Is this a violation

[Uziel Gal]

Milwaukee police officer shoots robbery suspect
By Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel
Updated: Dec. 23, 2010 5:00 p.m. | A Milwaukee police officer was involved in a shooting Thursday afternoon on the city's northwest side, police said.

According to Assistant Police Chief James Harpole:

About 2:30 p.m. an off-duty Milwaukee police officer was near the 102nd block of W. Fond du Lac Ave. when he was approached by two males, one of whom displayed a knife and demanded money. The officer pulled out his service weapon and shot the male with the knife. The suspect was taken to a hospital with injuries that do not appear to be life-threatening.

Police arrested both suspects.

The male officer has been with the department for nine years.

If this is a school zone, which it most likely is considering it is in Milwaukee this "off-duty" officer may be in violation of 948.605 gun-free school zones. Unless he has a license from the state he is guilty of a Felony. Good luck buddy.

 

[johnny amish]

If this is a school zone, I hope he is not charged with anything, after all we feel GFSZ,s are unconstitutional.

 

[Flipper]

If this is a school zone, I hope he is not charged with anything, after all we feel GFSZ,s are unconstitutional.

If it is in a GFSZ I hope the Monore county DA sees it the same way when it comes to charging the Tomah teenager. Otherwise justice denied because of location and the "Blue Wall of Silence."

 

[eye95]

"...and shot the male with the knife...."

Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.

 

[oak1971]

Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.

 

[Beretta-m9]

Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.

or any other ones.

 

[Uziel Gal]

Cops don't have to follow those rules, silly.

While so true I just find it amazing that the police exemption in Wisconsins GFSZ is only for those acting within their "official capacity". Police Officers can carry concealed whenever they want in Wisconsin but as soon as they cross over the invisible school zone barrier without being on-duty, having a license, or unloading and encasing, BAM, Class G Felony.

 

[HolyOrangeJuice]

"...and shot the male with the knife...."

Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.

+1

 

[CenTex]

"...and shot the male with the knife...."

Neat trick. I'd've shot him with the gun.

Eye95,
Are you having contractions?

 

[CenTex]

All the while, I thought LE could carry at all times...legally. I thought this was primarily...now hear this...for self-protection from BGs wanting to do them harm. There are a lot of BGs that would love to do a certain LE in while off duty. I have no problem with them carrying anywhere...at any time. The same rule applies to us.

 

[Shorin21]

While so true I just find it amazing that the police exemption in Wisconsins GFSZ is only for those acting within their "official capacity". Police Officers can carry concealed whenever they want in Wisconsin but as soon as they cross over the invisible school zone barrier without being on-duty, having a license, or unloading and encasing, BAM, Class G Felony.

Police officers are exempt from the gfsz. as long as you have your badge and id u are fine.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Maple tree public school is right around 106th st. We need to keep on top of this.

 

[johnny amish]

If it is in a GFSZ I hope the Monore county DA sees it the same way when it comes to charging the Tomah teenager. Otherwise justice denied because of location and the "Blue Wall of Silence."

+1

 

[lockman]

Police officers are exempt from the gfsz. as long as you have your badge and id u are fine.

The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.

No DA worth his salt would prosecute...

 

[MKEgal]

The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business.

+1000
Possessing it is one felony, discharging it is another. (No exemption for self-defense... another reason the law is a donkey & needs to be changed.)

Of course, the possession has to be "knowingly" in a school zone, but with that memo the PD issued to their officers, with the "GFSZ" maps attached, it'd be hard for that officer to claim he didn't know it was a school zone.

And wouldn't you know it, their map shows that 102 & FdL is indeed a school zone! (See pg. 7, kinda toward the bottom left. FdL is the second angle street in from the left side of the page.)

So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

IK- while I agree with you that he's not going to be punished, even if he was on public property, I think that's wrong. If he was on public property, he broke the law, he had been told (in writing, with maps) that was a GFSZ, his job is to enforce laws (so he should know them, right?), he should be held accountable.


BTW, a couple people here (http://www.wisn.com/news/26260787/detail.html) claim that this is a good reason for concealed carry. Whadayawanna bet he was carrying concealed??


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0948.pdf

948.605

(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
6. By a law enforcement officer... acting in his or her official capacity;

(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly... discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
4. By a law enforcement officer... acting in his or her official capacity.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

The WI version of the GFSZ does not provide an exemption for police officers that are off duty and not acting on official police business. Even if the officers conduct subsequent to the incident is justified that does not excuse the felony conduct he exhibited by entering a school zone while not on official police business while armed with a loaded concealed firearm.

I hope your point is that WI firearm laws are screwed up, not that this officer did anyting wrong. Any LEO, regardless if they are on or off duty, should ALWAYS carry a firearm, regardless of current restrictions.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

IK- while I agree with you that he's not going to be punished, even if he was on public property, I think that's wrong. If he was on public property, he broke the law, he had been told (in writing, with maps) that was a GFSZ, his job is to enforce laws (so he should know them, right?), he should be held accountable.

I think your experience has left you a little jaded.

No law-abiding citizen should be prosecuted under 948.605.

Any desire for an off-duty LEO to be prosecuted under a law that we are fighting to get reppealed on a Consititutional basis is total hippocracy

 

[bluehighways]

+1000
Possessing it is one felony, discharging it is another. (No exemption for self-defense... another reason the law is a donkey & needs to be changed.)

Of course, the possession has to be "knowingly" in a school zone, but with that memo the PD issued to their officers, with the "GFSZ" maps attached, it'd be hard for that officer to claim he didn't know it was a school zone.

And wouldn't you know it, their map shows that 102 & FdL is indeed a school zone! (See pg. 7, kinda toward the bottom left. FdL is the second angle street in from the left side of the page.)

So if the off-duty officer was on private property, he's OK. If he was on the sidewalk or street... good-bye career! He just committed 2 felonies. (Not that one of the Only Ones is likely to be charged.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1

Some attention shown to this situation in court would help illustrate the absurdity of the GFSZ laws. It's a terrible way to have to do it, but that seems to be the only way to change the opinion of the masses.

Here we have an off duty cop with 9 years of service (a veritable 'boy scout' in the public mind), who is involved in a self defense shooting within a GFSZ. Per the written law this person is not allowed any more latitude to carry for self defense than any other citizen, simply due to imaginary geographic boundaries.

What a wonderful thing it would be to have the case brought to court and the off duty cop exonerated of any wrongdoing not because of his occupation or community standing, but because an insightful judge would see the debacle that is the GFSZ laws, and rule that the charges are null due to the unconstitutionality of the written law.

Perhaps my holiday idealism has gotten the better of me.

Just my opinion. I hope I illustrated my thoughts clearly. Happy Solstice / Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[Brass Magnet]

If the officer isn't charged, wouldn't. This be grounds for an equal protection lawsuit if one was charged with posession in a GFSZ? I hope he isn't charged and that we can file this case under "legal ammunition".

We are entitled to equal protection under the law.