Wisconsin: Police State, B'gosh

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Assessment of Occam's Razor:

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.
 
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.
 
FedDC, we could not ask for a more perfect example of exactly the kind of tyrannical stormtrooper 'cops are always right, **** 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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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? ;)
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Bummer...

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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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....
 
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!
 
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 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Calling BS...

They don't hesitate to stick their faces and mouths in front of cameras and microphones when it suits their purpose.

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top