• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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/Madison5/Doc_10_Acceptance_of_OOJ.pdf is the acceptance of the JUDGEMENT.

We split $10K after attorney fees.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
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???
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    93.9 KB · Views: 125

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
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.

[video=youtube;_qW9wqUI4Lg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qW9wqUI4Lg&feature=related[/video]
 
Last edited:

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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!
 
M

McX

Guest
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.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Missing the Point

Everybody is getting caught up on the word "judgment" when that is really not at the core of what people are disagreeing about. Paul F. is correct in that whether through a trial or an offer, a "judgment" results. But this "judgement" really does have the characteristics of a "settlement." Saying that a judgment resulted is as significant as saying that in either case a "judge" is involved. So what? What differs - and this is important - is the finding of facts. Without a trial, there is no true finding; the only "facts" we have is what is contained in the offer of judgment (which we haven't seen -- have we?) There is no moral determination as to right/wrong. If there had been a trial and the Culver 5 prevailed, one could say that the Madison PD was wrong, that they made a mistake, etc. Here, unless MPD was stupid enough to put such language in their offer, we don't have this. There was an offer to avoid trial. The $10K was offered and accepted. If a trial had been held any liability would have been determined by the jury and/or judge. It might have been $10K, it might have been $100K. The judge could have ordered other relief. We cannot know what would have happened. As confirmed by the spokesman, this offer and acceptance will have no impact on the behavior of MPD. If such offers (invariably $10,000 for some reason or so it seems) could change behavior there would be no need for more than the first one in Wisconsin. Now Act 35 may (or may not) change police policy and action but that is a separate issue. Anyway, Act 35 cannot help if the defendants can always get away with a cash buyout. So we can cheer until the next incident occurs. It may not be Madison but some other burg that rousts citizens and then says oops, sorry - here is ten grand to split after the lawyers and costs are paid. I don't fault those who accepted the settlement, err offer. If it was in their best interest to do so, it is not for others to complain. But we can lament that, once again, we don't have a definitive court ruling to provide guidance.
 

thieltech

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
92
Location
Beaver Dam
i was reading comments on another site and some one said the Madsion Police Department paided off the lawyers , to get them to drop the case . :eek:
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
i was reading comments on another site and some one said the Madsion Police Department paided off the lawyers , to get them to drop the case . :eek:

Well.... that would be libel. Our lawyer is John Monroe, who is one of the preeminent 2A lawyers in the country. I am not sure if he is exclusively 2A but I know he knows his stuff.

Of course he gets his fee. He doesn't work for free.

Here is the order approving the judgement: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19481227/Doc 11 Judgment.pdf
 
Last edited:

thieltech

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
92
Location
Beaver Dam
Well.... that would be libel. Our lawyer is John Monroe, who is one of the preeminent 2A lawyers in the country. I am not sure if he is exclusively 2A but I know he knows his stuff.

Of course he gets his fee. He doesn't work for free.

Here is the order approving the judgement: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19481227/Doc 11 Judgment.pdf

just so you know , i dont believe that to be true at any level , i just thought it was pretty out rages that some one would say that ..
 
Top