Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Shooting in Milwaukee

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In the middle of a corn field, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    You guys see this?? What a tool.

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/53259052.html

    Victim Kills Would-Be Robber
    By Elizabeth Braun, Melanie Stout
    MILWAUKEE - A 23-year-old Milwaukee man was being robbed at gunpoint when he pulled out his own gun and fatally shot one of the suspects.

    It all happened early Thursday near 1st and Clarke. The 23-year-old man was walking his girlfriend home when two teenagers pulled out a gun and tried to rob them.

    But the victim also had a gun. He shot and killed one suspect, 17-year-old Kevin Ollie. Ollie's gun also went off, and he accidentally shot the other teen robber before he died.

    The robbery victim's family says he had no choice but to fight back.

    The District Attorney's office agreed. Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the victim acted in self-defense and will not be charged with any crime.

    But the surviving robber, Damien Cole, 19, has been charged with felony murder for his role in the incident where some died during the commission of another crime.

    He could get up to 55 years in prison on that charge.

    Cole also faces charges of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So much for the rule of law in Wisconsin and Milwaukee

    The District Attorney's office agreed. Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the victim acted in self-defense and will not be charged with any crime.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    So why don't we have legal CCW again? after all, nothing like this could ever happen in Wisconsin... <----that's purely sarcasm btw...
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    So.If you carry concealed and use the firearm to defend yourself or others it's OK ,but not legal? If you carry concealed don't use it and are found to be carrying,you probably will be arrested and lose your firearm rights,go to jail,be fined and have your firearms taken away?





    I am confused




    This guy did everything a law abiding citizen should be lawfully able to do.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    I'm sure the decision was made based on the fact that citing the man for CCW would have been bad PR for MPD. Also if he was cited it would have brought more attention to the CCW issue and we all know that MPD is largely anti-gun rights.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    So the victem was C.C. ing his gun?

  7. #7
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    The last thing Milwaukee wants is to give case law as to CCW. So no charges are filed when CCW saves your life.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In the middle of a corn field, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    FLR72 wrote:
    So the victem was C.C. ing his gun?
    I dont know for sure but I am thinking he was cc. if not these guys came up and try to mug a guy who was open carrying?? They sound like idiots but who would rob someone who had a weapon.:shock:

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    32HR MAG wrote:
    So.If you carry concealed and use the firearm to defend yourself or others it's OK ,but not legal? If you carry concealed don't use it and are found to be carrying,you probably will be arrested and lose your firearm rights,go to jail,be fined and have your firearms taken away?I am confused
    This guy did everything a law abiding citizen should be lawfully able to do.
    Since CCW is a misdemeanor, one cannot lose their firearms rights from this alone. There would have to be other confounding circumstances of illegality.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Big Dipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Like "discharging a weapon" within the city limits?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    Like dicharging a weapon in the city and since you are already performing an illegal act wouldn't it also be murder and not self defense?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Except in particular circumstances Wisconsin cities do not have the statutory power to prohibit discharge of a weapon.

    66.0409 Local regulation of firearms. (1) In this section:
    (a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
    (b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or
    county.
    (c) ...
    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision
    may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates
    the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping,
    possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting,
    registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including
    ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or
    resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than,
    a state statute.
    (3) (a)...
    [ ... ]
    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that
    is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from
    enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the
    discharge of a firearm.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    The reports stated "he removed the pistol from his pocket" So yes he was carrying concealed. If he was on his property,I think that is legal due to the Hamden case.

    In Hamden or Vegas, it loosly states; if your need to conceal a firearm outweighs the states need to prohibit concealing, you are ok.

    Could Hamden or Vegas be used as a defense for carrying concealed in public? Since if you carried it openly you know you're going to get harrasses by the police, you get their firearms pointed at you, your rights violated, sworn at, belittled threatened,maybe even tasered and pepper-sprayed, and all the other tactics many officers commonly use.
    I feel that me being able to avoid all the rough treatment by police, my need to conceal to avoid this treatmentoutweighs the states prohibition.
    If nobody can see my firearm, there is no need for them to call police and set me up for brutally ignoranttreatment by them.

    At what point in Hamden or Vegasdoes it state what action outweighs the prohibtion of C-C? Do I need to be shot at first? Do I need to be verbally assaulted? or does a weapon need to be used or threatened to be used against me? (where did our relevant case-law sticky go?)

    This leads me to believe, that illegallycarrying concealed is a better option than legally carrying open right now. keep your nose clean, do not sonsent to a search and your golden? what is an illegal concealment charge, something like $100.00? Itwould becheaper than getting a permit if they were available to us!



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    The more I read on the subjects discussed on this great forum .The more I see how "asleep at the wheel "so many have been,including myself here in Wisconsin.



  15. #15
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    32HR MAG wrote:
    The more I read on the subjects discussed on this great forum .The more I see how "asleep at the wheel "so many have been,including myself here in Wisconsin.

    Well if it makes you feel better, I am 40. Our gun laws are as much my fault as anyones. I should have known ten years ago to start this fight. For this, I am very sorry.

    I am not sleeping any more, and I will do my best to keep the fight going.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    The reports stated "he removed the pistol from his pocket" So yes he was carrying concealed. If he was on his property,I think that is legal due to the Hamden case.

    In Hamden or Vegas, it loosly states; if your need to conceal a firearm outweighs the states need to prohibit concealing, you are ok.

    Could Hamden or Vegas be used as a defense for carrying concealed in public? Since if you carried it openly you know you're going to get harrasses by the police, you get their firearms pointed at you, your rights violated, sworn at, belittled threatened,maybe even tasered and pepper-sprayed, and all the other tactics many officers commonly use.
    I feel that me being able to avoid all the rough treatment by police, my need to conceal to avoid this treatmentoutweighs the states prohibition.
    If nobody can see my firearm, there is no need for them to call police and set me up for brutally ignoranttreatment by them.

    At what point in Hamden or Vegasdoes it state what action outweighs the prohibtion of C-C? Do I need to be shot at first? Do I need to be verbally assaulted? or does a weapon need to be used or threatened to be used against me? (where did our relevant case-law sticky go?)

    This leads me to believe, that illegallycarrying concealed is a better option than legally carrying open right now. keep your nose clean, do not sonsent to a search and your golden? what is an illegal concealment charge, something like $100.00? Itwould becheaper than getting a permit if they were available to us!

    I think that the $100 fine you mention is for having an uncased fierarm in a vehicle. If it is concealed I think the max fine is $500

    In the case law annotations it mentions a women who was charged with ccw after she used it in self defence and aquited of all orher charges. If you click on the pourple link it should link to the case or read below I pasted in the backround of what happened


    .115.31 - ANNOT.
    A woman attempting to protect the lives of her daughter and granddaughters by shooting their potential attacker after issuing numerous warnings and taking actions in an apparent attempt to avoid shooting did not act contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards. That she was convicted of carrying a 99-1338.I. BACKGROUND

    DPI’s 1994 revocation of Epstein’s license, we summarized the factual

    background and procedural history:

    On June 30, 1992, Epstein[, a Whitefish Bay public school

    employee,] shot and killed [Lee King,] her former son-inlaw[,]

    when he made threats against the li[ves] of her

    daughter and grandchildren while backing up his

    automobile … with the children in the rear seat and her

    daughter partially in the car. Epstein had access to a loaded

    gun because she was carrying it in her purse. She said the

    gun was in her purse because she was going to target

    practice later that day. She kept the gun in her home for

    protection and only carried it with her in her purse when

    going to target practice. Epstein was acquitted of all

    criminal charges arising out of this incident with the

    exception of a carrying a concealed weapon charge.

    In April 1993, the Department of Public Instruction

    issued a notice of probable cause and intent to revoke

    Epstein’s [DPI-issued] licenses. A three-day hearing was

    held before hearing examiner Dr. Julie Underwood, Esq.

    Superintendent Benson did not attend any portion of the

    hearing. The Department was represented by Attorney

    Kathleen Kalashian. The hearing examiner issued her

    decision in January 1994, finding that the Department had

    not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Epstein

    had committed an immoral act[,] and that Epstein’s actions

    in this shooting incident did not have a nexus to, or

    endanger, the health, welfare, education or safety of any

    pupil.

    Kalashian filed objections to the hearing examiner’s

    decision and submitted alternate findings of fact and

    conclusions of law recommending that Epstein’s teaching

    licenses be revoked. In February 1994, Benson summarily

    No. 99-1338

    4

    reversed the hearing examiner’s decision and adopted

    Kalashian’s alternative conclusions and decision. He

    neither gave Epstein an opportunity to object to this new

    decision nor did he set forth any explanation for his

    departure from the hearing examiner’s decision. Epstein

    filed a [W
    IS. STAT. ch. 227] appeal. The circuit court

    reversed Benson’s decision because of his failure to comply

    with certain statutory requirements.

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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Except in particular circumstances Wisconsin cities do not have the statutory power to prohibit discharge of a weapon.

    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that
    is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from
    enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the
    discharge of a firearm.
    And just who do you think doesn't have the ability to prohibit discharge based on this?

    This says that any city or village can restrict the discharge of firearms. Any town that has been so authorized by its "town meeting" can do so as well.

    ("cities" and "villages" are not subject to the "authorized to exercise village powers" clause, only "towns" are. And I haven't checked but I'd bet the vast majority of towns have so authorized their town boards).


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Well, that's what you must do.

    I tracked down the handwritten minutes of a Town Meeting in 1975 granting/adopting village powers.

    If a subdivision municipality not a village prohibits discharge of a firearm then they should be able to document the grant of authority.

    Lest you think these powers be adopted/granted willy-nilly, they are a vast transfer of power and responsibility that shouldn't be undertaken lightly. The grant must be made at a 'Town Meeting' by the assembled electors that have been properly notified. If the people granted their Board these powers ill-advisedly then they will pay. Is there a method of rescission?

    As I noted in my discussion of our 'dump' ordinance, I did not refer to DNR regulations for authority to charge heavy fees to use the dump. I cited 'village powers' and the need to pay for operation of the dump without increasing the (property) tax burden.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Well, that's what you must do.

    I tracked down the handwritten minutes of a Town Meeting in 1975 granting/adopting village powers.
    OK...

    I really am not intending to sound flip or anything here...so please don't take it as such.

    The OP was about a self defense shooting in the _city_ of Milwaukee.

    You followed up saying that
    Except in particular circumstances Wisconsin cities do not have the statutory power to prohibit discharge of a weapon.
    and highlighed 66.0409(3)(b) to back this up. Apologies if I did it in poor form, but I was disputing the accuracy of this statement.

    Per the cited statute, any city may regulate discharge of firearms. Any village may regulate discharge of firearms. Any town my regulate discharge of firearms provided the town meeting has granted village powers to the town board.

    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So you are saying that a city is not preempted prohibition of discharge? Do Wisconsin cities have discharge of firearms prohibitions?

    66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.
    (1) In this section:
    (a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
    (b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or county.
    (c) ...
    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
    (3) (a)...
    [ ...]
    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.
    I think that I disagree and wonder if the 'or' is intended to be inclusive disjunction or is intended to be exclusive disjunction. What was the legislative intent? Do any Wisconsin cities that are not authorized village powers prohibit discharge?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I think that I disagree and wonder if the 'or' is intended to be inclusive disjunction or is intended to be exclusive disjunction. What was the legislative intent? Do any Wisconsin cities that are not authorized village powers prohibit discharge?
    Cities are bigger than villages which are bigger than towns.

    My reading is: If you're a city or a village, you can make prohibitions. If you're a town board, you can only do it if your "town meeting" has authorized you to act like a bigger unit - a village.

    I'd venture to say most cities and villages have prohibitions on discharge and some carve out exceptions for hunting, etc.

    If it is read the way you're trying to read it....then no city would be able to because cities don't have "town meetings" that can authorize a "town board" to act like a "village". And why would a city's "town meeting" authorize its "town board" to act like a _smaller_ unit (village)?

    Why would a Village need to have it's "town meeting" authorize its "town board" to act like the village it is?

    Further, Chapter 60 of WI statutes applies only to towns and how they conduct business.

    Ch. 59 is for counties
    Ch. 61 is for villages
    Ch. 62 is for cities....





    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Village powers are broad and expansive and, I am taught by WTA that, they are given wide latitude in judicial interpretation due to Constitutional Home Rule provisions.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Village powers are broad and expansive and, I am taught by WTA that, they are given wide latitude in judicial interpretation due to Constitutional Home Rule provisions.
    Which is further support for my reading.

    WI's Home Rule amendment applies to cities and villages.

    It does not apply to counties or towns...thus my reading that cities and villages may prohibit, but towns may only prohibit if they have been authorized under the state statutes that deal with towns.

    What this does mean, however, is that no _county_ restriction on discharge of firearms is now permissible.


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

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

    Post imported post

    I'm no legislator (thank goodness) but if I were one...and I were drafting it to read the way you're interpreting, I would write something like:

    [quote]
    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town from
    enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the
    discharge of a firearm, provided such city, village or town is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3)

    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    The last thing Milwaukee wants is to give case law as to CCW. So no charges are filed when CCW saves your life.
    +1
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

Posting Permissions

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