Milwaukee Bus Drivers Want To Carry

imported post

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=794919



The sheriff doesn't see any of the videos as warranting lethal force....

I wonder if one of his Deputies, taking a similar beating would be justified in using their weapon?

imported post

Any links to the "video" referred to?

imported post

Here's a few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcVAlFku54s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8o9jiW5AiQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2rhHl8we6s

These are just a few, seems like a weekly event that a driver or passenger gets thumped by some punk on The Milwaukee County Transit System.

imported post

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who spoke with Jensen last week, said pepper spray is legal and could be a reasonable way to improve bus drivers’ security if the sheriff’s office provides training in its use.

But firearms on buses?

“Outright, that is just fraught with peril on all sides,” Chisholm said. “Before he even raises that issue, he would need to talk to a lot of people very closely before he would even think of it.”



Yes, fraught with peril. Particularly for criminals. :celebrate

imported post

What about tasers? I thought I heard that they were considering tasers?

imported post

shernandez wrote:

What about tasers? I thought I heard that they were considering tasers?

Click to expand...

They're not legal for non-law enforcement people in Wisconsin.

imported post

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to provide the citation:

[align=left]941.295 Possession of electric weapon. (1) Whoever[/align]
[align=left]sells, transports, manufactures, possesses or goes armed with any[/align]
[align=left]electric weapon is guilty of a Class H felony.[/align]
[align=left](2) Subsection (1) does not apply to:[/align]
[align=left](a) Any peace officer. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes[/align]
[align=left]of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission[/align]
[align=left]warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.[/align]
[align=left](b) Any armed forces or national guard personnel while on[/align]
[align=left]official duty.[/align]
[align=left](c) Any corrections personnel in a county or in the department[/align]
[align=left]of corrections while on official duty.[/align]
[align=left](d) Any manufacturer or seller whose electric weapons are[/align]
[align=left]used in this state solely by persons specified in pars. (a) to (c).[/align]
[align=left](e) Any common carrier transporting electric weapons.[/align]
[align=left](3) During the first 30 days after May 7, 1982, the electric[/align]
[align=left]weapons may be surrendered to any peace officer. Peace officers[/align]
[align=left]shall forward electric weapons to the crime laboratories if the[/align]
[align=left]retention of those weapons is not necessary for criminal prosecution[/align]
[align=left]purposes.[/align]
[align=left](4) In this section, “electric weapon” means any device which[/align]
[align=left]is designed, redesigned, used or intended to be used, offensively[/align]
[align=left]or defensively, to immobilize or incapacitate persons by the use[/align]
of electric current.

imported post

It seemsa good part of the problem is when one group of people state they need the ability to do something, instead of stating people in generalneed the ability to something, meaning the group intends to create special privileges for themselves. Such is the case with police being able to carry pepper spray, Tasers, and gunsfor self protection and having the immunity to use them, while bus drivers, taxi drivers, pizza delivery guys, and the common citizen have no real ability to defend themselves against attack.

I will say the videos defeat the argument of, "Just give them what they want and they won't hurt you."

imported post

At least somebody knows that guns in the hands of good guys can save lives. However, let's not forget that under Wisconsin law, a regular driver who just wants to protect his life to go home to his wife at night cannot have an loaded or uncased firearm on a bus!! A bus is considered a vehicle. They would have to get a private security permit at least. And since they don't work for a security company, this would be difficult if not impossible.

Somebody needs to tell the JS this fact.... "A busdriver who drives into any areas of Milwaukee cannot carry a loaded firearm due to wisconsin state laws....tell this to your customers and ask them to contact their representatives to get the laws changed!"

The pepper spray is the only option which complies with the laws. But it WON'T stop a determined attacker. And it may only put him down for a minute or two. Options like a shield around a driver won't stop a bullet. A Tazer is banned for all people except LEOs. Sounds like these drivers are screwed.

It amazes me, there has to be alot of bad things that happen due to crime in a particular area, then and only then someone might stick their neck out and say that the victims should carry guns as a proactive thing. So this means that if someone is attacked once or twice they can't carry. But after a third attack, then they can. Silly to say the least.

imported post

smithman wrote:

...Sounds like these drivers are screwed.

It amazes me, there has to be alot of bad things that happen due to crime in a particular area, then and only then someone might stick their neck out and say that the victims should carry guns as a proactive thing. So this means that if someone is attacked once or twice they can't carry. But after a third attack, then they can. Silly to say the least.

Click to expand...

Again, as so many point out on here, it isn't just these drivers, IT IS ALL OF US. Not a single non LEO individual, except that ex investigator??? guy carry on a bus or in our car. Also don't forget that pesky SCHOOL ZONE thing. If that bus enters a school zone, then they would violate yet another law or TWO???

So I agree, with you there smithman, if one of us was to compile a list of all the federal, state, and local (enforceable or not) laws the bus drivers would break, and include the maximum penalties, for each offense, I bet even we would be surprised.

imported post

smithman wrote

It amazes me, there has to be alot of bad things that happen due to crime in a particular area, then and only then someone might stick their neck out and say that the victims should carry guns as a proactive thing. So this means that if someone is attacked once or twice they can't carry. But after a third attack, then they can. Silly to say the least.

Click to expand...

It's not necessarily just the people that think this way, but also the Wisconsin supreme court! What sticks out in my mind about that past CC case with the pizza delivery guy is the only way he could prove immediate need was the fact he was robbed at gunpoint something like three times?!

imported post

Agent1187 wrote:

It's not necessarily just the people that think this way, but also the Wisconsin supreme court! What sticks out in my mind about that past CC case with the pizza delivery guy is the only way he could prove immediate need was the fact he was robbed at gunpoint something like three times?!

Click to expand...

And on the third occasion [from the SC verdict on the matter in State v. Andres Vegas] "On September 13, 2006, three men robbed and physically beat Vegas while he was delivering pizzas.... The assailants beat Vegas and pepper sprayed his eyes. Vegas attempted to run away, but one of the assailants grabbed him, punched him in the face and then kicked him."

What remains ludicrous is this: The state prosecuted Vegas for the 941.23 violation during the period before he had to use the firearm in self-defense, yet at the trial, they conceded "that Defendant Vegas was not concealing his weapon for an unlawful purpose."

So the SC held "In light of Hamdan and Fisher and in consideration of the facts of this case, this Court holds that the CCW statute is unconsitutional as applied to Defendant Vegas.

Omitting the italicized words is what they should've done. Nonetheless, Mr. Vegas should be OC'ing at this point I'd imagine.