J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
yep
yep
-
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.
LEO/OPEN CARRY Joint Charity Get-together
- Thread starter hardballer
- Start date
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I would attend. All rhetoric aside it isn't worth debating/discussing/trolling back and forth between the members of this forum. Some think it is a good idea, some don't. Fine with me. We will never agree on everything. I would be happy to attend and meet anyone from law enforcement. So far I have attended EVERY event planned on this forum and will continue to do so. Looking forward to seeing Hubert and all those who attend his birthday party tomorrow!:dude:
I would attend. All rhetoric aside it isn't worth debating/discussing/trolling back and forth between the members of this forum. Some think it is a good idea, some don't. Fine with me. We will never agree on everything. I would be happy to attend and meet anyone from law enforcement. So far I have attended EVERY event planned on this forum and will continue to do so. Looking forward to seeing Hubert and all those who attend his birthday party tomorrow!:dude:
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
LOL too funny!
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
"Charity ball" with this crowd beggars the definition of 'ball' as a formal dance.
"Charity ball" with this crowd beggars the definition of 'ball' as a formal dance.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
I know we disagree on some points and that has been the way of the world since time began.
The one thing we can agree upon is Open Carry and in that regard I will stand with anyone on this board.
I know we disagree on some points and that has been the way of the world since time began.
The one thing we can agree upon is Open Carry and in that regard I will stand with anyone on this board.
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
we actually agree on something
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
hardballer wrote:
hardballer wrote:
Fair enough. I agree.
P229Sig357DAK
Regular Member
imported post
Actually that would be an impossible transaction as .02 cents would be .0002 and we have no hard currency capable of completing that transaction. I believe that what you wanted was either "2 cents" worth or ".02 dollars" worth.
:banghead:
Actually that would be an impossible transaction as .02 cents would be .0002 and we have no hard currency capable of completing that transaction. I believe that what you wanted was either "2 cents" worth or ".02 dollars" worth.
:banghead:
GlockMeisterG21
Campaign Veteran
imported post
P229Sig357DAK wrote:
P229Sig357DAK wrote:
That was rather rude and uncalled for. Everyone knew what he meant.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
gotta second ya on that one.
gotta second ya on that one.
Wisconsin Regular
Regular Member
imported post
Mr. Chairman,
I have receivedresponse from the A.G.'s office. Something that you already know, but I wanted something in writing for our records. Response to an open carry upon a concerned citizen call without some reason to believe that a crime is being committed is "discretionary". This is not something that will be published, just a response to my request.
This relieves a common concern that if "contact" isn't made with an "OC person" (nothing personal)and it turns violent the PD is liable. This will form the basis for our policy and training.
Our tech college training coordinator and I are working on a training session on open carry that would be broadcast via interactive television to interested agencies in different areas of Wisconsin.
I will keep you posted.
Thanks
WR
Mr. Chairman,
I have receivedresponse from the A.G.'s office. Something that you already know, but I wanted something in writing for our records. Response to an open carry upon a concerned citizen call without some reason to believe that a crime is being committed is "discretionary". This is not something that will be published, just a response to my request.
This relieves a common concern that if "contact" isn't made with an "OC person" (nothing personal)and it turns violent the PD is liable. This will form the basis for our policy and training.
Our tech college training coordinator and I are working on a training session on open carry that would be broadcast via interactive television to interested agencies in different areas of Wisconsin.
I will keep you posted.
Thanks
WR
P229Sig357DAK
Regular Member
imported post
oh please...if i wanted to be rude...
oh please...if i wanted to be rude...
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
P229Sig357DAK wrote:
What you are experiencing here is the fact that we on this board have each others backs. Both here and in the real world.
I am a perfect example of this. Just search "Woodmans" and bnhcomputing's birthday party, Frank in particular and you will see just how fast and how much power can be wielded for a common cause or to defend one of us.
We may bicker like brothers and sisters but we are serious as a heart-attack when it comes to the 2A and Open Carry and the well being of our membership. We stand together.
So welcome and carry on.
hardballer
P229Sig357DAK wrote:
It's not that big a deal really and I am sure you did not mean any disrespect. Just jokin' around, I suppose.
What you are experiencing here is the fact that we on this board have each others backs. Both here and in the real world.
I am a perfect example of this. Just search "Woodmans" and bnhcomputing's birthday party, Frank in particular and you will see just how fast and how much power can be wielded for a common cause or to defend one of us.
We may bicker like brothers and sisters but we are serious as a heart-attack when it comes to the 2A and Open Carry and the well being of our membership. We stand together.
So welcome and carry on.
hardballer
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Wisconsin Regular wrote:
Unless of course you are attempting to fire the shot heard around the world of the next REVOLUTION! Because then it is game on!
Wisconsin Regular wrote:
Uhhh? A training session on Open Carry? I certainly hope you are not trying to impose or have imposed a mandatory training requirement for Open Carry.
Unless of course you are attempting to fire the shot heard around the world of the next REVOLUTION! Because then it is game on!
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I know, why don't you train your officers to treat , Citizens with respect & not intimidate them. People that OC are law abiding & there fore NOT a threat to officers or anyone else , unless you are a criminal bent on doing the OCer harm.
I am a nice guy and will react nicely to an officer that does NOT treat me like I am doing something criminal.
I know, why don't you train your officers to treat , Citizens with respect & not intimidate them. People that OC are law abiding & there fore NOT a threat to officers or anyone else , unless you are a criminal bent on doing the OCer harm.
I am a nice guy and will react nicely to an officer that does NOT treat me like I am doing something criminal.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
J.Gleason wrote:
Not 100% positive here but I think the "training" Wisconsin Regular refers to is the training of officers in the correct manner in which to interact with OCers.
Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Wisconsin Regular wrote:
You don't need to worry about being liable anyway AFAIK. Police are under no obligation to protect us. We've known that for years and know that if we don't provide for our own protection, no one will.
Read Warren Vs. D.C.
Wisconsin Regular wrote:
You don't need to worry about being liable anyway AFAIK. Police are under no obligation to protect us. We've known that for years and know that if we don't provide for our own protection, no one will.
Read Warren Vs. D.C.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Sir, what is the basis for the "common concern" that the PD is liable for someone committing a crime?
To my knowledge the courts have established that the police do not have an obligation to respond or protect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
In the case I cite above, EVEN in the situation where a crime is reported in progress, the police were not found negligent in not responding.
In the situation of a person open-carrying there is NO crime even in progress. Merely a prejudicial 'feeling' on the part of an officer that someone open-carrying is more a potential criminal than someone not open-carrying?
So if the courts have found that police have no liability after someone CALLS them alerting them to a crime in progress. Why would a call to police alerting them to a person open-carrying but indicating NO crime in progress give you or your officers the concern that you/they are liable if that person suddenly transforms from a law-abiding open-carrier to a violent rampaging murderer?
So the basis of your training to your officers is going to be to investigate someone who is abiding within the law "just in case" they suddenly stop abiding within the law to protect the police from liability? (yet the courts have held that you aren't liable for failing to respond)
Your justification for your new policy on training seems based on flawed logic/urban legend.
It seems to me sir, that logic would dictate that you should ask the Attorney General what legal liability your officers would have if they saw a person open-carrying completely within the law and had no reason to believe them to be committing a crime or about to commit a crime and then in the "hypothetical" scenario where that person 5 minutes later commits a crime, what liability your officers had?
It seems to me that your training should be based on something more defined than 'common concern' which doesn't seem to be justified by anything.
If you observe a person leaving a bar who does not appear to be intoxicated but later crashes their car are you liable because you didn't stop and determine if they were drunk? Do you or your officers worry about that liability?
Do you have any examples where officers have been found to have legal liability because they didn't investigate or stop and question a person who was committing no crime who then later committed a crime?
Sir, what is the basis for the "common concern" that the PD is liable for someone committing a crime?
To my knowledge the courts have established that the police do not have an obligation to respond or protect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
In the case I cite above, EVEN in the situation where a crime is reported in progress, the police were not found negligent in not responding.
In the situation of a person open-carrying there is NO crime even in progress. Merely a prejudicial 'feeling' on the part of an officer that someone open-carrying is more a potential criminal than someone not open-carrying?
So if the courts have found that police have no liability after someone CALLS them alerting them to a crime in progress. Why would a call to police alerting them to a person open-carrying but indicating NO crime in progress give you or your officers the concern that you/they are liable if that person suddenly transforms from a law-abiding open-carrier to a violent rampaging murderer?
So the basis of your training to your officers is going to be to investigate someone who is abiding within the law "just in case" they suddenly stop abiding within the law to protect the police from liability? (yet the courts have held that you aren't liable for failing to respond)
Your justification for your new policy on training seems based on flawed logic/urban legend.
It seems to me sir, that logic would dictate that you should ask the Attorney General what legal liability your officers would have if they saw a person open-carrying completely within the law and had no reason to believe them to be committing a crime or about to commit a crime and then in the "hypothetical" scenario where that person 5 minutes later commits a crime, what liability your officers had?
It seems to me that your training should be based on something more defined than 'common concern' which doesn't seem to be justified by anything.
If you observe a person leaving a bar who does not appear to be intoxicated but later crashes their car are you liable because you didn't stop and determine if they were drunk? Do you or your officers worry about that liability?
Do you have any examples where officers have been found to have legal liability because they didn't investigate or stop and question a person who was committing no crime who then later committed a crime?
Wisconsin Regular
Regular Member
imported post
The points which I did not make very clearly are this;
The opinion that refer to will form the basis for a dept. policythat there is no need/duty for the police to respond to a concerned citizen/personal observationcall on OC.
The training I speak of has to do with training police officers in reference to OC.
Results;
Police not responding/reacting to armed citizens legally carrying should result in less conflict.
Police trained in Oc law will reduce the likelihood of encounters gone bad and make officers more comfortable with OC.
WR
The points which I did not make very clearly are this;
The opinion that refer to will form the basis for a dept. policythat there is no need/duty for the police to respond to a concerned citizen/personal observationcall on OC.
The training I speak of has to do with training police officers in reference to OC.
Results;
Police not responding/reacting to armed citizens legally carrying should result in less conflict.
Police trained in Oc law will reduce the likelihood of encounters gone bad and make officers more comfortable with OC.
WR