Wisconsin: Police State, B'gosh


PDA






AZRickD
July 24, 2004, 11:58 PM
I've just received this e-mail.

Please contact them to see how you can help. $5 from a lot of people can go a long way.

There is more information at the web site http://www.wisconsingunowners.org

Rick
Phx, Az
-------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:21:02 -0400
From: Dennis Fusaro <dennyva@shentel.net

I'm working up a RED HOT mail piece on this issue right now. Here's an overview:

-Some punk shoots a police officer and flees on foot into a neighborhood (upper middle class suburb). The police force everyone in a quarantined area from their homes (call it an evacuation). The SWAT shows up. The Dogs show up.

The police go door to door conducting searches TO confiscate firearms. They say they'll "give them back" as soon as ballistics tests prove they weren't used in the crime. (Guilty until proven innocent). Homeowners are outraged, making statements on camera that the police "stole" their guns without warrants!

Others talk about the heavy-handedness of police. Then the searches spread out form this area (they didn't find the suspect apparently) and the police begin to ask for consent to search door to door. People not knowing their right to refuse such a search consent, give the okay. The police begin to take their firearms too! Gun owners are livid. One homeowner DID refuse consent. So the police (it appears) obtained a search warrant and turned the poor man's house upside down. Neighbors said they believed (in news reports) police presumed him guilty or determined reasonable suspicion for the warrant BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO CONSENT. You know -- "What'ya have to hide? Huh?"

[Snip] -- as in original

Thanks. I'll post the link to the news story when they come up. The Oshkosh newspaper website is down right now. You should of seen the news footage. We have a genuine police state on our hands.

Corey Graff, Executive Director

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.
P.O. Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org

[phone] 888.202.1645
[fax] 866.208.1346
[e-mail] executivedirector@wisconsingunowners.org

"Wisconsin's Only No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization"

If you enjoyed reading about "Wisconsin: Police State, B'gosh" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
July 25, 2004, 12:08 AM
:barf:

The republic is dead. :(

FedDC
July 25, 2004, 12:21 AM
Wow, there is so much misinformation in that article, I could write a thesis around it... If this post is anything like our good buddy Rick's other topics, it will rapidly descend into some cop bashing and a discertaion on how all of the LEOs are JBTs out to take away everything from your guns to your library cards...

As I have said, for the record: I and the vast majority of my fellow LEOs srtoooooooongly support the right to bear arms, as well as nationwide CCW for all of us and in my case, the right to own any class 3 you want.

If the officers had a reason to believe that a shooter ran into an area, the evac and search was totally justified since suspects have been known to take hostages in those situations...as in, home invasion followed by taking homeowners hostage and it ending badly. It is better to get the innocents out of the way before going on the manhunt so as to minimize the risk to the general population. As far as confiscating firearms, nobody confiscated anything. If a gun is taken to be examined as evidence and it is found not to be the gun in question, it is immediately returned. This happens a LOT in crimes with an unknown weapon and it is exactly what you would want to happen if the victim were your wife or relative.

If anything, the citizens of that area should be thankful that the police were thoughtful enough to evacuate them from an area where a gunfitght was about to take place. The officers could very well have just said to heck with the civis and gone on the manhunt, but they chose to take care of the citizens first. Sounds like good policing to me.

AZRickD
July 25, 2004, 12:25 AM
If anything, the citizens of that area should be thankful Thank you sir. May we have another?

Geez. FedDC... oh, I get it now.

If I had to evacuate everytime a perp ran into my neighborhood, then have my house broken into and my weapons seized (for my own good, of course), well, heck, I'd think I was in Bagdad.

Rick

buy guns
July 25, 2004, 12:28 AM
going from what this article said, the police clearly abused their powers. i dont know how anyone could defend that. but of course i saw this having only this article to rely on though it wouldnt surprise me if it is all true.

FedDC
July 25, 2004, 12:31 AM
Yeah, rick's right, the cops should have just let the criminal run into someone's house and take their family hostage, then execute them and take their car to get away...because god forbid that the police actually search for an attempted murder suspect.

AZRickD
July 25, 2004, 12:47 AM
I just have to sit back and let some people take just enough rope to hang themselves.Rick's other topics, it will rapidly descend into some cop bashingMy point was to show the errosion of the Bill of Rights. I wasn't planning on making it personal, and I hadn't expected you to allow this to descend there, but since you put up the challenge...I and the vast majority of my fellow LEOs srtoooooooongly support the right to bear arms,And yet guns were taken enmasse from citizens when a criminal was lurking about their neighborhood? Sure, you support the 2A right up until your Chief makes you choose between *my* rights and *your* mortgage payment.

Yeah, that 4th and 5th amendment stuff sure does make life interesting. But let's ignore it, okay?

Rick

buy guns
July 25, 2004, 12:51 AM
Yeah, rick's right, the cops should have just let the criminal run into someone's house and take their family hostage, then execute them and take their car to get away...because god forbid that the police actually search for an attempted murder suspect.




well after all the SC did rule that cops have no obligation to protect us.

FedDC
July 25, 2004, 12:58 AM
I wonder what we would be seeing if the cops had not evaced anyone and had then gotten into a gunfight and a non combatant was hit.... it would be "Those gung ho cops need to be fired for not properly warning the residents and evacuating them to safety" or if they had not searched houses and the gunmand had taken a family hostage and had someone's daughter in a back room telling daddy that the bad man would kill her if he didn't tell the popo that everything was ok and he didn't need to come in... We would see outcry for not searching for the gunman. Damned if we do and damned if we don't...

mpthole
July 25, 2004, 01:00 AM
Another source: http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2054085

Oshkosh-AP -- Residents living in a six-block Oshkosh area are evacuated tonight after a police officer was shot.

People haven't been let back into their homes as police search for the shooting suspect.

The officer's name hasn't been released. Sergeant Matt Kroenig says he was taken to Mercy Medical Center with injuries that aren't life threatening.

Kroenig says the officer was backing up another officer involved in a foot chase at 10-10 p-m when he was shot.

He says the original call was for an underaged drinking complaint.

The suspect was believed to be in a house within a two-block area.

The Winnebago County Sheriff's Department and Wisconsin State Patrol are assisting at the scene.

Let's see here... a cop gets shot (not killed). The suspect is believed to be in a 2 block area. The keystone cops evacuate a 6 block area. Hmmm... :confused:

What does a homeowner say to that? "Umm, sorry officer I do not consent to a search of my home. Additionally I'd rather stay in my home where I can at least have the right to defend myself instead of having you send me off to the streets where I have already been disarmed by you (the State). Thanks anyways. Good luck in finding the bad guy."

mpthole
July 25, 2004, 01:02 AM
evacuating them to safety Safety? Where exactly is that? I'd prefer to stay in my home.

Sergeant Bob
July 25, 2004, 01:19 AM
Oshkosh Police Have Few Leads in Officer Shooting

Jul 19, 2004 9:43 pm US/Central
Oshkosh Police Have Few Leads In Saturday Night's Ambush-Style Shooting, Which Wounded An Officer.
An Unknown Gunman Opened Fire On Officer Nate Gallagher, Hitting His Right Arm.
It Happened At The Corner Of Minnesota Street And West 17th Avenue After Ten O'clock Saturday Night.
Officer Gallagher Was Standing Next To His Squad Car Talking To Another Officer When He Was Hit.
The Officers Had Responded To A Call Of An Underage Drinking Party A Couple Block Away.
After The Shooting, The Swat Team Confiscated Firearms From At Least Two Homes In The Neighborhood. There Is No Word As To Whether The Guns Were Used In The Shooting.

WFRV.com (http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_201224506.html)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oshkosh
Police Get Arrest Warrants in Shooting of Officer

By Jerry Burke and WBAY.com

Oshkosh police said Monday night they obtained two arrest warrants in the shooting of a police officer. Police say they know the two suspects they're looking for but didn't know their whereabouts, but they expected to make arrests soons.

Officer Nate Gallagher was shot in the arm while he responded to a call Saturday night. He was released from the hospital Sunday morning. He was shot at the intersection of Minnesota Street and 17th Avenue which is near Wittman Field.

Police searched a home in the 1700-block of Minnesota Street and obtained enough evidence to issue arrests warrants, they said.

Oshkosh detectives remained tight-lipped in their investigation Monday afternoon. Sgt. Steve Sagmeister of the Oshkosh Police Department said, "[Sunday] morning they executed a search warrant in the 1700-block of Minnesota and they collected some evidence, and at the present time they're sifting through the evidence to see if there's something there that'll link to the shooting."

Detectives wouldn't say what evidence they found. They aren't saying if the shooting is tied to the drinking party.

The shooting happened right outside Terry Wesner's house. He was watching TV when he heard what he instantly recognized was a gunshot. He's also pretty sure he knows from where the shot was fired.

"The way [Officer Gallagher] was standing behind the car here, I thought maybe it came from this way," Wesner described, "but I'm sure it was from this side over here because when I heard the noise I would have never heard it from down that way. It had to be down here probably a hundred yards."

Wesner says police had yellow tape around one house until late Sunday afternoon.

Wesner says he and his neighbors aren't used to any crime happening in this neighborhood. "It's sort of scary, a little bit, you know, when you think there's somebody out here with a gun... if he's after cops or is he going to just shoot somebody else?"

Police are keeping a high profile in the neighborhood.

W
BAY.com (http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2059743&nav=51s6Owqs)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted July 18, 2004

Police officer shot
Wounded responding to foot chase

By Jeff Bollier
of The Northwestern

An Oshkosh police officer was shot Saturday night responding to a foot chase near the intersection of Iowa Street and 17th Avenue. A large area near the scene was cordoned off and nearby residents evacuated late Saturday as authorities searched for a suspect.

The officer, whose name is not being released, was taken to Mercy Medical Center with injuries that were not life threatening, Sgt. Matt Kroenig said.

Kroenig said the officer responded to the area to back up an officer involved in a foot chase near Iowa Street and 17th Avenue at 10:10 p.m. when an unknown assailant with a gun of unknown caliber shot the officer.

Kroenig said the foot chase was in response to an underage drinking complaint.

The Oshkosh Police Department’s Special Weapons and Tactics Unit and an emergency command center responded to the area late Saturday night. At press time, the suspect was believed to be in a house within a two-block area near the shooting. Police sealed off a six-block area.

Kroenig said it is unknown where the shot came from that hit the officer.

Merrilee Jones was house sitting in the area and said about the time of the shooting she heard what she mistook for fireworks.

Jones also said she saw someone sneak across 18th Avenue north of Arizona Street and between two homes.

“The cops were already down here and someone snuck through,” Jones said. “They were running and obviously trying to hide.”

Residents in the area were not being allowed to return to their homes as of press time.

A K-9 police dog was also seen in the area sniffing near homes at the intersection of 18th Avenue and Arizona Street.

Officers from the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Department and Wisconsin State Patrol responded to the scene to assist with the Oshkosh Police Department’s investigation.

Oshkosh Northwestern (http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/stories/local_16952199.shtml)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Person of interest’ let go in Oshkosh shooting case

No bail required for man on charges of growing marijuana


Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers

OSHKOSH — Winnebago County prosecutors were denied their request for a $50,000 cash bond Tuesday in the drug case of a man who is a “person of interest” in the Saturday shooting of an Oshkosh police officer.

The 50-year-old suspect and his 44-year-old wife were released Tuesday from the Winnebago County Jail after being charged in Winnebago County Circuit Court with one felony charge each of manufacturing marijuana.

Police served a search warrant in their Minnesota Street home during their investigation of the Saturday shooting. Police found a marijuana plant sitting on the kitchen table, growing equipment in the basement and a plastic bag containing marijuana, the criminal complaint states.

Charges have not been filed relating to the unprovoked attack of officer Nate Gallagher, who was wounded in the right arm late Saturday while talking to another officer near the intersection of Minnesota Street and 17th Avenue.

Deputy Dist. Atty. John Jorgensen sought the $50,000 bail to keep the man in custody until police processed more evidence. He suggested another bond hearing in a few days to reconsider bail based on what police found. Investigators sought a search warrant for the home after determining that its location matched the trajectory of the bullet that struck Gallagher, he said.

Police searched their home in the 1700 block of Minnesota Street on Sunday morning. They returned Monday to search the home and yard. A Monday evening phone message placed at the couple’s home by reporters was not returned.

Jorgensen said Tuesday that the man was “somewhat uncooperative” after police sought consent to search without a warrant, and the couple left Oshkosh for Crivitz once a search warrant was obtained, he said. The man and his wife later turned themselves over to police on the marijuana charges.

Defense attorney Brian Mares argued against Jorgensen’s attempt to have bond address both the marijuana charge and an uncharged shooting.

The Post-Crescent (http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_16987602.shtml)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RevDisk
July 25, 2004, 01:21 AM
Some perp kicks in my door holding a firearm, he's getting a world of hurt. I did once had a police officer knock on my door regarding a suspect in the area. I thanked the officer for the notice, told him I'd keep a lookout, and went about my business. Both of us were civil and polite.

If the police officer had wanted to search my place, I'd kindly ask for a warrant. If no warrant exists, sorry. Trying to forcefully evacuating me and disarming me? I call my lawyer. They can discuss the situation with him.

FedDC, like it or not, this is America. Not Baghdad, not Moscow, not some third world hellhole. Safety is balanced with civil rights. I'm sure that is an annoyance to some law enforcement officers, but that's how it is. Law enforcement officers should realize this when they sign up. It's part of the job.


Did the police collect all firearms, or just the type used in the shooting? If the shooting was done with a handgun, why collect up rifles and shotguns? It'd be a bit of a waste of money to ballastically check every weapon, even if it was not the type used in the shooting.

I'm not trying to trash all police. I understand how annoying it can be to deal with some of the stressful situations they deal with. However, they have laws they must comply with, just like us "civilians". If they abid by the laws, I'll do my best to help them in the most civil way possible. Violating the law, even with the best of intentions, is not a good thing.

AZRickD
July 25, 2004, 01:24 AM
http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/print/stories/print_17030135.shtml
Posted July 24, 2004

Police are not giving up on search
Bullet from last week’s shooting the missing link

By Jim Collar
of The Northwestern

One small piece of missing evidence could make or break the police department’s efforts to identify a perpetrator in last Saturday’s shooting of an Oshkosh police officer.

While days continue to pass, investigators aren’t giving up hope.

Police Friday morning used metal detectors in a sweep along the 1500 block of Minnesota Street in an attempt to locate the bullet that struck Oshkosh police Officer Nate Gallagher last Saturday night.

An unknown person shot Gallagher in the arm at 10:10 p.m., while he stood outside his squad car talking to another officer.

Police officers earlier this week distributed letters to those in the neighborhood asking them to search their properties for damage or metal fragments from the bullet.

Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said nothing had come of the searches as of Friday afternoon. Still, the investigation hasn’t gone cold, he said.

“They’re still getting leads here and there,” Sagmeister said.

Police last week seized a number of firearms during consent searches of homes in the area, but need the bullet to match against them. Police also served a search warrant at the property they believe the shot originated from.

The search revealed “a person of interest” and led to two felony drug charges.

Both residents, however, were released on signature bonds Tuesday.

The 44-year-old woman will remain at the home in the 1700 block of Minnesota Street, while her 50-year-old husband will live on the 700 block of Fourth Avenue as the drug cases proceed, court records show.

Deputy District Attorney John Jorgensen during the Tuesday charging conference said the couple went to Crivitz while police searched their home.

Officials in the Marinette County Clerk of Courts Office Friday said there are no search warrants on file under their names.

Oshkosh police Chief David Erickson this week said the situation showed the hard work, professionalism and resiliency of his officers, though it’s unfortunate the perpetrator remains on the streets.

“It’s been kind of frustrating that we haven’t been able to make an arrest yet, but we’ve done just about as well as we could do given the scenario we had that night,” Erickson said.

Jim Collar: (920) 426-6676 or jcollar@thenorthwestern.com

Sergeant Bob
July 25, 2004, 01:52 AM
mpthole, dagnabbit! Ya scooped me while I was researching! Just when I hit paydirt! Caught lookin' I guess. :D

Is it SOP to evacuate six block areas when a cop is wounded?
How about when a civilian is wounded?

Weapons were confiscated from two different homes, neither of which they have a clue as to whether they were involved.

Someone busted for marijuana during this "evacuation" for their safety. I guess since he was a "person of interest" (you know, a suspect, but we're not really going to call them a suspect since we really have no clue) it's OK to search his home (being a person of interest gives them PC or "reasonable suspicion", I guess). Nevermind the likelyhood they probably weren't interested in him untill they found the evil weed.

I guess anytime the cops want to score big all they have to do is evacuate six block areas, for the safety of the people, then they have free reign to search every house and bust anyone they want for whatever they find.

I'm seeing some constitutional conflict here.

"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money" Warren Zevon

2nd Amendment
July 25, 2004, 01:53 AM
FedDC, in the event of a hostage situation THEN you evac the immediate area. Not six blocks.

You don't search each house and confiscate firearms.

You don't harrass a person simply because he refuses to an evac request(which is generally all the cops can do, request) and you do not trash his house for refusing a search without a warrant.

Want to know one of the things that furthers the anti-LEO mindset? LEO actions such as yours here. There's a time to defend the actions of the police and there is a time to say something is over the top. This is an example of the latter and your "piling on" to defend it simply reflects an even worse light on yourself and your profession.

Justin Moore
July 25, 2004, 04:35 AM
Neighbors said they believed (in news reports) police presumed him guilty or determined reasonable suspicion for the warrant BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO CONSENT.

Well Seig HEIL!

Methinks its lawsuit time.

I guess anytime the cops want to score big all they have to do is evacuate six block areas, for the safety of the people, then they have free reign to search every house and bust anyone they want for whatever they find.

Dude its not for the people, its for THE CHILDREN ;)

cracked butt
July 25, 2004, 06:35 AM
FedDC-
If this happened in my neighborhood, I can take care of my own household, thankyou very much. The police would surely be welcome in my home if they think a suspect is at large or could be in my home, but if nothing turns up, they should go back to solving a crime instead of bothering me.

Rabbi
July 25, 2004, 06:45 AM
And some otherwise rational police officers actually wonder why the anti-LEO sentiment is growing in leaps and bounds?

People who are totally straight, that is law abiding in every way, are talking about this kind of thing EVERYWHERE. Regular citizens who have been lifelong supporters of the police as a profession are growing very afraid, and the average person who is afraid long enough will begin to hate. The bad cops, that is the bullies, the anti-citizen storm troopers and the regular good, honest cops who defend them constantly have brought this on themselves. Twenty years ago in the real world, if a P.O. was in a jam, citizens would have jumped in to help them in a heartbeat. I'm afraid for you guys in uniform now that most citizens would turn away. The "us-against-them" mentality started with the police and enough of us heard citizens defined as "as*hol*s" to start wondering.

I get angry when I hear anybody lump all cops together as JBTs or fascists or the newest one, "blue taliban". However, when unconscionable and unconstitutional acts by P.O.s are condoned and encouraged by the "good cops", what the hell do you expect citizen reaction to be? When the Wisconsin legislature allows the police to forcefully eject citizens from their homes and seize privately owned firearms during warrantless searches because they think maybe a suspect is still in the area, a Police State already exists.

Do you guys seriously expect any American citizen to support this? I think police officers were much better off when the public thanked you and admired you and respected you than what you have seemingly worked so hard to achieve. If you wanted Joe Citizen to fear you, and I think that is exactly what a lot of LEOs want, it seems you have achieved it. But don't be surprised when that fear sours into hatred. A lot of citizens still support and appreciate the "thin blue line" and I wonder why the law enforcement community would consciously alienate them. Do you guys ever wonder about that? Do you care? Or do you all just dismiss us as "as*hol*s"?

Powderman
July 25, 2004, 06:55 AM
OK.

On the face of it, going by the first post, it seems like a lot---and I mean a LOT--or unreasonable search and seizure was taking place.

But, here's my question--

What's the OTHER side of the story?

How did the police focus their investigation on one or two specific households?

What firearms were removed? Were they removed from houses in the line of sight, or line of fire of the incident?

Were search warrants obtained, and executed properly?

In other words, let's all cool off and look at BOTH sides of the story. We darned sure don't have all of the information--and probably won't have it for a long time.

Sergeant Bob
July 25, 2004, 09:01 AM
What's the OTHER side of the story?
I don't know, we'll probably have to wait a few days till they all get their stories straight.
You know, the usual "Can't comment on an ongoing investigation" stuff.

That'll give six blocks worth of people time to get lawyered up too.

Stand_Watie
July 25, 2004, 09:48 AM
If what was described by the first article occured as written - and I admit I'm skeptical - there's going to be a number of lawsuits and a big payout from the city - and rightfully so. The only way the police should have had the right to search would be if they had identified a particular house, not a six block area. I'd like to hear from our board attorney on this one.

I strongly suspect that when homeowners - and I'll bet you there were some, told the police "bite me, I ain't leaving my house and you ain't coming in" they just moved on to the next house on the block.

71Commander
July 25, 2004, 10:56 AM
FedDC If the officers had a reason to believe that a shooter ran into an area, the evac and search was totally justified since suspects have been known to take hostages in those situations...as in, home invasion followed by taking homeowners hostage and it ending badly. It is better to get the innocents out of the way before going on the manhunt so as to minimize the risk to the general population. As far as confiscating firearms, nobody confiscated anything. If a gun is taken to be examined as evidence and it is found not to be the gun in question, it is immediately returned. This happens a LOT in crimes with an unknown weapon and it is exactly what you would want to happen if the victim were your wife or relative.

If anything, the citizens of that area should be thankful that the police were thoughtful enough to evacuate them from an area where a gunfitght was about to take place. The officers could very well have just said to heck with the civis and gone on the manhunt, but they chose to take care of the citizens first. Sounds like good policing to me.

This whole statement made me want to :barf:

Depty Dawg: " while we got these here guns and doing ballistic tests on em, lets see if they match any other shootings we have that are unsolved".

LEO bashing-NO. Oshkosh police bashing- most definitley. I hope they ( OPD) get sued personally for every thing they got and ever will have. Hopefully jail time.

FedDC
July 25, 2004, 11:41 AM
Well, at the end of the day, the cops on the scene had reason to believe that a suspect ran into that area and whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in. It is just that simple. So, no, there will be no successful suits and nobody will get fired or even reprimanded. When you are chasing a suspect, you chase him to wherever he goes and the courts have upheld that principal time and again. Why don't we try blaming the CRIMINAL that tried to kill someone instead of the police that were trying to arrest him.

As to the guns, it doesn't say that the officers just randomly confiscated everybody's guns. They may very well have taken guns matching the type and appearance used the crime and if the guns are not found to be assosciated with the crime, they will be returned. To leave potential evidence in the hands of someone that may be a friend or assosciate of the suspect would be retarded...how fast do you think that evidence would vanish?

If you don't like living in a civil society with law enforcement, feel free to move someplace like oh.....the Sudan. You could try practicing what you preach and fending off crime all by yourself without those annoying LEOs coming to help. After all, you would be able to get class 3 and live in the paradise that so many people on here seem to seek where there aren't any of those pesky LEOs to harass you...but then again, most people over there don't live long enough to worry about harassment.

Edward429451
July 25, 2004, 12:32 PM
There it is again...

and whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again

The standard LEO cliche that indicates they have come to the end of their reasonable responses and must regress into (I need backup here, don't know what to say...) the textbook response to justify to themselves that they are the good guys and are screwing us for our own good.

El Tejon
July 25, 2004, 12:43 PM
So, when does the media ever get it right?:D

Has to be a lot more to this than initially reported???:confused: I certainly hope so.:uhoh:

AZRickD
July 25, 2004, 12:46 PM
The best story --

http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/stories/local_16971594.shtml
Posted July 20, 2004

On the web:

www.winnebagocrimestoppers.org

Search for shooting perpetrator becomes frustrating for Oshkosh neighborhood

By Jim Collar and Jeff Bollier
of The Northwestern

The ongoing search for a perpetrator continues to prove frustrating for residents of the otherwise quiet neighborhood near Smith Elementary School. Residents of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street had mixed things to say about the methods police used in searching homes Sunday morning in the aftermath of the shooting.

Terry Wesner said “a couple of shotguns and a rifle” were removed from his home by SWAT Team members after he consented to a search, though officers did not tell him they removed the firearms after they completed their search.

“That’s what makes me so mad,” Wesner said. “They had no reason (to remove the firearms) without a warrant. … I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.”

Oshkosh Police Capt. Jay Puestohl said officers “don’t go into houses without consent or a warrant.” He acknowledged consent to search does “not necessarily” mean officers have consent to remove property.

Puestohl also said nothing illegal was done by removing the firearms and that investigators needed to examine them. He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.

“We’re getting into a lot of legal details if there’s evidence that can be seized. They (the firearms) could be,” Puestohl said. “As far as I know there was nothing inappropriate or illegal done.”

Martin Gruberg, president of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said some of the stories he’s heard from the neighborhood at least raise questions of whether rights were violated by investigating police.

“Search warrants are specific, and include information on why police are there and what they’re looking for,” Gruberg said. “If you give police consent to search, does that give them the right to come in, rummage around and take things? I’m not sure.”

Gruberg said neighbors might have felt compelled to offer consent whether or not they were comfortable with a search because they didn’t want to give the appearance that they had something to hide.

Ron Kendall, a resident of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street, said residents of the house that has become the focus of the police investigation refused to consent to a search without a warrant.

He suspects it’s a reason why police are giving the home so much attention.

Detectives, who went to the home with a search warrant Sunday morning, were seen using a metal detector, sweeping through grass and cutting down shrubs and branches in the front yard Monday evening. Puestohl declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search.

Details of the search, probable cause for the search or any items taken from the home weren’t available on Monday. Court records show that one occupant of the home has no criminal record, while the other occupant’s record is limited to non-violent misdemeanor convictions.

Kendall said officers have shown neighbors disrespect during their investigation.

“I can understand: It’s one of their own, but they’ve been downright rude to us,” Kendall said. “You don’t treat so-called civilians this way.”

Doris Eichel was another 1700 block resident whose house was searched, but she said officers were very polite.

“They were very courteous,” Eichel said. “I have no complaints.”

Jim Collar: (920) 426-6676 or jcollar@thenorthwestern.com.

More from activists on-scene:
I
also saw all the television reports: The man who was visibly shaken after
his guns were "stolen" without any warrant being issued or apparent probable
cause; the elderly woman who woke up to SWAT police doing a search in her
kitchen (she seemed to think they broke in); the man who came home after
working the night/weekend shift to find his home ransacked and his guns
missing...he said on camera, "They didn't even leave a note telling me what
was going on." The military-looking cops cutting down peoples' shrubs
looking for evidence; the other man who said he couldn't believe they'd
"take" his guns after he consented to a search; the look of terror on
neighbors' faces not from the perpetrator of the crime but from those sworn
to serve and protect! That attitude was so prevelent among neighbors that
the newspaper I linked
(historically rabidly anti-gun) was forced to cover at least some (they
still missed the boat by a wide margin) facts about the gun grab.

Nope -- it's for real. Unless we put on the George Orwell glasses and do a
classic "Un-think."
07/22/04 Fourth posting from WI Gun Owners (summary of local TV newscast)
[10:28:08]:

Reporter Mark Leland interviewed Terry Wesner, a neighbor who reported early
on the police entered his home WITHOUT a warrant and seized his guns.
Tonight, Wesner said police returned the guns (ohh, apparently the man
wasn't guilty, oh
well) BUT police "acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining
a warrant]."

Wesner said, according the report, police offered an apology and he wasn't
going to press charges. Wesner did say: "They're [the police] are not going
to come in my home again [without a warrant]." Source: Fox 11, WLUK-11 at 9,
Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Contact information --

Corey Graff, Executive Director

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.
P.O. Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org

RegBarc
July 25, 2004, 01:07 PM
Sgt. Bob, you nailed this on the head:

"Is it SOP to evacuate six block areas when a cop is wounded?
How about when a civilian is wounded?"

Excellent, excellent point.

Justin Moore
July 25, 2004, 01:17 PM
He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.

Well he had nothing he COULD say, because there were no grounds. Doh!
Or actually what I should say, if there was reasonable suspicion that a particular gun was used in the crime, a proper warrant should have been obtained to seize the property, consistent with the 4th amendment. In the absence of that we have a 'color of law' seizure of property/4th Amendment
Violation. But what the hell, its 'for your safety' ;)


Can anyone say 18 USC 242?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

Hell I'm surprised that didn't take DNA samples from the whole neighborhood as well ;)

BB62
July 25, 2004, 01:37 PM
Want to know one of the things that furthers the anti-LEO mindset? LEO actions such as yours here. There's a time to defend the actions of the police and there is a time to say something is over the top. This is an example of the latter and your "piling on" to defend it simply reflects an even worse light on yourself and your profession.

2nd Amendment,

You are absolutely right.

LEO actions and reactions that may or may not be legal, but are not "right" - and the defense of such here or elsewhere has changed many a person's perceptions of LEO's.

The "minority" communities have talked about this stuff for YEARS. It/they exist and ought to be dealt with.

BTW, what kind of neighborhood did this take place in?


BB62

lostone1413
July 25, 2004, 05:04 PM
Say AZRickD I said in a few post with the bill 218 going through this will be just the start. When the goverment comes to get your guns and the day is coming the LEOs will the ones who will knock on your door we have made a special class of so they can carry anywhere. Here in AZ you can't legally carry in 98% of the restaurants but a retired LEO from out of state could. You live in Illinois or Wisconsin you can't carry but they can even if not from your state. This is just the beginning of things to come.Wouldn't this have to be the first step in a police state????????????? To do away with the 1st amendment you have to do away with the 2nd first.

Powderman
July 25, 2004, 05:19 PM
OK.

After seeing the quotes from a news source--and apparently the individual affected---

1. Search each home? You could probably argue exigent circumstances to ENTER the home--but NOT to conduct an intrusive search. They balled that one up good. Even if they somehow FOUND the crime gun in this ham-handed method, it just became so much pot metal.

Apparently, someone forgot the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

2. Seizure of property, not contraband or illegal, without a warrant?

I feel sick at heart for the victim. But I think he does not have too much to worry about.

After lawyering up with some of the most bloodthirsty advocates he can find--even on a contingency basis--he, and the other residents affected will be able to afford plenty of new guns with the settlement.

And, the idiots that conducted the seizure should have their badges seized, get fired, and forbidden to carry anything other than a water pistol for the rest of their lives.

What a bunch of MORONS!!!

If this plays out the way it was written, it flies in the face of EVERY THING that is pounded into your head from day one at any Academy worth its salt.

A sad, sad day for law enforcement. :(

Stand_Watie
July 25, 2004, 08:56 PM
Well, at the end of the day, the cops on the scene had reason to believe that a suspect ran into that area and whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in. It is just that simple. So, no, there will be no successful suits and nobody will get fired or even reprimanded. When you are chasing a suspect, you chase him to wherever he goes and the courts have upheld that principal time and again...

Can you provide us with citations defining exigent circumstances as applicable to any residences within a 6 block area please? And if so, how that would meet the "reasonable person" standard?

If you in fact are simply defending the warrantless entry of one or two homes by police officers in fresh pursuit, then please say so, but it looks an awful lot to me like you're tring to defend the warrantless search of an entire neighborhood - and if that's the case you're not doing LEO's any favors with your argument.

Justin Moore
July 25, 2004, 10:30 PM
defining exigent circumstances

=whatever we say it means ;)

Stand_Watie
July 25, 2004, 11:06 PM
=whatever we say it means

Well I'm sure that some (although certainly not all, and I don't even believe the majority) police officers, would like for it to mean 'whatever they say it means', but fortunately that is not the case.

Exigent circumstances is defined by US v McConney as 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.'.

That might have been the case here in one or even several searches, but I don't believe warrantless searches on an entire neighborhood of homes looking for one or two suspects with nothing more than general geographic proximity as cause will come close to meeting that definition.

lostone1413
July 25, 2004, 11:50 PM
see by some of the post here that I really believe 218 is just the start of things to come. Soon a police state Guess who will be going in your house to get your guns

cracked butt
July 26, 2004, 02:13 AM
If you don't like living in a civil society with law enforcement, feel free to move someplace like oh.....the Sudan. You could try practicing what you preach and fending off crime all by yourself without those annoying LEOs coming to help. After all, you would be able to get class 3 and live in the paradise that so many people on here seem to seek where there aren't any of those pesky LEOs to harass you...but then again, most people over there don't live long enough to worry about harassment.

the USSC has reuled

If you really want to play that game, the USSC has ruled that cops aren't responsible for protecting citizens. You can rant all you want about people not protecting their own households unless they move to some 3rd world ?????hole where cops are the judges and executioners, while at the same time not letting a 911 call interfere with your coffee break so that by the time you show up at the crime scene, a crime has already been committed, boddies will have to be wheeled to the morgue, and you still don't have a suspect in custody.

Sorry, Homey don't play dat!:fire:

Once again, stick to enforcing laws, not making them up as you go.

Ironbarr
July 26, 2004, 02:24 AM
Why do "rules" always come up short - or too "long", giving a nebulous amount of power?

Here in the USC quoted everything but the kitchen sink is covered - except the use of drugs - a gaping hole in the protection intended.Can anyone say 18 USC 242? I've added (in red) possible coverage.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, or chemical or biological agents whether medically administered or in medical dosage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------An example of potential nebulous amount of power, the "prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons" (hi-lited below) allows many open doors; for instance, the millions of guns existing in the U.S. suggests a ratio of some calculation respecting the real estate. In the case of six square blocks, a "reasonable person" would expect that one in four(?), one in three(?) buildings/apartments/rooms, would contain a gun. This surely would provide the trigger for "prevent physical harm to the officers or others persons" power. We have recently seen this open door of officer protection extended to vehicles. I am concerned that too much power has been granted (if not just assumed).

I must also ask about the "of other persons". I'm of the understanding that police have no responsibility to protect individuals (unless the persons are under some official status).Exigent circumstances is defined by US v McConney as 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.'.

Comments?

standingbear
July 26, 2004, 10:32 AM
what I dont understand is...an officer got shot by perhaps a handgun?so why did the police seize other types as well and why from different homes?

the bit about the elderly lady waking to find swat in her kitchen..perhaps that suspicously looking cookie jar has something contraband in it.nice...they musta just let themselves in.....maybe they were hoping the lady will sleep right through it and not even notice they were there?

kinda nice using the search for a suspect to run on an entire bunch of private residences and seize things,isnt this exactly why the constitution was written?..oh,nevermind...thats not such a big deal.

im sure once it has been exposed to the public scrutiny or the media takes the story...it isnt going to look good.










I am concerned that too much power has been granted (if not just assumed). got that one right on the nose.

StopTheGrays
July 26, 2004, 01:02 PM
They have a suspect. (http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2075608)

Investigators in Oshkosh are asking the public for help to find what's being called the "critical" piece of evidence in the shooting of a police officer.

Police distributed fliers to people who live in the area of Saturday's shooting, asking them to search their yards and other property for the bullet that struck Officer Nate Gallagher.

Gallagher was shot while talking to another officer outside his squad car after responding to a report of underage drinking. The bullet went through his right arm.

Police scoured the area with metal detectors, and we even saw officers searching the ground on their hands and knees Monday, to no avail.

"I think there's a possibility out there that a vehicle drove over it, got embedded in a tire, deposited it a little bit further, somebody walked by, picked up something, was kind of looking at it, then discarded it as they walked away," Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said.

Police say it's also possible the bullet could be lodged in one of the dozens of trees in the area.

If you find the bullet or fragments, or damage from a bullet or ricochet, DO NOT TOUCH IT. Call police.

The police don't have much of a case against the person who's considered the prime suspect in the shooting. Invesigators say they're confident the shot was fired from the home of Mark Jungwirth. Three rifles were confiscated from his home.

But without the bullet, the district attorney says it can't be proven what gun fired it. Then the shooting would probably end up in an "unsolved case" file.

People in the neighborhood say there is a strong willingness to look for that bullet.

"This afternoon I will go around and start looking for the bullet in my yard or if it did any damage to my house, so just to help out the police department," Hicham Medroum said.

The police department's plea for help wasn't helped when a street sweeper moved through the neighborhood Thursday morning. Police quickly ordered the sweeper out of the area.

I looked the name up on the Circuit Court Access page to see if the name matched anyone sent thru the court system. One of the matches belonged to a guy with some drug convictions. Another had some traffic issues.
Public Case Search (http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessionid=99CB8B55B7FF41E1210543F1EEEEB7A6.render4?cacheId=B0B7264C943C847421B5C0B8DE4B81B6&offset=0&sortColumn=0&sortDirection=DESC) (the link may not work)

Executive Director
July 26, 2004, 01:38 PM
Let's keep on topic here: The overriding offense is that police appear to be throwing the presumption of innocence out the window completely.

Let's see your doctrinal dissertation on that topic, please.

Punk runs into neighborhood, therefore the constitition goes with it -- to "protect" everyone from themselves. So everyone in the neighborhood is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT by virtue of where they live.

The searches begin. The seizures begin. The dogs bark.

And grandma's cookie jar gets raided.

Since everyone is guilty of the crime until proven innocent, that would also include the police themselves, no? Perhaps the good citizens of this quiet little town ought to demand to search the gun safes of the police force!

Afterall, if they don't consent, then, what do THEY have to hide?

Of course, if they don't consent, also, that must mean they REALLY are guilty.

So then we get a warrant.

This is tyranny.



Corey Graff, Executive Director

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.
P.O. Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305

www.wisconsingunowners.org

FedDC
July 26, 2004, 02:24 PM
I think you are misunderstanding the position of most LEOs about open carry. I never said it was in any way morally wrong to do it, I said it is retarded from a tactical standpoint and that it attracts unwanted attention from both the sheeple and the criminals. It has no advantages unless you are trying to make some sort of statement (Guns are like bombs, they should not be used to make statements or express oppinions) or in the case of the guys I know that open carry...they just want everybody to know they have a gun bc it is "cool". You won't see a lot of LEOs open carry off duty bc we know what a huge disadvantage it is. You constantly have to worry about retention and where you sit, how your gun is situated to the public walking by your table, it bangs on doorways, people stare. etc. Concealed, the gun only comes out for one purpose and until then, the carrier has the advantage of suprise which is key to winning any fight, whether it is with a gun, fists, or any other tool.

HankB
July 26, 2004, 02:28 PM
. . . whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in. So . . . the cops believed the suspect - singular - was hiding in every house in the neighborhood? Funny, I thought court rulings have been made such that if chasing a suspect, upon seeing him run into a building, the cops could continue their pursuit. Or something of the sort. Not carte blanche to suspend the 4th Amendment wholesale.

By your logic, if a suspect disappears into, say, Chicago, the Chicago PD could search ALL the apartments, ALL the homes, ALL the condos, EVERYTHING with no warrant . . . sorry, but I don't think we've sunk this far.

Yet.

What makes this more disturbing is the apparent meek acquiesence by almost everyone in a six block area to the cops' demands. I'd comply with a valid, legal warrant, but if Barney Fife just shows up and says "Lemme In" . . . uh uh.

FedDC
July 26, 2004, 02:41 PM
The LEOs did NOT enter every house.

The LEOs did not seize evidence from every house, only 2 of them. What type of evidence, whether it was a gun, bloody knife, clothing, etc. is not relevant as the legal standard for seizure is the same for all of them. Nobody was searched for "Refusing" to consent and nothing was taken without probable cause in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of that state. Stop the knee jerk reactions aka, OMG, the JBTs are seizing everyone's guns. It isn't so. There are two sides to this and thus far, all we seem to hear is the side from the folks that may very well have been accomplices to the crime...for Pete's sake, the shot was most likely fired from one of the houses entered!

If you are going to bash the cops for chasing an attempted murder suspect, get it straight.

EricOKC
July 26, 2004, 03:09 PM
FedDC,

Could you please enlighten us as to the specific law which grants you as a police officer the authority to cordon off, evacuate and search - WITHOUT a signed warrant - a 6 block radius for ANY crime, much less something which could end up easily being an accident?

Additionally, please explain why such a response only appears to be warranted when a LEO is harmed, yet had the same thing happened to a "civilian", the LEO response would have been to merely take a report and go on.

Even the information we do have is indefensible. Police are NOT some superior class of people. "Civilians" do not answer to the police. Under NO circumstances is it acceptable for an officer to enter a home on the mere suspicion a criminal MIGHT have gone in that general direction. Confiscation of ANY firearm without a warrant was illegal - especially ones which could not possibly have been used in the crime.

Until the law enforcement community in general remembers exactly who answers to whom, we are going to have issues.

FedDC
July 26, 2004, 03:28 PM
Eric-

Lose the inferiority complex and grow up. It doesn't matter if it is a cop that got shot or not. Those officers that rescued the 4 missing kids this morning didn't do it bc of any association that the kids had with LE, they did it bc they go to work to make the world a better place.

As to citing a bunch of laws and giving you a general education on legal issues, go to college. Study law for 5 years like I did and follow it up with 6 months of police academy and several; years on the job in and out of a courtroom, then feel free to tell me what the laws are in relation to search and seizure...but wait--- The officers only searched a couple of houses, not every one for 6 blocks so your argument is BS on its face. Better luck next time.

sturmruger
July 26, 2004, 03:31 PM
I can't believe this happened in Oshkosh, WI. I can't believe the police can get away with ???? like that!! There are going to be some serious lawsuits over this one. I hope the police loose some major cash.

EricOKC
July 26, 2004, 03:46 PM
FedDC:

From the AP wire:

Oshkosh-AP -- Residents living in a six-block Oshkosh area are evacuated tonight after a police officer was shot.

People haven't been let back into their homes as police search for the shooting suspect.

and the rest of the story:

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2054085

Bottom line is the Oshkosh, WI PD overreacted.

lostone1413
July 26, 2004, 03:58 PM
Start of a police state you haven't seen anything yet.

FedDC
July 26, 2004, 04:00 PM
Evacuated is not Searched. Bullets could easily travel that far.

I can see an alternate headline:

"Ploice fail to evacuate Citizens to safety before gun battle breaks out leading to death of small child"

Which is better, to be evacuated prior to a gunfight, or to just watch CNN while rounds come into your house...

EricOKC
July 26, 2004, 04:15 PM
Lets try to see this from the other side FedDC.

I understand your perspective on the possibly public relations issue had there been a gun battle, but given the circumstances - one shot and no more in the time it took to assemble the response - its difficult to justify their actions.

It was over the top to say the least.

I know you want to see this as the police doing the right thing, but too many of us cannot. If you want to be blind to the abuses of authority by law enforcement agencies, then by all means do so. Just dont try to tell the rest of us that such things dont exist.

Based upon the information given in all the stories I can find on this issue, the OPD acted way outside their authority. If you have alternative information to the contrary, by all means, present it.

madcowburger
July 26, 2004, 04:22 PM
I live in an apartment on the top (third) floor of an apartment building where the street door locks automatically when closed. It's in a pretty bad part of town (though to be blunt the whole town is a bad neighborhood).

To get into my building, one must either have a key to the street door, or be "buzzed" in by one of the residents. (Or I suppose someone inside might just physically, manually open the street door from inside if they happened to be standing near it.)

This is not a foolproof system because some of the residents will "buzz" in *anyone* who keeps persistently buzzing one or several or even *all* of the apartment buzzers, without even knowing who it is. Also, from time to time some of the tenants themselves are pretty unsavory characters, or else they have a *lot* of unsavory guests trooping in and out. (One of the latter stole a plastic owl of mine that had been perched unbothered on a cabinet in the hall outside my apartment door for years.)

I selected this place largely for the slight added measure of security and privacy provided by the automatic-locking-door-door-buzzer/intercom system, which is unusual in my neck of the woods, though pretty common in bigger towns, I guess.

I also selected a top floor apartment *specifically* to make it tougher for anyone outside to peep in through the windows. In addition, all windows are always heavily draped and/or "blacked-out."

Since I *never* buzz anyone in unless I'm expecting them, and no longer use the intercom either, because the minute I speak on the intercom I have given it away that I am at home (or that *someone* is here, anyway). I don't entertain socially here. In fact I actively and passively *discourage* all visitors, especially unexpected, uninvited ones.

Before I even started moving any of my stuff in here in September, 1999, I got a locksmith in here and had him install a deadbolt lock and a wide-angle "peephole" door viewer in the apartment's hall door. (I got special written permission from the landlord to do this, on the condition that I provide him with a key. I provided him with *a* key, alright. Whether it'll work in my lock -- the *only* deabolt lock in the whole building -- is another question.)

I also (without bothering to inform the landlord, whom I distrust) converted the walk-in closet in the master bedroom into a sort of poor man's strong room. My so-called "gun safe" (one of those $120 sheet metal Wal-Mart things with the tubular keys) is screwed to the wall inside the always locked "strong room," inside the master bedroom, which is also always kept closed and locked whenever I must have the landlord's parolee "maintenance" henchmen in here.

So, "buttoned up" to the degree that I usually am here, I wonder how a "sweep" like the one in Oshkosh would have gone down here? If I just "played possum," didn't respond to the buzzer or use the intercom, or answer the hall door at all if someone got inside the building and came up the stairs and knocked on my always-locked (and *braced*) door? I mean not respond to a knock on the door, not even to refuse consent for a warrantless search (or even one *with* a warrant, for that matter).

Would my lack of response, or the uncertainty of the police whether I was even home or not, be sufficient "exigent circumstances," or "probable cause," for them to force entry, or attempt it?

Suppose I lived in some considerably more secure and private place, a house that was designed from the ground up to be, or extensively modified to be, *seriously* hard to break into?

I mean a place where no one unexpected, uninvited, or unwelcome could even get *to* the door to knock on it without doing some "Guns of Navarone"-style rock climbing, or blasting or ramming their way in with explosives or heavy earth-moving machinery (and the latter would be hindered by wide, deep, steep-sided ditches and various obstacles), or "fast-roping" in from a helicopter or something. A place where, once invaders managed to breach the outermost gate or portal, they'd find themselves at least temporarily trapped like fish in a barrel, and perhaps bewildered as well by maze-like, dead-end passageways, false doors, etc.

If I ever have any money worth mentioning I intend to build a place more-or-less like that. And it's not just ordinary, common criminals I'll be trying to keep out either.

I am not a druggie or pot grower or any kind of criminal as far as I know. (Though who really knows anymore what "laws" they may be breaking just by being alive?) I live alone so there is hardly likely to be any kind of "domestic dipute"/"domestic violence"-type complaint. I do own several guns, all of which were bought through normal commercial channels from licensed dealers -- all legal and proper and all the forms filled out. At least everything was legal when I bought it.

So how come I -- a relatively honest, peaceable, even bland and shy fellow -- feel the need to go to such lengths to defend my rights, not so much from criminals as from the armed agents of some level or other of government?

I want to be able to say "No," and really make it stick, at least for a while.

MCB

Beren
July 26, 2004, 04:47 PM
Which is better, to be evacuated prior to a gunfight, or to just watch CNN while rounds come into your house...

...and if I refuse to leave my home upon a police "request" that I evacuate?

Nobody was searched for "Refusing" to consent

From one of the news stories:

Ron Kendall, a resident of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street, said residents of the house that has become the focus of the police investigation refused to consent to a search without a warrant.

He suspects it’s a reason why police are giving the home so much attention.

Detectives, who went to the home with a search warrant Sunday morning, were seen using a metal detector, sweeping through grass and cutting down shrubs and branches in the front yard Monday evening. Puestohl declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search.

flatrock
July 26, 2004, 05:02 PM
Take a look at FedDC's other recent posts. He's obviously incapable of making rational comparisons when police actions are questioned.

When a 6 block area has it's occupants removed and a number of houses searched without warrents he compares it to a police officer entering a building while chasing after a suspect.

He compares the removal of all weapons, in at least one case both shotguns and rifles, to searching for a specific gun used in shooting an officer.

In a another thread he compared a homeowner who found drugs and stolen items in a building on his property and called the police to a case where he said someone complained to him that someone stole their drugs.

He apparently has no respect for people and believes that the police are justified regardless of what they do.

If he really is in law enforcement, maybe they should investigate his actions. His posts alone should be plenty of evidence to take his badge away,a dn go through every case he dealt with to see if he possibly violated someone's rights. However, he'll probably think that's unfair, because he feels he deserves due process, and there should have to be reasonable evidence before his life is turned upside down or his rights are violated. After all he's a cop, the rest of us aren't.

He isn't willing to actually discuss the issue and consider that the officers might have been wrong, even though at least in one case the officers returned the man's guns, appologized, and admitted that they didn't have a right to take them.

geekWithA.45
July 27, 2004, 01:45 AM
The Great Blue Fraternity got overzealous when one of their own went down.

Armed with their esprite de corp, growing sense of elitism, and rationalizations like

If the officers had a reason to believe that a shooter ran into an area, the evac and search was totally justified since suspects have been known to take hostages in those situations...as in, home invasion followed by taking homeowners hostage and it ending badly

and

Well, at the end of the day, the cops on the scene had reason to believe that a suspect ran into that area and whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in. It is just that simple. So, no, there will be no successful suits and nobody will get fired or even reprimanded.

outweighing their understanding that their powers are limited and the Bill of Rights has actual meaning, there was nothing to restrain them.

Sorry, FedDC, I usually will side with the cops to let them do their jobs when there's room for doubt, but I don't see any this time.

Excessive. Use. Of. Force. Too. Broadly. Applied.

Next case.

cracked butt
July 27, 2004, 09:26 AM
As to citing a bunch of laws and giving you a general education on legal issues, go to college. Study law for 5 years like I did and follow it up with 6 months of police academy and several; years on the job in and out of a courtroom, then feel free to tell me what the laws are in relation to search and seizure...but wait--- The officers only searched a couple of houses, not every one for 6 blocks so your argument is BS on its face. Better luck next time.

FedDC- before you get all smug about your college edumacation, you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills in order to understand the facts as they were presented in the news as in this case.

OF
July 27, 2004, 09:54 AM
FedDC, we could not ask for a more perfect example of exactly the kind of tyrannical stormtrooper 'cops are always right, STFU citizen!' than you yourself.

You are so unwilling to debate with any kind of fact or citation and so completely convinced that absolutely everything these (or any) cops did (or will ever do) was 100% correct and in the right (and that all cops walk on water for all intents and purposes), that the ends justify the means, etc. that I'm half seriously thinking you are actually not a cop at all, but an anti-cop crusader out to whip up anti-cop sentiment by being as thugish, rude, abusive and ignorant as you possibly can be while 'claiming' to be a police officer!

If only that were true, you could be dismissed. The fact (I think...) that you really are a police officer makes my stomach turn.

You need to think long and hard about where your 'power' comes from and who's in charge in this country. I've got news for you buddy: it ain't you.

Try this on for size: you have been repeatedly (and politely) asked for evidence of law that gives you (or any cop) the power to search (not enter, search) at random houses within a 6-block area of a shooting and confiscate without warrant, multiple types of firearms from the local citizens. Instead of providing this info, you attacked the member who asked you for it. ATTACKED. Think about that. Read what you wrote. The way you have treated the members here in this thread is exactly the style of arrogant power-hungry police behavior that we are talking about. You are the poster child. When questioned, you respond with the classic assaults on those who have made you uncomfortable, those who have questioned your authority as you see it.

We get it, you studied law, so this should be easy: cite the law (or even the legal precenedt) that gives you the powers you said you have: to confiscate property with no warrant, no probable cause, no notice and no consent. 'Alternative headlines' you made up out of your imagination don't count...but I guess your legal training didn't cover that.

- Gabe

P95Carry
July 27, 2004, 03:44 PM
Sadly - but predictably .. ''Them & Us'' - has just been cranked up yet another notch. :(

FedDC - your ''official'' altruism just doesn't really cut it. ''Just doing my job'' ...... is about the number.

''And n'er the twain shall meet'' .......... :mad:

Bainx
July 27, 2004, 05:48 PM
Well, I for one heard the rep. of Gun Owners of America of WI today in WI talking on an interview and he clearly stated that there were a number of searches without warrant and also that there were a number of firearms 'stolen' by the LEOs as he put it.
He said 'stolen' was the appropriate term.

I don't give a darn how you slice this, it is way-out-of-line with our Constitution.

Michigander
July 27, 2004, 10:06 PM
This is a travesty of the highest order. Who would have ever thought something like this could happen in the USofA? Why didn't anyone predict this?

Oh, wait a minute. I see WildAlaska didn't chime in yet. I'm sure there was nothing unconstitutional about all this and I'm sure everything is going to be OK, right WA? ;)

EricOKC
July 27, 2004, 10:20 PM
I have noticed that LEO's and other members of the ruling class, er i mean, other government employees seem to think there was nothing wrong with this, while the peons, i mean, regular citizens think it was completely out of line.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps because those of us in the underclass, i mean, those of us who do not work for the government are getting a little tired of the authoritarian behavior exhibited by those we pay to uphold our rights rather than step on them? Perhaps its because regular citizens, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, are not terribly inclined to believe the LEO's are telling the truth?

While law enforcement officers are welcome to their opinion, it isnt a good idea to tell the rest of us that we're wrong and not provide any backup for that assertion other than your own bluster and arrogance. Do try to remember who works for whom in this equation.

Michigander
July 27, 2004, 11:19 PM
1) The police have not recovered a bullet.

2) The police seize various firearms from various buildings.

3) The police return some of the firearms, somehow determining that they were not used in the shooting, even though they do not yet know the caliber.

4) Apparently the shot was fired from inside a house? If this is true, then the sound should have been greatly muffled to the observer who stated that he/she heard it from umteen yards away. Otherwise the shot would have been from outside a house, which would be more consistent with the person who believed he/she heard firecrackers.

5) A woman witnessed someone(s) running between buildings. So, the shooter shot from inside a building, then exitted the building and then ran between a couple of buildings and then supposibly entered another building.

How do you say, BOTCHED!

buy guns
July 27, 2004, 11:51 PM
If I ever have any money worth mentioning I intend to build a place more-or-less like that. And it's not just ordinary, common criminals I'll be trying to keep out either.


i feel the same way. if i had the money i would build a fortress of a house with all kinds of high tech security equipment. you never know when it would come in use.

priv8ter
July 28, 2004, 12:32 AM
First off, I believe, firmly, that most of the Line LEO(the guys in the patrol cars, and walking the beats) ARE on OUR side. It's their boses, who probably ordered this operation, that I don't trust. Officer Joe Average, whatever JBT tendencies they might or might not have, can't order the cordoning and searching or 6 blocks. This smacks of a MANAGMENT SNAFU.

Anyway, reading this article does convince me of something. I need to get pictures documented, with Serial Numbers, of all my guns. Say something like this happened here. I DON'T(probably stupid) keep recipts of all my gun purchases. How could I PROVE that an unscrupulous Officer HAD confiscated one of my guns, especially if there was no warrent to prove it.

Kind of scary, from that point of view.

greg

WonderNine
July 28, 2004, 03:04 AM
Got any proof that PC on the warrants was insufficient? See in the real world you need PROOF that something illegal occurred. -DMF

Got any proof that PC on the warrants was sufficient? See in the real world you need PROOF that something illegal has occurred.

I notice you completely ignored the notion that people consented to searches. - DMF

Supposedly some people did. So?

I'm at a loss as to why they seized rifles and shotguns, when they clearly didn't match the description of the weapon used???

Oshkosh Police Capt. Jay Puestohl said officers “don’t go into houses without consent or a warrant.” He acknowledged consent to search does “not necessarily” mean officers have consent to remove property.

Terry Wesner said “a couple of shotguns and a rifle” were removed from his home by SWAT Team members after he consented to a search, though officers did not tell him they removed the firearms after they completed their search.

“That’s what makes me so mad,” Wesner said. “They had no reason (to remove the firearms) without a warrant. … I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.”

:scrutiny:

DMF
July 28, 2004, 03:14 AM
W9, very sneaky to attack my arguments on a separate thread. I guess you were hoping I wouldn't notice. Too bad pay closed the other thread and drew my attention here.

Got any proof that PC on the warrants was sufficient? See in the real world you need PROOF that something illegal has occurred.Yeah the Magistrate reviewed the case, and signed the warrant. You see again in the real world the police don't just type a warrant and run off to search. They have to convince a Magistrate Judge that they have PC for the search.Supposedly some people did. So?So maybe Corey Graff of WIG Owners, Inc. is trying to drum up support with phony stories of police abuses, rather than tell the real story about warrants and consensual searches. Sure it's an unethical way to get support for your cause, but it's worked for Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, GOA, and others for decades, so WIG Owners, Inc. is just following the trend.

Justin Moore
July 28, 2004, 03:21 AM
Try this on for size: you have been repeatedly (and politely) asked for evidence of law that gives you (or any cop) the power to search (not enter, search) at random houses within a 6-block area of a shooting and confiscate without warrant, multiple types of firearms from the local citizens. Instead of providing this info

18 USC 241 is all that applies here ;) Well, maybe not ALL, but it works for me ;)

goalie
July 28, 2004, 03:22 AM
I have a question for the LEOs here: say I allowed the officers to make a cursory run-through of my home looking for a suspect, when they see my safes and I tell them no when they want to get into them, how exactly should that play out? It would appear that, in those same circumstances, the LEOs in question felt the need to obtain a warrant. What, may I ask, is probable cause in such an instance? Is my reluctance to allow LEOs to search my gun safes without any other probable cause to search my safe in and of itself probable cause to get a warrant?!?!?!?! If so,then my best bet, as a law-abiding citizen, is to actually refuse the original entry into my home of any police without a warrant no matter what. Then, said law enforcement officers will have to leave to get a warrant while I call my lawyer.

Do I have this right, if not, please tell me where I am wrong.

Justin Moore
July 28, 2004, 03:29 AM
Yeah the Magistrate reviewed the case, and signed the warrant. You see again in the real world the police don't just type a warrant and run off to search. They have to convince a Magistrate Judge that they have PC for the search.

Someone needs to address this, so I'll bite.

One has to wonder, what did they tell the judge? Surely they didn't say "Your Honor, they wouldn't consent to a search" because no rational judge would consider that PC.

That being the case, if the person is telling the truth, that they did NOT give consent to a search, what WAS the basis of the warrant? So far we have heard none from the cops involved. One would think they would want to get that
out in the public domain, given the controversy surrounding this case. Mum's
the word thou.

IF they judge gave them a warrant on the basis that they refused to consent to a search, he deserves a Felony pop under USC 18-241 as well.

And you know that....

DMF
July 28, 2004, 03:31 AM
A decent brief explanation of consensual searches can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html#1

WonderNine
July 28, 2004, 03:34 AM
W9, very sneaky to attack my arguments on a separate thread. I guess you were hoping I wouldn't notice.

Yea, that was my intention all along....:uhoh: I'm just a sneaky guy. And also a coward!!! I was really hoping you wouldn't look at the thread again. I certainly wouldn't have posted just because I wanted to continue the dialogue....

Yeah the Magistrate reviewed the case, and signed the warrant.

That's not proof that the warrant(s) were legal. We can get in a pissing match over this all day, but my point was that many of these guns did not fit the description and that the police shouldn't have removed these weapons. Just because a shooting took place six blocks away doesn't mean that's probable cause to have your gun confiscated and tested.

So maybe Corey Graff of WIG Owners, Inc. is trying to drum up support with phony stories of police abuses, rather than tell the real story about warrants and consensual searches.

Hey, could be!

AZRickD
July 28, 2004, 03:34 AM
They have to convince a Magistrate Judge that they have PC for the search.Wow, that sounds really difficult. The judge that approved the Waco search warrant was convinced by the BATF that "EZ kits" for AR 15 rifles (http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/warrant2.htm) actually existed, and that they were illegal. And then there's that matter of convincing the US Army that drugs were involved so that military equipment could be used to smash and burn the church.
Sure it's an unethical way to get support for your cause, but it's worked for Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, GOA, and others for decades, Now you're bashing the NRA like your momma is Sarah Brady. Choice.

What is unethical is intimidating sheeple into "consenting" to search when most don't know their rights from a donut thanks to government monopoly public skooling. Not illegal. But not ethical either. Especially when it results in the theft, yeah, I said "theft" of privately owned firearms when a felon is lurking in the neighborhood (at least a few blocks away, anyhoo).

Rick

DMF
July 28, 2004, 03:36 AM
One would think they would want to get that
out in the public domain, given the controversy surrounding this case. Mum's the word thou.Because unlike other people invovled cops and prosecutors can't just go to the media with information on as it may hinder the investigation. If I commented on ongoing investigations to the media, without approval from the prosecutors and HQ for the agency, I would be out of a job.

Justin Moore
July 28, 2004, 03:38 AM
Is my reluctance to allow LEOs to search my gun safes without any other probable cause to search my safe in and of itself probable cause to get a warrant?!?!?!?!

Just saw your post.

The answer is a resounding NO.

It goes like this: IF they had PC in the first place, they would be able to obtain a proper search warrant and would NOT be asking you for a 'consent search'. They know that, but of course they are not going to tell you that. Refusal of a 'consent search' is NOT probable cause.

Without PC, its none of their damn business what's in your safe. Tell them to get stuffed.

NEVER agree to a consent search under any circumstances.

Picture this scenario, you loan your buddy your car. While has has it he drops his little baggie of (insert favorite substance here) accidently. YOU have no idea its in your car.
You get popped for a traffic stop and are asked for consent to search your vehicle. You figure 'no big deal, I don't have anything to hide, so why not'. They find the dope. You tell them its not yours. How well do you think that's gonna work out? ;)

My friend get stopped by the HP one time for speeding. He has Parkinson's Disease and his hands shake. The cop asks him why he's shaking, and he explains it to him. Which they cop did NOT want to hear. He flat out called him a liar, and asked for consent to search. At first by bro told him no, to which the HP replied 'well then I"ll hold you here until I get a warrant". Now, that was an outright lie, for the reasons explained above. If he had PC to get a warrant, he wouldn't have asked for consent in the first place. Eventually my friend relented, because he figured he had nothing to hide. Which he didn't. The search turned up nothing. Nonetheless I chewed his ass, and then explained to him what his rights really were.

AZRickD
July 28, 2004, 03:39 AM
They don't hesitate to stick their faces and mouths in front of cameras and microphones when it suits their purpose.

Rick

Justin Moore
July 28, 2004, 03:41 AM
Because unlike other people invovled cops and prosecutors can't just go to the media with information on as it may hinder the investigation.

Explain to me how them explaining the basis for the PC for the warrant would 'hinder the investigation'

I heard Janet Reno and Clinton make that argument a million times btw ;)

goalie
July 28, 2004, 03:46 AM
Justin,

You just made my point for me. I am now a member of the population that will tell any and every LEO I ever meet to do something anatomically impossible before I even talk to them, no matter what the circumstances.

If I have information that can lead to the immediate arrest of a cop killer, well, too f'bad. I am calling my lawer before I say a thing to any police officer, let alone allow the officer on my property. That is a pretty sad state of afffairs if you ask me, but hey, CYA has become the game to play I guess. If a cop killer gets away, well, at least I won't be in jail for something unrelated that I didn't even know about. Oh well.

Justin Moore
July 28, 2004, 03:52 AM
You just made my point for me. I am now a member of the population that will tell any and every LEO I ever meet to do something anatomically impossible before I even talk to them, no matter what the circumstances.

Well, whoa there. HEHEHE ;) I certainly didn't intend to provke that response in you. I guess if you feel that way thou I would understand. This type of sentiment is increasingly on the rise, and I don't think the attitudes of a lot of the newer officers really helps to negate it.

I live in a rather rural area, and for the most part all of my interactions with law enforcement have been profressional and courteous. However, most of the guys around here still have the (correct) 'peace office' mentality. Not the 'your a civilian mentality'. There are a few new guys around here that I don't think are straight shooters, but I know WHO they are, since this is a small town. So when
it comes to dealing with them, I'm gonna CYA. If they treat me with respect, they'll get it back. If they don't, then they won't. Simple as that.

Now, that being said: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. And use them, lest you lose them. If you run across the bad eggs, don't let them jerk you around

ojibweindian
July 28, 2004, 09:56 AM
I am calling my lawer before I say a thing to any police officer, let alone allow the officer on my property.

An excellent plan of action.

I've said it before, modern LEOs are NOT our friends. At best, they are, generally, uneasy allies. If you have to talk to them, tell them only what is absolutely necessary, otherwise, you may be inviting serious trouble.

odysseus
July 28, 2004, 07:40 PM
I see it still as a fairly simple case of a breach of constitutional rights.

Essentially unless they see a suspect go into someone's home and then there is a question to what firearms are what, I could see a case based on just-cause much to what FedDC eluded too earlier. However from the sounds of it, this was not the case.

What would happen to one who shut the door and said, "No, you may not take my firearms. You are welcome to search my premises for the suspect, but unless you have just cause you cannot take them"? Some LEOs have simply forgot who pays their bills and hires them to protect and maintain the peace. It's a terrible case, it wrenches me to hear of any LE being shot - it might be a family member of mine. But this sounds like a power grab and intimidation beyond any normal scope.

So let's say next week they find a large bag of illicit drugs outside. Can they then go to everyone's house and run medical drug tests on everyone? Search and seize items in their homes? They should be ashamed. It's un-American.

This sounds easily a breach of infringment of the 2nd, is exactly a breach of the 4th, and possibly the 5th if prosecution occured. The LEO's were not being careful, and could even have jeapordized something for the DA - maybe not in this case, but certainly this behaviour and disregard will lead them to trouble.

...I wonder what really happened. It sounds too simple.

Michigander
July 28, 2004, 08:10 PM
Because unlike other people invovled cops and prosecutors can't just go to the media with information on as it may hinder the investigation. If I commented on ongoing investigations to the media, without approval from the prosecutors and HQ for the agency, I would be out of a job.

Isn't that crazy? An LEO will lose his/her job for going to the media with information because it negatively effects their brothers in blue yet they only get a suspension (if that) for numerous other crimes/misconduct because it only negatively effects us mere "civilians."
:scrutiny:

odysseus
July 30, 2004, 02:13 PM
Anyone got an update to this case?

LiquidTension
July 31, 2004, 12:01 AM
This could have ended up MUCH worse. If some cops came to my door, demanded to come in my house and steal my guns... I hate to say it, but there might be a confrontation. Now, if the cops wanted to check my house and they asked politely, I MIGHT escort them through the house to show that nobody was there - MAYBE. If, while inside, they said, "where are your guns, we need to take them," there would be a major @%#&storm.

Don't tell me I'm the only one here that would not respond kindly to officers taking my guns when I've done nothing wrong and the wanted criminal is not in my residence....

I'm NOT saying I'd start shooting cops, but I would probably be taken to jail for forcefully DEFENDING MY PROPERTY AND RIGHTS.

That said, I'd like to get the whole story before passing judgement on this particular case. So far it sounds like the cops acted completely inappropriately. After all info is released, it could turn out that their actions were justified. I can't think of anything that would justify stealing people's guns that are obviously not related to the crime, but just because I can't think of it doesn't mean it isn't possible :D

Texasbagman
July 31, 2004, 12:57 AM
Anyone got an update to this case?

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/

Justin Moore
July 31, 2004, 05:54 AM
Jah here's the actual text of the update. FedDC old buddy, are ya out there? ;)

Oshkosh police say 'Sorry' for trampling citizens' rights in door-to-door gun confiscations.

Oshkosh, Wis. -- In what appears to be an admission of wrong-doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by the department.

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone.

Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

"However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found," said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there's no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic."

Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department's "Guilty-until-proven-innocent" posture towards citizens.

In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

"That’s what makes me so mad," said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). "They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns." [Emphasis Added]

In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

"They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on," the man said on camera.

An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

"Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant "Reasonable Suspicion" or "Probable Cause" that she could have committed this heinous act?" asked Graff.

"Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?" He said.

In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, "declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…"

"If officers were acting honorably and respecting property owners' rights, why not say so? Why not be upfront? Why the secrecy?" Graff said.

One resident in the neighborhood may have found himself the subject of the investigation simply by refusing to consent to a search (entirely within his rights) according to the news report.

The Oshkosh Northwestern story quoted one neighbor — who suspected homeowners who exercised their right to refuse consent to the heavy-handed searches, were presumed guilty by police — as saying:

". . .[T]hey’ve been downright rude to us. . .You don’t treat so-called civilians this way." [Emphasis Added]

The news story goes on to say that Captain Puestohl ". . .declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search."

This hysteria-driven Oshkosh neighborhood gun grab could establish a nightmarish precedent for a wide-open abuse of police power to be unleashed upon Badger State gun owners said WGO.

The silence from other gun rights groups on this issue is deafening.

"The institutional gun lobby is just as scared as the poor people in that Oshkosh neighborhood," Graff said. "They might be thinking, 'If I speak out, will my guns be next?'"

Wesner, one of the brave gun owners to speak out against the rash of gun confiscations that occurred after the shooting, said police confiscated his guns after entering his home without a search warrant.

He reported in a Thursday, July 22 television interview with WLUK-FOX 11, "They [the police] are not going to come in my home again [without a warrant]."

That same report stated that the police "acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining a warrant]."

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. said the most effective response for gun owners is to join and contribute to the organization's bold, no-compromise educational crusade.


Sorry? Sorry enough to eat a Felony rap under 18 USC 241? ;)

FedDC
July 31, 2004, 06:55 AM
More info from the "Wisconsin Gun Owners"... How many members do they have again? Oh yeah, I think it is about 1. Every one of those "articles" was written by the SAME guy so, no, I am not suprised at the content of the article.

It sounds like the officers did exactly what they said they would do and tested the firearms in question, then returned those that were not evidence.:D

cracked butt
July 31, 2004, 07:12 AM
It sounds like the officers did exactly what they said they would do and tested the firearms in question, then returned those that were not evidence

Exactly what did they test the guns for if they haven't found a projectile?


Why don't the cops do these 'broad gun sweeps' and gun confiscations in 'da hood' in Milwaukee whenever someone gets shot other than the fact that it would be happening on a basis of 2 or 3 times a week and would still be illegal? No matter, lets just keep defending the indefensible.:rolleyes:

FedDC
July 31, 2004, 07:25 AM
The way I understand it, they only took evidence from 2 houses that they thought may have been the point of origin for the fire...how is that a broad sweep.

Ironbarr
July 31, 2004, 10:38 AM
Check to find out if they are building a ballistic data base. Great way to add "old unregistered gun(s)" ballistic data - a form of gun registration, no?

Beren
July 31, 2004, 10:59 AM
Look, some folks here might think I dislike cops. That's not the case. I hold a high level of respect for those who would risk their life to protect mine. But in this particular case, a great injustice was carried out by the officers involved.

EVERY SINGLE OFFICER who participated in this miscarriage of justice, and every single senior officer who authorized the operation or who knew about it and did nothing to stop it needs to have their badge stripped. I don't care if that guts their entire police department, those officers have shown themselves to be a danger to the society they are supposed to protect.

I sincerely hope felony charges and a civil suit are pending in this matter.

Highland Ranger
July 31, 2004, 11:11 AM
Can the police force you to evacuate?

They can ask, they can't force unless they want to charge you and haul you in.

Every one of those homes in that 6 block area should have asked for a warrant. So no warrant and they just take stuff from your house without so much as a receipt.

We in NJ call that STEALING.

This is some scary crap. I hope it turns out to be a hoax.

standingbear
July 31, 2004, 11:20 AM
Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked. so tell me again why it was necessary to quarantine homes in a 6 block area..break in private residences and remove home owners to a "safe place" while their homes were all being searched?was it even known what caliber they were to be looking for?

did anyone even get an accurate description of the shooter other than "he ran that way" or "the shot came from over there"

Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone. this part I find to be most disturbing-no knowledge as to what was even taken and when- just that their guns were missing..I guess they were too busy to leave a inventory sheet and a warrant to seize the items missing..

unprofessional.














:barf:

Powderman
July 31, 2004, 11:43 AM
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I wonder in that sounds familiar to our brethren in blue in Wisconsin?

This whole thing sounds like a nightmare come true.

joab
July 31, 2004, 11:51 AM
An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours. If this happened in my house my Pit sleeping in the living room would have been shot and killed, hearing the shots I might have come out of the bedroom at least armed ,if not shooting , I would have been shot and killed and possibly 1 or 2 stormtroopers.
I would like to hear one of the LEOs here justify that to my wife and kids, and to the jury sueing the department for wrongful death and anything else the shyster lawyer could come up with. And believe me my wife would pick the most vicious and disreputable lawyer ACLU and NRA could find, and they would all be beating down her door.

firearms_instructor
July 31, 2004, 09:34 PM
[heavy sarcasm ON] I'm sure all those pesky citizens who complained about the police probably have CRIMINAL RECORDS, right, WA? [heavy sarcasm OFF]

I was blissfully unaware that the police had the authority to herd innocent citizens into shelters. What happens if they had other plans?

I am also blissfully unaware of police procedures regarding confiscation of private property, so when I read that the cops took people's guns without warrants, without receipts, and without even notifying the citizens, the word "theft" keeps coming up for me. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of legal subtleties can enlighten me.

BTW, lest I be misunderstood, I have NO PROBLEM with HONEST cops. But as far as I'm concerned, a cop who's a thief is far worse than an ordinary thief, because he was sworn to uphold the public trust, and nowadays even more so, because dishonest cops seem to be above the law. Why is Lon Horiuchi still free?

AZRickD
July 31, 2004, 10:29 PM
Oshkosh police say 'Sorry' for trampling citizens' rights in door-to-door gun confiscations."Trampling citizen's rights?" There is no individual right to keep and bear arms so there should be no need for an apology. Police could, on their own initiative confiscate any gun they come into contact with.

Right?

Rick

firearms_instructor
July 31, 2004, 10:38 PM
Thanks for putting it into perspective for me. I'd HATE to think the police were acting unlawfully.

Orthonym
August 1, 2004, 11:04 PM
Why is Lon Horiuchi still ALIVE? Sorry to display my upsettedness to you folks, but this is in OSHKOSH, b'gosh, the headquarters of the EAA, where the AIRVENTURE fly-in is happening right now! (or within a week or two either way)


The people who fly into Oshkosh every year, in airplanes which they have built with their own hands, are arguably the most hyper-normal, regular guys, that could possibly exist! Are they to feel funny, and fearful, when they happen to see a local policeman giving them a nasty gaze, if they know what we know?

PATH
August 2, 2004, 02:06 AM
No Warrant? No entry! Simple as that. Evacuate? No. Articulate your reasons for arresting me because I wish to remain in my house. This appears to be a very bad thing the Oshkosh PD did. Way out of bounds.

This is a very bad precedent! Oh by the way. Cops are not in the military!
They are CIVILIANS!!! Some serious 4th Amendment abuse went on here! This calls, no screams out for, civil rights violations charges!

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 10:20 AM
LEO behavior such as this is beginning to garner drastic reactions such as described in the article linked below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127220,00.html

FedDC
August 2, 2004, 11:54 AM
Ok there obi, I let a lot of crap go by because many people just don't know and don't know that they don't know anything about law...but what you just posted is way out of bounds.

That bunch of drug dealing, murdering, race baiting scum in Denver that is fighting the PD needs to be taken out and horse whipped. They are up in arms over 2 shootings, both of which are 100% justified. Heck, in one case the suspect was charging at the officer with the knife in hand! But, like many things, the race of the suspect was different than that of the officer (Enter the race baiters) and it became political. Both of those officers were unfairly punished and in one case suspened without pay for several months. If you want the real story of Denver, try this site.

http://thebrokenbadge.com/

2nd Amendment
August 2, 2004, 12:27 PM
You may well be right, FedDC, but your credibility is already in such tatters from all the other foolishness you've posted that nobody actually knows...or cares...

Sindawe
August 2, 2004, 12:36 PM
And what of the officers who shot and killed Mr. Mena in Denver a few years back, where THEY unfairly punished?

I've seen images of these flyers, mostly on the news shortly after this last killing by Denver PD. While provokative and 'over the top', I think they do give voice to a sentiment that is increasing in Denver, and across the county (based on the tone of some posts here on THR and other sites). As I've pointed out before, LEO's are loosing support of the people they serve. Some times by millimeters over months, sometimes by kilometers in a few seconds.

FEDDC: As far as thebrokenbadge.com goes, I have doubts about it being the 'true story', since it looks like its run by a cop based on the text on the main page. I've not called up the number for the admin contact on that site to confirm or deny same, since it looks like a residential address in Aurora. Feels to me more like a propoganda site for the cops in Denver.

joab
August 2, 2004, 12:44 PM
That bunch of drug dealing, murdering, race baiting scum in Denver that is fighting the PD I wasn't aware the NEFF members had been identified
They are up in arms over 2 shootings, both of which are 100% justified
They are up in arms over 11 iquestionable shootings in 16 months
If you want the real story of Denver, try this site. So tou are saying that the only people to be trusted with the story are the very one's who's actions are being questioned. Why would I trust their take anymore than the other affected people.
both of which are 100% justified Please justify the level of training it takes to mistake a soda can for a gun. If I did the same thing on the street would you be as fast to defend my actions.
You may well be right, FedDC, but your credibility is already in such tatters from all the other foolishness you've posted that nobody actually knows...or cares... Yep

Powderman
August 2, 2004, 01:08 PM
Please justify the level of training it takes to mistake a soda can for a gun. If I did the same thing on the street would you be as fast to defend my actions.

Please tell me how easy it is to identify a deadly weapon in a person's hand during less than optimal conditions.

A study was done by Caliber Press, a law enforcement training organization to determine just how long it took for a person to draw and fire a round (not aimed) at a close-in target.

The time? Nine-hundredths of a second. That's .09 seconds.

Faster than your eyes can blink.

Yes, mistakes do happen--and just saying that won't bring that person back. If the cop has a conscience, what happened there will be a waking nightmare for the rest of their life.

But, I hope you get the point--in less time than your eyes can blink, a cop had to make a choice between life and death. And what if he had chosen the other route--and that WAS a gun coming up in the other guy's hand?

Would you all be so quick to condemn?

Would you all be sad--for a few minutes, saying the requisite words of regret, and then--well, hi-ho, it's off tothe next thread?

Do you really, REALLY know what it's like to go into something that you KNOW is going bad, and thinking, "Well, at least I kissed my wife goodbye today".

And some of you are saying that fliers being put out that put bounties on a cop's life are actually understandable? Is it that acceptable to just kill us?

Is this what the "high road" is all about?

Maybe one or more of you will one day meet me, and say "Hey! There's Powderman! and just start blasting away. Is that what I have to look forward to?

Is that what WE--as cops--have to look forward to?

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 01:16 PM
Ok there obi, I let a lot of crap go by because many people just don't know and don't know that they don't know anything about law...but what you just posted is way out of bounds.

I posted it as an fyi, nothing more. It is neither tacit or implicit approval.

Seems to me that you're a little touchy about the "LEO bashing". I suppose I would be, too, if I were working in a profession that has been garnering a lot of downright bad PR.

But, Fed, what do you expect to see happen when people hear about the instances of gross behavior and misconduct by "the boys in blue", hugs and kisses? Like it or not, you are part of a profession that has, in one fashion or another, been sadled with a terrible reputation. To change it, and avoid the obviously bad repercussions of it, something needs to change.

FedDC
August 2, 2004, 01:17 PM
Wow, so you can't attack my argument, so you attack my perceived credibility. That says a lot.

Being perceived as incorrect by folks that neither know, nor care to be educated on the law is not what I consider a bad thing.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 01:18 PM
Is that what WE--as cops--have to look forward to?

Quite possibly, if the undesirables in your profession continue to do those cute little things like sodomize a guy with a broom stick.

spartacus2002
August 2, 2004, 01:28 PM
Please read the recent thread on Why We Need Civility on The High Road and stop the personal attacks.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94668

molonlabe
August 2, 2004, 01:39 PM
This thread is digressing

Yup, Mistakes do happen.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/whackstack.php

But I am absolutely certain that all these people deserved to die.

LEO on this board, Stevie wonder could see there’s a credibility gap about LE among what you would call the Sheeple. Remarks as what I have seen on this board from both sides only widen that gap. The press will not and I hope never will stop reporting these incidents because when they do we will truly be in a Police State.

And on the other side there is.
http://www.nleomf.com/

So To protect and Serve means exactly what?

DMF
August 2, 2004, 02:02 PM
As far as thebrokenbadge.com goes, I have doubts about it being the 'true story', since it looks like its run by a cop based on the text on the main page. Well I happen to agree that you should consider the bias of the person that put together that website and the information on it.

HOWEVER, why is that you, and others here, only question the validity of the stories you don't agree with, but will take anything that comes from WIG Owners, Inc., NRA, GOA, or any crackpot that posts a story on the internet bashing cops as the gospel truth?

The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

insidious_calm
August 2, 2004, 02:47 PM
A study was done by Caliber Press, a law enforcement training organization to determine just how long it took for a person to draw and fire a round (not aimed) at a close-in target.

The time? Nine-hundredths of a second. That's .09 seconds.

Faster than your eyes can blink.



I'm gonna call BS on this. NOONE can draw and fire in .09 NOONE! Not you me or anyone else. You should reflect on some of your training and personal experience before making such a statement.


I.C.

Powderman
August 2, 2004, 02:58 PM
I'm gonna call BS on this. NOONE can draw and fire in .09 NOONE! Not you me or anyone else. You should reflect on some of your training and personal experience before making such a statement.

First of all, sport, do a little bit of research before you attack.

The time quoted above was for someone that ALREADY HAD A GUN IN THEIR HAND.

Second, you have no idea what my training and experience is. Trust me, you have absolutely NO idea what my training and experience is.

Third, the fastest VERIFIED shot IN THE WORLD was done by a gentleman named Bob Munden, who is the Browning factory rep, and a gunsmith. He has a recorded and verified draw to shot time, FROM A HOLSTER, of .02 seconds.

That's two hundredths of ONE second, verified.


Like I said, do some research before you try to attack, fella.

Mal H
August 2, 2004, 03:00 PM
Don't be too sure about that, insidious_calm. There is a gentleman by the name of Bob Munden who can draw and shoot in around .02 seconds or less, and there are many others like him. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of trained handgunners can draw and fire in 1/10th of a second. I am not including the reaction time required to make the decision to draw, just the actual draw and fire time with hand already on the gun.

[Edit]
:D Powderman and I were posting at the same time.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 03:02 PM
Bob Munden is definitely NOT your everyday, run-of-the-mill pistolero. I would like to ask, though, is the 0.09 seconds qouted refer to the time it takes for an average person to draw and fire, or a trained/practiced individual?

Powderman
August 2, 2004, 03:11 PM
OK. Now that I've calmed down a bit, and can trust myself to type without being REALLY abrasive, here goes:

insidious_calm, here's something to chew on.

I can't cite the court case off hand, but this was done in response to a charge of manslaughter brought against a cop in a shooting situation. The post mortem showed three entry wounds in the BACK of the perp. The cop maintained that the perp had turned on him and fired once, and the cop had returned fire.

The test was done with about 6 different people, and the findings were startling.

The mean time that it took for someone with a gun IN THIER HAND to turn, fire, turn again and start running was right at .11 seconds. The time from the start of movement to the shot was .09 seconds.

This meant that in the time it took the cop's brain to register that he was in danger, HE HAD ALREADY BEEN SHOT AT, AND THE BULLET HAD PASSED HIM. By the time the cop had fired--also from a drawn gun--the perp had turned and had actually taken a running step, AWAY FROM THE COP.

Human beings can move darned fast when they want to.

Now, a question. How did this move from unlawful search and seizure to once again threatening to kill cops?

joab
August 2, 2004, 03:12 PM
Please tell me how easy it is to identify a deadly weapon in a person's hand during less than optimal conditions. Sorry but it don't work with me, anybody that would mistake a soda can for a gun has not had enough training or does not have the proper temperment for the job. I have heard that excuse used so much that it is tiresome.
Yes, mistakes do happen--and just saying that won't bring that person back. If the cop has a conscience, what happened there will be a waking nightmare for the rest of their life. You're right about this. However he should live with that waking nightmare while working in a different profession.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 04:20 PM
Circle them waggons!

Ironbarr
August 2, 2004, 04:49 PM
I'm outta here.

cracked butt
August 2, 2004, 04:56 PM
Just because a person can draw and fire in .09 seconds, doesn't mean they should, once that trigger is pulled, there is no way to recall it, no do-overs, and no way to undo the damage that is done. If a cop cannot determine the difference between a soda can and a gun in enough time to stop his trigger finger, then maybe he should be in a different line of work entirely.
I thought the motto was "Serve and Protect" not "Shoot then CYA"

:fire:

hammer4nc
August 2, 2004, 05:44 PM
First off, the "bounty" posters are wrong and counterproductive.

However, the statement:

They are up in arms over 2 shootings, both of which are 100% justified. Heck, in one case the suspect was charging at the officer with the knife in hand!

Refers to the Paul Childs shooting, which cost the taxpayers $1.325 million. In addition,
Officer James Turney was suspended for 10 months without pay for showing bad judgment in the incident and placing himself in a position where he felt he had to shoot the youth.

Here's an open question for leo's: Exactly what has to happen, before any police shooting will be condemned by fellow officers? If, in light of the system deciding for a $million+ payout; and suspension of the officer in this case, other officers can rant about a killing being "100% justified"???

It is abundantly clear that under no circumstances, will these officers criticize fellow officers over a shooting, or other act of violence. Thats fine, and they are entitled to express their opinion. However, they risk being branded as "advocates", and their objective credibility begins to be questioned. You can't have it both ways.

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 06:12 PM
No, I wont criticize another officer for a shooting, any shooting, unless I am present to see it happen. Otherthan that, there are too many variables for a monday morning quarterback to see from outside the fence.

FedDC
August 2, 2004, 06:14 PM
Just FYI, james turney was standing at the bottom of a stairway and a man charged down those stairs at him with a knife in an attempt to kill him. Officer turney fired in immediate defence of life. It does not get any clearer than that and nobody ever disputed the danger to the life of the officer. The problems arose bc it was a white officer killing a black suspect in a black part of town...must be racism.

Officer turney became a political pawn and was wrongly punished for defending his life. I doubt that anyone on this site would sit by and let a knife weilding man kill them before firing.

flatrock
August 2, 2004, 06:20 PM
Here's an open question for leo's: Exactly what has to happen, before any police shooting will be condemned by fellow officers? If, in light of the system deciding for a $million+ payout; and suspension of the officer in this case, other officers can rant about a killing being "100% justified"???

I'm not an LEO, I'm also not familiar with the Pal Childs incident.

I am a bit more familiar with the incident where the "disabled" person was shot.

The police new in advance that there were two career criminals in the house. They knew one of the two was violent.

The "disabled" man didn't drop what he had in his hand, and the officer mistook the shiny object for a gun. I wasn't there, but I can see how that a person who looks to be pointing something at you who you knows has a criminal history is likely to get shot. If you're confronted by the police, drop whatever you're holding and make no sudden moves.

No the guy wasn't a threat, and in a perfect world he wouldn't have been shot. However, that doesn't mean that the officers actions weren't reasonable. Officers have a duty to enforce the law that makes for confrontations that can have tragic results. It's best if you can avoid the confrontation, however it's not always possible.

The police had a valid reason to enter the home. The guy who got shot made a mistake, and the officer acted in what he believed to be self defense.

As for the settlements that police departments pay... Well, they settle because they know that a jury is likely to award a huge sum to the family of someone shot by an officer unless it was very clearly necessisary to shoot.

The officer doesn't get a choice in the matter. He can fully believe that he did nothing wrong, but he can't fight the settlement, because he isn't the one settling.

There are officers that will never admit another officer was wrong. There are also people that will never accept any ratiuonal reasoning for an officer shooting someone, unless the officer was shot first.

flatrock
August 2, 2004, 06:40 PM
Just because a person can draw and fire in .09 seconds, doesn't mean they should, once that trigger is pulled, there is no way to recall it, no do-overs, and no way to undo the damage that is done. If a cop cannot determine the difference between a soda can and a gun in enough time to stop his trigger finger, then maybe he should be in a different line of work entirely.
I thought the motto was "Serve and Protect" not "Shoot then CYA"

If the person you're dealing with gives you a clear and unobstructed view of what they have in their hands, you aren't likely to mistake a pop can for a gun. There are lots of instances where police are involved in arrests where they do properly figure out what the person is holding. You don't hear about those. You hear about the very rare instance where someone gets shot and the officer mistook somehting in their hand for a weapon.

You apparently thing the officer should take longer to make sure of what the person is holding. Well, if it is a gun, you don't have time.

As for the .09 second draw B. S.? Why are you bringing that crap into this discussion. I doubt that the officer does sub one second draws from a retention holster, and in this case I highly doubt he was drawing and shooting. He likely had his gun out before entering the premesis.

You're projecting opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with the officers situation into you're decision as to if the shooting was justified. You're making the decision that he acted improperly out of ignorance rather than from the facts.

Have a little more respect for the people that put their lives on the line to enforce the law than to call them a murder based on very few facts when the facts don't disprove that it was self defense.

LiquidTension
August 2, 2004, 07:02 PM
Naturally, other cops are not going to criticize one of their own for a shooting - even a bad one. They need to present a unified front in order to maintain public support. How many more people would start to dislike police if they appeared to be fighting amongst themselves?

I'm not bashing or trying to justify their actions, just offering a possible explanation. Also, the us vs them mentality is greater in the LE field than most others, so they're going to tend to stick together. Once again, not bashing - just stating things the way I see them (and the way I was taught by other police officers).

DMF
August 2, 2004, 07:11 PM
(and the way I was taught by other police officers). Caveats like this, and the ever popular, "I have several friends who are cops and they told me . . ." amuse me, but it's clearly an attempt by the author to give their OPINIONS a greater appearance of credibility.

I'd like to know where all these cops are who are having these secret meetings to teach other never criticize another cop. :rolleyes:

insidious_calm
August 2, 2004, 08:35 PM
Ok, I stand corrected. You can slap leather, clear your gun and pull the trigger in .09 seconds. Not exactly what I was talking about but fine. If you're doing that then your actions are strictly reflexive and your are not identifying your target or determining in fact that they are even a threat. I think I see why we are even talking about this......



I.C.


P.S. - Don't begin to think you understand MY level of training either. ;)

P95Carry
August 2, 2004, 08:52 PM
I'm outta here. Right behind ya Andy .... :(

Don Gwinn
August 3, 2004, 02:23 AM
I think we've all had enough of this, and since the original topic is apparently no longer under discussion, I assume that discussion has been concluded.

Lights out. I wish I knew what to say to convince some of you to treat each other like friends, but maybe that's just too much to ask.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wisconsin: Police State, B'gosh" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!