-
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.
Madison 911 call which led to disorderly conduct charge did not report disorderly conduct
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
Oddly he asked if there was a "concealed" handgun law and then went on to describe a rather large gun on his hip. That does not sound concealed to me. So the dispatcher was asked a question about a law that did not even apply to the person he was calling about.
Oddly he asked if there was a "concealed" handgun law and then went on to describe a rather large gun on his hip. That does not sound concealed to me. So the dispatcher was asked a question about a law that did not even apply to the person he was calling about.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
lockman wrote:
That's Wisconsin.
LEO comes to investigate this for no valid reason, why? In Racine, somebody calls in about a Raccoon Shooting and a guy gets kidnapped from his home by LEO. Both have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL CALL. :cuss:
lockman wrote:
That's Wisconsin.
LEO comes to investigate this for no valid reason, why? In Racine, somebody calls in about a Raccoon Shooting and a guy gets kidnapped from his home by LEO. Both have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL CALL. :cuss:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Great to hear "Ryan" is asking the right question.
Separately, I've learned to briefly define the Fourth Amendment in conversation and posts. Surprisingly--well, maybe not--lots of people have no idea which amendment is #4 or what it covers.
Here on OCDO, the first time I mention it in apost,I usually write something like, "The 4th Amendment (search and seizure) prohibits..."
Great to hear "Ryan" is asking the right question.
Separately, I've learned to briefly define the Fourth Amendment in conversation and posts. Surprisingly--well, maybe not--lots of people have no idea which amendment is #4 or what it covers.
Here on OCDO, the first time I mention it in apost,I usually write something like, "The 4th Amendment (search and seizure) prohibits..."
MadisonRebel
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Who is the Mr. Davis they refer two twice in that article?
Who is the Mr. Davis they refer two twice in that article?
Woodchuck
Regular Member
imported post
Seems the dispatch community needs a law refresher course.
They seem to correctly know that there is no law allowing CC but are ignorant to the fact that OC is legal.
Call should have ended with
Ryan-- a gentleman walked past me with a rather large gun attached to his hip
Dispatch-- Sir.. we don't allow CC in this state but he is allowed to OC a gun. Is he waving it around or threatening anyone?
Ryan--No, he's just walking down the sidewalk.
Dispatch--Is the man doing anything else but walking normally down the sidewalk?
Ryan--No, he's just walking
Dispatch--Thanks for the call but this man is doing nothing illegal, have a nice day...click.
Seems the dispatch community needs a law refresher course.
They seem to correctly know that there is no law allowing CC but are ignorant to the fact that OC is legal.
Call should have ended with
Ryan-- a gentleman walked past me with a rather large gun attached to his hip
Dispatch-- Sir.. we don't allow CC in this state but he is allowed to OC a gun. Is he waving it around or threatening anyone?
Ryan--No, he's just walking down the sidewalk.
Dispatch--Is the man doing anything else but walking normally down the sidewalk?
Ryan--No, he's just walking
Dispatch--Thanks for the call but this man is doing nothing illegal, have a nice day...click.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
If the caller had asked the dispatcher "Is there a law on the books that allows a person to eat pretzles while drinking a Dr. Pepper?" the dispatcher would have had to say, "No, there is no such law on the books."
Would this have caused the police to be dispatched for a man with a snack call?
Laws only make things illegal, they don't make thing legal.
If the caller had asked the dispatcher "Is there a law on the books that allows a person to eat pretzles while drinking a Dr. Pepper?" the dispatcher would have had to say, "No, there is no such law on the books."
Would this have caused the police to be dispatched for a man with a snack call?
Laws only make things illegal, they don't make thing legal.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
MadisonRebel wrote:
MadisonRebel wrote:
typo, now fixed.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
lockman wrote:
lockman wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people refer to any carry of aconcealable gun is "concealed cary" or use that term as the most handy one they can think of.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
These questions should be brought up to the dispatch supervisors. After all the dispatchers are really wasting a lot of officers time and tax payers money by sending an officer to the scene of "NO" crime.
These questions should be brought up to the dispatch supervisors. After all the dispatchers are really wasting a lot of officers time and tax payers money by sending an officer to the scene of "NO" crime.