milwaukee police chief

[Dark Skies]

True. But most people tend to get their drinking heads on when comfortably sat at home or at a friends when not at a bar. Regardless - the bloke is a knob.

 

[irishsquid]

Regardless - the bloke is a knob.

I like that!

 

[steel shooter]

Yes there is a Wisconsin Rifle and Pistol Association.
www.wrpa.com

 

[runrabbitrun]

Sounds like this guy lives in the wrong country.

Kim Jong-il would be happy to have him, I'm sure.

This crap is getting down right scary.

 

[mbt2001]

DELUGE the website with e-mails, I sent one.

Below is the text:

I apologize for some of the more angry remarks, but I find it to be decent therapy...

Chief Flynn,

Your recently made comments (linked here http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090421/GPG0101/90421176/1207) regarding how people that LAWFULLY carried firearms in the open would be treated. I want to be clear here, since the LAW allows for this, then they are not breaking the law when they do it. To be detained by the police without probable cause is ILLEGAL. The statements he made were to intimidate and threaten the populace of the city. That is illegal.

Further I would like to remind the “chief” that HE WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE OF MILWAUKEE. WE ARE YOUR BOSS HOW DARE YOU TALK TO US THAT WAY.

If you do not like your job, or feel that you cannot do your job without violating the rights of the people of this city then quit. If you have any thin blue line comments, then quit. Society does not need THE POLICE believe it or not. It is efficient and convenient to have them to be sure, but we are quite capable of sorting things out without jerks like you running off at the mouth.

Regards,

mbt2001

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

The chief is obviously way off-base. I can't imagine that his shooting off at the mouth will actually be treated as department policy. Hopefully not, for everybody's sake.

To be detained by the police without probable cause is ILLEGAL. The statements he made were to intimidate and threaten the populace of the city. That is illegal.

Please be careful with what you say. If you come across as uninformed then your statements will be viewed as such by an informed recipient. The finding of fact for a lawful detention is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. The two differ greatly.

 

[rbernie]

Patronizing twit. I was under the impression it was illegal to enter a bar with a firearm (unless you're a cop) anyhow

Helmke doesn't KNOW the specific laws in play. He's just regurgitating prepared material, designed for maximum media effect.

 

[Deanimator]

Depends on what state you're in. In a fair number of states (like Pennsylvania where I live ) it's no problem. In Wisconsin, I'm guessing that it is a problem. Of course, lots of drinking happens in places other than bars, so it's kind of a moot point.

In Ohio, all places with by the drink liquor licenses are carry prohibited zones. That means that I can only carry in eating establishments like MacDonalds and Burger King. They need to remove the prohibition on carrying in restaurants when you're not drinking.

 

[Sam1911]

In Ohio, all places with by the drink liquor licenses are carry prohibited zones. That means that I can only carry in eating establishments like MacDonalds and Burger King. They need to remove the prohibition on carrying in restaurants when you're not drinking.

Or go nuts and actually make a law that makes sense. For example, applying the BAC limit used for driving while intoxicated, so those of us who like to have a beer or glass of wine with dinner can do so without breaking the law? (I love PA!)

Or, better yet, why not say that drunk or sober, you are responsible for your actions? An act that is legal while sober is not made inherantly illegal because the actor is intoxicated, just as an act that is illegal while drunk is not inherantly LEGAL while sober!

But that would be putting sense and responsibility into the law, where it clearly doesn't belong...

-Sam

 

[BhmBill]

“From an officer’s safety point of view and a public point of view,” he said, “we’re not going to start with the assumption that someone displaying a handgun is doing it lawfully.”

Good luck with that, Mr. Flynn. Enjoy losing your house when you're held personally accountable for your officers actions, you pathetic tyrannous excuse of an officer.

 

[GregGry]

The finding of fact for a lawful detention is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. The two differ greatly.

There is a huge difference between a terry stop and frisk, and being arrested (aka not free to leave) and questioned.

 

[fletchbutt152]

Alright Cheeseheads! Let's make this happen.

We need people to open carry. Challenge this guy. I wish I was living back home in Wisconsin and I'd participate.

By the way, are there any rules that define open carry? How much of the gun/holster have to be visible? I don't have the time right now to look this up but maybe someone already has.

Thanks
Phil

 

[MisterMike]

For a police chief, Flynn displays a shocking disregard for the law.

 

[MisterMike]

But that would be putting sense and responsibility into the law, where it clearly doesn't belong...

This is not about the law, it's about utter disregard for the law . . . by a police chief.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If ever I've seen a case for voting whilst lying on shingles.....

There is a huge difference between a terry stop and frisk

Yes there is. But can a terry stop/frisk include "throwing someone to the ground"? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. This stuff boils my blood.

 

[Phatty]

Or, better yet, why not say that drunk or sober, you are responsible for your actions? An act that is legal while sober is not made inherantly illegal because the actor is intoxicated, just as an act that is illegal while drunk is not inherantly LEGAL while sober!

I guess you are against DUI laws, since that would fit your definition of a legal action made illegal solely because the actor is intoxicated. As for me, I don't want to wait for a drunk driver to get into a car accident and kill innocent people before he is arrested. It's undeniable that intoxication makes almost every action inherently more dangerous and diminishes the intoxicated person's ability to reason.

 

[Sam1911]

I guess you are against DUI laws, since that would fit your definition of a legal action made illegal solely because the actor is intoxicated.

That's a pretty silly comparison. Ridiculous, actually.

Driving while intoxicated means that the actor is wielding the "weapon" actively -- operating the vehicle, moving down the PUBLIC road at a high rate of speed in such a manner that one slip or mis-judgment almost certainly will cause grave injury to others.

This is the equivalent of an officer arresting someone whom they witness BRANDISHING and/or FIRING their gun IN A PUBLIC PLACE while intoxicated -- which would be directly threatening to anyone nearby, and potentially to people well out of sight. I have NO problem with such an arrest.

On the other hand, an officer arresting a man seen to drink a few beers while peaceably wearing a holstered firearm -- that he does not draw, brandish, or obviously, fire -- is very much like an officer arresting a man for DWI because he's carrying car keys in his pocket.

FURTHER, I reject -- TOTALLY -- the idea that a person who is intoxicated has no legal right to self-defense.

Obviously the case becomes very tough to defend -- and I would never knowingly take steps down the path that might lead to putting myself in that position -- but you do not give up your rights just because of inebriation. (Operating a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a right, strictly defined.)

Yes, of course, this is a very extreme worst case scenario, and the person who finds him or herself in that position has failed on a very great many levels, but the fact remains that a person who has had a few drinks does not necessarily pose a threat to those around him/her simply because they possess a firearm. He/she still has the responsibility to choose right or wrong actions. And he/she still has the right and responsibility to preserve their own lives against lethal threats.

Now, I applaud those who may decide that they understand their own character well enough to say that they cannot trust themselves to retain their comprehension of safe and legal actions when they imbibe alcohol -- and so will not carry a gun if they plan to drink. HOWEVER, I do question their reasoning for choosing to do so at all, then, as a gun is simply an enabling device for whatever actions they willingly undertake. (i.e.: If, when drinking, their reasoning becomes that flawed and their intents are so nefarious that they would be a danger to others if they were armed with a gun, then they really should reject the use of the drug completely. They will most definitely be a threat to themselves and others with any number of other weapons/items. Again, the gun is simply a tool ...)

But, I do reject the false logic that would say that undertaking one legal act (drinking) can nullify an inherent right (self-defense through the right to bear arms).

Null argument.

-Sam

 

[Art Eatman]

Enuf wanderin', ventin' and rantin'.