• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Milw. Man Arrested Recklessly Endangering Safety/Negligent Handling

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol

Sorcice

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Madison, WI
I smell something fishy here. Betting gun didn't have a holster in pocket and she fingered it. Lol
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not a lot of information there, but are we not responsible for every round sent "down range?"

We shall wait for more information.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,432
Location
northern wis
I don't think it really meets the definition of Wis stat 941.30 (1) or(2)

941.30SUBCHAPTER IV OTHER DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIESAND PRACTICES941.30

Recklessly endangering safety. 941.30(1)

(1) First-degree recklessly endangering safety. Whoever recklessly endangers another's safety under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class F felony.

941.30(2)(2) Second-degree recklessly endangering safety. Whoever recklessly endangers another's safety is guilty of a Class G felony. - See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/941/941.30#sthash.Oci9oYCY.dpuf

But that doesn't mean one well not have to defends oneself and spend lots of time and money doing so.

Wonder what make and model it was
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
941.20  Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon;

He wasn't handling the gun ... nor operating it.

Just an accident .. jee wiz, every time there is a coulda situation happens an arrest has to be made?

No one was hurt ... no harm/no foul.

I guess a civil issue regarding the damage, if any, that the discharge may have caused.

If it would have dropped from its holster and he caught it before anything further happened, they'd arrest for that too ....
 

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
I want to know what kind of gun it was because unless it was something very old or very cheap, what was described shouldn't happen.

At some point, police say a handgun fell out of the coat pocket, landed on the floor and a round was discharged.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
He wasn't handling the gun ... nor operating it.

Just an accident ..
It was negligence in this case not some blameless "accident". They were (mis)handling the firearm by manipulating what it was being held in when it fell and discharged. The fact that it was not in some type of a holster or otherwise retained and this fact leading to it falling and discharging is being charged as criminal negligence.

If it would have dropped from its holster and he caught it before anything further happened, they'd arrest for that too ....
No, they would not. Something actually happened and it was not in a "holster" which had a reasonable expectation of safely and effectively retaining it.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,432
Location
northern wis
It was negligence in this case not some blameless "accident". They were (mis)handling the firearm by manipulating what it was being held in when it fell and discharged. The fact that it was not in some type of a holster or otherwise retained and this fact leading to it falling and discharging is being charged as criminal negligence.


No, they would not. Something actually happened and it was not in a "holster" which had a reasonable expectation of safely and effectively retaining it.

Maybe maybe not.

Do we know what the actual charge is or well be, has he had an initial appearance yet the DA might decide to charge some thing different.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I see it as a "no harm" "no foul" situation. It was an accident. Guns are not supposed to discharged when dropped.

Like dropping a stuffed toy and an eye pops out and injures someone ... big crime there.

Ya never been at a gun range before where an accidental discharge happens? Jeez, we turned into *******?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I see it as a "no harm" "no foul" situation. It was an accident. Guns are not supposed to discharged when dropped.

Like dropping a stuffed toy and an eye pops out and injures someone ... big crime there.

Ya never been at a gun range before where an accidental discharge happens? .

I know ranges which will ban you from the premises for a single negligent discharge. I have never seen a toy eyeball fly out at over 800 fps. There was property damage and they fled the scene. That alone can get you charged with a crime.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,432
Location
northern wis
a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon

One could argue that here was no handling or operation of the weapon.

He didn't handle it nor did he operate it.

I think it is a stretch to say by taking off his coat he was operating or handling it.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon

One could argue that here was no handling or operation of the weapon.

He didn't handle it nor did he operate it.

I think it is a stretch to say by taking off his coat he was operating or handling it.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If I take off my holster with the gun in it, am I not handling the gun? I submit that I am.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,432
Location
northern wis
I'm not sure I agree with that. If I take off my holster with the gun in it, am I not handling the gun? I submit that I am.

No you are handing a holstered gun, I submit that he was handling his coat with a gun in the pocket.

If you are handling a closed box with a gun it are handling the gun or the box.

You are handling a box with a gun in it IMHO.

Now if you stick your hand in side the box and grab the gun you are now handling the gun.

Here's the definition of

hand·ling


/ˈhandl-iNG/


noun

noun: handling; plural noun: handlings



1.



the act of taking or holding something in the hands



Thus he was handling his coat with a gun in its pocket.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon

One could argue that here was no handling or operation of the weapon.

He didn't handle it nor did he operate it.

I think it is a stretch to say by taking off his coat he was operating or handling it.

One could argue that Elvis is still alive but that would be no less ridiculous.. :dude:
He was negligent in the fact that his firearm was not secure. By handling the coat with the handgun inside of it, he was by default also handling the handgun. Let's have some accountability here. The idiot was negligent and there are consequences for negligence. His negligence caused property damage. He can show up in court and try to plea it down, but I see nothing wrong with accountability for negligent actions with deadly weapons.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
When first carrying a female friend was carrying something in an Uncle Mike's "holster shaped object".

She went to a shoe store and in full view (of me LMAO) out pops the little something onto the carpeted floor. Fortunately no body saw it and it didn't take out any fluffy bunny slippers.

True story. It is 'the story which shall never be mentioned', or some female thing they do. TSWSNBM. Orders come from on high - SWMBO.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Is the order to not possess any weapons a permanent order or not to possess until after the "trial"? Can gun rights be revoked for a misdemeanor in WI?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Is the order to not possess any weapons a permanent order or not to possess until after the "trial"? Can gun rights be revoked for a misdemeanor in WI?
It can be a condition of bond. WI does not typically take away RTBA for misdemeanor with the exception of domestic violence. In addition to a bond condition, the courts can order you to not possess weapons because of a domestic abuse injunction, domestic abuse tribal injunction, child abuse injunction or harassment injunction.
 
Top