Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin

    Submitted by drieck on Fri, 09/24/2010 - 15:26.
    By Ken Hanson


    We received word of a truly horrifying abuse of police power that occurred in Wisconsin over the weekend.

    Five members of Wisconsin Carry Inc., a state firearms rights group in Wisconsin, were legally open carrying in their local Culvers restaurant when a dreaded "man with a gun" call was made to the local police.

    Listening to the 911 call, it is 100% clear that the police knew these five citizens were not violating any laws. No threat. No panic. 911 dispatcher says "it is legal." No one threatened or worried.
    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/video/Madison5-911.wav

    This, unfortunately, did not prevent the Madison police department from overreacting by sending eight officers to Culvers to harass the law abiding citizens. Realizing their mistake, Madison dismissed the two original charges filed, and instead charged all five citizens with bogus charges of disorderly conduct designed to intimidate the citizens.

    Listening to the 911 call and the audio tapes of the encounter, it is evident that the police engaged in a gross abuse of power. Compounding this abuse of power, the Madison police department has announced that anyone openly carrying a firearm in Madison can expect the same treatment.

    From the police chief, "Chief Wray wants to make clear: It is the department's wish that concerned citizens call 911 when they see armed subjects."

    So why should Buckeyes care about civil rights abuses in Wisconsin?

    First, this case has clear federal lawsuit implications, meaning the precedent from Wisconsin can directly affect Buckeyes who choose to open carry. While Ohio has not experienced this degree of police-state abuse, we all know that open carry in Ohio is still not fully accepted by police even though it is legal.

    Second, Wisconsin is one of two states without a concealed carry license. The only way to exercise Second Amendment rights in Wisconsin is open carry. If you have been following concealed carry news over the past few years, you know the value of vibrant open carry in pressuring a state to adopt a "shall issue" concealed carry license.

    I was fortunate enough to have visited with "Buster" Bachhuber, a NRA Board Of Directors member from Wisconsin, several weekends ago. He fully believes that Wisconsin will become the 49th state with CCW in the next year. This also means that Buckeyes may soon gain a new state where they may carry as they travel throughout this great land.

    Third, what better legacy for Ft. St. Clair to leave? Their generous donation can impact the rights of gun owners "behind the iron curtain" in Wisconsin and help thousands of gun owners nationwide.
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7450
    Last edited by zack991; 09-27-2010 at 10:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    330
    If the dispatcher told the caller it's legal as she did, and the woman didn't feel threatened. Why dispatch officers? Sounded like the woman just needed to be educated.

    She actually felt bad that police were dispatched because these guys weren't doing anything wrong.

    I think it was total BS to have these guys arrested especially after the caller reinforced the fact that these guys did nothing wrong.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rmansu2 View Post
    If the dispatcher told the caller it's legal as she did, and the woman didn't feel threatened. Why dispatch officers? Sounded like the woman just needed to be educated.

    She actually felt bad that police were dispatched because these guys weren't doing anything wrong.

    I think it was total BS to have these guys arrested especially after the caller reinforced the fact that these guys did nothing wrong.
    Shows we have a lot of educating to to do.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403
    You should head over to the Wisconsin sub-forum; they have like 5 threads on this subject over there.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by rmansu2 View Post
    If the dispatcher told the caller it's legal as she did, and the woman didn't feel threatened. Why dispatch officers? Sounded like the woman just needed to be educated.

    She actually felt bad that police were dispatched because these guys weren't doing anything wrong.

    I think it was total BS to have these guys arrested especially after the caller reinforced the fact that these guys did nothing wrong.
    An officer should have been dispatched. He should observe the scene, note that no laws are being broken, not even contact the OCers, and report back that all is well.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-27-2010 at 11:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SaintJacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    An officer should have been dispatched. He should observe the scene, note that no laws are being broken, not even contact the OCers, and report back that all is well.
    This. I have no problem with having an officer get eyes on the scene, proactive law enforcement is great. But that's where the interference should have ended.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    An officer should have been dispatched. He should observe the scene, note that no laws are being broken, not even contact the OCers, and report back that all is well.
    If NO LAWS ARE BEING BROKEN... why send anybody? Not one... but eight! ThAt's gotta be the entire Sector... maybe even the entire District (depending upon the size of that burg.)

    COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    They cannot be sure that no laws are being broken. Dispatching a single officer for a look-see, while not bothering the carriers at all is a prudent and minimalistic action.

    Please watch the personal comments. I won't get into a junior-high flaming contest.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    They cannot be sure that no laws are being broken. Dispatching a single officer for a look-see, while not bothering the carriers at all is a prudent and minimalistic action.

    Please watch the personal comments. I won't get into a junior-high flaming contest.
    and I think usually required for 911 calls.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    and I think usually required for 911 calls.
    Could well be. I don't know the 911 policies here in Alabama, let alone Wisconsin.

    *whispers*

    Those people are kinda freaky up there. They don't even allow CC.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65
    I think it was wrong for the dispatcher to tell the caller, "that if she felt disturbed or concerned about them open carrying a gun, then there was a problem". The callers personal opinion on gun carry should not be the deciding factor, on whether your are charged with anything. It should be strictly done by the law, and whether you are breaking a law or not. Someone being disturbed or concerned about seeing my weapon, is THEIR own problem. The dispatcher shouldn't be sending a batch of Officers to harass someone, when they were clearly not breaking the law. If I am not breaking the law, I should be left alone.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Could well be. I don't know the 911 policies here in Alabama, let alone Wisconsin.

    *whispers*

    Those people are kinda freaky up there. They don't even allow CC.

    *whispers*

    Plus they wear cheese hats...


    I've been told that police are always sent to 911 calls, it's a liability issue. Had they not sent someone and something happened, even unrelated, they could face litigation. They certainly did act with absolute disdain for the rights of the 5 men, and the Dept should be sued.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    *whispers*

    Plus they wear cheese hats...


    I've been told that police are always sent to 911 calls, it's a liability issue. Had they not sent someone and something happened, even unrelated, they could face litigation. They certainly did act with absolute disdain for the rights of the 5 men, and the Dept should be sued.
    I agree on all counts.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I smell civil litigation suits, as well there should be. I am not a sue-happy person by any stretch, but when someone's civil rights are violated under the color of law, a suit against not only the city, but the police chief and others is in order.

    "Oh... yes it's your right to go armed in public but don't let us catch you exercising that right."

    Sounds a little egregious to my ears.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    279
    Here we go again...the "disorderly conduct" catch all.

    For those of you who have been thinking this doesn't happen or couldn't happen, I hope this story helps pull your head out of the sand a bit. Everyone should have had this reaction:

    It's a reality along with some municipalities that try to use the "prove you own it" game as an attempt to further harass lawful carry. We've seen this game played first hand in Missouri and I've heard from other locales outside Missouri that this has happened elsewhere.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    *whispers*

    Plus they wear cheese hats...


    I've been told that police are always sent to 911 calls, it's a liability issue. Had they not sent someone and something happened, even unrelated, they could face litigation. They certainly did act with absolute disdain for the rights of the 5 men, and the Dept should be sued.
    Memorize:

    Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

    They don't have to protect you, you can't sue them if they don't protect you, and it doesn't matter anyway, since they CAN'T protect you.

    It's NOT a "liability issue". It's a forcibly suppress legal activity which they don't like issue.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Memorize:

    Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

    They don't have to protect you, you can't sue them if they don't protect you, and it doesn't matter anyway, since they CAN'T protect you.

    It's NOT a "liability issue". It's a forcibly suppress legal activity which they don't like issue.
    There is a liability issue if they fail to stop a mass shooting. There would certainly be a lawsuit, regardless if it was thrown out. There certainly would be a HUGE public outcry, and people could potentially lose their jobs and be sued in civil court.

    You're %100 right on all counts, but there would repercussions if the police failed to answer a MWAG call, and a heinous crime took place. Hence a "liability issue".
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    There is a liability issue if they fail to stop a mass shooting. There would certainly be a lawsuit, regardless if it was thrown out. There certainly would be a HUGE public outcry, and people could potentially lose their jobs and be sued in civil court.
    NO, there ISN'T.
    No duty.
    No liability.
    No cause of action.

    Not "thrown out", never allowed to be brought. Dismissed on the pleadings for want of a cause of action for which relief can be sought, based on a mountain of caselaw.

    NOBODY could be "sued in civil court". If there's no duty, and there isn't, you can't be sued for failing to exercise that nonexistent duty. If you can't show that the police either colluded with the shooters or were THEMSELVES participants, there's no cause of action.

    Anybody fired would have FOP go to the mat for them, and probably win.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    You're %100 right on all counts, but there would repercussions if the police failed to answer a MWAG call, and a heinous crime took place. Hence a "liability issue".
    The ONLY "repercussion" is public opinion, and they've already proved that means nothing to them.
    Last edited by Deanimator; 09-30-2010 at 11:17 AM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am absolutely sure that if a 911 MWAG call was ignored, and a mass shooting resulted, there would be multiple court cases and all precedents would be examined closely to find ways to allow the cases to proceed.

    A mass shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call would be a game-changer.

    No LEA would risk ignoring one. I was told by the deputy chief of the MPD that that is their exact reasoning: They would not want to deal with the legal AND public opinion ramifications of a shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am absolutely sure that if a 911 MWAG call was ignored, and a mass shooting resulted, there would be multiple court cases and all precedents would be examined closely to find ways to allow the cases to proceed.

    A mass shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call would be a game-changer.

    No LEA would risk ignoring one. I was told by the deputy chief of the MPD that that is their exact reasoning: They would not want to deal with the legal AND public opinion ramifications of a shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call.
    The law as it is, and the law as you'd like it are two entirely different things.

    These decisions absolving the police of almost all duty to protect individuals all arose out of horrific crimes, including multiple rapes and murders. Don't expect a "mass shooting" to make one iota of difference. How much money did the families of the Columbine victims get from the city and the individual officers? Remember, the Columbine cops sat on their behinds KNOWING there were two active shooters in play. You expect sanctions against these cops when there's not even a CRIME reported? Not going to happen.

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am absolutely sure that if a 911 MWAG call was ignored, and a mass shooting resulted, there would be multiple court cases and all precedents would be examined closely to find ways to allow the cases to proceed.

    A mass shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call would be a game-changer.

    No LEA would risk ignoring one. I was told by the deputy chief of the MPD that that is their exact reasoning: They would not want to deal with the legal AND public opinion ramifications of a shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call.
    Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.
    As the saying goes, "Dismissed for failing to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted."

    At some point, somebody will claim that the police HAVE to protect you because it says "To Serve and Protect" on the doors of the police cars... by which reasoning, if they instead said, "Have a Nice Day!", you could sue them if you DIDN'T.

    Life can be harsh, and the truth about what REAL protection the police have a duty to render to you is especially harsh. It's why places like Chicago and New York City are so consummately evil. What OUGHT to be on the doors of the police cars is "We Don't Have to Protect You and We Won't Let You Protect Yourself."

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    The law as it is, and the law as you'd like it are two entirely different things.

    These decisions absolving the police of almost all duty to protect individuals all arose out of horrific crimes, including multiple rapes and murders. Don't expect a "mass shooting" to make one iota of difference. How much money did the families of the Columbine victims get from the city and the individual officers? Remember, the Columbine cops sat on their behinds KNOWING there were two active shooters in play. You expect sanctions against these cops when there's not even a CRIME reported? Not going to happen.
    The law, particularly civil law, is not static. Neither is it precisely what it is often portrayed to be by us IANALs. Trust me, a mass killing following an IGNORED 911 MWAG call would result in civil suits that would work their way through the courts. Precedents would be examined closely. Some will be found not to apply. Some will be changed. Some will be followed.

    "Sat on their butts" is a nice vague statement that could be argued either way. Factual, specific statements cannot. I won't attempt to argue that vague statement. If you care to make your point more specifically, including what the Columbine police did AND did not do, that might be a more fruitful discussion.

    I can tell you this: They did not IGNORE a MWAG call.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.
    To my knowledge, there has not been a single case of an IGNORED MWAG call followed by a mass shooting. (Mainly because LEAs do not--and should not--ignore MWAG calls.) If there were such an instance, cases of individual officers not responding in a timely manner will be considered for precedent, but they would not be controlling as the case would be plowing very new ground.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The law, particularly civil law, is not static. Neither is it precisely what it is often portrayed to be by us IANALs. Trust me, a mass killing following an IGNORED 911 MWAG call would result in civil suits that would work their way through the courts. Precedents would be examined closely. Some will be found not to apply. Some will be changed. Some will be followed.

    "Sat on their butts" is a nice vague statement that could be argued either way. Factual, specific statements cannot. I won't attempt to argue that vague statement. If you care to make your point more specifically, including what the Columbine police did AND did not do, that might be a more fruitful discussion.

    I can tell you this: They did not IGNORE a MWAG call.
    I suggest you ask a lawyer. You won't like his answer.

    Apparently rapes, murders, child murders, etc. weren't a big enough deal to make the police accountable... apparently Columbine wasn't either.

    The Columbine police didn't ignore the active shooters. They just CHOSE to do NOTHING until after the shooting was over. They and their department were COMPLETELY unaccountable.

    You're wrong on this. Stare decisis is a real term, and there's NO movement to make police accountable for failing to protect individuals. It would UTTERLY bankrupt every police department and municipality in the nation.
    Last edited by Deanimator; 09-30-2010 at 02:06 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •