Fond du Lac Walmart call cops on MWG, with REPORT

Here is the proof that some have demanded, "no news, no google it didnt happen" types.

Very nice! Thanks for posting this!

Shame on the Walmart employees for wasting everyone's time.

Also, if the employees admitted the suspect was back in the store, again, continuing to shop, why did the LEOs break out the "big" guns? I don't of any stories of crazies filling up a shopping cart with groceries and then going on a rampage. The crazies just look around at stuff, nonchalant, then go for it.

That was a crappy situation. I thought Walmart policy was to allow carry in compliance with state law (guess I'm mistaken)?

I'm torn on the officers conduct. On one hand they seem respectful according to the report, but it bothers me that they have to approach people with rifles at ready simply due to a MWAG call. They could have observed the person and seen the MWAG was really a normal dude shopping for some diapers.

Thanks For Posting This!

Pretty sad how they acted. Looks like some of the store employees lied about the gun too. We should have a get together at that Walmart location and go shopping. Interesting to see the reactions of the employees if 50 armed people showed up to shop.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Walmart!?

How many times do the stores need to be reminded by corporate of their corporate policy????? Their manager should be currently unemployed. This is ridiculous. I see no indication of any customer complaints; which is the only reason they are supposed to kick someone out, just uniformed employees. Time to send some emails methinks.

Anyway, for some constructive criticism for the OP.

Personally, I would not have went back into the store. I would have left my full cart where it sat, went shopping somewhere else, went home, and called or emailed Wal-Mart corporate.

I think you did everything right with the initial confrontation with the police and that must have been pretty nerve-racking. However; once it was clear that you were not a threat and everyone had calmed down I would have not consented to a search of my vehicle. The police had no legal reason to do so.

Just trying to be constructive, please don't take it the wrong way.


As for the Cops. Give me a break! Gun's drawn and AR-15's? Threats of possible charges of Disorderly Conduct in the future? I assume this happened after the DC provisions in act 35 took effect. These guys are going to have to get used to LAC's carrying and need to take it down a notch or ten. I think this huge over reacting response is a new record for OC in WI.

Brass Magnet said:

As for the Cops. Give me a break! Gun's drawn and AR-15's? Threats of possible charges of Disorderly Conduct in the future? I assume this happened after the DC provisions in act 35 took effect. These guys are going to have to get used to LAC's carrying and need to take it down a notch or ten. I think this huge over reacting response is a new record for OC in WI.

Click to expand...

I read that too and was like :shocker:. Why do you need weapons drawn to approach someone who is acting in a lawful manner? What criminal is going to OC?! :banghead:

searching his vehicle, running the gun, then running him for wants and warrants?! trying to get anything they can, any way they can. nothing has changed, and nothing will change once we all get permits.

Martin #38 tells the unarmed person that was kind enough not to cause a disturbance by respecting the stores wish that exercising a constitutional right is a bad idea! Even if empty as it would appear.
Is Holder giving guest lectures at police academies?

Hopefully you guys in WI will not let this go by, if this cancer is allowed to spread it could kill all our rights

wait, you were put into the back of a squad car for being an American?

McX said:

searching his vehicle, running the gun, then running him for wants and warrants?! trying to get anything they can, any way they can. nothing has changed, and nothing will change once we all get permits.

Click to expand...

He consented. The Police "asked" to search the vehicle. They are always going to ask. It's up to us to tell them NO.

Everything before that; I agree, way out of line.


ETA: BTW; Eques, I didn't think about this in my first post but if you felt that you didn't have a choice and had to consent to the search of your vehicle or felt intimidated into doing so in any way by the armed soldiers, you may have been coerced in the eyes of the court and it may be a legally actionable 4A violation. Please contact a lawyer.

Sounds like there is an effort to harass open carriers in FdL. Wonder how many times the not-so veiled threat "you could cause a distribance that will result in a disorderly conduct charge" will be used in the future. Would not at all be suprised that over-response is a tactic the Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association has recommended to its members. Their legislative liason is a buddy of the chief WAVE ghoul.

Brass Magnet said:

He consented. The Police "asked" to search the vehicle. They are always going to ask. It's up to us to tell them NO. Everything before that; I agree, way out of line. ETA: BTW; Eques, I didn't think about this in my first post but if you felt that you didn't have a choice and had to consent to the search of your vehicle or felt intimidated into doing so in any way by the armed soldiers, you may have been coerced in the eyes of the court and it may be a legally actionable 4A violation. Please contact a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Yes, force majeure may be so subtle as a cop using his big-boy voice. More than one, guns drawn or tactical positioning is easily argued as force majeure coercion and custodial detention.

papa bear said:

Hopefully you guys in WI will not let this go by, if this cancer is allowed to spread it could kill all our rights

Click to expand...

It never does. We push back in making the police obey the law.

Flipper said:

Sounds like there is an effort to harass open carriers in FdL. Wonder how many times the not-so veiled threat "you could cause a distribance that will result in a disorderly conduct charge" will be used in the future. Would not at all be suprised that over-response is a tactic the Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association has recommended to its members. Their legislative liason is a buddy of the chief WAVE ghoul.

Click to expand...

Well, it does depend on the "totality of the circumstances."

So, let me get this straight. W-M employees--ignorant of corporate policy well established, called the cops on a man with a 'holster.' The cops responded, threatening deadly force, unlawfully searched him but successfully coerced him into--foolishly, giving up his constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment and searched his car. Then, in their wisdom, emparted that enjoying his constitutional right, under US and WI law, could get him arrested for DC or some other ******** catch all charge. Then they let the subject--not citizen, go. Well, no harm, no foul in a slave state. However, WI is no longer a slave state, so there was harm and that can't stand. W-M corporate needs to be called. Unfortunately, when you give up your rights and the police then walk all over them, you're out of luck in that regard. "Officer safety" BS, that could have been trumped by objection to the search and then refusal to allow searching your car, paints the whole incident. Learn from it and do not ever again give up your rights that many have died to protect.

Herr Heckler Koch said:

Yes, force majeure may be so subtle as a cop using his big-boy voice. More than one, guns drawn or tactical positioning is easily argued as force majeure coercion and custodial detention.

Click to expand...

Force majeure applies to contract law in the US. Although the definition includes "Overpowering force," it is not generally applied to police power used in an instant case against an individual unless that police 'power' causes breach of a contractual clause.

This is one of the cases relevant to coerced consent:

"Consent obtained by duress or coercion is not voluntary consent." Lakoskey, 462 F.3d at 973.

Click to expand...

I used to have a Word file with case law on some of this stuff but I can't find it. I know there's more, even going so far as to describe multiple officers as being enough to imply coercion.

Gunslinger said:

Then, in their wisdom, emparted that enjoying his constitutional right, under US and WI law,

Click to expand...

Gunslinger said:

Force majeure applies to contract law in the US. Although the definition includes "Overpowering force," it is not generally applied to police power used in an instant case against an individual unless that police 'power' causes breach of a contractual clause.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the [scare-quotes]education[/scare-quotes]. LOL

I called BS and I was RIGHT.

If that happened to me, I would demand a face to face meeting with the District Manager. The store manager broke corp. policy, thus having officers enter the store with firearms at the low ready. Not good.

Giving consent to search? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

That being said, I called out the original post on this a MAJOR BS. I was correct. Two officers, one with a rifle and another with a handgun, as in the report. NOT the TEN(10) officers with assault rifles, shotguns and handguns drawn as claimed in the original post. F.B.S.

BROKENSPROKET said:

That being said, I called out the original post on this a MAJOR BS. I was correct. Two officers, one with a rifle and another with a handgun, as in the report. NOT the TEN(10) officers with assault rifles, shotguns and handguns drawn as claimed in the original post. F.B.S.

Click to expand...

There were at least 3 officers on scene according to the police reports gathered and attached to this thread.

I don't know department protocol, but is it possible more were on scene but did not have to complete reports according to procedure?