• 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.

La Crosse Police arrest man carrying a firearm while in his own house

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Well we can imagine and speculate that there's more to the story if we want, but for the sake of argument let's say that there is no more to it. Some have stated that the cop was wrong based upon what's in the report, so, place yourself in the cop's shoes and tell us how YOU would have handled it. It's as simple as that.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Well we can imagine and speculate that there's more to the story if we want, but for the sake of argument let's say that there is no more to it. Some have stated that the cop was wrong based upon what's in the report, so, place yourself in the cop's shoes and tell us how YOU would have handled it. It's as simple as that.


I would thinkthat how anybody would have handled it is an incorrect standard.

I would think the correct standard is what the law says.

But, lets look at it like an academic exercise since we know the story is likely leaving out important facts.

An LEO goes to talk to a man about reports from co-workers that he made threats. OK. We don't have a warrant from a magistrate here, so arrest is not legal, yet.All the officer can do is talk to him and see if he coughs up information that gives rise to probable cause for an arrest. Perhaps there is enough to make it a non-consensual encounter, perhaps not.I'm not familiar enough to say. But, since the man is inside his house, its going to take a warrant to pry him outof there for questioning, consensual or nonconsensual.

So, the officer sees him reach towards his back where the officer has already seen a gun. Move to cover, and draw gun. Fine. Makes great sense. However, we have no information that the man actually drew his gun, or put his hand on his gun. Just becauseit made sense for the cop to take fewer chances given the threat allegation does not mean the guy actually reached for his gun. What does "towardshis lower back" mean? Was he scratching his side? His back? Higher than the gun? To the side of the gun? Was he reaching behind him for the doorknob as he turned?Its the absence of the guy actually presenting the gun, or even putting his hand where the gun was, that I consider most questionable. This report is well short of even brandishing.

Based on the story, the officerwent straight through to arrest. Based on the information, the arrest wasn't justified.

However, no matter whether the guy was doing something innocentthough not smart, the police nowhave to say he was in fact reaching for his gun to justify the arrest.

I'm thinking that themost the officer could have done was draw, and move to cover. The officer didn't have a warrant to enter the house, so that cancels the Terry Stop RAS to question the man for the threat allegation. Since there could be no Terry Stop, there could be no Terry weapon removal. That means the arrest has to be based on aviolation in connection with the gun. But we have no information about a gun violation. Without brandishing or making a threat with the gun, there is no gun violation, thus again no PC for arrest.

I wonder if this one falls under the category of police creating their own exigent circumstances? That is to say, the police officer's presence made it likely that even an innocent motion in even the most generalized direction of a gun creates a police assumption that lethal force is intended. If his neighbor or a Jehovah Witness went to the door to talk to him and he reached in the same general direction as his gun, would the neighbor or Witness be able to file a brandishing charge? No, I don't think so, not an accurate charge anyway.

Edited to add: I am not a lawyer, so don't nobody take any of this as being legally accurate.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Well we can imagine and speculate that there's more to the story if we want, but for the sake of argument let's say that there is no more to it. Some have stated that the cop was wrong based upon what's in the report, so, place yourself in the cop's shoes and tell us how YOU would have handled it. It's as simple as that.

Well, I would have been pissed off at the guy because he refused to answer the door, and when I see he is armed, I would use that as an excuse to draw down on him, arrest him, and make up some cock and bull story about how he "mad a move to his weaponand officer feared for his life".

Maybe. I'm not a cop, though.
 

professor gun

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
178
Location
, ,
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Well, I would have been pissed off at the guy because he refused to answer the door, and when I see he is armed, I would use that as an excuse to draw down on him, arrest him, and make up some cock and bull story about how he "mad a move to his weaponand officer feared for his life".

Maybe. I'm not a cop, though.

But you are starting to sound like one though..........:)

You forgot confiscation of all weapons in the house.
 

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/08/05/news/z00gunpoint.txt
Criminal charges are pending against a La Crosse man arrested Saturday at his home after he was found to be carrying a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets.
Police said they went to Dane R. Herold’s home at 1223 S. Eighth St. to discuss a report he had made violent threats to co-workers.
When an officer knocked on the door, the 56-year-old Herold walked through an enclosed front porch but turned away when he saw it was police, according to the report.

The officer said he then

saw the handgun in the back waistband of Herold’s shorts. When it appeared Herold was reaching toward his lower back, the officer pulled his weapon and took cover, the report stated.

The officer managed to force Herold to the floor and take the gun, according to police.

Herold, who could be charged with disorderly conduct while armed, posted a $150 cash bond and will be summoned to court at a later date.

A co-worker at an area store said Herold had made various threats to hurt others, according to police.

After Herold’s arrest, police removed several weapons from his home, including handguns, rifles, shotguns and air pistols.

I know ofsome peoplethatwere threatened by another person and they called the police. The police said that there wasn't anything they could do about it until the person actually did something.

The "man" isn't guilty of anything, yet.

The police go to the "man's" home to ask some questions. The "man" sees police at his door and decides not to answer it and I don't believe he is obligated to answer.

The "man" isn't guilty of anything, yet.

The "man" turns to walk away from the door and the officer/officers see a handgun tucked in his waistband in the middle of his back. (The court has ruled that you can carry concealed in your home, on your property or in your business.)

The "man" isn't guilty of anything, yet.

The officer/officers said it appeared Herold was reaching toward his lower back. (It doesn't say that he did reach for it.) The man is still in his home and can legally reach for the weapon for just about any legal reason. It's in his shorts and he wants it out of there to put on a table, for example. We, nor the police really know but his back is still towards the police. There is nothing stating that the man even started to turn back to face the officers.

The "man" isn't guilty of anything, yet.

"The officer pulled his weapon and took cover..." How did the officer pull his weapon, take cover and force Herold to the floor while he was outside the "man's" home? If the officer was threatened by the "man" and or his weapon then the officer would never have left cover. Based on the story I don't believe the officer ever felt threatened because he had to invade the "man's" home, jump him from behind and force the "man" to the floor. It just doesn't make sense. Cops can and do lie. If this story is close to what happened, the officers are going to have some explaining to do.

The "man" isn't guilty of anything, yet. (Done anything wrong)

The police should be charged with several infractions......unless other facts were left out. This is a police state and people ignore it until it affects them.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this as I don't have enough information to make a decision. I do know that when to draw and when to shoot is a big discussion on here What constitutes a threat, how quickly to repsond and how to respond has been like floggingdead horse around here. It does appear that a few consider the prpoer response actions of LEO and civilians to be quite different.

Whether the fellow had made actual threats or was just running his mouth is irrelavent as the LEO was there to find out. If someone threatens me and I don't know if he meant it or not I am going to take it seriously. I think most of you would immediately got to condition red if threatened. The fellow turned and walked away. Some say he had no requirement to talk with LEO. I don't know but at least he could have said talk to my lawyer rather than just walking away.

When he motioned toward his gun how was the LEO to know what was happening. Time and again on here I have read about what response to use when someone reaches for a gun. The fellow was in plain view through his porch and not hidden in his house. The LEO was right to take him down. As for an arrest and the confication of the other guns I am going to leave that for the legal beagles.

It was a bad situation but think of what you would have doneunder the same circumstances. Ther are quite a few on here that would have shot him. I don't think most would have but from the little info we have it looks like he at least had grounds for arrest.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
LOL, well you can fill in the blanks any way you want to serve your purposes, since that's what seems to be popular.

Since we've only heard one side of the story, which is likely also a "filling in of blanks", we're all just speculating.

But not having just fallen off the turnip truck, I learned a long time ago that starting from the assumption that the guy with the uniform is being completely truthful is a good way to get it wrong.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
+1

Such quirks and prejudices are evidence of successful graduation from the school of hard knocks.
And a continuing education in the writings of founders like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
 

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
LOL, well you can fill in the blanks any way you want to serve your purposes, since that's what seems to be popular.

Could you point out where I tried to fill in the blanks? I thought I used the story as it was printed. My intent was to show how the story raised more questions that needed to be answered.

My purpose? Just because someone is in LE doesn't make them good. A cop in Northern WI went into a house and murdered several people then killed himself. Milwaukee, WI cops beat people causing them great bodily harm. The term PIG wasn't given for no reason. Wakeup and look atthe abuses LE has done to people around the country...the latest was killing a mayor's 2 dogs and LE didn't know that it was the mayors home. People are getting fed-up with it and we know taxes could be lowered by reducing the police because the people could actually defend themselves by utilizing our 2A rights. LE knows crime would go down and the loss of their job isn't acceptable to them. The picture is larger and deeper than this alone but that is for another time.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

Hard to tell what really went on, but I have to give edge to the cop. He went to investigate an alleged crime and found the alleged criminal with a gun. According to the story, he only took action when it appeared the guy was going for his gun. If the sequence of events is true, and I am not saying it is or it is not, I am not real worried about what the cop did.
 

Rick Finsta

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
232
Location
Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

It bothers me that I might respond in a visually similar fashion: if I don't want LEOs handling and/or confiscating my legally owned and carried gun, I might open my door, see the officers, and then put my gun on the kitchen table before stepping back out to the door to talk with them. I would probably say "excuse me for a moment, officer," first, but I wonder if I also would be thrown to the ground in my own kitchen for merely trying to avoid a situation I saw as having the possibility of escalation by said LEO.

It is sad that officers' perceptions become hard reality in our courts of law these days. I'm not saying my reaction mirrors what this man was doing, but I could easily see a similar situation unfolding in a similar manner for me, and I highly doubt I would be treated lawfully and fairly by LEOs. Perhaps it is my inherent distrust of authority, and I am seeing things through a distorted lens.
 

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

ilbob wrote:
Hard to tell what really went on, but I have to give edge to the cop. He went to investigate an alleged crime and found the alleged criminal with a gun. According to the story, he only took action when it appeared the guy was going for his gun. If the sequence of events is true, and I am not saying it is or it is not, I am not real worried about what the cop did.

There was no crime. I have witnessed police saying that there wasn't anything they could do about a verbal threat. The police have to wait for a violation to take place. The alleged victim's word is not good enough. And victim of what?

Of course you're not worried, it didn't happen to you. I have family and friends in LE that have had to file reports against fellow officer's actions. How can you give edge to cops when they don't honor their oath to support the Constitution? Being from IL you should know how Article VI of the Constitution is being violated by cops, judges and legislators.

Read the story again because I was just pointing out that it didn't make sense. How do you "take Cover" and tackle someone at the same time? Only a DC charge for threatening a police officer with a gun? Not in WI.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

ilbob wrote:
Hard to tell what really went on, but I have to give edge to the cop. He went to investigate an alleged crime and found the alleged criminal with a gun. According to the story, he only took action when it appeared the guy was going for his gun. If the sequence of events is true, and I am not saying it is or it is not, I am not real worried about what the cop did.
But that's always the question, isn't it?
 

WIG19

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
248
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
LOL, well you can fill in the blanks any way you want to serve your purposes, since that's what seems to be popular.
No kidding. The article is trash as far as writing goes, noting sensationalistic reference to hollow-point bullets (said info likely having been provided by someone at the PD), and I'm surprised they didn't call the rounds "cop killers"...

However the officer has a right to go home after his shift as well. Given the two relevant items - the initial complaint regarding threats and the uncooperative subject with the presence of a firearm - the officer has a well-supported right in the courts to err on the safe side during the contact. Is being uncooperative a crime? Of course not, but it goes to totality of circumstances taking in the initial reason for the contact.

As Shotgun said many will MMQB it to death anyway, so drive on.
 
Top