Neighbor arrested for open carry in his yard

imported post

West Allis police captain told me that they did indeed arrest an individual who was wearing a firearm in his yard, but that they did not arrest him because he was wearing a firearm, but rather due to a disorderly conduct complaint from a neighbor.

So, draw your own conclusions if you wish. However, I don't think one can reasonably come to any conclusions based upon what we know at this point. What we don't know seems far greater than what we do.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

West Allis police captain told me that they did indeed arrest an individual who was wearing a firearm in his yard, but that they did not arrest him because he was wearing a firearm, but rather due to a disorderly conduct complaint from a neighbor.

So, draw your own conclusions if you wish. However, I don't think one can reasonably come to any conclusions based upon what we know at this point. What we don't know seems far greater than what we do.

Click to expand...

So OCing is fine, as long as you don't alarm anyone? F'ing come on. Everytime my family reports the crazy nut next store posting obscene texts in her windows directed at us, the West Allis PD says they can't do a thing. Sounds like quite the bloody double standard.

(Of course, if the DC really wasn't gun related I'd feel like a fool, but also actually happy OCing had no factor in this)

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

West Allis police captain told me that they did indeed arrest an individual who was wearing a firearm in his yard, but that they did not arrest him because he was wearing a firearm, but rather due to a disorderly conduct complaint from a neighbor.

Click to expand...

According to the police reports page on the west Allis NOW web page:

A 37-year-old man was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed in the 2000 block of South 57th Street about 6:20 p.m. Aug. 22. He had a handgun in his waistband.

It doesn't explain much. But it's all we have for now.

imported post

Dang really wish we had more information! The story could go both ways obviously I hope that the person wasn't arrested for DC due to alarming sum1 because of his firearm, I plan to start open carrying in my front yard as my start. I live within 1000 feet of a school so theres no chance of me walking off my property with it.

imported post

Here are some State Supreme court opinions from the State v Douglas D case # 99-1767-FT , opinion filed May 16, 2001.


Para. 15. Section 947.01 provides "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a class B misdemeanor." To prosecute a defendant for a violation of this statute, the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second it must prove that the defendant's conduct occured under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. under both elements, "it is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the staute to a particular situation".

para. 26 -----Pursuant to this definition, Douglas argues. ss947.01 requires more than conduct that may bcause personal discomfort in others. Applying this reasoning to the facts at hand, Douglas thus contends that because there is no evidence that his story caused anything more than personal discomfort in Mrs. C, he can not be punished for disorderly conduct.

para 27. Douglas is correct insofar as he indicates that not all conduct which causes personal discomfort in others necessarily falls within the ambit of disorderly conduct. This court has held as much:

[Section 947.02] does not imply that all conduct which tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might possibly offend some hypercritical individual. The design of the disorderly conduct statue is to proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the normal sensibilities of average persons or which constitute significantly abusive or disturbing demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.

Zwicker, 41 Wis. 2d at 508 Thus we agree that 947.01 requires more than mere offensive speech or behavior.


It appears that this thread describes another case of police harassment or ignorance of the West Allis police of the above case law.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

It appears that this thread describes another case of police harassment or ignorance of the West Allis police of the above case law.

Click to expand...

Not yet it doesn't. It's too early to say that.

We simply don't know the full story. Perhaps he was being disorderly in another way, and just happened to be armed while doing so. Perhaps he would have been cited for DC whether he was armed or not. At this point we just don't know.

I'm not making any accusations about the officers actions until I know the full details of the arrest. Assume nothing!

imported post

pkbites wrote:

Lammie wrote:

It appears that this thread describes another case of police harassment or ignorance of the West Allis police of the above case law.

Click to expand...

Not yet it doesn't. It's too early to say that.

We simply don't know the full story. Perhaps he was being disorderly in another way, and just happened to be armed while doing so. Perhaps he would have been cited for DC whether he was armed or not. At this point we just don't know.

I'm not making any accusations about the officers actions until I know the full details of the arrest. Assume nothing!

Click to expand...

That's what Im thinking

imported post

pkbites:

I agree I may have "jumped the gun" on my assesment of the West Allis LE reaction. However, as far as I can determine there is no firearm penalty attachment to the State disorderly conduct statute. Therefore I would presume preemption would come into play. In that regard the West Allis police report and the police captain's words sound very suspicious to me. That said, I do agree we should withold jugement until all the facts are in.

imported post

ALL I can say is that I hope the victim here fights this charge/arrest/what ever it was very vigorously with professional legal counsel.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

However, as far as I can determine there is no firearm penalty attachment to the State disorderly conduct statute. Therefore I would presume preemption would come into play.

Click to expand...

Lammie,

The penalty enhancer for disorderly conduct is found in Chapter 939.63 of the statutes which reads:

939.63 Penalties; use of a dangerous weapon. (1) If a
person commits a crime while possessing, using or threatening to
use a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed
by law for that crime may be increased as follows:
(a) The maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor
may be increased by not more than 6 months.
(b) If the maximum term of imprisonment for a felony is more
than 5 years or is a life term, the maximum term of imprisonment
for the felony may be increased by not more than 5 years.
(c) If the maximum term of imprisonment for a felony is more
than 2 years, but not more than 5 years, the maximum term of
imprisonment for the felony may be increased by not more than
4 years.
(d) The maximum term of imprisonment for a felony not specified
in par. (b) or (c) may be increased by not more than 3 years.
(2) The increased penalty provided in this section does not
apply if possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous
weapon is an essential element of the crime charged.
(3) This section applies only to crimes specified under chs.
939 to 951 and 961.

Since the disorderly conduct statute is Chapter 947.01 it falls within the "crimes specified."

An annotation to the statute states: "Possession encompasses both actual and constructive possession. To prove a violation of this section, the state must prove that the defendant possessed the weapon to facilitate the predicate offense. State v. Peete, 185 Wis. 2d 255, 517 N.W.2d 149 (1994)."

From this I believe we can conclude that an arresting officer would have to believe that a suspect did something that could have resulted in an arrest even if the suspect had not been armed. But if that same act is done while armed, it is an aggravating factor. That's my take on it.

imported post

Thanks shotgun. I missed that one.

imported post

For the sake of discussion, why is it that when things like this happen, we aren't 1, doing everything we can to understand the full context of exactly what happened so we can 2, become very vocal, call our local elected officials, call our local police chiefs (I own property in west allis)

Why is it that once someone actually gets arrested, all of a sudden its "hush hush, just let the system work this one out"

Why aren't we out showing public support and putting pressure on elected officials? Why are sitting around being keyboard commando's when we could be doing something?

And if the circumstances of THIS situation are not something we collectively could support, then fine... But why aren't we finding out so we can make a choice of whether this is the type of over-zealous and heavy-handed government intrusions we need to make a public spectacle over?

Its like we stand back on the fence talking the talk and then every time one lone soul steps out into the field and gets gobbled up by the wolves the inner circle on this board goes around telling people to mind their own business on this one "nothing to see here"

And then I decide to have an open carry cookout and I get told "this is not a good time to have an open carry cookout in wisconsin"

I don't get it. And I say that open-mindedly. If I'm missing something here, someone set me straight.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Why is it that once someone actually gets arrested, all of a sudden its "hush hush, just let the system work this one out"

Click to expand...

Generally, the hush hush approach is a loser - notice how successful the very noisy and open PA and VA OC harassment response and subsequent litigation is proceeding.

imported post

Has anyone gone in and requested a police report yet? Perhaps if it is so hush hush that it isn't a simple case of open carry?

Are you guys going through with the August picnic?

imported post

939.63 is the Wisconsin implimentation of the NRA's Project Exile.

If I'm missing something here, someone set me straight.

Click to expand...

In fighting. Entrenched political interests do not easily give up their power and gun control is about power.

imported post

I just go back from a trip to Jainsville, Wi and started looking at the OC board and found this tread any updates? I was amazed when talking to some locals about guns how amazed they were that is was legal in OR for us to have AR's and carry concealed. A couple diffrent people I talked to didn't even know if you can OC in ther home state when I asked.

imported post

Mike wrote:

hugh jarmis wrote:

Why is it that once someone actually gets arrested, all of a sudden its "hush hush, just let the system work this one out"

Click to expand...

Generally, the hush hush approach is a loser - notice how successful the very noisy and open PA and VA OC harassment response and subsequent litigation is proceeding.

Click to expand...

Happen to completely agree. Mike: PM sent.

imported post

Attachment deleted by the Administrator at the request of defendant's counsel until after the hearing this week.

Keep him in your thoughts. We cannot afford to have a bad ruling in this.

imported post

OK, I read the report. Nowhere in the report does it state the "[He] was disorderedly."

Now playing devils advocate here a moment, if carrying of a firearm is illegal, as the officer contends, then why wasn't Brad charged with THAT crime?

I was also going to go to the WCCA site to see if official charges had been filed. Funny thing is, wcca.wicourts.gov is down at 6:23AM central time today.

imported post

I've 'web mailed' the WestAllisNow.com (and fully expect to be ignored) requesting an update.