Yet another example of the double standard

.

Horicon Police officer faces OWI, endangering safety charges

Brandon Mantych was stopped by West Allis Police while driving his personal vehicle and during the stop police found a handgun in the center console of his vehicle. He was cited for driving while intoxicated in addition to the charge of operating a firearm while intoxicated.
... he was above the legal limit of .08
... [the Horicon Chief] said he is conducting an internal investigation and Mantych is suspended with pay until the outcome of that investigation.

Click to expand...

Milwaukee County Case Number 2012CM004089
The online court case search only shows that he's been charged with
941.20(1)(b) Operate Firearm While Intoxicated
No mention of the DUI charge.
He wasn't kept in custody.
He has a $250 signature bond.
And there's no notation that he's in any way prevented or restricted from driving, alcohol, or firearms.

It's called the Thin Blue Line for a reason.

And people still wonder why some do not like or trust the police.
I'm not bashing them, but it would once again (and again, and again, and again) look like some have a lot more rights than others...

I Wonder If...

there is a Law Enforcement Bill of Rights for the police here in Wisconsin?

http://www.dailypaul.com/244296/rho...d-despite-conviction-of-kicking-woman-to-head

Add the police Bill of Rights to the "Bill of Rights" and they have more rights than most of us.

Snip: "Under the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, a three-member panel of police officers will decide his professional fate after what is expected to be three days of hearings."

"I didn't do it". - Bart Simpson -

Ok I have to point out that everyone is missing the elephant in the room here. He was not operating a firearm while intoxicated, he was in possession of a firearm while intoxicated. All of you if should be having this guys back here on this charge. This charge needs to be defeated and set precedent that it is lawful to have a loaded weapon in your vehicle even if you are intoxicated. What if his wife was driving? Does he lose his right to defend himself because he had been drinking? Lets take it a step farther. What if he had been home drinking. police are called for a domestic. Drunk cop lets other cop in to the house and the officer finds a loaded firearm in his nightstand. -Possession of a firearm while intoxicated? By all means I hope he gets nailed for DUI but the gun charge needs to go.

Elysium said:

Ok I have to point out that everyone is missing the elephant in the room here. He was not operating a firearm while intoxicated, he was in possession of a firearm while intoxicated. All of you if should be having this guys back here on this charge. This charge needs to be defeated and set precedent that it is lawful to have a loaded weapon in your vehicle even if you are intoxicated. What if his wife was driving? Does he lose his right to defend himself because he had been drinking? Lets take it a step farther. What if he had been home drinking. police are called for a domestic. Drunk cop lets other cop in to the house and the officer finds a loaded firearm in his nightstand. -Possession of a firearm while intoxicated? By all means I hope he gets nailed for DUI but the gun charge needs to go.

Click to expand...

From what I know of current Wisconsin law, and this case, the charge may be appropriate.

Here is the citation of the statute he is charged under;

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/20

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
_ (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
_ _ (a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon; or
_ _ (b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant; or
...

Click to expand...

Here is a definition from the WI statutes:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/22/10

939.22(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Click to expand...

Here is a reference to a Wisconsin court case that is generally considered to address the definition of "going armed"

State v. Asfoor, 1977 Asfoor, 249 N.W.2d 529 at 433-34, meaning of “going armed” [19]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...1&q=249+N.W.2d+529&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1

"going armed" meant that the weapon was on the defendant's person or that the weapon must have been within the defendant's reach and that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon.

---------

MKEgal said:

Milwaukee County Case Number 2012CM004089
The online court case search only shows that he's been charged with
941.20(1)(b) Operate Firearm While Intoxicated
No mention of the DUI charge.
He wasn't kept in custody.
He has a $250 signature bond.
And there's no notation that he's in any way prevented or restricted from driving, alcohol, or firearms.

Click to expand...

Elysium said:

He was not operating a firearm while intoxicated, he was in possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

Click to expand...

Under WI law they're the same thing.
Sorry, I should have included a link in the original post.

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant

WI v. Keith - Ct App. 1993
To "go armed" does not require going anywhere.
The elements for a violation of 941.23 [concealed carry] are:
1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant's person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon's presence; and
3) the weapon is hidden

Remove the part about being concealed & you've got the requirements for 'going armed with'.

set precedent that it is lawful to have a loaded weapon in your vehicle even if you are intoxicated

Click to expand...

I've seen a judge refuse to return a pistol to someone who was convicted of DUI, when he had it unloaded & encased in the trunk. Not that I think it's right...
So how can we get the legislature to change the law?
The only "out" I think the cops have now in this instance is unless the gun was put in the lockbox before the person got drunk, the person probably handled it while drunk, so is still guilty.

What if his wife was driving?

Click to expand...

Then he probably wouldn't have been in possession, she would.
And if she didn't have a ccl, they probably would have charged her with ccw.
I'm assuming they're not charging him because he's a cop, & they're immune from the ccw statutes.
(Then again, if he were a normal everyday non-LEO person, some cops & some DAs might just try to charge him with drunken possession even if he were only a passenger.)

Does he lose his right to defend himself because he had been drinking?

Click to expand...

I don't think there's ever been a case addressing that issue, but we've gone 'round about it in several threads here on OCDO.
I'd say no, he doesn't, but I also think that if someone acted in self-defense it would have to be overwhelmingly obvious to a blind cave rat that the person did act in self-defense & not only had no part in instigating the attack, but also had no other options.

Besides, there's a difference (both legal & ethical) between "had been drinking", "under the influence", "materially impaired", and "legally intoxicated". This has been a topic of discussion before too.
If you follow through the maze of statutes & definitions, "LI" in WI is 0.08%BAC.
0.08% is prima facia evidence* of being "MI" & "UtI", but those terms aren't actually defined in our laws.
It's sort of like the definition of porn or DC... an officer knows it when s/he sees it.

* Means that it's enough by itself (on the face) to prove material impairment

Drunk cop lets other cop in to the house and the officer finds a loaded firearm in his nightstand.
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated?

Click to expand...

If it were anyone but someone employed as a LEO, yes.
And they'd steal every firearm they could get their grubby little paws on too.

MKEgal said:

Horicon Police officer faces OWI, endangering safety charges


Milwaukee County Case Number 2012CM004089
The online court case search only shows that he's been charged with
941.20(1)(b) Operate Firearm While Intoxicated
No mention of the DUI charge.
He wasn't kept in custody.
He has a $250 signature bond.
And there's no notation that he's in any way prevented or restricted from driving, alcohol, or firearms.

Click to expand...

Surprise! Surprise! Birds of like feather flock together. WE are the only ones who are law breakers, no not them. If they do they are protected by their system.

any citizen can zip over to the DAs office and file a complaint ... the DA is the head of law enforcement ... do it in writing

They may be waiting for the results of the blood test, before charging DUI.

The weapons charge merely requires that he is "under the influence of an intoxicant" aka Materially Impaired.