AB-246 introduced

[IA_farmboy]

That response was for IA_Farmboy.

I've delayed responding in hoping you'd cool off a bit. It seems you have not. So, I'm done here. I said what I wanted to say so I'll leave it at that. I reserve the option to change my mind and speak up later but I'm quite sure that I'll just be a silent observer.

 

[oak1971]

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

Much better. :lol:

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I've delayed responding in hoping you'd cool off a bit. It seems you have not. So, I'm done here. I said what I wanted to say so I'll leave it at that. I reserve the option to change my mind and speak up later but I'm quite sure that I'll just be a silent observer.

Again, you said:

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.

I find it troubling that people think that way. I suppose you think that I could be charged with Sexual Assault for whistling at a female officer.

The best LEO's could throw at us was 941.23 or 947.01. I bleive that it takes an irrational and paranoid psyche to believe that LEO's could somehow use 946.415 against LAC's excersing their Constitututional Right.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Tell me what you think of the third one at the bottom. It still does not have 'Retreats or remains in a building or place' but 'lawful' is back in.

This is the way the statute reads now:

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 is guilty of a Class I felony.

This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

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.

This is how it could read if amended slightly different:

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 refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody through action or threat, while 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.

 

[bmwguy11]

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".

The word "action" is a pretty broad term...

 

[bmwguy11]

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.

The officer claims you resisted him/her in some manner through either action or verbiage.

Bam. Felony.

This is the real world. Not all cops are "good guys and 100% honest". Given what we see actually happen, this law is open for abuse by a "not so good" cop, particularly one who might feel that citizens do not have the right to go armed. I mean hell, haven't you ever watched cops on TV? Ever seen where they suddenly and without warning throw a guy to the ground cuz he was "resisting" and you're like... WTF the dude wasn't resisting and was just standing there.

I post #8 you said:


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.

Liberal Sally Sue calles the cops for a "crazy man with a gun" at a grocery store. Probable Cause is now present.

Once again, you are a regular on this forum. You know that these things DO HAPPEN. These aren't even "what if's". They happen!! And this law will now make it easy for cops to charge felonies because you "resisted".

 

[bmwguy11]

Tell me what you think of the third one at the bottom. It still does not have 'Retreats or remains in a building or place' but 'lawful' is back in.

This is the way the statute reads now:

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 is guilty of a Class I felony.

This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

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.

This is how it could read if amended slightly different:

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 refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody through action or threat, while 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.

That doesn't help in any of the scenarios I have laid out for you, nor most of the real world actual scenarios and things we see happen. As I have said several times, this law is open for abuse by an officer that would choose to use it in that way. And again, these aren't even "what if's". They actually happen.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

OK, let's all take a deep breath.

Let's start at the beginning.

What is the Representative trying to fix? What is wrong with it at the moment? If he's just trying to 'clean up the language', has there been instances where it has been mis-interpreted?

 

[rcawdor57]

Well, If I Remember Correctly...

OK, let's all take a deep breath.

Let's start at the beginning.

What is the Representative trying to fix? What is wrong with it at the moment? If he's just trying to 'clean up the language', has there been instances where it has been mis-interpreted?

The "Reps" are trying to make better use of the "law" so people can be more easily convicted of a felony. I would have to go back to the emails in the earlier posts to be sure of the wording but that is how I read it. Why else change a law which states "AND ALL OF THE FOLLOWING" ....to "OR"?? This is another method to disarm the People through felonious prosecution. What's next on their agenda?

 

[RR_Broccoli]

Considering the number of times the DA, and officers had colluded to remove rights from citizens by charging someone with "resisting arrest" and ONLY "resisting arrest", this amendment is CLEARLY a bad one.

The scenario listed above, is also often used to cover up cases where an officer used excessive force for detainment or arrest.

If WI Legislators would like to "clean up Wisconsin laws" they can start with things like 101.07 where it is illegal to prohibit manually flushed urinals, or perhaps the criminal charges and fines for serving margarine in state prisons97.18(5). There are tons of no longer enforced laws that could be removed to clean things up. None of those things are being touched.

Somehow, I find your excuse of "clean up Wisconsin laws" to be disingenuous.

Redefining this law, like talking to police officers, can only hurt us further. There is no reason to do so. That is self-evident truth.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

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.

Unless they are using excessive force, the WI Supreme court ruled that you do not have the right to use force against them...

939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self−defense.
It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577
N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96−0914

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Assembly Bill 246 has been scheduled for a public hearing by Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections in the Assembly. Date/time: October 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM. Location: 300 Northeast

I still would like to know what this 'fix' is addressing.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

It was introduced by Representative Krug who is a Republican. I am trying to figure that one out.

Yea.. I hear ya.... Rep. Kerkman (my Rep.) (seemed) willing to listen to my e-mails to her on the original SB-93 is also a sponsor of this Bill...

But then again, looked what happened to SB-93... It does not look good for this Bill... As I stated in other threads, It kinda seems like no matter how many e-mails we send, no matter how much we "speak out" against a Bill , "they will do what they want no matter what we say or how often we say it... Similar to whats happening now with the "Castle Doctrine" Bill and "Stand Your Ground"... And exactly what happend to SB-93

Oh well, here we go again... E-mail sent to Rep. Kerkman....

Edited to add E-mail...

Concerns With Bill AB-246
FROM: XXXXXX XXXX
TO:Samantha.Kerkman@legis.wisconsin.gov
Message flagged Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:42 AM Message body

Ms. Kerkman

First let me thank you again for your willingness to "listen" to me in the past regarding my concerns thought the process of getting a Concealed Carry Bill signed by the Gov. Walker. I hope you are able to extend me the same consideration in this e-mail. Thank you.

It is sort of a long read but please find the time to review this thread discussing Bill AB-246. I am sending you this e-mail as I see that you are one of the sponsors of this Bill.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94770-AB-246-introduced

Personally, I have not yet made a decision as to how I stand on this issue but I am in the process of studying the infomration to reach a conclusion as to my position. I am lening toward the conclusion that based on some of the points posted that is is not a good thing.

I just wanted you to be aware of our concerns.

A reply with your thoughts (after reading the thread) will also be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Still... Your suppoter.

XXXXXX X. XXXX
XXX X XXXXXXX XX
Silver Lake WI
X-XXX-XXX-XXXX Cell

Member "Wisconsin Carry Inc."

Outdoorsman1

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Ok... see my post above...

I just got off the phone with Samantha Kerkman after an 17 minute and 8 second conversation. She called me regarding my e-mail above. She felt that the Bill in question was more of a protective tool for any LEO that encounters a "criminal" with a firearm that is not willing to be taken into custody. She also was under the impression that in any arrest the D.A. reviews the charges and makes the decision based on a number of factors whether or not the charge is valid and whether or not to prosecute under a felony charge. I voiced "our" concerns a few times and she was already on this thread from my link and did agree to read it for a better understanding of whatI was trying to say. Hey Paul.... She mentioned your name from reading your OP and I told her that you were our go to guy when it comes to all things legislative... I might have used the term Guru... ok I did use the term Guru....

We also discussed the Castle Doctrine Bill and Stand your Ground. Apparently the Castle Doctine Bill will be up for debate TOMORROW... I mentioned Florida's Stand Your Ground verbage and that I had e-mailed the statute to her in the past. She was also under the impression that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground could (would) not be included in this version of the Casrle Doctrine. Something about one step at a time.... She was how ever open to the reality of introducing a Stand Your Ground Bill in the future... Oh yea, I also mentioned that her and I would be talking in the future about passing a true Constitutional Carry Bill... She also seemed open to that. In closing she told me that her office is next to Representative's Krug's (?) office and after reading this thread she will discuss our concerns with him before the debate.

I thanked her for her willingness to address our concerns.

Outdoorsman1

PS: Please excuse any typo's or spelling errors as I kinda typed this in a hurry.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I still would like to know what this 'fix' is addressing.

To better explain what Rep. Kerkman told Outdoorsman, I offer the following:

#1. A female who does not have any kind of, criminal record, has a clean driving record is dating a guy who does have a criminal record but is trying to stay out of trouble. Ya know who good girls fall for bad boys and try to rescue them. For some reason, the guy has a warrant for out for him. He either fell behind on payments for fines or restitution, or missed an appointment with a probation officer. Police are on the way to their house to exercise the warrant, but he just left for work, so that when they get there, he is gone. They knock on the door and the girl answers. They find that he is not they and ask her where he is. She says that he left to visit family in California and left heading west in a blue car. They find out later that he left in a white truck and headed east to a job site.

#2. A hood rat with several misdemeanor convictions has been stopped based on RAS or a past, present, or future. When the run his name, they find that he has a warrant so the begin to place him under arrest. He resists arrest and it takes several officers to restrain him. He had a handgun on him but was not able to get to it, or he tries to get one of the officers weapons.

The girl in scenario #1 and the guy in scenario #2 can both be prosecuted under 946.41(1) which is a Class A Misdemeanor. The hoodrat cannot be prosecuted under 946.415(2) which is a Class I Felony, unless he retreats or remains in a building or place. So, AB246 removes that language so that Class I Felony statute can be applied to the guy in scenario #2.

Also, AB246 does not take 946.415 down to one element. It takes it down to 2 elements, but does it in one sentence.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

To better explain what Rep. Kerkman told Outdoorsman, I offer the following:

#1. A female who does not have any kind of, criminal record, has a clean driving record is dating a guy who does have a criminal record but is trying to stay out of trouble. Ya know who good girls fall for bad boys and try to rescue them. For some reason, the guy has a warrant for out for him. He either fell behind on payments for fines or restitution, or missed an appointment with a probation officer. Police are on the way to their house to exercise the warrant, but he just left for work, so that when they get there, he is gone. They knock on the door and the girl answers. They find that he is not they and ask her where he is. She says that he left to visit family in California and left heading west in a blue car. They find out later that he left in a white truck and headed east to a job site.

#2. A hood rat with several misdemeanor convictions has been stopped based on RAS or a past, present, or future. When the run his name, they find that he has a warrant so the begin to place him under arrest. He resists arrest and it takes several officers to restrain him. He had a handgun on him but was not able to get to it, or he tries to get one of the officers weapons.

The girl in scenario #1 and the guy in scenario #2 can both be prosecuted under 946.41(1) which is a Class A Misdemeanor. The hoodrat cannot be prosecuted under 946.415(2) which is a Class I Felony, unless he retreats or remains in a building or place. So, AB246 removes that language so that Class I Felony statute can be applied to the guy in scenario #2.

Also, AB246 does not take 946.415 down to one element. It takes it down to 2 elements, but does it in one sentence.

Thank you for the explanation. I guess I still don't know that the risk of abuse is worth the small fix. In scenario 2, couldn't they pile on existing charges? Assault of a police officer? Disorderly conduct?