Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by bnhcomputing, Sep 24, 2010.
Is it legal in WI for a felon to open carry a firearm?? If not, how is the police officer to know if you are a felon with out your ID and subsequent computer check. Some of your group provided ID some didn't. Was alcohol an issue? It just seems that failure to comply is over reaction. Now it is going to cost your organization and members time and money to address this issue. How is this different from the case where the police ask for your drivers license in a traffic situation?? Good Luck
The whole point is that citizens are not required and should not be expected to comply with unlawful demands. Sounds like the Madison police have provided a good opportunity to make that case.
Stop and Identify Laws
WI has "stop and identify laws" which require you to provide ID to a police officer if he has reasonable suspicion that a crime or violation of the law has occured. The term reasonable suspicion is a nebulous term and usually is determined in court. By the time you get that far you have expended considerable time and money on attorney's. Does Madison have laws implementing the STate law on Open Carry?? The Madison Police should have explained the situation to the caller. That may have resolved the issue but they were required to investigate. I believe the attitude of the two who refused to ID themselves led to the police action. What we may have here is an overreation by both sides to one degree or the other. After thought did the personnel involved violate Wis. Stats 941.237 which prohibits carrying a handgun into an establishmen that serves alcohol??
This is the otherside of the issue:
You are from Illinois and it shows.
In America the police do not stop law abiding citizens and demand to see their "papers" to prove that they are lawfully enganging in an activity that is, well... lawful.
Kidnapping is illegal. The police should stop every person who is in possession of a child to verify that they are lawfully in possession of that child and not kidnapping, right? What's the difference?
they were in a culvers "restaurant" -- fast food, think a nicer mcdonalds with food that's actually edible.
NAVY LT Wisconsin Law
Read the link cited above. It seems the lawmakers and I agree. Being from Illinois we don't have to worry about the fine points we just don't carry. Someday Illinois will be on the carry list. When that day comes I hope we are more selective in the fights we elect to indulge. No one knows how the WI issue will be resolved.but it seems a waste to spend money on a fight that need never have happened witness the three who provided ID.
I am not familar with Culvers so alcohol isn't an issue. Thanks for info.
snubbies - it's not a worthless fight. We don't live in a country where papers are required to walk around. Unless they are engaging in, or the officer had reason to believe they were engaging in illegal behavior, they don't have to provide ID. It seems like you aren't for any type of activism (note your opinions that the Toys-R-Us boycott is worthless) - how else are things going to change if not challenged?
The basic problem is that the police think that lawful behavior is not lawful, and instead of following the law they are following their own agenda. Would you accept this if the officers thought that the speed limit on a 40mph stretch should really be 30mph so they stop anyone going 40mph and cite them for reckless endangerment? Of course - that's ridiculous and so is the behavior from these officers.
BTW, this fight in WI about open carry in Madison has been going on for a while now, and we are making progress, but only because a few good men and women and stepping up to challenge the infringements on their rights.
snubbies, read your link; thanks. My concern is that if open carry is legal, how can the police establish procedures that treat open carry or others' reaction to it as disturbance of the peace? (EDIT: should have said "disorderly conduct" rather than "disturbance of the peace.") Just because the police chief drew these conclusions doesn't make them right.
As I said reasonable suspicion is determined by the officer and confirmed or denied by the court. I am for activism but not for fruitless endeavors. The two men involved in the WI issue were provoking a confrontation. The other three from the same organization abided by the officers request. The officer did not initiate of his own volution the confronation he was called to the scene by another citizen. Since there were several men armed and probably reported that way it was logical to send more than one officer. As far as the TRU issue is concerned if you read all of my postings you would see I favor another course of action other than e-mail and letter writing. You see what the e-mail got you. They closed their server. Reading the link to the WI paper and the City of Madison's reply it seems logical to me what the officer did. In your analogies if the officer had suspicion the baby was kidnapped he would have the right and duty to stop the woman. Each case is different. Police officers are trained to use their best judgement in accordance with the law. The people in the restaurant may not be informed that it is legal to open carry. In come several men carrying guns. That has to be disturbing. The first officers on the scene could have handled it better but the two disenters provoked the pi**** contest. If WI Carry is looking to get concealed carry they would better spend their money in other areas
Until such time as the issue of open carry and "stop and identify" is resolved in the legislature the chief of police has the duty to enforce the law as it is. The law is mute an several aspects of this case but the chief is doing what he considers best for the public at large. Until such time as the public is informed and accepts the right to carry problems such as this will arise. I does not behoove either side to be confrontational.
The charges of Obstructing a Piece Officer against the two who refused to present ID were rescinded so it seems the PD has decided that the officers were wrong and the citizens were within their rights to refuse to present their IDs just as the Wisconsin Carry release said.
Whether the Disorderly Conduct charges for the individuals in the group that were just openly carrying (and who the caller didn't accuse of disorderly conduct, she just wanted to make sure the police were contacted to check on an unusual situation) will result in court or convictions is yet to be seen. If they do end up in court and they are convicted of disorderly conduct I would expect an appeal. Simply being somewhere and exercising a right may concern or disturb, but whether it is illegal by the means exercised is what the court will decide. I would hope the individuals that decided to challenge convention were well prepared to face law enforcement officers and were fully aware of their rights and the possible consequences of this challenge to convention.
No Snubbies. Demanding to see ID from people who were doing nothing wrong provoked the pissing contest. There was no reasonable suspicion. The charges brought afterward were retaliatory for the police getting their collective asses handed to them in court.
problem is, the point of the two people dissenting isn't an issue as those tickets were rescinded -- even the three who provided identification and went on their way are now facing charges of disorderly conduct. it's those charges of disorderly conduct for all five that were issued after the fact that are being addressed with this lawsuit. it's clear that even if all five of them gave identification at the restaurant the same eventual outcome would have occurred with disorderly conduct charges being issued. so getting wrapped up in the issue of ruffling feathers with not providing identification seems irrelevant.
The refusal to provide ID initially was the catalyst to the confrontation. What is missing here is what transpired between the officers and the 5 men in the way of conversation provocation physical demeanor. I wasn't there. If you were then please enclose a transcript of the happenings. It is not uncommon for the police to add charges after an incident when they have the opportunity to interview the officers and consult with the States Attorney
Yeah, whatever. You seem to want to defend the cops no matter what they do. The disorderly charge was retaliatory. You either are/were a cop or you're related to some or something. The catalyst was cops demanding ID from people who DID NOTHING WRONG. What part of that is unclear?
If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop says "I want to see your ID right now" I'm gonna tell him to pound sand. If I get arrested, that's fine, but the department is gonna get sued. This is not Nazi Germany and if I'm not doing anything wrong I have no responsibility to show my ID to anyone.
The officer's DETAINING law abiding citizens with no evidence whatsoever of any crime being committed is what was the catalyst to the confrontation. You are apparently perfectly OK with the concept of police detaining law abiding citizens for no reason at all.
You never answered my question snubbies:
Kidnapping is illegal. A person calls 911 to report that I am eating dinner with two kids at the table. According to you, the cops should be able to detain me and prove to them the kids are mine and I am not a kidnapper, correct?
Here's a link for you to read, my friend:
NavyLT, that looks like it would have been useful for the Madison PD and Chief (and all other LEOs) to have read that advice before acting in this instance.
I wasn't there and I asusme you weren't either. What was said between the officers and the men?? Do you know if the restaurant owner pressed disorderly conduct after the fact??? I don't know. I am sure absent the refusal to identfy themselves from the outset the men would have been run through the computer and found not to be felons, as they ultimately were, they would have gone on their way. I have no idea what the relationship between the police and the courts is but in most cases the police are given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think any court would want to set the precedent that you don't have to identify yourself to police. This issue was dealt with in reference to traffic issues when the law required proof of drivers license by producing that license to the officer. The key to the issue of asking for ID lies in the officers reasonable suspicion. Prior to the time the officers came on the scene they had no idea of the circumstances on the scene. They had to identify the parties to determine their circumstance and position in the issue. To ask the police to come on the scene with 5 men armed without disarming them and requiring ID is unreasonable and ludicrous. If the people in WI want concealed carry cooperation with law enforce ment and not confrontation and law suits is the name of the game.
That opinion by the Chief Counsel is just that an opinion in another State. We are dealing with WI not Maaschusetts. The SUpreme Court in Hibel gave the States the right to formulate rules for the "stop and Identify" practice. What question did NavyLt want answered?
You keep saying reasonable suspicion when there was none.
So essentially some busybody made a phone call and said she was upset and the police get to ride in and make unreasonable requests of citizens that haven't done anything wrong.
This is a BS ploy for Anti's to break the collective balls of Citizens who are licensed to carry. Plain and simple.
Good link, NavyLT; thanks!
Since this is yet, once again, the activism forum and snubs has yet once again derailed the conversation, what can we or the people of WI do to help?
Separate names with a comma.