• 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.

Shooting in Milwaukee

L

lowdog

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
26
Location
In the middle of a corn field, Iowa, USA
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.
 
3

32HR MAG

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Fond du Lac, USA
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:banghead:




This guy did everything a law abiding citizen should be lawfully able to do.
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
S

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
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:banghead:
This guy did everything a law abiding citizen should be lawfully able to do.
Click to expand...
Since CCW is a misdemeanor, one cannot lose their firearms rights from this alone. There would have to be other confounding circumstances of illegality.
 
3

32HR MAG

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Fond du Lac, USA
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?
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 
N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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!
 
3

32HR MAG

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Fond du Lac, USA
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.
 
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
H

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...

[align=left]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[/align]
[align=left]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[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left].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[/align]
[align=left]DPI’s 1994 revocation of Epstein’s license, we summarized the factual[/align]
[align=left]background and procedural history:[/align]
[align=left]On June 30, 1992, Epstein[, a Whitefish Bay public school[/align]
[align=left]employee,] shot and killed [Lee King,] her former son-inlaw[,][/align]
[align=left]when he made threats against the li[ves] of her[/align]
[align=left]daughter and grandchildren while backing up his[/align]
[align=left]automobile … with the children in the rear seat and her[/align]
[align=left]daughter partially in the car. Epstein had access to a loaded[/align]
[align=left]gun because she was carrying it in her purse. She said the[/align]
[align=left]gun was in her purse because she was going to target[/align]
[align=left]practice later that day. She kept the gun in her home for[/align]
[align=left]protection and only carried it with her in her purse when[/align]
[align=left]going to target practice. Epstein was acquitted of all[/align]
[align=left]criminal charges arising out of this incident with the[/align]
[align=left]exception of a carrying a concealed weapon charge.[/align]
[align=left]In April 1993, the Department of Public Instruction[/align]
[align=left]issued a notice of probable cause and intent to revoke[/align]
[align=left]Epstein’s [DPI-issued] licenses. A three-day hearing was[/align]
[align=left]held before hearing examiner Dr. Julie Underwood, Esq.[/align]
[align=left]Superintendent Benson did not attend any portion of the[/align]
[align=left]hearing. The Department was represented by Attorney[/align]
[align=left]Kathleen Kalashian. The hearing examiner issued her[/align]
[align=left]decision in January 1994, finding that the Department had[/align]
[align=left]not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Epstein[/align]
[align=left]had committed an immoral act[,] and that Epstein’s actions[/align]
[align=left]in this shooting incident did not have a nexus to, or[/align]
[align=left]endanger, the health, welfare, education or safety of any[/align]
[align=left]pupil.[/align]
[align=left]Kalashian filed objections to the hearing examiner’s[/align]
[align=left]decision and submitted alternate findings of fact and[/align]
[align=left]conclusions of law recommending that Epstein’s teaching[/align]
[align=left]licenses be revoked. In February 1994, Benson summarily[/align]
[align=left]No. 99-1338[/align]
[align=left]4[/align]
[align=left]reversed the hearing examiner’s decision and adopted[/align]
[align=left]Kalashian’s alternative conclusions and decision. He[/align]
[align=left]neither gave Epstein an opportunity to object to this new[/align]
[align=left]decision nor did he set forth any explanation for his[/align]
[align=left]departure from the hearing examiner’s decision. Epstein[/align]
[align=left]filed a [WIS. STAT. ch. 227] appeal. The circuit court[/align]
[align=left]reversed Benson’s decision because of his failure to comply[/align]
[align=left]with certain statutory requirements.[/align]
 
T

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 
T

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top