Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
>> I think she did. She said they were wearing weapons.<<
In a state that it’s legal to open carry there was no reason the police should have even responded unless additional information about illegal activity was included.
Their investigation was limited to observation only unless and until they had probable cause. Five guys drinking coffee and talking among themselves means they were doing nothing different from anybody else in the coffee shop. There was no probable cause and no impetus for “reasonable suspicion” to ask for ID.
Exercising your Rights is not a crime. Sorry.
Exactly.
The Right to Bear Arms is not the "Right to Bear Arms and Refuse to show ID."
Just like the Right to Vote is not the "Right to Vote and Refuse to show ID." .....that is..well.........except for in Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, and...er....Madison, Wisconsin!).
Dec 31st is coming: .....Stop Obama's Midnight Jack-Up!
Received.
They are prevented from asking a couple of quick questions to ascertain the situation?
More proof of why the "reasonable man standard" no longer works. There are so few of us "reasonable men" left...
If anybody was “disturbing the peace”, it was the old lib that called the cops on the peacefully eating patrons.
troll often ???
Walk in, look, observe, and walk out is EXACTLY what they should have done. Just because someone calls doesn’t mean the cops have to do everything the caller wants them to do. Sometimes the caller has to be told, “Everything looks fine. They’re within the law and just drinking their coffee. There’s nothing further I can legally do. As you can see, they’re not threatening anyone. They’re not behaving any differently than you are, ma’am. It’s not against the law in WI to carry a firearem in the open. Sorry, ma’am, that’s all I can do.” The cops can only do what they’re authorized under the constitution to do. If what you’re saying was the case, everybody would be calling the cops all the time just to get somebody they don’t like hassled and jacked up.
I wasn’t aware of a Right to vote.......
No, the cops don’t get to go around demanding ID from coffee drinkers because some nervous-nellie old lady wants them to.
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.Such laws have being upheld by the Supreme Court seems to always hinge on the reasonable suspicion of a crime past, present or future, according to Terry. So they have to show that a bunch of guys sitting around openly carrying constituted a reasonable suspicion -- for an officer educated about the law of course, not an ignorant old lady.
Not so sure I buy this attitude. It seems to me that they were simply responding to a phoned-in complaint and reacted to a request for ID when it wasn't showed. I am, however, unhappy that they changed the charges after the fact. That should not be allowed.
Sadly reasonable suspicion was not the issue. (I agree with you BTW)
I forget which posts it was/were, but there were two citations in this thread — one concerning WISCONSIN law, and the other a court decision — which pointed out that the CURRENT LAW permits and empowers the officers to ask for ID, just because.
Sad but seemingly true.
Jesus wept.
You still don’t get it, do you? My response was to post #2 regarding the one man’s refusal to provide ID. By doing that, he was knowingly provoking an incident. IOW, he was looking for a fight and wanted to stir up the excrement pot, knowing it would get everybody all wound up. If he had provided ID, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we? But then, that wouldn’t serve the purpose, would it?
Did he have to provide ID? No. And it seems to me that the unhappiest people in the world are those who go around insisting on their “rights” and just itching for somebody to test them. Get a life already. I don’t care if they open carry, concealed carry or Carry Nation. If that’s what it takes to feel safe as a man, go for it. But don’t try to tell me that they weren’t spoiling for a fight because you know damn well they were.
That’s why they’re now trying to hide behind this old lady’s upsetness as a reason for now charging them with disturbing the peace. It’s absurd, but it’s all they’ve got to charge them with - and they want to charge them because it wards off getting sued successfully by this same group....again......for the same thing.....again.
This is an absolute OUTRAGE. If anything, it should be a crime for the LEO to restrict the recording of his actions in the line of duty.
Dangerous criminal situations are very obvious. Simple common sense should have told these jackbooted idiots that there was nothing dangerous about five guys eating a meal, no matter WHAT harware they are carrying, or not carrying. Drawn weapon, intentse arguments, loud voices/shouting..NONE of those things were happening.
"If no one ever investigated it, why wouldn’t criminals open carry?"
Because criminals want the extra element of surprise. If you see a guy with a gun, your alert level will go up, as it should, until he displays either hostile or peaceful intentions. This is legit, and is the correct response. The situation here was obviously "peaceful", so the cops should have withdrawn.
Sheep politics.
You seem to think that just because a citizen complains about something that alone somehow gives the cops the right to violate age=old principles necessary to an investigation, such as reasonable suspicion and probable cause. These things are not just a matter of opinion or judgment. There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for the authority to go further kicks in.
You nailed it. The problem isn't so much that they questioned the guys, although there would have been nothing wrong with them simply observing the situation and leaving. The problem was that they arrested them.
A more prudent course of action, if the officer was inclined to look into it further, would have been to say something like "look, there is no legal requirement for you to give me your ID, but we've been called out here by some ninny so we sure would appreciate it if you'd just let us know who you are."
Not that I'd want to make a habit out of answering LEO questions when I'm doing nothing wrong, but I'd be more inclined to respond to the request of a helpful officer than the demand of one acting outside his legal authority.
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.