Man sues over arrest for open carry

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by Ranger-6, May 4, 2012.

  1. Ranger-6

    Ranger-6 New Member

    804
    0
    0
    SUGAR HILL, Ga.May 4 2012 — Private security guard, cops faulted. Gun carrier says his rights were violated in Sugar Hill.

    A Forsyth County man is suing two police officers and a private security guard for arresting and jailing him for wearing a holstered gun while he exercised at Sugar Hill’s Gary Pirkle Park.

    According to a federal lawsuit, private security Officer Reid Hanna told Christopher Proescher that Sugar Hill city ordinance prohibited firearms in public parks.

    And Proescher told Hanna he was wrong. Proescher said in an interview Wednesday he had checked with the city a year ago concerning Georgia’s law that allows gun owners with permits to carry their weapons in parks.

    Proescher, who had a permit to carry a gun, said in the suit filed last week that he was exercising his constitutional rights when he put on his athletic shoes and strapped on a Smith and Wesson M&P about noon April 20 for a regular trip to the walking path three miles from his house.

    “I’m an open carry advocate,” said Proescher, who works in a Cumming gun shop. “I believe [openly carried guns] will never become accepted unless people do it.”

    http://privateofficernews.wordpress...arrest-for-open-carry-www-privateofficer-com/
     
  2. Chubbyhawaiian

    Chubbyhawaiian New Member

    39
    0
    0
    The defendant sounds like a tool. Why would you give responding leo's a hard time and show disrepect for authority. I bet if he cooperated he wouldnt have spent the night in jail.
     

  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    Honestly after reading the full story i would have arrested him as he was providing suspicous evidence. Being abusive to police while armed is generally not a good tactic.

    Looks like a dirtbag trolling for exactly what happened in order to get a lawsuit going.
     
  4. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Here we go again. The guy isn't doing anything illegal but he is forced to explain himself just because he's carrying. What is even sadder, is we have pro 2a members upset with him because he told them to go piss up a rope. If he had been exercising unarmed would the security guard have bothered with him? Why do you guys think it is OK for people to be hassled when they aren't doing anything wrong? The only time police stop me when I'm driving is when I'm doing something wrong. They don't just pull me over because I'm driving. "OMG that guys got a car we better stop him, or OMG that guys got a baseball bat we better stop him." What is the flippin difference?
     
  5. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    the only issue i see is, is the park public or a private park available to the public? why is a private security guard patrolling a public park? he checked into the fact that he was legal to carry in a public park, okay, that seems good, but if the park is private property available to the public and being patrolled by private security, then they do have the right to restrict carry. but if the park he was in was a public park, then why is a private security guard patrolling it in the first place? another thing is, he did seem a little evasive in the regards to his birthdate. seems like some of the facts are not being told or have been deleted.
     
  6. treehugger49

    treehugger49 New Member

    421
    0
    0
    Some people, I guess, turn into "tools" when they are bullied by other tools acting on erroneous information. For a "rent-a-cop" to threaten throwing him out of the park for no legal reason escalated the situation to the point where it sounds like both sides violated common courtesy.

    The law changed a couple of legislative sessions ago that now bars local governments from enacting any restriction more prohibitive than state law. Firearms are legal in parks throughout the state.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2012
  7. Chubbyhawaiian

    Chubbyhawaiian New Member

    39
    0
    0
    Maybe we should just get rid of all those pesky police so you can put your life in danger every time a problem comes up. The fact that the guy wants to play games and can't verify his birthday on his permit leads me to think it would be a fake one or he can't responsibly carry a lethal weapon if he thinks its a game. Wether he's in his legal right or not to be carrying, obviously he's not mature enough to carry. I would understand him thinking its funny to give a rent a cop a hard time, but when leo's have to get involved why waste their time and escalate it? If he's not a criminal then why act like one?
     
  8. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    It's actually quite simple. The burden is on the government to know the law and to properly enforce it. It's not the burden of the citizen to look innocent or necessarily be pleasant about being wrongfully detained. Much like the first amendment, free exercise of freedoms by others may annoy me or I might feel that they are silly in the way they do it. However, it's not my call, nor is it the call of random badge carriers to infringe on those rights if exercised lawfully. A man has every right to open carry in jurisdictions that allow it. Whether you or I agree isn't really the point. Whether he flunked the "attitude test" shouldn't really matter on points of constitutional law. The LEO's (or Security guard's) feelings are not covered in the bill of rights, IIRC.
    The point is, those responsible for enforcing the law have know what is legal and they have get away from the "I don't don't like it, so you must be disturbing the peace" mindset.
     
  9. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Why was he stopped in the first place? That's my problem with the whole thing. The answer is, he was stopped solely on the basis that he was carrying a gun. That is not illegal so why bother the guy at all? That's the point, the point isn't who was a tool or not. Why hassle someone who isn't breaking the law? Permits be damned, the second amendment is your permit.
     
  10. kycol

    kycol New Member

    1,506
    1
    0
    I already know the ire that my post will draw, but I'm going to post any. I am not however going to be drawn into arguing or defending my view this time.

    As axe pointed out perhaps we do not have all the details, but having a private security it would seem that it may have been a private park. If it was then the owners certainly have the right to set the rules the same as any property owner. We all have rights but my rights stop were they infringe on yours. I have my right to carry my weapons all the way to your home, but I have no right to enter your home with them without your permission.

    Now if in fact this was a public park and you are fully within your rights to carry yes the guard was in the wrong. That being said his arguing with said guard and the police officers did nothing for him but land him in jail. And other people viewing the incident is more than likely viewing the gun owner in a bad light. However if he complied with the order to leave he could have still filed his lawsuits and fought for his rights. And by winning his lawsuits I am sure the same mistake would not happen again at that park.

    Again I would love for gun owners to appear as intelligent, law abiding group. That is how we can gain the support we need. Like it or not each state can change the laws that affect gun ownership in many ways. There are people and groups that we cannot win over because their minds are already made up. And when we they are able show us in a bad light furthers their agenda. Our freedom of speech just took a large step in the wrong direction, mainly made possible by the actions of the occupy movement doing things the wrong way.

    Do I think that government oversteps their boundaries hell yes I do. Federal, state, and local, but the law is the law. We do need to be working to change those laws. We need to gain support to help change those laws, but we must obey those laws until they are changed. We are not going to get that support by acting like an a hole.

    In other threads I see people comparing to nazi Germany. Remember how Hitler gained so much power is he picked out a group of people and falsely made the the enemy. Then he united the remainder of the people against this false enemy.
     
  11. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    I'm not an advocate of open carry. I find it unnecessary and tactically unsound, however, I'm all for advocates sueing for false arrest.

    Tack
     
  12. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    thing is there is a subsection of concealed/open carry folks that actively provoke police in order to get arrested and sue the city or county for reperations.

    i rank that sort of mindset right down there with using your vehicle to provoke people into a collision then suing the other guys insurance company.

    just because a person owns a gun doesnt mean they are always right by default.
     
  13. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    the police actually have a duty to determine if a gun bearing person is an honest citizen or a nut job about to commit mass murder.

    we have enough incidents of spree killing to make interrogating an individual carrying a firearm openly a desirable thing to occur. so when a guy like the idiot in the story gives evasive answers and being combative i dont really have an issue with police arresting him to find out the truth.
     
  14. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Well Jon when they start interrogating you for other things that you are doing legally I guess you won't mind that either. Does this same duty apply to everything else. Hell a fellow could drive his car onto a play ground and wipe out half a school but I don't see cops checking everyone in a car. It's not OK to harass people on what they might do.
     
  15. tCan

    tCan Active Member

    1,174
    0
    36
    The police officer escalated the situation. Not the man.

    I have no problem with police officers conducting investigations in a legal and proper manner. The second their activities go extralegal, I lose all respect. I've had my civil rights liberties violated by officers on more than one occasion and let me tell you, it's not a good feeling, even if it's only minor. Try and put yourself in this man's shoes before you go around making quippy remarks.
     
  16. DodgerBlue

    DodgerBlue New Member

    763
    0
    0
    rjd, you make some good strong arguments. Thanks for being able to be pro gun, pro 2nd amendment, pro carry even open, and still being able to know right from wrong when cops are involved.

    Some assume just because we are law abiding citizens we have to just agree with what today's police do and like it.

    Thumbs up on your postings brother.
     
  17. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0
    I'm not a big fan of open carry in public personally. I don't think it has helped the cause the way some think it has. But legal is legal. That said, being a jerk is still being a jerk. I don't see how it was impossible for this guy to just explain the situation with the LEO's (apparently the rentacop was ill-informed) and go home. Assuming the LEO reports are correct, I don't blame them for getting irritated. Was the guy doing anything wrong? No but fighting stupidity or ignorance with a healthy does of attitude rarely works, especially with cops. You can sit in your car in an empty parking lot and if you wait there long enough you'll have a conversation with a police officer. How that conversation goes can determine whether you go home or to jail. Just sayin.
     
  18. Chubbyhawaiian

    Chubbyhawaiian New Member

    39
    0
    0
    There's two sides to every story. Your right, i'm sure these officers were just driving around looking for situations they could escalate. I'm sure they wake up every morning thinking "how can I violate tCan today". What part of that news story led you to believe the responding leo's escalated it?
     
  19. treehugger49

    treehugger49 New Member

    421
    0
    0
    In Georgia, a leo cannot just stop someone carrying either openly or concealed just to satisfy his curiosity as to the citizen's honesty, and exactly how does one pick out a "nut job about to commit mass murder"? He must have articulable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime.

    In this case, (a) the above standard was not met, and (b) the man was not in violation of any law.

    I hope he wins.
     
  20. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    from what i read, the LEO were called by the rent-a-cop for a disturbance. if so, then they were within their rights to ask for ID and determine the situation. like i asked, is the park private property available for use by the public, or city or county public park? because, depending on which it is, makes all the difference in the legality of his being able to carry there. another question i asked, that i have concern with, if it's public park, then what is a private company security guard doing patrolling it? wouldn't that come under the jurisdiction of the police department or the sheriffs department? so if a private security guard is patrolling, then i am thinking possibly it's private property available to the public and the man overstepped his rights when the security guard asked him to leave and then escalated his problems when the LEO were called responding to a disturbance. then acted evasive and belligerent, further escalating his situation into being arrested for his actions. if this is the way it happened, then i have no sympathy for him, and IMO is a poor example for defence of our 2nd admendment rights. if the security guard and the LEO overstepped their legal bounderies and abused his rights, then i hope he wins his lawsuit and sets a precedent for others who carry firearms.