-
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.
-
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.
Questioned by Officers (3rd OC in Walmart)
- Thread starter Rbwhanson
- Start date
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, I am going to go into "blame the victim mode" and here is why: when you reinforce bad behavior you get....more bad behavior.
I'm not referring to the OP, but to the cops. OP is reinforcing bad policing and shaking their hands and such. Seriously, this is not good. These guys are borderline infringing on your rights and you accept that and encourage that. The cops will walk away thinking what they did is acceptable and YOU are the reason the next OCer will get hassled. Please stop doing that.
I'll go so far to say that if you don't know your rights and aren't willing to exercise them (ala don't talk to the cops and flex your rights videos) then quite frankly you shouldn't open carry as you are just making it harder for the rest of us.
You can't be nice about this stuff. I'm not saying call the cop a MF'er but you need to aggressively defend your rights for your sake and everyone else. In Cali they are getting nervous about hassling Ocers due to the ever present lawsuit risk. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
No recorder, weakness galore...not good. Granted, I know it is your first time and all, nowhere to go but up on the second occurrence, but this was NOT good and there is room for improvement. Just being candid.
I keep them on the cart and he asks me for my ID, so I proceed to hand him my State ID after warning him it was in my back pocket.
Weak.
He states that he is not arresting me, but there was a complaint of me carrying in Walmart.
Your first question should be if you are being detained. If not, then you should leave promptly.
He then asks to see my firearm so that he can run it through the database. (Two more cops walk up).
The answer to this question is always no.
I let him know it is locked properly in my trunk. I get my keys and unlock the trunk (this is the point where the don't talk to cops video starts running through my head....a bit too late).
More weakness and you know better since you saw the video. Close your trunk and forget how to speak English.
I grab the case and hand it to another cop and state that the serial number is clearly marked on the outside, but that I will open it if necessary. They open it with my key and run it, of course it comes back legal.
What is wrong with you. Why are you doing this?
Then the officer proceeds to say that They are not arresting me although some cities such as Milwaukee are arresting.
Blah, blah am I free to go?
I ask what for, and he states Disorderly Conduct. He asks if I have ran into trouble carrying anywhere else and I state that I have not. He asks that I do not carry again in Walmart.
I'd tell him that I will do what Walmart allows and he is in no position to stop that. You are talking too much at this point.
I then ask how it is considered disorderly conduct. He gives me some run down about yelling fire at a movie theater. I tell him that I have already emailed the Senator in regards to the disorderly conduct law. I tell him currently the disorderly conduct law is wrong and should e changed and give him my own analogy of the law. I tell him technically the way you are telling me "If I was walking down the street with my dog on a leash and a neighbor can call me in if they don't like it, and I can be arrested for walking a dog". He says "Right" He says just because that the Attorney Generals interpretation of it does not make it law. He said that this will have to be answered at a Supreme court level as it probably will. He asks me for my phone number, and I oblige.
Ok, again, what is wrong with you? You are swapping phone numbers with this guy?
He then asks me if I have anymore questions. I state "No" shake his hand and thank him for his time.
WTF is with the hand shaking? This guy is not your friend. You need to understand that.
Ok, I am going to go into "blame the victim mode" and here is why: when you reinforce bad behavior you get....more bad behavior.
I'm not referring to the OP, but to the cops. OP is reinforcing bad policing and shaking their hands and such. Seriously, this is not good. These guys are borderline infringing on your rights and you accept that and encourage that. The cops will walk away thinking what they did is acceptable and YOU are the reason the next OCer will get hassled. Please stop doing that.
I'll go so far to say that if you don't know your rights and aren't willing to exercise them (ala don't talk to the cops and flex your rights videos) then quite frankly you shouldn't open carry as you are just making it harder for the rest of us.
You can't be nice about this stuff. I'm not saying call the cop a MF'er but you need to aggressively defend your rights for your sake and everyone else. In Cali they are getting nervous about hassling Ocers due to the ever present lawsuit risk. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
No recorder, weakness galore...not good. Granted, I know it is your first time and all, nowhere to go but up on the second occurrence, but this was NOT good and there is room for improvement. Just being candid.
I keep them on the cart and he asks me for my ID, so I proceed to hand him my State ID after warning him it was in my back pocket.
Weak.
He states that he is not arresting me, but there was a complaint of me carrying in Walmart.
Your first question should be if you are being detained. If not, then you should leave promptly.
He then asks to see my firearm so that he can run it through the database. (Two more cops walk up).
The answer to this question is always no.
I let him know it is locked properly in my trunk. I get my keys and unlock the trunk (this is the point where the don't talk to cops video starts running through my head....a bit too late).
More weakness and you know better since you saw the video. Close your trunk and forget how to speak English.
I grab the case and hand it to another cop and state that the serial number is clearly marked on the outside, but that I will open it if necessary. They open it with my key and run it, of course it comes back legal.
What is wrong with you. Why are you doing this?
Then the officer proceeds to say that They are not arresting me although some cities such as Milwaukee are arresting.
Blah, blah am I free to go?
I ask what for, and he states Disorderly Conduct. He asks if I have ran into trouble carrying anywhere else and I state that I have not. He asks that I do not carry again in Walmart.
I'd tell him that I will do what Walmart allows and he is in no position to stop that. You are talking too much at this point.
I then ask how it is considered disorderly conduct. He gives me some run down about yelling fire at a movie theater. I tell him that I have already emailed the Senator in regards to the disorderly conduct law. I tell him currently the disorderly conduct law is wrong and should e changed and give him my own analogy of the law. I tell him technically the way you are telling me "If I was walking down the street with my dog on a leash and a neighbor can call me in if they don't like it, and I can be arrested for walking a dog". He says "Right" He says just because that the Attorney Generals interpretation of it does not make it law. He said that this will have to be answered at a Supreme court level as it probably will. He asks me for my phone number, and I oblige.
Ok, again, what is wrong with you? You are swapping phone numbers with this guy?
He then asks me if I have anymore questions. I state "No" shake his hand and thank him for his time.
WTF is with the hand shaking? This guy is not your friend. You need to understand that.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
hardballer wrote:
Who do you trust? First, I DO NOT trust Anony Mouse the keyboard cowboi that will not use his name and claims to be a swinging NRA 'member'.
The most likely candidate for trust is an attorney that is bound by his canons of ethics.
hardballer wrote:
There is no entity, individual or enterprise, trusted to receive funds and make decisions because we have been so well taught by the government (tax abuse) and their statist clients (NGOs like NRA).
Who do you trust? First, I DO NOT trust Anony Mouse the keyboard cowboi that will not use his name and claims to be a swinging NRA 'member'.
The most likely candidate for trust is an attorney that is bound by his canons of ethics.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed
a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person
and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.
Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
N.W.2d 386 (1989).
Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).
A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
(Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686
Under Florida v. J.L, an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
2005.
NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed
a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person
and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.
Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
N.W.2d 386 (1989).
Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).
A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
(Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686
Under Florida v. J.L, an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
2005.
NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.
Rbwhanson
Regular Member
imported post
Looking back and reading more of these posts (Thanks for all the replies) I see now that I am not near informed as I thought I was. I spent a solid week reading posts here before deciding to start OC'ing. It's clear I need to spend some more time reading and researching. I also need to carry a copy of a few laws/statutes in my pocket as a quick reference. I have seen all suggested videos but I do not know Wisconsin law well enough yet. I need to read up more before I go out again so that this time I can be prepared. Thank you for that last post, that was a huge step in the right direction of my reading. Anyone have a school zone map for Hartford? Small city, if not I can create my own. Thanks again all, it has been a VERY informative 24 hours...next time I go out the Officer will be heart pressed to get anything out of me aside from "Am I being detained?" and going from that to "In your words I am not being detained and I am not under arrest, as such I am free to go, have a nice day" or "I do not consent to any search of my car, my firearm, or my person. I am exercising my right to remain silent and I have no further comments."
I suppose that is a good start...
Looking back and reading more of these posts (Thanks for all the replies) I see now that I am not near informed as I thought I was. I spent a solid week reading posts here before deciding to start OC'ing. It's clear I need to spend some more time reading and researching. I also need to carry a copy of a few laws/statutes in my pocket as a quick reference. I have seen all suggested videos but I do not know Wisconsin law well enough yet. I need to read up more before I go out again so that this time I can be prepared. Thank you for that last post, that was a huge step in the right direction of my reading. Anyone have a school zone map for Hartford? Small city, if not I can create my own. Thanks again all, it has been a VERY informative 24 hours...next time I go out the Officer will be heart pressed to get anything out of me aside from "Am I being detained?" and going from that to "In your words I am not being detained and I am not under arrest, as such I am free to go, have a nice day" or "I do not consent to any search of my car, my firearm, or my person. I am exercising my right to remain silent and I have no further comments."
I suppose that is a good start...
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Never ever ever carry a map with you that shows school zones, yes you should study a map to make sure you will not inadvertently wander into a school zone. Just do not carry the map with you.
Here is why;
The way the school zone exclusion statute reads, it says you must be aware that you are in a school zone to be found guilty. So it basically leaves ignorance of the law as a valid defense. If you have a map of school zones with you, the "I didn't realize I was in a school zone" defense is not going to fly.
I think one of the most pertinent case-law examplesis Terry V. Ohio, when police do an investigative stop as they did to the OP.
In WI you only required to provide ID when you are driving. I do not keep a drivers license on me when I am O-C'ing. (someone in OCDO coined the method as 'Sterile Carry".) That way If I am stopped, it is me that fully determines what infpormation the police may or may not get. If ID is carried, they will most likely remove your wallet during a pat-down. I also never ever carry my SS-card on me either.
Never ever ever carry a map with you that shows school zones, yes you should study a map to make sure you will not inadvertently wander into a school zone. Just do not carry the map with you.
Here is why;
The way the school zone exclusion statute reads, it says you must be aware that you are in a school zone to be found guilty. So it basically leaves ignorance of the law as a valid defense. If you have a map of school zones with you, the "I didn't realize I was in a school zone" defense is not going to fly.
I think one of the most pertinent case-law examplesis Terry V. Ohio, when police do an investigative stop as they did to the OP.
In WI you only required to provide ID when you are driving. I do not keep a drivers license on me when I am O-C'ing. (someone in OCDO coined the method as 'Sterile Carry".) That way If I am stopped, it is me that fully determines what infpormation the police may or may not get. If ID is carried, they will most likely remove your wallet during a pat-down. I also never ever carry my SS-card on me either.
imported post
I can say for sure that Wal-Marts corprate policy is not "No guns allowed". That paticiularstore's polocy may be; butI know I haveO.C.ed in Wal-Mart dozens of times, not in this state though.
I do recall one time about fourpeopleO.C.ingat the ammo counter waiting to be served and not one coustomer or employeeblinked an eye.
I can say for sure that Wal-Marts corprate policy is not "No guns allowed". That paticiularstore's polocy may be; butI know I haveO.C.ed in Wal-Mart dozens of times, not in this state though.
I do recall one time about fourpeopleO.C.ingat the ammo counter waiting to be served and not one coustomer or employeeblinked an eye.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
Best thing to do now is to keep discretly open carrying in WalMarts - i do it and others do it -if you pesonally are told to leave, then leave and try to politely make contat with some intelligent life form managing the store or region and complain arguing that WalMart corp. policy is to allow lawful custoerm caryand that you want resolution.
bnhcomputing wrote:
OK, hold on - Walmart does not have a corp. anti-gun policy, it has an unenforced policy to not have such a policy - s basically we hae peopl OCing in many r most WalMarts around the country, and in some cases, regional managers supporting this and forcing store managers to stop harassing open carriers.
Best thing to do now is to keep discretly open carrying in WalMarts - i do it and others do it -if you pesonally are told to leave, then leave and try to politely make contat with some intelligent life form managing the store or region and complain arguing that WalMart corp. policy is to allow lawful custoerm caryand that you want resolution.
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks again all, it has been a VERY informative 24 hours...next time I go out the Officer will be heart pressed to get anything out of me aside from "Am I being detained?" and going from that to "In your words I am not being detained and I am not under arrest, as such I am free to go, have a nice day" or "I do not consent to any search of my car, my firearm, or my person. I am exercising my right to remain silent and I have no further comments."
I don't understand why this is so hard. In any police interaction, this is all you need to say:
Am I being detained? Yes? Proceed to step 2. No. Walk away.
Do you suspect me of a crime/Why am I being detained? I prefer the "Why" as it allows them to put their foot in their mouth by saying they are detaining you for non-criminal things.
Am I free to go? Arrest challenge. Yes, walk away. No, request a lawyer and object to any searches and stop talking.
I do not consent to any interrogations or searches, I want a lawyer.
End of discussion.
I don't really see a huge benefit of sterile carry. If they pull your ID out of your wallet, they just walked into a 4th amendment violation.
Thanks again all, it has been a VERY informative 24 hours...next time I go out the Officer will be heart pressed to get anything out of me aside from "Am I being detained?" and going from that to "In your words I am not being detained and I am not under arrest, as such I am free to go, have a nice day" or "I do not consent to any search of my car, my firearm, or my person. I am exercising my right to remain silent and I have no further comments."
I don't understand why this is so hard. In any police interaction, this is all you need to say:
Am I being detained? Yes? Proceed to step 2. No. Walk away.
Do you suspect me of a crime/Why am I being detained? I prefer the "Why" as it allows them to put their foot in their mouth by saying they are detaining you for non-criminal things.
Am I free to go? Arrest challenge. Yes, walk away. No, request a lawyer and object to any searches and stop talking.
I do not consent to any interrogations or searches, I want a lawyer.
End of discussion.
I don't really see a huge benefit of sterile carry. If they pull your ID out of your wallet, they just walked into a 4th amendment violation.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Rbwhanson wrote:
Your biggest target right now is that police department chief and mayor - you should consider making a formal but polite "comlaint" against the department for not training their officers that open cary is lawful and that they cannot make nconsensual stops of open carriers just because somebody "complained," and that they sjhould not be editorializing againt open carry or giving legal advice in conflict with theatty general.
Explain that you and most gun owners are willing to play ball with officers in teh field in teh short term till they get re-trained and briefed, but that if this keeps happening in the future, that gun owners are not going to be cooperative and will trun each of these little "harass the open carrier stops" intoa major civil rights action for damages and injunctive relief.
This will force that department to have a conversation with itself over this issue. Mayors by the way do not like to get sued
Rbwhanson wrote:
Your biggest target right now is that police department chief and mayor - you should consider making a formal but polite "comlaint" against the department for not training their officers that open cary is lawful and that they cannot make nconsensual stops of open carriers just because somebody "complained," and that they sjhould not be editorializing againt open carry or giving legal advice in conflict with theatty general.
Explain that you and most gun owners are willing to play ball with officers in teh field in teh short term till they get re-trained and briefed, but that if this keeps happening in the future, that gun owners are not going to be cooperative and will trun each of these little "harass the open carrier stops" intoa major civil rights action for damages and injunctive relief.
This will force that department to have a conversation with itself over this issue. Mayors by the way do not like to get sued
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
I open carry frequently in the Chilton Walmart without any issues.
I open carried there before Jesus' arrest and after without issue.
I think this is just a random case of an uninformed employee trying to enforce a rule that does not exist.
I open carry frequently in the Chilton Walmart without any issues.
I open carried there before Jesus' arrest and after without issue.
I think this is just a random case of an uninformed employee trying to enforce a rule that does not exist.
gollbladder13
Regular Member
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Or uninformed customers that don't carry that mention it to an employee who's trying to please everybody he comes in to contact with...
sevenplusone
Regular Member
imported post
Walmart
Policy is to follow the law of the state the store located.
Customer Service1-800-Wal-Mart
(1-800-925-627
Questions regarding a Wal-Mart Store issue
702 SW 8th Street
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611
Email contact link: http://walmartstores.com/contactus/feedback.aspx
Audio of Walmart Policy: Walmart_Firearm_Policy_Call.mp3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some info from a Michigander. Looks like he doesn't know his own coporate policy.
Walmart
Policy is to follow the law of the state the store located.
Customer Service1-800-Wal-Mart
(1-800-925-627
702 SW 8th Street
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611
Email contact link: http://walmartstores.com/contactus/feedback.aspx
Audio of Walmart Policy: Walmart_Firearm_Policy_Call.mp3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some info from a Michigander. Looks like he doesn't know his own coporate policy.
AaronS
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
Once again, great post. I just cant wait to get to put a face with your name.
Never talk, and do not give anything that is not NEEDED (ID, gun, or search). If the cops want them, they will take them. When you get to court, and no law was broken, you will be on your way to civil winnings. Have no fear, free money from bad cops! When the cops start following our laws, we can stop taking money from them!
Nutczak wrote:
Once again, great post. I just cant wait to get to put a face with your name.
Never talk, and do not give anything that is not NEEDED (ID, gun, or search). If the cops want them, they will take them. When you get to court, and no law was broken, you will be on your way to civil winnings. Have no fear, free money from bad cops! When the cops start following our laws, we can stop taking money from them!
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
AaronS wrote:
I am not really looking at this from a "civil awards" standpoint, because the reality offinding a lawyer to stand up and fightover the trampling of your rights is not going to be an easy task. Sadly most attorneys do not want to take a case unless you have been beaten, maimed, or had bodyparts forcibly amputated by an abusive officer.
If you do find a decent attorney to take a rights violation case, they are most likely going to want monetary amounts paid up frontthat will exceed any award a jury would be willing to grant. (unless the entire jury was comprised of OCDO members) If you happen to know an attorney that is frothing at the mouth to get a rights violation case before the incident happens, then I think an award for rights violation may be a little closer to reality. The ACLU which is supposed to be the leading agency in the country fighting rights violations usually will not even touch a case where someone is still alive, and add a firearm into the mix and most chapters will run the other direction. Some state chapters are getting involved with some 2A rights issues, but they are concentrating on the 4th, 5th and other amendments higher in numbers for their cases. The national stance of the ACLU is Anti-2A!
I see this as "the more an officer gets used to citizens voluntarily waiving their rights, the more that officeris going to continue to trample all over them without a second thought about it"
Lets look at the issues of waiving your rights the same as rewarding a dog for bad behavior, the more the dog gets rewarded for unwanted behavior, the more he will instigate the bad behavior to get rewarded"
The police are supposed towork for us law abiding citizens of the world.
But instead they have developed an "Us Against Them mentality" We do need to remind them from time to time that they are "Public Servants" employed by us, andthey do not write the laws, but are instead entrusted to enforce the current laws and respect our rights at the same time.
Expecting People to continually waive their rights is easy for them to get used to, and they develop a skewed perception which leads to tyranny. I see itas our duty as an American citizen to remind the police that they are not the supreme rule of the land, but insteadit isour constitution is the rule of the land. The same document they swore to defend and uphold.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but rights violation gets my blood boiling! and I thinkthe topicdeserves alot more attention than what most citizens are willing to commit to.
If you guys want to get your blood pressure up, go to the Ohio forum and read about the arrest and subsequent dropped charges in Lima Ohio this last week. They screwed the OP real good, It is even a huge topic in Glock Talk and other forums. A guy was wrongfully arrested, and the police made him sign a liability release to get his lo-buck Hi-Point firearm back. They also threatened to put his daughter in state child services custody at the time of wrongful arrest if he did not let his daughter leave with the person that placed the MWAG call that triggered this whole event in the first place. it is quite sickening really. Alot of Ohio members lambasted this guy pretty good for not knowing and exercising his rights. I agree with them, but to assault him after a traumatic event is of no help to him either.
AaronS wrote:
I am not really looking at this from a "civil awards" standpoint, because the reality offinding a lawyer to stand up and fightover the trampling of your rights is not going to be an easy task. Sadly most attorneys do not want to take a case unless you have been beaten, maimed, or had bodyparts forcibly amputated by an abusive officer.
If you do find a decent attorney to take a rights violation case, they are most likely going to want monetary amounts paid up frontthat will exceed any award a jury would be willing to grant. (unless the entire jury was comprised of OCDO members) If you happen to know an attorney that is frothing at the mouth to get a rights violation case before the incident happens, then I think an award for rights violation may be a little closer to reality. The ACLU which is supposed to be the leading agency in the country fighting rights violations usually will not even touch a case where someone is still alive, and add a firearm into the mix and most chapters will run the other direction. Some state chapters are getting involved with some 2A rights issues, but they are concentrating on the 4th, 5th and other amendments higher in numbers for their cases. The national stance of the ACLU is Anti-2A!
I see this as "the more an officer gets used to citizens voluntarily waiving their rights, the more that officeris going to continue to trample all over them without a second thought about it"
Lets look at the issues of waiving your rights the same as rewarding a dog for bad behavior, the more the dog gets rewarded for unwanted behavior, the more he will instigate the bad behavior to get rewarded"
The police are supposed towork for us law abiding citizens of the world.
But instead they have developed an "Us Against Them mentality" We do need to remind them from time to time that they are "Public Servants" employed by us, andthey do not write the laws, but are instead entrusted to enforce the current laws and respect our rights at the same time.
Expecting People to continually waive their rights is easy for them to get used to, and they develop a skewed perception which leads to tyranny. I see itas our duty as an American citizen to remind the police that they are not the supreme rule of the land, but insteadit isour constitution is the rule of the land. The same document they swore to defend and uphold.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but rights violation gets my blood boiling! and I thinkthe topicdeserves alot more attention than what most citizens are willing to commit to.
If you guys want to get your blood pressure up, go to the Ohio forum and read about the arrest and subsequent dropped charges in Lima Ohio this last week. They screwed the OP real good, It is even a huge topic in Glock Talk and other forums. A guy was wrongfully arrested, and the police made him sign a liability release to get his lo-buck Hi-Point firearm back. They also threatened to put his daughter in state child services custody at the time of wrongful arrest if he did not let his daughter leave with the person that placed the MWAG call that triggered this whole event in the first place. it is quite sickening really. Alot of Ohio members lambasted this guy pretty good for not knowing and exercising his rights. I agree with them, but to assault him after a traumatic event is of no help to him either.
imported post
Maybe perhaps walking dogs is a Crime. Perhaps shopping is too, if the caller does not like it thatone isshopping.
Maybe I should go to Walmart and call the Police because I do not like it that otherPeople are there shopping.
Maybe perhaps walking dogs is a Crime. Perhaps shopping is too, if the caller does not like it thatone isshopping.
Maybe I should go to Walmart and call the Police because I do not like it that otherPeople are there shopping.
imported post
I'm not sure if you saw it, but I had a similar walmart experience. It seems that the walmart managers are more inclined to call the police instead of handling the issues directly. After called the store to talk to the manager, I asked why the police were called, they first denied it (Even though his name was specifically mentioned on the police report), but then staid it was a mistake and wouldn't happen again (At least not from that manager). Their policy is indeed that if you are following the regulations of the area, they wouldn't have you removed from the store.
I have not had the police called since, but for some reason all the managers scatter when they see me walk in the door. They must have gotten an ear full from higher up.
I'm not sure if you saw it, but I had a similar walmart experience. It seems that the walmart managers are more inclined to call the police instead of handling the issues directly. After called the store to talk to the manager, I asked why the police were called, they first denied it (Even though his name was specifically mentioned on the police report), but then staid it was a mistake and wouldn't happen again (At least not from that manager). Their policy is indeed that if you are following the regulations of the area, they wouldn't have you removed from the store.
I have not had the police called since, but for some reason all the managers scatter when they see me walk in the door. They must have gotten an ear full from higher up.
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
I am not really looking at this from a "civil awards" standpoint, because the reality offinding a lawyer to stand up and fightover the trampling of your rights is not going to be an easy task. Sadly most attorneys do not want to take a case unless you have been beaten, maimed, or had bodyparts forcibly amputated by an abusive officer.
This is partially true. Who says you need a lawyer? Just sue them Pro-se and don't tell me it is beyond your abilities.
If you can't write up a decent lawsuit and go through discovery, you should absolutely never, ever carry a gun. You can't possibly be trusted to make life or death, shoot/don't shoot decisions, much less where you can/can not carry a gun if you can't figure out basic legal principals such as the legalities of an arrest and such. If you CAN make these decisions, then you should be able to do some basic writing and research into filing a lawsuit. It isn't hard, and every federal district I have seen even has a pro-se manual right on the website.
I'm not saying you are going to win every case, but you have to try. If you lack the will to do so, then again you really shouldn't complain about getting hassled/arrested. Just endure the punishment since you lack the will to do anything about it.
If you do find a decent attorney to take a rights violation case, they are most likely going to want monetary amounts paid up frontthat will exceed any award a jury would be willing to grant
You don't know what you are talking about.
The national stance of the ACLU is Anti-2A!
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ACLU has a very limited staff and can only take on the most meaningful cases. Stop trying to get other people to handle your problems and handle them yourself. These ARE mostly 4th/5th amendment issues.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but rights violation gets my blood boiling!
Yeah, you are raging mad, but won't do anything about it.
and I thinkthe topicdeserves alot more attention than what most citizens are willing to commit to.
Certainly more than you are willing to commit to. You are quitting before you even start.
They screwed the OP real good, It is even a huge topic in Glock Talk and other forums.
That guy screwed himself. Weak people SHOULD get screwed until they get pissed off enough to do something about it.
A guy was wrongfully arrested, and the police made him sign a liability release to get his lo-buck Hi-Point firearm back.
And he was stupid enough to sign it.
They also threatened to put his daughter in state child services custody at the time of wrongful arrest if he did not let his daughter leave with the person that placed the MWAG call that triggered this whole event in the first place.
Again, so what? Do they eat little girls at child services? Just adds an extra zero on to the lawsuit that never happened because the Lima person was weak. Besides, cops claim to be able to do all sorts of stuff they can't. Be weak and get walked on.
it is quite sickening really. Alot of Ohio members lambasted this guy pretty good for not knowing and exercising his rights. I agree with them, but to assault him after a traumatic event is of no help to him either.
Yeah, that guy deserved to get lambasted and abused. Maybe sooner or later he'll man up and do something about it. I feel ZERO sympathy for the guy. He deserves worse and is the reason the next person in Ohio will get harassed. He is worse than the people violating his rights.
I am not really looking at this from a "civil awards" standpoint, because the reality offinding a lawyer to stand up and fightover the trampling of your rights is not going to be an easy task. Sadly most attorneys do not want to take a case unless you have been beaten, maimed, or had bodyparts forcibly amputated by an abusive officer.
This is partially true. Who says you need a lawyer? Just sue them Pro-se and don't tell me it is beyond your abilities.
If you can't write up a decent lawsuit and go through discovery, you should absolutely never, ever carry a gun. You can't possibly be trusted to make life or death, shoot/don't shoot decisions, much less where you can/can not carry a gun if you can't figure out basic legal principals such as the legalities of an arrest and such. If you CAN make these decisions, then you should be able to do some basic writing and research into filing a lawsuit. It isn't hard, and every federal district I have seen even has a pro-se manual right on the website.
I'm not saying you are going to win every case, but you have to try. If you lack the will to do so, then again you really shouldn't complain about getting hassled/arrested. Just endure the punishment since you lack the will to do anything about it.
If you do find a decent attorney to take a rights violation case, they are most likely going to want monetary amounts paid up frontthat will exceed any award a jury would be willing to grant
You don't know what you are talking about.
The national stance of the ACLU is Anti-2A!
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ACLU has a very limited staff and can only take on the most meaningful cases. Stop trying to get other people to handle your problems and handle them yourself. These ARE mostly 4th/5th amendment issues.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but rights violation gets my blood boiling!
Yeah, you are raging mad, but won't do anything about it.
and I thinkthe topicdeserves alot more attention than what most citizens are willing to commit to.
Certainly more than you are willing to commit to. You are quitting before you even start.
They screwed the OP real good, It is even a huge topic in Glock Talk and other forums.
That guy screwed himself. Weak people SHOULD get screwed until they get pissed off enough to do something about it.
A guy was wrongfully arrested, and the police made him sign a liability release to get his lo-buck Hi-Point firearm back.
And he was stupid enough to sign it.
They also threatened to put his daughter in state child services custody at the time of wrongful arrest if he did not let his daughter leave with the person that placed the MWAG call that triggered this whole event in the first place.
Again, so what? Do they eat little girls at child services? Just adds an extra zero on to the lawsuit that never happened because the Lima person was weak. Besides, cops claim to be able to do all sorts of stuff they can't. Be weak and get walked on.
it is quite sickening really. Alot of Ohio members lambasted this guy pretty good for not knowing and exercising his rights. I agree with them, but to assault him after a traumatic event is of no help to him either.
Yeah, that guy deserved to get lambasted and abused. Maybe sooner or later he'll man up and do something about it. I feel ZERO sympathy for the guy. He deserves worse and is the reason the next person in Ohio will get harassed. He is worse than the people violating his rights.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
For what it's worth, a little advice to newer members and visitors:
Before you open carry make sure you have some reasonable knowledge of the state firearm laws, the restricted areas of carry and your state and federal constitutional rights and the risk before you even think about open carrying a firearm in public and make sure you watch the Youtube videoes "Busted" and "Why you should never talk to the police". This forum is filled with excellent non-legal advice and information on all those subjects, information submitted by knowlegeable andintelligent members. All it requires is a simple word search to find the information you may need to keep you out of trouble and tounderstand your rights. Much of the information is posted by members that have "been there, done that".
Do not just strap on a gun and walk aimlessly around in public just because the Attorney General released a memo indicating it is lawful, or that you read others are doing so. Know the laws, know your rights, know the restrictions, know the risks beforeyou carry. Anything less puts you at a distinct disadvantage if confronted by law enforcement.
Remember: Two of the favorite tools of law enforcement are intimidation and entrapment, be it by methods or words.
For what it's worth, a little advice to newer members and visitors:
Before you open carry make sure you have some reasonable knowledge of the state firearm laws, the restricted areas of carry and your state and federal constitutional rights and the risk before you even think about open carrying a firearm in public and make sure you watch the Youtube videoes "Busted" and "Why you should never talk to the police". This forum is filled with excellent non-legal advice and information on all those subjects, information submitted by knowlegeable andintelligent members. All it requires is a simple word search to find the information you may need to keep you out of trouble and tounderstand your rights. Much of the information is posted by members that have "been there, done that".
Do not just strap on a gun and walk aimlessly around in public just because the Attorney General released a memo indicating it is lawful, or that you read others are doing so. Know the laws, know your rights, know the restrictions, know the risks beforeyou carry. Anything less puts you at a distinct disadvantage if confronted by law enforcement.
Remember: Two of the favorite tools of law enforcement are intimidation and entrapment, be it by methods or words.
FHBrumb
Regular Member
imported post
Conrad is actually the Market Manager. Joel Anderson is the Regional. My name is Frank, I work in AP for WalMart. I am not allowed to speak in an Offiial capacity...
But...
Yes, WalMart has a no weapons Policy. As an Assocaite there, I always interprited this as a Policy for Assocaites. If someone at WalMart challenges otherwise, I'd ask why then does the Policy also say not to have weaponsat work related functions? Also, nothing is posted for customers to see, as are most customer focused policies.
As for WalMart and their stance, you have to realize that WalMart is a mass merchandiser. Emphasis on mass. We try to appeal to the bulk of our customer base, as best we can. If several customers complain, then the company would, and several times has, adopted a stance. One example would be noise. We dropped most of the PA usage, and wear earpiece radios, as lots of folks complained about the noise. If lots of folks complain about someone wearing a profane T-shirt, we would ask them to exit. Same goes for a person wearing a pistol.
I also do not agree that the OP didn't do the right thing, 99%. His behavior gave no cause for the Police to arrest him. His behavior actuallymade it impossible. Had he given any degree of grief, he would have alsogiven the Officers the right to call it Disorderly Conduct. By behaving the way he did, he forced them to do the right thing. The Officers MUST respond to a call. They MUST investigate. Looking at what was posted, there is nothing that said the Officers didn't do exactly that, and then respond properly.
I personally believe the Second Amendment says what it means. I'm for OC and CCW. But standing up for what is right does not always have to look like a conflict. OP had a chance to show Officers and WalMart that not everyone that OCs in WI is looking for trouble, maybe some arejust looking for some groceries. Diplomacy very likely had a positive impact on the outcome of this situation.
But I'd say lastly, that I'd be hard pressed to turn over my pistol, without the Officer stating reasonable suspicion relating to the status of the weapon being legally owned, or potentially have been stolen at some point. I think that as of that point, he was pushing the 4th Amenemend pretty bad. I'd also ask him if he was going to call in my VIN and Credit Card Numbersfor the same reason???I believe the Officer can ask for ID and question you, but I do not believe taking the pistol and running the serial number was cool.
Conrad is actually the Market Manager. Joel Anderson is the Regional. My name is Frank, I work in AP for WalMart. I am not allowed to speak in an Offiial capacity...
But...
Yes, WalMart has a no weapons Policy. As an Assocaite there, I always interprited this as a Policy for Assocaites. If someone at WalMart challenges otherwise, I'd ask why then does the Policy also say not to have weaponsat work related functions? Also, nothing is posted for customers to see, as are most customer focused policies.
As for WalMart and their stance, you have to realize that WalMart is a mass merchandiser. Emphasis on mass. We try to appeal to the bulk of our customer base, as best we can. If several customers complain, then the company would, and several times has, adopted a stance. One example would be noise. We dropped most of the PA usage, and wear earpiece radios, as lots of folks complained about the noise. If lots of folks complain about someone wearing a profane T-shirt, we would ask them to exit. Same goes for a person wearing a pistol.
I also do not agree that the OP didn't do the right thing, 99%. His behavior gave no cause for the Police to arrest him. His behavior actuallymade it impossible. Had he given any degree of grief, he would have alsogiven the Officers the right to call it Disorderly Conduct. By behaving the way he did, he forced them to do the right thing. The Officers MUST respond to a call. They MUST investigate. Looking at what was posted, there is nothing that said the Officers didn't do exactly that, and then respond properly.
I personally believe the Second Amendment says what it means. I'm for OC and CCW. But standing up for what is right does not always have to look like a conflict. OP had a chance to show Officers and WalMart that not everyone that OCs in WI is looking for trouble, maybe some arejust looking for some groceries. Diplomacy very likely had a positive impact on the outcome of this situation.
But I'd say lastly, that I'd be hard pressed to turn over my pistol, without the Officer stating reasonable suspicion relating to the status of the weapon being legally owned, or potentially have been stolen at some point. I think that as of that point, he was pushing the 4th Amenemend pretty bad. I'd also ask him if he was going to call in my VIN and Credit Card Numbersfor the same reason???I believe the Officer can ask for ID and question you, but I do not believe taking the pistol and running the serial number was cool.