Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Two follow up gun-return tales from Milwaukee

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch

    Two follow up gun-return tales from Milwaukee
    Quote Originally Posted by Vielmetti, MJS
    He said police asked if they could check his Glock to make sure it wasn't involved in the shooting, and he voluntarily turned it in for inspection, and never got it back. [ ... ]"I kind of lost my respect for (police)," Simmons said. "It will take a while to earn that back after what I went through."

  2. #2
    Newbie protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    SE, WI
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member thieltech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beaver Dam
    wow that judge is a dope . " telling people u should get rid of your guns " .. YEA OKAY JUDGE>>> THAT WAY WE HAVE NO WAY TO PROTECT ARE FAMILY WHEN SOME IDIOT BREAKS IN TO ARE HOME AND STARTS SHOOTING ARE FAMILY ... i thinkin he might be on drugs .
    Last edited by thieltech; 12-31-2011 at 09:59 AM.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__ <<<<<<<<< I like this guys jeep .
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_) INNOvATIONS are what i leave behind for history

  4. #4
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Anderson, SC
    "Here you go officer, take a look at anything you want, I've got nothing to hide..."

    I bet they never do that again.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    North of DePere, south of Suamico
    Disgusting. How can those 'men' sleep at night?? When are the enforcers who are supposed to uphold the law going to be charged with crimes themselves?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    This is why you never allow a search without a warrant. How long until the people of Milwaukee and this state revolt?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Wisconsin, USA

    Question As Long As There Is "Qualified Immunity" They Will Do Whatever They Want...

    Qualified Immunity is used countless times to support an officers actions. There are many things wrong with police tactics that the courts uphold as legal over and over.

    "As long as it isn't happening to "me" why do I care?" That seems to be the most common reason for these events continuing to happen in our society. The mass majority of people just don't didn't happen to "them".

    If history is followed then the people will revolt after the "people" are in rail cars heading to unknown destinations. By then it is usually a bit late.

    The best I can suggest to all of us on this forum is to invest in at least one good video recorder (handheld) and keep it with you at all times. Not just for when you are open carrying but ALL THE TIME. When you need it, you will have it....turn it on and record.
    “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

  8. #8
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.

    As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

    In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.
    [... ]
    [FN]2. In Wisconsin, the concept of government immunity is "sometimes referred to as
    ,municipal' or 'governmental' immunity, or 'public officer' immunity, or even 'discretionary
    act' immunity." Hoskins v. Dodge County, 2002 WI App 40, 13, 251 Wis. 2d 276, 642
    N.W.2d 213.

    893.80  Claims against governmental bodies or officers, agents or employees; notice of injury; limitation of damages and suits.
    (3) Except as provided in this subsection, the amount recoverable by any person for any damages, injuries or death in any action founded on tort against any volunteer fire company organized under ch. 181 or 213, political corporation, governmental subdivision or agency thereof and against their officers, officials, agents or employees for acts done in their official capacity or in the course of their agency or employment, whether proceeded against jointly or severally, shall not exceed $50,000. The amount recoverable under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000 in any such action against a volunteer fire company organized under ch. 181 or 213 or its officers, officials, agents or employees. If a volunteer fire company organized under ch. 181 or 213 is part of a combined fire department, the $25,000 limit still applies to actions against the volunteer fire company or its officers, officials, agents or employees. No punitive damages may be allowed or recoverable in any such action under this subsection.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 12-31-2011 at 02:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts