• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Fighting the good fight?

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Hillman -
This was intended for if you have nothing to hide. If you have something to hide, then by all means...

In Frank's case, not only did the police end up getting his name, but so did the media and the public, along with his home address and a picture of his face.

Now, I'm not saying that it's right, but it is the outcome...
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
gollbladder13 wrote:
So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."

1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.

thefreedictionary.com

If you're being robbed, it is by constraint. If you are talking with an officer, you have not been constrained until they arrest you.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
gollbladder13 wrote:
So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."

1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.

thefreedictionary.com

If you're being robbed, it is by constraint. If you are talking with an officer, you have not been constrained until they arrest you.
So in your view, the fear of arrest is not a form of coercion? I find that hard to believe.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I'm saying there's a difference between a robber trying to get your money and a cop trying to get your name.

If I felt that they were using force, I'd keep my mouth shut. They cooperate with me, and I with them. I don't feel forced by a cop asking me my name, much as I don't feel forced when my local barista asks me how my weekend was. Sure, it's the difference between casual conversation and an investigation, but it's still voluntary when they ask. You have a choice.
If they're reaching for their cuffs, that's a whole other story when it comes to use of force. Each situation is different, but this thread is for when you are in the case where you still have the option.

I agree, if you don't give your name, the cops should leave it at that, but they have demonstrated that that will not always be the case. I am yet to see anybody getting arrested for giving their name...


ETA: Frank's case has clearly shown us that what is cut and dry in our minds may be a gray area in the minds of police, especially when it comes to investigating, and that should be kept in mind. You are forced to give your name when detained, and as I undestand it, if the officer is identified as such as has just cause to make a stop, then the name must be given. Although in our minds it was not just, the legal system may view it differently.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
See but that's just it. Sure, it's none of their business, but you are right it's where an individual draws the line. Something as simple as your name, although your right, is not being trampled on if you voluntarily give it out. It's only violated if you chose not to give it and they force it out of you. That's why you ask the officer "are you asking or demanding".

I find it hard to believe "My name is gollbladder13" can be used against me in court...
Slow down young grasshopper!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

All other pertinent videos can be found here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30752.html

I suggest you watch them.

This I will guarantee, Once you have finished your educational endeavor and you are stopped for whatever reason by the police and it becomes evident to you that the officer is not conducting business according to what you have learned. Your eyes may open a little wider and allow you to see the big picture.

The fact is, many (Not All) officers do not like the idea of a citizen, even a law abiding citizen carrying a fire arm. Whether it is open carry, concealed, legal, illegal, or handed down to you from John Wayne himself.

These officers believe only they should have the right to carry a fire arm. It makes them feel important. It makes that little tin badge they are wearing seem so much bigger. It makes it easier for them to intimidate people. (Their view not mine)

It is all about a power trip and that is all. When I graduated from College and the academy, that was the biggest thought in the minds of most of the young graduates. " I am going to carry a gun." Not only were they thoughts but I actually heard the words come out of some of their mouths.

Being a street cop is no exciting job, Most of the day you just ride or ride around in a cruiser pulling radar. They make their own excitement and that usually means pulling a stunt like the officers did to Frank. Did the officer's round up the dead raccoons that were laying behind the house where the incident took place? Did the officer's do any investigating at the scene at all? No, No.

In fact it is standard procedure that the first officer on scene will be in control of the investigation. Therefore, they had already talked to Frank and walked away. It wasn't until a third officer (who obviously didn't like the fact that Frank was OCing) came up to Frank and used obscene and unprofessional language, that Frank chose to exercise his 5th Amendment Rights.

Take notes my friend, this is a situation you could easily find yourself in, whether you are a police officer responding to a call or a law abiding citizen simply exercising your right to carry. These officers are not the only officers that behave the way they do.
You could be next, even if you are nice enough to give your name.

If you want to do something exciting, be a crime scene investigator, a coroner's investigator, a public defender's investigator. I guarantee you will investigate more homicides then any street cop will ever see in their entire career and the chance of you stomping on anyone's rights will be far less as well.

Look at the whole picture and where your happiness lies before you decide.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J. -

When I get home from work, I will be sure to do that. Maybe I'll step out of the forum for a moment, cool off, and get back after watching the vids.

Listen, everybody, I'm not here to argue what you should do. I'm not here to undermind what so many have worked towards, and I definately am as frustrated with the laws and uneducated as you all are. I'm just trying to view this from the standpoint of to what is it worth the cost?

I think, if nothing else, we all have learned that we should always keep the voice recorder rolling...

BTW -
Slow down young grasshopper!
That made me smile :D
 

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
Hillman -
This was intended for if you have nothing to hide. If you have something to hide, then by all means...

With hundreds of thousands of laws, many of themcontradicting others, youAWALYS have something to hide, all it takes is for the cop to know one of the laws that you don't and you are screwed.

If you have nothing to hide would you let cops search your house looking for any evidence of any crime, or would you use common sense? It's the same as them asking you name, you never know what they could do with that information.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Hillmann wrote:
gollbladder13 wrote:
Hillman -
This was intended for if you have nothing to hide. If you have something to hide, then by all means...

With hundreds of thousands of laws, many of themcontradicting others, youAWALYS have something to hide, all it takes is for the cop to know one of the laws that you don't and you are screwed.

If you have nothing to hide would you let cops search your house looking for any evidence of any crime, or would you use common sense? It's the same as them asking you name, you never know what they could do with that information.
Exactly, all you have to do is watch Doug's Video to see how easy you are trapped by the laws.

http://www.vimeo.com/6115265
 

Woodchuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
306
Location
West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
I'm saying there's a difference between a robber trying to get your money and a cop trying to get your name.

If I felt that they were using force, I'd keep my mouth shut.  They cooperate with me, and I with them.  I don't feel forced by a cop asking me my name, much as I don't feel forced when my local barista asks me how my weekend was.  Sure, it's the difference between casual conversation and an investigation, but it's still voluntary when they ask.  You have a choice. 

In Franks case the officers came over to his porch on a COMPLETELY unrelated incident. Then THEY made it about the gun. They asked him couple questions before he got a bad feeling about the direction it was taking, that is when he made the decision to not release any more info. He started off cooperating, then the situation started to go south and he rightfully changed tactics.
 

Woodchuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
306
Location
West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

And just to be VERY clear. Franks issue isn't even a gun issue. The cops tried making it that but failed and realized they couldn't. That is why no firearms charges were filed. Speaking of that, have you wondered why the hell they still have his gun?!?

The issue I think most of us have with Franks deal is that the cops completely violated his 4th and 5th amendment rights as well as them possibly trying to turn Frank into a felon.

If this was not TYRANNY in Gov't, what the heck is?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
I'm saying there's a difference between a robber trying to get your money and a cop trying to get your name.

[Yes, the degree of coercion involved, but coercion nonetheless.]

If I felt that they were using force, I'd keep my mouth shut.

[Hey, you already blurted it out because you were afraid they would arrest you! How are we convinced that you'd resist force when you've already said you'd cave-in to avoid a potential arrest?]

They cooperate with me, and I with them.

[I found that "obstructing a police officer statute" but can't seem to find the "obstructing a citizen statute." It's not a two-way street. The police have no obligation to cooperate with you. How do you define "police cooperation?" Not arresting you? Again, would a 'cooperative robber' be one who merely takes your money and doesn't shoot you?"


I don't feel forced by a cop asking me my name, much as I don't feel forced when my local barista asks me how my weekend was. Sure, it's the difference between casual conversation and an investigation, but it's still voluntary when they ask. You have a choice.

[Do you have the fear of arrest in the back of your mind when the barista inquires about your weekend?]

If they're reaching for their cuffs, that's a whole other story when it comes to use of force. Each situation is different, but this thread is for when you are in the case where you still have the option.

[As I stated earlier, you have the option of being shot by the robber. You claim there's a difference, but the real difference is only in the degree of severity of the consequences. The principle remains the same. It is the principle that is important. A completely voluntary action is one that you can either do, or not do-- and if you choose not to do it, there are no bad consequences. If you choose to do something in order to avoid bad consequences, your action is not voluntary. It is coerced. Sure, we all recognize that there are different levels of coercion, but do not try to convince us that it is a voluntary act.

I try to avoid putting words into people's mouths, I only want to help people think more clearly and carefully about concepts-- but perhaps what you mean to say is that you accept the level of coercion involved by providing your ID. If this is correct, then do not try to characterize it as a "voluntary action." In my view it is not, and I encourage you to point out the errors in my thinking if you believe I'm wrong.]
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

That's all I'm saying... take a step back and look at it from the other side, too. Let's say it wasn't Frank, but a felon with the gun and they shot the raccoon. We wouldn't be too happy if the cop didn't investigate simply because the felon didn't give their name, despite being the only person seen in the area with a gun.
GB, there is a thing called "reasonable suspicion". its what keeps us from becoming a police state.

Why not give police the power to "stop anyone anytime for anything"? What would be the harm?

If someone reports a prostitute hanging out on the corner of 35th and Vliet, if the police arrive and there are 20 people around and only 1 of them is a female, does that give them reasonable suspicion to assume her guilty of ANYTHING just because she is the only one with a vagina? No.... The courts have found that there must be SOMETHING a 'reasonable' person would perceive as evidence of a crime. If the cops came up to franks porch and he took off running. RAS. if the cops followed footprints in snow from a dead racoon to Franks door.... RAS. But the cops didn't have any of that.

Frank didn't have to speak to the officers AT ALL., but he did. The cops asked him if he had a BB gun. He said "no a 45". He didn't have to even say that. He could have stood there and said "I have nothing to say to you" He WAS talking to the police right up until he realized after being cursed at that they were being aggressive and not treated fairly and it was time to exercise his rights. THEN he asked his wife to go in and get his voice recorder. He made the WISE choice.


No, owning a gun doesn't make you guilty, but when you're the only one around, questions will be raised, and it would be enough to at least question them. Still, I agree the arrest was wrong, but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...

GB we are talking about a WHOLE different situation if there was ANY reason for the police to believe Frank had committed a crime. If ANYONE said "hey that guy was over there shooting" then the police have a witness. Our courts have established a very precise set of circumstances of what is and isn't reasonable suspicion. The right to take away someone's freedom is a precious thing. It should have the highest level of scrutiny. Like they say. Better for 100 guilty persons to go free than 1 innocent person be convicted. Presumption of innocence is the very basis of our criminal system. Burden of proof always rests on the police, the prosecution.

As such its not up to Frank or anyone else to give up their rights in the interest of giving the police more power. Thats a mentality we've lost sight of. And we see the results. We see the results of how aggressive police infraction of rights affects the public perception of police. You think OUR attitude on this forum is negative towards police? Good grief, go to the inner city. When people get their rights unjustly taken away from them ALL the time by police that pressure citizens into "consent searches" and other heavy handed tactics, the relationship between the citizens and the police erodes.

When the police treat everyone like a criminal, they slowly but surely make their jobs FAR more difficult.

If the police demonstrate a respect for the limit of their authority and the rights of the people they are suppose to protect, they will see their jobs get easier.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

That's all I'm saying... take a step back and look at it from the other side, too. Let's say it wasn't Frank, but a felon with the gun and they shot the raccoon. We wouldn't be too happy if the cop didn't investigate simply because the felon didn't give their name, despite being the only person seen in the area with a gun.



Worse case all things being as equal as the actual situation presented the police should consult with witnesses about whether Frank was the offender. If not the suspect, the police should have left without further delay. If Frank was a felon he would have evaded arrest at this time. But since Racine PD did not handle it that way the Racine police have violated the civil rights of a citizen they are sworn to protect and have no suspect in custody.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

GB13, Maybe this can help you understand why some people absolutely refuse to voluntarily waive theirrights no matter how minor you feel they are.
It is all up to the individual on what rights they want to waive, Where is the line you will not allow them to cross?

Are you on the same page with "if you've got nothing to hide, Why not let the police search your vehicle, your home, maybe evendo a pelvic exam on your wife? Why not?because she obviously isn't hiding contraband in there, So justus take a little look if you got nothing to hide?"

I refuse to waive any of my rights, because my belief is that our rights are like dominoes, ifyou let one get tipped over, the rest will tumble down in very short order.

Uncooperative? or standing up for your rights? To defend your rights, you must not cooperate with police during an investigative encounter. And we have case-law stating that you most defend your rights vehemently and be belligerent about it otherwise the courts will see it as voluntarily waiving your rights.

How does the quote from Benjamin Franklin read? "Those who are willing to give up liberty for security, deserve neither"

When you are acting within the law, you have the upper hand in the situation, you start compromising with the person investigating , you just let them turn the tables on you and you are no longer in control.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Are you on the same page with "if you've got nothing to hide, Why not let the police search your vehicle, your home, maybe evendo a pelvic exam on your wife? Why not?because she obviously isn't hiding contraband in there, So justus take a little look if you got nothing to hide?"

It is one thing to discuss rights and where to draw the line. It is another to go way beyond the extremes of hypotheticals (which is what turns off the antis and neutrals in the first place).

I wish I could be more supportive for your "my rights never have been and never will be violated" attitudes, but in the real world, it happens. It sucks, but it happens. Maybe I'm just not as extreme as the rest of you, but I'm not going to get arrested just because a cop wants to know my name. In the same way, I have not voted in EVERY single election, from presidential to alderman. Have you? If you have, great! But it's a right, not a mandate that you vote, just as it's a right, but not a mandate that you don't give your name.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean we want the same things. We just have different ways of going about it...
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

lockman wrote:
Worse case all things being as equal as the actual situation presented the police should consult with witnesses about whether Frank was the offender. If not the suspect, the police should have left without further delay. If Frank was a felon he would have evaded arrest at this time. But since Racine PD did not handle it that way the Racine police have violated the civil rights of a citizen they are sworn to protect and have no suspect in custody.

If Frank was a felon and they didn't arrest him simply because he didn't give his name, and he went out and killed somebody after the police did nothing, how would that be any better?

They didn't know Frank wasn't a felon just by looking at him. Nobody could just by looking at anybody unless they KNOW for a fact.

In AG Van Hollen's memo, 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.

This is regardless of whether a person is or is not thought to be a felon. Sure, you have the right to stay quiet, but we see how well that's working out for our rights...

Has anything changed? Not that I've seen. Have people still been unjustly arrested? You bet. Are our rights still being violated? I'm not denying it. In the end, the way things are going, your rights are either going to be violated right away, or later on. I still fail to see how going to jail (even if wrongly) is better than simply giving your name.

I'm sure by now a lot of you are thinking that I don't care about my rights based on my comments. You couldn't be further from the truth, but I care more about being able to stay home with my family, not risk losing a current or future job, or not spending a ton of money on legal fees.

Maybe that's just me...
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
They didn't know Frank wasn't a felon just by looking at him. Nobody could just by looking at anybody unless they KNOW for a fact.
"Papers please.":(

Do they know that anyone isn't a felon? Do they know that you don't have warrants out for your arrest? Do they know if you lied on your taxes last year?

It scares me when people advocate allowing unsolicited checks by police.

One of my coworkers was out boating one day and some DNR wardens came up to check his friends registration. After checking the registration they asked my coworker for his name and ID, to which he complied. They ran it and found he had an unpaid parking ticket (that he didn't know about) in a town 15 miles away. They drove him all the way there to pay the ticket and wouldn't give him a ride back. He would have been back to his friends and family much sooner if he WOULDN'T have given them his name.

gollbladder13 wrote:
I'm sure by now a lot of you are thinking that I don't care about my rights based on my comments. You couldn't be further from the truth, but I care more about being able to stay home with my family, not risk losing a current or future job, or not spending a ton of money on legal fees.

Maybe that's just me...
We shouldn't have to spend anything on legal feesto beattrumped up charges. The very fact that you are worried about legal fees for doing something totally legal should have a huge alarm bell going off in your head right away. That alone should answer your question about whysome of us won't give up our rights.



Did you watch the videos yet?
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Yeah, I watched some of them from the other thread. The think about having a 2 week old daughter is it's not easy to just sit down and watch the 45 minute ones.

The ones about traffic stops (though don't relate to carrying) were informative, but nothing I didn't already know. I started watching the 45 minute one with the defense attorney. Good stuff, but got busy with baby stuff.

As far as legal fees, you are correct, we shouldn't have to spend money on it. But the sad truth is many people have, and will continue to do so because of finding themselves in this situation.

I guess I need to re-emphasize. It's not what I view is right or wrong, it's just where each individual draws the line.

As far as things I don't even know about, the only thing I have in my past is a less-than-perfect credit score. When they start arresting for that, then I'll be worried :shock:

I guess the last thing to do is ask those who have been wrongly arrested if it was worth it in the end. I haven't had that chance to ask them, so I can't answer for them.

To have a black and white mindset that, no matter what, this is how you will respond, seems a little close-minded to me. Again, just because we have different views on how to get there doesn't mean we all want the same thing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one...
 
Top