Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Racine man will not be charged

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Bicyclist pointing gun not charged
    By Associated Press


    Posted: May. 15, 2009

    Racine - A Racine bicyclist who pulled out his revolver to scare off a group of teens during an apparent robbery attempt won't be charged.

    The man, 42, told police he was riding his bicycle May 1 when four teens knocked him off and seemed to be trying to rob him, so he pulled out the revolver he was carrying in a side holster, pointed it up and yelled, "Gun."

    The teens fled, and he flagged down a police officer.

    The man, who asked not to be identified, was treated at the scene for a wrist injury. Police escorted him home and returned his gun to him.

    Racine County District Attorney Mike Nieskes sent him a letter Friday, saying he wouldn't be charged, even though he was violating a law by carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

    "I have decided it would not be in the greater interest of justice in the community to charge you with violation of Wisconsin Statute regarding gun free zones," Nieskes wrote.

    Nieskes noted that the man has no criminal record, and there was no showing of irresponsible use of the firearm.

    He also cited a recent memo issued by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that people have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms, as long as they aren't violating restrictions set in other laws. But Van Hollen also said police have the right to check anyone openly carrying a gun.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    Sets a precedent - nice.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Maybe everyone should fire this D.A. off an email thanking him for his professional and respectable decision. It is nice to see he is not some over zealous prosecutor.

  4. #4
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    I was talking to some people about this. They suspect a deeper reason why he declined to prosecute. If this issue went to court, it would bring into the lights of the press regarding the issue of carry within 1000 feet of a school. They surmised that rather than risk the ire of the people/press it would be best to just drop the issue.



    Showing that criminal activity can occur with in this protected 1000 feet might make people think this rule is as foolish as it is in reality.


    I agree
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  5. #5
    Regular Member tomm1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    mke, ,
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    I was talking to some people about this. They suspect a deeper reason why he declined to prosecute. If this issue went to court, it would bring into the lights of the press regarding the issue of carry within 1000 feet of a school. They surmised that rather than risk the ire of the people/press it would be best to just drop the issue.

    Showing that criminal activity can occur with in this protected 1000 feet might make people think this rule is as foolish as it is in reality.


    I agree
    It could also have worked its way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of the school zone law. Possibly putting an end to this silly law while circumventing our dysfunctional legislature..

Posting Permissions

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