Mike
Site Co-Founder
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/opinion/editorial/article_ad42f77a-a554-11de-b49e-001cc4c03286.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.
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/opinion/editorial/article_ad42f77a-a554-11de-b49e-001cc4c03286.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.