Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Wisconsin Law Enforcement Agencies

  1. #1
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Here's a link to a Wis DOJ publication that lists contact information for every Wisconsin District Attorney, county sheriff, city, village and township police department. Also state and federal law enforcement agencies are listed, e.g., WI DOJ, DNR, FBI, ATF....

    The information looks current as of this month!

    Bookmark this link... might come in handy!

    https://wilenet.org/html/directory/2010-04_agency.pdf
    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"

  2. #2
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Thanks, that will come in handy!

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    That is awesome!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    :shock: They have the DOC listed as law enforcement. That can't be right. The Police Officers in Wisconsin don't consider Corrections Officers to be in the same league as they are so therefore the Police couldn't possibly be wrong and this must be a misprint.

    I mean why would you even attempt to think that any individual who deals with the worst scum of society on a daily basis would be in the same league as a police officer?

    Why would you think that an individual who places more scum bags in handcuffs in one month then most police officers do in their whole career would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who completes the same and even more frequent training as any LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has more firearms training then the average LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has all granted powers of a peace officer would be in the same league as a police officer.

    I mean after all Corrections Officers don't ride around in squad cars.

    Isn't it amazing just how far the Turf War mentality goes?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Allis, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    :shock: They have the DOC listed as law enforcement. That can't be right. The Police Officers in Wisconsin don't consider Corrections Officers to be in the same league as they are so therefore the Police couldn't possibly be wrong and this must be a misprint.

    I mean why would you even attempt to think that any individual who deals with the worst scum of society on a daily basis would be in the same league as a police officer?

    Why would you think that an individual who places more scum bags in handcuffs in one month then most police officers do in their whole career would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who completes the same and even more frequent training as any LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has more firearms training then the average LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has all granted powers of a peace officer would be in the same league as a police officer.

    I mean after all Corrections Officers don't ride around in squad cars.

    Isn't it amazing just how far the Turf War mentality goes?
    +1000 My cousin is a SGT and his wife is an officer at the MSDF. I don't see any police officer that is "better" than them. Each has a position to fill, and no one is the better because of their respective positions. Police, corrections, security, janitorial and custodians....they all have a job to do. One job does not make anyone better than anyone else. Too bad most don't see it that way.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    noton your life, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    ffemt1079 wrote:
    Police, corrections, security, janitorial and custodians....they all have a job to do. One job does not make anyone better than anyone else. Too bad most don't see it that way.
    Holly shiite! No kidding. Even your master writes "either we are equal or not". All men are created equal, all others pay cash.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    :shock: They have the DOC listed as law enforcement. That can't be right. The Police Officers in Wisconsin don't consider Corrections Officers to be in the same league as they are so therefore the Police couldn't possibly be wrong and this must be a misprint.

    I mean why would you even attempt to think that any individual who deals with the worst scum of society on a daily basis would be in the same league as a police officer?

    Why would you think that an individual who places more scum bags in handcuffs in one month then most police officers do in their whole career would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who completes the same and even more frequent training as any LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has more firearms training then the average LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has all granted powers of a peace officer would be in the same league as a police officer.

    I mean after all Corrections Officers don't ride around in squad cars.

    Isn't it amazing just how far the Turf War mentality goes?
    So J....

    Don't "Sugar Coat it" tell us how you really feel.....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    :shock: They have the DOC listed as law enforcement. That can't be right. The Police Officers in Wisconsin don't consider Corrections Officers to be in the same league as they are so therefore the Police couldn't possibly be wrong and this must be a misprint.

    I mean why would you even attempt to think that any individual who deals with the worst scum of society on a daily basis would be in the same league as a police officer?

    Why would you think that an individual who places more scum bags in handcuffs in one month then most police officers do in their whole career would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who completes the same and even more frequent training as any LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has more firearms training then the average LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has all granted powers of a peace officer would be in the same league as a police officer.

    I mean after all Corrections Officers don't ride around in squad cars.

    Isn't it amazing just how far the Turf War mentality goes?
    Based upon my experience, LEO & CO's have similar training, further more, they both protect us! Both place their lives on the line EVERYDAY, day in and day out!
    I hope the day never comes when you are in a position desperately relying on LEO to render aid to you or a loved one!
    I for one have a tremendous respect for the Men and Women that selflessly put their lives on the line for you and me, something I am willing to do as well.
    I am a proud Soldier in the United States Army, (former 31B) Men and Women just like me do it without expectation, gratuity or thanks. For me to read some of these posts lambasting those that do selflessly sickens me to no end. I will put my life on the line to defend what you and others like you so thoughtlessly babble on and on about!
    Let this fact speak for it self, those that put on a uniform (Armed Service Members) are in a class of their own, approximately 1% of the US population does it.
    I dare ask, what is it that you do to earn a paycheck?
    What ever it is, I hope you're perfect at it!
    That's my 2 cents worth, enough said!


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    qball54208 wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    :shock: They have the DOC listed as law enforcement. That can't be right. The Police Officers in Wisconsin don't consider Corrections Officers to be in the same league as they are so therefore the Police couldn't possibly be wrong and this must be a misprint.

    I mean why would you even attempt to think that any individual who deals with the worst scum of society on a daily basis would be in the same league as a police officer?

    Why would you think that an individual who places more scum bags in handcuffs in one month then most police officers do in their whole career would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who completes the same and even more frequent training as any LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has more firearms training then the average LEO in Wisconsin would be in the same league as a police officer.

    Why would you think that an individual who has all granted powers of a peace officer would be in the same league as a police officer.

    I mean after all Corrections Officers don't ride around in squad cars.

    Isn't it amazing just how far the Turf War mentality goes?
    Based upon my experience, LEO & CO's have similar training, further more, they both protect us! Both place their lives on the line EVERYDAY, day in and day out!
    I hope the day never comes when you are in a position desperately relying on LEO to render aid to you or a loved one!
    I for one have a tremendous respect for the Men and Women that selflessly put their lives on the line for you and me, something I am willing to do as well.
    I am a proud Soldier in the United States Army, (former 31B) Men and Women just like me do it without expectation, gratuity or thanks. For me to read some of these posts lambasting those that do selflessly sickens me to no end. I will put my life on the line to defend what you and others like you so thoughtlessly babble on and on about!
    Let this fact speak for it self, those that put on a uniform (Armed Service Members) are in a class of their own, approximately 1% of the US population does it.
    I dare ask, what is it that you do to earn a paycheck?
    What ever it is, I hope you're perfect at it!
    That's my 2 cents worth, enough said!
    Since you dare ask. I will tell you.

    I am also a veteran. Former U.S. Army Ranger. What I seen and accomplished while I was in is irrelevent in this issue and I will pass on that part of the discussion and get right to the LEO point.
    I currently work as a Sergeant for the DOC. At this time I work at KMCI. I formerly worked at GBCI as a Sergeant as well.
    GBCI is referred to as Gladiator School, because of the daily fights between gang members that many times are just a setup to get an officer into the right position where they can be attacked, forcing the officer to physically defend themself on a regular basis.
    But here is the issue. In 2004 G.W. signed into law the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act. This law allows LEO to CCW virtually anywhere in the U.S. The definition of a "Law Enforcement Officer" was given by Congressman Robert Scott during the Congressional hearings on HR 218 (The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act). Let me quote that for you,
    "Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you
    in convening the hearing on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers
    Safety Act of 2003. The bill authorizes ‘‘qualified’’ active and
    retired Federal and State law enforcement officials to carry concealed
    weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws
    prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
    A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole,
    and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement
    officers who have had or who have statutory power over
    arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental
    entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision,
    prosecution, or incarceration of law violators."

    Now in order to be a Qualified LEO one must meet the requirements of the law which are,
    "‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified law enforcement
    officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
    ‘‘(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the
    prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the
    incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has
    statutory powers of arrest;
    ‘‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
    ‘‘(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
    agency;
    ‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
    which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
    of a firearm;
    H. R. 218—2
    ‘‘(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating
    or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
    ‘‘(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
    firearm.
    ‘‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic
    identification issued by the governmental agency for which
    the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

    Seems simple enough huh?

    Yeah Right. Try and find a Cop who thinks that a Corrections Officer meets the requirements.
    What you get from a cop is:

    Corrections Officers do not have statutory powers of arrest!
    Wrong! As confirmed by two attorney Generals Opinions and I will Quote both:

    "WILBUR J. SCHMIDT, Director,
    State Department of Public Welfare.

    You request an opinion as to the extent of the department's regulatory powers over institutions operated by the department and you also inquire as to the extent of police powers of law enforcement officers and of institutional officers and employees of the department within such institutions and upon adjacent roads and grounds.

    You are therefore advised that the department has the power to enact reasonable police regulations for the government of institutions and adjacent open areas operated by It.
    Institutional officers and employees, and local law enforcement officers have jurisdiction to enforce the law and make arrests for its violation within Such areas.The primary duty of active, preventive surveillance and maintenance of peace and order rests with the department and its institutional officers and employees. Local law enforcement officers have a duty to render aid for law enforcement purposes within
    their jurisdiction, when called upon by the institutional officers and employees."

    "ELMER O. CADY, Administrator
    Division of Corrections
    Department of Health and Social Services

    You have requested an opinion on the authority of non-deputized
    correctional system staff members to pursue escapees. Actually, you
    have asked six related questions, the answers to which evolve from the
    general duties of the warden and the idea of deputization.

    It is my opinion that correctional staff, acting under direction of the warden, are peace officers within the institution and on institutional grounds by virtue of both secs. 53.07 and 46.05(2), Stats.
    When correctional staff are commanded by the warden or his representative
    to enforce his duty to prevent escape and recapture escapees, they have peace officer status while pursuing such escapees. Correctional staff also enjoy the immunities and rights of a deputy under the doctrine of posse comitatus, or sees. 53.07 and 968.07(2), Stats., so long as the warden retains his current statutory status as a peace officer.
    The warden and correctional staff are state employes and their jurisdiction is statewide when carrying out their mandate to capture escaped inmates. They may pursue inmates throughout the state and may arrest, after hot pursuit and otherwise, in any county of the state.
    This does not in any way affect or limit local peace officers' responsibility to pursue and arrest escaped inmates.
    The answers to your specific questions are premised on the conclusion that the warden is a peace officer for the purposes described above and those acting at his command enjoy the immunities and rights of a deputized peace officer. Your detailed questions and my answers follow:

    1. What is the authority of non-deputized staff members to pursue escapees off-grounds of correctional institutions?

    Section 53.07, Stats. The warden or superintendent may adopt proper means to capture escaped inmates. Based upon the above discussion, it is immaterial whether the warden or superintendent has been deputized by the sheriff or are acting with the inherent powers of their position.

    2. [M] ay [such staff] carry concealed weapons or unconcealed weapons?

    Since they carry the same status as deputized peace officers, they may act in the same manner as a peace officer. They may carry unconcealed weapons and are not prohibited by law from carrying concealed weapons. For example, sec. 941.23(1), Stats., prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from going armed with a concealed weapon."

    Not to mention that a Corrections Officer Places handcuffs on more individuals in one month then most cops do in their whole career.

    Now you would think that this clarifies any questions right?
    Wrong!

    What you then get from a cop is:

    Your not authorized to carry a firearm.

    Wrong! Corrections Officers are authorized to carry firearms and in fact annual qualifications is a requirement for employment. One must meet all agency standards to qualify. In fact Corrections officers may very well train with firearms more then some Police Departments do.

    See my discussion was with my local Police Chief who does not believe that Corrections officers are included in HR 218 even though he has been shown all of the information he needs to see that proves that Corrections Officers are included.

    After seeing this information he conatcted my employment agency and tried to cause me an issue at work by telling my administration that I was CCW and I was going to get arrested. How's that for working together?

    See, even though my Department does not authorize any officer to carry while off duty, the federal law is very specific and Congress allowed the Fraternal Order of Police to publish a Frequently asked Questions page on the issues, I quote:

    "My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am
    off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not benefit me?

    If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you are legally able to carry a firearm under the provisions of H.R. 218. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while off-duty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry under the provisions of the bill."

    I guess my point is, Whether they are wearing a uniform or not doesn't stop them from acting out against any of us when they are on their power trip and want to show just how much of an @#$% they can be.

    I am not bashing anyone. I am simply telling the truth. There is a difference.
    The state has purposely kept this information from Corrections Officers only on the agenda of the anti gun administration that we have so painfully enjoyed for the last 8 years.

    Heres the real kicker. HR 218 Grants me the "Right" to CCW in addition to my 2nd Amendment Right as per the testimony of Congressional members:

    "Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
    allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
    duty, even within their jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
    it would mandate.
    Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
    right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
    otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.
    Mr. SCOTT. Okay."

    So you see, the fact is, it isn't that the Police don't know the laws because they have been educated in this particular situation, they just chose to ignore the law and enforce their own versions and cause law abiding citizens as much trouble as possible because they can not stand the fact that any one else can do the same thing they can do. Turf War Mentality. Their definition of a cop is someone who rides in a squad car, nothing more. Corrections Officwers are harassed throughout the state over HR 218. Will anyone stand up for them?

    So why bring this up? Well because if there are some 12,000 plus corrections officers out there that are CCW over and above the number of active and retired LEO, and nothing even close to the OK Corral has occured then why shouldn't our state government pass a law mirroring Arizonas? Why do we continuously have to keep waiting for more and more legislation? It is nothing more than stalling for the anti's.





  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J. Gleason, do you wear a gun at work?
    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"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J. Gleason, do you wear a gun at work
    We are armed in certain areas. Not in the general population of course but on the perimeter, in Towers, Perimeter patrols, fog patrols, during armed escorts, riots, etc.

    We are authorized to use deadly force in the event of an escape or to save a life if an inmate is attacking someone for example.

    Besides, no where in the federal law is it written that you even have to carry a gun while working. It only states that you must be authorized too carry a firearm.

    If Corrections Officers are not authorized to carry, then I should be rallying up all of the 12,000 + Corrections officers in this state and be filing a class action law suit for unfair labor standards because it is a requirement for employment to qualify annually with a firearm and meet department standards in doing so, which is all HR 218 requires to be a qualified LEO under the law. The wording is very specific.
    They can't just change that to fit their needs.

    As I posted earlier, the AG opinion also agrees:

    "2. [M] ay [such staff] carry concealed weapons or unconcealed weapons?

    Since they carry the same status as deputized peace officers, they may act in the same manner as a peace officer. They may carry unconcealed weapons and are not prohibited by law from carrying concealed weapons. For example, sec. 941.23(1), Stats., prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from going armed with a concealed weapon."


    The AG's words, not mine.

    Let me quote to you some of the testimony in the Congressional Hearings. A specific testimony that addresses Corrections officers.:

    "In the situation of the Department of Corrections in Santa Clara
    County, the correctional officers are authorized to use firearms, the
    firearms are actually locked at the local jail, and they are to be
    used only in the case of a riot or uprising. They are not actually
    trained to patrol. For liability reasons—and this has been a huge
    issue during negotiations and everything else—the officers are not
    permitted to carry the firearms home because they are not trained
    to carry the firearms home. The county is afraid they will get sued
    and have to pay a lot of money.
    So would the authorization in that case, would it include the
    scope of the authorization or not? What is the intention of the author?
    Mr. COBLE. If the gentlelady would yield.
    Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield.
    Mr. COBLE. Zoe, I guess the best answer I can give you would
    be on page 3, item 4, which provides that they meet the standard,
    if any, established by the agency which requires the employee to
    regularly qualify in the use of a firearm.
    Ms. LOFGREN. But in this case they have qualified to use it, but
    the scope of use has been limited to only a particular place and
    time.
    So I guess if we agree that the local rules will prevail, then you
    have actually solved the problem. If a court were to look at our discussion
    here and what the intention of the author was, perhaps we
    have solved this.
    Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. SCOTT. Well, I would say that on page 3, line 13, it says ‘‘and
    meets standards, if any,’’ which kind of begs the question what ‘‘if
    any’’ means. There may not be any standards at all.
    And Leslet us go back to the qualified law enforcement officers,
    which is about anybody who has statutory powers of arrest. The
    agency may decide we are not going to have standards, so we are
    not going to have anybody carrying firearms. Although you are
    technically a law enforcement officer, don’t carry firearms.
    But what does this bill say? Let’s read it. ‘‘not withstanding any
    other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision,
    an individual who is technically a qualified law enforcement officer
    and is carrying ID, may carry a concealed firearm.’’ that is what
    it says."


    Again, Congresses words not mine.

    There were amendments to insure that this law only included Police Officers. Those amendments were all voted down by congress. The general consensus of congress was that the amendments defeated the purpose of the law.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •