AB-246 introduced

[BROKENSPROKET]

Here is the reply I got back after I apologized for all the emails he is getting on AB246

Greg,

I understand and appreciate the contact. I am sure that this bill is a long way off and I will be more than happy to continue to address those concerns as they arise.

My intention is to make sure criminals can't resist arrest in the manner they are able to do so now. Perhaps the language can be tightened up a bit to make sure the concerns of the carry community are addressed. This is why we float the ideas and have hearings and make amendments. Sometimes even we aren't perfect (I say that tongue in cheek as I know we aren't ever perfect).

Thanks again,

Scott


All you irrational and paranoid fears are being taken into consideration.

 

[protias]

You risk not only being shot, but loosing the case in court due to the ever present he said/she said syndrome. Courts admit to giving the police much more credibility than the accused. As it is illegal to film interaction with the police (because they don't want them breaking the law being recorded. Shhhh, they don't think we know that) you will most likely have no proof that the 7 pounds of cocaine found on you was planted.

In WI, it doesn't matter who you are talking to or witnessing, you can record anything as WI is a one party consent state.

 

[Teej]

I also do not see how the "bar has been lowered" to a single element.

Under the proposed changes, one _must_ either be armed, become armed, or threaten with the use of a weapon..._AND_ resist "through action or threat" - as in fight with or threaten the officer. Refusing to supply ID is not "action or threat".

They're just taking out the wording about barricading yourself in a house and wrapping it into "action or threat".

 

[HandyHamlet]

Refusing to supply ID is not "action or threat".

Two of the Madison 5 were cited with obstruction of justice for refusing to show ID. Then all five were cited for disorderly conduct. Even though there was no obstruction or disorderly conduct.

 

[Motofixxer]

Here are some definitions to hopefully add some clarity or even accurately describe in legal terms what will\could happen under this bill.

DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

CUSTODY: The care and keeping of anything; as when an article is said to be "in the custody of the court." People V. Burr, 41 How.Prac., N.Y., 296; Emmerson v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 25 S.W. 290; Roe v. Irwin, 32 Ga. 39. Also the detainer of a man's person by virtue of lawful process or authority; actual imprisonment. In a sentence that the defendant "be in custody until," etc., this term imports actual imprisonment. Smith v. Com., 59 Pa. 320; Turner v. Wilson, 49 Ind. 581; Ex parte Powers, D.C.Ky., 129 F. 985. Detention; charge; control; possession. The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession. Jones v. State, 26 Ga.App. 635, 107 S.E. 166; J. 0. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co., 223 Mich. 349, 193 N.W. 789, 790; State ex rel. Bricker v. Griffith, Ohio App., 36 N.E.2d 489, 491; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468, 470; Carpenter v. Lord, 88 Or. 128, 460 (Blacks Law 4th ED, Pg 460)




So taking into account the legal definitions, An officer that detains an individual for any reason, has that person in custody. If that person refuses in action or verbal threats and is armed, the officer can charge that person with a Felony. That my friends is agreeably a very bad possibility and likelihood. Rep Krug should understand the wording of the legislation he is proposing. History has proven that a dishonest officer will exploit and misuse that type of statute and people will get convicted under it.

 

[rcawdor57]

Thanks For Posting!

Here are some definitions to hopefully add some clarity or even accurately describe in legal terms what will\could happen under this bill.

DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

CUSTODY: The care and keeping of anything; as when an article is said to be "in the custody of the court." People V. Burr, 41 How.Prac., N.Y., 296; Emmerson v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 25 S.W. 290; Roe v. Irwin, 32 Ga. 39. Also the detainer of a man's person by virtue of lawful process or authority; actual imprisonment. In a sentence that the defendant "be in custody until," etc., this term imports actual imprisonment. Smith v. Com., 59 Pa. 320; Turner v. Wilson, 49 Ind. 581; Ex parte Powers, D.C.Ky., 129 F. 985. Detention; charge; control; possession. The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession. Jones v. State, 26 Ga.App. 635, 107 S.E. 166; J. 0. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co., 223 Mich. 349, 193 N.W. 789, 790; State ex rel. Bricker v. Griffith, Ohio App., 36 N.E.2d 489, 491; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468, 470; Carpenter v. Lord, 88 Or. 128, 460 (Blacks Law 4th ED, Pg 460)




So taking into account the legal definitions, An officer that detains an individual for any reason, has that person in custody. If that person refuses in action or verbal threats and is armed, the officer can charge that person with a Felony. That my friends is agreeably a very bad possibility and likelihood. Rep Krug should understand the wording of the legislation he is proposing. History has proven that a dishonest officer will exploit and misuse that type of statute and people will get convicted under it.

I agree 100%. This bill should NEVER be considered. It definitely opens the door for anyone open carrying to be charged with a felony. Thanks for posting!

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I agree 100%. This bill should NEVER be considered. It definitely opens the door for anyone open carrying to be charged with a felony. Thanks for posting!

946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

How does this bill open the door for anyone open carrying to be charged with a felony ?

Please lay out the scenario where this is plausable to you.

 

[rcawdor57]

Please Read The Post Above Mine That I Commented On.

946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

How does this bill open the door for anyone open carrying to be charged with a felony ?

Please lay out the scenario where this is plausable to you.

It's already laid out. I commented on it in the post above yours.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

It's already laid out. I commented on it in the post above yours.

What post #?

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

It's already laid out. I commented on it in the post above yours.

I post #8 you said:

It doesn't state "Arrest" any longer it simply states "CUSTODY". So "custody" could mean anything a police officer wants it to and Voila'! we get charged with a felony. What a bunch of hooey!

The fact is that it NEVER said "Arrest". You just made that up.

Second, 'custody' cannot mean anything that a police officer wants it to. Stop making stuff up!! Probable Cause is required.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Let's see if I have this right. The proposed law reads:

(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

I'll take the second condition first.

... if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon ...

Simple enough, person is armed.

Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody ...

The bill says only a threat is sufficient to meet the condition of a felony. Not only is it a threat that is sufficient but a threat at an "attempt" to prevent custody.

So, here's a scenario:
Person is legally carrying a firearm openly in a holster, second condition is met with an armed person. Police officers stop this person since they don't like the idea of armed citizens and asks for ID, or perhaps just to ask why the person has decided to go armed. The person replies with something like, "I do not wish to answer any questions", "Am I free to go?", or "It is none of your business". This person has just threatened an attempt to prevent custody.

It would seem to me that just stating a desire to leave could be viewed as a threat to attempt to prevent custody.

Let's look at the existing law.

946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
(b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
(c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

Part (a) states that the person must comply with a lawful attempt to take a person into custody. An officer asking for ID from a person that is not causing any nuisance has been shown in court, IIRC, to not be a lawful request. The bill does not specify the need of the custody to be lawful.

Part (b) requires that the person refuse to leave a building or retreat to a building or "place". I'm not sure what is considered a "place" but the implication is that a person has barricaded his/herself. The proposed bill would allow a person that is out in the open to be charged.

Part (c) states the person must be armed or has threatened use of a dangerous weapon.

So, I'll propose a few scenarios for each part.

Part (a):
An officer gives an order to "come out with your hands up", "place your hands on top of your head", "get down on the ground", "put down your weapon", or simply "stop" and the thug does not move, tells an officer which orifice that order may be placed, fires a shot, or keeps running.

Part (b):
For this condition to be met the thug must remain in a building or retreat to a building. Perhaps a person climbing a TV antenna tower might be enough to meet this condition since doing so would prevent an officer from following as doing so would place the officer at risk of falling or of injury from the thug in attempting to follow.

Part (c):
This part emphasizes that parts (a) and (b) must first be met and that the person remains or becomes armed.

Existing law has four conditions, lawful order must be given by an officer, accused must fail to comply, accused must by threat or action prevent custody, and the accused must have a dangerous weapon or threaten to use one.

The biggest problem I see is that the bill removes the condition that the officer issues a lawful order. The existing law seems to me to require action or threat to meet all conditions. The proposed bill removes the lawful order condition and seems to no longer require the person to act to meet all conditions. The proposed bill seems to me that both conditions can be met with an armed person, walking down the street, and not hearing an officer ask him/her to stop.

I see this law change as unnecessary and very bad. For every law it would seem to me that there is a problem in need of a solution, so I have to ask what problem is this change in law supposed to solve? I don't see a problem with the existing law.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

So, here's a scenario:
Person is legally carrying a firearm openly in a holster, second condition is met with an armed person. Police officers stop this person since they don't like the idea of armed citizens and asks for ID, or perhaps just to ask why the person has decided to go armed. The person replies with something like, "I do not wish to answer any questions", "Am I free to go?", or "It is none of your business". This person has just threatened an attempt to prevent custody.

BULL ****! How the hell do you come up with twisted logic like that?

 

[StalkingHorse]

Not that I recommend it but what if the person armed is being illegally arrested and resists the officer? They are well within their right to use whatever force necessary to resist unlawful arrest.

Quite incorrect. You must submit to any arrest and let the court system determine the legality.

WIS STAT 939.10  Common law crimes abolished; common law rules preserved. Common law crimes are abolished. The common law rules of criminal law not in conflict with chs. 939 to 951 are preserved.
History: 1979 c. 89; 1987 a. 332 s. 64; 2007 a. 97.

The common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.

 

[Packfanatic]

interesting....

BULL ****! How the hell do you come up with twisted logic like that?

Brokentsprocket, I know the answer............................................






Smoking too many corn husks in the fields heh!

 

[rcawdor57]

It's Obvious You Don't Agree.

BULL ****! How the hell do you come up with twisted logic like that?

Please don't make this a personal affront.

Simply put if the law is good to go as it is why change it? What does changing the law DO? How does it affect citizens who interact with the police? The bill changes the law from an "and" qualifier to an "OR" qualifier. It lowers the bar for this felony charge.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

BULL ****! How the hell do you come up with twisted logic like that?

Please don't make this a personal affront.

Simply put if the law is good to go as it is why change it? What does changing the law DO? How does it affect citizens who interact with the police? The bill changes the law from an "and" qualifier to an "OR" qualifier. It lowers the bar for this felony charge.

That response was for IA_Farmboy.

I am still waiting for responses from you in posts#29 & #30.

 

[rcawdor57]

Agree To Disagree...

That response was for IA_Farmboy.

I am still waiting for responses from you in posts#29 & #30.

We can agree to disagree on this topic. Have a nice day.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

We can agree to disagree on this topic. Have a nice day.

This is not a matter of opinion. You are saying things that are not true and I have a problem with that.

I mean no anemosity.

 

[oak1971]

This is not a matter of opinion. You are saying things that are not true and I have a problem with that.

I mean to anemosity.

Please translate into something resembling English.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Please translate into something resembling English.

Wow. that was not good. It was a typo. I fixed it. I think.