Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit

[NikatKimber]

Correct on both counts. In case you're wondering, I consider myself a citizen first and a .gov employee/LEO second. I agree that this guy was within his rights and the officers were wrong. Just not, you know, $3.6M wrong.

I wouldn't say they weren't $3.6M wrong, I'd say that any pure dollar amount is the wrong penalty.

 

[Glocktogo]

I wouldn't say they weren't $3.6M wrong, I'd say that any pure dollar amount is the wrong penalty.

Agreed.

 

[Dave70968]

I'm glad my memory doesn't fail me. I ask because you seem to object to the citizenry being asked to suffer for a government agent's mistake. I have no problem with putting the blame--and the punishment--on the bad actor instead of the citizens.

Tell me: are you willing to give up your qualified immunity? Are you willing to personally pay any judgments rendered (without recourse to bankruptcy, as intentional torts generally aren't subject to discharge in bankruptcy) for any mistake you make? Personally, I think it's a great idea. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, nearly every profession except government makes individual actors personally responsible for their malfeasance. As a result, they carry appropriate insurance (malpractice, errors & omissions, etc.), and they behave carefully. Would you be willing to be held personally responsible for your conduct (and do the same to all of your fellow officers), including potential negligence for honest mistakes, in exchange for letting the taxpayers off the hook?

Here's something else to consider:

2905.02 Abduction.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) By force or threat, remove another from the place where the other person is found;

(2) By force or threat, restrain the liberty of another person under circumstances that create a risk of physical harm to the victim or place the other person in fear;

(3) Hold another in a condition of involuntary servitude.

(B) No person, with a sexual motivation, shall violate division (A) of this section.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abduction. A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section or a violation of division (B) of this section involving conduct of the type described in division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of the third degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section or a violation of division (B) of this section involving conduct of the type described in division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the second degree. If the offender in any case also is convicted of or pleads guilty to a specification as described in section 2941.1422 of the Revised Code that was included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense, the court shall sentence the offender to a mandatory prison term as provided in division (B)(7) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code and shall order the offender to make restitution as provided in division (B)(8) of section 2929.18 of the Revised Code.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, if the officers were not acting pursuant to law in detaining the man, then they wouldn't (or shouldn't) be privileged; their permission to use force only goes as far as their grant of authority. Seems to me they're potentially on the hook for a 3rd degree felony if they were acting out-of-scope. (Note to readers: this isn't kidnapping, at least not as defined by Ohio law. Kidnapping has more elements.)

If I, as a private citizen, had done this, I'd be strung up on felony charges. IF--and I'm not saying they did, but bear with me--if the officers did exceed the scope of their authority, would you really believe $3.60 would be adequate compensation for abduction, since he was only abducted for a few minutes?

Would it be enough for you, if you were the victim?

 

[doctorjj]

So let's ask the guy if he'd be willing to drop the $3.6M down to actual damages, if the mayor and chief resign. I'd lay odds that he wouldn't.

I'd want them both to resign and the officers involved to be fired and/or brought up on charges.
Then I might consider dropping the charges.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm glad my memory doesn't fail me. I ask because you seem to object to the citizenry being asked to suffer for a government agent's mistake. I have no problem with putting the blame--and the punishment--on the bad actor instead of the citizens.

Tell me: are you willing to give up your qualified immunity? Are you willing to personally pay any judgments rendered (without recourse to bankruptcy, as intentional torts generally aren't subject to discharge in bankruptcy) for any mistake you make? Personally, I think it's a great idea. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, nearly every profession except government makes individual actors personally responsible for their malfeasance. As a result, they carry appropriate insurance (malpractice, errors & omissions, etc.), and they behave carefully. Would you be willing to be held personally responsible for your conduct (and do the same to all of your fellow officers), including potential negligence for honest mistakes, in exchange for letting the taxpayers off the hook?

Here's something else to consider:

Now, if the officers were not acting pursuant to law in detaining the man, then they wouldn't (or shouldn't) be privileged; their permission to use force only goes as far as their grant of authority. Seems to me they're potentially on the hook for a 3rd degree felony if they were acting out-of-scope. (Note to readers: this isn't kidnapping, at least not as defined by Ohio law. Kidnapping has more elements.)

If I, as a private citizen, had done this, I'd be strung up on felony charges. IF--and I'm not saying they did, but bear with me--if the officers did exceed the scope of their authority, would you really believe $3.60 would be adequate compensation for abduction, since he was only abducted for a few minutes?

Would it be enough for you, if you were the victim?

Funny you should mention that, considering I just posted about this subject in the gun confiscation thread (post #56) https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?175478-Firearm-Confiscation-In-Moore/page4

I think QI is at times, overly relied upon to cover any act a government agent might do under color of law. It is important to have, as non-intentional mistakes do get made. Without it, you'd have a hell of a time getting qualified applicants to do the job. All the professions you listed make significantly higher salaries that afford them quality malpractice insurance. Agencies can get policies like you mentioned, but a regular patrol officer could never afford it. It would also open them up to an untold number of harassment torts. While most clients of doctors, etc., come away satisfied, nearly every guest at the graybar hotel is a dissatisfied customer.

If it were me, I'd be satisfied with the aforementioned non-monetary peace offerings. However, I'm also the guy that has a nasty slip & fall on commercial property, jumps up to see if anyone caught me being ungraceful, then limps away to go pop some ibuprofen rather than calling a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't wish financial ruin on an officer and his family to the tune of $3.6M, even if he was a complete a$$.

That's just not how I roll.

 

[Billybob]

Aren't public officials/employees under bond or insurance?

 

[twoguns?]

Aren't public officials/employees under bond or insurance?

Yes, as a city employee, were covered by insurance, But it still comes from taxpayer dollars....as in The City budget....

 

[Billybob]

Yes, as a city employee, were covered by insurance, But it still comes from taxpayer dollars....as in The City budget....

Which is more the premiums or the payouts?
A recent DHS settlement although smaller than most was paid by insurance and I've seen where others were also.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southcentral/2012/10/29/216364.htm

As for bonding if the County Commissioners in the Rogers Co. case were bonded as it appears they may be if their bond was claimed would they be bondable again? Wouldn't that possibly eliminate the "qualified people" that in some cases keep the taxpayers paying off their multiple mistakes like the 4 DHS workers involved in the 3 high profile child death cases,(briggs, Johnson, Deal)?

 

[NikatKimber]

Funny you should mention that, considering I just posted about this subject in the gun confiscation thread (post #56) https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?175478-Firearm-Confiscation-In-Moore/page4

I think QI is at times, overly relied upon to cover any act a government agent might do under color of law. It is important to have, as non-intentional mistakes do get made. Without it, you'd have a hell of a time getting qualified applicants to do the job. All the professions you listed make significantly higher salaries that afford them quality malpractice insurance. Agencies can get policies like you mentioned, but a regular patrol officer could never afford it. It would also open them up to an untold number of harassment torts. While most clients of doctors, etc., come away satisfied, nearly every guest at the graybar hotel is a dissatisfied customer.

If it were me, I'd be satisfied with the aforementioned non-monetary peace offerings. However, I'm also the guy that has a nasty slip & fall on commercial property, jumps up to see if anyone caught me being ungraceful, then limps away to go pop some ibuprofen rather than calling a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't wish financial ruin on an officer and his family to the tune of $3.6M, even if he was a complete a$$.

That's just not how I roll.

I agree with the bolded part.

The bold red part is where I disagree. They weren't being "a complete ass;" they were breaking the law.

Still don't think financial ruin for them is going to do anything other than never working in LE again, and going bankrupt. That's where I agree with you that the penalty should be done in such a way that the agency (and others like them) will do the training and prep to avoid such a situation in the future. Criminal charges might be one thing to pursue.

I would imagine any department of significant size has someone (or group) in charge of training. I would say that those people would be at some level of fault also.

 

[Glocktogo]

I agree with the bolded part.

The bold red part is where I disagree. They weren't being "a complete ass;" they were breaking the law.

Still don't think financial ruin for them is going to do anything other than never working in LE again, and going bankrupt. That's where I agree with you that the penalty should be done in such a way that the agency (and others like them) will do the training and prep to avoid such a situation in the future. Criminal charges might be one thing to pursue.

I would imagine any department of significant size has someone (or group) in charge of training. I would say that those people would be at some level of fault also.

I understand, but we all break the law. The real question is whether it was willful and intentional. Did the officer know it was legal and harass the citizen anyway? Does the agency understand the law, and is that effectively communicated to the officers? If the answer is yes to both questions, the officer needs his state certification revoked (no cert, no LE job). If the answers are no, then focus on the training.