Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81

Thread: Stopped by Beloit Police Dept...

  1. #1
    Regular Member gunguy2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    200

    Post imported post

    Today (March 12th) My Fiance, 2 yr old daughter, our lil dog and I went for a Walk. If anyone knows Beloit, We parked our car in thenewsectionat the intersection of White ave and Riverside dr. We crossed the bridge on White, went south on 4th, East on E. Grand, then north on Riverside. It was about a 2 mile walk, and just as I was about 15 feetfrom my car, I heard a car and Lisa said "Its a Cop..." Sure enough... I heard "Sir, Please put your hands where I can see them." Not even in a threating tone. He then asked me if I was Open Carrying, I said Yes. He then asked if I had an ID and let me reach past my gun to get my wallet. I asked if he would feel comfortable if he removed my firearm, He said hes not worried about it. lol. He just ran my name to make sure I was legal to carry and we just chatted about it. He knew all the laws. Then a few more cops arrived and we all talked about open carry. I showed him my map of school zones and let him know I am on my P's and Q's about what I do. He was more than nice throughout the entire thing. It was a educational time for both parties I think. We both got things cleared up we were interested in. But the funny thing was, they Knew me before they knew my name lol. The first cop was like "Are you Open Carrying?". Second said "Dont we have a report on you?" as he smiled. (From my Walmart experience in October). 3rd asked "Arent you the one on Carnegie?" haha. But it was a good time. No complaints at all toward the Beloit Police. I gave him one of our WI Pamplets I printed off, and he stood and read it. I think he liked it, lol. Im not sure who else here OC's in Beloit, but I dont think we will have a problem whatsoever. My hat goesoff to theBeloit Police Dept.

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    win!

  3. #3
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Thanks for being a great ambassador for OC !


    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    gunguy2009 wrote:
    SNIP No complaints at all toward the Beloit Police.
    You are more tolerant than I would have been.

    A free man approached bythe government, the encounter opening with the government saying, "Please put your hands where I can see them." (emphasis added). ??? There is nothing, not one thing, civil about a cop saying that to someone. It screams the cop feels potential danger. No reasonable person would feel free to disregard that remark and walk away.

    And, they knew or suspected who your were? Yet, still decided to even contact you. I don't care whether some court has said police can consensually contact anybody. The mere fact they are contacting an OCer, especially one they think they know, over the exercise of a fundamental human right is to me intolerable. It proves they consider something inherently suspicious and/or criminal about a fundamental human right.

    Separately, the true test would have been how nice the officer was if you exercised your rights politely. Anybody can be friendly and professional when they are getting what they want. The real test is when you thwart their desire by politely exercising your rights.

    For myself, that opening comment would be the subject of a formal complaint, with some pointed questions: "Is this how you initiate a consensual encounter?" "Are your cops so faint-hearted that they feel they have to say that at the inception of a consensual encounter?"

    What are they gonna say? "Uh, it wasn't a consensual encounter"?Which gives one a new target,"What was your RAS (reasonable, articulable suspicion) for a detention?"

    Everybody has to decide how tohandle the cop in front of themin the exact circumstances they find themselves. But, I don't know that it helps things overall to forego some rights (silence, search and seizure) while exercising another (2A).And, I definitely disagree with later declaring that everything went smooth, while the smoothness might only have been achieved at the expense of 4A and 5A rights (search, seizure, and silence).

    A genuinely professional cop would be just as respectful if you had said things like:

    "Officer, no offense, but I do not consent to an encounter with you today. Why am I being detained.

    "You want to see my ID? Why am I being detained?"

    "You want to see my ID? Oh, officer, you and I both know you have no authority to compel me to show my ID,* and no authority to compel me to identify myself unless you have RAS of a crime.* Why am I being detained? I'm not? Oh, good. Then, no offense, but the ID stays in the wallet."

    If he won't respect politely, verbally refused consent, then you really know whether you have a government agent who needs correction. Genuinely professional cops will respect it.

    * If true legally in your state.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Thank you Citizen. My emphasis below.

    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After
    having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
    a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
    a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
    that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed
    a crime
    , and may demand the name and address of the person
    and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
    and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
    where the person was stopped.
    History: 1993 a. 486.
    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
    103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
    A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
    test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
    N.W.2d 386 (1989).
    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
    to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
    155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
    encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
    the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
    532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
    When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
    stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
    App. 1991).
    A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
    often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
    impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
    (Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
    of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
    part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
    N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
    mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
    depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
    himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
    N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
    of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification
    in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613
    N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
    a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
    officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
    3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
    had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
    did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686.
    ear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
    the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
    aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
    be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
    2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
    phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
    1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
    if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
    regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
    the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
    an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
    that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
    Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
    at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
    criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
    Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
    could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
    risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
    State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
    of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
    2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
    public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
    police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
    entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
    enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
    N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
    that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
    belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
    but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
    a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
    to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
    675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
    in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
    so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
    159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
    real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
    would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
    a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
    reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
    against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
    County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
    necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
    a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
    v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
    stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
    notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
    drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
    of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, ___ Wis. 2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___,
    07−1578.
    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.

    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.
    968.25 Search during temporary questioning

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monroe, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    I say good for you, way to go

  7. #7
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    EXCELLENT!!!!!!!

    Dave thanked you for being a great ambassodor. I want to second that compliment 100 percent. The way you handled that situation proves that your are a great AMBASSADOR.

    IF you would have stood strong and demanded you know your rights as a citizen,that you do not have to cooperate and insist your rights are notto be violated, you would have been right to do so, but you would have lost your Ambassodorship.

    I wish that we were face to face. I would shake your hand and pat you on the back for how well you handled this situation.



  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    gunguy2009 wrote:
    SNIP No complaints at all toward the Beloit Police.
    You are more tolerant than I would have been.

    A free man approached bythe government, the encounter opening with the government saying, "Please put your hands where I can see them." (emphasis added). ??? There is nothing, not one thing, civil about a cop saying that to someone. It screams the cop feels potential danger. No reasonable person would feel free to disregard that remark and walk away.

    And, they knew or suspected who your were? Yet, still decided to even contact you. I don't care whether some court has said police can consensually contact anybody. The mere fact they are contacting an OCer, especially one they think they know, over the exercise of a fundamental human right is to me intolerable. It proves they consider something inherently suspicious and/or criminal about a fundamental human right.

    Separately, the true test would have been how nice the officer was if you exercised your rights politely. Anybody can be friendly and professional when they are getting what they want. The real test is when you thwart their desire by politely exercising your rights.

    For myself, that opening comment would be the subject of a formal complaint, with some pointed questions: "Is this how you initiate a consensual encounter?" "Are your cops so faint-hearted that they feel they have to say that at the inception of a consensual encounter?"

    What are they gonna say? "Uh, it wasn't a consensual encounter"?Which gives one a new target,"What was your RAS (reasonable, articulable suspicion) for a detention?"

    Everybody has to decide how tohandle the cop in front of themin the exact circumstances they find themselves. But, I don't know that it helps things overall to forego some rights (silence, search and seizure) while exercising another (2A).And, I definitely disagree with later declaring that everything went smooth, while the smoothness might only have been achieved at the expense of 4A and 5A rights (search, seizure, and silence).

    A genuinely professional cop would be just as respectful if you had said things like:

    "Officer, no offense, but I do not consent to an encounter with you today. Why am I being detained.

    "You want to see my ID? Why am I being detained?"

    "You want to see my ID? Oh, officer, you and I both know you have no authority to compel me to show my ID,* and no authority to compel me to identify myself unless you have RAS of a crime.* Why am I being detained? I'm not? Oh, good. Then, no offense, but the ID stays in the wallet."

    If he won't respect politely, verbally refused consent, then you really know whether you have a government agent who needs correction. Genuinely professional cops will respect it.

    * If true legally in your state.

    Citizen, you need to chill. Maybe LE down there violate civil rights all the time, and has conditioned your postion.

    I think the LEO in this situation, wanted to stop him just to talk with him. To interact with him and learn more about us from us. US asa OC movement.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    Citizen, you need to chill. Maybe LE down there violate civil rights all the time, and has conditioned your postion.

    I think the LEO in this situation, wanted to stop him just to talk with him. To interact with him and learn more about us from us. US asa OC movement.
    Citizen is just explaining something thatthe OPneeds to know (if he doesn't already). It's the OP's choice which rights to give up and when, but people need to know the fact that rights were given up in this situation.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, you need to chill. Maybe LE down there violate civil rights all the time, and has conditioned your postion.

    I think the LEO in this situation, wanted to stop him just to talk with him. To interact with him and learn more about us from us. US asa OC movement.
    I understand.

    But, think about what you just wrote for a moment. The cop wanted to stop him just to talk to him, interact, and learn more about the OC movement?

    Since when are police authorized to stop someone to satisfy their curiosity about a political movement? Are police--any goverment actor--suddenly so elevated, so elite that their curiosity justifies abridging the idea that:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    No right. More sacred. Free from all restraint. Free even from interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    That quote is from Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. Moreover, it is quoted in the grandaddy of foot-stop court opinions: Terry vs Ohio.

    The Terry court could have omitted the quote. They could have watered-down the concept. They could have quoted something else. But, they didn't. They used that exact quote.

    And, even if you don't mean "stop" in the non-consensual/detention sense. Nobody, but nobody can possibly claim that the declaration "please put your hands where I can see them" does not constitute the beginning of an "interference". I maintain such an utterance is alarmingbecause it shows the LEOhas danger on his mind.Nosocial, friendly, trusting contact ever begins with "put your hands where I can see them."I maintain this was a detention, a non-consensual encounter.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, you need to chill. Maybe LE down there violate civil rights all the time, and has conditioned your postion.
    With the exception of a very few really pro-rights cops on this forum, I have yet to meet or hear of the cop who didn't demand to see ID from a detainee despite the complete absence of authority to demand an ID document, except in a few states whose S & I (stop and identify) statute allowed the demand if the person was carrying a state issued ID or drivers license.

    As to this state, demanding an ID document without authority is so commonplace police seemto actually have forgotten they do not have the authority. They've been getting away with it for so long, they completely forgot they can't do it.

    But, this is just one issue.

    The Blue Wall of Silence is muchbroader inscope.All one has to do is ask himself, "What does it hide?"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    I agree with Citizen, that this was a non-consensual stop, and I agree that it is important for those reading to realize this.

    Having said that, I also believe that those who carry should all be capable of making their own decisions. My advice is always, if you choose to cooperate and then start to get nervous about their questions, stop, end it.

    When talking with LEO, we need to be careful so as not to empower the LEO.

    "I don't really have to give you my id. I choose to because I have nothing to hide. Please remember that; should you meet me or another OC in the future."

    All-In-All, I'd call that a good encounter. You left with a positive attitude regarding that officer, and he walked away with a positive attitude of an OC.

    Congratulations

    Carry On



  13. #13
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    gunguy2009 wrote:
    He then asked me if I was Open Carrying
    Uhhh.... no....um, Officer Obvious.... I'm carrying concealed... without my jacket.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    gunguy2009 wrote:
    He then asked me if I was Open Carrying
    Uhhh.... no....um, Officer Obvious.... I'm carrying concealed... without my jacket.


    That made my day, RLMAO

  16. #16
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    oak1971 wrote:
    It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.
    Oh really? And what were the officer's grounds for a reasonable suspicion that gunguy2009 may have been engaged in criminal activity?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  17. #17
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    double post! %(&#$(&!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Seriously, ya done good GunGuy, Ya done good! Carry on!
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  19. #19
    Regular Member Optimus Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    I think it's more of an example of why not being a dick towards a police officer will get you far. Yeah, the cop in question should have just said "excuse me sir, can I speak with you for a minute?" instead of what he did, but some of them tend to be a bit leery around armed people, cops can get shot too after all. I think Gunguy handled himself just fine in this case, and I'm sure that any of the officers he dealt with today will treat him, and other OCers courteously in the future.

    Cue flamage for defending the cops...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Then flamed they shall be!
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Optimus Prime wrote:
    SNIP I'm sure that any of the officers he dealt with today will treat him, and other OCers courteously in the future.
    Courteous would be to leave the OCers the heck alone unless there was RAS for a detention.

    Running ID to see if someone is a prohibited possessor is not a courtesy. It is an indication of an investigative contact. Nothing courteous about it.

    Same for demanding or requesting ID.

    Alternatively, courteous would be a smile in a 7-Eleven, or a hello across the coffee counter. Or, just walking up to a randomly met OCer and asking for a couple minutes to find out more about OC in a totally social context. Driving the patrol car directly to someone who is out walking is indicative of an investigative contact, not a courtesy.

    A real courtesy would be to ask the 911 caller what the man was doing with the gun, whether it was holstered, etc. And telling the caller that it was perfectly legal, and no we can't go bothering someone exercising a constitutionally protected right. Now, that would be a real courtesy.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    That is good to hear about Beloit. I'll be in Beloit at the end of June (family reunion). I'll even be on Grand Ave. or was that Garden St? (Story of my life.I get invited to the family reunionsbut they never tell me where it is.)

    I would like to meet up with you if you have the time.

    I will say this, I did have a Beloit LOE pull his gun on me and three others. I can tell youhis barrel was clean, but we weren't OC at the time.


    I do not have a School map so I won't be walking the streets. May go to Woodman's.

    What's funny is my family thinks I'm crazy for OC in the Beloit/Janseville area, but after moving away I don't see how you don't.


    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  23. #23
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    oak1971 wrote:
    It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.
    Oh really? And what were the officer's grounds for a reasonable suspicion that gunguy2009 may have been engaged in criminal activity?
    Ask the officer. I said it was legal, I didn't say I liked the idea. I do know that is how he would rationalize it if need be.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    oak1971 wrote:
    It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...92&invol=1

    Cliff Notes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    Thank you for the legal conclusion, counselor, incompetent though it may be.



  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post


Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •