Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: My article about Racine WI open carry arrest

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    It's a setup ... that is the extraordinary claim of Racine WI Police Department.

    But can law enforcement themselves be entrapped? That seems to be the extraordinary claim of the Racine, Wisconsin police department in the case of an open carrier who was arrested for obstructing justice after he apparently refused to identify himself when officers began questioning him for open carrying on the porch of his own home.

    The facts are still emerging, but reports seem to agree that officers were in the neighborhood where Frank Rock lives on Wednesday night investigating the shooting of one or more raccoons. While in the neighborhood, officers noticed that Rock, sitting peacefully on his front porch, was openly wearing a holstered handgun, which is legal in Wisconsin, and began questioning him. When Rock refused to identify himself or answer their questions, officers arrested him.

    (Excerpt) Read more at

    http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d11-Its-a-Setup

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Great article John, I believe though that we have been successful in educating law enforcement. Sadly whole departments, are taking a stand against it and trying to now enforce or coerce open carriers into not engaging in their legally protected method of carry.

    This in no way reflects on law enforcement as a whole, as I have found most departments I have dealt with here in Washington, State Troopers various Sheriff departments and most city police agencies are actually fairly supportive of our right to open carry. Then there is the city of Bellingham I was illegally detained and had several rights violated twice in one day although I know they know the law. And it wasn't just an isolated officer it was with those in charge.

    Maybe Racine is similar, they want to try to paint us in a bad light in whatever way they can and to harass or intimidate us into conforming. My hope is that they like the majority of law enforcement agencies will recognize this civil right and change their positions and opinions of open carry to a more positive one, even if it takes a lawsuit to force them to behave.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Interesting case. It's being discussed over at officer.com. Here is one post:



    bohdiopencarry wrote:

    ...The story is not exactly a positive one for OC, or for the website OCDO. Especially if one goes only by the headline. Infact, OCDO may actually have grounds for a slander, libel, and copyright infringement case against TMJ if they really wanted to pursue that line....back on track though.

    One has to read the story carefully to get to the facts. There are some pretty interesting details between four different reports, to really get an understanding of what happened.

    If you read carefully, Hannon-Rock ends up not being the offender. In fact, there hasn't been any information on the person who may have fired the shots, execpt where a phone call came from, and that no one answered the door at that address.

    So far the only facts that have come out are:

    1. A shot/s may have been fired
    2. Someone at an address is suspected of doing so
    3. That person wasn't there or didn't answer the door when LEO's arrived
    4. LEO's cased the neighborhood - "One man matched the suspect's description and was standing next to Hannan-Rock, who was openly carrying a holstered gun on his side."
    5. They let Hannon-Rock go because LEO's determine he was not the suspect after all - "Officers said they began asking Hannan-Rock questions and said they were investigating a weapons-discharge complaint. He answered their questions about the type of gun he was carrying but refused to give his name or any other information. Police reports said the man told police that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen told him he didn't have to answer their questions. Police then handcuffed and arrested Hannan-Rock for obstructing."
    6. Suspect is still at large - "Officers later determined Hannan-Rock was not the offender in the shots-fired call. No one had been arrested for that crime Thursday, but police are issuing a warrant recommendation for a man who lives at 405 Luedtke Ave."
    7. opencarry.org is where Hannon-Rock has met others - "Hubert Hoffman of Onalaksa called Hannan-Rock's arrest a persecution. Hoffman, who made headlines as the organizer of an open-carry picnic in Onalaska earlier this year, met Hannan-Rock on an online forum at http://opencarry.org."

    8. opencarry.org has not been quoted or even suggested as advocating the baiting of LEO's in any of the four news reports provided

    9. What actually happened is still unclear. What we know is that police were called to the scene. It still is unclear if a weapon was actually discharged or not. - Police said officers were called to 405 Luedtke Ave. at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday for a report of a man with a gun. An anonymous caller told dispatchers that a man was shooting at raccoons in his backyard and was walking out to the street to reload his gun. The caller said she was concerned because there were children playing outside in the neighborhood.
    --- Reports said officers found blood on the sidewalk in front of that house and believe someone could have been shooting at raccoons.

    ---- What it hasn't been determine is that shots were actually fired, and that a racoon is actually dead, and that the blood on the sidewalk is actually racoon blood.

    Why is any of that relevant? Well, maybe the anonymous caller just doesn't like guns, and doesn't feel like anyone should have them other than police. So when they see someone carrying a gun who obviously isn't a LEO, it gets them all spun up and they place a call to the local station to come out and question someone doing nothing wrong. It's a pain in the butt for the LEO, it's a pain in the butt for the legally carrying citizen. That's what happens when someone doesn't like what you are doing, even if it's legal.

    I dislike dumb *** gun owners. Certain folks should not be allowed to own weapons, cars, or breed. I dislike citizens who are willing to use LEO's to harrass citizens who are doing nothing wrong even more. If you don't like what someone is doing, work to get the law changed. In the mean time, don't make more work for LEO's because what you see makes you uncomfortable if it's legal. LEO's have a hard enough job
    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...88#post1977988



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    looks like the folks at officer.com have a real high opinion of this place.






  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    It's a setup ... that is the extraordinary claim of Racine WI Police Department.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Hey! I'm a "paranoid redneck moron"!



  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    It's a setup ... that is the extraordinary claim of Racine WI Police Department.

    But can law enforcement themselves be entrapped? That seems to be the extraordinary claim of the Racine, Wisconsin police department in the case of an open carrier who was arrested for obstructing justice after he apparently refused to identify himself when officers began questioning him for open carrying on the porch of his own home.

    The facts are still emerging, but reports seem to agree that officers were in the neighborhood where Frank Rock lives on Wednesday night investigating the shooting of one or more raccoons. While in the neighborhood, officers noticed that Rock, sitting peacefully on his front porch, was openly wearing a holstered handgun, which is legal in Wisconsin, and began questioning him. When Rock refused to identify himself or answer their questions, officers arrested him.

    (Excerpt) Read more at

    http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d11-Its-a-Setup
    False arrest, seems pretty clearcut. 42 USC 1983 comes to mind, as the 4th, 5th and 14th were violated.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    I love it.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    It's truly awesome when authority can flip the situation when they are wrong to justify the matter. BOOK'EM DANO

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    havee wrote:
    It's truly awesome when authority can flip the situation when they are wrong to justify the matter. BOOK'EM DANO
    The post was in our favor......

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    jvd5695 wrote:
    looks like the folks at officer.com have a real high opinion of this place.




    I loved the comment by one of their posters that asked why OCers need to carry a voice recorder...of course they wonder that because cops NEVER (LMFAO) lie.

    Tell my then officer...why do you need that dashboard camera?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I still find it ridiculous that the guy standing next to Rock met the description and wasn't even questioned. The Police admit the guy met the description and yet all they focused on was the gun that Frank was carrying. It is obvious that is all they were interested in and more than likely would have arrested Frank even if he did answer the questions. I wonder what they would have arrested him for then.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    It is obvious that is all they were interested in and more than likely would have arrested Frank even if he did answer the questions. I wonder what they would have arrested him for then.
    They would have continued to question him trying to getone answer to a question slightly different that the other. That is why Frank took the high road and followed cardinal rule #1, "don't talk to police."

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    jvd5695 wrote:
    looks like the folks at officer.com have a real high opinion of this place.
    Of course they do. We just want to do want they do and for the same reason - to be able to protect our family and ourself. Quote from a posting there:

    "Regarding the officer that leaves work and does not carry her firearm off-duty...my personal opinion...,she is an idiot. Over the years, I have received so many death threats against myself and my family...well, I have lost count. Where I go...my off-duty weapon goes too. I would rather have my gun and not need it...than to need it and not have it. Many years ago...my wife would laugh at the fact that I always carried. Until she started to pay attention to shootings at Burger King's, Target's, 7-11's, WalMart's, church, etc. She doesn't question my carrying anymore...and expects me to do so. She feels much better because I do."


    After all, they know that when seconds count, thepolice are only minutes away, without a legal obligation to protect anyone.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    It's going to take time for OC to be respected as a right, and not treated as a reason to stop someone "just to check" and make sure they aren't a felon or something. I've never seen police at gun shops or gun ranges checking everyone. If we had that, there would be serious legal consequences. So walking down the street minding your own business, or out shopping, etc should be no different.

    I like the fact that there's a dialogue opened with officers, albeit online. That's a step in the right direction. Someone can be stubborn (on either side) and say "there's no need for dialogue!" thinking that they're right. But they're not trying to understand the other side, which is a problem.

    OCers feel:
    --Picked-on for exercising a consitutionally-protected right
    --Treated like a criminal (someone who the police should be spending their time on) while doing nothing wrong
    --In jeopardy of being charged with a BS crime like obstruction, or disorderly conduct, etc.
    --As though they are giving up their rights just by talking to the police when there is no reason they should need to

    Police feel:
    --It is there job to investigate someone openly carrying
    --The person could be a felon or other type of "bad guy"
    --The person should cooperate with law enforcement
    --The person could possibly be a threat because of the presence of a firearm and should be checked-ou

    So we need to find the disconnect there and keep working on it. The goal will be to come to an understanding that makes both sides happy.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    SAK wrote:
    It's going to take time for OC to be respected as a right, and not treated as a reason to stop someone "just to check" and make sure they aren't a felon or something. I've never seen police at gun shops or gun ranges checking everyone. If we had that, there would be serious legal consequences. So walking down the street minding your own business, or out shopping, etc should be no different.

    I like the fact that there's a dialogue opened with officers, albeit online. That's a step in the right direction. Someone can be stubborn (on either side) and say "there's no need for dialogue!" thinking that they're right. But they're not trying to understand the other side, which is a problem.

    OCers feel:
    --Picked-on for exercising a consitutionally-protected right
    --Treated like a criminal (someone who the police should be spending their time on) while doing nothing wrong
    --In jeopardy of being charged with a BS crime like obstruction, or disorderly conduct, etc.
    --As though they are giving up their rights just by talking to the police when there is no reason they should need to

    Police feel:
    --It is there job to investigate someone openly carrying
    --The person could be a felon or other type of "bad guy"
    --The person should cooperate with law enforcement
    --The person could possibly be a threat because of the presence of a firearm and should be checked-ou

    So we need to find the disconnect there and keep working on it. The goal will be to come to an understanding that makes both sides happy.
    While I agree with you, for the most part...when it come to how the police feel...

    1. It is not their job to investigate someone openly carrying a handgun...it is their job to investigate crimes that are being or have been committed...where open carry is legal, no crime has been commited.

    2. No felon or other type of "bad guy" is going to openly carry a firearm...let's face it, we're talking about people that are basically cowards and want the element of surprise on their side...walking into a store to rob it, where you don't know if the owner/attendant has the means to protect themselves,you're not going to walk in with a handgun strapped to your side.

    3. I am more than happy to be polite andcordial to, and cooperate fullywith, an officer that is acting within the scope of their authority...when they step beyond that scope and go on a power trip (which happens ALL the time), what do they expect?

    4. It has been proven in courttime andtime again that it is NOT the police's legal responsibilty to protect ANYONE. As long as there is no one waving a gun around threatening to shoot...no crime has been commited and I refer back to #1.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Racine, WI
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    The other problem with that thread is that you have officers from all of the country replying to the thread, laws are different from state-to-state, so it just muddies up the water and people get defensive....

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    While I agree with you, for the most part...when it come to how the police feel...

    1. It is not their job to investigate someone openly carrying a handgun...it is their job to investigate crimes that are being or have been committed...where open carry is legal, no crime has been commited.
    Amen..... It is no more reasonable to stop someone while Open Carrying to see if they are allowed to carry a firearm than it is to stop someone to see if they are a US citizen, that they are not prohibited from being around children if they are walking down the street with a child, etc.,...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    Mugenlude wrote:
    The other problem with that thread is that you have officers from all of the country replying to the thread, laws are different from state-to-state, so it just muddies up the water and people get defensive....
    True, and something to keep in mind is one doesn't have to be a LEO to join and post on officer.com. I joined them a couple years ago and the closest I am to a LEO is having dated one! <g> Just as some of their posters refer to us as redneck morons, those same posters could be gun grabbing anti-second amendment liberals.

Posting Permissions

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