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

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/harvard.gates.interview/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/local/crime-and-courts/article_56888e4c-9e4f-11de-8895-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story

http://racinenews.org/2009/09/10/racine-police-snatch-open-carrier-off-his-front-porch/#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!)

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.

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.

imported post

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

imported post

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

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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Florida v. Bostick, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See United States v. Mendenhall, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Florida v. Royer, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Bostick, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See Mendenhall, [/font][/font]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 ***

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

Click to expand...

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 "[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]ARREST FOR REFUSAL TO IDENTIFY? BEWARE OF MISPLACED RELIANCE ON HIIBEL!"[/font][/font]


[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]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

[align=left]claim) a person may only be arrested for refusing to identify himself if some statute or ordinance makes it unlawful to so refuse[/align]
[align=left]under the circumstances. As the majority acknowledged in Hiibel, “In some states, a suspect’s refusal to identify himself is a[/align]
[align=left]misdemeanor offense or civil violation; in others, it is a factor to be considered in whether the suspect has violated loitering laws.[/align]
[align=left]In other states, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.”[/align]
[align=left]_______________________________________________________________________________________________________[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin has a statute which codifies the right of officers to make Terry stops:[/align][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[align=left]968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. [/font][/font]After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement[/align]
[align=left]officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time[/align]
[align=left]when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a[/align]
[align=left]crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such[/align]
[align=left]detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.[/align]
[align=left]Unlike Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171. 123, however, § 968.24 does not impose an obligation upon the person stopped to identify himself.[/align]
[align=left]This is a critical distinction.[/align]
[align=left]The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to identify oneself following a Terry stop does not constitute[/align]
[align=left]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.”[/align][/font][/font]

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.