• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Detained for Open Carrying at Metcalfe's Sentry in Madison

M

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
imported post

Excellent post!!! I'm to print that out and post it on my desk so I can get this into my memory bank...

Phssthpok wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Don't ASK if you are free to go.... ESTABLISH that you are:

Am I under arrest? Open the bid with the highest card as they must 'trump' you to retain authority. I dare say 99.9% of the time this will catch them off guard and they will respond in the negative. This does two things:
1: If you ARE under arrest, you now know to STFU to protect yourself.
2: If you are NOT under arrest, you have established such through their own statements, and just trumped any future claims of 'resisting arrest' as you peacefully walk away (after the following).


Am I being detained? Same as above....establish through their own statements that you are NOT being detained. If they indicate that you ARE being detained, DEMAND RAS. Do not relent. It would seem to be general consensus that they are not required to articulate their suspicion to YOU, just that they have it for the judge, but I maintain that if they truly do have RAS then it should be no problem to voice to YOU it in the instant matter in order for you to know that they are not playing on (your) ignorance and trying to trick (you) into voluntarily surrendering your rights secured by the fourth and fifth.

If they indicate that you are NOT being detained, do not ASK if you are free to leave...make it a statement that you ARE leaving:

"Thank you. Having established through your own statements (Emphasize that line!), that I am NOT under arrest NOR being detained I am terminating this encounter and departing forthwith (or 'leaving immediately' if that more natural to your speech patterns). I leave you in peace, and bid you good day."

Then turn and WALK. Any action on their part that hinders your free movement from that point on is a direct CRIMINAL violation of 18USC sec 242. Remember....recorders are your friends.

I have had folks say that the whole "departing forthwith" and "I leave you in peace" thing was a little over the top, but I wanted to include a formal statement to establish that I was offering no resistance to any exercise of lawful authority but simply removing myself from their presence and the olde-tyme language pattern seemed to get the point across the best.
Click to expand...
 
Flipper

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Sounds like the Madison Police Department, & most likely the Madison mayor, is out to make OC uncomfortable inMadistan. If they only would spend the same effort to get MS13 & other gangs out of the city's notoriously crime ridden southwest side - which is not very far from Metcalf's.
 
M

MadisonRebel

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
61
Location
Madison, WI
imported post

Sent Noble Wray a letter expressing my feelings of fear and intimidation as a result of the encounter. I hope I get a reply that isn't a form letter.
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

MadisonRebel wrote:
Sent Noble Wray a letter expressing my feelings of fear and intimidation as a result of the encounter. I hope I get a reply that isn't a form letter.
Click to expand...
We should mention that Wray is the chief of police.
 
G

gdyslin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
34
Location
Madison, ,
imported post

Section 947.01 provides: "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor." To prosecute a defendant for a violation of this statute, the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor." To prosecute a defendant for a violation of this statute, the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. See State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis.2d 497, 514, 164 N.W.2d 512 (1969). Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Id. Under both elements, "t is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation." State v. Maker, 48 Wis.2d 612, 616, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).

Copa buddy of minetalked to says this is the sentace they say gets around the issue. Said it was vaguely enough written being "otherwise disordery".
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
We need a new name for this - "Mad-Town Carry"?

What's up there in Madison? Anyway, do re-contact corp. management and complain that they have a rogue employee not following their guidance and calling police on paying customers, see what they say.
Click to expand...
 
Flipper

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gdyslin wrote:
Section 947.01 provides: "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud
or otherwise disorderly conduct
occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Copa buddy of minetalked to says this is the sentace they say gets around the issue. Said it was vaguely enough written being "otherwise disordery".
Click to expand...

Get in contact with your state legislators here:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx

Ask them to sponsor legislation to remove that language from the statute. They make and change laws as YOUR elected representatives. Tell them that thislanguage is being used indiscriminately by police to justify suppression of constitutional and civil rights. If they don't respond favorably, work for their opponent with time and money (money being the mother's milk of politics). Urge your relatives and friends to do likewise.Let the politico that you are working against know that you are and the reason why.

P--ss--g and moaning here may be good therapy for frustrations, but it does't get anything to change.
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gdyslin wrote:
Copa buddy of minetalked to says this is the sentace they say gets around the issue. Said it was vaguely enough written being "otherwise disordery".
Click to expand...

The cops writing the tickets need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and be sharp enough to read the rest of the statute which mentions the burden of proof of the 2 elements in order to be prosecuted. It is only laziness and JBT'ery that compels them to write it based purely on an incompetentdetermination of "otherwise disorderly"...

[Section 947.01] does not imply that all conduct which tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might possibly offend some hypercritical individual. The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the normal sensibilities of average persons or which constitute significantly abusive or disturbing demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.
Click to expand...
Flipper wrote:
Ask them to sponsor legislation to remove that language from the statute.
Click to expand...
It is an education issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "otherwise disorderly" as the State Supreme Court has defined what constitutes disorderly. A"hypersensitive person"calling 911 for a man with gunclearly does not meet the definition.
 
L

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

My opinion is that the phrase "otherwise disorderly conduct" does not give the police thelicense to define that phrase to justify their opinion as to what is disorderly conduct. As stated in Douglas D. "Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included".Any other conductthan those listed in the statute must have the same impact on the "decency or propriety of the community" as the othersin order to be considered "otherwise disorderly". The disorderly conduct cases of Douglas D., Zwicker, R.A.V, Todd Gerrits seem to indicate the state supreme court also leans in that direction. For a conduct to be considered "otherwise disorderly" it must be such that it upsets the community as a whole, not just be disruptive to a hypercritical person. My 2cents worth. Have at it.
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Lammie wrote:
My opinion is that the phrase "otherwise disorderly conduct" does not give the police thelicense to define that phrase to justify their opinion as to what is disorderly conduct. As stated in Douglas D. "Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included".Any other conductthan those listed in the statute must have the same impact on the "decency or propriety of the community" as the othersin order to be considered "otherwise disorderly". The disorderly conduct cases of Douglas D., Zwicker, R.A.V, Todd Gerrits seem to indicate the state supreme court also leans in that direction. For a conduct to be considered "otherwise disorderly" it must be such that it upsets the community as a whole, not just be disruptive to a hypercritical person. My 2cents worth. Have at it.
Click to expand...
And clearly it's difficult to argue that merely carrying a gun "upsets the community as a whole" since Art. I, Sec. 25 was passed by a huge majority of "the community as a whole" and the legislators, who ostensibly represent the "community as a whole" require open carry by statute.
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Lammie wrote:
My opinion is that the phrase "otherwise disorderly conduct" does not give the police thelicense to define that phrase to justify their opinion as to what is disorderly conduct. As stated in Douglas D. "Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included".Any other conductthan those listed in the statute must have the same impact on the "decency or propriety of the community" as the othersin order to be considered "otherwise disorderly". The disorderly conduct cases of Douglas D., Zwicker, R.A.V, Todd Gerrits seem to indicate the state supreme court also leans in that direction. For a conduct to be considered "otherwise disorderly" it must be such that it upsets the community as a whole, not just be disruptive to a hypercritical person. My 2cents worth. Have at it.
Click to expand...
+1
 
S

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

As the passenger is ordered to stay in the car.....
What can they do if the driver decides to leave?
Should he ask if being detained at all, or just start car and
wish them a good day?

If you have perishable items in car, can you charge them with
destruction of private property?
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:
As the passenger is ordered to stay in the car.....
What can they do if the driver decides to leave?
Should he ask if being detained at all, or just start car and
wish them a good day?

If you have perishable items in car, can you charge them with
destruction of private property?
Click to expand...
That's a tough one. I assume that the officer flashed his lights which to me is an order to pull over because I am being detained. That said I bet would be hard pressed to find a statute relating to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top