Ransom was paid. AKA bail.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/31258-1.html
http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_56888e4c-9e4f-11de-8895-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story



RACINE - The arrest of a Racine man openly carrying a gun on his front porch has sparked controversy that police believe may have been contrived.

Frank Hannan-Rock, 52, of 417 Luedtke Ave. was taken into custody Wednesday evening on a charge of obstructing. Racine police claim he wouldn't provide information to them during an active weapons violation investigation.

Reached by phone after being released from jail early Thursday, Hannan-Rock wouldn't comment. But friends and fellow supporters of open carry are outraged over his arrest.

Hubert Hoffman of Onalaksa called Hannan-Rock's arrest a persecution.

Hoffman, who made headlines as the organizer of an open-carry picnic in Onalaska earlier this year, met Hannan-Rock on an online forum at http://opencarry.org. He said he is angry that his friend was detained for eight hours and says he did nothing illegal.

"I don't understand how Frank ended up in jail," said Hoffman. "I'm angry about it. Police charged him with obstruction of justice because he refused to answer questions. You can not be charged with obstruction of justice by simply standing mute."

However, police are looking into whether the whole incident was a set-up by Hannan-Rock to test officers' reaction to him openly carrying a gun. They have determined the initial call to police about a weapons violation in the neighborhood came from his house.

"It appears to be a set-up, and we are checking it out," Police Chief Kurt Wahlen said.

"(Hannon-Rock) didn't get arrested for a weapons charge," Wahlen said. "We take weapons violations very seriously. We've suffered from a lot of gun violence in our community. If he had answered a few questions, this would have ended differently."

Police said officers were called to 405 Luedtke Ave. at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday for a report of a man with a gun. An anonymous caller told dispatchers that a man was shooting at raccoons in his backyard and was walking out to the street to reload his gun. The caller said she was concerned because there were children playing outside in the neighborhood.

The caller provided a description and said she thought the offender lived in the upper unit of a home at 405 Luedtke Ave.

When officers arrived at that address, residents there said the man who lives in the upper flat had left.

While in the area, police saw a group of people gathered on a porch at 417 Luedtke Ave. One man matched the suspect's description and was standing next to Hannan-Rock, who was openly carrying a holstered gun on his side.

Officers said they began asking Hannan-Rock questions and said they were investigating a weapons-discharge complaint. He answered their questions about the type of gun he was carrying but refused to give his name or any other information.

Police reports said the man told police that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen told him he didn't have to answer their questions.

Police then handcuffed and arrested Hannan-Rock for obstructing. He was booked into the Racine County Jail as John Doe.

According to reports, police became suspicious about Hannan-Rock's motives when they were trying to talk to him, because he was fumbling with a digital voice recorder.

When he was arrested, he refused to walk past a certain point, telling officers that he would not be arrested for carrying a weapon within 1,000 feet of a school or church.

After being taken into custody, Hannan-Rock was found in possession of the recorder and a pamphlet on open carry.

Hoffman said it is very common for those who openly carry firearms to also carry voice recorders. "I carry a voice recorder with me every time I carry," he said. "We shouldn't have to."

He said they carry the recorders for the same reason as they carry their guns: for protection.

Hoffman said he was called by Hannan-Rock's wife a few hours after the incident occurred. A story about the arrest was posted to the http://opencarry.org site and Wahlen said he has been getting e-mails from people all over the country about it.

"We have to make sure there is no danger to others when we're handling a call for service," said police spokesman Sgt. Bernie Kupper. "We don't just arrest people because they have a gun."

Officers later determined Hannan-Rock was not the offender in the shots-fired call. No one had been arrested for that crime Thursday, but police are issuing a warrant recommendation for a man who lives at 405 Luedtke Ave.

Reports said officers found blood on the sidewalk in front of that house and believe someone could have been shooting at raccoons.

He placed a call on himself???

WTF

Isolated incident.



Officer saftey like a motherfucker



Good thing he didnt have his dog with him.



etc.
Seriously, this is getting old.

You have the right to remain silent......while being arrested.........for having a gun........on your own property.


I wonder what he will buy with the money he gets if he plays his cards right?

But the OC crowd constantly assures us that harassment of OC'ers is rare, yet I seem to see one or two stories of police harassing OC'ers each week here.  





So, what is it, rare or common?  46 million or 30 million?  I'm seeing a disturbing similarity in methodology here.  


 

I was with my friend when Madison officers threatened and harassed him in Madison in a grocery store parking lot. An OC'er in Madison was recently arrested. Many illegal arrests have been taking place in WI. OC'ers are beginning to distrust LE.

Racine, WI LE were publicly saying they thought the OC'er "set them up". More evidence is now out and they were just trying to cover it up. Looks like more crooked cops

T minus how many days til Doyle is gone and we can start pushing CCW again?

What's the point of using a recorder that's just going to be taken from you and the data erased by the cop before you even make it to booking?

My personal experience suggests there are too kinds of people open carrying, the first kind are just minding their own business, not looking for attention of any kind.



The other kind are looking for a negative response from the police and citizenry.  Police because they're looking for a lawsuit to win, citizenry because they're looking for anti's to educate.  Which kind is your friend?  The answer to that might tell you something.



 

If LE erases it then they tampered with evidence and that is illegal  There is now a report that his voice recorder may have been on now.




News reports saying officers thought they were set up.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.html

Racine Police: Open Carry Arrest May Have Been a Set-Up
By Dan O'Donnell

RACINE - The Racine Police Department believes a man arrested for obstructing officers might have been setting them up.

Officers received a call regarding shots fired and, when they responded, found the suspect with a holstered gun standing on his front porch, and asked him for identification.

"The officers wanted to know who he was and that he actually lived at the address where they found him," said Racine Police Sgt. Bernie Kupper.  "We wanted to know that he did in fact live there and wasn't a suspect."

The man refused to provide identification, allegedly citing Attorney General JB Van Hollen's recent letter to Wisconsin's district attorneys promoting the state's open carry law.

"The suspect said he had a right to carry his gun and that the officers couldn't ask him for ID unless they arrested him," Kupper said.

Officers then arrested the man for obstructing them.

"When we ultimately arrested him, he had an open carry pamphlet in his pocket and a digital pocket recorder that an officer says he was attempting to turn on while we were talking with him," Kupper explained.  "When you couple those things with the fact that we eventually determined that the shots fired call came from his address, we felt that we were possibly being set up."

An investigation into the incident is ongoing.

My friend cooperated 100% with the "law" who harassed and threatened him while he sat in his car for 20+ minutes.  He was in business attire as usual.

Legal conduct is no less legal just because you are acting like a douche.

Play stupid games.......

Quoted from others.


"Police were in the area to pick up a dead raccoon that someone shot with a BB or pellet gun.  There was no report of shots fired.  I can't believe how quickly you all fall for police propaganda.  Carrying an OC Pamphlet while OCing makes you suspect foul play?  The recorder, which we carry because police cannot be trusted to tell the truth makes you question whether or not Frank planned it?  The call coming from the UPSTAIRS unit of the house (its a duplex) makes you wonder if he called the cops on himself?  He didn't even know they were coming.  Wait for the voice recorder to tell the story, the police didn't manage to delete it after all. "

+1

The police arrested without cause. Now they are trying to make up cause after the fact.

"Officers later determined Hannan-Rock was not the offender in the shots-fired call. No one had been arrested for that crime Thursday, but police are issuing a warrant recommendation for a man who lives at 405 Luedtke Ave.

Reports said officers found blood on the sidewalk in front of that house and believe someone could have been shooting at raccoons. "

There you go. They admit there was an offender and it wasn't Frank. So the "he set them up" bs it out the window.

The police messed this up and they know it.

"...which is bad when citizens catch us violating the law, but when we do it it's called a sting operation and is the bestest, neatest tool of enforcing compliance with the law evar!!"

I don't give 2 flying shits what anyone says.   If the cops ask you who you are, tell them.  If they ask for ID, show it.  This gives them 1 less reason to mess with you.  Why not let them know exactly who you are?  I would rather them know me and have no excuses than for me to deliberately give them an excuse to mess with me further.   Our fight is for firearms rights in WI right now.  Why look like asshats in front of the world when we are trying to sway public opinion our way?

Because it is about protecting rights as well. Rude or not some people do decide to do this, because they are supposed to have rights. It is also clearly showing WI LE is corrupt and willing to break the law over and over again

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Isolated, "Making shit up out of thin air." , incident -

Of course,  for the OC'er to "set them up"  it would require that the police commit some sort of violation.  It appears the police gave him what he wanted.

Set up? You mean like a "bait car" in the ghetto?????
Hmm.....

Sonds like a good idea!  Just how many other rights should we forfeit in order to sway public opinion our way!?

I'm not giving up any rights.  They're all important and they're not up for bartering.  

If he was a suspect in a crime and refused to identify himself then that is a crime. The fact that he qas oc'ing is irrevelant since he was not charged with it.
He went looking to get locked up and it happened. This is a non-story.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Looking to be locked up? He was on his own porch. We don't know everything yet, other then the police are changing their stories.

AGNTSA...





Deja vu all over again...

 

The problem doesn't lie with the OC'ers. It lies with the harassment.




 

Papers please.

Yes.  Here is the WI "Stop and Identify" law:

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24

"968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. "

And here is the Supreme Court of the United States deciding it doesn't violate the 4th and 5th;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554

So please don't go thinking you can avoid arrest in a "stop and identify" state if you don't tell them who you are.  You need only state your name or show valid ID to satisfy "identifying" yourself.  The laws may be unjust in your eyes, if so, please contact your legislators.  But for fucks sake, know you won't beat the ride.  Duh.

May beat the rap...  won't beat the ride... yadda yadda yadda.....

You are correct, in court he cannot be made to testify against himself and cannot be put to death, have his property seized or kept in jail without a hearing.

This has what to do with him refusing to identify himself when he is detained by the police?

This article could have been called " Man arrested for wearing blue jeans". It is just as relevant as the fact he was OCing at the time he obstructed the investigation.  

the law you posted reads as follows:

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

how would the cops articulate this suspicion in the incident being discussed?  was there a witness who indicated that the oc'er had done something wrong?  did the cops witness it themselves?  were there hot shell casings from the same caliber of weapon as the oc'er laying on the sidewalk in front of his house, or did the cops simply see a citizen with a gun in a holster and ASSume he was the guy whom the complaint was about?  without the REASONABLE suspicion the cops in this instance could not detain the defendant or demand his identification.

i get my own head up my ass real quick thinking of even being asked to identify myself at my own residence by police, let alone being harassed for practicing any of my constitutional rights.

-frank

Would a person on his front porch count as "in a public place" under this statute?  What RAS would the officers have that this person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime?

What is that idiot's major malfunction?

If I am reading the law correctly, the right to ask to identify is based on the belief of the police officers and isn't concerned with the belief of the resident involved or not.  As such, the police need not tell the person anything before asking that he identify himself. In this particular case, the police were looking into a "shots fired" allegation and were therefore within the law when they expected the guy to identify himself AND they were within the law arresting him for refusing to. Had he stated his name, stated he was legally carrying, and that he didn't have any problems or see any problems would have let the police do what they came there to do (which is, go after someone else shooting raccoons).

Your state has such a law, though it appears to be in with loitering statutes.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia list of the states with one;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

I urge everybody to find out what you can and can't do in your state, especially if you ever open carry.

Alright fellas,

Racine PD claiming that frank set them up is complete bullshit.

They were out looking for a hispanic man of a certain description at another address where someone reported that suspect shooting at raccoons.


they drove up the street and saw Frank standing on a front porch, with his firearm holstered. Frank was in a different location from what the caller reported, did NOT match the description given to police, the only thing that Frank had in common with the person who the police were looking for was he had a firearm.

if the police are out looking for someone driving a car, do they have a right to arrest anyone else who is driving a car nearby just because they choose not to provide personal information?

ETA the Racine PD screwed the pooch, just like the majority  of departments when it comes to open carry in WI... this is the problem that we are faced with.

Yeah! Just wear your god damn golf fucking star <Edit. Bama>, keep your eyes down in a submissive posture and hope us good guys don't decide to harrass you. And if we do, just do what we say and you may get off with just being tased or maced and your dog shot. Cause you only have rights when we say you have rights.


ETA: For the less swift of you, gold star and pig do not reference LEOs.

i don't know.  the annotations to this section are numerous.  i'll post up a few more for discussion:

968.24 - ANNOT.      
  This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.

968.24 - ANNOT.      
  Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer's seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01-0904.

To be clear,  I'm not trying to justify the actions of the PD.  

If my post was misconstrued to indicate I thought the intent was to set-up the PD I apologize.  I have no way of knowing anything about this beyond what's posted in this thread and is why I used the word 'appears'.  

I AM however stating that it takes two parties in order to complete a set-up and it only works if the party being set-up complies.  For example, a prostitution sting doesn't work if no one takes the bait.  

Set-up or not,  it looks like the PD overstepped.

Never trust raccoons –––– they lie!

Assuming their account of being called for shots fired is true, then seeing someone matching the description on the porch of 417, then how exactly are they supposed to know it was in fact his own porch?

eta:  Just to clarify, since people go so dang loopy around here––––-all I am saying is that police do not have magic powers that enable them to know that a person is on their own porch, versus being on someone else's porch––-just making the narrow point that "He was on his own porch," has about as much usefulness here as "He likes macaroni."

When did one's own land stop being his own and belong to the public

my front porch is not a public space.... not in my book.  in the middle of 80 acres, i enjoy a reasonable expectation to privacy at all times.

eta:  behind fences and locked gates.  no warrant?  go away.

-frank

it's like you're saying the police were responding to a shooting.

a man was reported by a neighbor for shooting at a raccoon. the police were responding to talk with the individual.

when you word it the way you did - it makes it sound like somebody was going on a rampage with a gun shooting people.

He fucked up when he refused to provide his name.



They were investigating a possible crime.



Other than that, he was good to go. (or should have been)

Ha, ha Bama.  You know what is really funny?  If this guy was a felon, he would have had a reason to believe giving his name might incriminate him (felon in posession of a firearm).  Thus, his refusal would be valid under the fifth amendment under the case previously cited.  That is why this Supreme Court decision is fucking stupid.

Yeah, good point, but I was more trying to address the whole "his own porch" thing, and its lack of relevance from the standpoint of the officers (again, assuming the PD's account is true, which your info would seem to indicate is incorrect.)  

As an aside, down here "shots fired," signal 94, is the same whether it be someone shooting in the air or pegging raccoons––-it will only be classified differently if a person is known to be either hit or the intended target of the shooting.