Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Racine,WI police spin arrest of man on porch to look like Prof. Gate's arrest in Cambridge

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Reading these5 news reports together, it appears that the Racine police are now saying the arrestee was "setting them up" ala the Gates arrest in Cambridge, MA some weeks ago, see http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/har...iew/index.html.

    The facts appear otherwise, at least as reported by these two newspapers:

    1. Police dispatched to investigate firearms discharge by man of certain description.

    2. Police proceed to interrogate man #2 (Frank)of another description who was on his front porch and happenned to be open carrying a handgun.

    3. Man # 2 refuses to answer police questions.

    4. Police arrest man # 2 for "obstructing justice."

    5. Police then issue "a warrant recommendation for another man."

    6. Police claim defense that man # 2 (Frank) "set them up."

    Hmmmmmmmmmm.

    http://www.journaltimes.com/news/loc...tml?mode=story

    http://racinenews.org/2009/09/10/rac...ch/#more-33932

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.html

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58639842.html

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.htmlwith video (Frank seems like a nice guy!)


  2. #2
    Regular Member Johnny Stiletto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rome, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    The more accusations that the Racine Police Department will make, the worse they will look when the judge's gavel drops.

    The Racine Police Department reeks of fear and desperation. Only the fools will pinch their noses.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Couldn't a drug sting be considered a 'set-up'? What about a prostitution sting? A 'bait car'?

    The way I understand it, the logic goes that it's not entrapment if you merely provide a set of conditions where one is able to act on one's own proclivities without outside influence or encouragement.

    That being the case, then the question begs to be asked: Even if it was a set up...SO WHAT? The police are charged with knowing the limitations on their lawful authority, and are expected to NOT overstep those bounds.

    Set-up or no, these officers acted, of their own volition, upon their own proclivities to commit CRIMINAL violations of this man's rights as well as other laws in the process and are doing everything in their power to put some damage control PR spin into motion.





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Needless to say...they have some serious problems.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post



    On second thought, this post was in pooor taste. Sorry.

  6. #6
    Regular Member ROOK_WI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Franklin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Dear Racine Police Department,

    With the release ofthe Van Hollen Memo, I do believe you may have glanced over certain areas. MayI direct your attention to the third to last sentence of Paragraph Nine, which I have bolded for you viewing pleasure:

    ¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553-54 (1980). Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435-36. The person approached need not answer any questions. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.


    I have attached a copy of the memo, in its entirety, for the department to ACTUALLY READ this time. There will be a comprehension quiz given at a later date. ***Your oral answersmay be recorded ***

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    ROOK_WI wrote:
    Dear Racine Police Department,

    With the release ofthe Van Hollen Memo, I do believe you may have glanced over certain areas. MayI direct your attention to the
    Why don't you also send them a copy of the July-August 2004 issue of "Wisconsin Police Chief" at http://www.wichiefs.org/Newsletters/July2004Newsletter.pdfthere was an article titled "ARREST FOR REFUSAL TO IDENTIFY? BEWARE OF MISPLACED RELIANCE ON HIIBEL!"


    The article stated flatly: "The key to the application of Hiibel is that in order to avoid a Fourth Amendment violation (and a state law false arrest

    claim) a person may only be arrested for refusing to identify himself if some statute or ordinance makes it unlawful to so refuse

    under the circumstances. As the majority acknowledged in Hiibel, “In some states, a suspect’s refusal to identify himself is a

    misdemeanor offense or civil violation; in others, it is a factor to be considered in whether the suspect has violated loitering laws.

    In other states, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.”

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

    Wisconsin has a statute which codifies the right of officers to make Terry stops:

    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.

    Unlike Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171. 123, however, § 968.24 does not impose an obligation upon the person stopped to identify himself.

    This is a critical distinction.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to identify oneself following a Terry stop does not constitute

    obstructing under § 946.41, Wis. Stats. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 354, 533 N.W.2d 802, 808 (1995): “Mere silence, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute.”

  8. #8
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    "Hannan Rock argued with police that he wasn't required to give his name to police. Racine police say when they get a report of shots fired and see a man nearby with a gun, he should at least provide his name to prove he is carrying the weapon legally."

    Um, wait a minute. At least provide a name to PROVE he is carrying legally? "Hi, my name is Billy Bob, nice to meet you." Are you $#%@ing kidding me?!? That is the most ridiculous excuse ever.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Here is your chance to show your support

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=31345&forum_id=57

    See you there tomorrow.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Hendu024 wrote:
    "Hannan Rock argued with police that he wasn't required to give his name to police. Racine police say when they get a report of shots fired and see a man nearby with a gun, he should at least provide his name to prove he is carrying the weapon legally."

    Um, wait a minute. At least provide a name to PROVE he is carrying legally? "Hi, my name is Billy Bob, nice to meet you." Are you $#%@ing kidding me?!? That is the most ridiculous excuse ever.
    Wait a minute...are the police really saying one must provide information so they can see if theyhave reason toarrest you?? For real? Apparently thesecops never heard of the 5th amendment. Apparently they also feel exercising your right to remain silent is an arrestable offense in itself.

    This really isn't a firearm issue because from the info we've seen he's been arrested for obstruction simply for not talking. This is the message that has got to get out to get more people in an uproar. If people think this is just a gun issuemany people willjust tune it out.

Posting Permissions

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