Madison Police Department Capt. Victor Wahl issues hunting license for all gun owners

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Wrong. She called the police and in fact "caused him to be subjected" to deprivation because he was arrested under the color of a city ordinance. This is exactly as it is written in the Code.

This isn't that complicated.

In this day and age all anyone understands is money. Make them pay and you will get their undivided attention.

From what I gathered from the news the woman that called isn't even from Wisconsin she is here visiting. Maybe she should know the law before calling the police on some one who is not violating the law. As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Making her come back for a trial may just help her to understand that.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. She was not the arresting / citing officer. She was merely the means by which they learned of the gentleman with a gun.

That said, she's not innocent of wrong-doing IMO. She's just not agent that caused the deprivation. She's at best (or worst depending on your POV), an accessory to the action.

imported post

McX wrote:

Has, or can anyone contacted the guy envolved to find out if he's chosen a lawyer yet, and where donations can be sent for his defense? It sounds like it would be in all our best interests to see him adequately defended, and a victorious outcome for him. I am willing to help.

Click to expand...

Yes, in the 'Paging Travis Yates' thread in the Wisconsin sub-forum

imported post

Are we being too hard on the officer involved? The issue is the lack of clear direction from the command structure. The Madison street cops are pretty good, I have had nothing but courteous contact with them.

They have a tough PR job in acitylikeMadison where a societal change is taking place - with the influx of violent gangs intoa white collar government - college - insurancetown.

Madison's major David Cheesywedgees is a former community organizer who is rabidly against the right of self defense and is unwilling to acknowledge the change that has taken place in the city.

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Are we being too hard on the officer involved? The issue is the lack of clear direction from the command structure. The Madison street cops are pretty good, I have had nothing but courteous contact with them.

They have a tough PR job in acitylikeMadison where a societal change is taking place - with the influx of violent gangs intoa white collar government - college - insurancetown.

Madison's major David Cheesywedgees is a former community organizer who is rabidly against the right of self defense and is unwilling to acknowledge the change that has taken place in the city.

Click to expand...

No we are not being too hard on any of them. Each cop took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. "Just following orders" is not an excuse. Ignorance of the Constitution is not an excuse for LEO's!

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Madison's major David Cheesywedgees is a former community organizer who is rabidly against the right of self defense and is unwilling to acknowledge the change that has taken place in the city.

Click to expand...

Kick him out of office then. Anyone who is against the right of self defense is unfit for public office, period.

imported post

The police officer's actions are "highly disturbing" to me, as I am sure they are to most here. Can the individual officers be cited for "disturbing the peace"? Probably are exempt from the law...

Since exercising a right seems to be grounds for such a charge, perhaps we should go after newspapers for "disturbing the peace" because the news always seems so "negative"... or "certain churches" because they dare to mention that we could end up in some place of eternal punishment,... or some individual's choice of music because I find that #$%@ Lawrence Welk stuff disturbing, or perhaps the fact that there is a supposed drug house around the corner.... their activity certainly disturbs the peace...perhaps the police shouldn't need a warrant to go in and look for evidence since my being disturbed certainly is of paramount importance.

My point is that if this person is successfully prosecuted, all of our rights are in serious jeopardy if anyone is even remotely disturbed by us exercising them. This potential is untenable; all I can convey is my overwhelming sadness. Hopefully, the individuals who are pushing for prosecution do the right thing and drop the case and then are subjected to a critical investigation of whether they should continue to serve the people of Wisconsin.

imported post

I have posted both memos and their URLs in Battle of the memos! Madistan's Ch. Wray takes on AG Van Hollen.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/29817.html

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

The lieutenant and the city attorneyallegedly have college educations, but no obviously no intelligence.

Click to expand...

This kind of reaffirms something one of my engineering professors told me years ago: "College teaches you more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing."

imported post

Sue the S*** out of them. plain and simple. If the police want to be vigilantes then they're going to have to get used to writing out checks to the people they are harassing.

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Why hasn't she been identified? & where is the 911 transcript? Her actions have subjected Travis to public scrutiny, she should be subjected to the same.

Click to expand...

I just sent a request for the 911 "calls" tonight. I would not be to shocked if I never get it, but I have to try.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Wrong. She called the police and in fact "caused him to be subjected" to deprivation because he was arrested under the color of a city ordinance. This is exactly as it is written in the Code.

This isn't that complicated.

In this day and age all anyone understands is money. Make them pay and you will get their undivided attention.

From what I gathered from the news the woman that called isn't even from Wisconsin she is here visiting. Maybe she should know the law before calling the police on some one who is not violating the law. As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Making her come back for a trial may just help her to understand that.

Click to expand...

Now now, the woman only called the cops and reported a man with gun. The cops made the choice to go get him. If she would have called and told them man chewing gum, all she is doing is reporting what she sees. The cops and the 911 dispatch are 100% at fault, not the reporter. No slander or rights voilation in just reporting what you see... Now if a lie was involved, it would change real fast. At this time I am waiting for the call record. That should help sort some of this out...

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Are we being too hard on the officer involved? The issue is the lack of clear direction from the command structure. The Madison street cops are pretty good, I have had nothing but courteous contact with them.

They have a tough PR job in acitylikeMadison where a societal change is taking place - with the influx of violent gangs intoa white collar government - college - insurancetown.

Madison's major David Cheesywedgees is a former community organizer who is rabidly against the right of self defense and is unwilling to acknowledge the change that has taken place in the city.

Click to expand...

So if I am your boss, can I tell you to break the law? If a cop follows direction that he/she knows is a violation of law, it is a crime. Thats a fact. What this cop did sounds like it was just that. By now it is safe to say that every cop in the State of Wisconsin knows the open carry gun laws. To have this happen, now, is a slap in the face of all the free people of the whole state! If we do not stop this, we should not have the right. We will not have earned it.

So lets all go to madtown and show the cops who the real boss is! I bet it would make the news in every place in Wisconsin.

imported post

AaronS wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

Wrong. She called the police and in fact "caused him to be subjected" to deprivation because he was arrested under the color of a city ordinance. This is exactly as it is written in the Code.

This isn't that complicated.

In this day and age all anyone understands is money. Make them pay and you will get their undivided attention.

From what I gathered from the news the woman that called isn't even from Wisconsin she is here visiting. Maybe she should know the law before calling the police on some one who is not violating the law. As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Making her come back for a trial may just help her to understand that.

Click to expand...

Now now, the woman only called the cops and reported a man with gun.  The cops made the choice to go get him.  If she would have called and told them man chewing gum, all she is doing is reporting what she sees.  The cops and the 911 dispatch are 100% at fault, not the reporter.  No slander or rights voilation in just reporting what you see...  Now if a lie was involved, it would change real fast.  At this time I am waiting for the call record. That should help sort some of this out...

Click to expand...

If she had just reported what she had seen absent any expression of emotion, fear or disturbance, it's doubtful police would have been dispatched. What likely happened was she reported she was in fear of the man with a gun. Absent any criminal behavior, claiming fear=accusing someone of a crime who is then harmed because of it... slander.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

If she had just reported what she had seen absent any expression of emotion, fear or disturbance, it's doubtful police would have been dispatched. What likely happened was she reported she was in fear of the man with a gun. Absent any criminal behavior, claiming fear=accusing someone of a crime who is then harmed because of it... slander.

Click to expand...

If the police fullfill the open records requests made for the 911 call records we will soon know - but past experience with such calls in PA and VA is that in fact these 911 callers are mainly curious as to whether open carry is legal and actually report somthing like "well, he's not doing anything wrong, but . . ."

As for all this talk about suing the 911 caller for slander or civil rights violations, that is not going to fly as people can report things to the police and their impressions of things they see all they want, and no tort liability arises noris such conduct actionable under civil rights law - Section 1983 applies to state or local governmental unit or agent violations of law.

imported post

Obviously there is alot here to read, and think about. Many theories to consider. But as "the Doc" pointed out, this one we will have to fight. I'm concerned that other entities, like tha ACLU, NRA, may not respond to help quickly enough, leaving the battle to Travis, and those who support him, at a more local level. I would ask the Moderator to contact Travis, get the information on what/who attorney he is retaining, and maybe PM those of us who have offered support ($), and give us privately the name and address of the attorney to send support to. This way fraud, or misrepresentation should be avoided. One can also theorize the Disorderly Conduct charge is a attempt to "let the air out of" Mr. Vanhollen's ruling, and send our movement further back into the stone ages. Whether we like it or not, now is the time to stand and be counted.

imported post

PS: I must admit, the more I rea, the more alarming it seems to become. A thread mentioned that Mr. VanHollen had said something to the effect of hunters with long guns should be ok carrying for hunting, but long gun carrying in another venue might not be protected. Nothing was mention of the OC'r. Like that issue was dodged, ignored, or failed to be taken into account. Then I read another thread where the OC event at a fairground had the Police make the statement to the effect that they weren't concerned with the OC-ers attending the event, just how the public will react. So it seems that the Police are softening against the OC'r, but then you turn the page, and read of the recent events with Travis in Madison, and wonder where is the uniformity, fairness. I would suspect in an OC society setting the entrance of someone with a long gun into the picture might have the effect of putting the OC'ers present on a "heightened state of awareness", and self regulation, or discouragement, might diffuse the issue before the Police even need to be called. Still Mr. VanHollen needs to clarify, and directly address the OC issue.

imported post

McX wrote:

PS: I must admit, the more I rea, the more alarming it seems to become. A thread mentioned that Mr. VanHollen had said something to the effect of hunters with long guns should be ok carrying for hunting, but long gun carrying in another venue might not be protected. Nothing was mention of the OC'r. Like that issue was dodged, ignored, or failed to be taken into account. Then I read another thread where the OC event at a fairground had the Police make the statement to the effect that they weren't concerned with the OC-ers attending the event, just how the public will react. So it seems that the Police are softening against the OC'r, but then you turn the page, and read of the recent events with Travis in Madison, and wonder where is the uniformity, fairness. I would suspect in an OC society setting the entrance of someone with a long gun into the picture might have the effect of putting the OC'ers present on a "heightened state of awareness", and self regulation, or discouragement, might diffuse the issue before the Police even need to be called. Still Mr. VanHollen needs to clarify, and directly address the OC issue.

Click to expand...

McX, please read the memo. It's obvious that you haven't. The memo ismuch more clear than you speculate. It goes on to say that if the guy carrying the long gun down the street and is"barking" at other people it might be DC.

imported post

Artificially straining at a differentiation of longguns and shortguns from guns is a divide and conquer tactic.

imported post

pvtschultz wrote:

So, no one on this board? It had to be one of us on here, or is it a "loner".

Click to expand...

He may be what we commonly call a Unicorn = unknown OCer. They are quite rare.

Yata hey