Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Commotion in Onalaska

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

    Post imported post

    Police over react, and frighten all the shoppers to stay inside.

    Onalaska Police chief says man will face Disorderly charge.

    As stated, the POLICE frightened everybody, and then they (police) want to charge the man.

    Here is a video link: http://www.wkbt.com/global/Category....84&v=12890



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    That's just sad.

    I typed up a long post but decided to delete it and keep the rage to myself. Stuff like this makes my head hurt.....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    I saw the report on our local 10 p.m. news in La Crosse. Of course they interviewed two dopes who described how scared they were even though they were never threatened or in harms way.

    The man had purchased two BB guns for his grandkids and was just looking them over at his van.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    It was LEO who incited panic and told everybody to stay in the stores, and now they want to charge this guy because of their over reaction???

    I have submitted an FOI request to try and get the police report.

    I will continue to follow this closely.



  5. #5
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    nice interview, near the end of the video, with buffy and chip. shoppers were actually probably alarmed by the prices.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    anybody have one of these???


    lets go play with it.
    if the cops get stupid over that thing, then we know that common sense has officially been bread out of human beings and are no longer smarter than animals. at least they can still carry their self defense weapons and only use them in an attack, but they also know when something isn't a threat.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    scorpio, after an incident like this one, i will have to ask you to leave your bb-gun home when you visit the shop.

  8. #8
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    "The Onalaska Police Chief said that the man will likely face disorderly conduct charges because the incident created quite alarm for police officers and shoppers"

    -So, does this mean if someone is "alarmed" that we are open carrying it is ok for a disorderly conduct charge? Hopefully this is a misinterpretation of the facts by the news agency. Since we're on the subject, here is an email from the Onalaska Police Chief regarding my questions on open carry in Onalaska. I would love everyone's opinion on his comments:

    Sorry for the delay in responding to you. Your e-mail asks one basic question and that is if an Onalaska Police Officer would stop a person who is open carrying. And that answer is that anything is possible. I know your basic question deals with the perfect scenario where there would be no circumstances that would draw attention to that person. In today’s society with an over-alarming number of mass shootings, the presence of a firearm can be in and of itself alarming. If an officer were to see a person walking down the street carrying a firearm in the open, that officer very well may make a consensual stop of that person just to inquire about the firearm. Police officers are allowed to make consensual stops of pedestrians for any purpose. If the person gives consent and sticks around and talks with the officer, all is well. If that person chooses to not talk with the officer and it is purely a consensual stop, there is no obligation of the citizen to stop and talk with the officer. However, I have found that the majority of people will take a few minutes of their time to engage in conversation with the officer. I would assume that most persons that choose to open carry a firearm would be generous enough with their time to take a few minutes to discuss the matter. If not, then the officer would need to let the person proceed on their way. However, if there are other extenuating circumstances that arise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, then the consensual aspect of the stop is thrown out the window and the officer has that right to detain that person for a reasonable amount of time to figure out exactly what is going on. At that point the officer would also have the right to secure the weapon for their safety until it was determined how to proceed with the course of events. I know that your question had nothing to do with reasonable suspicion but I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss that part. When a person decides to take that step to carry a firearm in the open, you can not control what others perceive to be happening and how their perceptions are relayed to a dispatcher who dispatches an officer to the call. If the nature of the call given to the officer arises to reasonable suspicion (and it is based off of what is known at that time) then the call would be treated as such.



    I hope this answers your questions. If you have any other concerns please do not hesitate to send another e-mail.



    Jeffrey S. Trotnic

    Police Chief

    Onalaska Police Department

    Office: 608-392-0273

    Fax: 608-781-9556



  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran logan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greeley, CO
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    That's pretty sad...DC for looking at a BB gun.




    Thanks CUOfficer for posting that letter. I have considered e-mailing him myself before. That response pretty much covers anything I would have wanted to know.
    Logan - Laugh lots, Love Often, and Defend the Irreplaceable
    Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP
    CC permits: MN, FL, NH, PA and CO

    Member of:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc., Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and National Rifle Association

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I think we need to keep in mind that this guy was breaking a couple laws. From my understanding he was in his vehicle and he was supposedly "inspecting" it, which could easily be construed as brandishing. He's lucky he's just looking at a Disorderly. We need to be careful to not jump on the bandwagon of those that blatently break the law.

    While we may not agree with the laws we are still expected to adhere to them.

    If this guy was found to have been doing the same thing with a real rifle and was found to have been planning a suicide or something worse the police wouldn't be seen as "overreacting" at all. Again, we're not exactly talking about a 100% law abiding citizen.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    I think we need to keep in mind that this guy was breaking a couple laws. From my understanding he was in his vehicle and he was supposedly "inspecting" it, which could easily be construed as brandishing.
    "Brandishing" is not mentioned in Wisconsin Statutes.
    Again, we're not exactly talking about a 100% law abiding citizen.
    Others have suggested that no one is a "100% law abiding citizen."
    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* damn the Obamanation thugs.

  12. #12
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Woodchuck wrote:
    I think we need to keep in mind that this guy was breaking a couple laws. From my understanding he was in his vehicle and he was supposedly "inspecting" it, which could easily be construed as brandishing.
    "Brandishing" is not mentioned in Wisconsin Statutes.
    Again, we're not exactly talking about a 100% law abiding citizen.
    Others have suggested that no one is a "100% law abiding citizen."
    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* damn the Obamanation thugs.
    tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es

    1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

    2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
    n.A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I would maintain that a quasi-legal transition between §167 and §941 requires one to ostentatiously flourish one's weapon as it is properly loaded and unloaded.

    And that a drop-leg is ostentatious (tawdry kitsch) display of a pistol.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    While "brandishing" may not be specifically covered under state law, the idea is. I don't have it right off hand but it has been stated many times here on this forum. I concede that no one is 100% law abiding. Neither change the point of the post.

    ETA--- Big difference between transferring a firearm and "inspecting" it in a vehicle.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Hey Wood chuck, where have you been?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    I believe that type of response is warranted and Police practice when they get a MWAG call.
    In the interest of Public safety.
    Imagine if LEO showed up all nonchalant and got assaulted for not being prepared, much less not informing the Public about it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    I think we need to keep in mind that this guy was breaking a couple laws. From my understanding he was in his vehicle and he was supposedly "inspecting" it, which could easily be construed as brandishing. He's lucky he's just looking at a Disorderly. We need to be careful to not jump on the bandwagon of those that blatently break the law.

    While we may not agree with the laws we are still expected to adhere to them.

    If this guy was found to have been doing the same thing with a real rifle and was found to have been planning a suicide or something worse the police wouldn't be seen as "overreacting" at all. Again, we're not exactly talking about a 100% law abiding citizen.
    The man was breaking no State laws. There is no requirement for a BB Gun to be unloaded and/or encased. The BB Gun was not concealed by any stretch of the imagination. He was not "brandishing" the BB Gun as he was not displaying it in a threatening manor. A hyper sensitive individual becoming threatened at the mere sight of a BB Gun does not equate to the man conducting himself in a threatening manor. The man was not disorderly as a hyper sensitive individual becoming alarmed by him inspecting a BB Gundoes not constitute disorderly conduct. The man was in theconfines of his car and not waving it around.

    Wisconsin Stat. § 947.01 . . . states as follows: "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor." The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, ¶ 15, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725. "First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct." Id. "Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Id. An objective analysis of the conduct and circumstances of each particular case must be undertaken because what may constitute disorderly conduct under some circumstances may not under others. See State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, ¶ 33, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712.

    If hegets a good attorney, a DC charge will not stick.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    qball54208 wrote:
    I believe that type of response is warranted and Police practice when they get a MWAG call.
    In the interest of Public safety.
    Imagine if LEO showed up all nonchalant and got assaulted for not being prepared, much less not informing the Public about it.
    WOW!

    You go to the store, with your sidearm and somebody sees you and there is a subsequent MWAG call.

    You would expect them to lock down the entire store (or every store in the mall) while they talked to you? And then, given you had broken no law, you would expect a Disorderly citation?

    I thought this type of behavior is what we were working to prevent. It looks like we have a long way to go even amongst ourselves.



  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Re: Brandishing. There is no one state law that covers what we refer to as "brandishing". However to brandish a firearm could bring a disorderly conduct charge, or a reckless endangerment charge. I think in this case the most that should happen is the guy should be warned to be more careful.... sheep are everywhere, and they have cellphones.


    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"

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The law enFORCEment agents can and will charge whatever they want. It will stick if we (includes you) grovel. The DA indicts.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    "Brandishing" is merely a word used to discribe an activity.

    Is the a specific law on "Brandishing" a bb gun?

    After all a bb gun is not a firearm.

    Even a felon can hunt with a bb gun.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    qball54208 wrote:
    I believe that type of response is warranted and Police practice when they get a MWAG call.
    In the interest of Public safety.
    Imagine if LEO showed up all nonchalant and got assaulted for not being prepared, much less not informing the Public about it.
    WOW!

    You go to the store, with your sidearm and somebody sees you and there is a subsequent MWAG call.

    You would expect them to lock down the entire store (or every store in the mall) while they talked to you? And then, given you had broken no law, you would expect a Disorderly citation?

    I thought this type of behavior is what we were working to prevent. It looks like we have a long way to go even amongst ourselves.

    With respect to myself and a few others that have had the type of training I refer to, as in How a LEO would probably respond to that type of call, yup I would expect that.
    Why is it that that the GENERAL PUBLIC OVER REACTS?
    I will answer that one, if you do not mind.
    Education, Education and more Education!
    Just because an individual does something AGAINST THE LAW,(Just like that subject did) Police will continue to respond accordingly!
    In case some of you do not know, LEO Safety is paramount, then the Public.
    Reason, if LEO does not do that in that EXACT order, why do we have'em?
    That last statement is rhetorical!

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    qball54208 wrote:
    LEO Safety is paramount, then the Public.
    Safety is the first act of security theater and the tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety. Public safety is street security theater.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post



    I_K I agree with you on this one. I would like to add to your post para 27 from State v Douglas D.

    ¶27 Douglas is correct insofar as he indicates that not all conduct which causes personal discomfort in others necessarily falls within the ambit of disorderly conduct. This court has held as much:



    [Section947.01] does not imply that all conduct which tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might possibly offend some hypercritical individual. The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the normal sensibilities of average persons or which constitute significantly abusive or disturbing demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.

    Zwicker, 41 Wis.2d at 508. Thus, we agree that §947.01 requires more than mere offensive speech or behavior. Emphasis is mine.

    However, we must withold judgement until we know all the facts.

    The word brandish. in concert with the open carry of handguns, only appears in paragraph 7 of the Attorney General's memo of April 20, 2009. It does not appear in any state law related to firearms.



  25. #25
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    regardless of opinions carried here, we should be watching this one closely. There could be unintended consequences from this seemingly innocuous situation.

    Legal or not, we need to be aware that this may not have been a frightened shopper either who called. People with axes to grind are everywhere.

    If Gramps was just looking it over and their are no laws against his handling the toy, the disorderly should not stick. What should happen is the individual who called it in should be educated.

    If it goes to trial, this would be a great case for jury nullification. The Chief of police could use some egg on his face for this.

    It seems to me, with the info available so far, that the "alarmed shoppers" were created by his actions and he should be held responsible for them.

    In my view, the police cause the majority of fear and hysteria. The news channel milked this for everything it was worth in left leaning interview. If we don't do something about this, it will be a detriment to our cause.

    They are waiting for us. This was way to fast and easy of a target. They should have defused the hysteria by saying; "Folks, it's just a grampa looking at a bb gun he bought for his grandkids.

    The police chief of Onalaska has played his cards and shown his hand. This should be instructional for all of us. They were just waiting for something like this.

    So, Be on high alert when out and carrying. They will look for any excuse. The recent "arrests of alleged Militia members has gotten them all excited. Now they have a grampa to notch on their belts. WOW! Good work Onalaska.

    Poorly handled on the back side of the incident. There should have been no arrest and the cops should have explained the situation to the onlookers. Defusing the situation would have been a wise choice.

    The idea that he may not have been an open carrier should be disregarded because they were looking for one of us. An open carrier. You can be sure of that.

    Grampa should get a call from one of us, giving him recommendations for a good attorney at least.

    Keep in mind that this was a show of what Onalaska wants to do to us. Step out of line one little bit and you will be jacked. Now, the calls will come in hot and heavy about open carriers. Ohhhhh, he's got a gun. . .

    Now they think they can use Disorderly Conduct if a citizen calls and is scared. In my opinion the caller should be charged with disorderly conduct or the police chief. The Chief of police should be worried about the next election too.

    I can just see it now. So. . . do as you like but I think this fella needs some backup.

    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •