My article about Racine WI open carry arrest

...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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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....

Click to expand...