'Open Carry' Lawsuit Against Warren, MI, Settled [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 'Open Carry' Lawsuit Against Warren, MI, Settled


jph02
08-05-2012, 06:09
A Warren, MI, man settled his lawsuit against the city for $5,000 and police training.

'Open Carry' Gun Lawsuit Against Warren Settled (http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120804/NEWS01/120809781/-open-carry-gun-lawsuit-against-warren-settled&pager=full_story)

Although the article leads me to believe he had a good case for excessive force, I wonder what's missing from the story since he settled for less than 10% of his original suit. I also wonder how that extra police training is working out since the commissioner doesn't know a thing about it.

JohnJak
08-05-2012, 06:27
A Warren, MI, man settled his lawsuit against the city for $5,000 and police training.

'Open Carry' Gun Lawsuit Against Warren Settled (http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120804/NEWS01/120809781/-open-carry-gun-lawsuit-against-warren-settled&pager=full_story)

Although the article leads me to believe he had a good case for excessive force, I wonder what's missing from the story since he settled for less than 10% of his original suit. I also wonder how that extra police training is working out since the commissioner doesn't know a thing about it.

Not to smart.

Bruce M
08-05-2012, 07:47
...
Although the article leads me to believe he had a good case for excessive force, I wonder what's missing from the story since he settled for less than 10% of his original suit. ... it.


I read the article cited and it didn't seem to suggest he was injured. In your opinion what was the excessive force?

Drain You
08-05-2012, 09:24
I read the article cited and it didn't seem to suggest he was injured. In your opinion what was the excessive force?



You must have not read the article where the gangsta wanna be cop rolled up pointing his gun out the window before even securing his car in park.

Bruce M
08-05-2012, 09:30
Sorry, I'm still confused. In your opinion is the excessive force because the cruiser was reported to be still moving or that the officer was still in the cruiser?

Drain You
08-05-2012, 11:02
No thanks, I'm not biting.

RussP
08-05-2012, 11:58
A Warren, MI, man settled his lawsuit against the city for $5,000 and police training.

'Open Carry' Gun Lawsuit Against Warren Settled (http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120804/NEWS01/120809781/-open-carry-gun-lawsuit-against-warren-settled&pager=full_story)

Although the article leads me to believe he had a good case for excessive force, I wonder what's missing from the story since he settled for less than 10% of his original suit. I also wonder how that extra police training is working out since the commissioner doesn't know a thing about it.I read the article cited and it didn't seem to suggest he was injured. In your opinion what was the excessive force?

You must have not read the article where the gangsta wanna be cop rolled up pointing his gun out the window before even securing his car in park.

Sorry, I'm still confused. In your opinion is the excessive force because the cruiser was reported to be still moving or that the officer was still in the cruiser?

No thanks, I'm not biting."I'm not biting," interesting...whatever.

Bruce, if I may, jph02, where did you read that excessive force was an allegation in this case? These are the points stated in the article...In his lawsuit, Haman claimed the four officers violated his Second Amendment, free speech and due process rights, and that he was a victim of false imprisonment and assault and battery.

Drain You, drawing a weapon in the manner he did and under the circumstances as I understand them may be better classified as not the smartest thing to do. Since excessive force is not an element of this case, it is immaterial.

It may, however, be considered "assault and battery." That is actually the allegation made. I can't remember whether it was the act of drawing the pistol and the words that accompanied that act, or the act of handcuffing him that generated the allegation.

jph02
08-05-2012, 13:17
Sorry, I'm still confused. In your opinion is the excessive force because the cruiser was reported to be still moving or that the officer was still in the cruiser?
That, too, but being put facedown on the ground, handcuffed, and 4 officers. All for a holstered side arm. Here's video from the one police car (out of 3) the city of Warren released under a FOIA request by Hamon.
Hamaneggs Encounter - Gunpoint, Illegal Search, Assult and Battery Part 1 - YouTube

I never said Mr. Hamon alleged excessive force in his lawsuit. I merely said the article led me to believe police acted with excessive force (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e055.htm). The officer exiting the vehicle, shown in the video, was pointing his firearm, presumably at Mr. Hamon. Police were responding to more than one 9-1-1 call about a man with a gun "at his hip", so it's reasonable for police to be cautious. But the gun was holstered, according to the article, so weapons drawn seems excessive to me, as does putting him on the ground.

For clarification, Michigan is an open carry state, which explains why Hamon was not charged. There is no requirement to carry a purchase receipt (or permit) nor to even retain the permit beyond 30 days after purchase. For the record, a CPL (CCW) is not required to open carry, nor is open carry a violation of conditions for a CPL.

Standard caveat: I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Mister_Beefy
08-05-2012, 13:49
when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.

RussP
08-05-2012, 13:56
I meant to comment on this earlier......url=http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120804/NEWS01/120809781/-open-carry-gun-lawsuit-against-warren-settled&pager=full_story]'Open Carry' Gun Lawsuit Against Warren Settled[/url]... I also wonder how that extra police training is working out since the commissioner doesn't know a thing about it.Did you read the second paragraph after the commissioner said Friday he was not aware of the settlement in the Haman case? Here it is...An attorney that has defended open carry rights cases has prepared a video presentation to be shown to all Warren police officers. The details and scheduling have not been finalized by the attorney and lawyers for the city.Sorry, but it sounds like it will not even go to the Commissioner for implementation until the lawyers for the city finish with it.

JW1178
08-05-2012, 14:05
Was the officer that responded still a LEO? I hope not. Obviously can't handle the job or the authority.

Sharky7
08-05-2012, 15:02
when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.

It's comments like these and the underlying insecurity for gov and LE that gets you a bad rap around here. You made the above statement out of thin air with absolutely no experience and only your internal bias. Do a citizen's police academy and you might see the world from another point of view.

The microphone that is on the police officer's body generally has to be turned on to work. Since it has also happened to me a few hundred times - it is easy to jump out of the vehicle on a hot call and worry more about your safety than activating your microphone. Often when the situation is secure and we get to talking, I remember to turn it on.

collim1
08-05-2012, 16:10
LE's are damned if you do and damned if you dont in these scenarios. I have seen it time and time again (there are a few OC commandos in my jurisdiction).

You get a frantic call from a soccer mom saying there is a MWG at walmart and nothing else. Dispatch has no choice but to dispatch it as they get it.

If you see the dude with a gun and dont stop him cause OC is legal and he shoots up walmart and kills 50 people where are you then? There would be a national outcry on the media wanting to know why a officer was called to a location about a MWG and didn't prevent the shooting because OC is legal.

Just something to think about.

Not to mention the OC guys in my jurisdiction go out looking for a confrontation and sometimes it takes hours before someone notices they are OC and they get the confrontation they want.

Bruce M
08-05-2012, 16:51
That, too, but being put facedown on the ground, handcuffed, and 4 officers. All for a holstered side arm. ...
I never said Mr. Hamon alleged excessive force in his lawsuit. I merely said the article led me to believe police acted with excessive force (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e055.htm). The officer exiting the vehicle, shown in the video, was pointing his firearm, presumably at Mr. Hamon. Police were responding to more than one 9-1-1 call about a man with a gun "at his hip", so it's reasonable for police to be cautious. But the gun was holstered, according to the article, so weapons drawn seems excessive to me, as does putting him on the ground.

For clarification, Michigan is an open carry state, which explains why Hamon was not charged. ...t.

Like it or not it is a fairly standard police procedure for officers to point their guns at suspects even if they only think that a suspect might possibly be armed or might possibly be a suspect of felonious activity. In this case, there was no question that he was armed. So officer(s) ordering him to the ground at gunpoint and handcuffing him is probably well within the policy of their department.


It does sound as if the officers are not completely familiar with the Michigan gun laws., especially as to the issue of him having a license but/and carrying openly.

The video does not seem to really provide much information.

Bruce M
08-05-2012, 16:54
Was the officer that responded still a LEO? I hope not. Obviously can't handle the job or the authority.


That is your opinion, but I would guess that whatever agency administers standards for Michigan police officers and a whole bunch of high ranking officers who have the say on retention or firing based on accepted practice and adherence to departmental regulations would disagree.

jph02
08-05-2012, 17:31
I meant to comment on this earlier...Did you read the second paragraph after the commissioner said Friday he was not aware of the settlement in the Haman case? Here it is...Sorry, but it sounds like it will not even go to the Commissioner for implementation until the lawyers for the city finish with it.
I guess I thought the Commissioner—equivalent to the Chief of Police—would have been involved in discussions regarding settlement proposals.

To clarify, I think the $5k settlement is quite low and the training, which was agreed to in March (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8930&d=1343165165), is apparently not even on the PD's agenda yet. So, other than maybe recouping attorney fees, there's not much to show from this lawsuit.

jph02
08-05-2012, 17:38
...The microphone that is on the police officer's body generally has to be turned on to work. Since it has also happened to me a few hundred times - it is easy to jump out of the vehicle on a hot call and worry more about your safety than activating your microphone. Often when the situation is secure and we get to talking, I remember to turn it on.
It is readily apparent, watching the video, when the officer turns the microphone on: the screen displays "MIC" at the left of the second line. These recordings are as much for the officer's protection as that of citizens.

NEOH212
08-05-2012, 17:40
when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.

It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide since they won't release the audio.

steveksux
08-05-2012, 17:47
I guess I thought the Commissioner—equivalent to the Chief of Police—would have been involved in discussions regarding settlement proposals.

To clarify, I think the $5k settlement is quite low and the training, which was agreed to in March (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8930&d=1343165165), is apparently not even on the PD's agenda yet. So, other than maybe recouping attorney fees, there's not much to show from this lawsuit.
maybe he was out to get training on this issue, rather than a big payday?

Randy

RussP
08-05-2012, 18:48
I guess I thought the Commissioner—equivalent to the Chief of Police—would have been involved in discussions regarding settlement proposals.I believe they leave the negotiations to
the attorneys, most definitely anything regarding any sort of settlement.To clarify, I think the $5k settlement is quite lowInitial amounts are generally "attention getters," especially when the real goal is effecting change. In this case, it appears the PD training was very important. and the training, which was agreed to in March (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8930&d=1343165165), is apparently not even on the PD's agenda yet.It sounds like while the agreement for the training was made earlier this year, the details and scheduling are still being worked on. Again, from the article...An attorney that has defended open carry rights cases has prepared a video presentation to be shown to all Warren police officers. The details and scheduling have not been finalized by the attorney and lawyers for the city.So, other than maybe recouping attorney fees, there's not much to show from this lawsuit.Have you followed this case on other forums? The attorney fees were covered by donations.

RussP
08-05-2012, 18:50
maybe he was out to get training on this issue, rather than a big payday?

RandyMight be...

Mister_Beefy
08-05-2012, 18:50
The video does not seem to really provide much information.

indeed.

It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide since they won't release the audio.


yes indeedy.

RussP
08-05-2012, 19:18
Folks, trolling will not be tolerated in any form, no matter how subtle you try to be.

Do not attempt to derail a thread to forward your personal agenda.

I also ask that others not respond to an off topic trolling post.

Thanks

Sharky7
08-05-2012, 19:55
It is readily apparent, watching the video, when the officer turns the microphone on: the screen displays "MIC" at the left of the second line. These recordings are as much for the officer's protection as that of citizens.

Absolutely. I agree with everything you said.

It appears the youtube poster is putting his own spin/deception on it saying that the department censored the audio. It is clear that the officer just did not turn on his microphone until the audio begins, at which time you see "MIC" on the screen.

Mister_Beefy
08-06-2012, 02:23
Absolutely. I agree with everything you said.

It appears the youtube poster is putting his own spin/deception on it saying that the department censored the audio. It is clear that the officer just did not turn on his microphone until the audio begins, at which time you see "MIC" on the screen.


so there was only one car that responded?

where's the video from the other cars?

Sharky7
08-06-2012, 04:46
so there was only one car that responded?

where's the video from the other cars?

You claimed they redacted audio and stated it as a fact. I explained to you why that isn't so and you can see it in the above video. Nothing? No response? Just moving onto your next accusation.

What do you think happened in that first 30 seconds of audio they are trying to hide? The officers talking about the fake gov moon landing or other conspiracy theories.

If there was video, they would release it FOIA. Cameras activate by officers use of emergency equipment or manual activation. Those back up officers had no reason to activate their lights if not on the street blocking traffic. Again - happens thousands of times. Back up probably parked in the parking lot, which is where i would go if i was responding. The camera is not always running 24/7 as some people think, especially on old VHS systems like the one above.

Also, not every single police car has video. We only get video for our cars with grant money. We have a lot of cameras, but we aren't anywhere close to 100% yet.

TBO
08-06-2012, 07:56
:goodpost:

redbaron007
08-06-2012, 09:48
I hope the training the department receives is beneficial and not just window dressing.

I think the comment by the officer at the end sums ups his feeling....'take your chances'. :faint:

:wavey:

red

zbusdriver
08-06-2012, 11:08
when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.this...

RussP
08-06-2012, 11:11
I hope the training the department receives is beneficial and not just window dressing.Considering the source...you did read this part of the article, right? An attorney that has defended open carry rights cases has prepared a video presentation to be shown to all Warren police officers. The details and scheduling have not been finalized by the attorney and lawyers for the city.I believe the video produced outside of the police department by someone pro-open carry will be a component of the training. Does that take it out of the "window dressing" category?

RussP
08-06-2012, 11:29
when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.this...I have tried to find the FOIA response document which would explain any "redacted" areas on the recording(s). Obviously you two have seen it since you make the allegation and agree with the voracity of the other's allegation. Could you please link to that document?

Thanks.

zbusdriver
08-06-2012, 11:29
You claimed they redacted audio and stated it as a fact. I explained to you why that isn't so and you can see it in the above video. Nothing? No response? Just moving onto your next accusation.

What do you think happened in that first 30 seconds of audio they are trying to hide? The officers talking about the fake gov moon landing or other conspiracy theories.

If there was video, they would release it FOIA. Cameras activate by officers use of emergency equipment or manual activation. Those back up officers had no reason to activate their lights if not on the street blocking traffic. Again - happens thousands of times. Back up probably parked in the parking lot, which is where i would go if i was responding. The camera is not always running 24/7 as some people think, especially on old VHS systems like the one above.

Also, not every single police car has video. We only get video for our cars with grant money. We have a lot of cameras, but we aren't anywhere close to 100% yet.Maybe, this...? Good counter point. I posted my "this..." to Mister_Beefy before I read your post. But it would be nice to know if there is more video.

zbusdriver
08-06-2012, 11:32
I have tried to find the FOIA response document which would explain any "redacted" areas on the recording(s). Obviously you two have seen it since you make the allegation and agree with the voracity of the other's allegation. Could you please link to that document?

Thanks.LOL...It was merely a question.

redbaron007
08-06-2012, 11:35
Considering the source...you did read this part of the article, right? I believe the video produced outside of the police department by someone pro-open carry will be a component of the training. Does that take it out of the "window dressing" category?

Yep, but my point should have been stated, which was not eloquently stated by myself, was I hope the department doesn't 'blow it off' and just make light of it.

I'm a little cynical about 'departmental training' due to a recent conversation with one of my LEO friends who admits they will admonish anyone, public and/or private, for OCing. After the Aurora shooting, he is completely anti-OC. According to him, their department went through some additional 'training' which supposedly included updating OC guidelines for my area. It is legal to OC where I live. However, has stated they will help an OCer understand why they shouldn't OC. :faint:

:wavey:

red

Glock_9mm
08-06-2012, 11:39
If the goal of the gentleman carrying was to get more training on open carry, then I think it was a positive for all involved.

Just thinking out loud, the responding officer said to call and let them know when he was going to open carry, I almost think that would sound worse.
Scott

Mister_Beefy
08-06-2012, 16:01
You claimed they redacted audio and stated it as a fact. I explained to you why that isn't so and you can see it in the above video. Nothing? No response? Just moving onto your next accusation.

What do you think happened in that first 30 seconds of audio they are trying to hide? The officers talking about the fake gov moon landing or other conspiracy theories.

If there was video, they would release it FOIA. Cameras activate by officers use of emergency equipment or manual activation. Those back up officers had no reason to activate their lights if not on the street blocking traffic. Again - happens thousands of times. Back up probably parked in the parking lot, which is where i would go if i was responding. The camera is not always running 24/7 as some people think, especially on old VHS systems like the one above.

Also, not every single police car has video. We only get video for our cars with grant money. We have a lot of cameras, but we aren't anywhere close to 100% yet.


I did not make the claim, I repeated the claim made by the man envolved in the lawsuit. look at the annotation at :48 seconds.

so officers responding to MWAG calls from dispatch don't run with their lights on, and therefore their cameras are off?

is that just not a high enough priority call to require haste?

and there are never cases when departments have edited or withheld embarrassing dashcam videos?

nor have they ever made anti open carry statements or behaved in a hostile manner towards open carriers?

nor have departments ever cut corners to avoid embarrassment?

hey, what you said may be true. it just seems fishy to me. if the officers did everything right, why settle?

RussP
08-06-2012, 16:18
...it just seems fishy to me. if the officers did everything right, why settle?As has been said here in Carry Issues and other GT forums, it is very much less expensive to settle for $5,000, $10,000, even $15,000 than go through a court trial. It can be that simple.

While you may focus on promoting and sensationalizing wrongdoings by law enforcement, others want to correct the issues dividing law enforcement and those who carry. This appears one of the latter cases.

RussP
08-06-2012, 16:51
Let's see if I can help you and others. First you made a clear statement not ascribed to any other person...when the police selectively release dashcam video and redact portions of the audio of what they do release, you can be certain they were up to no good.You claimed they redacted audio and stated it as a fact.I did not make the claim, I repeated the claim made by the man envolved in the lawsuit. look at the annotation at :48 seconds.When that statement is addressed, you deny that it is yours.

Perhaps, in the future, you and others could state you are quoting another source, place what you're quoting in "quotation marks", or link a url to your quote.

This way we can avoid these misunderstandings.

Bruce M
08-06-2012, 17:30
...
so officers responding to MWAG calls from dispatch don't run with their lights on, and therefore their cameras are off?

is that just not a high enough priority call to require haste?

...

Some departments have a policy and some officers have learned independently than when approaching a potential crime turning the emergency equipment off sometimes increases the chances of intercepting a suspect.

TBO
09-14-2014, 23:35
Reference "missing audio" at the start of this (or any LE dashcam type video), there's a very reasonable explanation possible.

Many systems have a feature called "pre-event recording" (or something similar).

A basic description of how this can work is the video system is recording all the time (not the audio, just the video) and records over previous footage in a loop, at a lower quality than the "live/intentional" recordings.
The reason for this feature is when an Officer sees something (such as a car blast through a stop sign in front of them) they hit the record button and the recording starts prior to hitting the button (reaching back 30 seconds thanks to the "pre-event" feature.
As said, there's no audio in the pre-event, but when it catches up to the part where the Cop hit record (or if set to the red lights/siren activation) the audio is live & synced with the video.
Some systems allow the pre-recording to go as far back as 2 minutes, but 30 seconds is probably the standard for the majority of systems that have pre-event features.

FYI