• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can you open carry a TASER?

bakertaylor28

Newbie
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
6
Location
Texas
Arrest may or may not be defined in any state's statutes. In MO, arrest is defined. Restraint in MO via the use of handcuffs, by a cop, is a arrest. There is no detainment in MO, under the law, which means that the cop safety canard does not exist in MO, under the law. Then there is what the courts will decide (interpret) based on their precedent.

I have found no evidence to indicate if a citizen "detained" has pursued a legal remedy for being "falsely arrested: where the cop did/could not inform the defendant by what authority he acts.

QI extends to cops making mistakes thus the use of the term immunity...Heien strengthened QI...abolish QI!!!

QI is not needed if the cop is acting within the confines of any particular state statute or municipal code...nor would (should?) a citizen be prosecuted.
well the thing is flat out a citizen cannot, by definition, claim Qualified immunity, because the doctrine from it's inception has been restricted to government actors (i.e. the police)- thus it follows that citizens will never be able to have such an easy defense. The term "Detainment" actually takes root out of federal case law- See e.g. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). (which is binding precedent in MO, as it is in all states.) Notably, Terry and its progeny doesn't authorize a law enforcement officer to transport a person away from the place at which an officer finds an individual. Therefore, in essence the transport will generally tend to mark the difference between detention and arrest in that context. However, notably, the court has never extended Terry doctrine to the context of citizen's arrest or the like. Therefore, in essence if a citizen were to detain under the circumstances described in Terry, the judiciary is likely to see it as an "arrest".
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,405
Location
here nc
Ah yes, speaking of ‘actors’ we appear to have a player from the infamous Baker & Taylor Dallas law firm amongst us. One hopes Matt knows someone is using the firm’s name.

And BT28, sorry, ‘legal beagle’ might suffice for those jurist(s) representing clients, but I personally wouldn’t take their website as meeting this forum’s cite to authority! Especially since there is a caveat at the bottom of LB’s site:

The material appearing on LEGALBEAGLE.COM is for informational and educational use only. It should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.


 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,189
Location
White Oak Plantation
well the thing is flat out a citizen cannot, by definition, claim Qualified immunity, because the doctrine from it's inception has been restricted to government actors (i.e. the police)- thus it follows that citizens will never be able to have such an easy defense. The term "Detainment" actually takes root out of federal case law- See e.g. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). (which is binding precedent in MO, as it is in all states.) Notably, Terry and its progeny doesn't authorize a law enforcement officer to transport a person away from the place at which an officer finds an individual. Therefore, in essence the transport will generally tend to mark the difference between detention and arrest in that context. However, notably, the court has never extended Terry doctrine to the context of citizen's arrest or the like. Therefore, in essence if a citizen were to detain under the circumstances described in Terry, the judiciary is likely to see it as an "arrest".
I did not contend that non-cops could enjoy QI.
QI extends to cops making mistakes thus the use of the term immunity...Heien strengthened QI...abolish QI!!! - OC for ME
Then I stated that a cop would not need QI if he was following the law. Nor would a citizen. Although, a citizen in MO does have QI in some very narrow circumstances. Such as a retail business loss prevention officer "detaining" a suspected shoplifter.
QI is not needed if the cop is acting within the confines of any particular state statute or municipal code...nor would (should?) a citizen be prosecuted. - OC for ME
Perhaps you should review your state's statutes to determine what is defined as a arrest, if their is a definition. And to determine if there are any specific applications of QI for non-cops.

Please review 4th Circuit's US v Black back in 2013. https://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-update/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

SCOUTUS has not decided any such case as US v Black to my knowledge.
 
Top