Police Forum Thread on the Culver's 5

[Brass Magnet]

who is gecko? I dont get it.

Just google gecko45 and read. Just make sure not to be drinking anything or it will end up on your keyboard and monitor.

 

[anmut]

I've been watching the police forum thread and think that there are some good points being made by the guys that signed up to have the discussion from this board.

I ask that you guys post a link to the 911 call and then ask them if what happened was what they would have done.

 

[The Don]

Just google gecko45 and read. Just make sure not to be drinking anything or it will end up on your keyboard and monitor.

I checked it out last night while I couldn't sleep. Hilarious stuff.

 

[Rich B]

Doesn't this unwarranted attack perfectly illustrate the problem we are up against with abusive LEO attitudes (which I am not asserting represent all LEOs at all)?

http://apbweb.com/forums/news-5/2-wi-carry-members-ticketed-43027/index5.html#post528480

I take issue with this. I wouldn't come to your house and inform your moderators how or what wording to consider. I am quite capable of speaking my mind as I see fit as are you. Please consider your wording in the future while you are here.
I am a very respectful person with almost everyone to a fault sometimes. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have to disrespect you. I appreciate your candor and your views I just don't agree with them. I hope that as your participation here continues we can mutually learn something from each other.

Respect my authoritah! I was about to make a little man syndrome joke, and then I realized he is already admitting that in his profile.

 

[Rich B]

Another great one. I like how we OCers are being told that we have to maintain a higher level of professionalism and respect (I agree of course), but the LEOs on the forum make posts like this:

http://apbweb.com/forums/news-5/2-wi-carry-members-ticketed-43027/index6.html#post528535

I understand it perfectly. You are doing less to help your cause. You liken yourself to some church members in Kansas that exercise their rights all the time at funerals. It is their right but they aren't making a lot of friends exercising them.

How do you feel about that comparison? Is it time to break out Godwin's law? If a law abiding citizen simply going about their daily routine with a lawfully carried firearm can be likened to a hate group protesting soldier's funerals, then surely a bunch of LEOs who advocate stomping all over civil rights can be compared to Nazi's, right?

Alas, I am more professional than that. (Also, as they have made clear, they can say what they want, but we have to respect them in 'their house' or get banned.)

 

[The Don]

Here's the thing that gets me...some police and some of the general public are apparently uncomfortable with us exercising our Rights, even though they admit we have the Right in question.

So when women gained the right to vote, should they have not voted because it made some men uncomfortable? When blacks/african americans gained the right to vote, should they have not voted because it made some men and women uncomfortable?

What other rights should not be exercised because it makes others uncomfortable?

 

[maclean]

Here's the thing that gets me...some police and some of the general public are apparently uncomfortable with us exercising our Rights, even though they admit we have the Right in question.

So when women gained the right to vote, should they have not voted because it made some men uncomfortable? When blacks/african americans gained the right to vote, should they have not voted because it made some men and women uncomfortable?

What other rights should not be exercised because it makes others uncomfortable?

I fail to see how disagreeing with a right is something less than the exercise of another right itself.

So long as your right is not interfered with, anyone in this country is free to believe whatever they wish. The idea that one point of view is morally superior than the other, or that comparisons should be drawn to the deliberate trouncing of the rights of women or minorities is somehow excused is unsupported.

Could you argue differently?

(edited for grammatical error)

 

[maclean]

Another great one. I like how we OCers are being told that we have to maintain a higher level of professionalism and respect (I agree of course),

I would expect as a matter of course that if I were to come here and act out, that I would be shown the door.

I choose to conduct myself the same there that I do here, but that is a personal decision outside of the terms of service of my board.

I must say that so far everyone is being very respectful, with limited exception on both sides of the debate.

 

[Rich B]

I would expect as a matter of course that if I were to come here and act out, that I would be shown the door.

I choose to conduct myself the same there that I do here, but that is a personal decision outside of the terms of service of my board.

I must say that so far everyone is being very respectful, with limited exception on both sides of the debate.

I have yet to see anyone on the OC side make any personal attacks or disparage anyone.

However, being told that I am like a hate group because I practice the legal carrying of a firearm is another matter.

And that was the entire point of my post. I have a moderator on your site making statements like that, and I find it interesting that nothing is done about it, but I would surely be dealt with promptly if I reciprocated. So I just point it out as a fine example of what reasoned discourse means to that user instead.

 

[maclean]

I have a moderator on your site making statements like that, and I find it interesting that nothing is done about it, but I would surely be dealt with promptly if I reciprocated. So I just point it out as a fine example of what reasoned discourse means to that user instead.

What would happen here given similar circumstances?

 

[Brass Magnet]

Already PM'd this to maclean. I think someone needs to post it over there to clear the air since the thread was based on Wisconsin.

968.24Temporary questioning without arrest. After
having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
that such person is committing, is about to commit or has com-
mitted a crime, and may demand the name and address of the per-
son and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.

Notice the officer is able to demand but there is no penalty to refuse the officers demands peacably.

946.41Resisting or obstructing officer.
(1) Except as
provided in subs. (2m) and (2r), whoever knowingly resists or
obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an offi-
cial capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of a Class A mis-
demeanor.
(2) In this section:
(a) “Obstructs” includes without limitation knowingly giving
false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his
or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
(b) “Officer” means a peace officer or other public officer or
public employee having the authority by virtue of the officer’s or
employee’s office or employment to take another into custody.
(2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following cir-
cumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) The violator gives false information or places physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead an officer.
(b) At a criminal trial, the trier of fact considers the false infor-
mation or physical evidence.
(c) The trial results in the conviction of an innocent person.
(2r) Whoever violates sub. (1) and causes substantial bodily
harm to an officer is guilty of a Class H felony.
(3) Whoever by violating this section hinders, delays or pre-
vents an officer from properly serving or executing any summons
or civil process, is civilly liable to the person injured for any actual
loss caused thereby and to the officer or the officer’s superior for
any damages adjudged against either of them by reason thereof.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1983 a. 189; 1989 a. 121; 1993 a. 486; 2001 a. 109; 2009
a. 251.
The state must prove that the accused knew that the officer was acting in an official
capacity and knew that the officer was acting with lawful authority when the accused
allegedly resisted or obstructed the officer. State v. Lossman, 118 Wis. 2d 526, 348
N.W.2d 159 (1984).
Knowingly providing false information with intent to mislead is obstruction as a
matter of law. State v. Caldwell, 154 Wis. 2d 683, 454 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1990).
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Fleeing and hiding from an officer may constitute obstructing. State v. Grobstick,
200 Wis. 2d 242, 546 N.W.2d 494 (1996), 94−1045.
There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminal-
izes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminal-
izes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. The latter can never include the former. State
v. Reed, 2005 WI 53, 280 Wis. 2d 68, 695 N.W.2d 315, 03−1781
“Lawful authority,” as that term is used in sub. (1), requires that police conduct be
in compliance with both the federal and state constitutions, in addition to any applica-
ble statutes. State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, 317 Wis. 2d 586, 767 N.W.2d 187,
07−2095.

 

[The Don]

I fail to see how disagreeing with a right is something less than the exercise of another right itself.

So long as your right is not interfered with, anyone in this country is free to believe whatever they wish. The idea that one point of view is morally superior than the other, or that comparisons should be drawn to the deliberate trouncing of the rights of women or minorities is somehow excused is unsupported.

Could you argue differently?

(edited for grammatical error)

Sorry for the confusion. When I said "uncomfortable with" what I had implied in that is that they also want us prevented from exercising that right. Does the clarification below help?

-----what my original post should have said-----
Here's the thing that gets me...some police and some of the general public are apparently uncomfortable with us exercising our Rights, to the point where they think it's okay for the police to (and/or want the police to) prevent us from exercising that Right, even though they admit we have the Right in question.

So when women gained the Right to vote, should they have been prevented from voting because it made some men uncomfortable? When blacks/african americans gained the Right to vote, should they have been prevented from voting because it made some men and women uncomfortable?

What other Rights should be prevented from being exercised because it makes others uncomfortable?
-----end updated original post-----

To what you said, though, you're correct, they do absolutely have the right to dislike the fact that we exercise this right. However, that right ends at the point where they start trying to prevent us from exercising our right.

I think we're basically saying the same thing. Your thoughts, maclean?

 

[maclean]

Sound reasonable to me, thank you for clarifying.

 

[maclean]

Already PM'd this to maclean. I think someone needs to post it over there to clear the air since the thread was based on Wisconsin.

968.24Temporary questioning without arrest. After
having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
that such person is committing, is about to commit or has com-
mitted a crime, and may demand the name and address of the per-
son and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.

Notice the officer is able to demand but there is no penalty to refuse the officers demands peacably.

946.41Resisting or obstructing officer.
(1) Except as
provided in subs. (2m) and (2r), whoever knowingly resists or
obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an offi-
cial capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of a Class A mis-
demeanor.
(2) In this section:
(a) “Obstructs” includes without limitation knowingly giving
false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his
or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
(b) “Officer” means a peace officer or other public officer or
public employee having the authority by virtue of the officer’s or
employee’s office or employment to take another into custody.
(2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following cir-
cumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) The violator gives false information or places physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead an officer.
(b) At a criminal trial, the trier of fact considers the false infor-
mation or physical evidence.
(c) The trial results in the conviction of an innocent person.
(2r) Whoever violates sub. (1) and causes substantial bodily
harm to an officer is guilty of a Class H felony.
(3) Whoever by violating this section hinders, delays or pre-
vents an officer from properly serving or executing any summons
or civil process, is civilly liable to the person injured for any actual
loss caused thereby and to the officer or the officer’s superior for
any damages adjudged against either of them by reason thereof.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1983 a. 189; 1989 a. 121; 1993 a. 486; 2001 a. 109; 2009
a. 251.
The state must prove that the accused knew that the officer was acting in an official
capacity and knew that the officer was acting with lawful authority when the accused
allegedly resisted or obstructed the officer. State v. Lossman, 118 Wis. 2d 526, 348
N.W.2d 159 (1984).
Knowingly providing false information with intent to mislead is obstruction as a
matter of law. State v. Caldwell, 154 Wis. 2d 683, 454 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1990).
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Fleeing and hiding from an officer may constitute obstructing. State v. Grobstick,
200 Wis. 2d 242, 546 N.W.2d 494 (1996), 94−1045.
There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminal-
izes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminal-
izes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. The latter can never include the former. State
v. Reed, 2005 WI 53, 280 Wis. 2d 68, 695 N.W.2d 315, 03−1781
“Lawful authority,” as that term is used in sub. (1), requires that police conduct be
in compliance with both the federal and state constitutions, in addition to any applica-
ble statutes. State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, 317 Wis. 2d 586, 767 N.W.2d 187,
07−2095.

I think our argument over there (save one person who claimed to be an unverified LEO and the OP who is NOT an LEO) has not really been about Wisconsin or what happened there.

If you feel differently, I will post that there.

 

[Rich B]

What would happen here given similar circumstances?

The moderators here are very good at removing personal attacks and things that would disparage the community.

 

[Rich B]

I think our argument over there (save one person who claimed to be an unverified LEO and the OP who is NOT an LEO) has not really been about Wisconsin or what happened there.

If you feel differently, I will post that there.

I have been trying to curtail the debate to the facts in Wisconsin the whole time, but I know we all slipped off track a bunch of times.

 

[The Don]

Sound reasonable to me, thank you for clarifying.

No problem. Thanks for pointing it out. The way I had it written originally definitely was a less accurate representation of the point I was trying to make.

As an aside, and I've said this in another place or two on the forum, but I want to say it again - I have no problem with the police in general. I'm friends with a lot of them in my home town and I have a couple relatives and in-laws in various police agencies, as well.

My problem in this particular situation is that the police involved (and subsequently the Chief, it seems) are not following the law, even though they know what the law is, apparently because they don't agree with the law.

As a private citizen, I'm expected to follow the law. I'm responsible for my actions if I violate the law, whether I know I'm violating the law or not, whether I agree with the law or not. With that in mind, I expect (at a minimum) the same from those who've willingly taken on the responsibility of enforcing those laws.

To put it more simply - The law is the law, it applies to everyone equally, as do the consequences for breaking the law.

 

[Brass Magnet]

The moderators here are very good at removing personal attacks and things that would disparage the community.

Just want to make sure this guy knows the Wisconsin law on the subject because he's arguing about being able to arrest for obstruction on failure to provide ID.

Pudge

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbur0802
No one is arguing this. But you must have RS. If you chose to not articulate this, there is no way for me to know it, and your obstruction claim is not going to go far. If you have no RS to begin with, there is nothing you can do to me for refusing.

BTW, I don't know of you locale's specifics, but in both Racine, WI and Madison, WI, it is pretty evident that obstruction charge will not go anywhere (except perhaps a civil court where you might be the defendant).


And if a demand is made, I will. If refused and obstruction is charged it will and has gone through the courts and been convicted.

I still don't explain my RS unless I feel it necessary.

I just want to clear the air is all. As far as the "Madison 5" are concerned.

 

[The Don]

The moderators here are very good at removing personal attacks and things that would disparage the community.

Yes they are, and I (at least) appreciate their efforts in that regard (even the time it came back to bite me).

 

[Rich B]

Just want to make sure this guy knows the Wisconsin law on the subject because he's arguing about being able to arrest for obstruction on failure to provide ID.


I just want to clear the air is all. As far as the "Madison 5" are concerned.

Even worse, he is from Ohio, and it appears he is even more legally troubled in Ohio if he truly practices what he is preaching.