Commotion in Onalaska

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

imported post

qball54208 wrote:

LEO Safety is paramount, then the Public.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

imported post

In my opinion we do need more cases where law enforcement gets "eggon their face". It is the quickest way to get the word out throughout the law enforcementcommunity. They have a rather sophisticated grapevine. There is no question that more eduction of leo'sis needed. The situation Frank has is a prime example. When Frank asked the woman cop if he was required to show some ID she responded Yes you do. I know my job very well. We all know the outcome of that situation.

imported post

knows her job very well. is there something wrong in a society when an open carrier knows more about, and is correct more often, about the laws, and their nuances, than a 'trained' professional? :banghead:

imported post

McX wrote:

knows her job very well. is there something wrong in a society when an open carrier knows more about, and is correct more often, about the laws, and their nuances, than a 'trained' professional?  :banghead:

Click to expand...

Yup, I do. The idea is to defuse hysteria, not create it. This was obviously over when they didn't pull the guy out of his van, slam him on the ground, taser him and cuff him. He just showed them the bb gun.

Perfect opportunity to show the community that they have everything well in hand and can judge between a threat and an innocent activity.

I saw just the opposite. The Disorderly Conduct charge (common catch all when no other real charge is available) is the prime example of overkill. They displayed a herd reaction, not that of an intelligent individual.

Adrenalin is a powerful fuel for overkill.

So much for Pro. . . fessional training.

imported post

Move along, move along, nothing to see here folks, move along.

imported post

Furthermore, now that this is all over, this grampa should not be held responsible for another persons lack of good judgement, immaturity, paranoia, ignorance, or just plain stupidity. That includes the caller and the police chief.

Evidence of all of the above can be found on an almost daily basis for any open carrier who is questioned by the general public. The general public in my case includes those who are hunters, outdoors people, gun guys etc. Education is lacking thanks to our liberal ed system and WKBT Looking for a sensational show, not real facts.

Propaganda in the liberal fashion is there idea of news.
Let em get away with this and there will be more to come.

imported post

hardballer wrote:

WKBT ... liberal fashion.

Click to expand...

WKBT? White Keds Booted Thug liberals?

imported post

This really tics me, I believe the police chief was within her rights and her training to act as she and her officers did, to determine if there was a threat or not. After it was plain to see there was no threat, they should have gone for a donut and let this grampa be on his way.

But she choose to exacerbate the situation because she was hyped and wanted to make her statement. This was to be an example in her territory. No Grampa with a bb gun was going to get away with inspecting it in his vehicle. Wow, there's some real police work for ya. Look for the movie soon.

She simply overreacted after she found. . . what? Nothing. She was still hyped and this guy was going down. This is a very dangerous mode for a police officer to be in. Out of control.

All this proved to me, is that they still do not get it.

imported post

This amounts to nothing more than fear mongering by the police to push their anti agenda. The US government resorted to all out fear mongering post sept 11th to make people more complacent to losing their rights in the patriot act. They incide fear and overblow a situation to push their own agenda. Some of us enlightened folkscan see past it for what it really is, but most soccer moms out shopping on an average afternoon can't.

imported post

Another observation here, which I have not read, WHY THE HELL didn't Grandpa look the damn thing over in the store? Makes sense to me, common sense at that, it's what any one of us would have done, before we bought a gun, BB or otherwise.
Let's face it, seemingly (Grandpa) unintelligent behavior is the real issue here.
A reasonable person would have not acted that way, all gun owners know this, so why the hell we beating up on those who enforce the laws?
Gramps brought it upon himself!
A "concerned" citizen called it in, the Dispatcher "coded" the callers info, the LEO gathered the facts on site and acted accordingly. Most ppl do not have the training LEO's do, so, if "we" do not have that type of training, how is anyone supposed to know what actions to take?
There is a common practice, it is called The Totality of Circumstances Test, which the News Media does not provide all of the facts, do they... I didn't think so.
Let us, the reasonable, be the example!

imported post

I don't think Grandpa was out of line to check the thing over in his vehicle. Probably should have been more discreet, or maybe he thought he was, or maybe it never occurred to him since it was just a bb gun. Since I do lots of my shopping, other than groceries, out of town, I will get back to my vehicle and check something out to see if all the parts are included, product works, things broken, etc. Much of the packaging is that darn sealed plastic that can only be opened with a chain saw. Policy seems to be buy it and if it doesn't work, return it with a mangled package. Having a clerk open it first isn't usually an option.
I bought a CD player which didn't work upon returning home from 35 miles away. Another day I returned it and this time I checked the replacement out in the parking lot. Good decision because it didn't work either. Bought glassware for a gift to find a broken piece in the box.
There are good reasons why he might have been checking it out in his vehicle. But to be charged with DC is over the top. Geez he wasn't even threatening to put his eye out!

imported post

A BB gun is not a firearm, correct? Doesn't brandishing refer to a firearm? I suppose it could refer to any dangerous weapon (like a knife perhaps) but still, that would not be a BB gun.

I think the comments by hardballer and others are correct that this smells like a set up deal to put a chilling effect on those of us who believe in open carry. Someone with an agenda made the call, the Onalaska Police took the opportunity.

imported post

941.2965 Restrictions on use of facsimile firearms.
(1) In this section, “facsimile firearm” means any replica, toy,
starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance
to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm.
“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm.
(2) No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a
manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate,
threaten or terrify another person. Whoever violates this section
is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any peace officer acting in the discharge of his or her official
duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does
not apply to a commission warden.
(b) Any person engaged in military activities, sponsored by the
state or federal government, acting in the discharge of his or her
official duties.
(c) Any person who is on his or her own real property, in his
or her own home or at his or her own fixed place of business.
(d) Any person who is on real property and acting with the consent
of the owner of that property.
History: 1993 a. 191; 1993 a. 491 s. 262; Stats. 1993 s. 941.2965; 2007 a. 27.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

941.2965 Restrictions on use of facsimile firearms.
(1) In this section, “facsimile firearm” means any replica, toy,
starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance
to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm.
“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm.
(2) No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a
manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate,
threaten or terrify another person. Whoever violates this section
is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any peace officer acting in the discharge of his or her official
duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does
not apply to a commission warden.
(b) Any person engaged in military activities, sponsored by the
state or federal government, acting in the discharge of his or her
official duties.
(c) Any person who is on his or her own real property, in his
or her own home or at his or her own fixed place of business.
(d) Any person who is on real property and acting with the consent
of the owner of that property.
History: 1993 a. 191; 1993 a. 491 s. 262; Stats. 1993 s. 941.2965; 2007 a. 27.

Click to expand...

When you're right your right Doug. Still doesn't change the whole tone of things on the part of the Onalaska Police Dept. If this was such a bad deal, why wasn't gramps yanked out of the vehicle and slammed to the ground? What up with that. Safe and standard SOP was ignored as if we already knew it was no biggie.

Seems strange to me. Heck, he could have been a terrorist or wacko. So, on the one hand we treat it like a scary, bad, horrible threat, and on the other hand, it looks like a traffic stop. I have trouble with that.

Edit: By the way, if the mere appearance of a replica firearm; Mind you, not brandishing or holding it in an intimidating way, but by the mere appearance of said toy, one can be accused of causing alarm, the law is being used as a club. What happened here is not what the law says.

imported post

hardballer wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

941.2965 Restrictions on use of facsimile firearms.
(1) In this section, “facsimile firearm” means any replica, toy,
starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance
to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm.
“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm.
(2) No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a
manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate,
threaten or terrify another person. Whoever violates this section
is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any peace officer acting in the discharge of his or her official
duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does
not apply to a commission warden.
(b) Any person engaged in military activities, sponsored by the
state or federal government, acting in the discharge of his or her
official duties.
(c) Any person who is on his or her own real property, in his
or her own home or at his or her own fixed place of business.
(d) Any person who is on real property and acting with the consent
of the owner of that property.
History: 1993 a. 191; 1993 a. 491 s. 262; Stats. 1993 s. 941.2965; 2007 a. 27.

Click to expand...

When you're right your right Doug. Still doesn't change the whole tone of things on the part of the Onalaska Police Dept. If this was such a bad deal, why wasn't gramps yanked out of the vehicle and slammed to the ground? What up with that. Safe and standard SOP was ignored as if we already knew it was no biggie.

Seems strange to me. Heck, he could have been a terrorist or wacko. So, on the one hand we treat it like a scary, bad, horrible threat, and on the other hand, it looks like a traffic stop. I have trouble with that.

Edit: By the way, if the mere appearance of a replica firearm; Mind you, not brandishing or holding it in an intimidating way, but by the mere appearance of said toy, one can be accused of causing alarm, the law is being used as a club. What happened here is not what the law says.

Click to expand...

To echo Doug & hardballer, I would have to agree! 100%, thank you!

imported post

qball54208 wrote:

To echo Doug & hardballer, I would have to agree! 100%, thank you!

Click to expand...

Good. So let's all drop this 'brandishing a defensive weapon' crap. The OP was of a toy that is arguably intended to be ostentatiously displayed.