Being hassled by Milwaukee PD right now

[TaurusToter]

http://www.newstalk1130.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=vicki_mckenna

I'm not a pod kind of guy either, but you can just click play

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

figures, i'm always a day late, and a cheeseburger short. Paul, could you post a link to the interview for those of us who are not pod people?

I believe this is the one: http://www.newstalk1130.com/cc-comm...=vm_11-14-11_hour1_part1_1321295984_26472.mp3

 

[bigdaddy1]

It is my understanding that she will be fighting this in the courts, so as always it may not be a good idea to provide them with information about the case via this forum.

 

[McX]

http://www.newstalk1130.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=vicki_mckenna

I'm not a pod kind of guy either, but you can just click play

these things are important, someone has to ask: so if your listening to your i-pod, and the program is using foul language does that make it a poddy-mouth?

 

[TaurusToter]

these things are important, someone has to ask: so if your listening to your i-pod, and the program is using foul language does that make it a poddy-mouth?

:banghead: Never thought of it like that...........

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

It is my understanding that she will be fighting this in the courts, so as always it may not be a good idea to provide them with information about the case via this forum.

Well then, SHE should not be posting about it or be doing radio interviews. :banghead:

 

[Peacekeeper]

MKEgal ...

Excellent radio interview ... I wish you well ... The cops seem to be soo wrong on this one!

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Donation sent....

STOP THE BICKERING.....

Outdoorsman1

 

[Brass Magnet]

Business parking lots are premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles and not the same as you sitting in your driveway or even on your own private property. If this argument is raised it will be up to the courts to decide.
In the big picture this may not be relevent when investigating suspected loitering which may be more relevent to demanding that a person identify themselves.

What?
First of all, I can't make sense of this sentence:

In the big picture this may not be relevent when investigating suspected loitering which may be more relevent to demanding that a person identify themselves.

Second, the only time the enforcers can ever demand ID with any teeth in Wisconsin is when the "subject" is operating a motor vehicle under that license (or now, if they know you are carrying under your CCL). It clearly doesn't apply on private property, implied consent or no.

It seems you are really trying to stretch here; that is if I half-understand that sentence.

 

[rodbender]

Will someone please post when/if she gets charged with CCW? I will send money to help if it is gun related only. Sorry guys.

 

[wrightme]

What?
First of all, I can't make sense of this sentence:

Second, the only time the enforcers can ever demand ID with any teeth in Wisconsin is when the "subject" is operating a motor vehicle under that license (or now, if they know you are carrying under your CCL). It clearly doesn't apply on private property, implied consent or no.

It seems you are really trying to stretch here; that is if I half-understand that sentence.

Simple.

Driving requires a person have a license, and from the discussion here, WI requires the driver to carry such AND present it upon demand to LE.
If the person is not driving, unless WI statute requires it, presenting an ID is not required.
If WI statute requires that a person identify themselves under RAS, then the person may be compelled to identify themselves; as in the case of loitering on property not their own.


NOTE: "Identify themselves" is not the same as "present ID."

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Will someone please post when/if she gets charged with CCW? I will send money to help if it is gun related only. Sorry guys.

She is one of us....that is good enough for me.

I will admit my donation was small ($10.00) as I am not that finacially blessed, but ANY ammount is better than not donating at all.

I would think that if there is money to be sent it should be sent. If there is no money to be sent then why post at all? As I said, simply because she is one of us, it should be sent. Besides, she was open carrying her firearm, has had a couple of past serious firearm related hassles by local LEO, and might be facing a firearm related charge... WHY WAIT...

Please understand that I totally understand not being able to afford donating and this is not intended as "Bickering". I am just having a hard time understanding a post that there is money to be donated but "only if it it gun related"...? I would also understand not donating if it was 100% NOT firarm related, but this is not the case here. I can not help but wonder how this would have played out if she had not been open carrying. I was personally told early on, by an LEO at the arresting station that she was being charged with carrying a concealed weapon (illeagally of course), and there is still that possibility. I do not think she would have been detained as long as she was if she had not been carryig (thus increasing her expense)... hense firearm related...

Sorry guy

Outdoorsman1

 

[Brass Magnet]

What?
First of all, I can't make sense of this sentence:

Second, the only time the enforcers can ever demand ID with any teeth in Wisconsin is when the "subject" is operating a motor vehicle under that license (or now, if they know you are carrying under your CCL). It clearly doesn't apply on private property, implied consent or no.

It seems you are really trying to stretch here; that is if I half-understand that sentence.

Simple.

Driving requires a person have a license, and from the discussion here, WI requires the driver to carry such AND present it upon demand to LE.
If the person is not driving, unless WI statute requires it, presenting an ID is not required.
If WI statute requires that a person identify themselves under RAS, then the person may be compelled to identify themselves; as in the case of loitering on property not their own.


NOTE: "Identify themselves" is not the same as "present ID."

I shouldn't have used "demand ID" I should have said "demand identity". Wisconsin lacks a "stop and ID" statute with teeth. Except under the circumstances I outlined, you can deny your identity without repercussion besides being cited for "contempt of cop" charges.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

... Or someone who doesn't catch sarcasm.

Always possible; it Is overdue for annual service.

 

[oak1971]

Will someone please post when/if she gets charged with CCW? I will send money to help if it is gun related only. Sorry guys.

Its entirely gun related, the police know they screwed up and are backpedaling with lesser charges so far. If she would not have had a gun, we would not be talking about it.

 

[rodbender]

She is one of us....that is good enough for me.

I will admit my donation was small ($10.00) as I am not that finacially blessed, but ANY ammount is better than not donating at all.

I would think that if there is money to be sent it should be sent. If there is no money to be sent then why post at all? As I said, simply because she is one of us, it should be sent. Besides, she was open carrying her firearm, has had a couple of past serious firearm related hassles by local LEO, and might be facing a firearm related charge... WHY WAIT...

Please understand that I totally understand not being able to afford donating and this is not intended as "Bickering". I am just having a hard time understanding a post that there is money to be donated but "only if it it gun related"...? I would also understand not donating if it was 100% NOT firarm related, but this is not the case here. I can not help but wonder how this would have played out if she had not been open carrying. I was personally told early on, by an LEO at the arresting station that she was being charged with carrying a concealed weapon (illeagally of course), and there is still that possibility. I do not think she would have been detained as long as she was if she had not been carryig (thus increasing her expense)... hense firearm related...

Sorry guy

Outdoorsman1

Oh, there is money to be sent. I could pay her entire lagal bill and not miss it. I will send the usual amount that is more than most and perhaps less than some. But it needs to be gun related (guilt or innocence matters not) for me to send it, otherwise anyone with a traffic ticket that they wanted to fight and could not afford an attorney for could get donations. The line is drawn at true gun related charges only.

 

[rodbender]

Its entirely gun related, the police know they screwed up and are backpedaling with lesser charges so far. If she would not have had a gun, we would not be talking about it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Let me know if she is charged with a gun related crime.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

So.... why are we harassing people that are putting caveats on donating their hard earned money?

I have used that logic for others in the past.

Personally, I am going to give because I know MKEGal and I want to. If others want to limit their assistance to a specific gun charge, let them be. WCI has basically said they aren't going to get involved unless there is a gun charge either.

 

[oak1971]

Not hassling, just discussing. All are free to do as they wish.

 

[9orangeletters]

Just registered and first post, read about this on the PAFOA. To be honest, she's getting charged with contempt of cop because they couldn't get a gun charge to stick. It's a backdoor to restrict her firearm rights and hassle her for carrying and not submitting to the whims of the police.

Also, I'm watching the HR822 debate online and my ire is up. Grrrr. :cuss:

Sent what I could. Might be more inbound depending on what Friday has in store for me.

Stick it to them, never back down.