• 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.

Cops won't return gun to man who shot robber in Aldi store

thieltech

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
92
Location
Beaver Dam
MPD thugs , this guy did the city and all the people that live in it a great service , by taking these gas station robbing thugs down:shocker: ... give the man his tool back and thank him . . end of story
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
I heard a rumor that a well known gun rights group in WISCONSIN that advocates CARRY is considering a law suit regarding this.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
The Article Says it is Evidence

I heard a rumor that a well known gun rights group in WISCONSIN that advocates CARRY is considering a law suit regarding this.

Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe it is needed as evidence?
3. Agree it is needed as evidence but don't care?

It further says the decision is that of the District Attorney, not the police.

Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe it is the DA's decision?
3. Don't care because it's an opportunity to bash MPD?

It also notes that Al-Mujaahid seems to have a pattern of having his firearms in situations that permit police to seize them.

Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe this is the case?
3. Don't care because it is irrelevant?
4. Don't care because it's an opportunity to bash MPD?

State law has a procedure to recover property under such circumstances. Mr. Al_Mujaahid apparently used it successfully on two occasions and also has a third case pending. If he thinks the claim of evidence is a ruse, he can do it again.

What does everybody think the correct procedure should be?
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
What does everybody think the correct procedure should be?

Did you not read this?

Email from WCInc.

On January 30th, 2012 a law-abiding Wisconsin concealed carry license holder, Nazir Al-mujaahid, used his sidearm to shoot a shotgun-weilding armed robber who had entered a north-side Aldi's grocery store in Milwaukee and threatened the cashier and customers. As is standard protocol, the armed citizen's holster, gun, and ammunition were taken into evidence by the Milwaukee Police Department.

A few days later the Milwaukee District Attorney's office cleared the armed citizen of any wrong-doing and declared the shooting justified.

Despite being exhonerated by the DA, making repeated attempts to obtain the return of his firearm from Milwaukee Police, and sending a letter to the DA's office requesting assistance in the return of his property, Mr. Al-Mujaahid's gun remains in Police possession.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. has observed what appears to be a pattern of civil-rights infringing behavior from the Milwaukee Police Department. The Milwaukee Police Department appears to have a practice of concocting baseless reasons to seize any and all guns they come across in the City - even when those guns have never been used in connection with a crime. The Police Department also appears to have a practice of refusing to return firearms or unduly delaying the return of firearms that were seized incident to an arrest despite the fact that no charges were brought or when the gun owner is exonerated by the court system.

WCI believes that these acts by the Milwaukee Police Department represent violations to law-abiding citizens constitutionally guaranteed right to be free from illegal seizures of their private property and their Constitutionally recognized right to keep and bear arms.

As Wisconsin Carry considers whether legal action against the City of Milwaukee is justified or required to correct this apparent illegal and immoral behavior, we call on the Milwaukee Police Department to return Mr. Al-Majaahid's gun to him without delay.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
apjonas said:
Did Complaining Posters:
2. Don't believe it is needed as evidence?
That. Nazir didn't do anything wrong, did not commit a crime.
Therefore, his property is not needed as evidence.

It further says the decision is that of the District Attorney, not the police.
And the DA has cleared Nazir.

It also notes that Al-Mujaahid seems to have a pattern of having his firearms in situations that permit police to seize them.
Don't care because it is irrelevant.
That could describe me, too. Or Frank.
What illegal actions police decide to take are irrelevant as far as them not returning said stolen property.
And if it's illegally taken, it's stolen. I don't care who stole it.

What does everybody think the correct procedure should be?
Since the DA has decided Nazir did nothing wrong, his property should be returned.
No court case, no judicial order, no further delay by MPD.
It should be returned just as fast as it was taken, in the same condition, all at one time.
Nothing in WI law prohibits them from doing so. It's only departmental policy.
We need to get the law changed to require property to be returned, instead of leaving it up to the discretion of the department involved.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Why should a law abiding citizen have to petition a court to get the police to do what they are supposed to do? The DA says the action was justified, that day the firearm should be returned (he should not have to go get it)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Why should a law abiding citizen have to petition a court to get the police to do what they are supposed to do? The DA says the action was justified, that day the firearm should be returned (he should not have to go get it)


In reality, the SOL is not over so the DA could change his mind, right? That's their viewpoint & its technically correct, just technically.

That's why I don't hand my gun over to them; it solves that issue. When I refuse the cops look at me like "what???" and they decide not to press it.

BUT I have not been involved with the shooting of a person (as a civilian anyway) ... just shooting varmints where people hear the shot can dial the cops...

When the cops say "I'm just doing my job" I tell them to get another job ...

But even people who get acquitted from a trial still have issues getting their guns back...maybe 'cause appeals are possible..but then why not after 30 days and no appeal? Simple: the gov't does not want you to have guns.
 

RR_Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
170
Location
WI
Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe it is needed as evidence?
3. Agree it is needed as evidence but don't care?

It further says the decision is that of the District Attorney, not the police.

Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe it is the DA's decision?
3. Don't care because it's an opportunity to bash MPD?

It also notes that Al-Mujaahid seems to have a pattern of having his firearms in situations that permit police to seize them.

Did Complaining Posters:

1. Not read the story?
2. Don't believe this is the case?
3. Don't care because it is irrelevant?
4. Don't care because it's an opportunity to bash MPD?

State law has a procedure to recover property under such circumstances. Mr. Al_Mujaahid apparently used it successfully on two occasions and also has a third case pending. If he thinks the claim of evidence is a ruse, he can do it again.

What does everybody think the correct procedure should be?

You might want to read more about the case (or event his thread) before posting making this type of sanctimonious post.
 
Top