Who NEEDS a Gun in Wisconsin

[trailblazer2003]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

trailblazer2003 wrote:

You know, why didn't the store hire private security, or have remote video monitoring.

Good questions, by all means, and there are logical answers. In Wisconsin, security guards are observers, and rarely armed. We have no castle doctrine, so the guards must retreat if armed, generally speaking. So, at $45 per hour, the store would lose money, and the guard would have to walk out of the store into the parking lot and call police.

Good to know if I ever do see an armed guard at a store. Eye candy to keep "some" low level thugs at bay. Also $45 doesn't sound bad, unfortunatly the guard will only get about $11 if he/she is lucky. I made more as an unarmed in a hospital in Baltimore!

 

[BJA]

imported post

The 4 out of 9 people that got shot all needed a gun!!! WTF??? I mean i know when you go swimming you don't count on anything like this happening but if I was up north i'd be carrying and would most likely take them with my shorts swimming taking my holster and pistol off first, behind cover if i needed to use it and very close. (thats what i do everytime i put a gun down is strategically place it.( like when deer hunting)



Alli know is that this is disgusting!!! that this happened and tehy were so defenseless.

 

[S.E.WI]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Lammie wrote:

Can you believe it? The eight Minneapolis cops that raided the wrong house last December have received medals. They received bad information and raided the house because they were told a gang member with guns lived there. The home owner thought the cops were intruders and shot at them to protect his family. The cops returned fire and shot up the place. Undoubtably they shot with intent to kill the homeowner but failed. Minneapolis police chief Tim Dolan said "The officers put themselves in harm's way. They were shot at and shot and deserved to be recognized". How do we protect ourselves from our protectors? Especially when they get medals for shooting at us.

Yes, I'm glad I didn't have anything in my mouth when I read that. Looks like the decision to award medals is taking quite a beating in the press too.

The person responsible for sending them to the wrong address should have been fired at the very least.

The Minneapolis police chief was so anxious to hand out some feel-good medals, and this is the best he could find? Been a slow year for the police there?

Another thing, these were "SWAT?" They weren't very effective, were they? What the hell kind of training did they get? The "untrained" victim got hits on, what? Three of them? SWAT fired wildly getting zero hits. Pathetic.

Last but not least, it's a slap in the face to police who did their job well-- and didn't @#$% up-- and received no special recognition.

People assume that the police are well trained. Bad assumption. Let's just say that I know for a fact that there is one PD that will have their officers shoot until they qualify. (Hit a paper plate at 7yrds, 21 feet) If at first you don't succeed, try try again. The lack of training goes beyond just shooting too.

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Sometimes I find it hard to believe how gullible people can be. I had one person respond to my recent post that the reason the Minneapolis police fired so many shots is because they were just trying to wound the homeowner or scare him into surrender. Where do people get those ideas? When a police officer draws his weapon with the intent to return deadly fire they are trained to do it with only one intent "shoot to kill". It is perposperous to think they would only shoot to wound or scare. For their safety, the safety of fellow officers and the safety of bystanders they are taught that deadly force should be the last resort but if they must use deadly force it must be deadly force. The reason that so many shots were fired by the Minneapolis police without any human effect is that under the excitement of the moment and the adrenalin rush of the moment they were just plain bad shots.

 

[mastiff69]

imported post

And some of my co riders with the goldwing road riders wonder why i won't go to yearly bike events in states like madison wis. HUM?????

An armed society is a polite society!!!

 

[S.E.WI]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Sometimes I find it hard to believe how gullible people can be. I had one person respond to my recent post that the reason the Minneapolis police fired so many shots is because they were just trying to wound the homeowner or scare him into surrender. Where do people get those ideas? When a police officer draws his weapon with the intent to return deadly fire they are trained to do it with only one intent "shoot to kill". It is perposperous to think they would only shoot to wound or scare. For their safety, the safety of fellow officers and the safety of bystanders they are taught that deadly force should be the last resort but if they must use deadly force it must be deadly force. The reason that so many shots were fired by the Minneapolis police without any human effect is that under the excitement of the moment and the adrenalin rush of the moment they were just plain bad shots.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:Feel like you're doing this? :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Pointman]

imported post

Milwaukee Officer Thinks He's A Chicago Officer
(But Can't Hit The Target)
Snipped from: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730976
All statements are based on the complaint.

Milwaukee police officer Andrew P. Gorenc, 25, was charged with disorderly conduct while armed, but is not in custody. Gorenc's neighbors, Danielle and Michael Laroque, said the officer repeatedly fired his gun outside their home in the 7800 block of W. Waterford Avenue.

Amanda McKinney, a friend of Gorenc's, told detectives she saw him fire a gun at a light pole, and when she asked why, Gorenc replied, "I just wanted to."

Aaron Smith and Kimberly Wagner, who own property in the area, said several tenants reported hearing gunshots. Smith and Wagner said tenants had earlier complained that Gorenc had caused disturbances, including firing his gun.

Gorenc admitted to Detective Barbara O'Leary of the department's Professional Performance Division that he fired his gun twice, aiming at the light pole but missing.

If convicted of the Class B misdemeanor, he would face up to nine months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Officials with the Police Department did not return calls about whether Gorenc has been suspended. Gorenc could not be reached for comment, and no attorney is listed on the criminal complaint. To date, no further action seems to have been taken against Gorenc.
------
Comment: I put this story under "Who NEEDS a Gun in Wisconsin" because it seems neighbors need to be able to defend themselves against a rogue officer, much like in Chicago, along with the other thugs. Note that this is one individual's actions and should not reflect upon all officers, however, the incident also seems to have been swept under the carpet by the department and the DA's office.

 

[trailblazer2003]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

Milwaukee Officer Thinks He's A Chicago Officer
(But Can't Hit The Target)
Snipped from: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730976

I don't know the laws in Milwaikee but, wouldn't dischage of a weapon within city confines without necessary cause, ie: self defense, apply? Apparently cops only get a DC charge, while armed, which will probably disappear quickly with the DA.

I especially like the, "I just wanted to." part!

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Go easy on him, clearly he needs all the practice he can get.

 

[smithman]

imported post

trailblazer2003 wrote:

Pointman wrote:

Milwaukee Officer Thinks He's A Chicago Officer
(But Can't Hit The Target)
Snipped from: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730976

I don't know the laws in Milwaikee but, wouldn't dischage of a weapon within city confines without necessary cause, ie: self defense, apply? Apparently cops only get a DC charge, while armed, which will probably disappear quickly with the DA.

I especially like the, "I just wanted to." part!

Pretty much discharging your firearm outside of a range for a non-self defense situation will get you in trouble with the law. You are correct that he will likely not be charged. His reason for discharging his firearm are great....he just wanted to. Well when some people ask why, this guy asks why not and doesn't care. I would bet that there is not a backstop behind that lightpole. He has no idea where those bullets ended up. If one ended up in my house I would take his ass to court.

 

[Parabellum]

imported post

This is equivalent to(or at least charged the same), but being treated as less dangerous than me going legally armed:shock:?

Gorenc, 25, was charged with disorderly conduct while armed, but is not in custody. Gorenc's neighbors, Danielle and Michael Laroque, said the officer repeatedly fired his gun outside their home in the 7800 block of W. Waterford Avenue.

Amanda McKinney, a friend of Gorenc's, told detectives she saw him fire a gun at a light pole, and when she asked why, Gorenc replied, "I just wanted to."

I am considered more dangerous than this guy?:cuss:

Aaron Smith and Kimberly Wagner, who own property in the area, said several tenants reported hearing gunshots. Smith and Wagner said tenants had earlier complained that Gorenc had caused disturbances, including firing his gun.

This is a repeat offense? Why hasn't this been handled before?

Gorenc admitted to Detective Barbara O'Leary of the department's Professional Performance Division that he fired his gun twice, aiming at the light pole but missing.

He admitted wrong doing and attempting to destroy public property without fear of reprimand?

These are rhetorical questions. I just wonder if your answers to these questions make sense to you.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

One would indeed wonder why there isn't a more substantial charge, e.g., "Endangering safety by the use of a dangerous weapon" (Class A misdemeanor) or even "Reckless endangering safety" (Class F or Class G felony, depending upon severity.)

Instead he's given a D/C citation as if this was merely a complaint about the noise.

Might be a good time to send letters to the Brew-town anti-gun mayor and chief of police and ask how this fits into their "get guns off the streets" policy. But in the long run it's the DA who'll make the call.

Big difference here with Para's case-- where they can't apparently dream up any particular law that was violated-- yet in this guy's case there's no shortage of law violations from which to choose.

 

[S.E.WI]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

One would indeed wonder why there isn't a more substantial charge, e.g., "Endangering safety by the use of a dangerous weapon" (Class A misdemeanor) or even "Reckless endangering safety" (Class F or Class G felony, depending upon severity.)

Instead he's given a D/C citation as if this was merely a complaint about the noise.

Might be a good time to send letters to the Brew-town anti-gun mayor and chief of police and ask how this fits into their "get guns off the streets" policy. But in the long run it's the DA who'll make the call.

Big difference here with Para's case-- where they can't apparently dream up any particular law that was violated-- yet in this guy's case there's no shortage of law violations from which to choose.

This should be an indicator of why LEO's and military will act against citizens. The government will back just about everything they do. We're outsiders.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

I'll also mention:

There are now at least two(2) other threads on here where an individual was DISARMED, and arrested without ever having discharged a weapon.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/14540.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/14500.html

Neither of the other cases is AS DANGEROUS as discharging a firearm, in a residential neighborhood, at light pole, simply because "I felt like it."

We can/should be protesting on the police department steps DEMANDING equal prosecution.

 

[Teej]

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

I'll also mention:

There are now at least two(2) other threads on here where an individual was DISARMED, and arrested without ever having discharged a weapon.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/14540.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/14500.html

Neither of the other cases is AS DANGEROUS as discharging a firearm, in a residential neighborhood, at light pole, simply because "I felt like it."

We can/should be protesting on the police department steps DEMANDING equal prosecution.

While your point has some validity, both of the private citizens were actually making threats to people. That in and of itself is grounds for assault charges.

As I said though, I agree the cop should be charged. Especially since I lived (~ 13 years ago) within range of that bullet at the lightpole.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

This is equivalent to(or at least charged the same), but being treated as less dangerous than me going legally armed:shock:?

Gorenc, 25, was charged with disorderly conduct while armed, but is not in custody. Gorenc's neighbors, Danielle and Michael Laroque, said the officer repeatedly fired his gun outside their home in the 7800 block of W. Waterford Avenue.

Amanda McKinney, a friend of Gorenc's, told detectives she saw him fire a gun at a light pole, and when she asked why, Gorenc replied, "I just wanted to."

I am considered more dangerous than this guy?:cuss:

Aaron Smith and Kimberly Wagner, who own property in the area, said several tenants reported hearing gunshots. Smith and Wagner said tenants had earlier complained that Gorenc had caused disturbances, including firing his gun.

This is a repeat offense? Why hasn't this been handled before?

Gorenc admitted to Detective Barbara O'Leary of the department's Professional Performance Division that he fired his gun twice, aiming at the light pole but missing.

He admitted wrong doing and attempting to destroy public property without fear of reprimand?

These are rhetorical questions. I just wonder if your answers to these questions make sense to you.

I just finished reading a story about a Milwaukee LEO who was being charged with theft and the story includes this statement:

It took nearly a month for the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office to issue the criminal complaint, an uncommonly long lag. The five-page complaint includes a remarkably detailed history of how Buckson was questioned by internal affairs. He invoked his right to counsel, who in this case is Michael Hart, but then he asked to talk to lieutenant, according to the complaint. He eventually confessed, it says.

Um, wow Para! It says that "nearly a month" is "an uncommonly long lag" for the DA to issue a criminal complaint. How long have you been waiting for them to do a #2 or get off the pot?

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

And if you're wondering whatever happened to the cop who shot at the light pole, I found this:

"Defendant Andrew P Gorenc in court with attorney Brian Kinstler. Douglas J Simpson appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Deputy clerk: clb.
On State's motion, Court ordered the Penalty Enhancer - WHILE ARMED DISMISSED.
Plea hearing proceeded. Defendant was advised of constitutional rights and maximum penalties, waived all rights, and plead GUILTY. Defendant examined as to the plea. Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights and Addendum received and filed. Stipulation by parties to complaint as a factual basis to sustain the plea. Court found the defendant guilty. Judgment of conviction entered.
Sentencing proceeded. Statements by the State, defense and defendant.
Court ordered defendant to pay a FINE of $500.00 INCLUDING ALL COSTS and SURCHARGES by 10-31-08, or as a penalty if not paid, a civil judgment is to be entered against the defendant.
Notice of Right to Seek Postconviction Relief received and filed.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

Unbelievable! I hadn't thought of checking the court system public access before (Shotgun) mentioned something, but found case 2008CM001598. They don't even record that the enhancer was dismissed!

He was charged with one count of violating State Statute 947.01 (Disorderly Conduct) severity class B, and sentenced to pay $500. That's it!!! Simply amazing.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

So that brings us back to my original set of questions, which I re-phrase:

He was NEVER disarmed, NEVER handcuffed, NEVER arrestedand he DID discharge his firearm.

1. Where did the rounds go? They have to be in somebodies property.

2. Why then was Para detained, disarmed, and arrested? Isn't this discrimination?

3. I gave two other examples, where we can argue the citizens "threatened" someone but isn't a verbal threat less violent than actually firing a weapon?

 

[Teej]

imported post

Whoa...brakes...!!!

Before we get too up in arms over this (too late!) about the enforcement...let's take a look at this.

OK, we have an officer who discharged his firearm without reason inside city limits. Why not charge him with city ordinance violation on 105-35? Well, let's look at the ordinance.

105-35. Discharge of Firearms. 1. POLICE
PERMIT. No person shall fire or discharge any
cannon, gun, fowling piece, pistol, firearm, air rifle,
air gun of any description, or any instrument which
impels a missile or pellet by compressed air,
spring or other means, within the limits of the city;
provided, however, that the chief of police may
from time to time issue to an authorized person or
authority a permit for a specified purpose and
period of time to use, fire and discharge any of the
aforesaid weapons or instruments within the limits
of said city.
2. REVOCATION. Any such permit
may be revoked by said chief of police at any time.
No such permit shall be transferred.

OK, so you can't discharge without a permit. He didn't have a permit. However...note this ordinance doesn't have a penalty attached to it, so it's not a "crime" - just a muni violation. A city ticket, in other words.

How 'bout on the county level?

County Ordinances:

County - 63.02

(1) It shall be unlawful, except as provided in subsection (2) hereof, for any person to unnecessarily or willfully discharge any firearm, or explosive, or in any other manner create any noise or disturbance, or to flourish or use any weapons, or make threats, or resort to violence in any manner tending to disturb the peace or frighten any of the inhabitants of the county. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, for each offense, forfeit a penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00); the cash deposit thereof shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00) and the penalty assessment shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00), and in default of payment thereof, shall be imprisoned in the county jail or house of correction of the county for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days in the discretion of the court.

OK, so they could get him for $250...but note that it's still not a crime.

Wisconsin statutes do not have a prohibition on discharging a firearm (since they would need to carve out a million exceptions for hunting etc they leave that up to the locals).

However, Wisconsin does provide that 947.01 - DC - is actually a _crime_ - a B-Mis.

They could have charged him up to $1000 and up to 90 days based on that. But as always, and as with the drop of the "while armed" as a penalty enhancer, you generally get off withreduced penalties by pleading guilty. This happens in everything up to and including murder cases...they cut you a deal to avoid spending the money prosecuting you.

Para's situation sucks, but it's a problem with the laws - he did nothing wrong but there's no laws to force the cops to do the right thing.

While I'm a little disturbed that the penalties for what Gorenc did aren't harsher...I'd have to say compared to how they could've swept it under the rug, they pushed this just about as hard as they could have under the statutes.