Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin
- Thread starter zack991
- Start date
rmansu2
Regular Member
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.
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.
MatieA
Regular Member
You should head over to the Wisconsin sub-forum; they have like 5 threads on this subject over there.
eye95
Well-known member
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:
SaintJacque
Regular Member
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.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
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
eye95
Well-known member
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.
Please watch the personal comments. I won't get into a junior-high flaming contest.
and I think usually required for 911 calls.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
D_Weezy
Regular Member
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.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
*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.
eye95
Well-known member
I agree on all counts.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
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.
"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.
heresyourdipstickjimmy
Regular Member
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: :shocker:
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.
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: :shocker:
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.
Deanimator
Regular Member
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.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
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".
Deanimator
Regular Member
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.
The ONLY "repercussion" is public opinion, and they've already proved that means nothing to them.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
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.
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.
Deanimator
Regular Member
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.