4th LEO encounter!

[grumpycoconut]

imported post

SNIP suntzu wrote:

sue them---sue them for everything they have....

Sue us --- sue us for everything we have. I hope you realize that sueing "them" is in reality suing those of us who just happen to pay taxes here. its a rare lawsuit that results in punitive damages against the officer where the agency can't/won't/doesn't pick up the tab in the end. Even in those cases the government (an extension of us) ends up spending zillions of dollars (our tax dollars) on a defense effort. Kind of cool if you happen to be a 0 government type ultra libertarian, but those of us in the real world kind of like it when our tax money is spent patching pot holes, keeping the library open and keeping a goodly stock of JBTs on tap. All that money may only be an abstraction printed on paper but that abstraction pays for a lot of stuff we have kind of gotten used to.

So ok, Sue em for all they're worth. Just don't bitch the next time you blow a tire and ding a rim because the potholes aint filled.

Besides all that, do you honestly believe that cop will ever make that mistake again or that he will let his partners make that mistake again. That Sergeant sure won't let it happen and the guys on the oncoming day shifts will hear about it and the the story will spread and some guy 2 counties away will remember that there was something he really needed to remember the next time he runs into an open carrier. If we all do things right he'll remember that he needs to double check the law before he makes any major commitment and won't remember that open carriers were listed on that terrorist bulletin as a bunch of gun toting, govt hating, law suit happywingnuts.

Teach a man to make fire and he'llbe warm when ever he needs to be. Light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[nick1]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote

Sue us --- sue us for everything we have. I hope you realize that sueing "them" is in reality suing those of us who just happen to pay taxes here. its a rare lawsuit that results in punitive damages against the officer where the agency can't/won't/doesn't pick up the tab in the end. Even in those cases the government (an extension of us) ends up spending zillions of dollars (our tax dollars) on a defense effort. Kind of cool if you happen to be a 0 government type ultra libertarian, but those of us in the real world kind of like it when our tax money is spent patching pot holes, keeping the library open and keeping a goodly stock of JBTs on tap. All that money may only be an abstraction printed on paper but that abstraction pays for a lot of stuff we have kind of gotten used to.

So ok, Sue em for all they're worth. Just don't bitch the next time you blow a tire and ding a rim because the potholes aint filled.

Besides all that, do you honestly believe that cop will ever make that mistake again or that he will let his partners make that mistake again. That Sergeant sure won't let it happen and the guys on the oncoming day shifts will hear about it and the the story will spread and some guy 2 counties away will remember that there was something he really needed to remember the next time he runs into an open carrier. If we all do things right he'll remember that he needs to double check the law before he makes any major commitment and won't remember that open carriers were listed on that terrorist bulletin as a bunch of gun toting, govt hating, law suit happywingnuts.

Teach a man to make fire and he'llbe warm when ever he needs to be. Light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Now this is an interesting one. So, the government shouldn't be sued when it violates your rights or does something else a regular person goes to jail for because this'll be paid for by the taxpayer money? Interesting concept.

Besides, the government wastes much more money on useless programs than on civil rights lawsuits. The difference is that the money specific civil rights lawsuits come from specific budgets, usually those of the offending agencies. Even if it's their legal insurance that pays for it, if they're sued often, the legal insurance in question becomes expensive. At which point they're faced with a dilemma - should they continue what they were sued for unaltered, or change it. Better yet, they may be put on notice, like LAPD was for corruption, and much stricter scrutiny would be applied to their actions. Not a bad thing in my book.

The other question is, which story will spread? Will it be "don't bother open carriers unnecessarily" or "bother to do some simple check before ruining someone's life just because you feel angry today", or will it be "had this encounter, got away with it"? There's a clear message sent with a lawsuit though - "if you don't think twice before ruining someone's life and screw up, you'll be in a lot of trouble" and "those money-grubbing open carrier bastards know their law, they're more trouble than it's worth; better harass someone else". Oh and "cover your butt", which may not be a bad message to send, either. Butt covering might involve, oh, following the law. A novel concept, I know

To paraphrase your saying so that, in my opinion, it applies better here, teach a man fire safety, and maybe (and it's a big maybe) he won't do something stupid involving fire. Let him light himself on fire, and he becomes a perfect (and persuasive) example to others of what not to do.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

A suit will have to name the officers and their superiors as individuals as well as the department and city. The odds are very high that the department, city and superiors will be released from liability before the case goes to trial unless it can be shown that the officers violation of your rights is a direct result of ongoing policies (see Lund v Salt Lake City[sup]1[/sup] for an example). This will leave the individual officers' (and their insurance companies) liable for any damages.

1. http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Lund-v-Salt_Lake_City-2008-12-04.pdf


Edit: grammar

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Sue us --- sue us for everything we have. I hope you realize that sueing "them" is in reality suing those of us who just happen to pay taxes here. its a rare lawsuit that results in punitive damages against the officer where the agency can't/won't/doesn't pick up the tab in the end. Even in those cases the government (an extension of us) ends up spending zillions of dollars (our tax dollars) on a defense effort. Kind of cool if you happen to be a 0 government type ultra libertarian, but those of us in the real world kind of like it when our tax money is spent patching pot holes, keeping the library open and keeping a goodly stock of JBTs on tap. All that money may only be an abstraction printed on paper but that abstraction pays for a lot of stuff we have kind of gotten used to.

So ok, Sue em for all they're worth. Just don't bitch the next time you blow a tire and ding a rim because the potholes aint filled.

Logically, the People are responsible for the actions of their public servants. We need them pot holes to remind them that the People own this state and this country... not the government. If the People are too apathetic to stop corruption and abuse, then they deserve all the pot holes they can afford.

Besides all that, do you honestly believe that cop will ever make that mistake again or that he will let his partners make that mistake again. That Sergeant sure won't let it happen and the guys on the oncoming day shifts will hear about it and the the story will spread and some guy 2 counties away will remember that there was something he really needed to remember the next time he runs into an open carrier. If we all do things right he'll remember that he needs to double check the law before he makes any major commitment and won't remember that open carriers were listed on that terrorist bulletin as a bunch of gun toting, govt hating, law suit happywingnuts.

I do believe their memory of "that close call where we could have been sued" will be short lived. However, the memory of "Officer Whats-his-face who lost his job and his house because he abused his authority" would endure much longer.

It's not just LE, it's human nature. Bad behavior will continue so long as it goes unpunished.

Normally I value a sincere apology, and believe in second chances. However, if it was Demnigos that was mistaken, he would (with 99% certainty) be in jail right now - no apologies accepted. I think it is fair to hold our public servants to AT LEAST the same standard we are: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If we don't stand up and shout "Don't Tread On Me!" we're gonna keep getting stepped on.

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Sue us --- sue us for everything we have. I hope you realize that sueing "them" is in reality suing those of us who just happen to pay taxes here. its a rare lawsuit that results in punitive damages against the officer where the agency can't/won't/doesn't pick up the tab in the end. Even in those cases the government (an extension of us) ends up spending zillions of dollars (our tax dollars) on a defense effort. Kind of cool if you happen to be a 0 government type ultra libertarian, but those of us in the real world kind of like it when our tax money is spent patching pot holes, keeping the library open and keeping a goodly stock of JBTs on tap. All that money may only be an abstraction printed on paper but that abstraction pays for a lot of stuff we have kind of gotten used to.

The grumpy coconut does have a point. I am of the opinion at this point that suing a department should be done only when they continue to violate the law when they should have known better (i.e. have been informed of open carrying or have come across an open carrier before). The El Cajon department comes to mind as a contender for a lawsuit after giaking was arrested and then unarrested and then recently pullnshoot25 was detained. They clearly haven't made strides to educate their department and we should move on to plan B. Milpitas sounds like their officer Tran might singlehandedly be deserving of some special attention too.

In other cases such as the pending (I'm assuming this case is still pending) CA_Libertarian case, the cops were unaware of open carry law but they also blatantly lied and conducted unlawful searches. I'm definitely for punishing the officers involved there as well.

In this case though this department might have never heard of open carrying and they seemed to be acting in good faith. The only part of the story I have a problem with is where they told him not to holster up where he was, but really that is pocket change in a situation that turned out quite well. If a month from now we hear about this same department arresting another lawful open carrier, then let the lawsuits fly, but I don't think they would do much good at this point in the game.

 

[nick1]

imported post

They have heard of open carry. They said so. The issue they had was with Demnogis' loaded mags. That, and arresting him before they verified if there was, in fact, anything to arrest him for.

Also, as was posted on Calguns, People vs. Clark was a part of POST for some time now.

No matter how you twist it, the officer did thoughtlessly abuse the power given to him. Normally we call it a crime. WHy aren't we calling it such here?

Also, how many second chances would Demnogis get? Just trying to keep things in perspective.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

In this case though this department might have never heard of open carrying and they seemed to be acting in good faith.

How do you figure they may have been unaware (even though ignorance of the law is no excuse) or that they were acting in good faith? When the OP tried to explain the law to the officer, the officer told him that he knew the law and knew it better than anyone else in the department. There was no "good faith" exercised at all, it was pure forceful assertion of power and authority under the color of law, at least up until they were made aware that they had screwed up royally.

The apologies from these officers was nothing other than attempt to keep from getting sued after they found out that they were absolutely wrong about the law and the arrest.

If you continue to excuse the police when they clearly violate your rights and the law you only encourage them to continue the violations. Until someone grows a spine and sues or gets a criminal conviction against them the violations will continue.

The idea that the story will be told around the department or to other agencies is also ridiculous. The officers involved will do everything they possibly can to stop this from being talked about anywhere, by anyone, ever. They have their pride and their reputations to protect.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP suntzu wrote:

sue them---sue them for everything they have....

Besides all that, do you honestly believe that cop will ever make that mistake again or that he will let his partners make that mistake again. That Sergeant sure won't let it happen and the guys on the oncoming day shifts will hear about it and the the story will spread and some guy 2 counties away will remember that there was something he really needed to remember the next time he runs into an open carrier. If we all do things right he'll remember that he needs to double check the law before he makes any major commitment and won't remember that open carriers were listed on that terrorist bulletin as a bunch of gun toting, govt hating, law suit happywingnuts.

Wish I could say the same for SDPD. The beach guys are on the ball but the border guys seem to think they are enforcing Mexican gun laws, even though they all know the law.

 

[Campbell]

imported post

Very interesting read. I am glad it all worked outfor you in the end.

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

demnogis wrote

....it is my right to carry a firearm in CA so long as it is unloaded .....

Bleah.

This is the kind of stuff I think about when long-time friends ask me "Why the HELL would you want to leave Los Angeles and move to Wyoming?

MWD


(Gun is loaded):

 

[GWbiker]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

I'm still coming off of the adrenaline rush...

I'm (now) in my old hometown, visiting family. My dad and I registered for the RWVA shoot this whole weekend at Rauhaagauses (or however it is spelled).

I head out at about 9PM. I get into town here, take my exit.

Oh. Crap.

In front of me are two lines of cars. The city is doing a DUI/Sobriety checkpoint - and I just HAD to pick the exit where they're doing this*.

The lines of cars slowly move forward. I took the right lane. As I pulled up I greeted the officers there. One of the officers to my right (officer 2) noticed my firearm, and asked me what it was. I told him that it was my pistol and that it is unloaded. He instructed me to turn off my motorcycle, I complied. I told him I would not interfere if he checked to make sure it was unloaded. He proceeded to unholster my firearm and check that it was, indeed, unloaded. The officer to my left (officer 1) asked "Why are you carrying a pistol?" I responded "As far as I know it is my right to carry a firearm in CA so long as it is unloaded and clearly visible, ie: openly carried. The officer 2 asks officer 1 "Is that right?" Officer 1 responds: "He's right. That is correct. If it's unloaded and openly carried it's ok." He asked me if I had any loaded magazines on me. I told him I have 2 loaded magazines, also in an openly visible holder on my left side. Officer 1 then directed me to pull over into the parking lot to the right so they could check my license, registration, insurance etc. I asked if I should get off and push it, he said no go ahead and drive it over there, officer 2 would meet me over there.

I slowly pulled into a parking stall in the parking lot adjacent to the street, shut off my bike, dismounted and put my bike on the center stand. Right officer asked me to get my driver's license out and I started to. He asked me what was in the case on my back and I told him it was my rifle which was disassembled. He asked me to take it off and set it down. I did, then handed him my license. I told the officer that I also had my voice recorder on me, that it was recording. I was not able to see his badge or nametag at this time. He interrupted and told me that it was illegal for me to be recording our interaction because as an individual he has civil rights too[sup](1)[/sup]. I started to explain that since he is working in his official capacity as a public servant it is not illegal to record our interaction in public. He insisted that it was illegal. He then told me to have a seat on the curb. Not more than a minute goes by and he asks me to stand up again, asks where I have my loaded magazines. I tell him where they are and he pulled them out of the holder and asked me to sit back down.

Shortly thereafter Officer 1 came over to where we were. Officer 2 stands me up and Officer 1 asks me what I was doing coming into his town carrying guns. He tells me that I'm going to jail, tonight, because I had loaded magazines on me. I politely told him that I believed he was wrong, and to check the penal code that applies to the possession of ammunition and a firearm. He insisted that he knew firearms laws better than anyone else in his department. I asked him if I could speak to his seargant. Officer 1 again affirmed that he knows more than his seargant does about firearms laws. I said to him again that there is nothing in the CA penal code that prohibits a person from carrying a firearm and/or ammunition, unless you are a prohibited person[sup](2)[/sup]. I made reference to CA vs. Clark[sup](3)[/sup] and the definition of unloaded 12031[sup](4)[/sup], openly visible firearm (non-concealed) 12025[sup](5)[/sup], locked and unloaded for transport or within a vehicle 12026[sup](6)[/sup]. Officer 1 tells me that I am illegally possessing loaded magazines and a firearm. He again insists that since I'm going to jail tonight, my bike is going to get towed to impound. He tells me to turn around, put my hands behind my back. I ask "Am I being detained?" He responds "You're under arrest."

:what:

I will post part 2 tomorrow when I get home.

Edit: Adding footnote cites:
(1) {Thanks bigtoe} California Recording Law.
(2) PC §12021 Prohibited persons and restrictions.
(3) Clark V. California
(4) PC §12031 Definition of a loaded firearm, restrictions on loading, authority to conduct load checks.
(5) PC §12025 Defining concealed firearms, prohibitions, exemptions and penalties.
(6) PC §12026 Rules and restrictions of transporting firearms (in vehicles), etc.

THAT'S what takes place in the Republic of Kalyfornyna, when a biker-subject who is OC a handgun enters a SS/Gestapo DUI check point.... is hassled, papers checked, detained, cuffed then arrested....:uhoh:

BUT, in the "Wild West" state of Arizona, biker-citizen is OC a loaded handgun and enters a Police DUI checkpoint.... Conversation goes like this:

Officer: "Good day Sir, have you been drinking".

Biker: "No Sir, I don't drink".

Officer, notices hand gun: "OK, you may go....oh hey, nice gun".
:celebrate

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

Love it.

Isn't it nice that there is still a bit of the USA left in the USA?

MWD

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

Several points need clarifying. First, the cops enjoy qualified immunity. That means they don't need to know the law and therefore are incentivized to not know it. By not knowing the law, they can enforce laws that aren't laws, giving themselves more power.

Second, I don't see that there is a civil rights case or a criminal case against the officers. When they realized their mistake, they apologized and released the citizen. Now,had they taken the "we don't care if it's legal, we're going to TEACH YOU A LESSON" attitude that I encountered, there would be a case.

Third, KNOW THE LAW. Most of this could have been avoided if the OC'er had known better his rights and responsibilities. Not that I'm knocking him at all, and my hat is off to him for having the balls to OC at all. But realize that you have a right to privacy and a guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. WHY GIVE THAT UP BY OPENING YOUR MOUTH? I am all for being polite, and I am absolutely opposed to cooperating. Cop asks you if you have any other weapons, remain silent. Then when he searches your backpack, you've got a civil rights case. You admit you have another weapon and where it is, you've given up your 4th amendment protection. DON'T TELL THE COPS YOU ARE RECORDING THEM. It's on them to know their job and to do it correctly. It is not on you to warn them that maybe this time they shouldn't pull a Rodney King because someone is filming.

Fourth, relating to item 3 above, when a cop asks you for driver's license insurance and registration, the first words out of my mouth would be "Am I accused of a moving violation? Which one?" If not, I'm not providing that stuff. Make the cop violate your rights, don't give up your rights.

Fifth, under section 1983 you are not limited to just compensatory damages and attorney's fees. You can also get punitive damages. For those who don;t know, a quick explanation. Say I'm a cop, and an idiot, and a statist, and I pull you over for OCing on a motorcycle. Then I arrest you to "teach you a lesson" and you lose an hour of your life before another cop straightens your cop out. What have you lost? An hour. So I figure you're owed 50 to 300 bucks, or whatever your time is reasonably worth. That's compensatory damages, compensating you for what was taken from you. Is the officer likely to do it again to the next OCer? Yep. 'Cause it only cost his department 50 to 300 which is a small price to pay to be able to intimidate an entire population.

Now, however, you sue him for a hundred grand in punitive damages for willfully violating your rights. Punitive damages are penalties designed to modify behavior. Or look at it as a penalty assessed on a bad cop to punish him for behavior that is chilling to liberty: 1000 people intimidated into NOT carrying because they don't want to deal with a-hole cop, times 100 bucks per, is 100 grand. Intimidation has a palpable effect on society, and the perpetrator (the cop) should pay for damaging a free society.

The cure is punitive damages. Cop is found against in civil court, cop is personally liable for the 100K, word gets around, other power-mongers back off.

What would I do? I'd use this as an opportunity to offer to help train the cops on this area of law. No lawsuits, no hard feelings, free of charge help either write a training bulletin extolling the virtues of freedom-loving Americans and how we all benefit, or go in seminar-style and do an hour of question-and-answer with the guys about to go on patrol.

Doubt that they would accept, since, as evidenced by their self-proclaimed "expert" they obviously know everything, but you can never tell.

whoops, pullnshoot was logged in on my pc. This is Elsensei posting.

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

Yup.

Not something to sue over. A busted nose could be something to sue over. Hurt feelings ain't.

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

MWD

 

[suntzu]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP suntzu wrote:

sue them---sue them for everything they have....

Sue us --- sue us for everything we have. I hope you realize that sueing "them" is in reality suing those of us who just happen to pay taxes here. its a rare lawsuit that results in punitive damages against the officer where the agency can't/won't/doesn't pick up the tab in the end. Even in those cases the government (an extension of us) ends up spending zillions of dollars (our tax dollars) on a defense effort. Kind of cool if you happen to be a 0 government type ultra libertarian, but those of us in the real world kind of like it when our tax money is spent patching pot holes, keeping the library open and keeping a goodly stock of JBTs on tap. All that money may only be an abstraction printed on paper but that abstraction pays for a lot of stuff we have kind of gotten used to.

So ok, Sue em for all they're worth. Just don't bitch the next time you blow a tire and ding a rim because the potholes aint filled.

Besides all that, do you honestly believe that cop will ever make that mistake again or that he will let his partners make that mistake again. That Sergeant sure won't let it happen and the guys on the oncoming day shifts will hear about it and the the story will spread and some guy 2 counties away will remember that there was something he really needed to remember the next time he runs into an open carrier. If we all do things right he'll remember that he needs to double check the law before he makes any major commitment and won't remember that open carriers were listed on that terrorist bulletin as a bunch of gun toting, govt hating, law suit happywingnuts.

Teach a man to make fire and he'llbe warm when ever he needs to be. Light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

First, as long as "us" the people are unwilling to stand together and let the government and its agents know that we will no longer tolerate misconduct toward the people--then by all means I say SUE....maybe when it costs the taxpayers enough money--like losing several multimillion dollar civil rights judgments for example--and the coffers are hit so hard that they are simply dry, with not even enough money in them to pay janitors--then maybe the people will get together and march down to the local police departments as a single group and simply tell them ENOUGH already--your actions are costing us too much money--so actually learn the laws if you want to wear the badge, because you work for US--not the other way around...

Second, if the people--the taxpayers do not want their money paying off huge judgments--then bring law enforcement into line for a change. It really is that simple. Citizens are responsible for the conduct of their government, if they are unwilling as a group to hold their government accountable when that same government violates the rights of some citizen, or falsely arrests someone--then that society can be held responsible as a group in a lawsuit that costs them a whole lot more than it would if they would simply tell their government NO MORE, no more harassment, no more violations of our rights--and if you don't know the laws--DON'T go around making them up...until the people begin to stand together as a whole and walk down to city hall and in front of their police departments and remind them exactly who works for who--I say sue away.

Third, I don't complain about potholes, and anything I can find in a library--I can find on the internet--and the JBTs we can all do without.

Fourth--yes, I think they will make the same "mistake" over and over again until they have their feet held to the fire and they start losing their jobs over those "mistakes"..false arrest, and violations of our rights are not minor mistakes--and they should all be reasons for which jobs are lost.

As for OC'ers being listed on a report as a bunch of "sue happy wingnuts"--we would not be that way if our government would respect us, respect our rights, and treat us like people instead of like slaves.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

MichaelWDean wrote:

Yup.

Not something to sue over. A busted nose could be something to sue over. Hurt feelings ain't.

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

MWD

So false arrest isn't a good enough reason to sue? Violations of our rights is not a good enough reason to sue?

Why don't we just use the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper then...

They are excellent reasons to sue--and to make the point that this type of conduct shall not pass unchallenged.

Stand up for your rights--we should not have to lay down and be mistreated and then simply allow them to get away with it without challenge so that they can go on and mistreat others, and to think that just because they say "I'm sorry"--it automatically makes up for the false arrest, harassment, and violations of rights....And since losing huge sums in lawsuits is the only thing they understand, and since it is obvious government is not interested in holding its agents accountable....then I say take them to the cleaners whenever possible.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

MichaelWDean wrote:

Yup.

Not something to sue over. A busted nose could be something to sue over. Hurt feelings ain't.

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

MWD

He didn't have his feeling hurt, he had his RIGHTS violated.

The founding Fathers did not start the revolution because King George hurt their feelings, they revolted because their fundamental rights were being violated.

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

MichaelWDean wrote:

Yup.

Not something to sue over. A busted nose could be something to sue over. Hurt feelings ain't.

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

MWD

He didn't have his feeling hurt, he had his RIGHTS violated.

The founding Fathers did not start the revolution because King George hurt their feelings, they revolted because their fundamental rights were being violated.

This is really up to the person involved. The police seemed respectful enough in their procedure, however wrong they were. If it were me, Iwould look at a free consultation with a lawyer. I would see if that lawyer would take that case on contigency, contigent that I dont have to pay the lawyer if he doesnt win the case. I doubt I would pay a lot of money into this though as someone pointed out that it may have a hard time in court since they rectified the problem as soon as they found out they were wrong. Unless someone started a fund to help him pay lawyer fees, I find it asinine for all of you to spout off that he should spend his hard earned money into something he may not win.



Its like if he had his mother shot by a gang and all of you telling him, go take a gun and teach that gang of 100 members a lesson!!' .... he COULD EASILY GET KILLED! Though all of you wouldnt do that yourselves.

Now if you offered to helpagainst the gang, that is a different story. In this case, the 'goliath' is the cops and court.

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

I just think that suing in this case would do more harm than good. I think people are too quick to sue these days.

I do have to give the guy kudos for having balls the size of Texas for open carrying in non-rural SoCal.


MWD

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

MichaelWDean wrote:

I just think that suing in this case would do more harm than good. I think people are too quick to sue these days.

I do have to give the guy kudos for having balls the size of Texas for open carrying in non-rural SoCal.


MWD

Please specify what you mean by harm. I can't see any harm coming from this except him losing the case and having to incure debt from lawyer/court fees.

Secondly, the law is on his side and he shouldnt have to have balls to obey the law. Although I know what you mean, I still havent grown the balls to open carry in my rural city of Folsom. I would just hate to be that case where our laws get overturned or ignored and I get the boot from the judge.