Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Man with gun at Mayfair Mall

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch...8&id=47013

    Calling the crime a "recipe for disaster," a federal judge today sentenced a man to 28 months in prison for illegally having a gun at Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa earlier this year.

    Lorenzo Garcia, who was a felon, pleaded guilty to taking a 9mm Glock handgun to Mayfair on Feb. 14, according to court documents.

    Mayfair security spotted Garcia arguing loudly with a female inside the mall and saw him pull out the gun while arguing with the woman in the parking lot, the news release issued today said. Wauwatosa police arrested Garcia.

    In a separate gun-related incident two days later at Mayfair, a loaded gun flew over a second-floor railing after a man got in a scuffle with police. The gun did not discharge. Two men were charged in that case.

    In handing down Garcia's sentence, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller said the community will not tolerate the presence of weapons at public places such as Mayfair Mall, the release said.



    Granted, this one dude was a felon (yet somehow he had aquired a gun illegally, am I surprised?!?!?!) and broke the law by concealing. Obviously this is not an OC story per se, but look at the statement from the district judge. His statement, besides being ludicrous encourages crime since then under his wishes no cops would bring a weapon with them to the mall! But I doubt he considered this when he made this statement. The honorable Stadtmueller needs a reality check that regular citizen CAN carry in Wisconsin, and the public may see us carry OPENLY since that is the ONLY legal way.

    Some people just hate the idea of an armed public. Somebody tells me "I want to take 1000 guns of the streets of Milwaukee". I say "Let's start with the police then. That will be a sure way to get 1000 guns off the street". They look at me like I'm a complete fool. So I say "What do you mean, you said you wanted 1000 guns off the street and I told you an easy way to do it". They say "Well, cops sometimes need their guns to catch criminals". So I ask "So, you're telling me that it depends on who has the guns?" After 10 seconds of themselves challenging their beliefs they say "Well, I guess so". Then I might say "good thinking, and you're right. Guns in the hands of the right people don't hurt anybody".

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    The judge's comments are...interesting.

    This was filed in WI first as a Felon In Posession charge that was eventually dropped when the feds took over.


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    That statement also turned my eyebrows skyward...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    BLUF: He is pandering to a perceived constituency.

    Found this by accident, but it would certainly be possible to rate this Judge on temperament, quirks, and/or knowledge of the law when citing his (to us) inflammatory remarks.



  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    For now Judge Stadtmueller has 0 survey results

    http://courthouseforum.com/index.php
    Rate judges and rate courts at Courthouse Forum. Courthouse Forum has a judge directory and court directory for each state and federal judiciary, discussion forums for courts and judges, judicial performance evaluation surveys to rate judges, worst judge voting, forums for legal questions, law and legal resources, legal news, judicial misconduct and judicial complaint information, court maps, and more.
    Visitors may now vote for the judges they consider to be the worst judges, by going to the Judge Directories or the judge's page in the forum. To find a judge use the Judge Directories, or the Find Judge search feature to the upper-left. Voting will continue throughout the year. Visitors are allowed one vote per session.
    To explain your vote for a particular judge, you may use our forums or complete a judicial evaluation survey for the judge. Surveys may be accessed on the Judge Directory and on each judge's page in the forum.
    We have also added new features to the website, several of which are listed below.
    Journals
    New journals may be accessed by clicking the "Journals" toolbar above. The initial load times will vary from approximately 5 to 15 seconds.
    Interactive Maps
    We've also added interactive maps for courts, law libraries and law schools. The initial load times will vary from approximately 10 to 40 seconds. For example, the initial load time for the Federal Court is approximately 20-40 seconds, depending upon the speed of your internet service. (Once a map has initially loaded, interaction times are much quicker.) We are in the process of adding maps for all 50 states. Maps may be accessed by clicking "Maps" on the toolbar above.
    California Courts Michigan Courts Law Libraries Other State Courts (coming soon)
    ___________________________________________
    Courthouse Forum provides a unique and comprehensive platform for the open and candid evaluation and discussion of cases, courts, the judiciary, and legal issues. We hope you will participate by completing a judicial survey and providing your comments and opinions. Participation in the forums and surveys is FREE, and no log in or registration is required. Participation may be anonymous.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    For now Judge Stadtmueller has 0 survey results
    2 best times to plant a tree, 20 years ago and right now. Checked w/JSOnline and no transcript of any other remarks but remarks were reported based on a press release from the US Atty's office.

    This particular judge has a good record in certain areas, particularly one where he presided at a case involving someone who was the repositor of weapons for a drug ring. (They wouldn't ever have to get found with weapons, but when one was needed he would check it out to them.) He simply needs to stick to the facts of the criminal case before him - imo - and leave the pandering to Milwaukee rhetoric out of it.

    My concern is that he is less than objective should some stand-up citizenhave to come before him in a defense-of-self shooting, or other firearm-related matter.





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    This makes no sense. A federal judge would not be presiding over a state charge. What was the charge?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    This makes no sense. A federal judge would not be presiding over a state charge. What was the charge?
    Not completely sure but orig charge that brought on "felon in possession" might've had something to do with it coupled with what appears from the article to be the behavior outside in the parking lot. Don't have any other info but it could be things like reckless endangerment, aggravated assault. Some of those things that move you into double Jeopardy where your scores can really change.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    But it appears the only federal charge was dismissed. Sometimes you can hang state crimes onto a federal prosecution but there must be some basis for the jurisdiction in the first place.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    But it appears the only federal charge was dismissed. Sometimes you can hang state crimes onto a federal prosecution but there must be some basis for the jurisdiction in the first place.
    Yep, ya stumped the band here.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I was around a crime the jurisdiction of which was changed from initially federal to finally state. A crack chemist's prosecution was given to the state because the federal speedy-trial requirements are stronger. AFAIK the chemist has not yet been tried, this after many years.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    The state filed FIP charges initially, but dropped the STATE charges when the feds stepped in and filed charges.

    Double jeopardy? Huh?

    Double jeopardy means you can't be tried twice for the same charge...

    They could easily hit this guy (based on the way the article reads at least) with:

    CCW
    Brandishing
    FIP
    Assault

    and probably half a dozen other charges...that's not double jeopardy.

    Double jeopardy is...say you got tried for murder...and acquitted. New evidence comes up for that same crime...they can't retry you.

    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    Double jeopardy? Huh?
    I was being facetious, referring to the game show, not the legal consequence.



    As in, you threaten someone it can be simple assault. Introduce a firearm into the mix and it can be aggravated assault. Your improved "score" gets handed down by your gameshow host, Judge Doorslammer.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    T

    They could easily hit this guy (based on the way the article reads at least) with:

    CCW
    Brandishing
    FIP
    Assault
    I can't find brandishing in the state statutes. Can anybody else?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    Double jeopardy? Huh? Double jeopardy means you can't be tried twice for the same charge...
    There is more to double jeopardy than that, same jurisdiction, for instance, and when does prejudice attach?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    Teej wrote:
    T

    They could easily hit this guy (based on the way the article reads at least) with:

    CCW
    Brandishing
    FIP
    Assault
    I can't find brandishing in the state statutes. Can anybody else?
    You're right. My mistake. Not sure why I included that.

    However, they could certainly throw DC while armed in there. Not implying that it's equivalent or another definition for the erroneous inclusion.
    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Teej wrote:
    Double jeopardy? Huh? Double jeopardy means you can't be tried twice for the same charge...
    There is more to double jeopardy than that, same jurisdiction, for instance, and when does prejudice attach?
    There is more detail, but the root all comes down to not being tried twice on the same charge. If charges are dropped before a trial begins, there's no question of DJ.

    ...especially since the guy wasn't talking about DJ in a legal sense. D'oh.
    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Will someone please cite the Wisconsin statute for the weapon enhancement to DC?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will someone please cite the Wisconsin statute for the weapon enhancement to DC?
    Yeah, good luck on that one.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I paid $100 for a licensed copy of WisLaw

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/cdinfo.html

    that is such a POS that I'm not sure that it is working. I've worn it out trying to find what might not be there?

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    WIG19 wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will someone please cite the Wisconsin statute for the weapon enhancement to DC?
    Yeah, good luck on that one.
    WI Statute 939.63

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Parabellum wrote:
    WIG19 wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will someone please cite the Wisconsin statute for the weapon enhancement to DC?
    Yeah, good luck on that one.
    WI Statute 939.63

    Yep, that's the weapon enhancer alright. There is, to my knowledge, no specific enhancer to DC. In this situation there is other stuff; but believe it important to remember that if one is ever slapped with a bogus DC charge simply for the act of being armed, there is no enhancer to the bogus DC charge making it DC while armed because either:

    a. The DC charge is bogus in the first place or,

    b. The weapon IS the DC charge and so 939.63(2) should apply: (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.

    Otherwise you'd be getting charged with being armed while being armed.

    (well, ok, I know... it's Wisconsin)


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    ^^^ Agree with WI there.

    IN THIS CASE it was a "loud argument" that flared up during which a

    - felon was carrying a concealed weapon (Felon in posession)
    - arguing with someone (likely justifies the DC charge)
    - pulls out the gun (Assault)

    Because he persisted in being disorderly (arguing) and was carrying a gun...DCwA...

    939.63(1)
    (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:


    As WI alluded to...this is an enhancer to an established crime. Being armed and peaceful is not "DCwA"....
    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Parabellum wrote:
    WI Statute 939.63
    Thanks. Sounds like Wisconsin's implementation of the NRA's Project Exile - a topic for some other day.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •