Man detained after legally bringing gun to school considers lawsuit, loses job offer

[shadowrider]

GRAND RAPIDS — Nicholas Looman said he was not surprised the Kent County Prosecutor’s Office found he complied with state law while carrying a gun into an elementary school voting precinct this week.

He’s disheartened with what he sees as a lack of understanding with open-carry gun laws and has hired an attorney to “explore the possibility” of a lawsuit against local law enforcement authorities.

(SNIP)

"The prosecutor went out of his way to say I was being disingenuous or naive to be frustrated with police," Looman said of a statement released Friday afternoon. “The law is already on my side, all we have now is to make the public more aware of the laws."

In his written opinion, Prosecutor William Forsyth said Looman legally carried his pistol when he went to vote with the gun holstered in plain view at his waist. But he used “extremely poor judgement” in bringing the gun days after a school shooting in Ohio, Forsyth said.

(SNIP)

The state’s “weapons-free school zone” law does not apply to a concealed weapons permit holder, but at the same time, a person with a permit may not carry a hidden weapon into a school, Forsyth said.

School officials are required by a state School Safety Response Guide to contact local law enforcement whenever a person with a gun enters a school building.

Grand Rapids Public Schools Spokesman John Helmholdt said he believes elementary staff acted correctly when contacting the Grand Rapids Police Department out of concern for students' safety. Forsyth said officers kept Looman in a school office only long enough to determine that he carried a valid concealed pistol license.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/03/nicholas_looman_not_surprised.html

Once again, the taxpayers may have to open their wallets.

[Hoyt]

1. He demonstrated poor judgement -- who wants to hire a fool.

Next time, maybe he'll decide to leave his gun(s) at home.

I hope he succeeds at getting the public to understand how lax our gun laws are and how many carriers are really lacking in judgement.

[BiggJawn]

16. "Poor Judgement"

I was called to take my daughter out of school the day after the Columbine shootings because she was wearing her trench coat.

The SAME trench coat that didn't warrant a second look EVERY day that fall BEFORE columbine.

[Hoyt]

19. The gun culture has ruined a lot of things for us.

And yes, this guy showed poor judgement toting a gun to a school on any day, but especially shortly after the most recent shootings.

Sorry your daughter was treated like that -- clearly was not right. But, that is what guns and those who turn to them so easily have brought to our society. Time to change that by limiting access to guns and improving mental health and other services for those who have difficulty dealing with modern life.

Better parenting would help too -- including not bringing ones' kids up to believe guns are an essential element for life.

[BiggJawn]

20. Should have expected your Stock Answer #47a...

I agree with you, however, that this country's resources for mental health care are abysmal. If only we would spend the money to get people over their irrational fear of firearms...

And, no, guns didn't do that, naive school administrators who believe every piece of "safety" information that comes down the pike because it's presented by a "Former SWAT Officer" did that.
The Senior boys had gun racks in their pickup trucks, but my daughter was a threat because Harris and Klebold wore trenchers.

We both had a good laugh when she brought home a notice to parents not to flick our brights at oncoming cars w/o lit headlamps because it was a gang initiation thing and we'd get chased down and machine gunned...

Oh, by the way? She shoots, too.

[Hoyt]

41. You don't get it -- just because it's legal doesn't mean you or others should do it.

The man was a fool.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Sue 'em, Nick.

Everyone loves a leech that tries to make buck off of already struggling taxpayers and school districts.

[pipoman]

3. Does that go for everyone who is illegally detained or otherwise abused by police,

or only those you disagree with?

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Yeah, he was really abused.

"Forsyth said officers kept Looman in a school office only long enough to determine that he carried a valid concealed pistol license"

I don't blame school officials one bit, given the number of crazies shooting children in schools recently.

Man up, Nick. Get over yourself.


edit: add word

[shadowrider]

5. So in response to a guy with a gun, the school calls guys with guns

Why is it ok for a police officer to have a gun there and no one blinks, but a private citizen all hell breaks loose.

And don't give me that "They've been checked out" stuff. Police go bonkers too. Why are THEY trusted?

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. .......and that's just what they should do.

This idiot wants to sue because someone cared enough to be absolutely sure there was no risk to school personnel and children? After all the senseless school shootings recently?

They should be commended for taking reasonable precautions. After he was cleared, he was free to go on his way. There was no abuse.

All he and his lawyer are looking to do is turn a fast buck at taxpayer expense.

[shadowrider]

7. I'm confused. They're so scared of guns they call guys with guns?

Doesn't make sense.

How about senseless police shootings? One was posted here and labeled as a "Shooting at Starbucks". Cop went nuts and started shooting. How about the DEA agent who went nuts and was shot by another DEA agent? Police do snap. What's the guarantee they won't snap at a school?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Who should they call instead? Seriously?

And don't say nobody..............

[shadowrider]

11. An unarmed cop maybe?

Maybe make the call but insist the police show up unarmed?

I hate posting ridiculous comments, but the anti-gun crowd makes them all the time. I'm just checking to see if I like it. (Hint: I don't).

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Yeah, try that.

That might work.

[Clames]

8. Nope.

He's just going to make sure the police and other officials are properly educated on the law. Sometimes the lessons are expensive. Funny how the pro-gun control crowd is so apt to state ignorance of the law is not an excuse for gun owners but go silent when it's their turn.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Yup

And take some hard-earned taxpayer money while he's at it. Count on it.

[SteveW]

49. You seem resigned to this guy's eventual success. Why is that? nt

[Callisto32]

30. IT'S A POST 9/11 WORLD!@1!!12@!!

[gejohnston]

12. In all fairness

people will react to perceived threats based on what seems normal or typical. People expect to see armed cops, unless you happen to be in the UK or South Korea.
Anyone open carrying in town even in places like Wyoming and Vermont stand out.
When I was in high school, rifle club day was (IIRC) on Thursday. Kids putting .22 rifles in their lockers on that day would not stand out and be normal. If some parent showed up with a pistol at the same time, my NRA life member principal would probably call the cops while some teachers would be asking WTF?

[shadowrider]

13. Agreed

I'm just testing my "ridiculous factor" in posting to see how close I can come to a typical anti-gun person. It doesn't fit well.

[BiggJawn]

17. You had rifle club in school?

OHMIGAWD! How didja EVER survive that? Weren't you afraid one of those rifles would escape the locker and go on a rampage?
You POOR dears! it must have taken YEARS of therapy to get over the experience!

Of COURSE I'm being sarcastic.

[shadowrider]

18. It's always the guns fault

Never the user. Ain't you learned that yet?

[BiggJawn]

21. I'm a slow learner sometimes.

I have a problem with committing illogical bullshit to memory....

[SteveW]

47. I think he will...

"...struggling taxpayers and school districts" must have enough money to allow their "representatives" to pull expensive stunts like this. These officials must have gotten their training in Chicago.

[ellisonz]

14. He has no case. n/t

[oneshooter]

22. Why is that. What he did was legal, yet he was detained for doing it.

If a cop detained you for doing something legal would that not be wrong?

[ellisonz]

23. Bzzz...

Detained and arrested are two completely different things in terms of liability. It is clear from the article they only stopped him to identify him as a licensed permit holder. That is completely within a lawful Terry stop. This Republican dip-shit has no case at all that the police engaged in misconduct in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

[gejohnston]

25. MI is an open primary state

he could have been a Democrat getting even (by voting for Ricky) for Republicans voting for Wallace in the 1972 Dem primary (which is why MI went for Wallace in the convention).
Or
He could have been a Dem, non party voting in non partisan elections.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19810224&id=X-MzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ajIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6974,6334712

[ellisonz]

26. Doubtful.

You can tell he's a Republican by all the squealing.

[gejohnston]

27. think Libertarians don't squeal?

I doubt he is a Green.

[Callisto32]

31. Well, you're bothering to put up flak...

so he must be over something you consider a target

[pipoman]

32. How long was the detention?

Did the guy ask if he could leave? This is a first question I have asked many times of police when they have told me to 'stay here'. If he was told he couldn't leave, and reasonable time for 'checking hi status' came and went, he may very well have a civil case.

[ellisonz]

33. According to the police, he was only detained long enough to determine if he was a legal CCW.

I'd bet he did ask if he could leave, and I'd also bet he was told that they were just checking his status. It doesn't seem like it was an unreasonable amount of time.

[pipoman]

34. You realize of coarse,

like every dispute, there are 2 sides to this. If the police know they acted illegally they will start making statements like, "he was only detained long enough to determine if he was a legal CCW", even if the detention was 2 hours..I want to know exactly how long it was..

[ellisonz]

35. Dude hasn't said it was any longer than that.

Don't you think if he was unreasonably detained he would have said so? Rather, I think his intent is to try and sue the school or something. Either way, he has no case because he's suffered no injury that is not his own making (bad PR for his job offer) and thus has no standing.

[pipoman]

36. Unlawful detention is a civil rights violation

I collected a 5 figure apology from a city for the unlawful acts of the chief of police for something similar.

[ellisonz]

37. I still say...

...this sounds like nothing more than a simple Terry stop.

[beevul]

52. Terry stop...

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Is legal behavior grounds for reasonable suspicion?

Does legal behavior indicate indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed?





It doesn't look that way to me.

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. You make the point eloquently. Thank you.

It's all about the money. Grab it and run. Screw the taxpayers.

[gejohnston]

40. if it were a fellow progressive

who was falsely arrested at OWS, for example, would you say the same thing? I'm guessing not.

[shadowrider]

42. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh snap!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

48. Someone was falsely arrested in this incident?

I'm must have missed that.

Thanks for the pointing that out.

[gejohnston]

50. unless it was a legal Terry stop

Isn't being detained the same as arrested? It is worth seeing what happens.

[TheCowsCameHome]

51. Detained = arrested. Got it.

Thanks.

[pipoman]

54. Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

Because law school 101 defines detention as arrest (if the person doesn't reasonably believe they can leave in a minimal amount of time). One can be detained (arrested) then released. Any time you are not allowed to leave upon order of law enforcement, you are under arrest. I have asked, "can I go now", hundreds of times. Police are not always quick to answer that question. There are criteria for detention and you had better fit that criteria or a shit storm may result.

[shadowrider]

53. If you're detained and not officially under arrest

and attempt to leave and are told you can't, IMO that's an arrest. I'd be on a phone to an attorney so fast their heads would spin.

[pipoman]

55. By definition it is an arrest.

[pipoman]

46. It's all about punishment for wrong doing

and for making an injured party whole...a very progressive theory actually. The results of my incident was dismissal of the mental case chief of police, training of all officers as to why their chief had made such an egregious error and a public apology. The only way to get the attention of out of control government is through the pocketbook. My settlement and any settlement which this guy might get was/will be paid by the city's insurance company. The city's insurance company demanded the city educate their officers to avoid a replay.

Go ahead and side with civil rights disregarding law enforcement. Tell me again which party is more supportive of oppressive law enforcement? Do you support tort reform also? Are you sure you are in the right place?

edit..I'll bet you love Joe Arpaio huh?

[pipoman]

28. Even an experienced attorney wouldn't pretend

to know such a thing without knowing the whole story..

[ellisonz]

29. Good thing this is the internet...

...but yeah, in this poster's opinion, this guy has no case.

[ileus]

24. Hope someone offers him a job soon.

good citizens like this are hard to find.