Open Carrier Wins $10K Judgement Against Wisconsin Cops And City

[TRWXXA]

The problem is that it doesn't cost the City of Racine anything. It costs the taxpayers of the city of Racine. The City doesn't earn anything, they just extort it via taxes.

In a sense, yes. But in another sense, no.

It probably won't cost the taxpayers of Racine ANY MORE money. Cities are usually self-insured for this kind of thing. It's already in the budget.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, lets see. A call of shots fired in the neighborhood come from this idiot's house. Then conveniently enough he is outside so the responding cops, who are responding to a shots fired in the area, see him open carrying a handgun. And we think its OK cause he, though he was outside, was on his porch (therefore private property), he refuses to cooperate with the officers (who again are responding to a shots fired call) and now we celebrate this idiot getting money from the city when it was obvious that was his intention the entire time.

I think I will reserve my accolades for someone who deserves it, not this asshat.

Idiots like him do more damage than good. I came into this thread hoping for something better than this. I really came in here hoping for a true victory.

Just my

I agree he probably did set up the LEOs, but if you have a problem with that, do you also have a problem with the police departments putting one of their female officers on the streets in a short skirt and tight shirt waiting for them to be propositioned? Or putting one of their officers out on the street in ghetto attire and asking people walking past "if they are looking for something" in an area known for drug dealing? That is what he did.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Now, now, wtfd, as I hear almost daily from LEOs who pull on their lapels and tell me "confidential informants and stings are an important tool in the crime-fighting arsenal."

When people run stings on cops, it's suddenly not so fair.

 

[jedi]

He was not putting a sting on the cops per say but more pushing the 2A agenda.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Let "do what thou willst" be the whole of the law?

 

[Joe Williams]

If the police had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been able to be set up.

 

[MoparMan]

So if he set up the police then why are they still paying him. Isnt that some sort of a false 911 call. Shouldnt he be jailed for that?

I still disagree. He should have been jailed for not cooperating with the LEO's. I mean these people that thing they are helping us by disrespecting the leo's are just stupid.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Reading comprehension much?

Wrong concept. It was inference, not comprehension.

I'm poor so I couldn't afford the lawsuit in the first place, whether or not I obtained the scrutiny he did. Hence, a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[mrjarrell]

So if he set up the police then why are they still paying him. Isnt that some sort of a false 911 call. Shouldnt he be jailed for that?

I still disagree. He should have been jailed for not cooperating with the LEO's. I mean these people that thing they are helping us by disrespecting the leo's are just stupid.

He was well within his rights to behave as he did. You have zero obligation to ID yourself to cops on your own property, or even in public the majority of the time, (despite what some enforcers would have you believe). The court decided that he was within his rights and ruled accordingly against the enforcers. So, the guy was right and the enforcers were wrong. Case closed.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I still disagree. He should have been jailed for not cooperating with the LEO's. I mean these people that thing they are helping us by disrespecting the leo's are just stupid.

Would you refuse consensual search of your car? How about your house? Do you think that someone should be arrested for it? Come on it's just cooperating with the LEO's.

 

[Hoosier8]

This seems to have happened after another incident in Wisconsin.

Brad Krause West Allis Wisconsin Open Carry Case - Feb 17 Hearing Results

Brad Krause West Allis Wisconsin Open Carry Case - Feb 17 Hearing Results
Self | 2-17-09 | Self
Posted on February 17, 2009 1:10:18 PM EST by Secret Agent Man

Was in the courtroom today to hear the ruling from municipal judge Paul Murphy regarding Brad's case.

For a quick rundown, WI is an open carry state. Brad was on his property planting a tree, and was wearing a holstered firearm in plain sight. A neighbor calle West Allis police asking about the legality of open carry. The result was two squads being dispatched and BRad being drawn on by two officers, handcuffed for 45 minutes whiel the police tried to figure out what to charge him with (as open carry is the only legal way to carry in WI). They charged him with disorderly conduct and confiscated his weapon and holster.

The result today was the judge had a couple months in between the first date to today to read over briefs filed by both Brad Krause and his attorney Steve Kane, and the city attorney's office, to which he'd be issuing a ruling on whether BRad was guilty or not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. (I would point out the whole reason the police charged Brad with 'disordery' conduct was the mere fact he was armed. So in reality the charge against Brad was more accurately, 'being armed while armed.')

The courtroom apparently was pretty packed for a West Allis Tuesday morning. I would estimate a good 50-ish people were there for this one case.

Basically the judge seemed to go back and forth while issuing his reasoning before the verdict. First citing the idea that city governments can't pre-empt state constitutional rights was one avenue of thought. Then being upset that the legislature and our Attorney General (who ducked this issue) could clear all of this up by either issuing a ruling (AG) or clearing up the laws pertaining to carrying them in WI. Then discussing how e felt bad for the police because they don't really know what to do about this. Then steering back into the fact that people being offended doesn't trump constitutional rights. Making a statement to the effect that it is not lawful to use ordinances and statutes to deprive someone of their constitutional rights. Finally discussing whether Brad, simply by carrying was being disorderly or not. It looked like at some times it would go the city's way, and some times it appeared he would rule in Brad's favor.

The end result was that Brad was found not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. The judge made it clear that this is most likely not the end of this case because he believed whatever side 'lost' would probably appeal to a higher court. Certainly if Brad lost an appeal would be in the works. It is unclear at this early point if the city of West Allis will appeal or not. If I were to bet on it, IMPO, they will.

The issue of returning his weapon and holster are a separate issue per the judge, and it will be up to Brad to get his property back from the police department. There is a chance that he will have to go to court to get a court order, if they do not return it to him after he again submits a request to them to have it returned to them.

The ironic thing is that his weapon is the same weapon the West Allis police use, and his ammo was the same that they use. The only difference is that he has a superior holster than they do (positive retention) that makes it almost impossible for someone other than Brad to remove the gun.

So the end result to day is that there is a win for Brad. It probably is not over, he still needs to get his property back, and deal with the legal bills. But it's definitely a good day in Wisconsin, for every gun owner out there. Because the issue is not just about guns. It is a larger issue about rights, constitutionally guaranteed rights, that can't be taken away by local government just because they say they can (pre-emption). It is about not being able to have your rights taken away because someone else is offended or uncomfortable about you simply exercising your rights. It is a much bigger issue than just guns.

 

[MoparMan]

Would you refuse consensual search of your car? How about your house? Do you think that someone should be arrested for it? Come on it's just cooperating with the LEO's.

No i would not refuse. I have nothing to hide. Been in that situation a few times and have never had a problem. I try not to be confrontational.

I feel for many of my LEO friends that have to deal with people like this. The idiot pretty much pranked the police and they reacted.

Now what if that guy was actually the shooter and had killed his whole family inside the house. Would that change anything?

Some of you people are so against anyone resembling some sort of authority.

 

[jedi]

Some of you people are so against anyone resembling some sort of authority.

But we are are the one in an "underground bunker".

 

[MoparMan]

But we are are the one in an "underground bunker".

LOL. I still let the leo's search my bunker.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No i would not refuse. I have nothing to hide. Been in that situation a few times and have never had a problem. I try not to be confrontational.

Some of you people are so against anyone resembling some sort of authority.

You answered the first question but not the second. Should a person be arrested for refusing a search?

 

[MoparMan]

First let me say Im not a lawer, politician or normal civilian just a dumb grunt.
So my short answer is YES depending on the circumstances involved of course.
If there is reasonable cause (report of shots fired) and someone refuses, yes they should be arrested.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Some of you people are so against anyone resembling some sort of authority.

Standing on your rights and nattering about the Constitution is not resentment toward authority. It is simply being patriotic.

This country was founded by foaming at the mouth, armed authority resenters.

If there is reasonable cause (report of shots fired) and someone refuses, yes they should be arrested.

Some of us believe in the rule of law, not the rule of man.

There is no "contempt of cop" statute and there is much power in the word "no."

 

[MoparMan]

Well i guess we can agree to disagree. I think we all want the same thing but we have different ways to get there. Thanks all for the great conversation again and avoiding this to become a name calling flame war.

 

[jsgolfman]

I am constantly amazed, though I shouldn't be, at the amount of statists on this board.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ahhh, some people have a different outlook. We have to convert them . . . slowly, but we shall overcome.

infantry, think of it this way, standing up for your civil rights is not disrespect toward law enforcement but rather it honors law enforcement. Afterall, LEOs swear an oath to protect the Constitution, federal and state.