Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Is this a violation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    93

    Is this a violation

    Milwaukee police officer shoots robbery suspect
    By Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel
    Updated: Dec. 23, 2010 5:00 p.m. | A Milwaukee police officer was involved in a shooting Thursday afternoon on the city's northwest side, police said.

    According to Assistant Police Chief James Harpole:

    About 2:30 p.m. an off-duty Milwaukee police officer was near the 102nd block of W. Fond du Lac Ave. when he was approached by two males, one of whom displayed a knife and demanded money. The officer pulled out his service weapon and shot the male with the knife. The suspect was taken to a hospital with injuries that do not appear to be life-threatening.

    Police arrested both suspects.

    The male officer has been with the department for nine years.

    If this is a school zone, which it most likely is considering it is in Milwaukee this "off-duty" officer may be in violation of 948.605 gun-free school zones. Unless he has a license from the state he is guilty of a Felony. Good luck buddy.

  2. #2
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    If this is a school zone, I hope he is not charged with anything, after all we feel GFSZ,s are unconstitutional.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    If this is a school zone, I hope he is not charged with anything, after all we feel GFSZ,s are unconstitutional.
    If it is in a GFSZ I hope the Monore county DA sees it the same way when it comes to charging the Tomah teenager. Otherwise justice denied because of location and the "Blue Wall of Silence."
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "...and shot the male with the knife...."

    Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.

  5. #5
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.
    or any other ones.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.
    While so true I just find it amazing that the police exemption in Wisconsins GFSZ is only for those acting within their "official capacity". Police Officers can carry concealed whenever they want in Wisconsin but as soon as they cross over the invisible school zone barrier without being on-duty, having a license, or unloading and encasing, BAM, Class G Felony.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "...and shot the male with the knife...."

    Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.
    +1

  9. #9
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "...and shot the male with the knife...."

    Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.
    Eye95,
    Are you having contractions?
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-23-2010 at 08:40 PM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  10. #10
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    All the while, I thought LE could carry at all times...legally. I thought this was primarily...now hear this...for self-protection from BGs wanting to do them harm. There are a lot of BGs that would love to do a certain LE in while off duty. I have no problem with them carrying anywhere...at any time. The same rule applies to us.
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-23-2010 at 08:40 PM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the boonies
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Uziel Gal View Post
    While so true I just find it amazing that the police exemption in Wisconsins GFSZ is only for those acting within their "official capacity". Police Officers can carry concealed whenever they want in Wisconsin but as soon as they cross over the invisible school zone barrier without being on-duty, having a license, or unloading and encasing, BAM, Class G Felony.
    Police officers are exempt from the gfsz. as long as you have your badge and id u are fine.

  12. #12
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Maple tree public school is right around 106th st. We need to keep on top of this.

  13. #13
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipper View Post
    If it is in a GFSZ I hope the Monore county DA sees it the same way when it comes to charging the Tomah teenager. Otherwise justice denied because of location and the "Blue Wall of Silence."
    +1
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  14. #14
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorin21 View Post
    Police officers are exempt from the gfsz. as long as you have your badge and id u are fine.
    The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.
    No DA worth his salt would prosecute...

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman
    The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business.
    +1000
    Possessing it is one felony, discharging it is another. (No exemption for self-defense... another reason the law is a donkey & needs to be changed.)

    Of course, the possession has to be "knowingly" in a school zone, but with that memo the PD issued to their officers, with the "GFSZ" maps attached, it'd be hard for that officer to claim he didn't know it was a school zone.

    And wouldn't you know it, their map shows that 102 & FdL is indeed a school zone! (See pg. 7, kinda toward the bottom left. FdL is the second angle street in from the left side of the page.)

    So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

    IK- while I agree with you that he's not going to be punished, even if he was on public property, I think that's wrong. If he was on public property, he broke the law, he had been told (in writing, with maps) that was a GFSZ, his job is to enforce laws (so he should know them, right?), he should be held accountable.


    BTW, a couple people here (http://www.wisn.com/news/26260787/detail.html) claim that this is a good reason for concealed carry. Whadayawanna bet he was carrying concealed??


    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0948.pdf

    948.605

    (2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony.
    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
    1. On private property not part of school grounds;
    6. By a law enforcement officer... acting in his or her official capacity;

    (3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly... discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the attempt to discharge, a firearm:
    1. On private property not part of school grounds;
    4. By a law enforcement officer... acting in his or her official capacity.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 12-23-2010 at 11:44 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  17. #17
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.
    I hope your point is that WI firearm laws are screwed up, not that this officer did anyting wrong. Any LEO, regardless if they are on or off duty, should ALWAYS carry a firearm, regardless of current restrictions.

  18. #18
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

    IK- while I agree with you that he's not going to be punished, even if he was on public property, I think that's wrong. If he was on public property, he broke the law, he had been told (in writing, with maps) that was a GFSZ, his job is to enforce laws (so he should know them, right?), he should be held accountable.
    I think your experience has left you a little jaded.

    No law-abiding citizen should be prosecuted under 948.605.

    Any desire for an off-duty LEO to be prosecuted under a law that we are fighting to get reppealed on a Consititutional basis is total hippocracy

  19. #19
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142
    [QUOTE=MKEgal;1427829]+1000
    Possessing it is one felony, discharging it is another. (No exemption for self-defense... another reason the law is a donkey & needs to be changed.)

    Of course, the possession has to be "knowingly" in a school zone, but with that memo the PD issued to their officers, with the "GFSZ" maps attached, it'd be hard for that officer to claim he didn't know it was a school zone.

    And wouldn't you know it, their map shows that 102 & FdL is indeed a school zone! (See pg. 7, kinda toward the bottom left. FdL is the second angle street in from the left side of the page.)

    So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    +1

    Some attention shown to this situation in court would help illustrate the absurdity of the GFSZ laws. It's a terrible way to have to do it, but that seems to be the only way to change the opinion of the masses.

    Here we have an off duty cop with 9 years of service (a veritable 'boy scout' in the public mind), who is involved in a self defense shooting within a GFSZ. Per the written law this person is not allowed any more latitude to carry for self defense than any other citizen, simply due to imaginary geographic boundaries.

    What a wonderful thing it would be to have the case brought to court and the off duty cop exonerated of any wrongdoing not because of his occupation or community standing, but because an insightful judge would see the debacle that is the GFSZ laws, and rule that the charges are null due to the unconstitutionality of the written law.

    Perhaps my holiday idealism has gotten the better of me.

    Just my opinion. I hope I illustrated my thoughts clearly. Happy Solstice / Merry Christmas everyone.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    If the officer isn't charged, wouldn't. This be grounds for an equal protection lawsuit if one was charged with posession in a GFSZ? I hope he isn't charged and that we can file this case under "legal ammunition".

    We are entitled to equal protection under the law.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post

    No law-abiding citizen should be prosecuted under 948.605.

    Any desire for an off-duty LEO to be prosecuted under a law that we are fighting to get reppealed on a Consititutional basis is total hippocracy
    I could not agree more.
    I don't care if you are off duty LEO, a socker mom, a teacher, preacher or anything else, every law abiding citizen should have the right to protect themselves.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  22. #22
    Regular Member metalman383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eau Claire WI, ,
    Posts
    283
    Basically, this comes down to an average citizen, defending themselves with a conceiled weapon. Since no one knew he was an officer, I think this could be used to show, why we feel the need to carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    If the officer isn't charged, wouldn't. This be grounds for an equal protection lawsuit if one was charged with posession in a GFSZ? I hope he isn't charged and that we can file this case under "legal ammunition".

    We are entitled to equal protection under the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by metalman383 View Post
    Basically, this comes down to an average citizen, defending themselves with a conceiled weapon. Since no one knew he was an officer, I think this could be used to show, why we feel the need to carry.
    Yes and Yes. My thoughts exactly.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I hope your point is that WI firearm laws are screwed up, not that this officer did anyting wrong. Any LEO, regardless if they are on or off duty, should ALWAYS carry a firearm, regardless of current restrictions.
    ok for them but not me ? I think not.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I think your experience has left you a little jaded.

    No law-abiding citizen should be prosecuted under 948.605.

    Any desire for an off-duty LEO to be prosecuted under a law that we are fighting to get reppealed on a Consititutional basis is total hippocracy
    Correct no law-abiding citizen should be prosecuted but that does not stop it from happening
    if your breaking 948.605 then you aren't actualy law abiding are you.
    If it's something they would happily convict me of they should be held to the same standard until said law is actualy changed or THAT is total hippocracy.

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
  •