Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: AB-246 introduced

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    AB-246 introduced

    An Act to repeal 946.415 (2) (a); to consolidate, renumber and amend946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c); and to amend 946.415 (title) of thestatutes; relating to: resisting officer while armed with or threateningto use a dangerous weapon.http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB246hst.htmlhttp://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-246.pdfIntroduced by a Democrat so most likely not good. I haven't read it yet so I have no idea so far.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Angry It Isn't Good. IT IS ALL BAD!

    Looks like the anti's are trying to sneak this one in. Read it very carefully....it looks to me that anyone can be arrested simply for being armed and charged with a class I felony....all a cop has to do is say an armed person resisted "CUSTODY", not resisted arrest.


    Snip: "Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon." It use to be and and and and and...now it is just ONE element for a class I felony.

    946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
    dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

    I am pretty sure I copied and posted it correctly in it's new form. Only one element is required for a class I felony now instead of all three. With this LAW the cops will abuse open and concealed carriers at will and charge us with a felony.

    THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHANGED!
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Here is the bill text since I have no idea how to do attachments.

    LRB−2458/1
    CMH:med&wlj:lmp
    2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
    2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 246
    September 7, 2011 − Introduced by Representatives KRUG, JACQUE, BERNARD
    SCHABER, BROOKS, ENDSLEY, KERKMAN, RIPP, SPANBAUER and ZEPNICK. Referred
    to Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections.
    AN ACT to repeal 946.415 (2) (a); to consolidate, renumber and amend
    946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c); and to amend 946.415 (title) of the statutes;
    relating to: resisting officer while armed with or threatening to use a
    dangerous weapon.
    Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
    Under current law, an individual is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through
    action or threat, resists arrest while armed with or threatening to use a weapon and
    while retreating or remaining in a building or place. Under this bill, an individual
    is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through action or threat, resists arrest while
    armed with or threatening to use a weapon. A person who is convicted of a Class I
    felony may be fined not more than $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
    up to three years and six months, or both.
    The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
    enact as follows:
    SECTION 1. 946.415 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
    946.415 (title) Failure to comply with Preventing officer’s attempt to
    take person into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon.
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    2011 − 2012 Legislature − 2 − LRB−2458/1
    CMH:med&wlj:lmp
    ASSEMBLY BILL 246 SECTION 2
    SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
    renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
    946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class
    I felony: (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat,
    attempts to prevent the an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody. (c)
    While acting under pars. (a) and (b), if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
    dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
    he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.
    SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.
    (END)
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Lightbulb That Isn't What The Bill States....

    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Here is the bill text since I have no idea how to do attachments.

    LRB−2458/1
    CMH:med&wlj:lmp
    2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
    2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 246
    September 7, 2011 − Introduced by Representatives KRUG, JACQUE, BERNARD
    SCHABER, BROOKS, ENDSLEY, KERKMAN, RIPP, SPANBAUER and ZEPNICK. Referred
    to Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections.
    AN ACT to repeal 946.415 (2) (a); to consolidate, renumber and amend
    946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c); and to amend 946.415 (title) of the statutes;
    relating to: resisting officer while armed with or threatening to use a
    dangerous weapon.
    Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
    Under current law, an individual is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through
    action or threat, resists arrest while armed with or threatening to use a weapon and
    while retreating or remaining in a building or place. Under this bill, an individual
    is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through action or threat, resists arrest while
    armed with or threatening to use a weapon. A person who is convicted of a Class I
    felony may be fined not more than $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
    up to three years and six months, or both.
    The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
    enact as follows:
    SECTION 1. 946.415 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
    946.415 (title) Failure to comply with Preventing officer’s attempt to
    take person into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon.
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    2011 − 2012 Legislature − 2 − LRB−2458/1
    CMH:med&wlj:lmp
    ASSEMBLY BILL 246 SECTION 2
    SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
    renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
    946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class
    I felony: (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat,
    attempts to prevent the an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody. (c)
    While acting under pars. (a) and (b), if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
    dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
    he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.
    SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.
    (END)
    The bill you posted is as the law is at this moment. Your post does not show the CHANGES to the text. The proposed bill changes the felony from "946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does ALL of the following is guilty of a Class
    I felony:" to:

    SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
    renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
    946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat,
    attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
    dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
    he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

    SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

    It looks to me that ANY of the elements is now a CLASS I FELONY.

    LINK TO PDF: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-246.pdf
    Last edited by rcawdor57; 09-08-2011 at 12:45 PM. Reason: Edited for correct grammar & added link.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    The bill you posted is as the law is at this moment. Your post does not show the CHANGES to the text. The proposed bill changes the felony from "946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does ALL of the following is guilty of a Class
    I felony:" to:

    SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
    renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
    946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat,
    attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
    dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
    he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

    SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

    It looks to me that ANY of the elements is now a CLASS I FELONY.

    LINK TO PDF: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-246.pdf
    The strike-throughs didn't show up... Thanks for the pdf link. That was the one sent to me by my rep.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I sent this to my Representative:

    I saw that AB 246 was introduced recently. What it will do is allow police to charge otherwise lawful firearm carriers with a Class-I felony if they offer any resistance, even verbal. So.... if for example, I was let's say, at a Culver's in Madison and was legally open carrying and an officer did not have reasonable articulatable suspicion and demanded my ID and I refused, I could be charged under AB 246.

    Please do NOT support this bill.


    Thanks!


    --

    Paul L Fisher

  7. #7
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    The strike-throughs didn't show up... Thanks for the pdf link. That was the one sent to me by my rep.
    any streike0throughs, underlines , bold or italics don't C&P over, so you have to reformat the whole thing. I usually drop it in WORD and mess with it there before I post it here.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Angry This Bill Is VERY Dangerous! We KNOW Why The Anti's Did This!

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I sent this to my Representative:
    Thanks for posting this on the forum! It should have had a different title though! Not many people seem to be taking this bill seriously!

    This bill will effectively NEGATE concealed carry and open carry completely. It doesn't state "Arrest" any longer it simply states "CUSTODY". So "custody" could mean anything a police officer wants it to and Voila'! we get charged with a felony. What a bunch of hooey!
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    It was introduced by Representative Krug who is a Republican. I am trying to figure that one out.

  10. #10
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    What a crappy bill! May the RHINO who introduced it burn in the eternal fire of hell.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

    This is how the statute is now:

    946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
    (a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
    (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
    (c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

    This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

    946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

    There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

    I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Then Why Change It?

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

    This is how the statute is now:

    946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
    (a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
    (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
    (c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

    This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

    946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

    There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

    I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.
    If there is no difference except "it's cleaner" then why change it? I don't see any silver linings in the clouds these days. There is always a reason to change things from bad to worse. Nothing good can come from "changing" this law as it is now. Simply put it makes it much easier to charge People with a felony than it did before. Do you agree with increased police powers?
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    If there is no difference except "it's cleaner" then why change it? I don't see any silver linings in the clouds these days. There is always a reason to change things from bad to worse. Nothing good can come from "changing" this law as it is now. Simply put it makes it much easier to charge People with a felony than it did before. Do you agree with increased police powers?
    No I don't agree with increased police powers. But you say it makes it easier to charge people than it did before, please explain how, because I don't see it.

    The original and the ammended version have the same meaning. The ammended version does not create something that is not in the original statute.

  14. #14
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Not that I recommend it but what if the person armed is being illegally arrested and resists the officer? They are well within their right to use whatever force necessary to resist unlawful arrest.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  15. #15
    McX
    Guest
    They should call this the Borg bill; resistance (even to an unlawful detention or arrest) is futile, prepare to be assimilated.

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Someone off list pointed out:

    Status quo, the state must prove; non-compliance, lawfulness, custodial
    intent, retreat/remain, action/threat, intent to prevent, dangerous
    weapon, and threat.

    Amended, at least retreat/remain is removed.
    As Rak said, why change it if it truly is just making it cleaner?
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 09-09-2011 at 08:36 AM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Freeking Commie National Socialist Libs in this state...these guys must has been reincarnated Adviser from Hitlers political staff in the 1930's, when the German population was disarmed....if things keep going the way they are....
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 09-09-2011 at 03:53 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

    This is how the statute is now:

    946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
    (a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
    (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
    (c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

    This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

    946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
    (1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
    (2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

    There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

    I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.
    You really don't understand the difference?


    Here is the situation. The madison 5 are at culver's and are refusing to provide ID, and the officers decide that they are going to arrest them. They question their reason for being arrested, and ask what crime they have committed, and the police view that "action" as "resisting".

    Under current law, that is not a felony. Under the new law, it is.

    What do you not understand about that? The new "cleaner" law makes it VERY easy for a pissed off or crooked cop to charge a lawfully carrying citizen with a felony. "Yea, he resisted my arrest while armed, so I'm charging him with a felony"
    Last edited by bmwguy11; 09-09-2011 at 09:52 AM.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Thanks! Maybe We Will All "Get It" Now??? This Bill Is Very DANGEROUS!

    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    You really don't understand the difference?


    Here is the situation. The madison 5 are at culver's and are refusing to provide ID, and the officers decide that they are going to arrest them. They question their reason for being arrested, and ask what crime they have committed, and the police view that "action" as "resisting".

    Under current law, that is not a felony. Under the new law, it is.

    What do you not understand about that? The new "cleaner" law makes it VERY easy for a pissed off or crooked cop to charge a lawfully carrying citizen with a felony. "Yea, he resisted my arrest while armed, so I'm charging him with a felony"

    And to add to BMWGUY11's statement: This bill changes or "lowers the bar" as Doug would say by making it only ONE element to be guilty of a class I felony AND it changes from "arrest" to "CUSTODY". My point about custody is this: We are out at Starbucks and a police officer stops by to question us. We decide not to comply and leave. He charges us under the new law with a felony because he can state we were in his or her "CUSTODY". Get it? There is nothing good about this bill at all. It is an attempt to give police even more power over citizens especially those who are armed.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  20. #20
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Not that I recommend it but what if the person armed is being illegally arrested and resists the officer? They are well within their right to use whatever force necessary to resist unlawful arrest.
    You risk not only being shot, but loosing the case in court due to the ever present he said/she said syndrome. Courts admit to giving the police much more credibility than the accused. As it is illegal to film interaction with the police (because they don't want them breaking the law being recorded. Shhhh, they don't think we know that) you will most likely have no proof that the 7 pounds of cocaine found on you was planted.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  21. #21
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Here is the reply I got back after I apologized for all the emails he is getting on AB246

    Greg,

    I understand and appreciate the contact. I am sure that this bill is a long way off and I will be more than happy to continue to address those concerns as they arise.

    My intention is to make sure criminals can't resist arrest in the manner they are able to do so now. Perhaps the language can be tightened up a bit to make sure the concerns of the carry community are addressed. This is why we float the ideas and have hearings and make amendments. Sometimes even we aren't perfect (I say that tongue in cheek as I know we aren't ever perfect).

    Thanks again,

    Scott


    All you irrational and paranoid fears are being taken into consideration.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-09-2011 at 10:53 PM.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    You risk not only being shot, but loosing the case in court due to the ever present he said/she said syndrome. Courts admit to giving the police much more credibility than the accused. As it is illegal to film interaction with the police (because they don't want them breaking the law being recorded. Shhhh, they don't think we know that) you will most likely have no proof that the 7 pounds of cocaine found on you was planted.
    In WI, it doesn't matter who you are talking to or witnessing, you can record anything as WI is a one party consent state.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    I also do not see how the "bar has been lowered" to a single element.

    Under the proposed changes, one _must_ either be armed, become armed, or threaten with the use of a weapon..._AND_ resist "through action or threat" - as in fight with or threaten the officer. Refusing to supply ID is not "action or threat".

    They're just taking out the wording about barricading yourself in a house and wrapping it into "action or threat".

  24. #24
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    Refusing to supply ID is not "action or threat".
    Two of the Madison 5 were cited with obstruction of justice for refusing to show ID. Then all five were cited for disorderly conduct. Even though there was no obstruction or disorderly conduct.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  25. #25
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Here are some definitions to hopefully add some clarity or even accurately describe in legal terms what will\could happen under this bill.

    DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

    ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

    CUSTODY: The care and keeping of anything; as when an article is said to be "in the custody of the court." People V. Burr, 41 How.Prac., N.Y., 296; Emmerson v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 25 S.W. 290; Roe v. Irwin, 32 Ga. 39. Also the detainer of a man's person by virtue of lawful process or authority; actual imprisonment. In a sentence that the defendant "be in custody until," etc., this term imports actual imprisonment. Smith v. Com., 59 Pa. 320; Turner v. Wilson, 49 Ind. 581; Ex parte Powers, D.C.Ky., 129 F. 985. Detention; charge; control; possession. The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession. Jones v. State, 26 Ga.App. 635, 107 S.E. 166; J. 0. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co., 223 Mich. 349, 193 N.W. 789, 790; State ex rel. Bricker v. Griffith, Ohio App., 36 N.E.2d 489, 491; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468, 470; Carpenter v. Lord, 88 Or. 128, 460 (Blacks Law 4th ED, Pg 460)




    So taking into account the legal definitions, An officer that detains an individual for any reason, has that person in custody. If that person refuses in action or verbal threats and is armed, the officer can charge that person with a Felony. That my friends is agreeably a very bad possibility and likelihood. Rep Krug should understand the wording of the legislation he is proposing. History has proven that a dishonest officer will exploit and misuse that type of statute and people will get convicted under it.
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 09-10-2011 at 02:43 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •