Derrick Cohen v. Los Santos Police Department

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Derrick Cohen v. Los Santos Police Department

Plaintiff Attorney: Naomi Weinstein

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[X] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• $68,550 in lost earnings

• $500,000 in attorney fees

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 16th day of June, 2024 by:

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

Derrick Cohen

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
Naomi Weinstein

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

[owen]

''Thank you for coming today. I appreciate that Attorney Naomi Weinstein will be representing Mr Derrick Cohen for this case.  Can you please notify the defendant of this case, that being the Los Santos Police Department and we will reconvene when they have acknowledged.''

Edited June 16, 2024 by joxii

[ImperiumXVII]

"Your honor, Sophie Thyne for the Los Santos Police Department."

[owen]

4 hours ago, ImperiumXVII said:

"Your honor, Sophie Thyne for the Los Santos Police Department."

 

20 hours ago, Levy, Bell & Weinstein said:

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Derrick Cohen v. Los Santos Police Department

Plaintiff Attorney: Naomi Weinstein

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
Naomi Weinstein

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

''Great. OK. We can begin with the plaintiff's opening statements in relation to this case. I'd like to keep the arguments as unconvoluted as possible.''

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

((If it’s okay with the judge and with the LSPD representative we would like the court proceedings to take place at the courthouse in game at a time suitable for both parties))

[owen]

1 minute ago, Levy, Bell & Weinstein said:

((If it’s okay with the judge and with the LSPD representative we would like the court proceedings to take place at the courthouse in game at a time suitable for both parties))

 

(( I don't think I'm going to have time within the next two weeks to supplement an in-game court case unfortunately, and I don't want this case to linger for weeks on end so we'll have to have this case here. ))

[canthurrylove]

Your honor, I, Naomi Shoshana Weinstein, will be representing Dr Derrick Cohen. Dr Cohen is a talented and highly respected physician working at All Saints General Hospital. He has saved the lives of countless Los Santos citizens, including law enforcement officers. 

 

How is he repaid for this selfless service? He is arrested, denied medical aid, stripped of his second amendment rights, and suspended from his workplace indefinitely pending investigation. 

 

Over the next few days I will outline how LSPD officers failed in their first and foremost duty; to protect and serve their citizens. As a consequence, Dr Derrick Cohen paid the price in multiple ways. 

 

On the night of the 1st of June going into the morning of the 2nd, Dr Cohen was travelling home after purchasing a Glock 17 pistol. The pistol was stored safely and securely in his car’s safe, located in the glove compartment. When driving through Idlewood he noticed he was being followed by a white Premier. The car then performed a PIT manoeuvre on Dr Cohen’s vehicle. A man disembarked from the vehicle and began verbally harassing Dr Cohen, yelling about how he “cut him off” and “drove like an idiot”. 

 

It was at this point Dr Cohen did what any law abiding citizen should and would do. He dialled 911. The verbal altercation continued, and eventually the attacker opened Cohen’s car door, and started punching and choking him.

 

At this point, the threat to life was clear, unavoidable, and imminent.

 

Dr Cohen did what any American would do. He exercised his second amendment rights. He withdrew his legally purchased and legally stored weapon. He fired three times at his attacker.

 

Within seconds, he was surrounded by LSPD officers. He complied with all of their commands, confident and assured that as he was merely defending his own life, he had done nothing wrong. Confident and assured the justice system built to protect the innocent would serve him.

 

He was tragically mistaken. 

 

He requested medical attention after his attack, and was cruelly denied. He was searched and arrested immediately. He called for a supervisor when his pleas fell on deaf ears. The supervisor told him he shouldn’t have fired his weapon.

 

The supervisor told him “he shouldn’t have fired his weapon”.

 

He was being attacked, with a clear threat to life, and the supervisor told him he shouldn’t have defended himself. 

 

The supervisor told the doctor who saved lives for a living that he should have let himself be killed.

 

Shame.

 

The attacker, on the other hand, was given medical attention and released without further investigation.

 

Dr Cohen was initially arrested for attempted murder, the LSPD officers eventually realised that Cohen was in fact defending his life. They removed the charge of attempted murder. 

 

What was he charged with instead? PF violation.

 

How can that be, your honor? Surely if the LSPD officers realised it was self defence, the firearm was fired legally? Surely one can’t be charged with PF violation by itself? There must be another crime to indicate how the weapon was misused. But the weapon wasn’t misused, your honor. It was used for its intended purpose, to defend one’s life. And yet, his attempted murder charge was removed and he was charged solely with PF violation. Your honor, the LSPD officers made a tragic mistake here, and Dr Cohen paid the price.

 

In the subsequent weeks Dr Cohen’s life has been turned upside down. He has been suspended from work, meaning he has not able to do the one thing he was placed on this world to do, heal others. He has been stripped of his right to defend himself, and as a citizen of East Los Santos, every knock, every car backfiring, every firework, could be a dangerous gangster wanting to take his life. 

 

Dr Cohen has been in touch with LSPD Internal Affairs. They have told him they will organise a meeting to discuss further, but have failed to reach out to him, postponed or cancelled every meeting he tried to set, and have ignored every email or piece of correspondence he has sent, hoping he would just go away and forget about it. But your honor we will not forget this miscarriage of justice. 

 

Your honor we are seeking a full reinstatement of Dr Cohen’s PF licence. In addition we are seeking compensation to the sum of $818,500. This figure includes $68,550 worth of lost earnings from his suspension from work, $500,000 in attorney fees, and $250,000 in emotional damages.

 

Thank you, your honor. 

 

 

 

 

[owen]

“Thank you Naomi. I’m going to grant the defence 24 hours to submit their opening defence and then we can begin.”

 

@Michael

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honor, justice comes to everybody that breaks the law.

 

A heart surgeon is not above the law, and neither is Dr. Cohen. The defense will demonstrate fairly simply how Dr. Cohen violated the law and was held to account for it.

 

We do not live in a society where certain people can commit crimes where others cannot. We should not live in such a society; such a society would break down.

 

We will demonstrate to the court that Dr. Cohen was unlawful in his usage of his license and we hope that the plaintiff understands exactly why everybody must be held to account, even our city's doctors, when they break the law.

[owen]

Noted. I'm permitting a 48 hour motion for the defence to prepare and address their statement(s). We will reconvene when ready.

[ImperiumXVII]

Ahem, apologies for the delays, your honour. Admin trouble in the office.

 

Your honour, we would like to submit three documents to the court as evidence: Mr. Cohen's licence application, and the current PF licence regulations. These will be referred to as exhibits A and B by the defence respectively.

 

Does Mr. Cohen remember what he wrote and signed on his licence application, on defence exhibit A, your honour? Allow me to read it out: "All the firearms listed above will be kept inside of a safe at the owner's property when not in use." 

 

Surely Mr. Cohen, an upstanding member of our city, was telling the truth on his licence application, your honour? Then why was his firearm in his glove compartment?

 

No matter, your honour. Everybody makes mistakes, or they forget what they said, or circumstances change.

 

Take a look at exhibit B your honour - it specifically says right there that the glove compartment is not considered a valid place to transport your weapon. "The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed ... but does not include the utility or glove compartment."

 

Your honour, this is a simple case. Arguably a waste of the court's time, your honour. Mr. Cohen lied on his licence application and then violated the PF regulations - such a violation is exactly what he was charged with.

 

 

---

 

 

Exhibit A

---

Quote

 

CITY OF LOS SANTOS
LICENSING BUREAU
STANDARD INITIAL APPLICATION
FOR LICENSE TO PURCHASE A FIREARM

Public Disclosure Admonition
I understand that I am obligated to be complete and truthful in providing information on this application. I understand that all of the information disclosed by me in this application may be subject to public disclosure.

Applicant Signature: D. Cohen

SECTION 1 - Applicant Personal Information

Full Name: Derrick Cohen
Date of Birth: 1993-11-27
Residence Address: 1449 Market Street, Los Santos, San Andreas 18125
Place of Birth (City, County, State): Montgomery, Los Santos, San Andreas

Height: 6'2"
Weight: 165 lbs
Eye Color: Brown
Hair Color: Brown
Sex: M

 

((Screenshot of /stats showing character level: IMAGE HERE ))

SECTION 2 - Description of Weapons

List below the weapons you desire to purchase if granted a PF license. You may only possess the weapon(s) which you list and describe herein. You will have to apply for another PF license if you wish to amend which firearms you are authorised to possess. Any misuse will cause an immediate revocation and possible arrest. Use additional fields if necessary. You must choose a maximum of 3 firearms from the Acceptable Firearms & Ammunition catalogue.

 

• Make: Mossberg
• Model: 590

 

• Make: Glock
• Model: 17

 

• Make: Winchester
• Model: Model 1873 Short Rifle

If a rifle is listed, confirm that it is semi-automatic and is not capable of selective fire (may not switch from semi-automatic to burst or fully automatic).

 

[X] Yes

[-] No

[-] N/A

If a shotgun is listed, confirm that it is either pump action, single loaded, or double-loaded.

 

[X] Yes

[-] No

[-] N/A

Where will the firearm(s) be stored?

 

All the firearms listed above will be kept inside of a safe at the owner's property when not in use.

Proof of business ownership (if applicable): N/A

 

SECTION 3 - PF License Conditions and Restrictions

The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event, any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer, or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

The licensee authorizes the issuing agency to investigate, as they deem necessary, the licensee's record and character to ascertain any and all information which may concern his/her qualifications and justification to be issued a license to purchase a firearm and release said agency of any and all liability arising out of such investigation.

 

• Violate any of the license usage or prohibition criteria guidelines
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having the primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Carry a firearm in public without a proper permit (CCW).

Pursuant to U.S. Government Code — Title 49, Chapter 26, Section 1472(1) and Federal Aviation Regulation 121.583, a license to purchase a firearm does not authorize a person to carry a firearm or any dangerous weapon aboard commercial airlines. Such a violation can result in arrest by law enforcement.

Any violation of these restrictions or conditions may invalidate the PF license and may void any further use of the license until reinstated by the licensing authority. Any arrest for a felony or serious misdemeanor, including driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, is cause for invalidating the license.

SECTION 4 - Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless
 

I hereby accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

I understand that the acceptance of my application by the licensing authority does not guarantee the issuance of a license and that fees and costs are not refundable if denied. I further understand that if my application is approved and I am issued a license to purchase a firearm, that the license is subject to restrictions placed upon it and that misuse of the license will cause an automatic revocation and possible arrest and that the license may also be suspended or revoked at the discretion of the licensing authority at any time. I am aware that any use of a firearm may bring criminal action or civil liability against me.

I have read, understand, and agree to the PF license liability clauses, conditions, and restrictions stated in this Application and Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless.

Applicant Signature: D. Cohen

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B

---

 

 

 

LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

GISELLE HARDINGER
Chief of Police

P.O. Box 30412
Los Santos Police Department
Los Santos, San Andreas 90030
206 Station Avenue

FIREARMS LICENSING DIVISION
PF LICENSE USAGE REGULATIONS

PF License Revocation Criteria:
_A PF License may be revoked by Law Enforcement if:

• Any license holder who brandishes a firearm without proper cause;
• Any license holder who carries a concealed weapon without a proper permit or open carries in locations in violation of the Open Carry Assurance and Regulation Act;
• Any license holder who fails to identify to a peace officer as a license holder.
• Any license owner who is intoxicated; being tested above 0.08 BAC (Blood-Alcohol-Levels).
• Any license holder who fails to abide by the relevant license usage regulations;
• (( Any license holder who participates in a shootout with law enforcement. ))
• (( Any license holder who repeatedly involves themselves in shootouts for no articulated reason. ))

PF License Usage Regulations:
_A PF License holder:

• May renew their license by submitting a new application, if any information needs to be amended, such as the firearms the license holder may purchase.
• Must not purchase firearms for any other person.
• Must not use their firearm for any other purposes than the ones stated in their application.
• Must not be in possession of any firearms other than the ones they applied for.
• Must not allow others to use their firearm under any non-exigent circumstances.
• Must not be under the influence of any substance (e.g. pharmaceutical drugs or alcohol) when in possession of a firearm nor be under the influence prior to obtaining possession of a firearm.
• Must not remove the firearm from its storage unless required to do so.
• Must not remove the firearm from its locked container when transporting the firearm to a property.
• Must not assist peace officers with their duties using a firearm.
• May Open Carry their handgun, in compliance with the Open Carry Assurance and Regulation Act.
• Firearms being transported, where the owner only possesses a PF License and is not Open Carrying in compliance with the Open Carry Assurance and Regulation Act, must be stored in a locked container. The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment.
• Must ensure their firearm is always cleaned, safe, and well maintained.
• Must immediately identify themselves as a license holder if they are detained by a peace officer and if they are at the time of detainment in possession of a firearm.
• When detained by a law enforcement officer, must surrender their firearm for the duration of the detainment if asked to do so, and shall have it returned when released from custody.
• (( Must not purchase firearms for any other person. This is a ban-worthy offense. ))
• (( Must not purchase firearms that are not listed on their PF application (either by buying more firearms than they stated they would or buying firearms they stated they would not buy). This is a ban-worthy offense. ))
• (( Must not possess more than ONE of each firearm they applied for. ))

Open Carry Assurance and Regulation Act:
_A PF License holder can:

• Open carry their firearm, and only the firearm they have applied for, in designated 'Open Carry Zones' and may only openly carry handguns. This only applies to the open carry zones and not to private property.
• Open carry in the entire State of San Andreas, with the exception of:
  • The City of Los Santos.
  • San Fierro Airport
  • Las Venturas Airport
  • The National Guard Airstrip
  • Sidewalks adjacent to any property of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department.
  • The entire block surrounding the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department headquarters in Dillimore, in accordance with this image.
• Hunt in designated hunting zones around San Andreas and may open carry long guns if they are participating in an active hunt.
• Openly carry any firearm inside their private property and/or other people's private property, given that the property owner has given their consent. This is not limited to the 'Open Carry Zones' and is permitted throughout the entire State.
• Must state they are openly carrying a firearm during a traffic stop with any law enforcement officer.
• Must, when transporting their firearm in a vehicle, ensure that their firearm(s) are properly secured within a locked gun case, lockbox, or strapped in a holster with the safety on.
• Have their license suspended or revoked for violation of any regulations in this act for a specific individual in accordance with the San Andreas Penal Code (9)13. CCW / PF Violation.

_A PF License holder cannot:

• Open carry during a state of emergency, unless the Governor of San Andreas explicitly states otherwise.
• Open carry firearms that are not their own and do not have the correct permit to carry. If a permit holder lacks the required permit to carry the specific type of handgun of which they are openly carrying, in either the 'Open Carry Zone' or hunting zone, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the law.
• Open carry a firearm within a 2000 ft radius of the San Andreas Correctional Facility or inside any government-owned buildings.

 

 

[owen]

Thank you Sophie. Although I'd appreciate it if we could all stick to our allocated time slots given. I've read the defence's evidence and disclosure provided however and the allegation is that the plaintiff carried the firearm in their glove compartment, a clear violation of the rules and regulations.

 

Does the plantiff wish to pursue, or do they wish to issue a voluntary dismissal? @canthurrylove

Edited June 24, 2024 by joxii

[canthurrylove]

Your honor the defence is trying to mislead you, a disgusting indictment of the disrespect they hold for this court.
 

The evidence they submitted includes the current PF regulations as administered by the LSPD. My client received their license, and had had their license revoked under the former regulations, when the PF licenses were still being handled by the city, and still utilised the strike system. 
 

We will not have the wool pulled over our eyes. We wish to pursue. 

[owen]

23 minutes ago, canthurrylove said:

Your honor the defence is trying to mislead you, a disgusting indictment of the disrespect they hold for this court.
 

The evidence they submitted includes the current PF regulations as administered by the LSPD. My client received their license, and had had their license revoked under the former regulations, when the PF licenses were still being handled by the city, and still utilised the strike system. 
 

We will not have the wool pulled over our eyes. We wish to pursue. 

 

Very well. Please provide me with the prior PF regulations and stipulation clause in relation to the 'strikes' with violations. As far as I have always been aware, a revocation of a license can be done instantly under discretion of the individual in-charge, therein it doesn't require a set of 'strikes' to then be seized?

 

 

[canthurrylove]

((Can’t send you the exact text because the section isn’t available on the forums anymore but it said incorrectly storing weapon was 1 strike))