Demonstration.........Waukesha,WI...............Sunday Feb.21st
- Thread starter faustopph
- Start date
- Status
I went to www.ocdo.org and got a page that says the web site is for sale.
rswartsell
Member
Could you be specific about the message the demonstration is supposed to carry? Are you specifically calling for Wisconsin residents?
paramedic70002
Member
MisterMike
Member
Ths is pretty darned confusing. There's no ocdo.org website and it eludes me how demonstrating against a law enforcement agency advances the RKBA agenda. Shouldn't the effort be directed at the state legislature?
Can anyone fill us in on what's going on?
Can anyone fill us in on what's going on?
opencarry.org not ocdo.org ..sorry
Sorry about that .So used to members just saying OCDO that I messed up.
www.OpenCarry.org
Sorry about that .So used to members just saying OCDO that I messed up.
www.OpenCarry.org
LEO confrontation with open carry citezen
A citizen exercising his right to open carry was confronted by a state trooper at a restaurant that he frequents and was told to leave.Management did not request that he leave or be told to leave.
Later that night ,after 10:00pm 3 county officers came to his home and questioned him about impersonating an officer.They seem to think his car looks like an undercover squad.lol
If you go to www.OpenCarry.org more information is available along with a link to the video of the incident.
This is of importance to all Wisconsin residents and all/anyone who carries a firearm.
A citizen exercising his right to open carry was confronted by a state trooper at a restaurant that he frequents and was told to leave.Management did not request that he leave or be told to leave.
Later that night ,after 10:00pm 3 county officers came to his home and questioned him about impersonating an officer.They seem to think his car looks like an undercover squad.lol
If you go to www.OpenCarry.org more information is available along with a link to the video of the incident.
This is of importance to all Wisconsin residents and all/anyone who carries a firearm.
rswartsell
Member
Well, I looked at the website and am no more informed for the effort. I certainly am in sympathy with your cause but I just can't see getting all worked up and marching because a post like this tells me to.
I spent 10 minutes on this site, and didn't get a whiff of the incident you relate. As far as I can tell the guy may have been trying to impersonate a LEO and may be lucky not to be in jail. I sure don't have enough to demonstrate or march on.
I spent 10 minutes on this site, and didn't get a whiff of the incident you relate. As far as I can tell the guy may have been trying to impersonate a LEO and may be lucky not to be in jail. I sure don't have enough to demonstrate or march on.
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
I dug around on the site a bit and found this information:
Youtube video of the incident here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZVz0V-bek0
Youtube video of the incident here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZVz0V-bek0
rswartsell
Member
Sorry guys, I don't see your problem. The officer was reasonably well behaved towards the man, and he freely admitted that if the business allowed guns on premises he would be fine.
I THINK I understand carrying OC and a video camera waiting for a reaction from LEO (they must practice situational awareness, in their position taking no note of them is next to a death wish these days), in that you wish to blaze trails for RKBA. But on the other hand I think you are getting a bit twitchy and actually coming pretty close to seeking confrontation and placing unreasonable demands on the average LEO.
Tell me when the situation actually results in a significant denial of your rights, you get arrested, gun confiscated illegally, etc. and I will stand with you. Keep shouting wolf every time you have a conversation with a cop, trying to alienate them from seeing us as reasonable by marching on their barracks, giving the public at large the idea that we are prone to overreaction and you just might become part of the problem rather than solution.
(Getting flame proof underwear on).
I THINK I understand carrying OC and a video camera waiting for a reaction from LEO (they must practice situational awareness, in their position taking no note of them is next to a death wish these days), in that you wish to blaze trails for RKBA. But on the other hand I think you are getting a bit twitchy and actually coming pretty close to seeking confrontation and placing unreasonable demands on the average LEO.
Tell me when the situation actually results in a significant denial of your rights, you get arrested, gun confiscated illegally, etc. and I will stand with you. Keep shouting wolf every time you have a conversation with a cop, trying to alienate them from seeing us as reasonable by marching on their barracks, giving the public at large the idea that we are prone to overreaction and you just might become part of the problem rather than solution.
(Getting flame proof underwear on).
joe_security
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 490
Can out of state people OC in Wisconsin ? Just curious if I can OC if go fishing in Wisconsin. i assume the guns can be loaded, unlike California OC.
MisterMike
Member
rswartsell said:
I'm kind of in the same boat. There may be more to this story, but the initial encounter, as depicted in the video, seemed within reason. Yes, the cop was jumpy, but you need to understand that Wisconsin is new to this whole open carry thing. I'd guess that most LEOs there have not had much training or experience in these situations.
I understand that the guy who was confronted believes he was subsequently harassed by local deputies as the result of this encounter, and that he suspects that the highway patrolman instigated this. Truthfully, that seems weird, but if it is correct the guy has a legitimate beef.
I'd like to hear a better explanation of this incident. Maybe I'm missing something, but the YouTube video does not suggest to me that the cop was acting improperly.
OK.Then what about the fact that the trooper asked if they allowed firearms in the restaurant.He then was told they do not.The trooper at that time was in violation of the same.The trooper was not there on business with the place,so he to would be subject to the policy of the business.
It is advisable to keep a video recorder or at least a voice recorder with you when open carrying.At least until things like this stop happening.Law suits have already been filed for other times that LEO's went past their authority in Wisconsin.
It is advisable to keep a video recorder or at least a voice recorder with you when open carrying.At least until things like this stop happening.Law suits have already been filed for other times that LEO's went past their authority in Wisconsin.
Mister Mike
How long do you give an LEO before he knows the laws of the jurisdiction he/she has sworn to abide by?
The Wisconsin DA sent out a memorandum months ago to stop this type of situation from happening.But I suppose we should just let them continue to stomp on our rights.
How long do you give an LEO before he knows the laws of the jurisdiction he/she has sworn to abide by?
The Wisconsin DA sent out a memorandum months ago to stop this type of situation from happening.But I suppose we should just let them continue to stomp on our rights.
bnhcomputing
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36
Here is the problem:
We are pro-rights and as such we stand against coercion, intimidation, prejudice, and discrimination against citizens. Our specific focus, as stated on our site WisconsinCarry.org is firearms rights particularly the ability to open carry firearms for personal protection.
Protias is the gentleman's moniker.
Protias, like many of us, carries a cam or voice recorder for the same reason he/we carry the side arm, personal protection. Some, but not all, of us have had interactions with law enforcement where the LEO involved didn’t want us to exercise our rights and may have violated our rights. Just look at the pending lawsuits in Wisconsin (West Milwaukee, Chilton, Milwaukee, Racine). It is obvious that there are law enforcement officers who do not want us to carry. The problem is, carry is our right, and we cannot tell the good LEO’s from the bad. LEO’s need to accept that carry is our right. The LEO’S who do not want us to exercise our rights are the problem.
Having stated that, let’s examine the situation:
First, regardless if there was one or one hundred LEO at the restaurant Protias was within his rights to carry his firearm, just like any of the rest of us would be. He did NOT carry there to setup or goat anybody, but rather because he carries everywhere he goes, and he has carried there several times in the past without issue.
Second, having viewed the video and having personally dealt with LEO on two occasions, three (3) officers each time, when three (3) officers approach you and ask you a question, the average person will feel intimidated and will answer the question, usually in a manner they think will get the officer(s) to leave them alone.
Third, Protias had carried several times in the business in question and there were no signs. Management had never asked him to leave before, or confronted him about carrying. In addition, management DID NOT CALL the police, they just happened to be there at the same time.
So in comes the officers and the one tells the other ask if they allow guns in here. Then he asks again himself. It's obvious these LEO’s did not want Protias to carry. It is obvious they pressured, intimidated, and coerced the management to state a non-existent anti-gun policy as the management felt obligated to answer the LEO. Once the LEO got the answer he was looking for, he then demands Protias leave. Can anyone cite the state statute that allows LEO to order/remove someone from the premises even though the owner/manager has not requested such action? The LEO never asked the management if (management) wanted him to remove Protias, he simply took it upon himself to demand Protias leave.
As was also pointed out already, one the policy was stated the the LEO's were in violation of the state policy themselves.
I can’t speak for Protias, but my belief is that IF it ended here, then Protias would most likely have filed a complaint and been satisfied to pursue that course of action.
However, it didn’t end there. The local sheriff sends three (3) deputies to his home, at 10:00pm (everybody except me is sleeping in my house by that time). As stated before, three (3) LEO’s in a group can be very intimidating. Why did the officers come to his house on this day? Protias has lived in the community for some time and has been carrying for quite a while. So why did the sheriff’s deputies need to come to his home on this particular day at this particular time? As Protias and others have started asking questions about this, it has come out that the state troopers coerced the local sheriff’s department into visiting Protias.
A complaint is no longer acceptable. Many, if not all, of us who carry now feel/believe the state patrol escalated the situation to harassment of a law-abiding citizen. Six (6) officers from two different departments putting pressure on a single individual, why? Because he exercised his rights?
We are not coming to Sussex to protest against law enforcement, or any particular business. We are coming to Sussex to stand WITH Protias against these types of prejudice, intimidation, and coercion. We, as American citizens cannot allow this type of action, by the government, to go unanswered.
Come and stand with us.
Husker_Fan
Member
This is correct. The state legislature felt it was a reasonable step to take in light of all the tragic boating accidents in which people lost their entire gun collections.
MisterMike
Member
Duplicate Post. Sorry!
MisterMike
Member
fostopph said:
fostoppf--
That's a fair question, but I'll start with the observation that you didn't give us much to go on--a web link to nowhere and, ultimately, a link to a YouTube video that, in itself, is not very compelling proof of harassment. bnhcomputing filled in the gaps, and I thank him for that.
If everything the complainant has alleged is true, then, yes, there's reason to protest. However, if I may elaborate on my original point: You're living in a state that has traditionally been hostile to the RKBA. The current state of affairs came about in a pretty unusual fashion--because of a memorandum published by the state AG, opining that open carry was legal (though he did leave the door open for prosecution in certain vague circumstances)--and not through the legislative process. Now you have the situation where cops, who generally are not legal scholars, are expected to understand an AG's decision without the clarity that a statute or judicial precedent would provide.
They're going to make mistakes. Personally, that's how I'd classify the initial videotaped encounter, standing on its own. However, if it's true that there was a concerted effort to harass the complainant afterward, that's way beyond a mere mistake. If that can be established, it sure seems like an appropriate response would be a lawsuit.
I have to ask one other question, though: Are the RKBA forces in Wisconsin making any concerted effort to educate law enforcement agencies, apart from these lawsuits? I understand that it's not the citizens' duty to educate the enforcers, but it sure seems like it would be a positive step, and it would also remove any possibility of the law enforcement agencies being able to claim that these types of incidents were the result of good faith mistakes.
joe_security
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 490
Not to hijack the thread ( I strongly support OC and RKBA) but I really want to urge everyone who OCs to use a snatch proof retention holster. There is the Serpa and my personal favorites the Safariland 6281 or the newer 6287 (or 0701). These offer the same retentions as the ones used by LEOs on the duty belt. They are marketed as concealment versions, having smaller belt slots than the duty holsters that go on a 2.25" sam brown belt. I would hate to have some whack job try and grab a pistol from an open top holster being open carried. You do not know when you may encounter a suicidal or otherwise disturbed individual. IMHO, this makes you appear as a more responsible and safety minded gun carrier in the eyes of any LEO you may encounter. He may even compliment you on your choice of holster.
Last edited:
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
That many guns rusting in lakes takes a terrible toll on the environment.
Actually not having a uncased firearm in a moving boat is more of a DNR rule than a state law. But you will still get arrested for it. Last I read if you are seen open carrying in Milwaukee county the sheriff said he would have you arrested for disturbing the peace and or inciting a riot.
rswartsell
Member
My opinion is that the greatest victory currently available for OC and those who wish to excercise RKBA is for OC to become a fact without any of the negative consequences that antis predict would come about by allowing the average citizen to exercise this right. i.e. "Streets will become unsafe for our children, people of quick temper and poor judgement will resort to gunplay over personal disputes, anarchy will result, law of the jungle will supplant rule of law", and like nonsense. I do not believe that because a person is a LEO that they are automatically an enemy of RKBA. Indeed LEO's make up a significant and valued part of our community. The responsibilities with which they are charged and risks they run routinely will mean that they have a curve to adjust to as OC becomes reality. It is not in our best interest to ever be seen as making their already difficult job more so. It is a PR disaster for the RKBA community to be seen by the general public, however erroneously as being the enemy of Law Enforcement. They will be our most powerful and influential allies.
Does this mean that we must kiss their ring and forfeit our rights on a whim? Of course not, and civil protest may indeed be appropriate in cases of CLEAR PATTERNS of LEO's abusing or overstepping their authority or harassing law abiding citizens. Do you really have that here? It is entirely too easy on the heels of news like the Alabama University incident to see these events as responsible men doing the best they can to protect society in difficult times and the protesters as ill adjusted malcontents with questionable judgement. Not real good for our cause if the cards do indeed fall this way.
My opinion is that following the processes in place for raising complaints and giving every opportunity possible for the system to resolve grievances is necessary for the best image of our community to be put forward. Your complaint centers on LEO's having 2 separate conversations with the complaintant. Hardly Kristallnacht is it guys? Can this be harassment? Possibly, depends on what happens next. A pre-emptive strike by organizing civil protest with the grievance as it currently stands is a heavy handed reaction indeed. IMO we must question whether we are responding to a true need or trying to exercise social power for it's own sake.
One could get the impression that the attempt at organization here assumed a blind obedience and knee jerk reaction from our community because we all are strongly in favor of RKBA. As a rule we are also individualists with independent thought processes that instictively resist being told what to think.
My humble advice is that if you want to be a social activist for this cause, inform first, allow independent interpretation of events and if you find widespread support, then pull the trigger on organizing civil protest. We have all seen pathetic attempts of 6 individuals showing up for a "rally". Such a thing is devastating for the credibility of the message and it usually would have been better for whatever the cause for the rally is if it never had happened.
My sincerest best wishes to all involved here and forgive me for preaching. The opinions are put forth in the interest of becoming more effective.
Does this mean that we must kiss their ring and forfeit our rights on a whim? Of course not, and civil protest may indeed be appropriate in cases of CLEAR PATTERNS of LEO's abusing or overstepping their authority or harassing law abiding citizens. Do you really have that here? It is entirely too easy on the heels of news like the Alabama University incident to see these events as responsible men doing the best they can to protect society in difficult times and the protesters as ill adjusted malcontents with questionable judgement. Not real good for our cause if the cards do indeed fall this way.
My opinion is that following the processes in place for raising complaints and giving every opportunity possible for the system to resolve grievances is necessary for the best image of our community to be put forward. Your complaint centers on LEO's having 2 separate conversations with the complaintant. Hardly Kristallnacht is it guys? Can this be harassment? Possibly, depends on what happens next. A pre-emptive strike by organizing civil protest with the grievance as it currently stands is a heavy handed reaction indeed. IMO we must question whether we are responding to a true need or trying to exercise social power for it's own sake.
One could get the impression that the attempt at organization here assumed a blind obedience and knee jerk reaction from our community because we all are strongly in favor of RKBA. As a rule we are also individualists with independent thought processes that instictively resist being told what to think.
My humble advice is that if you want to be a social activist for this cause, inform first, allow independent interpretation of events and if you find widespread support, then pull the trigger on organizing civil protest. We have all seen pathetic attempts of 6 individuals showing up for a "rally". Such a thing is devastating for the credibility of the message and it usually would have been better for whatever the cause for the rally is if it never had happened.
My sincerest best wishes to all involved here and forgive me for preaching. The opinions are put forth in the interest of becoming more effective.
- Status
