Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

General Category => Latest News Stories => Topic started by: gryphon on August 03, 2014, 11:32:48 PM

Title: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: gryphon on August 03, 2014, 11:32:48 PM
That's what an Ohio open carrier is suing for after police falsely arrested him for "Inducing Panic" by open carrying on his bicycle.  He was subsequently charged in court with inducing panic.  The prosecution ignored motions for discovery.  Eventually the prosecutor dismissed the inducing panic charge, but then attempted to charge the open carrier with concealing because in his report, the cop said the carrier was CCing.  However, security camera footage showed his gun and holster were fully open carried and the grand jury "no billed" him when they saw the camera footage.  The prosecutor had refused to drop the charges.

You need to read the complaint.  It is something else.  For example, the arresting officer stated that it was “lucky he didn’t resist”, because Ptlm. Meadows would have “shot and killed [him] right there” and that he “didn’t want to deal with that before his vacation.”

Complaint (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1_14-cv-1690-Complaint.pdf)
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: bigt8261 on August 04, 2014, 09:44:06 AM
Wow. They really went all out to get this guy.
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: SD40VE on August 04, 2014, 09:52:42 AM
Wow. They really went all out to get this guy.

i hope he takes them to the cleaners
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: ocdetroit on August 04, 2014, 10:02:38 AM
I hope you make some good examples out of them. Carry On
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on July 29, 2015, 12:23:02 PM
i hope he takes them to the cleaners

Necroposting to say $28,500.


From the November 24 city council meeting:

http://www.brooklynohio.gov/pdf_brooklyn/en-US/November%2024,%202014.pdf
ORDINANCE 2014
-
71
, Authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Final Settlement Agreement and Release in
the case known as Michael Paul Weitzsacker vs the City of Brooklyn et al United States District Court,
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case #1:14
-
CV
-
1690
.
MOTION
by Pucci, second by
Tanski to Suspend the Rules, further stipulating the amount is for $28,500
.
VOTE RESULTED:
Suspend the Rules:
Yes: DeMarco, Van Kirk, Pucci, Balbier, Tanski, Celcherts, Gallagher. No: None.
To Adopt:
Yes: DeMarco,
Van Kirk, Pucci, Balbier, Tanski, Celcherts, Gallagher. No:
None.
(ADOPTED)
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: gryphon on July 29, 2015, 01:38:54 PM
Thanks for the follow-up, Mitch.
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on July 29, 2015, 03:15:42 PM
There will always be a few news articles and more than a few blog/forum posts on a lawsuit filing, but most of them, like this
one, result in zero news write-ups when resolved.

Since it was a federal suit, I might have found the settlement amount in PACER, or the docket might have just said that the plaintiff motioned for dismissal. Got lucky finding this one in web published city council minutes.
Title: Re: $2,000,000 lawsuit
Post by: linux203 on July 29, 2015, 05:53:09 PM
That may just be the city's insurance deductible, or it may be the full settlement amount.