Posted on 07/27/2004 9:46:21 AM PDT by JOAT
TYRANNY ALERT!
OSHKOSH POLICE CONDUCT DOOR TO DOOR GUN CONFISCATIONS
Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood gun grab
Oshkosh, Wis. -- Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes, their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.
The Oshkosh Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Unit responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.
Citizens' guns were seized through searches of area homes. The police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer's name was withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-threatening.
"The message is: Hand over your guns, now!" said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "This is a blatant case of guilty-until-proven-innocent and an abuse of police power."
Still, residents in the area are furious about the home invasions by police and what they see as theft of their property. Although early reports are unclear, they indicate a search warrant was issued for two homes, yet additional home owners also had firearms confiscated.
"We want the perpetrator of this crime caught and brought to justice just like everyone else," said Graff. "But that doesn't mean the police should trample citizens' 4th amendment protections, steal lawful private property and enter the home without reasonable suspicion or warrant."
One homeowner in the area said his guns were taken by police, guns that hadn't left his gun safe since last hunting season. Another victim of the police searches -- an elderly women -- reported waking up to officers' searching her home in the early morning hours.
The Oshkosh Northwestern reported, "Residents were not being allowed to return to their homes by press time."
My ass...
I think we can concede the possibility that the police in this case overstepped their bounds. If so, that has to be dealt with.
There were several guns sieized from a couple of different houses according to more than one report. Did you conveniently forget that part? Only one mention of a search warrent for one house.
PoliceState
Seriously? That seems to really throw the door open to subjective interpretations of anyone walking past. Has that law ever been challenged?
I did see the report. Unlike you, I am willing to wait for further information on the case before drawing conclusions. There are some troubling aspects to this situation.
I can't find anything corroborating the claim that any searches were conducted, or any guns were confiscated w/o consent, or in an improper fashion.
Not just yet. But it is time to start thinking about where you'd hide a cache if you needed to.
On the other hand, if there is some big awful terrorist attack that causes chaos all over, all gun laws will become academic anyway.
It doesn't matter; the issue is the mindset that allows usurpations such as this to occur.
It's sort of along the lines of "if a cop witnesses a crime in commission..." Of course it is subjective, but it means they don't have to get a search warrant if they walk by a house and see guys sniffing coke through an open door. Under some circumstances, you don't need to defer to a judge.
"What they see"? -- Someone at that paper has a mental breakdown.
It was theft.
From THIS LOCAL NEWS ARTICLE:
Police last week seized a number of firearms during consent searches of homes in the area, but need the bullet to match against them. Police also served a search warrant at the property they believe the shot originated from.
At least one resident reported in THIS ARTICLE that he gave consent to police to search his house, but did not consent to them removing any property.
Step right up, hurry, hurry, did I tell you it's on the National Historic Register? Made of solid gold! Precious gems throughout.
Be the first one on your block to own your very own solid gold, jewel encrusted bridge!
There are some troubling aspects to this situation.
Several. Not the least of which being that someone would snipe at a cop like this. While I am a full advocate of maximal resistive force to unlawful actions, I am NOT an advocate of randomly plinking at groups you feel peevish about. It'd be a lot different if this cop had just gotten done raping my sister, but there are no indications of anything like that here nor of any other event that could be tied to it.
The cops reactions to it are a tad on the police state level however, and that is worrisome as well.
I hope they catch their guy. I hope even more that they do so legally.
CK 4th Amendment problem at the very least??
Wisconsin ping
If you consent to a search and they find anything illegal, it's theirs. If they find anything they might suspect was part of a crime, they can keep and examine it. Refusing to consent to a search is always in your best interests. In this case there was no probable cause to search any house whose owner refused.
There is a cadre of FR posters who would defend police agencies even when they bully 80 year old women and place them spread eagle and handcuffed on their own front porch or when they storm an innocent family's home in full ninja gear without knocking, smashing the furnishings, beating up and cursing the residents, and shooting the family dog. These people also accuse anyone who even holds moderate skepticism of the Federal "War on Drugs" as being a drug-addled libertine hippie.
I am no "anything goes" libertarian. I recognize that the maintenance of public order may necessitate the enforcement of certain laws on a state or local level against "victimless crimes." However, laws will never eradicate drug abuse, prostitution, etc., with anything less than a full fledged police state and the suspension of civil liberties. As an example, Mao Tse-Tung ended the century old opium problem in China by imposing a brutal Communist dictatorship. The price of Mao's "cure" was far too steep.
OTOH, I am aware that laws against "victimless crimes" also lead to police corruption. Payoffs to police agencies by brothel owners, gambling house operators, and other purveyors of illegal items have been a fact of life in American cities since the mid 19th Century. Laws and lawmen are imperfect, but both are necessary in an orderly society. However, the reach of the laws and the power of lawmen must be restrained in order to preserve individual liberty and limited government.
(Additionally, my comment regarding your HTML skills was meant to be complimentary. Posting pictures on a Web site is a skill most DUmmies ever achieve. Sorry for the misunderstanding.)
From post 107 link:
The ongoing search for a perpetrator continues to prove frustrating for residents of the otherwise quiet neighborhood near Smith Elementary School. Residents of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street had mixed things to say about the methods police used in searching homes Sunday morning in the aftermath of the shooting.
Terry Wesner said “a couple of shotguns and a rifle” were removed from his home by SWAT Team members after he consented to a search, though officers did not tell him they removed the firearms after they completed their search.
“That’s what makes me so mad,” Wesner said. “They had no reason (to remove the firearms) without a warrant. … I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.”
Oshkosh Police Capt. Jay Puestohl said officers “don’t go into houses without consent or a warrant.” He acknowledged consent to search does “not necessarily” mean officers have consent to remove property.
Puestohl also said nothing illegal was done by removing the firearms and that investigators needed to examine them. He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.
“We’re getting into a lot of legal details if there’s evidence that can be seized. They (the firearms) could be,” Puestohl said. “As far as I know there was nothing inappropriate or illegal done.”
I saw it the first time, but thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.