Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2199548" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Tell me: are you willing to give up your qualified immunity? Are you willing to <em>personally</em> 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 <em>except</em> 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?</p><p></p><p>Here's something else to consider:</p><p></p><p>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. <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905" target="_blank">Kidnapping has more elements</a>.)</p><p></p><p>If I, as a private citizen, had done this, I'd be strung up on felony charges. <em>IF</em>--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?</p><p></p><p>Would it be enough for you, if you were the victim?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2199548, member: 13624"] 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 [I]personally[/I] 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 [I]except[/I] 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. [URL="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905"]Kidnapping has more elements[/URL].) If I, as a private citizen, had done this, I'd be strung up on felony charges. [I]IF[/I]--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? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom