Men who openly carried guns at Culver's accept settlement - Madison.com

[McX]

Personally, I will be buying a firearm with the proceeds and naming it Noble.

I also want to echo Mlutz's words in thanking all the people who supported me (us) and donated to the defense fund.


ditto, but i wont name a treasured device after an ( deleted to be politically correct). i will get my gun with my MAD-money, as i call it.

also, THANK YOU to all who stood by us!

behold the new device, named: The War Wagon

[MKEgal]

I think its about the best we could get considering the... "totality of the circumstances".

:: cringe :: I can hear McX screaming all the way from here.

2. Our case was cited by a circuit court judge who ruled 941.23 was unconstitutional (pre Act 35).

Cite? I don't remember reading about that.

Despain could have covered that a little better when he suggested people call 911 if they are concerned... something like not calling 911 when no crime is occurring.
...
We should start an annual Culver's meet there.

Ditto on both.
If we want to do an anniversary thing, we missed it this year.

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Please do not 2nd guess this. We went with the advise of counsel.

Welcome to OCDO's amen-corner. No second guessing!

[TyGuy]

Congrats! I hope that the Madison PD will revise how they respond to calls regarding OCers.

While not one of the 5 I feel a big relief as I organized an OC dinner at a Culvers that one of the 5 attending before this happened. I felt that perhaps I was a bit responsible in his arrest as my event might have resulted in him being more comfortable and attending the later event. It's horrible that I had to feel badly about encouraging someone to do something legal, but I did nonetheless.

Congrats to the Madison 5!

[protias]

Thanks.

The question remains, why settle?

If the Mad 5 are the plaintiffs and the city/cops are the defendants in this 1983 suit, why not get a jury to find them guilty?

This would have sent a very powerful message to all of LE in Wisconsin and likely nation wide. And, possibly a larger civil penalty against the cops and their employer(s). Especially after the changes cited in Act 35.

Anyway, it is a moot point.....now.

Why? Because WCI isn't in it for the money. WCI is in it to restore our rights and defend those who have their rights assaulted.

[rcawdor57]

Why? Because WCI isn't in it for the money. WCI is in it to restore our rights and defend those who have their rights assaulted.

Very well said.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. protects our rights and educates those that don't know their rights. I truly wish those five gentlemen had judgments of $100K EACH but this isn't the only case WCI has to contend with. WCI has some of the cases posted on the WCI website but there are others that are not listed. Wisconsin Carry has many irons in the fire and we all know there will be more irons thrown in that fire as our membership grows. I hope all of us stay vigilant and keep fighting for our rights openly.

Congratulations again my friends and Merry Christmas to all!

[protias]

If the news story is correct, your lawsuit was a complete failure!

Quote from story "In its offer, the city does not admit to any wrongdoing. "

Story also say settle! and not judgement.

So according to the story. They were offered money to go away and took it.

If the amount was NOT 10K EACH, then you got totally screwed.

unless the court records indicate that there was wrongdoing, your suit failed its purpose.

Dont try and spin it! Your lawsuit failed and Madison WON!

Madison admitted to doing nothing wrong and you agreed by taking the money.

Nik from WCI Facebook page:

There was no apology and even had we gone through to trial and had a judgment in our favor then, an apology cannot be ordered. I suppose we could have offered to settle with MPD if they issued an apology, but with that said, an apology doesn't mean jack $hit. Its behaviors that concern WCI, talk is cheap. Joel Despain told me (in the elevator riding down after my Wisconsin Eye debate with Chief Wray) That the department was not anti 2nd amendment. (yet their actions tell a different story) Between Noble Wray testifying AGAINST concealed carry to his departments policy after the Madison 5 incident. Talk means nothing. Unfortunately, the only remedy is a damage award in the form of $.

This was a judgment. Madison agreed to have a judgment entered against them. Had we gone through to trial (and depositions and all the other expenses) we likely would have gotten a similar judgment. An offer of judgment which the defendants made is the equivalent of saying "I know we will lose, so here is a judgment against us that we will agree to".

[Herr Heckler Koch]

If the news story is correct, your lawsuit was a complete failure! Quote from story "In its offer, the city does not admit to any wrongdoing. " Story also say settle! and not judgement. So according to the story. They were offered money to go away and took it. If the amount was NOT 10K EACH, then you got totally screwed. unless the court records indicate that there was wrongdoing, your suit failed its purpose. Dont try and spin it! Your lawsuit failed and Madison WON! Madison admitted to doing nothing wrong and you agreed by taking the money.

Here's the Wisconsin Circuit Courts Access form. Stick a party's name in and read the court documents.

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl

[McX]

you are a vicious vindictive person. and will undoubted be shunned, and blocked by many.


added on edit; i'm sorry i would respond to your further rants, but you no longer exist, as you are blocked.

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Glory Halleluiah Amen! Amen! Halleluiah.

[RR_Broccoli]

This is great news.

And I'll add a for clean up purposes.

[VW_Factor]

I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!

Ban me now before I say what I really feel!

I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.

No one is forcing you to login.

[davegran]

I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!

Ban me now before I say what I really feel!

I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.

Don't let a few people in denial drive you off; we need members who can see through the fog.... If somebody can provide a cite in the form of a court document that says "Judgment" instead of "Settlement", I will change my tune and apologize.

[msteinhilber]

I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!

Ban me now before I say what I really feel!

I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.

Grow up

[protias]

I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!

Ban me now before I say what I really feel!

I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Here is the JUDGEMENT:

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nce_of_OOJ.pdf

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...php?p=18315746

[protias]

Obviously it was not about the money. But, what penalties have been levied against the defendants that have real consequences? Sanctions that send a clear and powerful message through all of Wisconsin's LEAs down to the most junior officer. How exactly will the defendant(s) ensure that this sort of lawlessness never occurs in the future? What policy changes will be made? Will they, the policies, be made accessible to the citizenry? What training will result in MPD that is used to change the culture that permits these types of illegal behaviors?

The point of a 1983 suit, in my view, should be to force behavior changes at all levels of government, not just the lowest level, the MPD in this instance. A jury trial that results in a finding for the plaintiffs places the state legislature on notice to 'protect' political subdivisions and their LEAs by writing/amending laws to prevent potential 1983 suits that result from LE not following the law.

Especially in light of the below comment.

This to me does not sound very specific and certainly does not sound very committed to preventing another 'Madison 5' incident.

The only upside I see to this case is the specific language regarding DC in Act 35. Other than that I am not able to find the consequences that will prevent MPD and other LEOs in Wisconsin from hassling LACs OCing.

Obviously there is no way another incident similar to this can be prevented, it only takes one law breaking LEO to accomplish this. But, severe sanctions against state agents that violate the law are the first line of defense against the assault on our liberties by state agents.

I could not find the legal sanctions in Act 35, but that is just me not finding it, not that the sanctions are not in Act 35.

I read the Acceptance 'letter' but could not find the actual judgment. Unless the little blurb at the end stating the 10k is the judgment, and the word judgment itself is part of the 'settlement'.

175.60(17)(ar) Any law enforcement officer who uses excessive
force based solely on an individual’s status as a licensee
may be fined not more than $500 or sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both. The
application of the criminal penalty under this paragraph
does not preclude the application of any other civil or
criminal remedy.

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Thanks.

The question remains, why settle?

If the Mad 5 are the plaintiffs and the city/cops are the defendants in this 1983 suit, why not get a jury to find them guilty?

This would have sent a very powerful message to all of LE in Wisconsin and likely nation wide. And, possibly a larger civil penalty against the cops and their employer(s). Especially after the changes cited in Act 35.

Anyway, it is a moot point.....now.

Because guilt and innocence are criminal terms. The most we could do is get a judgement. The Jury cannot force the defendants to apologize, they can only force money. We got a judgement without going through the expense of a trial. Same outcome. The papers mis-spoke.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nce_of_OOJ.pdf is the acceptance of the JUDGEMENT.

We split $10K after attorney fees.

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Cite? I don't remember reading about that.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-c...0/Schultz1.pdf

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Thanks for the ref to the 'use of excessive force' penalty. Not relevant to the 1983 case since excessive force did not seem to have been alleged. As to the apology, I never stated that MPD must give one. Nor did I state that the plaintiffs were asking for one, even though a formal written apology, in the major Wisconsin news outlets, would have been icing on the cake, I'll admit.

The criminal component was over back in March, May? So, the burden now shifts to the 'state' to defend their actions and the actions of their agents. I do expect we in the OC community to take advantage of these extremely rare situations to 'stick it' to the state, especially in light of the virtually zero chance the state had of winning this 1983 case.

Well....C'est la guerre....

I guess I am not following how we can 'stick' it to them?

The original suit asked the following:

1. Make a ruling that OC;ing is not disorderly conduct.
2. Make the city pay for violating our rightss.

#1 became moot and therefore could no longer happen because Act 35 says just that and is now the law.
#2, I have been told, would of cost an additional $30K+ to achieve and we potentially could of netted less than what was offered. As part of 'winning', all we could get was a judgement with a $ figure attached. We chose to get exactly that.

[Motofixxer]

Considering Joel DeSpain's comments insisting calling in anyone armed and the discussion had about actively insisting business posting of signs shown in the attachment. What really is their opinion???

[HandyHamlet]

a win like this calls for some celebratory dance music!

Amen sweet Prince. Get that funkified groove on.

I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!

Ban me now before I say what I really feel!

I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.

Thank you baby Jesus, Thor the God of Thunder, and the Spaghetti Monster, for this little Christmas miracle. Coming from the man who introduced himself to the community by making loud and long excuses for rolling over on his Constitutional Rights, while demanding he was one of us... Well this is just awesome sprinkled with rainbows and unicorns.

Thank you whizcollector for internet drama so thick I must eat it with a spoon. Kinda like how life has done with your spine, heart and brain.





The community has won a great victory. Thank you Madison Five and WCInc. for your perseverance. Funny how the nay sayers, who never lost a night's sleep over this, could have done way better. From their keyboards. May your fountain of cheeseburgers be never ending Madison Five.

[davegran]

Don't let a few people in denial drive you off; we need members who can see through the fog.... If somebody can provide a cite in the form of a court document that says "Judgment" instead of "Settlement", I will change my tune and apologize.

Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com Because guilt and innocence are criminal terms. The most we could do is get a judgment. The Jury cannot force the defendants to apologize, they can only force money. We got a judgment without going through the expense of a trial. Same outcome. The papers mis-spoke.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nce_of_OOJ.pdf is the acceptance of the JUDGMENT.

We split $10K after attorney fees.

I apologize, you did get a Judgment. Congratulations! Thanks for your efforts!

[9026543]

I apologize, you did get a Judgment. Congratulations! Thanks for your efforts!

Did you have that plate of crow that you had to eat plain or with sauce, salt and pepper?

[McX]

Considering Joel DeSpain's comments insisting calling in anyone armed and the discussion had about actively insisting business posting of signs shown in the attachment. What really is their opinion???

i loved some part i saw where some Capt. guy said; call us, and we will come and decide if we will approach them. progress? good thing i took my heart medication today.

[davegran]

Did you have that plate of crow that you had to eat plain or with sauce, salt and pepper?

It ain't the truth until there is a cite... no crow involved, just keeping my word.