Posted: 1/26/2005 5:34:53 AM EDT
|
News Article Another AR-15 thread Gist of the story--a bunch of Milwaukee people have successfully resisted armed criminals, by shooting back, locking them up, disarming them, etc. The store owner, who wasn't present, wasn't comfortable with his employee's actions, and police say fighting crime is dangerous and best left to the professionals.  MPD does suggest training, which I agree with.I hate advice like 'not fighting back'. Why not let people read the situation and decide what course of action is best for them? It's worked 4-for-4 lately, and I don't feel any sympathy for the Edited to clarify my opinion about advice about not fighting back. |
| I don't feel for them either and I agree with the training, but I don;t agree with leaveing the crime fighting to the cops. Unless of course they are there when it happens. But if they are not, fuck that shit fight back especially if your in a situation where you ass is on the line. I'm not giving up my life without one hell of a fight. |
well shit - it wasn't a real gun. Maybe they could tell. Agreed with training - I finished LFI I a while back, and it really opened my eyes. Shooting someone can ruin your life, I hope to God I never have to do it. Sometime, however, people are left no choice. Fighting crime is everyone's job - and protecting your life - well, we know the Supreme Court has said the cops dont have to do it, so really, its up to you. Yeah, it's too bad the MPD views this trend as alarming. The alarming thing is the amount of violent crime in Milwaukee, that we still don't have a CCW law, and that the criminals haven't learned to fuck off yet.
Sound like it already did - for 4 bad guys. |
Glenn. I for one appreciate your attitude towards armed folks defending themselves. I wish more LEO's would look at the situation the way you do. Not to nitpick, but the folks in the article were NOT vigilantes, and to call them that does them a grave disservice. They were all citizens who simply took their own self-protection as a responsibility, over abdicating that right to the state. If they went "dirtbag hunting" after they had been victimized, then it would be correct to call them "vigilates". Edit: Did I just jump the gun? It looks like you may have meant "vigilante" as sarcastic, taken in context. If so, please forgive my indignation. 
|
Yeah, I meant it sarcastically, but no forgiveness is called for. My wife and I had a similar discussion after I finished reading Gavin deBecker's "Protecting the Gift". I was commenting that deBecker was strongly anti-gun, and she pointed out I was just having a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of firearms. When we're constantly pummeled in the media (whether about gun control or self-defense), it's easy to misinterpret things like this. You made your point quite well. |
|
Speaking about Milwaukee... how about the sheriff's "get the guns off the street" and their random stopping of "suspicious" looking cars and asking "if it's all right to search your car"? Has anybody reported on just HOW MANY guns have been confiscated, and the COST PER GUN in manpower. If there's two officers in the car thats a $100 per hour, $800 per shift. If somebody has a gun why would they be so stupid to agree to have the car searched? What do the officers do if the driver says NO? I believe there still is such a thing as a search warrant for cause. I hate that city and it's stinking Democratic politics. You'll NEVER see a CCW law in Milwaukee. No matter what the rest of this dumb state does if they ever get rid of Doyle. If I could I'd move to any other state. I figure it costs me an extra $10,000 a year in various taxes to live in this lousy state, compared to any number of southern states. |
Somone posted an artical about it yesterday. As for CCW in milwaukee, you'll see it as soon as the CCW law is passed. Milwaukee county won't opt out, and even if they do, it's only for issuing them. All that means is you'd have to go to a different county to apply. |
I hear there's room in california.  I don't think that wisconsin is that bad compared to some of the others out there.Oh, and since you want search warrants to search cars, I'm sure that you would love it if you were stopped and had to wait for hours for a search warrant to be drawn up, looked over by a judge, signed, and brought out to the stop, issued to you, and the search conducted. I'm not saying that the police should have the right to search any vehicle for any reason but to imply that officers stop cars for no reason is just plain dumb. Any officer that does that would be subject to disapline, up to and including losing their job, and if they DID find something, what ever was found would be suppressed in court as "fruits of the poisonous tree". Oh, and if you want to cry about any item costing the tax payers more money in police man power, try figuring out what the cost per BEER is to the taxpayers. If there was no alcohol, police forces could most likely be cut in half and still be affective. Ok flame away. |
Get in yer nomex, pal.  [hijack & rant] I have zero issues with the legitimate law enforcement duties of local cops, period. That said: There are the rare "bad" or "dirty" cops out there, but more importantly, their are many LEOs that have an "us vs. the world" attitude that, when put into action, stretches the line between legitimate law enforcement, and illegitimate extracurricular activity meant to make a “bust”. It is a reality, and it happens more than a lot of LEOs would like to admit. For example: Between the ages of 18 and 25, I would estimate that I got pulled over, searched and/or sobriety-tested no less than 40 times. Out of those stops, THREE resulted in speeding tickets (2 were actually deserved). The others? I got several warnings for "bald" tires (they had plenty of tread), several more for having one license plate bulb burned out (out of two - which is completely legal for everything except a commercial vehicle), and an awful lot of “Your eyes look bloodshot/glassy” (I wear contacts), and “Hmm. You missed your nose, are you certain you haven’t been drinking/smoking pot” (never breathalyzed, ‘cause it was obvious I was lucid and straight). After that, I was left to pick up the contents of my car's interior on the side of the road on several occaisions, with no more than a "You're free to go. Have a nice day." My real crime? I was a young male with long hair, and drove a Camaro. I guess I looked like a “stoner” or something. I can see why the black community gets pissed every time a guy with 20" rims gets pulled over, and asked "are their any guns in the car?" (although I understand that one – especially because the officer’s safety might be at risk). Hell, I' don't even mind "profiling" all that much, but it does get ridiculous after a while. In the last 6 years, I've been pulled over twice (Legit. I was speeding, probably “in excess” both times). Both times the nice officer took one look at the "I support the XXXX Policeman's Union" stickers in the back window, ran my license, and let me go. Why? I cut my hair, drive a nice SUV with the company logo, and have the aforementioned stickers where an officer can’t miss them. Bottom line, cops may not pull folks over for "no" reason, but there's a LOT of fishing that goes on based on hunches and profiling, rather than APB’s and actual infractions. Some of it may even be legitimate (I'm thinking the FL Sate police on "Alligator Alley", and the GA SP patrolling up I95). To suggest otherwise is to ignore the reality of how LEOs behave. Now before you write me off as some tinfoil-wearing Anti-LEO ACLU apologist, please realize that I'm the first of my family in 3 generations NOT to go into LE. I have nothing but respect for the guys in blue that put their life on the line so that I can sleep well at night. Men like my Dad, Grandad, and his father before him…good cops that saw in black and white, and tied very hard not to blur that line between the two. (ETA: I'd bet Glenn_R fits in there as well) [/hijack & rant] Almost forgot:
Unfortunately, that comes after the commission of a fishing expedition and complaint to the officer’s superiors. In 94 or 95, I got pulled over 4 times in 6 weeks by the same rookie trooper out of FonDu Lac on 41. The fifth time he chased me down in his personal vehicle for passing him after a shift change (long story). After the two of us talked with a Dodge County Deputy acquainted with both of us, it was decided that the harassment would stop, or there would be a report (I mentioned "Civilian Review Board" and they got quiet). I don't want to see anybody lose their job, and yet at the same time; IF the cops need to err, they need to err on the side of The Constitution, and that does not seem to happen all that much at the present. The Milwaukee situation is no different, other than the gray area actions and abuses of individual officers are somehow legitimized by the pronouncement of the Sheriff or Chief that these stops are now “policy” to “get guns off the street” and “make our communities safer”.  Want to make things safer for me? Let this licensed-to-CCW-in-28-other-states-but-can’t-carry-outside-my-house citizen provide for his own protection, and for the protection of those around him.  ETA:
From what I understand, WI has a higher ratio of LEOs per capita than CA. Take that little nugget for what it's worth, and think about it the next time your taxes get raised. |
|
And in the great city of Milwaukee exactly what is a ILLEGAL firearm? A gun that isn't registered? Maybe a .22 semi-auto with a silencer? Maybe a loaded fully automatic Mac 10? A sawed off shotgun? Sure seems to me there's a heck of a lot of flaws in the program "to get the guns off the street". What if driving through town in my station wagon or van or suv and my unloaded Kimber .45 is in the rear in a zippered pistol case with no loaded magazines. And there's a couple of used paper targets I used at the range. Or maybe there's no targets because I tossed them at the gun range. Do I say, "sure, search away". Or do I call my lawyer first? Maybe refuse to have the car searched because I'm not sure if I'm illegal or not. I feel this whole program is purely for public relations. Notice how the number of guns taken off the street are never mentioned. Or how many manhours have been used. How many hours are budgeted? How many guns is the goal? How is it decided if it's worth continuing? Are there two man patrol cars that are assigned nothing else to do besides this program? Aren't there any more fruitful ways to protect the public? |
I don't live near milwalkee but it sounds like you do. Have you ever asked any of these questions to any of your elected officals down there? Budgets and stats like those you mention are public records. Get those questions answered and go to your city county meetings and address the problems. Get involved if you think the government is being run poorly. |
Milwaukee has some wierd quirks with gun laws. Especially NFA stuff. Other than that though the laws are basicly the same as anywhere else in the state. What the task force is doing is trying to get guns out o the hands of people who should not, by law, have them. They sit around waiting for somone to break a traffic law, stop them and ask premission to search, in some cases they don't need it, say suspended license or the like, but they still ask. If you are a felon driving around with a gun in the car and you let them search and they find it, TFB for you. If you are not a felon and you let them search your car and tey find an uncased firearm in the car, they can get you for that. Granted I don't think they can keep the gun as there is a fine for the ofence and if the guns value is greater than the fine, keeping the gun is considered an excessive fine(that has gone through the courts here in Wisconsin IIRC. Now if your in a crime ridden section o town on your way home from the range, and you roll a stop sign and these guys pull you over, and ask to search you have two options, tell them no, or tell them yes, and as long as you are legaly transporting the firearms there is nothing they can do about it. |
|
My comments are as such. I always carry gun in my car. Legally. They should have no problem with this. It is not illegal to shoot at the range, hunt, etc. If they try and take them away for no apparent reason that would be unconstitutional for our state. I don't believe it's their intent to do that to law abiding citizens. I could be wrong and it probably is different for different officers because some of the laws or case law is a little vague. But regardless, I follow the laws stated in the hunting regs. Therefore I can show an officer what I'm following. As far as defending yourself, I hope any leo's don't take this the wrong way but they are not designed to protect you/us from a violent crime. There's no way they can. They can only "respond" to a call. By then it's too late. I would never trust them to stop an attacker on me or my family when they are not everywhere. It's not their fault, it's impossible. Thus we are allowed to, must, defend ourselves. Even though there can be varying repercussions for doing so. Which is the case with any thing if someone is hurt bad. For example; the guy who got in a car accident and killed someone due to talking on his cell phone got a sentence. If you defend yourself to the extent of killing someone, there are no garraunty's, except that you might be still alive. After that, your guess is as good as mine as to what will happen. You could be totally vindicated or you could be sued by the family. Or you could've picked the wrong criminal to shoot because he might be related to Gwen Moore or someone like that. (sorry, just had to add that in here) I saw a quote in soldier that said," a gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone" 
|
|
Didn't want to give the impression I live in that rotting city. I did 20 years ago, for the first 45 years of my life. But then it wasn't the way much of it is now. We are 30 miles away in the Holy Hill area and I never drive into Milwaukee unless it's an absolute emergency. As long as Doyle is there there will be no CCW in WI. And we tend to keep Governors a long time. The minority vote cheating system in Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Janesville and Kenosha produce enough crooked votes to give him the office as long as he wants. I got a non-resident CCW from Minnesota but we'll have to move to one of the 10-11 states that honors it to use it. Might be doing that in 6 months or so. I hope. |
Actually, if a gun is present "during the comission of a crime" (are all your tail lights working?), then it is subject to seizure, regardless of the fine. I'll look up the code... |
I'll have to find the case but the guy basicly was busted for CCW, they fined him the max under law and than were going to keepthe guns, he argued that the valuse of the gun was higher than the value of the fine and as he recieved a maximum fine for the offence keeping the guns was an excessive fine. Court disagreed, appeals court agreed. Now thats if I remember it correctly. I'llhave to dig like crazy to find the case so I'm off to dig a cyber hole to china. 
|
Ok so it's not the case I was thinking about but it is one that is only two years old.
|
Here's the statute I think you're talking about. I've been with you up to this point, FMD, but I think you've misinterpreted the statutory language. 968.20(1m)(b) states, "...the [weapon] shall not be returned to any person who committed a crime involving the use of the dangerous weapon... The property may be returned to the rightful owner...if the owner had no prior knowledge of and gave no consent to the commission of the crime." The key words: "involving the use of the weapon". Driving without tail lights won't fit that definition. Now if you're sticking the gun in the face of someone in the bar, or committing burglary while armed...well, I'd put poor odds on you seeing the gun again The part I don't like is, "...may be returned to the rightful owner..." Assuming my lawyerese is correct, that's not a requirement, but an option. If someone steals your gun, robs someone, and is then caught, the police may return your gun--not "shall" return it. The owner might get stuck having to get a court order the return of the gun. |
That's the stat I was thinking of, Glenn (thanks for doing my research for me  ). I did a bit of research on this when I was really interested in being a test case for open carry/DC, and here's the way I see it (IANAL):IIRC, there is a case where the WISC ruled on the word "use" in this statute regarding a contractor from FL who was carrying a bunch of guns in his pickup (he had a CCW from FL, and claimed he thought it was okay). When he pulled over during a traffic stop, the cop noticed an uncased rifle, and searched. There were other firearms cased and unloaded (think GOPA) along with a pistol on his person, but the cased guns were still seized. The SC ruled that the seizure and subsequent destruction of those weapons was righteous, based on the fact that they were present and "used" during the commision of a crime (in this case having a loaded weapon in a vehicle, and carrying a concealed weapon). Note that at no time was a gun "used". There was no brandishing, threatening, etc. They offending weapons were merely present. The WISC interpreted the word "use" in this case to include any firearm in the custody of a defendant when an infraction occured (now I gotta look up case law, dammit  ..that is unless you wanna do my research, G ).So now we're back to the whole "what constitutes loaded?" "what constitutes concealed?" "what constitutes DC?", etc. arguments. Bottom line, if you're pulled over for a broken tail light, are searched (either by consent or otherwise), and have ANY firearm that is stored in a way OTHER than consistant with the GOPA, it could very well end up getting all of them seized, and most likely destroyed. <anecdotal evidence> I know a gentleman that was t-boned on a motocycle when coming back from a hunting trip. A shotgun and a pistol were in his custody, cased and unloaded when he got hit. The old lady that hit him (driving without headlights) claimed that he ran the stop sign. Both firearms were seized, and they attempted to charge him with CCW. Even though the charge was dropped, it took the lawyers months to get it figured out, and get the guns back. He was lucky, as the guns could very well have been destroyed, and then he would have had to sue the city to get their market value returned to him. </anecdote> The may language applies to the stolen gun situation you describe, and is certianly a concern. The issue is that the actual owner will have to petition the court, provide evidence that he had no knowledge of the intent of the perp to commit a crime, and then it's still up to a judge to decide if he gets it back. The big issue is "who notifies the owner?", and that answer is unclear. |
I'd like to read that decision. The FL guy was using a gun to commit a crime--CCW in this case--so that uncased gun is a legal seizure. I'd guess?? the other guns were seen as simultaneous tools. Let me explain with an example. If I find person "A" prying open a door with a crowbar at 2:00am, and person "B" standing behind "A" carrying a hammer, I'd charge "B" with, among other things, possession of burglary tools. Now the hammer wasn't physically "used", but the hammer was an accessory of sorts, in that in this particular case its mere presence showed its purpose. "Accessory tool"?  Probably some sort of fancy lawyer name for that... My example would be a justifiable charge, but in your FL example my "accessory tool" idea seems too much of a stretch. I'm seriously interested in reading that decision.
The uncased gun was "used" to commit CCW (point of clarification only). How they decided the other guns were "used", I don't know but want to find out.
Nahh, I'm not going to research that one, I leave it in your capable hands. But I am interested, so please let me know the name of the case. I still read the statute as saying as long as the firearm isn't used in the crime, everything's good. Admittedly, having a gun uncased in a vehicle is "using" the gun to commit CCW, so I see how part of your case went down. But, your tail light example still doesn't fly
|
Glenn I bring to you the decision of the WSC regarding the case that FMD was tlaking about.
|
|
Thanks, Photo! I think the decision closely meshes with my understanding of the statute. It all boils down to how you use "use". Does anyone know if the cased gun was eventually returned? This was remanded for further proceedings, and (hopefully) the circuit court may have decided only the uncased guns were contraband and the cased gun could be returned... |
Not a problem. I have read sop freaking may WSC decision regarding CCW that I know how to look them up real fast. But the easiest way to get the opinions is to just do a general search on the WSC website for 941.23 gives you all the cases regarding that one (unconstitutional) statute. |
|
Here's the real short, simple answer... FUCK MPD FUCK Jim Doyle FUCK Milwaukee and FUCK WISCONSIN I have better things to do with my life than live in a nanny state that wants my taxes but doesn't respect my LIBERTY. Now all yall get yer asses down here to TEXAS! I got a list for yall too... Need some brats, kraut, cheese curds, kringle...
|
Now I won't bring it down to ya, but These guys will ship it to ya. I think these folks will too |
Yeah, 1,000 miles is a long ride for a grown man with a grown mans appetites to be travelling alone and unsupervised with a car load of heavenly goodness!
|
That it is. It would be like teasing a dog with an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. |