Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[Caleb]

Isn't Evansville's claim that you were committing a criminal act (disorderly conduct) and not that they were enforcing an unlawful ordinance?

If so then how would a CoA ruling be a default victory in your lawsuit? It would seem more that as long as a city continued to have the unlawful ordinance on the books then any and every citizen could file a lawsuit until such ordinance was repealed.

It would seem that Guy is going after the easier of the two cases to win (clear violation of state law in enforcing an unlawful ordinance) but the city's stance isn't that they were enforcing an ordinance, nor were they there to enforce an ordinance, but that you were engaging in criminal conduct which in their discretion (as allowed by law) they elected not to arrest you and just escorted you from the property.

The city claims that because Ben knows the the law and won't bow to the city

 

[thebishopp]

The city claims that because Ben knows the the law and won't bow to the city

It's their attempt to go around the state law. If they can prove Ben was acting criminally (disorderly conduct) then they can say their actions had nothing to do with an unlawful ordinance.

Having the CoA rule that cities must proactively remove these unlawful ordinances has nothing to do with that which is why I am puzzled how it would be a default win.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It seems to me that the city is relying upon the old "the word of an leo is better than the word of citizen joe" standard that I've spoken of here several times. As long as the officers stick to their story and perjure themselves completely, circle the wagons, and no one can prove different....they win?

 

[thebishopp]

It seems to me that the city is relying upon the old "the word of an leo is better than the word of citizen joe" standard that I've spoken of here several times. As long as the officers stick to their story and perjure themselves completely, circle the wagons, and no one can prove different....they win?

Their whole defense (based on the articles) is that Ben was committing a criminal action (disorderly conduct).

If Ben has any unbiased witnesses who can state what occurred and it does not indicate that Ben was engaging in criminal conduct then I would say the city is likely to lose.

 

[Stschil]

It's their attempt to go around the state law. If they can prove Ben was acting criminally (disorderly conduct) then they can say their actions had nothing to do with an unlawful ordinance.

Having the CoA rule that cities must proactively remove these unlawful ordinances has nothing to do with that which is why I am puzzled how it would be a default win.

It seems to me that the city is relying upon the old "the word of an leo is better than the word of citizen joe" standard that I've spoken of here several times. As long as the officers stick to their story and perjure themselves completely, circle the wagons, and no one can prove different....they win?

It seems to me that (now follow me here) according to the City, we have an ARMED PERSON who became such a danger to himself and those around him that he HAD TO BE REMOVED from the property. I am assuming this is the City's stance correctly?
So now, EPD says this to cover their actions as NOT attempting to enforce a now moot City ordinance, but their story does not go far enough. IF TF was so disruptive, so dangerous, and so disorderly, why was he allowed by the multitude of responding officers to leave freely, no arrest and WITH his sidearm ???

Their story doesn't hold water and they know it.

 

[Mark 1911]

I'll just leave this here.

Court of Appeals decision could have impact on local case involving armed zoo patron » Evansville Courier & Press

I noticed that no one was called a time bomb this time...

Do you know where I can find more information on the Hammond case? I live right next door to Hammond and both ends of my daily work commute take me through Hammond.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Do you know where I can find more information on the Hammond case? I live right next door to Hammond and both ends of my daily work commute take me through Hammond.

Just do a quick search on INGO and you will get very edumacted on that case.

 

[Jakob]

As much as I am happy for this man if he wins the settlement, it won't matter at all for the city of Evansville. Tax dollars will fund that settlement. Those officers (if any repercussions are made) will probably be put on a 1 day suspension to "set an example" that the city did something. We win our rights but we will still "pay" for having them violated.

 

[Mark 1911]

Just do a quick search on INGO and you will get very edumacted on that case.

Maybe I'm searching using the wrong key words, but so far I haven't found any information on the Hammond case (either on INGO or on Google) other than the reference to it in the article about the Evansville case.

 

[ATM]

Maybe I'm searching using the wrong key words, but so far I haven't found any information on the Hammond case (either on INGO or on Google) other than the reference to it in the article about the Evansville case.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...se/165392-hammond_is_looking_for_trouble.html

 

[hooky]

I didn't think Ben was arrested for disorderly conduct.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I have never been arrested for anything. I have no police record- though you would never get that feeling from reading Evansville newspapers...

 

[youngda9]

As much as I am happy for this man if he wins the settlement, it won't matter at all for the city of Evansville. Tax dollars will fund that settlement. Those officers (if any repercussions are made) will probably be put on a 1 day suspension to "set an example" that the city did something. We win our rights but we will still "pay" for having them violated.

A small price to pay to prevent further violation of 2A rights in the future, wouldn't you agree

Do you have a more productive/effective way to make changes to both the police procedure/law enforcement and elected representatives (repeal laws that are illegal per State laws to avoid further lawsuits/embarrasment) in Evansville ??? If so we'd love to hear it.

 

[hooky]

I have never been arrested for anything. I have no police record- though you would never get that feeling from reading Evansville newspapers...

Apparently some posters think they'll come back after the fact and do it if the Hammond case isn't upheld.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Apparently some posters think they'll come back after the fact and do it if the Hammond case isn't upheld.

The ignorance is pretty thick in the comments section.

The only thing that would happen if Guy looses Hammond is that we have the same trial we were going to have in January with me as the plaintiff and the City and Parks department as defendents. It is a TWO part lawsuit: 1. The illegal ordinance that was on the books on Sept 10, 2011 and was subsequently repealed in October 2011 and 2. The enforcement of removing me from the property.

Hammond will solve #1. If the CoA overturns the trial judge's decision we win on the grounds that I was subject to an illegal ordinance in violation of SEA292.

Guy used to have a link up for the whole lawsuit and all of its parts that would solve a lot of this confusion if people read it. I don't think he put it on his new website though.

 

[thebishopp]

It seems to me that (now follow me here) according to the City, we have an ARMED PERSON who became such a danger to himself and those around him that he HAD TO BE REMOVED from the property. I am assuming this is the City's stance correctly?
So now, EPD says this to cover their actions as NOT attempting to enforce a now moot City ordinance, but their story does not go far enough. IF TF was so disruptive, so dangerous, and so disorderly, why was he allowed by the multitude of responding officers to leave freely, no arrest and WITH his sidearm ???

Their story doesn't hold water and they know it.

Why wasn't he arrested? Well technically, unless they have done away with it here in Indiana, an officer generally has discretion to arrest involving infractions and misdemeanor violations (committed in his presence of course).

Keep in mind, based on the articles, the claim isn't that he was "disorderly" because he was openly carrying nor was it the fact the he was legally armed which prompted them to remove him from the property. It was because he became "disorderly" and in order for the police to take official actions such "disorderly" conduct must meet the standards listed under the Indiana Code for that charge.

Yes I believe it is an after the fact attempt to CYA.

 

[thebishopp]

A small price to pay to prevent further violation of 2A rights in the future, wouldn't you agree

Do you have a more productive/effective way to make changes to both the police procedure/law enforcement and elected representatives (repeal laws that are illegal per State laws to avoid further lawsuits/embarrasment) in Evansville ??? If so we'd love to hear it.

Until / unless there are personal repercussions for these violations they will continue to be made.

Quickest way to make someone give a damn is to make them personally liable. Then all of a sudden it's a concern.

"What, I'd be held personally liable?" I'd be willing to bet you'd see a remarkable decline in the "just following orders" crowd as well.

 

[actaeon277]

I think the cities position is that, because TF refused to leave, it was disorderly conduct. The act of not leaving was the crime.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think the cities position is that, because TF refused to leave, it was disorderly conduct. The act of not leaving was the crime.

Cannot just tell one person to leave a public place for any reason though. If you want one to leave they would have to make all leave. They had no reason to ask him to leave other than he pissed in their Wheaties when he said he would not conceal it.

 

[actaeon277]

Cannot just tell one person to leave a public place for any reason though. If you want one to leave they would have to make all leave. They had no reason to ask him to leave other than he pissed in their Wheaties when he said he would not conceal it.

I agree. I wasn't stating my position.