-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter bnhcomputing
- Start date
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
A clear example of inappropriate, over-the-top law enforcement. If this is all there is to the story, it is not a story except for the over-reaction by law enforcement. If the citizen is legitimate and did not threaten the officer or others, I hope he finds a good attorney and heads to civil court.
A clear example of inappropriate, over-the-top law enforcement. If this is all there is to the story, it is not a story except for the over-reaction by law enforcement. If the citizen is legitimate and did not threaten the officer or others, I hope he finds a good attorney and heads to civil court.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
professor gun wrote:
The cop saw a gun in his waistband and he appeared to reach for it.
At what point is this an overreaction?
professor gun wrote:
Well read it again. The story says he DID threaten others. The police were there to "discuss a report that he had made violent threats to co-workers."
The cop saw a gun in his waistband and he appeared to reach for it.
At what point is this an overreaction?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
A report that he had threatened is not the pluperfect act.
This incident could have as easily occurred at any pro gun activist's castle and I wouldn't hesitate to scratch my ass in front of a spit cop, right under my sidearm.
So much for the presumption of innocence and so much for freedom as principle.
A report that he had threatened is not the pluperfect act.
This incident could have as easily occurred at any pro gun activist's castle and I wouldn't hesitate to scratch my ass in front of a spit cop, right under my sidearm.
So much for the presumption of innocence and so much for freedom as principle.
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
No, there was a report that he made threats at work. This could range from being a legitimate honest to goodness threat to someone at work filing an inappropriate complaint. There are many instances of people filing a complaint like this just because they don't like someone or they have a problem with people owning guns.
If the man was reaching for the gun, that was really stupid on his part and I can understand the cop's reaction or if he actually threatened the cop I can understand the reaction, however that is not clear. Based upon the quality of the report in the La Crosse Tribune (e.g., implying that having hollow points in a gun is a problem) I would tend not to believe the article is a good representation of what happened. I have to wonder (and am inclined to believe) that the guy got proned out and arrested just because he had a gun in his waistband.
In my house I have a right to carry a gun and do not pose a threat to others. If a police officer is at my door, I am not going to answer the door with my gun present on my person or anywhere near me as I respect the officer and do not want to put them in a tense situation. The gentleman in this story is probably guilty of poor judgment. The story is written with an obvious bias so who knows what the truth is here. A lot of officers do not understand that citizens do have a right in this state to open carry, particularly in one's home and on one's property; I really have to wonder if that was not at play here.
Shotgun wrote:
No, there was a report that he made threats at work. This could range from being a legitimate honest to goodness threat to someone at work filing an inappropriate complaint. There are many instances of people filing a complaint like this just because they don't like someone or they have a problem with people owning guns.
If the man was reaching for the gun, that was really stupid on his part and I can understand the cop's reaction or if he actually threatened the cop I can understand the reaction, however that is not clear. Based upon the quality of the report in the La Crosse Tribune (e.g., implying that having hollow points in a gun is a problem) I would tend not to believe the article is a good representation of what happened. I have to wonder (and am inclined to believe) that the guy got proned out and arrested just because he had a gun in his waistband.
In my house I have a right to carry a gun and do not pose a threat to others. If a police officer is at my door, I am not going to answer the door with my gun present on my person or anywhere near me as I respect the officer and do not want to put them in a tense situation. The gentleman in this story is probably guilty of poor judgment. The story is written with an obvious bias so who knows what the truth is here. A lot of officers do not understand that citizens do have a right in this state to open carry, particularly in one's home and on one's property; I really have to wonder if that was not at play here.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
Excellent point, Doug.
Excellent point, Doug.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
are hollow point bullets illegal in Wisconsin?
are hollow point bullets illegal in Wisconsin?
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
imported post
No
No
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
I'm not sure what the point was in mentioning that he had hollow points. At least not EVERY decision he made was a poor one.
But any cop who is going to a house to talk to somebody about allegedly making threats to harm others, and who encounters an armed person, would be STUPID not to respond in a manner similar to the way this cop responded upon seeing a movement of the hand in the direction of the weapon. The guy is lucky he was only put on the floor and disarmed and not shot. If there are other facts not reported in the story, bring them out. But on face value, I have absolutely no problem with how the police handled the situation. When suddenly faced with a potential life or death decision, a prudent person will make the decision most likely to ensure survival. If the cop thought "Hmmm, I'll wait to see if he's just scratching his ass." He might not live to learn the answer. It's not a good time to hesitate, and if you think it is you've probably never had your life on the line.
I'm not sure what the point was in mentioning that he had hollow points. At least not EVERY decision he made was a poor one.
But any cop who is going to a house to talk to somebody about allegedly making threats to harm others, and who encounters an armed person, would be STUPID not to respond in a manner similar to the way this cop responded upon seeing a movement of the hand in the direction of the weapon. The guy is lucky he was only put on the floor and disarmed and not shot. If there are other facts not reported in the story, bring them out. But on face value, I have absolutely no problem with how the police handled the situation. When suddenly faced with a potential life or death decision, a prudent person will make the decision most likely to ensure survival. If the cop thought "Hmmm, I'll wait to see if he's just scratching his ass." He might not live to learn the answer. It's not a good time to hesitate, and if you think it is you've probably never had your life on the line.
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Saying he was arrested for having a gun loaded with hollow point bullets makes it seem like its illegal to have hollow point bullets in a gun, that is the reason they put it there, kinda how the ammo in the trunk and gun in a separate compartment myth got started. The officer saw the gun when the man was walking AWAY. No threat to the officer if the individual was leaving. And it doesn't make any sense that the guy would turn around and show the gun IF he was going to reach for it. Only 150$ bond for reaching for a weapon?And the fact that they took ALL his weapons (without a warrant to search for them)make me even less understanding or trustingof the officers actions. Common sense tells me not to believe this version of events on its face.
Saying he was arrested for having a gun loaded with hollow point bullets makes it seem like its illegal to have hollow point bullets in a gun, that is the reason they put it there, kinda how the ammo in the trunk and gun in a separate compartment myth got started. The officer saw the gun when the man was walking AWAY. No threat to the officer if the individual was leaving. And it doesn't make any sense that the guy would turn around and show the gun IF he was going to reach for it. Only 150$ bond for reaching for a weapon?And the fact that they took ALL his weapons (without a warrant to search for them)make me even less understanding or trustingof the officers actions. Common sense tells me not to believe this version of events on its face.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Parabellum wrote:
Parabellum wrote:
Well I'm one to make people take responsibility for what they say, so maybe I'll contact the paper and ask what the point is of saying the guy had those demon hollow points. Maybe they ought to print a clarification to state "this ain't New Jersey" and that "them there hollow points are just peachy keen in Wisconsin!"
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
Still, I am confused by this story - what crime is committed by making furtive movements inside your own house when a police officer is consensually interviewing you thru your door? I see no warrant nor even probable cause to enter the house, let alone to arrest this man.
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
police state.
police state.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Mike, there was no interview. Generally the police don't like it when it appears you're pulling a gun on them. I wouldn't either. It's not a very informative news story, but it's all we've got, unless somebody wants to get a copy of the criminal complaint, if it's been filed.
Mike, there was no interview. Generally the police don't like it when it appears you're pulling a gun on them. I wouldn't either. It's not a very informative news story, but it's all we've got, unless somebody wants to get a copy of the criminal complaint, if it's been filed.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
I'm on Mike's side on this one.
A furtive movementcoincidentally toward a gun (scratching your back) might justify diving for cover and drawinga gun.
But the cop went on from there, according to the story, ordering him to the ground, and arresting him. For what? Maybe scratching his back?
Lets not forget that more than one cop has over-reacted and then had to falsify evidence or testimony. Did the man turn to go away from the screen door, the cop deciding to make the arrest when he saw the gun? Then realizing he had insufficient reason, did the cop have to invent the furtive movement?
The story just doesn't give enough detail.
Mike wrote:
I'm on Mike's side on this one.
A furtive movementcoincidentally toward a gun (scratching your back) might justify diving for cover and drawinga gun.
But the cop went on from there, according to the story, ordering him to the ground, and arresting him. For what? Maybe scratching his back?
Lets not forget that more than one cop has over-reacted and then had to falsify evidence or testimony. Did the man turn to go away from the screen door, the cop deciding to make the arrest when he saw the gun? Then realizing he had insufficient reason, did the cop have to invent the furtive movement?
The story just doesn't give enough detail.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
But who pulled a gun on who here?
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
According to the news report, the police officer pulled his gun on the citizen when he noted the citizen moving his hand towards the gun stuffed in his pants.
I'm not quite sure why so many people are second-guessing the cop in this situation. As we know, cops are trained to watch the hands. If a LEO is approaching a suspect-- (And he was a suspect since somebody had already alleged he had made threats to do physical harm.)-- and the suspect makes a motion towards a visible weapon, only the most foolhardy LEO would not take some sort of defensive action.
Those of you who think the cop was wrong, explain how you think he should have handled it.
According to the news report, the police officer pulled his gun on the citizen when he noted the citizen moving his hand towards the gun stuffed in his pants.
I'm not quite sure why so many people are second-guessing the cop in this situation. As we know, cops are trained to watch the hands. If a LEO is approaching a suspect-- (And he was a suspect since somebody had already alleged he had made threats to do physical harm.)-- and the suspect makes a motion towards a visible weapon, only the most foolhardy LEO would not take some sort of defensive action.
Those of you who think the cop was wrong, explain how you think he should have handled it.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
We don't know the cop was wrong, or right. The story doesn't give enough information.
With that said, like Mike pointed out, the story does say the man was arrested for making amovement toward his gun in his own house while seemingly walking away from a consensual encounter. We're not questioning the officer pulling the gun in response to the movement, we're questioning how it turned into an arrest.
The information given is at mostambiguous about the gun reach. A reach in the same direction as the gun is not "he pulled his gun", nor "he put his hand on his gun" both of which I'm sure would have been reported by the police to the press instead of a reach towards a gun.Neither does the story say what the homeowner had in his hand after the officer took cover. If the officer moved to cover, presumably the homeowner had time to finish his draw, if in fact he was moving to draw. No report of the homeowner actually drawing his gun.
The homeowner could just as easily have been reaching to scratch his back, given the information provided.
I think Mike had it right to raise the questions.And, I think the team participating in the thread at the moment all understand there is probably more to the story.
Shotgun wrote:
We don't know the cop was wrong, or right. The story doesn't give enough information.
With that said, like Mike pointed out, the story does say the man was arrested for making amovement toward his gun in his own house while seemingly walking away from a consensual encounter. We're not questioning the officer pulling the gun in response to the movement, we're questioning how it turned into an arrest.
The information given is at mostambiguous about the gun reach. A reach in the same direction as the gun is not "he pulled his gun", nor "he put his hand on his gun" both of which I'm sure would have been reported by the police to the press instead of a reach towards a gun.Neither does the story say what the homeowner had in his hand after the officer took cover. If the officer moved to cover, presumably the homeowner had time to finish his draw, if in fact he was moving to draw. No report of the homeowner actually drawing his gun.
The homeowner could just as easily have been reaching to scratch his back, given the information provided.
I think Mike had it right to raise the questions.And, I think the team participating in the thread at the moment all understand there is probably more to the story.
bobcat
Regular Member
imported post
Based soley on the story at hand, it makes perfect sense for the responding officer(s) to subdue and restrain this guy when they are answering a threat complaint and the guy is armed and 'apparently' made a motion towards his firearm.
Can't see how they have a right or any basis to confiscate property. Warrants? Court orders? The only firearm that might be confiscated would be the one he had on his person as it's part of the complaint and reason for arrest. At the least it has to be secured at the scene.
There is an awful lot to sort out here and this account just isn't adequate. Only the officers on scene and Herold really know.
Based soley on the story at hand, it makes perfect sense for the responding officer(s) to subdue and restrain this guy when they are answering a threat complaint and the guy is armed and 'apparently' made a motion towards his firearm.
Can't see how they have a right or any basis to confiscate property. Warrants? Court orders? The only firearm that might be confiscated would be the one he had on his person as it's part of the complaint and reason for arrest. At the least it has to be secured at the scene.
There is an awful lot to sort out here and this account just isn't adequate. Only the officers on scene and Herold really know.