-
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.
Open Carry court case: West Allis City Courthouse on Tuesday February 17th at 8 AM
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
I'll be there. I'm assuming there will be othercases that morning also? Will this one be first?
I can't stick around all morning, but I'll be there at 8
I'll be there. I'm assuming there will be othercases that morning also? Will this one be first?
I can't stick around all morning, but I'll be there at 8
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
anyone know anything about this judge? is he intellectually honest?
anyone know anything about this judge? is he intellectually honest?
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
DKSuddeth wrote:
DKSuddeth wrote:
We shall soon find out.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Shotgun, you gonna be there?
Shotgun, you gonna be there?
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
It's been continued until February (the 17th I believe they said) so the Judge can read some briefs.
Ridiculous! The Judge himself gave several reasons why this case should have been dismissed today!
And the guy (Mr. Dykstra) whom called the police in the first place rambled on several times about how he was concerned that Krause's holstered handgun "might go off"!:banghead: !
It's been continued until February (the 17th I believe they said) so the Judge can read some briefs.
Ridiculous! The Judge himself gave several reasons why this case should have been dismissed today!
And the guy (Mr. Dykstra) whom called the police in the first place rambled on several times about how he was concerned that Krause's holstered handgun "might go off"!:banghead: !
BJA
Campaign Veteran
imported post
JEEZ! guess thats just longer that that he'll have to wait till he gets his gun back too, what a bunch of bullsh*t. Was gunna go but am pretty sick called in to work this morning and everything. Has anyone talked to the defendant?
Ben
JEEZ! guess thats just longer that that he'll have to wait till he gets his gun back too, what a bunch of bullsh*t. Was gunna go but am pretty sick called in to work this morning and everything. Has anyone talked to the defendant?
Ben
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
It was great to meet more of you. Auric, John, and Gene and Pete great to see you guys again.
Brad and Attorney Steve, great job.
I SO badly wanted to askDonald Dykstra "so when the officers were in the neighborhood, were you concerned about their guns "going off" too?"
I mean the situation got MORE dangerous when the police arrived. Brad had the gun on his hip in a holster and NEVER removed it from that holster.
If a gun "in its holster" is a danger, then didn't MORE guns in holsters showing up (on the hip of the police) increase the danger) and didn't the police officers approaching Brad (who was planting a tree) WITH GUNS DRAWN place the neighbors in EXPONENTIALLY more danger than they were ever placed in by Brad having a gun holstered on his hip.
I hope the west allis police department would re-examine their procedures in light of this situation.
Anyway... As those in court saw, based on the facts of the case there wasn't anything disorderly. On any level.
It was clear the judge isn't a big gun guru or in favor of people open carrying but I feel very strongly that he couldn't find anything in the cities case to support the charge. It seems to me that aside from needing to read the brief the city threw at him moments before the trial, he would have ruled in favor of Brad and dismissed the charges on grounds that the city did not meet the "muster" of "disorderly". Gosh, in the 4 months since Brad was arrested you'd think the west allis city attorney could have provided a brief sooner than a few minutes before the hearing.
I was very happy to hear the judge draw the parallel between the fact that people might be offended by something (the nazi flag being flown on someones house) or offended by the abortion protestors with their big posters of dead babies on hwy 100, but being offended (and even outraged) doesn't trump people's constitutional rights. I was also happy to hear him say that he has a big ego and doesn't like to be wrong and as such he doesn't want his decision turned over on appeal by the circuit of the state, so he's going to issue a ruling that he believes will be embraced by both. Based on the state laws, comments from previous attorney generals, comments from our GOVERNOR. I believe that means he's going to find in Brad's favor.
Regardless, as he mentioned, no matter who wins, this will be appealled to circuit court. I believe this case will go to the state supreme court and I look forward to the precedence it will set.
We all stood around and chatted for a while after the hearing.
It was great to meet more of you. Auric, John, and Gene and Pete great to see you guys again.
Brad and Attorney Steve, great job.
Wasn't that a joke.
I SO badly wanted to askDonald Dykstra "so when the officers were in the neighborhood, were you concerned about their guns "going off" too?"
I mean the situation got MORE dangerous when the police arrived. Brad had the gun on his hip in a holster and NEVER removed it from that holster.
If a gun "in its holster" is a danger, then didn't MORE guns in holsters showing up (on the hip of the police) increase the danger) and didn't the police officers approaching Brad (who was planting a tree) WITH GUNS DRAWN place the neighbors in EXPONENTIALLY more danger than they were ever placed in by Brad having a gun holstered on his hip.
I hope the west allis police department would re-examine their procedures in light of this situation.
Anyway... As those in court saw, based on the facts of the case there wasn't anything disorderly. On any level.
It was clear the judge isn't a big gun guru or in favor of people open carrying but I feel very strongly that he couldn't find anything in the cities case to support the charge. It seems to me that aside from needing to read the brief the city threw at him moments before the trial, he would have ruled in favor of Brad and dismissed the charges on grounds that the city did not meet the "muster" of "disorderly". Gosh, in the 4 months since Brad was arrested you'd think the west allis city attorney could have provided a brief sooner than a few minutes before the hearing.
I was very happy to hear the judge draw the parallel between the fact that people might be offended by something (the nazi flag being flown on someones house) or offended by the abortion protestors with their big posters of dead babies on hwy 100, but being offended (and even outraged) doesn't trump people's constitutional rights. I was also happy to hear him say that he has a big ego and doesn't like to be wrong and as such he doesn't want his decision turned over on appeal by the circuit of the state, so he's going to issue a ruling that he believes will be embraced by both. Based on the state laws, comments from previous attorney generals, comments from our GOVERNOR. I believe that means he's going to find in Brad's favor.
Regardless, as he mentioned, no matter who wins, this will be appealled to circuit court. I believe this case will go to the state supreme court and I look forward to the precedence it will set.
BJA
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I hope for a favorable outcome, hopefully I can come to the next hearing. Your right hugh this might FINALLY set a precedent in wisconsin, hopefully!
Ben
I hope for a favorable outcome, hopefully I can come to the next hearing. Your right hugh this might FINALLY set a precedent in wisconsin, hopefully!
Ben
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
In a nutshell, the City's case holds less weight than a cobweb. I guess if I was inclined to say anything sympathetic regarding the assistant city attorney it would be maybe that she is "just following orders" in the prosecution of this case. Other than "following orders" I can't understand why she'd be inclined to pursue the matter.
The complainant is just a very confused man.
Brad's attorney did very well. He came well-prepared. I admire that. I would have confidence in him if he represented me.
Brad Krause is knowledgeable, passionate and easily liked. It was a pleasure to meet him and to talk a few minutes with him. We should all be proud of him and support him.
I was especially happy to see that a number of supporters were present. It was good to see firsthand that there are dedicated and knowledgeable people around here. I hope we can motivate many more people to join in the battle to protect our rights. I am beginning to think that apathy is a greater foe than any group of antigun people.
Shotgun wrote:
Having now observed the judge, I believe he is intellectually honest. That doesn't guarantee that he'll make the correct decision in this case, but I believe he will decide it to the best of his ability. I like the judge.
In a nutshell, the City's case holds less weight than a cobweb. I guess if I was inclined to say anything sympathetic regarding the assistant city attorney it would be maybe that she is "just following orders" in the prosecution of this case. Other than "following orders" I can't understand why she'd be inclined to pursue the matter.
The complainant is just a very confused man.
Brad's attorney did very well. He came well-prepared. I admire that. I would have confidence in him if he represented me.
Brad Krause is knowledgeable, passionate and easily liked. It was a pleasure to meet him and to talk a few minutes with him. We should all be proud of him and support him.
I was especially happy to see that a number of supporters were present. It was good to see firsthand that there are dedicated and knowledgeable people around here. I hope we can motivate many more people to join in the battle to protect our rights. I am beginning to think that apathy is a greater foe than any group of antigun people.
ManOutdoors
New member
imported post
Ended up with a little food poisoning so I wasn't able to make it this morning.Did you guys see any sort of media presence while you were down there?
Ended up with a little food poisoning so I wasn't able to make it this morning.Did you guys see any sort of media presence while you were down there?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
hugh jarmis wrote:
have they been asked to produce their use of force procedures IAW Wisc. Stat. 66.0511(2) Use of force policy. Each person in charge of a law enforcement agency shall prepare in writing and make available for public scrutiny a policy or standard regulating the use of force by law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Did anybody open carry to the courthouse and ask for them to store their gun? In some states like PA this is required.
Did anybody open carry to the courthouse and ask for them to store their gun? In some states like PA this is required.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
I DON'T want my rights determined by the slimy grey area of what some individual "feels". I don't want "confused men" determining when I am or am not breaking the law.
I DON'T want think enforcement of my rights is "subjective"
Someone is either breaking the law or they are not.
How possibly can I be within the law walking around with an openly holsterd firearm on one street so long as none of the neighbors have a problem with it, but one street over there is an anti-gun guy who's scared of guns that calls the police and now I'm breaking a law... its rediculous.
I agree... And that to me is the most horrifying part of this case, and how disorderly conduct is applied.
I DON'T want my rights determined by the slimy grey area of what some individual "feels". I don't want "confused men" determining when I am or am not breaking the law.
I DON'T want think enforcement of my rights is "subjective"
Someone is either breaking the law or they are not.
How possibly can I be within the law walking around with an openly holsterd firearm on one street so long as none of the neighbors have a problem with it, but one street over there is an anti-gun guy who's scared of guns that calls the police and now I'm breaking a law... its rediculous.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Worse, look to the single element to be proven of the weapons enhancement to DC, "facilitation of the predicate offense." If the arming precedes in time the alleged disorderly conduct then how can it facilitate anything but an armed offense? How can the arming make easier what has not yet occurred?
Worse, look to the single element to be proven of the weapons enhancement to DC, "facilitation of the predicate offense." If the arming precedes in time the alleged disorderly conduct then how can it facilitate anything but an armed offense? How can the arming make easier what has not yet occurred?
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
And there were a couple of signs at the door stating the Wisconsin law about carrying in a public building. That law only includes inside the building, though, not outside.
Mike wrote:
It isn't in Wisconsin.
And there were a couple of signs at the door stating the Wisconsin law about carrying in a public building. That law only includes inside the building, though, not outside.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
pkbites wrote:
pkbites wrote:
I would have considered OC outside the building, however-- and unfortunately-- there is a high school nearly next door to the building. The "school zone" restriction would have been in effect putting one in legal peril.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
In regards to the last minute brief by the West Allis city attorney. Pointman said it short and sweet. "The other side plays dirty". They have a reason for doing such tactics. It is one of strategy. They realize that there is usually some high publicity in a case such as this. The other side realizes that there may be a number of pro defendant people in the courtroom at the initial hearing . By using the last minute brief technique they usually get a continuance hoping that at that future hearing there will be fewer defendant backers present. Usually the judge doesn't have much choice but to grant a continuance because there may be information in the last minute brief that is pivotal to the case. That is why we must stay vigilant. The other side does indeed play "dirty" and it is important that we "know thy enemy".
In regards to the last minute brief by the West Allis city attorney. Pointman said it short and sweet. "The other side plays dirty". They have a reason for doing such tactics. It is one of strategy. They realize that there is usually some high publicity in a case such as this. The other side realizes that there may be a number of pro defendant people in the courtroom at the initial hearing . By using the last minute brief technique they usually get a continuance hoping that at that future hearing there will be fewer defendant backers present. Usually the judge doesn't have much choice but to grant a continuance because there may be information in the last minute brief that is pivotal to the case. That is why we must stay vigilant. The other side does indeed play "dirty" and it is important that we "know thy enemy".
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
HAHA. That would be great. In fact, there were signs in the atrium of the building of the statute which prohibits "carrying a firearm in a public building". Needless to say, the signs were put up especially for today. Not that we OCers who know the law very well would make that mistake...