Hmm...I'm thinking there is a bit more to this story. I used to live in MN and their CCW law is similar to NC in that you can't carry anywhere that sells alcohol for onsite consumption. Seems odd that the officers would just happen to notice a waistband bulge as he exited a place where carrying a firearm is prohibited.

 

This a some of the reason I carry concealed and try not to show a handgun. It does look like he was legally carry'n but still got his head beat just because of some over under trained worked up leos. But we don't really know if there is more to this story.

 

Hmm...I'm thinking there is a bit more to this story. I used to live in MN and their CCW law is similar to NC in that you can't carry anywhere that sells alcohol for onsite consumption. Seems odd that the officers would just happen to notice a waistband bulge as he exited a place where carrying a firearm is prohibited.

That may be, but breaking the law is a basis for arrest, not assault.

 

He's lucky they didn't kill him.

Can't wait to gear what justification they conjure up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

" King’s attorney, Mike Patton, says his client was arrested, jailed and not charged for recording police back in April that allegedly showed abuse of power."

"He was also acquitted of manslaughter in 2008 after his pit bull mauled to death his 7-year-old son."

Strange story indeed. Can you carry a gun in a night club in Minnesota?

 

That may be, but breaking the law is a basis for arrest, not assault.

True, but we have only heard one side of the story. If the officers assaulted him they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Can you carry a gun in a night club in Minnesota?

Not legally.

 

Based upon some of the comments, it is legal to carry in a nightclub, and even consume as long as your blood aclohol is below .04.

 

Seems to me that in big cities, "Protect and Serve" has become "Intimidate and Assault". It's not all big city cops, but the few on severe power trips give the entire force a bad rep.

 

"King's attorney, Mike Patton, says his client was arrested, jailed and not charged for recording police back in April that allegedly showed abuse of power.

"He has zero criminal record, zero," said Mike Patton.

He was also acquitted of manslaughter in 2008 after his pit bull mauled to death his 7-year-old son."

Sounds like a real gem of a guy....

 

Seems to me that in big cities, "Protect and Serve" has become "Intimidate and Assault". It's not all big city cops, but the few on severe power trips give the entire force a bad rep.

If their fellow officers tolerate this kind of behavior then they deserve a bad rep, wouldn't you agree?

 

I don't think i want charlie harper as my attorney.

 

Based upon some of the comments, it is legal to carry in a nightclub, and even consume as long as your blood aclohol is below .04.

So it seems. That must have changed in the 5 years I've been in NC. Of course this ban provision could apply to a nightclub or any other private property - Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises

 

They have restaurant carry according to handgunlaw.us It does not mention nightclubs though.

 

I'd be surprised to see a nightclub that would permit guns to be carried inside

 

(Alabama, California, Colorado Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, , Idaho, Iowa Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia) have no express permission or express prohibition statutes related to carrying a gun where alcohol is served.

http://www.drslawfirm.com/gunsinbars.html

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/firearmsMN.pdf

 

All these types of threads end up the same way. We post our comments and "discuss" what happened, might have happened, what will happen, etc.
All these cases end up the same way....... this guy is going to get paid.... end of story.
Just like the sick Granny that got paid for being tased while in bed... just like the rest of the threads about cases like this that have been posted here.
I try to keep up with these type threads and look for the outcomes while most of the time, they die here.
I remember that " Granny tased in bed" thread where some here attempted to justify the action of the police officers.... explaining how she was actually dangerous while they stepped on her oxygen line.
"We don't know the whole story crowd" always chimes in.
This guy like all the others is going to get paid if he has a good attorney....... just like all the others who take these cases into court.

When I posted a thread that "Granny got paid", nobody had any interest....... not even the guys that tried to support the actions of the police.

 

When it comes to getting paid it isnt uncommon for cities to pay, even when there has been no wrong doing, simply because they feel its better pay a settlement than get raked over the coals and have a huge civil sum awarded...................its the same as with people that burn themselves with coffee or leave the wheel of their RV that has the cruise control engaged and get awarded large sums of cash following a law suit

 

If their fellow officers tolerate this kind of behavior then they deserve a bad rep, wouldn't you agree?

I think that's a standard you can hold a department head to, but I think that's unrealistic for the rank and file.

 

Sure we all see posts/threads on here of shootings, tragic events, unjust acts and controversial stories, but doesn't these topics help keep us on our toes on the letter of the law(s)? Maybe newer members might find some intelligent input which they could use. There's been many comments on this forum where I would not have thought of or reflected upon. IMO a closed mind can be dangerous. I welcome any discussion whether it is a sad joke, an web-link to a better explanation or thinking outside the box comment. This is what make forums like this one great.

 

^^^ What NCFlyfisher said.

 

When it comes to getting paid it isnt uncommon for cities to pay, even when there has been no wrong doing, simply because they feel its better pay a settlement than get raked over the coals and have a huge civil sum awarded

No, if a city KNOWS they can't win a case, they'll pay a settlement rather than take it to court. It's a matter of can they defend the actions and would a jury of someone's peers deem the action reasonable or not.
If what you say is true, then EVERYONE should just take their cases to court.... Lawyers typically take cases such as this ONLY if they have a decent probability of winning. An attorney would have MANY hours in a case like this and if he/she doesn't win, they don't get paid so they're not going to take a case that doesn't have any merits.
In the courtroom, you only get "raked over the coals and have a huge civil sum awarded" IF a jury finds the actions unreasonable and unlawful.... and, the government has a tremendous advantage in personnel and money over 99% of anyone bringing a suit.
For BOTH sides, they ask and answer primarily one question........ CAN WE WIN?
It's not what you or I think, it's what would the mother, accountant, teacher, plumber, etc. sitting on the jury thinks.

its the same as with people that burn themselves with coffee or leave the wheel of their RV that has the cruise control engaged and get awarded large sums of cash following a law suit

Product liability if very different from a case such as this.... there are laws on the books dealing with both examples however.

 

Sure we all see posts/threads on here of shootings, tragic events, unjust acts and controversial stories, but doesn't these topics help keep us on our toes on the letter of the law(s)? Maybe newer members might find some intelligent input which they could use. There's been many comments on this forum where I would not have thought of or reflected upon. IMO a closed mind can be dangerous. I welcome any discussion whether it is a sad joke, an web-link to a better explanation or thinking outside the box comment. This is what make forums like this one great.

Wasn't trying to imply that you should not have posted the story...... not at all.

 

No, if a city KNOWS they can't win a case, they'll pay a settlement rather than take it to court. It's a matter of can they defend the actions and would a jury of someone's peers deem the action reasonable or not.
If what you say is true, then EVERYONE should just take their cases to court.... Lawyers typically take cases such as this ONLY if they have a decent probability of winning. An attorney would have MANY hours in a case like this and if he/she doesn't win, they don't get paid so they're not going to take a case that doesn't have any merits.
In the courtroom, you only get "raked over the coals and have a huge civil sum awarded" IF a jury finds the actions unreasonable and unlawful.... and, the government has a tremendous advantage in personnel and money over 99% of anyone bringing a suit.
For BOTH sides, they ask and answer primarily one question........ CAN WE WIN?
It's not what you or I think, it's what would the mother, accountant, teacher, plumber, etc. sitting on the jury thinks.

Having just sat through a civil trial, I can say that some attorneys will certainly take cases that they stand no chance of winning outside of a sympathetic jury to trial. Large business (to include governmental groups) understand this and certainly take it into account when deciding to settle or take their chances with a trial.