Dane Co. man charged with DC while armed.

1FASTC4 said:

Not to pick a nit but, he can be charged with DC while open carrying.... he cannot be charged with DC merely FOR open carrying. What I mean is, maybe he caused some sort of disturbance while he was OC'ing. I'm not trying to pick a fight... just seems like there's some additional circumstances missing.

Click to expand...

Bingo. If your actions are disorderly, you can be charged no matter how you are carrying, or even if you aren't carrying at all. Not related to one another.

2A

protias said:

Unless he was carrying concealed, the proper charge would be against 941.23, but if he was openly carrying, they cannot be charged with DC (you can see that especially after the Madison 5 charges were thrown out).

Click to expand...

According to the story as reported by at least 1 source, 2 men were in a bathroom stall together and one was holding a handgun. Not your normal Open Carry incident....

perhapse they used the bathroom to show each other the gun(s), as not to appear to be brandishing? Creative idea huh, wonder if their lawyers will use it?

Interceptor_Knight said:

According to the story as reported by at least 1 source, 2 men were in a bathroom stall together and one was holding a handgun. Not your normal Open Carry incident....

Click to expand...

Which story was that? In the first post, it said one had a handgun, it never said it was in his hand. I'm just going by what is in the article.

I just want to know who the perv was that was peeking into the bathroom stall to begin with. Isn't that DC?

McX said:

perhapse they used the bathroom to show each other the gun(s), as not to appear to be brandishing? Creative idea huh, wonder if their lawyers will use it?

Click to expand...

Maybe they were going to use the shotgun to remove some warts, like that guy in England.... :monkey

A Denny's security guard said he saw two men in a bathroom stall early Sunday morning.

Click to expand...

Um... that don't seem right....

Packfanatic said:

Weapons Violation: Disorderly Conduct While Armed.
A Denny's security guard said he observed two men in a bathroom stall early Sunday morning, and when he looked over their shoulders, he saw one had a handgun. Concerned, he contacted police as the men left the Thierer Rd. restaurant. Officers contacted the men in the parking lot and arrested one on a tentative charge listed above.

Click to expand...

There's no such charge as "DC while armed".

947.01 Disorderly conduct
Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

So which part of "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly" was their private meeting in the bathroom stall?

If they were doing more than transacting business, it may be indecent.
But other than the guard who was nosy, who was disturbed even by that?

Acording to JB's APR09 memo (http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf)
the prosecution first has to prove that the action was one of those things, or similar,
THEN has to prove that it provoked or tended to provoke a disturbance.
Nothing in the brief report says anything that leads to either of those conclusions.

And since the police didn't witness the incident (which unless they were doing something sexual probably wasn't anything resembling the list above) they couldn't do much unless one of the guys admitted something that resembles DC.

Also, did anyone else notice it says the guard contacted police as they guys left the restaurant, & officers found them in the parking lot? Either the cops were right there eating, or the guys lingered & talked in the parking lot. Gotta stop doing that after an OC dinner, just in case!

McX said:

perhaps they used the bathroom to show each other the gun(s), as not to appear to be brandishing? Creative idea huh, wonder if their lawyers will use it?

Click to expand...

Is a good argument.

What was the DC?

Two men in a bathroom stall? Suspicious? Yes, creepy? Maybe.

My question is whether the security guard was charged with peeping for looking over the shoulder of two men in a bathroom stall? Now that is creepy!

MKEgal said:

There's no such charge as "DC while armed".

Click to expand...

That is what I thought, and still do, but someone I was talking to said that there is a enhancer charge and said the statute, but it didn't stick in my head and I have not tried to find it yet.

I believe we are right. Until I find out we are wrong.

ETA: I cannot find it, so I assume we are right.

lockman said:

What was the DC?

Two men in a bathroom stall? Suspicious? Yes, creepy? Maybe.

My question is whether the security guard was charged with peeping for looking over the shoulder of two men in a bathroom stall? Now that is creepy!

Click to expand...

Totality of Circumstances.

Officers contacted the men in the parking lot and arrested Robinson for disorderly conduct while armed

Charge is DC there is no DC whiled armed.

Sounds like the two where having a privte meeting and were to noisy about it there for they were disorderly..

Still Not enough info to know what was really going on. Must have been OC other wise they would have charged him with CCW and DC.

MKEgal said:

So which part of "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly" was their private meeting in the bathroom stall?
.

Click to expand...

It does not have to actually provoke a disturbance in order to be disorderly....

otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance

Click to expand...

2 men fondling a gun in a bathroom stall would definitely tend to provoke a disturbance... :lol:

This has raised a question for me and maybe someone has an answer.

If you are out in public and Open Carrying, and someone wanted to look at your handgun and you consented, how would you do it?

For me, my handgun never leaves the holster, but noone has asked to see it cuz it's not pretty. And I am not really into handguns, so I never ask anyone else.

How would you do it, if not in a bathroom stall?

BROKENSPROKET said:

This has raised a question for me and maybe someone has an answer.

If you are out in public and Open Carrying, and someone wanted to look at your handgun and you consented, how would you do it?

For me, my handgun never leaves the holster, but noone has asked to see it cuz it's not pretty. And I am not really into handguns, so I never ask anyone else.

How would you do it, if not in a bathroom stall?

Click to expand...

Uh...you don't do it. Simply explain to them that your handgun stays holstered. If they really want to learn, and you feel comfortable, give them some contact information. Then take them to the range. There is no way I am letting a total stranger look at or hold my gun in public.

Edit: added the words "in public"

MKEgal said:

So which part of "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly" was their private meeting in the bathroom stall?

Click to expand...

Interceptor_Knight said:

It does not have to actually provoke a disturbance in order to be disorderly....

Click to expand...

MKE never said it actually provoked a disturbance, she asked which part of the individuals conduct was "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly" such that it was grounds for Disorderly Conduct.

Per State v Douglas D 2001 WI 47, para 15.243 WIS 2d, 204,626N.W, 2d 725. Para. 15 and Statute 947.01, the state it must prove First that the defendant engaged in conduct that was violent or abusive, or indecent, or profane, or boisterous, or unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly and Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.

I wouldn't mind knowing, myself, which of the above it was.


Two guys fondling a firearm is no more abusive, indecent, profane or boisterous than two guys fondling a new iPhone.

thebigsd said:

Uh...you don't do it. Simply explain to them that your handgun stays holstered. If they really want to learn, and you feel comfortable, give them some contact information. Then take them to the range.

Click to expand...

This...
At home, at the range or at someone else's home, etc Never out in public..

947.01(2) "...Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried..."

Going back to the story itself, I have some serious doubts. One, the article never mentioned any disturbance, only the observation of an inanimate object. Two the security guard "looked over the shoulders" of the two men who were "inside a stall." Might one presume that the two had the door closed to hide their nefarious deeds? If so, how could the guard 'look over their shoulders' except for by climbing up something and looking over the door of the stall itself?

How likely is it what actually happened was a security guard poked his head into the bathroom and observed two completely non-related men and that one of the men he saw had a weapon which was less than totally concealed? No stalls, no finger-fracking of firearms, no loud noises.

I'm a bit fuzzy on WI laws, but isn't WI an open carry state?