Man Not Guilty in Open Carry Gun Case

[Dain Bramage]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article

The guy carrying while planting trees on his own property in Wisconsin was found not guilty. Time to own the police department there. They acted maliciously and outside the bounds of the law. Also a nice finger-salute to the neighbor is in order.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Good news. Should be a slam dunk, but a win is a win.

 

[kingpin008]

Good for him.

While I agree that the situation was unfortunate and unnecessary, I wouldn't go so far as to call the actions of the police officers malicious. From the info given in the article, they acted pretty decently - yes, there were guns drawn on the man, but to be fair, they don't know him from Adam, and must take a report of a man with a gun seriously. Nowhere in the article does it state that the officers did anything more than what they believed was the correct thing to do - give the man a citiation and confiscate the weapon. If he was arrested, beaten/verbally abused, etc, then yeah, that's malicious. Otherwise, cops were being cops.

As far as the neighbor, he needs to be talked to. While it's possible that he isn't aware of the legalities of concealed and open carry, there's no reason he should have involved the cops in this case.

 

[General Geoff]

Nowhere in the article does it state that the officers did anything more than what they believed was the correct thing to do - give the man a citiation and confiscate the weapon.

That is not the correct thing to do, and even if they believed it was, that does not make it so. It was an infringement on the man's rights without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause, and that is malicious.

 

[TRGRHPY]

Excellent!! Baffling to think of why a DA would even pursue something like this.

In explaining why he was carrying a gun while planting a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

Thank God SOMEBODY said it in a press conference for others to hear. Although my response may have included "...Besides, have you seen these chemical-resistant weeds lately?"

 

[tulsamal]

Nowhere in the article does it state that the officers did anything more than what they believed was the correct thing to do - give the man a citiation and confiscate the weapon.

Hmm, I have a problem with that. Can I call the police to report that my neighbor is out mowing his yard with purple shoes and "everybody knows that purple shoes while mowing is illegal?" So then the cops come out and arrest the guy. "Hey, we had a complaint from a neighbor and he said it was illegal!"

My point is that it doesn't matter what a neighbor did or did not do. The police should know the law. If they don't know the law, they shouldn't just assume the neighbor is right and that confiscating the purple shoes is the right thing to do!

Gregg

 

[wyocarp]

The cops don't know the laws they are called upon to uphold. One reason is because there are too many stupid laws. On the other hand, the DA is supposed to know the law and should have backed down. And the neighbor, needs to be educated (I'm not sure by what form nor do I care). And I think the guy should go out and work on his yard today (with two guns this time).

There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk

That is what I see as a real problem. Police all over this country are over reacting to people who are not criminals and putting a lot of lives in danger where there doesn't need to be this problem. The police need to be ratcheted down a bunch of notches. That was my complaint when I recently was surrounded by three patrol cars while walking on a sidewalk recently in a sleepy little rural town in Wyoming before they knew I was carrying a weapon.

 

[ArmedBear]

That is not the correct thing to do, and even if they believed it was, that does not make it so. It was an infringement on the man's rights without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause, and that is malicious.

I agree.

Shouldn't it be relatively easy to ascertain that the man is on his own property, and whether he was doing anything illegal?

Don't the cops have radios?

Nowhere in the article does it state that the officers did anything more than what they believed was the correct thing to do - give the man a citiation and confiscate the weapon.

Their "belief" is irrelevant. People in the private sector get fired for "believing" something incorrect, rather than checking it out. That's the cops' duty, not just doing whatever they feel like as long as it doesn't involve beating people.

Taking private property when no law is being broken is different in what way from the other abuses you name, exactly?

 

[MD_Willington]

Hmm, this is not a big deal where I live...

Still sad the man was harassed over it.

 

[Krazeehorse]

I also agree with the last statement in the article that using disorderly conduct as a catch-all is the real issue. What a crock. It's kind of hard for me to understand how legal conduct is disorderly. I further agree with triggerhappy that it's amazing the DA pursued it.

 

[wrs840]

In explaining why he was carrying a gun while planting a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights.

It seems self-evident from what happened that the gentleman who was arrested lives near at least one hostile neighbor and has good basis to put little faith in the judgement of local law enforcement. What better reason could there be for being armed? Duh.

Les

 

[Matt-J2]

Hooray for not guilty!

 

[Ben86]

I wish that open carry was more widely accepted. It keeps people from being arrested for concealed carry mis-haps and when going to or from hunting, sporting events. Although, I'm not interested in open-carry, as much as concealed carry is a pain in the butt, because I don't want the negative attention that follows it from ignorant civilians and law enforcement alike.

We have the right to "keep and bear arms," that means own, carry and use.

 

[ArmedBear]

I further agree with triggerhappy that it's amazing the DA pursued it.

I have to think that, if I were the DA, I'd want to cut a deal with the guy: charges are dropped, gun is returned, he doesn't sue.

 

[TRGRHPY]

Quote:
I further agree with triggerhappy that it's amazing the DA pursued it.

I have to think that, if I were the DA, I'd want to cut a deal with the guy: charges are dropped, gun is returned, he doesn't sue.

I have to think, that since you appear to have at least two brain cells to rub together, that you would have never charged the man in the first place...and that you would have made a call the the police chief to chew him out over being so "galactically stupid".

 

[ManBearPig]

There is no deal to be made. He won. He gets his gun back. The police get to pay him off for violating his civil rights.

 

[feedthehogs]

The police get to pay him off for violating his civil rights

First the police don't pay anything, the taxpayers do.

I wish folks could get that thru their heads.

Any trial about civil rights hasn't even happened....yet.

It could be that he will discuss with the city attorney about some sort of settlement to cover attorney fees and pain in the ass time and use this as a barganing chip.

Lastly don't try and figure out the liberal mind of DA's. They do and will violate the law based on their own agenda, it happens everyday.

Even if they loose they send a message to the public that states "do you really want to mess with me".

Its a power thing to the enth degree.

 

[Byron Quick]

It wasn't a DA prosecuting this case. It was the assistant city attorney, folks.

Please be aware that here in Georgia, many police also use the disorderly conduct statute as a catch all if they don't have anything else to charge you with. And it's not a citation here, at least it's up to the officer, I've seen people taken to jail who were on their own property and there was no conduct I witnessed that could be reasonably construed to be disorderly. Granted, most of them were drunk. But they were drunk on their own property, were peaceable, and quiet.

Sorry, but using the law to bludgeon people into acting in the way an officer sees as acceptable is abuse of authority. Period.

First the police don't pay anything, the taxpayers do.

This is true. Maybe a way in which the police agencies' attention could be gotten would be a statute that requires that damages awarded to citizens following police misconduct be taken from that agency's budget and not other sources would help. Granted, ultimately this is still money from taxpayers but it would directly impact all the officers working for that agency and, in the interests of job security, induce officers to be aware of applicable statutes and the possible abuses of fellow officers. If officers realize that abuses committed by either their colleagues or themselves could negatively affect their agency's ability to pay their salaries it would be a strong deterrent.

 

[Dokkalfar]

There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk

this is one of the bigger problems with this situation, that they performed an arrest on private property, without any legal basis for the arrest.

as to a lawsuit he could file (which he should) if they had no reason to arrest him, and simply made something up in order to do so, try this:

[CITE: 18USC242]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


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.

 

[KevinAbbeyTech]

First the police don't pay anything, the taxpayers do.

Not to be a cop-basher, but I bet if settlements had to be payed out of pocket, people would be more careful about stuff like this.

 

[akodo]

The cops don't know the laws they are called upon to uphold. One reason is because there are too many stupid laws.

Yes, there are too many small inconsquential stupid laws. However, there are some overarching principles that cops SHOULD be aware of. Ignorance of the basic principles of private property is absolutely unexcusable.

However, someone will be along shortly to point out that most people posting here do not have a 'extreme risk job' and theirfore have 'no perspective' and should just shut up and obey the cops.

That is what I see as a real problem. Police all over this country are over reacting to people who are not criminals and putting a lot of lives in danger where there doesn't need to be this problem. The police need to be ratcheted down a bunch of notches. That was my complaint when I recently was surrounded by three patrol cars while walking on a sidewalk recently in a sleepy little rural town in Wyoming before they knew I was carrying a weapon.

I totally agree with this. Heck, I'd go one step further, it seems our law enforcement system...all the way to the prosecuting attournies are much more worried about a conviction than they are about general public safety. It seems to me more and more invasive tactics are taken not because a 'knock, batter, and shout POLICE' is really necessary to insure officer safety, but it is deemed necessary to prevent evidence from being destroyed. Hence the conviction of a minor criminal offense is treated as much more imporant than the fact that people are falible, and warrants ahve been served on the wrong house, or informants lie, or there are kids in the house, etc etc.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

I heard that this man lost long-time clients...if that's true, he deserves more restitution than the costs of this ordeal.

Last I knew, police can ask questions of both parties in any situation. Sure, you can disarm the guy for safety, if you're ordered to. But how hard is it to go ask the reporting neighbor "What was Mr. Krause doing? Did he point the gun at anyone or threaten anyone? No? Well I'm sorry Mr. Highstrung, but what Mr Krause is doing is legal.".....done?

 

[.45Guy]

This reminds me of when I was going to UWM, and lived in Shorewood. I had returned from the range, and was walking to the rear entrance of my apartment building on the corner of Maryland and Capital. As I was walking, I noticed a woman on the other side of Maryland giving me the stink eye. As I started down the alley, I glanced back and noticed her following me. So I made it to my first floor apartment, and started my cleaning regimen. A few minutes into things I look out the window and see the same woman with several Shorewood officers. Long story short, I waited an hour or so and took a little walk over to the PD. Had a nice little talk with the officers, and cleared everything up. Thankfully I now live in Ohio once again.

 

[scott1]

this guy had an interview on a local radio show here. the neighbor called the police to ask what the laws on open Carry exactly is and the police got him to tell them where this was taking place. they then showed up and placed him in hand cuffs for 45 minutes while they figured out what to charge him with. he said he had still not been given back his gun and holster and stated that they did not have to give it back unless they wanted to. the host Vicki McKenna started scolding the West Allis Police to give him back his property now that he was found not guilty and that it was not theirs. there is alot more info on the podcast. it starts about 30 seconds into the feed.

here is the link to the interview podcact. go to McKenna Show Tuesday Hour 2 Part 1
February 17th: Brad Krause of West Allis has been found not guilty after he was arrested for openly carrying in his own yard.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=vicki_mckenna.xml

 

[RDak]

I'm very disappointed with the police in this case.

The case is over and they feel the gun can remain confiscated if they decide to do so.

Disgusting.