discretion, or that they don’t have the Right to kidnap us and commit the crime of False Imprisonment?

          • Justsomeguy151

            Nice try. Its never an exaggeration when badged moronic thugs invade yr home or needlessly assault you in order to generate revenue for the hopelessly corrupt state. Plenty of pigs have murdered law abiding folks who complied w/ their unlawful commands and law breaking ways and paid the ulimate price for it.

          • oldskool

            In Texas a man killed a leo entering the mans home with a warrant in the middle of the night with a swat team. The man was woken and in fear for his life and was not aware who was breaking into his house. The Grand Jury no billed him.

          • baldy522

            Wrong. It is specific to cops committing a criminal act and you having the Right to defend yourself from them. This was a criminal act. The fact that they awarded him tax payor money is proof of that. They should make the cops pay out of their paychecks to him weekly. I am sick of cops getting away with this crap. They should be fired and charged and serve time in General population with everyone knowing that they are cops.

          • Rusty

            And now you see why the LEO’s are worried …. PT may be the rare take on that law but how many PT’s does it take?

          • BradleyHill

            WRONG!!! You are a true idiot!

          • PT Schram

            Indiana Code IC 35-41-3-2

            Idiot, eh? Better take it up with the Indiana Legislature.

          • BradleyHill

            The Big Tough internet blogger you are PT Schram. The article is covering an incident that happened in CO, and NOT ID moron.
            Proving to a jury that you felt in ‘imminent” danger of being killed by a police officer will surely get you in hot water. BEST thing to do is to comply with LEO’s and things will go well for you. RESIST in anyway with your mouth or body and you will pay the price. So, don’t tell me that you support such a law to shoot LE if you feel a threat against your life. You bet your sweet azz you will feel the threat if they think you will draw down on them. Besides, even if you do get the 1st draw on an LEO and kill them, every cop in the county will hunt your skinny butt down until they put you in the dirt. You think you are entitled don’t you? You set your own stage…Now, just try being threatened next time you encounter police…Just try it, dude-dumb-punkie.

          • PT Schram

            You call me a moron yet you first argue that I am wrong when I have provided proof in the form of a regulatory citation proving my position. Secondly, you mistakenly refer to Idaho and not Indiana. Third, you prove your lack of intellect by your incessant name-calling, the sure sign of a lack of intelligence and ability to debate topics on a level above that of a kindergarten play-yard bully.

            I have a RIGHT to disagree with the actions of LEOs, they do not have a right to unlawfully act in the dispatch of their duties.

          • BradleyHill

            NO, you aren’t just disagreeing with the actions of LEO’s, you are a cop hater is all I read in your posts.

          • PT Schram

            I wish you had told me that before I applied to be a patrol officer in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1996 and before I ran for Sheriff of Allen County, Indiana in 1998. Cop hater? No. Respecter of rule of law? Yes.

          • Rusty

            you do understand Manslaughter will send your ass to prison and make you a felon for the rest of your life , good luck getting a job, loan or anything else when you finally get out.

          • Justsomeguy151

            You do understand that if you’re murdered, that your options are limited. So ts best to do whatever it takes to survive. Then for the prosecution to win, they’d have to find a jury that doesn’t know its OK to defend your own life. I’ll take my chances w/ a jury rather than a trigger happy thug.

          • Rusty

            I agree should I encounter a trigger happy thug, instead of a bunch of cops patrolling on foot in the park.

          • Justsomeguy151

            No, you’d just lick their treasonous boots like you are right now. These cowards took an oath to uphold the law but they just recklessly and carelessly break it. And you just can’t bend over backwards to defend them fast enough. Only one criminal is being punished for this so basically, they got away with it. They should all be fired or at least reprimanded and demoted.

          • Rusty

            I am not defending at all, they should face criminal charges, fired and civilly sued as well, I am just saying you do not have the right to open fire on them. So lets see who here is currently in public and armed ?? Yes and concealed carry since 1992 anyone ?? I do open carry as well, but the stupidity of only having open carry is you cannot have a loaded weapon in a vehicle. So every time you get in and out of a vehicle you have to load or unload. Which means draw your weapon (you can lay you firearm on the seat beside you with the magazine handy just not inserted) And no long gun can be loaded and transported.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Well it sure sounds like yr defending them. Its just dumb luck this guy wasn’t murdered which has become an epidemic lately.

          • American Patriot

            My .45 is holstered n a speed rig, and I have the extended mags, and one in the pipe!

          • BradleyHill

            You don’t realize how stupid your posts read. You’re just a small-minded punk with a hard on for attention.

          • American Patriot

            I realize I have the intestinal fortitude to speak my mind against the status-quo, and I DO have the RIGHT to defend my life and that of others, from ILLEGAL acts committed against me, cop or not, they do NOT have rights, they are EMPLOYEES and have ZERO constitutional protections while in uniform, a FACT 99% of the sheep fail to understand. I suggest you read the constitution and the declaration of independence just ONCE before making comments.

          • james

            In Texas if you open carry and it alarms one person, that is disorderly conduct which is a crime, lots of places you can’t carry, jails, court houses, hospitals, sporting events you can carry concealed at the state capital.

          • American Patriot

            Drag them out of their homes and HANG THEM as TRAITORS to the oath!
            THAT, is how you handle a NAZI!

          • BradleyHill

            Oh, you’re so tough! Probably piss in your pants when the cops yell, FREEZE!!!

          • American Patriot

            Hey Bradley, Care to prove your point?
            My ‘fear’ level is non existent, and probably for the wrong reasons, but I do not have fear of cops, in fact, I am enraged when I read news of their crimes they get away with. But if you really feel like testing your hypothesis on me,I would gladly accept your challenge and see who is right. You will not like the outcome, nor would you be truthful if you wrote about it here.

          • BradleyHill

            You and your following are prime to get shot to death by police one day.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Yr assuming that I or others wouldn’t shoot first and ask questions later….just like a badged hypocritical murderous thug would do. You and the other treasonous cowards will be purged for the traitors that you are.

          • American Patriot

            Too many SHEEP are always in compliance mode with hired assassins, some of us, are in the defensive mode at all ties, for the SAME reasons. We do NOT accept the excuses, nor will we allow another to trample on us without just cause and a legal reason to do so(if any exists for employees). It is proper for a nation to question and respond to acts of brute aggression by gun toting assassins, and according to the declaration and constitution, it is also our RIGHT and DUTY to put down the act, as well as it is our right to SELF DEFENSE if WE THE PEOPLE feel threatened, the SAME powers to DENY as they assume to have above us, we have always had, and we are NOT property of anyone, and this includes cops and the ‘state’, which also encompasses the federal government even more-so.
            Recall the first three words of the Declaration: WE THE PEOPLE,it never stated; ‘I, the government’…..

          • Pat Richards

            In a lot of locales, the cops -are- trigger happy thugs…

          • Rusty

            They actually are here and murder people routinely sometimes execution style and …. THEY get away with it … only exception was the murder of Otto Zehm and somehow there was a change of venue.

          • Rusty

            Johnnie L. Longest. was executed while on the ground in a spread eagle position, they cops then shot the k9 unit twice and said Longest did the shooting. The coroner who listed Longest death as a homicide was fired. no residue on longest hands face or front but all over his back to include the bottoms of his shoes.

          • Rusty

            I am very good, I practice draw and fire almost every weekend, maintain muscle memory, but successfully against 4 or 5 armed on edge likely police who train less than I do. Dead is still dead.

          • cmtu1942

            Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

          • American Patriot

            If a NAZI cop aims a gun at me, I damn sure WILL return fire and KILL HIM faster than he can say SH*T!

          • American Patriot

            MY RIGHTS are ALWAYS superior to ANY cop’s orders!

          • BradleyHill

            So, your name will appear in the Obituary column soon I would suspect..

          • American Patriot

            Again, I CHALLENGE you to find out!
            I prefer to NOT have to resort to shooting anybody, but I will NEVER allow myself to be slain because a cop decides his fear factor has risen. No justification means NO justification,and a badge does NOT grant you carte blanche to murder, COPS INCLUDED!

          • PRDiddy

            If a cop aims a gun at me, I’m cooperating…you’d be dead. I’d rather be alive and settle the mess in court lol

          • BradleyHill

            NOW, you are one of the smartest people posting in here. There are a lot of itchy, big shot, internet, cop-haters in this room.

          • American Patriot

            You are probably unarmed, i am never unarmed nor will I allow myself to be forcibly disarmed, MY rights are SUPERIOR to my employees, and yes, I WILL test that theory if forced. Nobody gets to kill me without a fight coming to them, fastest gun gets the kill.

          • PRDiddy

            You would be wrong my friend. I’m always armed, but I also have a bit if common sense and know not to make situations any worse than they need to be. I want to be around to see my kids grow and me a grandad some day.

          • PStarr

            A relative of mine went to prison thanks to the Clinton’s, and when he came out, he ended up getting mentored and eventually had a fully-established, successful company dropped in his lap. He is literally the president of it, straight from being an employee. Not typical, but it apparently does happen.

          • Not too bright, are you? Felons get jobs, loans, and just about everything else when they get out; it happens everyday so your “threat” doesn’t really hold any water…

          • Rusty

            A few do … but they are the exceptions not the rule, and even when they have gotten on with their lives it still haunts them (sometimes financially) pretty much forever.

          • Case

            Exactly: “…the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter” Involuntary manslaughter is a criminal offense. The case ruling you cited simply means that an individual resisting an unlawful arrest can’t be charged with murder (the unlawful killing of an individual with intent to do so). The fact that the judge stated that the killing would be involuntary manslaughter inherently affirms that you are not legally justified in using deadly force against the officer. Furthermore, in the state of Wisconsin (I don’t know about other states), it is illegal to resist a peace officer regardless of the validity of the arrest. If the arrest is illegal, the charges are dropped and the officer/department may face legal or civil actions. However, if the individual resisted arrest they can still be prosecuted for that offense. The justification for these laws is that legality is determined by the courts, and legalizing resistance gives suspects the impression that they are empowered to decide legality. The simple fact is that our criminal justice system is designed to determine issues of law in the courts. The job of a police officer is to identify individuals that are reasonably believed to have committed a crime. It is the COURT that makes the final determination; therefore, any objection you may have regarding the legality of an arrest must be made there, not with the arresting officer.

            Final note, I certainly support the right of trained, law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm (I have a CCW). Furthermore, I am disappointed by the actions of the officers in this situation, and I support the actions taken by the court to compensate the individual who had his rights violated. HOWEVER, the violation of his rights DOES NOT JUSTIFY the use of deadly force LEGALLY OR MORALLY. We live in a civil society with clearly outlined procedures for addressing grievances against the government. When a uniformed police officer (multiple uniformed officers) say that you are under arrest, a REASONABLE person would not believe that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Therefore, making the claim that having your firearm taken by a police officer is justification for shooting that officer is absolutely outrageous (and the courts AGREE with that statement).

          • Justsomeguy151

            Wrong. You are using BS logic to support a criminal who violated EVERY part of their OATH simply because they are badged unaccountable thugs. All it would take is one juror who knows that you don’t ever need permission to defend your own life.

          • Rusty

            you still have the burden of “proof” that your life was threatened

          • Justsomeguy151

            That’s easy. He was outnumbered by thugs w/ guns who couldn’t stand that this man had a gun. Its even worse because it was done under the color of law.

          • PRDiddy

            Thugs…..LOL, you’re not biased at all……..

          • Justsomeguy151

            Yes, pigs are thugs. That’s not news. They routinely violate their oaths and murder or kidnap people for nothing. They are simply revenue generators. ——- Where did I say anywhere that I was Switzerland? I most certainly have a bias and it will always be against these road pirates who needlessly kill people all the time w/out consequences.

          • BradleyHill

            Cop haters have a greater chance of being shot to death by police.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Change yr stupid description from “cop haters” to “freedom lovers” and you’d be right. Because unaccountable fascist pigs/badged thugs HATE freedom and anyone who’s smarter than their dumbasses. Its sad that cowardly badged hypocrites murder people for nothing and routinely get away w/ it. Hopefully soon they will be getting taken out by true Americans who won’t put up w/ their Gestapo style tactics.

          • American Patriot

            If I see a citizen being abused by cops, i will stop and assist that citizen, and if I too, feel his rights are being violated by those cops, I will take whatever actions are required to ensure the citizen is not the one being ‘railroaded’ by excessive force or abusive actions/tactics. I am simply stepping in as a protector of a fellow citizen, nothing more, a ‘check valve’ of sorts, just as cops show up at stops, their numbers multiply,so we also need to grow and multiply as a show of support for a fellow citizen, and to be the witness for that citizen should the cops become enraged and act like assassins they have proven themselves to be, time and again (think 6,000 citizens murdered at the hands of police)(fact). If WAR doesn’t kill that many people, then HOW does one allow police to murder so many without a charge of genocide?

          • American Patriot

            Subpoena their complete history for the court, every complaint, every citation written and to whom, and for what. If the cops hate the microscope, they should perform their jobs WITHIN the CONSTITUTION and OBEY THE PEOPLE before their bosses!

          • Redd_Melendez

            That burden is lower than the prosecutions though.

          • BradleyHill

            I agree with your post. How is anyone going to prove that an LE was poising a threat to their life, especially in the line of their duty to secure their own personal safety?

          • American Patriot

            This is WHY the people must begin showing up at traffic stops, searches of homes and FILM EVERYTHING.
            Multiple viewpoints can not be dismissed, the proof is in front of them, and excusing the actions of bad cops proves the department is GUILTY of hiding mentally deficient officers with that ‘thin blue line’ protection clause.

          • American Patriot

            A cop is an EMPLOYEE and PROPERTY of those that pay his salary, they have ZERO rights when on duty and in uniform, the cop is nothing more than a city-sponsored armed gang, nothing more, and NEVER granted constitutional powers nor authorities!
            These NAZIS must be forced to KNOW EVERY law they enforce, and if they act in defiance of the constitution, they forever lose the ability to hold a position in law enforcement, which should end only with death.

          • Kerzie Wildrick

            yet it is in the constitution to allow to forcibly overthrow the government if you feel it has went to shit ..laws don’t equal right nor should anyone follow unjust laws

          • mike

            Declaraiton of Independence actually, not the Constitution.

          • American Patriot

            I am a recent EX resident of WI. as well, and I carried my gun constitutionally. I do not need a permit, or ask permission. Permits (CCW) are a license ASKING permission to exercise a right, I refuse to ask. I carried all the way from WI. to AZ. and I never had a need to draw it, and I am happy to NOT have required its use, but I will never bow to government for my rights, and WE THE PEOPLE do not need to ask, either. Government governs with CONSENT of the governed, I withdrew my consent decades ago! Employers do NOT as permission from their employees if they may do that which they have a fundamental right to do to begin with. Asking is paramount to absolute tyranny and oppression, neither will I be party to, but will stand in defiance of, even if that defiance means I must sacrifice my life to promote freedom. My patriotic feelings are stronger than my desire to drop to my knees and blindly follow orders, and those I pay, were NEVER placed above me, nor will I submit to them like SHEEP!

          • Cream Of Weber

            Good luck with that. If he had shot that cop (and wasn’t mowed down by the others) he’d be in prison right now.

          • James Thompson

            Care to break that down instead of just quoting it?
            1) naturally accompanies =/= an arrestee using lethal force.
            2) no right? It only takes probable cause to arrest, and that’s an extremely low standard when actually applied by the courts.

          • blood angel

            Justsomeguy151, you’re right. SCOTUS has upheld that you can’t resist police even when they are arresting you illegally. It stemmed from a case where the police served a warrant on the wrong house. If the police are acting illegally, fight it out in court and make them pay through the nose. And don’t forget, the police are given a lot of latitude by the courts when using force that civilians don’t get.

          • American Patriot

            Ignore the damn courts, they are the problem, and cops are mere EMPLOYEES that have ZERO rights, and since they are HIRED and NOT eected, I CAN resist them if I feel they are a threat, and WILL ACT against them if I feel I need to act in defiance of their unconstitutional ‘orders’…Cops do NOT control my life, I control theirs, MY MONEY, OUR RULES!
            Yes, I am very ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT for a legitimate reason……GOVERNMENT at all levels can NEVER be trusted to ACT responsibly and legally!

          • Justsomeguy151

            Honestly, I could give a frog’s fatass what the sell out SCOTUS rules. These would be the same traitors that upheld the Patriot Act, ObummaCare and the NDAA. Those criminal hypocrites would have to find citizens that didn’t know that you could use force to defend yrselves against unlawful criminals.

          • james

            manslaughter is a crime, he goes to jail, he can never legally own or carry a gun again, under federal law. more than likely he would have been killed, city sued, paid off family, officer moved on, but he would still be dead. What may be legal is not always the smartness are safest think to do.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Manslaughter is a copout charge, not a real crime. Its entirely subjective. It depends on a jury. As I’ve said repeatedly, you’ve have to find some morons for a jury that were so stupid that they wouldn’t know that you never ever have to ask the state for permission to defend yr own life. So yes, theoretically one could be charged w/ manslaughter, there would have to be some absolutely illegal shenanigans for some prosecutor to charge a man. If thugs w/ guns try to harm you or kidnap you, you’d have every right to defend yrself. Pigs travel in numbers so there’s even more reason to be very afraid. There are literally thousands of stories where law abiding peaceful citizens complied w/ pigs’ demands and were brutally murdered. All a defense would have to do is cite a few of those thousands of incidents and they’ve raised reasonable doubt.

          • Mickey John

            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

          • PRDiddy

            Hmmmmm no he did not, are you out of your mind?

          • satnone

            It’s called the Constitution. Why don’t YOU cite the law that specifically makes that illegal?

          • Charles Mills

            Cite the laws you think don’t.

          • DanInAustin

            I already did

          • Joseph Jacobi

            You ASS CLOWN! Look up US Supreme Court case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S.529. It explicitly explains how one can use deadly force against the police.

          • baldy522

            Actually here in Indiana we passed an Amendment to our Castle Doctrine that States that a citizen has the Right to defend him/herself from a cop that is committing a crime as they would any other criminal. This exact situation has been discussed and IF the individual would have been able to make it out alive they would have been covered under that here in Indiana. Having a badge does not give you extra Rights or make you a God and if anyone tries to step on my Rights they are going to have a very bad day, because I don’t retreat, I don’t back down and I don’t quite and I am not afraid to die for what it Right.

          • Mark Day

            Article 2 section 13 of the Colorado Constitution:

            Section 13. Right to bear arms.
            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; but nothing herein
            contained shall be
            construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

            Kindly note in particular “in defense of his home, person and PROPERTY”

          • American Patriot

            Every STATE constitution is SECONDARY to the UNITED STATES Constitution.

          • Mykal Faircloth

            It’s called the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Bill of Rights, aka, the Constitution

          • American Patriot

            The constitution is already called ‘The SUPREME law of the nation’ and therefore, by this declaration, forces all other laws to be INFERIOR and SECONDARY at best!

          • BradleyHill

            Slamradio is a punk!

          • David Erb

            again, you are the one misinformed………

          • Zachary Wills

            Actually, this is true. You are allowed to physical resist unlawful arrest or detainment with “Appropriate Force” in all 50 States, and an armed “officer” who appears to be reaching for their firearm allows you to utilize lethal force.

          • Joey

            1st and 4th Amendment for starters…..smh. I guess if they have a badge on though those don’t apply to them right?

          • Robert O.

            Yeah, what DaninAustin said….

          • Rusty

            slamradio is a walking talking valid argument for abolishing everyones 2nd Amendment rights

          • American Patriot

            Nobody can ‘lose’ their constitutional RIGHTS…No matter what a dog and pony ‘court’ claims, even they have ZERO powers to deny the rights of the people, in EVERY CASE and instance!

          • James Thompson

            You are not allowed to use DEADLY force to protect your property in most states. Being detained is not automatically something so imminent and serious that you can use lethal force in response. Remember this — you can only use EQUAL force in response to a threat, not whatever force you want.

          • Cream Of Weber

            Uh no… you cannot use deadly force if a police officer is taking your gun (whether it’s legal to carry one or not).

          • TheLight

            Police officers in the performance of their duties are typically exempt.If he had open fire on police officers, he would have been killed on the spot or imprisoned whether the officers were right or wrong. You don’t open fire on a cop without consequences.

          • Lon Pirkl

            Best not shoot a cop even if he is a moron. If you shoot a cop you loose.

          • CajunRay

            Yes, but he would have died and nothing would have happened to the cops involved.

          • BradleyHill

            NO he wasn’t within his rights to shoot a police officer. And tell your punk cop hater followers, too

          • Redd_Melendez

            Correct. All he needs is reasonable fear that his life was in jeopardy. Someone grabbing your gun can easily use it on you. Cops are no exception given their hair trigger fingers and DA’s that refuse to prosecute because they are beholden to the POA.

          • RichardandJan Bawol

            First off slamradio, I’m not against you but with the cops, it’s probably better to keep quiet and do as they say b/c I’m sure you know how trigger happy they can be and if that guy shoots one of them, he’s dead. Sure his family can sue but that won’t bring him back. Personally, I have no respect for them b/c they hide behind that badge and to me they are no better than a gang except they have the badge and gun!!

          • Guest

            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

            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.

          • American Patriot

            Try kidnapping me by force, I guarantee I WILL GUN YOU DOWN, cop or not, YOU do NOT have more right to use of force than I have, and I DO have a FEDERAL AUTHORITY to back me up, called the constitution, cops are EMPLOYEES, and thus, PROPERTY of WE THE PEOPLE…Too bad for Mr. Nazi!

          • PRDiddy

            Why the hell are you guys using the term kidnapping in reference to an arrest? Man, you guys have a really really warped sense of reality and it seems like you’d look for any little thing to pick a fight with an officer.

          • PRDiddy

            Kidnap? LMAO man you guys are really really stretching here.

          • CTH

            You are pretty sure about something about which you do not know a damn thing.

          • DanInAustin

            you add so much to the conversation.

          • Justsomeguy151

            “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

            Make him look it up himself. Don’t put yourself out for the likes of him.

          • Justsomeguy151

            I hate when people spread lies so I’m obligated to show him the truth.

          • DanInAustin

            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

            So naive Danny boy. I believe those pipes are calling.

          • DanInAustin

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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

          • Sean Downey

            YUP there’s the typical name calling response from some one obviously short on intellectual ammo…………………

          • PRDiddy

            That case here in Texas was a completely different scenario, so you can’t even begin to compare them.

          • Sean Downey

            try google…….. you assume ALOT. obviously have nothin but mass media to fuel your perceptions of our laws…

          • Rusty

            I think we just have to hope most of these cop killer crazed people don’t actually carry … hopefully most don’t even own a weapon …

          • Justsomeguy151

            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

            you lose all credibility when you refer to the police as pigs. this isn’t a black panthers meeting

          • Justsomeguy151

            Yawn. The statist fool w/ zero credibility is impugning MY credibility? Tell us another joke.

          • Case

            Wrong, look up the actual court decision, not one off of a bloggers website. The Plummer case refers specifically to situations in which an officer is using unlawful/excessive force. The legality of the arrest is irrelevant.

          • PRDiddy

            You seriously have to stop spreading so much BS. He would NOT been within his rights and he’d be dead or getting the needle.

          • Justsomeguy151

            You must be a barely functioning retard. What part of “I’m not even saying that this man should have drawn and blown away these cowardly pigs…” did you not understand? You also have zero clue what anyone’s right’s are. Hopefully you can receive the very same pig brutality you seem to support and advocate.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            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

          • Jimmy Stockstill

            dan I read a case wear the police did a no knock and the citizen shot and killed the officer and was no billed. there are cases wear the police are not above the law and common people see it that way. I do not want police shot but the have a duty
            to know the law and stay in the laws intended meaning. officers are bringing hate on there selfs

          • Rusty

            yes castle doctrine applies when someone “unknown” breaks into your home.(reasonable fear for your life) But police in uniform making an error of judgement warrant a lawsuit not shooting.

          • Ancient Dude

            Danln Austin, Are you going to turn over and let them take you. I will not. It is my right open carry a weapon period. You must be from the state of California where everyone rolls over and lets the authorities stick it too you. People like you are weak, no backbone and will let anything run over you. Enough said dude, close the trap and hide behind your fear of law enforcement.

          • DanInAustin

            No. Not from californa, NY or any other liberal state. Drawing on a cop over something like this is pure stupidity.

          • Ancient Dude

            I never read where he had drawn on an officer. So get your facts correct maaan…

          • CapnDick

            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.

          • Case

            This is completely false. In Plummer v. State, the court stated that an individual is legally allowed to defend him/herself against an officer using UNLAWFUL/EXCESSIVE FORCE. For example, if an officer is beating you to death and you aren’t resisting in any way, your are allowed to fight back in order to defend yourself (up to and including deadly force). This ONLY applies if the officer is using excessive/unlawful force. The court has repeatedly stated that it is UNLAWFUL to resist a peace officer even if the arrest is illegal.

          • Justsomeguy151

            This is a bald faced lie. It can NEVER BE UNLAWFUL to defend one’s rights or own life. Regardless of what statute a State passes. Any statute that is in violation of the Constitution is on the face of it, invalid. What you are saying is pig’s have SPECIAL rights and never ever have to be accountable. If people let these pigs trample your rights, then what you posted would be true. But only if you let them.

          • American Patriot

            Government ALWAYS enacts laws to PREVENT the people from exercising their rights, especially self defense, against a cop. A cop is an employee of a city or township, they are NOT elected, and as such, have NO protections of law or the constitution, and the laws ALWAYS protect the NAZI’s side of the story, even when they know the cop is wrong, they side with them, protecting the status-quo to promote MORE abuse and tyranny at the hands of these same NAZI cops. Laws are always designed to stomp on the people and allow cops a free (carte blanche) ticket to murder and abuse, so think Ruby Ridge, Waco, and any other instance where the cops were allowed to murder with IMPUNITY and walk away, LAUGHING!
            Cite Amadou Diallo, of NYC…another NAZI COP murder…41 rounds required to murder a man on his own doorstep…Yeah, good cops there, huh?
            A dead cop can’t shoot back of murder citizens, That’s good enough for me!

          • Matthew

            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

            Last time i checked, manslaughter was a felony.

          • EdC

            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

            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

            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

            Yes, and most states are much more restrictive on use of deadly force than Texas.

          • DanInAustin

            violent is the key word.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            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 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.

          • Rusty

            my state does not require revealing to police … then with say Idaho- Constitutional carry is allowed in all rural areas and most small municipalities, no license needed, it is the larger municipalities and businesses that require a license to carry concealed

          • American Patriot

            CCW licenses are permits asking for permission to exercise a right they need NO permission for…That act is called TYRANNY.

          • Rusty

            yes down vote for legal text as if they makes it go away and not apply ???

          • Justsomeguy151

            It could only be involuntary manslaughter and case law supports the citizen.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            there are varying degrees of manslaughter some are mere misdemeanors

          • PRDiddy

            BS, being illegally arrested doesn’t mean that you can kill an officer and expect to get away with it. Geez, you guys are nuts for thinking this is even remotely true.

          • Barry Parrish

            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

            His family likely could have gotten a lot more if the cops killed him, but monetary compensation can never be enough for some things.

          • PRDiddy

            No, you do NOT have the right to use any force necessary, where the heck did you get that from?

          • Charles Mills

            He was within his rights ergo they were acting illegally. Pretty simple.

          • Pickedaname

            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

            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

            “Higher barrier,” like the barrier between reality and you

          • DanInAustin

            read the statute. its written in plain english

          • Justsomeguy151

            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

            You are confusing what should be with what is.

          • sick of this Crazy Government

            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

          • Rusty

            Very few situations allowed you to use deadly force period,. And as cops enforce a broad spectrum of laws, their not being knowledgeable is not a surprise. However with the laws of open/concealed carry, if you carry you better damn well know the laws. Far too many don’t and are instead a very valid reason to not allow any of us to carry. Laws very greatly not just by State, but Municipality. generally deadly force can ONLY be used if an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is present. Being stupidly disarmed by police does not constitute a threat great enough.

          • Russ Baker

            Indiana they try to pull warrant less search bs there is a law went on the books this year you can shoot the pigs.No warrant could get them killed in the Hoosier state.

          • Rusty

            for a residence only.

          • Joseph Jacobi

            Absolutely is deadly force against a police officer not only allowed but it has been used many times as “Self Defense” against a state’s case. Just because one is an Law Enforcement Officer, means they have free reign or dictatorial powers. In this case, it would have worked against the citizen because one of the other ones would have killed him. If that were to have been the case, I imagine the compensation would be in the millions to the family.

          • vitario2000

            It’s in the Constitution, The right to resist a false arrest.

          • john

            He would have been justified if he was having to defend himself from an unlawful order. But its not the case here if any police were injured it would be on his hands. The best thing to do would be to comply with their orders. Then fight it out in court.

          • Tammy Lomas

            If police are trying to detain or arrest you without probable cause, you have every right to defend yourself even to the point of killing thr officer if you are in fear og your life.

          • PRDiddy

            You’re out of your friggin mind if you think that this is even remotely true or that a jury would believe such drivel.

          • American Patriot

            It is not excessive force when you are outnumbered 4 to 1, the cops KNOW they are wrong, and had ZERO authority stealing the man’s gun, I’d hit each one with felony armed robbery.

          • Lord Mannyrossa

            Actually, ‘false arrest’ (i.e. attempting to arrest you for something that is NOT illegal; especially after you have made it clear that you believe it is not illegal) where the police intimate that they are going to use force upon you is a 100% justifiable reason to use lethal force upon them. There is quite a bit of case law saying as much. Had he refused to drop his gun and the cop pulled his, he would have been 100% justified in killing the cop. When a citizen says they believe the arrest is false, they are required to bring in the officer in charge of actually knowing the law to the scene to make a determination on the spot. That person would have told the cops they were wrong. This was handled completely wrong and the cops involved should be fired with no pension.

          • James Thompson

            Do you understand the tenets of self-defense? A citizen may only use EQUAL force in responding to a threat. A uniformed officer arresting you, even without probable cause, is not automatically a lethal threat to you. It can be, but that’s the exception to the rule. I pray to God that you never do something as foolish as draw and fire on a cop, even if he is in wrong in arresting you. Take the arrest, lawyer up, and sue the hell out of them. Your life will be over in MOST jurisdictions if you kill him prior to facing a clearly imminent, lethal threat.

          • PRDiddy

            Hmmm no he would not have been justified. Where do you guys get these insane ideas from?

          • David Erb

            Police departments are a private corporation acting under corporate and commerce laws, not common law. just like the 80% of Americans who are born and your parents signed for a “birth certificate” which established you a corporation effectively giving up your humanity and a socialist security number. you are all wards of the District of Columbia, i.e United States of America, Inc. Look up Sui Juris and follow the rabbit hole………

          • Paul Sanders

            all enemies, foreign and domestic. He was assaulted and had every right to defend himself.

        • MichaelCrackMonkey

          No NOT LEGAL. You CAN NOT LEGALLY SHOOT ANY OFFICER simply because they ARREST YOU. They have the Right to Arrest but if the grounds are NOT LEGAL you have the RIGHT TO SUE and WILL WIN as was proven here. But You NEVER have the Right to use deadly force unless your life is at risk and arrest does not qualify unless the officer has made it known to you that he intends to kill you.

          • American Patriot

            Cops have ZERO rights when in uniform, they have GRANTED AUTHORITIES ONLY, but NEVER any rights, those are specifically RESERVED to the CITIZENS, and NOT employees!

        • Russell Vance

          Not really many cops are horrible shots. There was a story in LA where the police fired 96 times at the suspect and never hit him. That is a lot of lead down range to miss every shot.

        • American Patriot

          I have confidence of extensive training, and a damn good speed holster, so 4 on 1 is not an issue for me, but for them.
          In less than 1 second, my gun is out, off safe and finger over trigger, ready to fire. I know too many cops that have problems finding their holsters to worry about them a all.

        • Lynwood Montgomery

          Answer: “Citizens 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


          “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

        • Matheus Grunt

          Right mind to be a slave instead? Yeah, that’s really working out well for us here in America. No, shoot the pigs dead.

      • DanInAustin

        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.

        • yes, I am glad he did also, that sent a very good message and one they needed to hear.

      • Frank Szabo

        … 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

        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

          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


            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

            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


            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

          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

            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

      • Glenn Galfano

        I agree.

      • ptwaugh

        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

          Finally, someone who actually knows the law.

        • Bob Nemtusak

          No tie!

      • Robert O.

        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.

      • Matthew R. Wolf

        The right to carry a firearm does not give you the right to draw it against an officer of the law. That is a felony. The Officers (even though uneducated to the specifics scenario) were acting in a professional and tactful manor on behalf of the Governor of Colorado. This is a situation for Lawyers not violence. He’s $23,000 richer instead of dead. Seems like a win to me!
        Law enforcement officals DO have the authority to disarm any individual that may pose a potential threat to themselves the officers or other citizens. As soon as Mr.Sorensen became belligerent the officers has cause to fear for their lives. At that point they have the right to disarm.
        Had he Drawn his weapon that is an act of aggression and the officers would have been justified to open fire because at that point it is no longer about weather he has the right to have it or not and the officers have the right to protect themselves.

      • MichaelCrackMonkey

        I’m sorry but you are COMPLETELY WRONG and Full of Shit. The ONLY Time you can Legally Shoot a Police Officer is if he is threatening to kill you. Threatening Arrest is NOT Reason to use Deadly Force. You Stupid know-it-all Morons better start reading some law books or better yet get an education before you start making such claims. It’s STUPID FULL OF SHIT MORONS like you that get people killed. The Supreme Court has held that Law Enforcement has a right to arrest but NOT that they Can Not be held Liable for arrest on invalid grounds. Which means you can be arrested for anything but if the grounds for your arrest were NOT LEGAL and REASONABLE the officers CAN BE HELD LIABLE.

        So if the Police try to arrest you for legally carrying a weapon you MUST comply but you CAN SUE and Win and those Officers WILL PAY.

      • Frank Szabo

        That will eventually happen, with the police becoming increasingly militant.

      • James Thompson

        Being disarmed by a law enforcement officer =/= imminent body harm that give rise to the right of lethal self-defense. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong, but this is not a situation where you could draw and be within your rights.

        • PRDiddy

          You must be high if you think that any of this nonsense you just said is even remotely true.

      • Cream Of Weber

        Uh no, he was not legally in his right to draw his gun on a police officer.

      • PRDiddy

        He’d be an idiot to pull his gun on a cop…..luckily he was smarter than that and didn’t end up killing himself.

      • Ian

        why the hell would you do that. only time i’d pull a gun on someone is if they were threatening my life. don’t pull it out unless you’re prepared to use it. which in this case would mean killing 4 police officers just trying to do their jobs

      • BradleyHill

        Mario, you have a great following of idiots just like yourself.
        I dare you to draw down on an officer, JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT FEELING ABOUT DOING SO.
        He/she will put you in a grave. And even if you do get the draw on the LEO and kill, ALL agencies of LE will be taunting with your azz until they find the right time to put you in your grave.
        So, please…..continue being the big tough internet proponent for shooting a cop, just because you think you have cause, bozo.

        • Mario Lawrence

          No one draws a gun on anyone else because of “the right feeling about doing so” more so than a cop.
          Jeez, I sure hope you’re not a cop; because that kind of hot-headedness and vindictiveness against the American public is precisely what a growing number of “idiots” like me despise about your kind.
          If you are a cop, know that the behavior that you described is PRECISELY what I, and many others, absolutely HATE about you and your ugly family of uniformed savages.
          You better know that there will be a lot of bloodshed when and if you guys are ever given the order to forcibly disarm the American public, and you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves for it.

      • Houston Monkey

        Uhhhhhh…..yeah if you feel you are being illegally arrested, the smart thing to do is point your gun at the cops so they don’t take your property.

    • Jim

      IF a citizen ‘didn’t know the law’ they’d still be charged. “NOT KNOWING, is NO DEFENSE” say the cops.

    • David Anfinrud

      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

      The cops new. They break the law by enforcing un-Constitutional laws all the time.

    • froggy19510

      Dunkin’ donuts…mmmmm so good.

    • ebaker72

      Its unfortunate that gun laws are not one of the subject in the police academy.This is why as a police officer its you responsibility to get more education before and after your standard training.I my self will have two degrees in law before stating as an officer in the street,this in my eyes will make me a better officer for the people!

    • Non of your business

      Not just police, I’ve encountered judges that don’t even know their own civil rules.

    • Ronald

      There are so many laws out there it is impossible to know them all, especially when they get revised yearly… anyone who thinks one person should know all the laws is ignorant and should try and learn them all themselves. I bet 95 percent of the people who read this didn’t know about this law either, and i’m pro gun for civilians.

    • Matheus Grunt

      Hell, they don’t even enforce the constitutional laws, or the uphold the Constitution, because they’re too busy enforcing unconstitutional statutes.

    • BradleyHill

      I have to agree with you on this one. Rookies come into the department all the time and they don’t know squat. This is scary because they all want to be a Captain Fantastic in the first week of their new career.
      Even the old timers don’t know the laws. Don’t know if these cops get memos, but they shouldn’t go around arresting people because they want to do so.
      If I was a cop and was confronted by this guy about his side arm being open-carried, just a quick call to my supervisor could have prevented all that happened out in the field with this guy in the article.
      Now, the laws are changing all the time, so we do want to give cops the benefit of the doubt that the cop was privy to information that may have changed over a period of time. Those cops thought the guy was illegal so they acted to take the weapon away from the guy.
      The guy probably wasn’t too amicable toward the officers so they got defensive and they grew bigger balls on this guy. Bad move on the person carrying the gun.
      Just comply with the demands of the police officer and sort it all out later. Sure, it is inconvenient for this guy to go through all the hoopla back at head quarters, but what does he expect for walking around the city with a gun hanging off his hip, anyway??? That is why I always carry-concealed. I don’t have to deal with ignorant cops of the CCW’s & people calling the police on me for open carrying.
      WE don’t live in the wild while west, OK. Everyone back in the wild wild west carried a gun on their hip for the most part of it, right. WE live in a very different culture.
      The public across the country, in all states and cities are NOT in accord with the 2nd Amendment. Now, you and I don’t like that I believe, but we need to work with it.

  • leatherneckga

    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

      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

        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

          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

          That’s why they are paying $24,000.

      • Helena_Handbasket

        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

        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

        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

        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

          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.

          • Ronald Green

            European police cadets spend 4 years learning the law and how to be good police officers. When and if they finish the Academy they receive the equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts degree. This does two things. It weeds out the bullies and egotistical power mongers, and it teaches them the Law. That could be done here as well but our Law enforcement community and our politicians don’t want that. They say it isn’t ‘necessary’ and it ‘costs too much’. But too many people like you are too busy making excuses for them and so it won’t be done here. It’s not impossible except for attitudes like yours.

      • PatrickHenry

        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

          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

      “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

        MUCH TRUTH HERE !!!!

  • GypsyDanger

    Being a cop is more of a diagnosis than a profession.

  • Gru

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse to wrongly enforce it.

    • ♞ Castle Bravo ♞

      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

        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

        If you ain’t a cop, you’re little people

        • Sambo Caesar

          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

      qualified immunity, because ignorance of the law _is_ an excuse.

  • JimSherwood3

    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

      Open carry in city parks is the key phrase here.

      • JimSherwood3

        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

          How does “shall not be infringed” become “except for here, here or here”?

          • JimSherwood3

            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

            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 /|

            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

            jpfo web site- genocide by government-

          • Conrarian

            “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

            “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

            “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

            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

            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

            slowing. They have been chipping away at it for years.

      • Tannim

        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

          yeah, but the politicians and lawyers have ignored that (and every other constitution that has it) for years.

  • Anon22385

    So are the cops going to pay the $23k, or the taxpayers . . . ..

    • agiftedcurse

      I imagine that it was on the department and not each police officer. sounds like its the taxpayers that will be paying. 🙁

      • Heath Currier

        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

          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

            Cops arrested? By who, other cops. . .? Same mentality that allows politicians to do any thing they please without consequences.

          • Robert Zraick

            You are absolutely right. How can we make this right?

          • FirstShirt

            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

            They were using the information their department gave them.

          • Robert Zraick

            I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

          • Mark Stuber

            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.

          • Doug Everett

            And those same ignorant officers have a saying, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Hypocrisy, irony, or just plain stupidity?

          • Mark Stuber

            good point.

      • Teerexness

        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

      These incidents by power-mad cops would start to turn out very differently if the cops were held personally responsible for paying up.

      • milehisnk

        But there’s the union that pays for their protection.

    • Conrarian

      Obviously the tax payers…most cities are set up that way. Either that or the cop pays and is reimbursed by the union.

      • Beepster

        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

    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

      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

        Yeah instead of him getting 23k his next of kin would be getting 1-2 million.

        • lineman

          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

            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

            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

      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

    “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

    to Joseph Sandoval, If cops knew the laws lots of tragedies could be avoided.

  • agiftedcurse

    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

    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

      Yeah, New York. Welcome to the Big A__hole.

    • Tannim

      Colorado Springs =/= New York. Open carry is legal in this state.

    • Robin

      Open carry is only illegal in 7 states.

      • Robin

        More if you count ones that require licenses. Still it’s legal or mostly legal without licenses in 27 states.

        • DanInAustin

          But in many of those states you will still get hassled or arrested. Things are improving, but it’s slow.

  • Jeffjr04

    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

    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

    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

      We do its called a Grand Jury.

      • JayTee

        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

    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

    Cops, like Muzzies, above the law.

  • Guest

    he should ahve gotten 1 mil and all the cops fire!

  • River Hawk

    he should have gotten 1 mil and all the cops fire!

  • Stubbsme

    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

    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

    And I bet the taxpayer paid the bill instead of he incompetent cops.

  • Dave Infinger

    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

    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

    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

    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

      It already exists as 18 USC 242 federally.

      • Sick-of-it-inGREENBAY

        WHY is this never used against the officers ?

        • Tannim

          Because it requires a federal grand jury and/or a US attorney willing to prosecute. They tend to protect their own.

        • DanInAustin

          Because the people charged with enforcing the law are the same sort of asshats as the ones violating our rights.

  • bedr1

    Cops are out of control, with the exception of Sheriffs which a majority of still protect citizen rights

  • chivette lover

    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

      JS should file a 3rd party law suit against the Police as individuals.

  • Steve V

    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

    So the taxpayers have to write a check for police ignorance?

  • BT

    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

    The asshat liberal professor had to put a spin on the situation, if, if, if.

  • Edwrad D Salk

    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

    “..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

    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

    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

    Cops are terrorists, and need to be treated as such

  • Ezra Pound

    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

    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

    $23,500 is crap unless it comes out of the cops wage NOT the taxpayer.

  • FirstShirt

    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

    If the government does not follow the law why should we the people have to?

  • Loki Luck III

    Good for him…. this mistake cost the City.

    • onceproudamerican

      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

    you didn’t sue for enough

  • Matheus Grunt

    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

      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

        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

    So, I guess now we know how much our rights are worth.

    About $23,500.

  • Myster Bytey

    Another fine example of Ignorance behind the badge.

  • Al_Czervik

    How can one enforce the law without a law degree and bar exam?

    • Matheus Grunt

      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

      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.

  • Good.

  • Paul Roth

    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

    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


  • Invictus_Lux

    Guns make for a very polite society.

  • drkennethnoisewater

    Get their pensions.

  • pdigaudio

    Local law enforcement has become an arm of Obama’s Gestapo, along with DHS and TSA.

  • EllenBernal

    Interesting, most Gun carrying Individuals know the law. Police need to pay attention to it.

  • DeeDee1213

    OUTDATED cheat sheets?? nah, this happened because we are making it easy for anyone to be a police to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Dumb-Ing Down , remember ??

    • Matheus Grunt

      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

    It surely would have been a fatal mistake if the officer over reacted, got nervous and shot without provocation. That does happen.

    • onceproudamerican

      Betcha if they had shot him it would have been ‘ruled’ as ‘appropriate…!

      • Matheus Grunt

        Probably true Onceproudamerican.

  • Randy

    Oh, I think they know the law, they just think they’re above it.

  • Paul Macleod

    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

    Yeh, get a statement from a moronic “law professor” because all people who legally carry guns are irresponsible and uncontrollable…..what a douche

  • Rationalthinker

    ” 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

    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

    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

    The majority of cops are authoritarian thugs on power trips who don’t want the public to have any type of weapons period!

  • blackirishblonde

    Molon labe ( “Come and get it”)

  • rell87

    These cops need to be charged for their crimes against that man’s civil rights.

  • Lance Stoppler

    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

      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

        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

    Should of been awarded $2.3 million… that’s ‘consequences’.

  • Rex Davis

    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

      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

    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

    ““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

    According to “the law” ignorance is NOT an excuse! Period!

    • Gabriel Alan King

      Perhaps ignorance isn’t the problem. Perhaps we have TOO MANY F’N “LAWS”, and TOO MANY “LAW ENFORCERS”…… ?

  • Alex Masters

    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

    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

    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

    they should add a zero to the end of that judgement

  • 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!

  • 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

      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

    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

      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

    The ONLY law regarding arms that really matters at all is the 2nd Amendment!

    • Gabriel Alan King


      “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      • Matheus Grunt

        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

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Ignorance of the 2nd amendment is NO EXCUSE.

  • Craig1748

    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

    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

    “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

    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

    One must always use due caution when dealing with the CCATIU – Common Criminals and Thugs In Uniform!

  • TW

    DHS won’t hire “Andys”, they only want “Barneys”!

  • Ozark Ranger

    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

    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

      It was moronic of him to suggest drawing down on the police was a sane option.

  • Curt Pangracs

    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

    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

    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

    The cops were armed thugs…..that’s all I need to know

  • Gun toting cracker

    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

    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

    morons…again again and again

  • dinkster

    They have smart phones, they don’t even need ‘cheat sheets’

  • Tony Campagna

    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

      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

        no he did not. he followed the law which is why he is alive and received $23500 in compensation

  • 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

    Translation, “Police in are a heightened alert” means The police are scared and will shoot you in a heart beat because they can

  • Mike

    “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!

  • 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

    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

    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

    They did not want to set precedent in a lawsuit that would have went to the gun owner.

  • usc1801

    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

    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

    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

    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.

  • HookemHelwig

    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

    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

    As a cop this is disgusting. Know and articulate why you stop someone. Great job as a citizen keeping your cool.

  • ZeroDarkThirty

    Ten years since the law was enacted and these moron cops had no idea? Not sure if failure on shift commander’s part to update subordinates with law changes or plain old bullshit. Either way I am glad to hear the cops got called out on this one. Legal gun owner 1 Colorado Springs PD 0 lmao

  • akatom3565

    As a former officer everyday seems to bring to the front about some officers who are not fit for duty and their superiors as well.

  • Juan Cabano

    I have to disagree with Prof. Sandoval. Why would any law abiding citizen, legally carrying, draw their firearm on police when confronted by them? They would do what Mr. Sorenson did. Comply with the officers instructions. Then retain an attorney. Simple as that. Only an idiot criminal would draw on a police officer.

    • Guest

      Where in this did he say he drew on police? Brush up on reading your English

    • Dave Kjellberg

      I misread your comment. For that I apologize and I am Wrong

  • Most of you are stupid sheep

    Most of you really miss two points here. A. The people that are supposed to uphold the law do not know it, and B. Shall not be infringed upon. I don’t care how you choose to twist things up the second they violated his rights what ever happened was the responsibility of the infringer.

  • rick

    ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!!!!

    • Dave Kjellberg

      That’s what the cops always say. So it should apply to them.

  • Ron Raack

    Article [II]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    What part of “the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do these knot heads not understand? This is the Supreme Law of the land and trumps any law which attempts to infringe upon it.

  • Joseph Friday

    Now they should be pursued in federal court for violating his human rights under the constitution and sued for millions!

  • Jeremy

    No, the taxpayers are going to pay.

  • Dave Wukusick

    score one for the “good guys”.

  • Matthew R. Wolf

    What dumbass is going to pull a firearm on a law enforcement officer?
    Joseph Sandoval you call yourself a criminal justice professor?
    No law abiding citizen is going to pull a gun on a cop that’s just stupid!
    The act itself is a felony! Even if you’re in the right to carry you’ve blown your case if you pull against an officer so stop talking just to hear your own voice!

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
    Abraham Lincoln

  • Cheat Sheet? Really? I can fix that cheat sheet up real quick. It should simply say; I the event that there is NO victim, then there is no crime. Nuff said.

  • Luckyca

    The cops like to say ignorance of the law is no excuse. That goes both ways.

  • Ron Austin

    In this time, “The Information Age”, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Nearly every cruiser has a computer in it and the laws are available for viewing 24/7. He should have gotten 1,000 times the judgement he received. The government is not going to stop violating our God-given rights until it hurts them!

  • Mark Metrovich

    I’m curious as to how long he was in the clink over this.

    • Tuaca1107

      Me too!! At $65,000.00 an hour for unlawful arrest he should definintly sue for that since the cops were in the wrong and he won his case. Now I call that a stimulus package!!!

  • John Voice

    “Saving the city from writing more checks”? Silly anchorman’s comment at the end forgets about our rights as citizens as the most important lesson here. Stupid dude!

  • D_Morgan

    So let me get this straight they have all these forms of communication and laptops in their cruisers where they can see that you got a warning when you were 20 for peeing in an alleyway 35 years ago, but they cant find out what the law is? I mean If a guy is adamant that he is correct, then why not just take the 2 minutes to call dispatch ask them to contact the desk sergeant and say “hey can people open carry firearms in parks?” I bet you they can cite you the 14 different statue violations you just committed when you are walking down the street doing nothing. WHy dont they know this? because knowing what you legally can do doesnt make the city money, knowing what you can be fined FOR DOING is what makes the city money

  • BucTroop

    There’s nothing more disgusting than a cop who doesn’t know the law. YOU HAVE ONE JOB!!

    • Daniel

      They are cops, not attorneys. Most of them barely scraped through high-school with a C average. That’s why they need cheat-sheets.

  • Todd Lau

    By the way, Just in case everyone has forgotten, All American Citizens already have a weapons license, whether they know it or not. So all other “permits”,

    are now and always have been illegal, null, and void.

    Because the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY legal weapons permit in this country!

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed… ”

    Also, here are some legal statutes that make it legal to NOT apply or pay for a state issued weapons license, and gives you the right to ignore the state requirement for one.

    Here they are:

    Someone earlier
    mentioned the article V, convention of states… but what about the first part
    of article V… Where the bill of rights can not be changed, unless passed by
    2/3rds vote, in each house… Now look at the rights you no longer have
    freedoms to exercise, without government say so… and research… did those
    laws pass by 2/3rds? Obama care, NDAA, Gun control, Patriot act. Just to name a

    Then there are court rulings, that make this
    shit null and void… and it is buried, for the political agenda’s, dumbing
    down, and gove3rnmental save us from ourselves mentality…

    “No state shall convert a liberty to a
    privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore. – Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    …If the state converts a right into a privilege,
    the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right… with

    – Shuttleworth vs. City of
    Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are
    involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.

    – Miranda vs. Arizona
    384 US 436, Miranda vs. Arizona 384 U. S. 491

    • $80856350

      That one probably won’t fly in court.

  • Dean

    The Moron is the crim. justice prof. who imaginatively “escalated” the situation to where Sorensen “would had have to have pulled his gun.” This is ridiculous not everybody that carries is a lunatic or has issues there is such a thing as self control, which I am sure most lawful gun carriers/owners can maintain.

  • Shawn O’Loughlin

    Seven cops rob an American of his property and it’s only worth 23k? Should have each had to pay him 23k out of their own pockets. Then again, should have been fired for violating the U.S. Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

    • Tuaca1107

      Correctamundo!! Acting under color of law!!

  • Phil Holman

    What do the cops always say, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” looks like it bit them in the ass this time……love it!

  • Starland sound

    These guys shouldn’t even be wearing the badges. They don’t even know the laws they are supposed to be upholding.

  • Unordinaryman

    What is sad about that last quote from Joseph Sandoval, is that the higher probability and danger was the possibility of the police pulling a gun on Sorensen. That is much more probable, and common, where innocent people are gunned down.

  • Wags

    Sadly cops are no longer above reproach..their attitude is us vs them..they assume all citizens are criminals. Well I assume all cops are criminals, and are willing to lie to protect their kind. We better stop militarizing our police force and start holding them accountable. These cops should have to pay the fine personally.. then perhaps they will take the time to learn the laws. Bill, good point about Dunkin Donuts 🙂

  • Pat Riot

    Sadly honest people can accidentally commit a felony and the state apparatus tells the jury, ignorance of the law is no defense.

  • sbozich

    They didn’t “accidentally” arrest him. They intended to arrest him. They “incompetently” arrested him.

    • Snap N McGarrett

      yep. words mean things.

  • ReturnOfTheFallen

    Were these statist ****** fired, or did the Dept. just dip into the taxpayers pocket to pay the settlement?

  • Msgtdubb

    If a citizen gets arrested for a law that had recently been chanced, the police will tell him that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I guess it works both ways. The only difference being, the police are supposed to know the law.

  • farrightextreme

    Daninaustin is one of those people that will NEVER admit he is wrong.

  • farrightextreme

    This money should come out of the cops own pockets.

  • teflonron

    You go gay guy!

  • James Crooke

    Law abiding citizens dont pull guns on the authorities unless they are breaking into their home illegally. What an idiotic thing to say by that professor.

  • Cream Of Weber

    I’m glad the guy won his suit. I remember watching the video and being angry for him. They had no right to take his gun.

    P.s. I’m for gun control.

  • mayhap

    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.”
    What is he suggesting here?

  • Splinter Cell

    Police acting above the law all over the country, I hope they get similar punishment!!

  • patriotstate

    $23K how about 23 MILLION , then MAYBE they will get the hint.

  • Christopher White

    The police officers involved, should individually be responsible for paying at least part of the award. That would make the rest of the control-freak thug revenue enhancement morons think twice before they act like the STASI/Gestapo/CHEKA.

    • Lou Whow

      Section 1983 would do.

      But, as others have posted, ignorance of the law IS an excuse for agents of the State.

    • torchie4269

      No, the taxpayer always foots the bill when the police screw up.

  • Spencer Price

    So cops will arrest you and say not knowing the law is no excuse… but if they don’t know the law it’s an excuse for them?!

    • Moral Majority

      If they didn’t know whether it was illegal, how did they decide they could arrest him for it. False Imprisonment. No warrant for arrest–they should be charged.

  • sofaking09

    Thus “Copsuckers”

  • Bob

    That law professor was in idiot. If he was to draw his weapon on the law enforcement…. Seriously? He obviously didn’t do that nor had any intent. How about if instead of me driving to work normally I could of taken my car and drive it down a one way road at high rates of speed. Seriously this guy was grabbing at straws to make a point.

  • American Patriot

    Ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse, NAZI FILTH!

  • John Voice

    “Perhaps saving the city from writing more checks.”. What a stupid comment from this news anchor regarding a man’s right to bear arms which were trampled on by a tyrannical government…

  • Terry Fidler

    They cannot read hey just obey, good dog

  • browndiva

    I`m glad that the guy won his case. Anytime a law is updated, it is law enforcement`s job to stay up to date also.

  • peter guarino

    Proving once again that what does not kill you makes you richer.

  • PRDiddy

    Why would he pull his gun on a police officer? That makes no sense.


    NEED TO READ THE MEMO’S DOUCHEBAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Christian Lynch

    Cops care not of our of laws and rights. The ones they concern themselves with is the ones that guarantee the Jolly Roger gets its booty.

  • You Didit

    The Police state lost this round. Love to buy you a beer Mr. Sorensen.

  • Clint Lorenzo


  • IncontinentiaButtocks

    Mr. Sandoval, had the plaintiff pulled his gun, these pigs, or rather the duped taxpayers, wouldn’t have paid a dime. He would be dead, along with any innocent bystanders unlucky enough to be in vicinity as these courageous heroes sprayed gunfire at the latest threat to officer safety.

  • Sad how they are only worried about the money payed out from the city andnot about the rights of a citizen being violated.

  • Jack

    Jack booted thugs do not care about the law, much less know it.

  • But, they don’t pay. Taxpayers do.

    • FlatusOhlfart

      that’s why they need to lose their jobs and pensions!

  • Mark Huston

    COPS are not your friend,, they are the army of the government… they have become an armed force to oppress you… only about 10% of cops know the law and that same many up hold their oath..probably the same number who are veterans, cities don’t want to hire veterans as cops they want college graduates who dislike America

    • sgtguthrie

      You’re a little off there guy. Some of my best friends are cops and let me tell you, they are some of the most adamant defenders of the Constitution and our rights. Also, how many cops are “OathKeepers”? Yes, there are some bad seeds, but they don’t represent a large part of the force.

      Oh, and my buddies department actively seeks out veterans 😉

  • John Elkins

    This man used the commonsense God gave him. If someone , including cops do you wrong somehow, you do not shoot them, you take them to court. Of course if someone is trying to do you or your family bodily harm, it is a different story. Then you have every right to stop them by any means necessary.—–By the way, I believe in the right for a person to carry a C.W. as I do most of the time.

    • FlatusOhlfart

      unless the trigger happy pigs shoot you first….

  • Marie L

    This shouldn’t have happened. Period. However, I don’t understand the logic behind saying he was ‘within his rights’ to kill the officers trying to disarm and arrest him. I understand that they were wrong in doing so. Obviously they should be more aware of the law, and this is a very serious problem in this country. However, were they threatening his life and if they weren’t, is he still within his rights to kill? I’m glad he had the sense to not let the situation go that far. And while it’s terrible the officers themselves were ignorant of the law, I don’t agree with referring to all police as ‘thugs’ and ‘nazis’. At the end of the day the vast majority of police officers protect and serve by putting their lives on the line for very little compensation and no respect.

  • Forsaken Perared

    good, More agency’s should be forced to pay for trampling on the rights of the citizens.

  • blehtastic

    The cops were not forced to pay, the taxpayers were. I would be surprised if this even affected the police department’s budget, let alone the paychecks and bank accounts of the offending officers. Until civil judgments are held against the law breaking cops nothing will change.

  • REALConservative

    Long past are the days when it was respectable to be a cop in America.

    Any bootlicker feel free to challenge this comment, but be warned; I will humiliate you on this forum.

  • ZeroDarkThirty

    Because plausible deniability for cop too lazy to read up on current laws works. Shame on the Sergeant! He for one should have known current laws. Being a squad commander anyways. Definitely more training needed here.

  • 66lima

    Colorado has gone from being the home of the “Make My Day Law” to the land of candy asses in only a few decades.
    Liberals ruining another state.

  • JYD

    25k seams cheap to me

    • Moral Majority

      About 75K short by my estimation. This man had a lawyer to pay.

  • EdinColorado

    Another win for Liberty and Freedom against Liberalism and Tyranny. Shoved that Obama…

  • VL123

    Cops need training in laws….

    • Moral Majority

      And cops are reactionary, not proactive. They need to know what the law is and enforce it as it is, not bend it to what they want it to be. Here’s a fun example. How many times have we heard that cops prevent crime. What a load of bologna. Cops enforce the law, they don’t prevent crime, and they absolutely do not have a duty to protect you, that’s your duty.

  • Anthony Bertorelli

    There was a report from 2003 (I think) that suggests having too high an IQ can disqualify someone from being a police officer.

    • Moral Majority

      In some areas it can. They want you to have just enough intelligence to understand an order given, but not too much intelligence that you may question whether the order given is wrong or unethical.

  • Chet Nesley

    dumbass cops!!!

  • gager

    So many laws and we are told, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”.

    • Moral Majority

      Wish I had scrolled down prior to typing. You said it. It’s one of the first things we learn when we become an adult. Mommy and Daddy didn’t tell me it was wrong or I didn’t know isn’t an excuse.

  • DrBob

    Sorry to see something such as this happen. I have seen many situations when Police Officers have embraced fellow citizens who utilize or express the 2nd, but of course that doesn’t make the news. Pretty much every Cop I know supports the 2nd amendment.

  • Teerexness

    Man, these presstitutes will do anything to try and maintain the narrative that cops = good, won’t they? They trampled on the guy’s rights by illegally disarming him, they don’t even understand the dubious law that they think that they are enforcing, they threatened and put him and anyone close (with this many guns, tasters, etc.) at great risk and are costing the taxpayers a great deal of money due to losing the lawsuit. And to listen to these clowns, you think that the cops were the real victims here.

  • isthisnameokay

    It better be their money they pay with, and not taxpayer money.

  • Moral Majority

    Ignorance of the Law is not a defense for a criminal. Why should it be a defense for misconduct for a law enforcement officer.

  • James Pflager

    let the demons rot.

  • Jason

    His gun taken away, the day after the Aurora shooting… And you think THAT (the loss of the gun) is the crime.
    You Americans… Fkn nutbags.

  • Houston Monkey

    7 cops, 4 of the were Sgts and not one single one of them knew the law. Figures.

  • Patrick2345454 .

    That’s a shame… you know, when someone in the Navy screws up as badly as those police officers did, the Commanding Officer takes half your pay for 2 months and puts you on restriction. The department should not have had to pay that man. The officers who wrongfully arrested him should be held over the fire. Let them be an example to any officer who is ignorant of the law. That will correct bad behavior far more efficiently.