Commotion in Onalaska

bnhcomputing · Apr 1, 2010

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.asp?C=177684&v=12890

Jason in WI · Apr 1, 2010

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.....

professor gun · Apr 1, 2010

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.

bnhcomputing · Apr 1, 2010

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.

McX · Apr 2, 2010

imported post

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

scorpio_vette · Apr 2, 2010

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.

McX · Apr 2, 2010

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.:lol:

CUOfficer · Apr 2, 2010

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

logan · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Woodchuck · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Master Doug Huffman · Apr 2, 2010

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 KMA$$ damn the Obamanation thugs.

BROKENSPROKET · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

"Brandishing" is not mentioned in Wisconsin Statutes.

Again, we're not exactly talking about a 100% law abiding citizen.

Click to expand...

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 KMA$$ damn the Obamanation thugs.

Click to expand...

tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es

To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

n.A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.

Master Doug Huffman · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Woodchuck · Apr 2, 2010

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.

J.Gleason · Apr 2, 2010

imported post

Hey Wood chuck, where have you been?

qball54208 · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Interceptor_Knight · Apr 2, 2010

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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]State v. Douglas D., [/font][/font]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." [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Id. [/font][/font]"Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Id. [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See State v. A.S., [/font][/font]2001 WI 48, ¶ 33, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712.

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

bnhcomputing · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Shotgun · Apr 2, 2010

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.

Master Doug Huffman · Apr 3, 2010

imported post

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

Commotion in Onalaska

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Banned