alan
Member
Could the following be repeated where you live??
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
September 1, 2004
ALERT:
OSHKOSH POLICE GIVE EXCUSES -- NOT EXPLANATIONS
On August 5, JPFO mailed an alert headed "What Happened in
Oshkosh? And Why Should Gun Owners Care?"
(http://www.jpfo.org/alert20040805.htm)
We were following up on a mid-July incident. Details of
that incident were unclear, but one thing was absolutely
certain: Following the wounding of an officer, Oshkosh
police confiscated firearms -- without consent and without
warrants -- from homes of innocent men and women. The
police violated these Americans' Fourth Amendment rights
and left them defenseless, knowing full well there was a
sniper on the loose in their neighborhood.
We just received a copy of an August 8 article from the
_Oshkosh Northwestern_ newspaper in which police try to
defend their action.
Some quotes from the _Northwestern_ article:
"Police Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said the scope of the
response was far smaller than many are suggesting: no one
in the neighborhood was forced from his or her home, and
police searched only four houses."
"Advocates who've posted criticisms on the Internet said
the department's statement still fails to explain the legal
grounds for searching homes. Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc., a
Green Bay-based gun rights group, posted an article on its
Web site Friday asking the department to clarify probable
cause for any search -- either by warrant or consent -- if
they had nothing more than a general direction the shot
could have come from."
"Police took several weapons from Terry Wesner's Minnesota
Street home after getting consent to search, and those
firearms were returned a few days later. Sagmeister
acknowledged that the firearms were taken without
Wesner's knowledge, but said it was miscommunication rather
than a deliberate, secretive seizure."
"Firearms taken from the sixth home were seized after
police served a search warrant, according to the police
department. Police initially entered the home with the
owner's permission, though the homeowner later rescinded
consent. The owners of that home later were jailed and
charged with felony marijuana production based on drugs and
paraphernalia left in the plain view of searching
officers."
"City officials are convinced the events of July 17 and
early July 18 are being blown out of proportion. City
Manager Richard Wollangk said many groups wary of intrusion
into constitutional rights latched onto the incident,
though it didn't happen the way those groups believe.
'We did go to houses, yes,' Wollangk said. 'But we got
permission. And the one's we didn't (get permission from),
we got search warrants. The guns we took, we returned.'"
Although the Liberty Crew is glad to hear that the
illegally seized firearms were returned, and glad to hear
the illegal police activities were less extensive than
first reported, we're not reassured -- and neither should
gun owners be.
Although this article doesn't say it, more than one
homeowner reported that his guns were stolen by police.
This article takes the police spokesperson's word for what
happened and fails to ask some obvious questions. For
instance, does anybody really believe that a marijuana
grower would give consent to search his home? Why did
officers take weapons from anybody without warrants?
And why did the officers involved have apparently no
training in citizens' constitutional rights?
Returning firearms to their owners (after, no doubt,
recording their serial numbers in a criminal database,
linked to the name of the innocent owner) does not erase
the original, unconstitutional taking of those arms.
Confiscating weapons simply because the owner lived in the
general vicinity where a shot was fired is a police-state
tactic. It presumes guilt. It's part of the growing trend
to treat all citizens as suspects. It is the opposite of
American tradition.
"TO SERVE AND PROTECT"?
And then there is the issue of police deliberately leaving
citizens defenseless in the face of danger.
"But that's fine," some people would no doubt say. "They
don't need guns; the police will protect them!"
Think again. As detailed in Richard W. Stevens' famous book
_Dial 911 and Die_ (http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm),
Wisconsin is one of many states that have laws that say "a
public officer or employee is immune from personal
liability for injuries resulting from acts performed within
the scope of the individual's public office."
The U.S. Supreme Court has also found repeatedly that
police have NO duty to protect individuals -- even when
they've specifically promised to do so. Again, the book has
detailed case cites.
The book describes two nightmare incidents in which
Wisconsin government agencies, including police, assured
citizens they would protect them -- then left those
innocent citizens dead or damaged for life. (The book also
has legal and court cites from all 50 states, Canada, and
Puerto Rico, as well as many other examples of failed
police "protection.")
Fortunately, nobody died in Oshkosh as a result of
outrageous and unconstitutional police actions. But what
about next time? As long as police (and journalists)
continue to excuse police-state behavior, there will be a
next time.
The Liberty Crew
-----
Thank you to Bob Burton, president of the Wisconsin Rifle &
Pistol Association, for continuing to follow up on this
situation.
==================================================
==============
Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2004 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027
Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
September 1, 2004
ALERT:
OSHKOSH POLICE GIVE EXCUSES -- NOT EXPLANATIONS
On August 5, JPFO mailed an alert headed "What Happened in
Oshkosh? And Why Should Gun Owners Care?"
(http://www.jpfo.org/alert20040805.htm)
We were following up on a mid-July incident. Details of
that incident were unclear, but one thing was absolutely
certain: Following the wounding of an officer, Oshkosh
police confiscated firearms -- without consent and without
warrants -- from homes of innocent men and women. The
police violated these Americans' Fourth Amendment rights
and left them defenseless, knowing full well there was a
sniper on the loose in their neighborhood.
We just received a copy of an August 8 article from the
_Oshkosh Northwestern_ newspaper in which police try to
defend their action.
Some quotes from the _Northwestern_ article:
"Police Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said the scope of the
response was far smaller than many are suggesting: no one
in the neighborhood was forced from his or her home, and
police searched only four houses."
"Advocates who've posted criticisms on the Internet said
the department's statement still fails to explain the legal
grounds for searching homes. Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc., a
Green Bay-based gun rights group, posted an article on its
Web site Friday asking the department to clarify probable
cause for any search -- either by warrant or consent -- if
they had nothing more than a general direction the shot
could have come from."
"Police took several weapons from Terry Wesner's Minnesota
Street home after getting consent to search, and those
firearms were returned a few days later. Sagmeister
acknowledged that the firearms were taken without
Wesner's knowledge, but said it was miscommunication rather
than a deliberate, secretive seizure."
"Firearms taken from the sixth home were seized after
police served a search warrant, according to the police
department. Police initially entered the home with the
owner's permission, though the homeowner later rescinded
consent. The owners of that home later were jailed and
charged with felony marijuana production based on drugs and
paraphernalia left in the plain view of searching
officers."
"City officials are convinced the events of July 17 and
early July 18 are being blown out of proportion. City
Manager Richard Wollangk said many groups wary of intrusion
into constitutional rights latched onto the incident,
though it didn't happen the way those groups believe.
'We did go to houses, yes,' Wollangk said. 'But we got
permission. And the one's we didn't (get permission from),
we got search warrants. The guns we took, we returned.'"
Although the Liberty Crew is glad to hear that the
illegally seized firearms were returned, and glad to hear
the illegal police activities were less extensive than
first reported, we're not reassured -- and neither should
gun owners be.
Although this article doesn't say it, more than one
homeowner reported that his guns were stolen by police.
This article takes the police spokesperson's word for what
happened and fails to ask some obvious questions. For
instance, does anybody really believe that a marijuana
grower would give consent to search his home? Why did
officers take weapons from anybody without warrants?
And why did the officers involved have apparently no
training in citizens' constitutional rights?
Returning firearms to their owners (after, no doubt,
recording their serial numbers in a criminal database,
linked to the name of the innocent owner) does not erase
the original, unconstitutional taking of those arms.
Confiscating weapons simply because the owner lived in the
general vicinity where a shot was fired is a police-state
tactic. It presumes guilt. It's part of the growing trend
to treat all citizens as suspects. It is the opposite of
American tradition.
"TO SERVE AND PROTECT"?
And then there is the issue of police deliberately leaving
citizens defenseless in the face of danger.
"But that's fine," some people would no doubt say. "They
don't need guns; the police will protect them!"
Think again. As detailed in Richard W. Stevens' famous book
_Dial 911 and Die_ (http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm),
Wisconsin is one of many states that have laws that say "a
public officer or employee is immune from personal
liability for injuries resulting from acts performed within
the scope of the individual's public office."
The U.S. Supreme Court has also found repeatedly that
police have NO duty to protect individuals -- even when
they've specifically promised to do so. Again, the book has
detailed case cites.
The book describes two nightmare incidents in which
Wisconsin government agencies, including police, assured
citizens they would protect them -- then left those
innocent citizens dead or damaged for life. (The book also
has legal and court cites from all 50 states, Canada, and
Puerto Rico, as well as many other examples of failed
police "protection.")
Fortunately, nobody died in Oshkosh as a result of
outrageous and unconstitutional police actions. But what
about next time? As long as police (and journalists)
continue to excuse police-state behavior, there will be a
next time.
The Liberty Crew
-----
Thank you to Bob Burton, president of the Wisconsin Rifle &
Pistol Association, for continuing to follow up on this
situation.
==================================================
==============
Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2004 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027
Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/