Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Racine,WI: Journal Times Editorial says unlawfully arrested citizen does not have moral high ground

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Weird - Journal Times editors thinks its OK for the police to break the law and arrest people for largely remaining silent when accosted by hostile police on your own property.

    ----

    http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opi...cc4c03286.html

    The Journal Times Editorial Board | Posted: Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:00 pm |


    May we, please, have a respite from the supposed controversy over open carrying of firearms? Perhaps it is extremism fatigue brought on by the recent wave of demonstrations about health care, a purported turn toward socialism, and so on-all of which have added to the amount of noise but not to the potential solutions for problems. The people now accusing Racine police of overreacting to an armed citizen are off base.

    Our problem is not with open carry in and of itself. Our problem is that the advocates of open carry are asserting that the right to carry a firearm and to be immune to questions from authority is superior to every other interest. That is the real issue in the case of Frank Hannan-Rock, not whether he may or may not carry a firearm.

    Hannan-Rock was arrested for obstructing an officer, in other words for not answering questions. Although open-carry advocates are trying to make this into an instance of an innocent citizen being harassed for peacefully exercising a basic right, this is not like the case in suburban Milwaukee from a few months ago. In that situation, a man was arrested him for disorderly conduct while carrying a gun as he planted a tree on his property. Racine police were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances.

    Recall that police were told by an anonymous caller that someone was shooting raccoons and that children were in the neighborhood. There lies the potential for harm to innocent bystanders. Officers come into this neighborhood, and they find a guy carrying a gun who refuses to answer any questions. So they take him into custody while they figure out whether he's involved. If car windows were being broken out and someone carrying a baseball bat was walking down the street, would we not also want police to question that person and perhaps take him into custody if there's a suspicion that he was involved?

    We have protections against self-incrimination, but citizens also have an interest in maintaining an orderly society, which is why one duty of citizens is to communicate with law enforcement. Had Hannan-Rock answered a couple of simple questions, he would not have been arrested. He put himself in that situation.

    Moreover, the incident has indications of having been arranged to some degree. Police say the call about raccoons being shot has been traced back to Hannan-Rock's home, an assertion which Hannan-Rock has denied. That makes his actions seem less worthy of support because, if true, it means that open-carry advocates intentionally made false statements to police and took officers away from legitimate duties in order to further their own interests.

    Legal charges may or may not stand, but Hannan-Rock and his group have lost the ethical high ground in the meantime.

  2. #2
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    As far as I can see, we still do not have all the facts. Frank is keeping quit (I would guess he was asked to do so by a lawyer), and the police have changed their story once so far. Until all the facts are known, I think it was to soon to write about this in a paper like that. The truth about all this will come out. I still have trust in Frank. I will stick by him unless I see real facts that show that I am wrong about him. In the end, I don't think I will have been wrong.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Tried to login after registering to leave my own comments to this opinion piece. Even after responding to the email they sent me..... Start by logging unsuccessfully then when I go to the opinion page and clicking on the comments tab, I am advised that I must login to leave comments... AND HERE IS THE KICKER..... It won't recognize my login when I try to re-log in! FRUSTRATING

    Not nearly as frustrating as having someone write an opinion piece alleging that just because you carry a firearm, or a baseball bat (in their example) that you lose IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.... Just doesn't make any sense!

    What next? Any guy with a pink shirt must answer the police while sitting on his front porch because someone reported something regarding a guy in a RED shirt!:what::what:

    Get Serious, We ALL are protected and have the SAME constitutional protections or NONE OF US HAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Now 10 minutes later it magically works!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    It sounds like the article is trying to spread their perception of the events to the local public. They should have focused on the issue of Open Carry, not discussed in print the particulars, in their view(s), of the incident, until it has been heard in the courts. They may find themselves in an embarrasing position if the facts of the incident in question DON'T reflect what they reported!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Problem is, the reasoning seen in this article sounds too good to too many people. So, I wonder, how can we appeal to them with reasoning they might find convincing? We are doing some things that do, I am sure, convince some. We point out the folly of trading freedom for safety, and we point to the law and the Constitutionand state our insistence that the authorities abide by them. And, we cite examples that reveal the folly in some of the reasoning given by some authorities to justify infringing the rights of the people.

    Maybe I have failed to mention something else that we are doing. But, I wonder what we might do that is new, that appeals to the reasoning of folks who fail to recognize the crucial value of The Constitution, see it as ayellowing old piece of paperwritten uponby some old dead white guys, irrelevant for modern times, and tend to rely upon what they see as smarter modern thinking.

    As we think about this, maybe it would help if we consider that they are sincere, and not just trying to make some points or manipulate. Perhaps this will enable us to glimpse a way to connect with them where they are at and better convince them.

    Responses?Ideas?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    From GCO's Sledgehammer:
    Henes v. Morrisey, 194 Wis. 2d 338; 533 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. S. Ct. 1995). The court held that refusal to speak, including the refusal to give identity, is not obstruction, that obstruction would have to include some action, such as giving false information, but that the officers could have reasonably not understood the law at the time (because a statue says an officer can "demand" identity). Thus, the officers had qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. Of course, 14 years later, the law is clearly established.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    While I am not a lawyer, nor an LE, I'm just wondering what questions were posed? At any rate I sure hope this all comes out on the side of RIGHT. I think the article was written poorly and published in an attempt to cast suspicion on Frank in the context of that the calls were traced back to his residence. Again, not saying that the reporter is lying, but it is definately an attempt to besmirch US ! Which just really PISSES me off!!!
    Keep your powder dry!
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Perhaps the answer lies in this statement: "We have protections against self-incrimination, but citizens also have an interest in maintaining an orderly society, which is why one duty of citizens is to communicate with law enforcement."

    This type of editorial tries to create a moral equivalence between your right against self-discrimination and your duty to society. They are not equal nor are they unambiguous.

    Your right against self-discrimination (rooted in your right to self-protection) is clear. Your duty to society is a mish-mash of religious ideas, social mores and financial demands that is generally imposed upon you (i.e. taxes, military draft, jury duty) by a gov't with little regard to your idea of 'social duty' (the 'common good' argument).

    The ultimate goal of forced altruism (the moral obligation to help others, even at the cost of self-interest) is the total destruction of the self.

    Folks undecided on this type of issue must be asked to make a decision:

    Which is more important to you, yourself or your 'duty' to society

    Many of us comment on the deeper historic and philosophical roots of our right to self-protection. On occasion, when discussing these roots I've seen eyes glaze over if I introduce Hobbes, Rousseau, Mills, Rand et al. By breaking the question down simply, the focus becomes clear.

    Your right to self-protection is guaranteed by the Constitution that gov't agencies and personnel swore to uphold.

    No gov't has the right to require your duty to society.

    I'm just sayin'...

    Carry on

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Wow! Very well put, JM. . .

    I wonder if you can expand "Which is more important to you, yourself or your 'duty' to society" so to make less likely a "noble, self effacing" response.



  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    Perhaps the answer lies in this statement: "We have protections against self-incrimination, but citizens also have an interest in maintaining an orderly society, which is why one duty of citizens is to communicate with law enforcement."
    The facts are though that frank did have a conversation with the police and decided tio remain silent when the police decided toenagge in a confrontational interrogation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    someone was shooting raccoons and that children were in the neighborhood.
    What does this have to do with anything? I've shot lots of raccoons and other varmints with "children in the neighborhood" - and right beside me too. The story doesn't demonstrate good reason to believe the shooter (if there was one) was actually endangering the children or anyone else.

    This type of article attempts to convey the idea that the very presence of a gun, or someone shooting - regardless of the target or context - is automatically dangerous to "the children."

    Now, if this guy actually did set this up deliberately, I hope someone who knows him gives him what for... That sort of nonsense helps nobody. But it is also entirely possible that someone saw him carrying and decided to make the "anonymous" call to stop him.

    Personally, I'd say that Racine, WI is probably not a great place to carry anyway. Too bad.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    It may not be the greatest place to Open Carry, but it's getting to be a necessity none the less. According to another article, in the same paper, on the same day, we rank number 3 in violent crimes in the state. Protection has moved from a right, to a necessity. And with 1.5 million people due to lose jobless benefits before the year's end, it's going to be one grim Christmas in America this year. Anyone care to guess on which way the crime rate will go then?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Great posts, guys.

    Remember too that "society" is a thing, not a being. It has no rights. So, any duty to it is really a "duty" to nothing. Responsibility to self is important. If there is any concept of "society", it is that individuals must be free from coersion from immoral force...as is the appearance of the issue in the Racine case with the immoral use of force by police.



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    Personally, I'd say that Racine, WI is probably not a great place to carry anyway. Too bad.
    Have you ever read the news for Racine Wisconsin? Believe me there are many reasons that make it a great place to carry. The number one reason is the crime rate.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    opencarrybilly wrote:
    Wow! Very well put, JM. . .

    I wonder if you can expand "Which is more important to you, yourself or your 'duty' to society" so to make less likely a "noble, self effacing" response.

    Hmmmm, the general idea of what I said was to not expand the idea for simplicity, but I see your point.

    One (of many) ideas:

    A basic thesis is that people act towards pleasure and away from pain. If you've been taught or believe that 'helping people makes you feel better', then your actions are simply a selfish way of self-pleasure.

    Therefore, while one might claim an altruistic gesture is 'noble and self-effacing', all they're really doing is pleasing themselves. How selfish....

    Just one thought...

    Carry on

  16. #16
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    MamaLiberty wrote:
    Personally, I'd say that Racine, WI is probably not a great place to carry anyway. Too bad.
    Have you ever read the news for Racine Wisconsin? Believe me there are many reasons that make it a great place to carry. The number one reason is the crime rate.
    Oh no! I didn't at all mean it wasn't necessary, just that open carry would certainly be no fun.

    Actually, since an attack can come at any time, any place, the crime rate there isn't the most important reason to carry. Thinking that carry is less necessary some other places because the crime rate is low can get you killed.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  17. #17
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    "Moreover, the incident has indications of having been arranged to some degree. Police say the call about raccoons being shot has been traced back to Hannan-Rock's home, an assertion which Hannan-Rock has denied. That makes his actions seem less worthy of support because, if true, it means that open-carry advocates intentionally made false statements to police and took officers away from legitimate duties in order to further their own interests."



    THIS is something I find disturbing. I would think that "we" OC advocates stand on both sides of the issue. I, as well as so many others, sincerely hope that this incident wasn't set up. While I'm all for the right to OC, I'd hate to think that our members would stoop to that kind of low. If we have a run-in with police while out OCing, that's one thing, but to intentionally try and set up the police is unacceptable.

    The wording that I highlighted in red is the type of sneaky wording I detest. It says to me that his action(s) represent all OC-ers'. It doesn't say "if true, it means that he intentionally made false statements...".It reads that open carry advocates made false statements..., thus marring the OC community as a whole. Unfortunately, the actions of any single OC-er do represent the entire OC community in the public's eyes. That's why we must remain on the legal side of every issue, 100% of the time. We're fighting a good fight here and we have to keep doing so. Similar to consumers, whereas someone has a good experience, they'll tell a friend; but if they have a negative experience, they'll tell 10 people. Same can go for OC. We can do litter pick-ups, picnics, any number of positive community actions, and the word gets out a little. One instance of something like this where the possibility of setting up the police exists, and the word gets out big time. We have to remain vigilant and remain lawful. Be careful out there and carry on.
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    The wording that I highlighted in red is the type of sneaky wording I detest. It says to me that his action(s) represent all OC-ers'. It doesn't say "if true, it means that he intentionally made false statements...".It reads that open carry advocates made false statements..., thus marring the OC community as a whole. Unfortunately, the actions of any single OC-er do represent the entire OC community in the public's eyes.

    You hit the nail on the head!

    Really???? Isn't that exactly how the majority of this site's posters talk about LE?

    That's why this site is considered a cop bashing site and is partly to blame for losing it's credibility and seeming extremist.





  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    my perspective wrote:
    Really???? Isn't that exactly how the majority of this site's posters talk about LE?

    That's why this site is considered a cop bashing site and is partly to blame for losing it's credibility and seeming extremist.



    Cop bashing site only because of cops like "in likeFlynn"
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    my perspective wrote:
    The wording that I highlighted in red is the type of sneaky wording I detest. It says to me that his action(s) represent all OC-ers'. It doesn't say "if true, it means that he intentionally made false statements...".It reads that open carry advocates made false statements..., thus marring the OC community as a whole. Unfortunately, the actions of any single OC-er do represent the entire OC community in the public's eyes.
    You hit the nail on the head!
    ...As did you. I'm no "cop-hater" and I don'twant to belabeled as one for being a member here. Most of those I converse with are like me, nothing against police, just want them to know what rights we have to excercise. I feel we're on the same team for the most part.
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Setting up the police in a sting like operation is "unacceptable"? Don'tpolice do that all the time? Haven't some famous civil rights cases been "set up"? Rosa Parks?Roe V Wade?

    Frank answered questions about the raccoon and the shooting of the BB gun as well as how an individual had scooped it up with a shovel. His refusalto give HIS OWN personal information as well asrefuse to answer questions pertaining to himself AND his firearm ishis right. It is beyond usor anyone else to degrade to some possible criminal or even sinister motive his right to do so.

    "Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,chicanery and cowardice." John Adams, 2nd President of the USA


  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    my perspective wrote:
    The wording that I highlighted in red is the type of sneaky wording I detest. It says to me that his action(s) represent all OC-ers'. It doesn't say "if true, it means that he intentionally made false statements...".It reads that open carry advocates made false statements..., thus marring the OC community as a whole. Unfortunately, the actions of any single OC-er do represent the entire OC community in the public's eyes.

    You hit the nail on the head!

    Really???? Isn't that exactly how the majority of this site's posters talk about LE?

    That's why this site is considered a cop bashing site and is partly to blame for losing it's credibility and seeming extremist.



    Accusing a single OCer of something and then translating it to the entire movement reeks of desperation.

    Accusing countless cops of well-documented malfeasance going all the way to the federal court system in some cases is another thing altogether. They are a disgrace to their uniform, and should be held to account by their partners, but the thin blue line far too often prevents justice.

    In one germane case, SDPD tried some entrapment of their own by trying to get OCers to go onto government property to violate CA PC 171(b).

  23. #23
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Let's just say that it would be very nice if the underhanded, illegal and immoral actions of police everywhere were as rare as stupid moves by those ordinary people who carry a gun.

    Can we at least agree on that?
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  24. #24
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    Let's just say that it would be very nice if the underhanded, illegal and immoral actions of police everywhere were as rare as stupid moves by those ordinary people who carry a gun.

    Can we at least agree on that?
    +1
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    hopnpop wrote:
    my perspective wrote:
    The wording that I highlighted in red is the type of sneaky wording I detest. It says to me that his action(s) represent all OC-ers'. It doesn't say "if true, it means that he intentionally made false statements...".It reads that open carry advocates made false statements..., thus marring the OC community as a whole. Unfortunately, the actions of any single OC-er do represent the entire OC community in the public's eyes.
    You hit the nail on the head!
    ...As did you. I'm no "cop-hater" and I don'twant to belabeled as one for being a member here. Most of those I converse with are like me, nothing against police, just want them to know what rights we have to excercise. I feel we're on the same team for the most part.
    You are both right, and, there is another perspective, or explanation. When one becomes victim of the errant LEO, one cries out. (S)he cannot be expected to always qualify the comments with praise for the “good” LEOs. So, it looks to many people like LEO bashing. I have always believed that most LEOs are good. All my life, until October 7, 2008, I have considered LEOs to be my friends. That changed that evening. Now, I still believe that there are some good ones, but I must wonder if they are the weak minority or the intimidated majority. For, caring about honor, and the quality of the services performed by their profession, one would think they would be, in groups or individually, pounding on desks down at headquarters or shouting their indignation from the rooftops. From all indications, either they are doing neither or their efforts have been ineffective. Thus, we are left with continuing offenses about which victims and others who care about the victims and the rights of the people will continue to cry out. And, all LEOs will appear to be painted with the same brush. So, the bad ones cause all the good ones to seem bad – guilt by association. So, LEO, if you don’t want to be made, by your colleagues, to look bad, get the errant among you squared away.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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