Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Liberal Judge Says We shouldn't have guns. Threats are protected speech. . .

  1. #1
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    ...

    ...
    Last edited by hardballer; 08-20-2010 at 08:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    223
    Wow. I only have 1 side of the story to go on on these instances and try to watch what I say.

    This is certainly a reason why people want OC and CC as options. I hope things turn around in that county. It sounds like some people need to be voted out.

    Have you contacted the media about any of these things? Your records should be public and I would think you could easily get a copy of them from the court house.

  3. #3
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Yup, I know it is just my side of things. Word against word except for the court records.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    hardballer:

    Duvall is correct in saying that threats are in themselves protected by the First amendment and supported by case law. See State v Douglas D.. You probably wouldn't get far arguing that opinion.

    Duvall and Strelow are holding elected positions. Duvall was not elected to the office initially. He was given the position in 2005 by governor Doyle. He was given the position as district judge of Buffalo and Pepin counties because of the resignation of Judge Dane Morey. Strelow was elected to office as county sheriff and may be up for reelection this year.

    The conduct of each should be made public knowledge when they next come up for election. If Duvall's comment that no person in the country should be allowed to carry a firearm is in fact part of his published opinion he should be called to task for violating his pledge to uphold the constitutions of the U. S. and Wisconsin, both of which guarantees the right to posses firearms by all qualified individuals. If it is not part of his official opinion remember that he is entitled to his personal opinion.

    Harassment is a very hard charge to make stick based on hearsay, especially without a third party witness. "Cop fear" will make many witnesses disolve into oblivion in a hurry. I

    It has been mentioned over and over and over on this forum that one should carry a recording device. You don't need permission to record the incident (Wisconsin is a one party state). The cops can't make you turn it off. Your experience is a prime example of why a recording device is important. Especially in those essentially "untested" parts of the state.

  5. #5
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    hardballer:

    Duvall is correct in saying that threats are in themselves protected by the First amendment and supported by case law. See State v Douglas D.. You probably wouldn't get far arguing that opinion.

    Duvall and Strelow are holding elected positions. Duvall was not elected to the office initially. He was given the position in 2005 by governor Doyle. He was given the position as district judge of Buffalo and Pepin counties because of the resignation of Judge Dane Morey. Strelow was elected to office as county sheriff and may be up for reelection this year.

    The conduct of each should be made public knowledge when they next come up for election. If Duvall's comment that no person in the country should be allowed to carry a firearm is in fact part of his published opinion he should be called to task for violating his pledge to uphold the constitutions of the U. S. and Wisconsin, both of which guarantees the right to posses firearms by all qualified individuals. If it is not part of his official opinion remember that he is entitled to his personal opinion.

    Harassment is a very hard charge to make stick based on hearsay, especially without a third party witness. "Cop fear" will make many witnesses disolve into oblivion in a hurry. I

    It has been mentioned over and over and over on this forum that one should carry a recording device. You don't need permission to record the incident (Wisconsin is a one party state). The cops can't make you turn it off. Your experience is a prime example of why a recording device is important. Especially in those essentially "untested" parts of the state.
    Sorry if there is confusion. The sheriff is Mike Schmidtnick NOT Strelow. Strelow is the one who is harassing me. I turn on the recorder when i leave home now. Thanks for the info Cap.

    I recently interviewed the Sheriff concerning his upcoming election and open carry. Will post the OC Opinion here soon.
    Last edited by hardballer; 08-20-2010 at 06:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Just to be sure, Cap, What you are saying is that; for example, I could say, I am going to beat the shyt out of you. And that is OK? Or I can say I am going to Kill you. and this is protected speech?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    See 'prior restraint' that protects your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    In State v Douglas D. Douglas D. was reprimanded by his teacher. As a result he worite a paper wherein he threatended to cut off the teacher's head. The teacher took that as a threat. The WSC ruled that even though it was a threat it was proteced by the First amendment.

    ¶9 After Douglas served his suspension, the school readmitted him to class¾albeit with a different English teacher. However, on November 19, 1998, the police filed a delinquency petition against Douglas, alleging that by submitting a "death threat" to Mrs. C, Douglas had engaged in "abusive conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause a disturbance," thus violating the disorderly conduct statute, § 947.01.
    ¶10 On March 11, 1999, the circuit court held a fact-finding hearing regarding the delinquency petition. After hearing testimony from Douglas, Mrs. C, the assistant principal, and an employee of the Oconto County Department of Human Services, the court explained that pursuant to § 947.01, the petitioner has the burden to prove two elements: (1) the juvenile engaged in abusive "conduct," which can include "either physical acts or language"; and (2) the juvenile's conduct occurred under circumstances that tend to cause a disturbance. Applying this standard to the facts, the court first found that Douglas had communicated a "direct threat" to Mrs. C. This threat, the court concluded, constituted abusive conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Second, the court found that Douglas's conduct provoked a disturbance: it caused Mrs. C to become upset. Based on these findings, the court ruled that Douglas was guilty of disorderly conduct. Accordingly, it ordered that he be placed on formal supervision for one year.

    ¶11 Douglas raised two arguments on appeal. First, he argued that the delinquency adjudication based on the content of his school creative writing assignment violates his First Amendment right to free speech. Second, he contended that even if such an adjudication does not violate the First Amendment, § 947.01 criminalizes "conduct" and, therefore, cannot be construed to criminalize purely written speech. For these reasons, Douglas requested that the court of appeals reverse his adjudication.

    ¶12 The court of appeals rejected Douglas's arguments and affirmed the circuit court ruling. Douglas D., unpublished slip op. Addressing Douglas's first argument, the court explained that "true threats" are among the categories of speech that receive limited or no constitutional protection. Id. at 4-5. Further, the court discerned "no material difference in connotation between the phrase[s] 'true threat' and 'direct threat.'" Id. at 5 n.5. Thus, deferring to the circuit court's finding that Douglas's story constituted a "direct threat," the court of appeals ruled that the First Amendment does not protect Douglas's speech. Id. at 6. Regarding Douglas's second argument, the court held that the term "conduct," as used in § 947.01, applies to "both acts and (unprotected) words." Id. Hence, the court held that the State properly prosecuted Douglas pursuant to § 947.01 for the content of his story. Id. at 7.

    ¶13 Douglas subsequently filed a petition to this court for review of the court of appeals decision. On February 22, 2000, this court granted review.

    With this in mind, we conclude that Douglas's story, although we find it to be offensive and distasteful, unquestionably is protected by the First Amendment. Our feelings of offense and distaste do not allow us to set aside the Constitution.[16] We therefore hold as a matter of law that Douglas's story cannot be prosecuted under § 947.01. (Extracted from paragraph 41 of the WSC opinion).
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Doug implies there are circumstances where you are protected by the First amendment for yelling "fire"in a crowded theater. You can shout fire in a theater and be protected by the First amendment if there is in fact a real fire or if the word fire is part of the entertainment. You are not protected if you shout fire with the intent to cause panic and mayhem.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    As Doug implies there are circumstances where you are protected by the First amendment for yelling "fire"in a crowded theater. You can shout fire in a theater and be protected by the First amendment if there is in fact a real fire or if the word fire is part of the entertainment. You are not protected if you shout fire with the intent to cause panic and mayhem.
    So with this in mind, if I carry a firearm because I believe there is a real threat to me (a real fire), I'm ok. But if I carry a firearm with the intent to intimidate others ("panic and mayhem") that might be criminal?

    Or am I reading too much into this? Just a question, or two.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

Posting Permissions

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