Posted on 12/20/2011 5:23:13 PM PST by marktwain
A group of men who drew police attention for openly carrying guns at a Far East Side restaurant last year on Tuesday accepted a $10,000 offer from the city of Madison to settle their federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and a group of police officers.
The five men, members of Wisconsin Carry Inc., were ticketed for disorderly conduct on Sept. 18, 2010, after police were called to Culver's, 4301 East Towne Blvd., about a group of men with guns at an outdoor table. The tickets were later dismissed.
Two of the men initially refused to identify themselves to police and were handcuffed, searched and arrested. They were cited for obstructing police, but those citations were rescinded.
The city made its offer to settle the case on Dec. 12, and Wisconsin Carry, through its lawyer, John Monroe, agreed to accept the offer on Tuesday.
In its offer, the city does not admit to any wrongdoing. Attorney Catherine Rottier, representing the city, said the offer was made simply to settle the case without having to spend a lot more money.
But Monroe interpreted the offer differently.
"They can say they're not liable all they want to," Monroe said. "The result is exactly the same.
"I think it's clear they recognized there was a problem with their actions," he said.
Madison police spokesman Joel DeSpain said police still encourage citizens to call if they have concerns about someone armed with a gun, "but depending on the circumstance we might not make contact with an individual."
A legal update for officers by Capt. Vic Wahl indicates that people simply carrying guns cannot be charged with disorderly conduct under the new state concealed carry law. But they could be charged if criminal or malicious intent is shown,
(Excerpt) Read more at host.madison.com ...
“The penalty was paltry and the taxpayers paid, not the ignoramuses who broke the law”
Just curious who you were calling ignoramuses because the citizens in question were legally carrying the firearms and were not the cause of the disturbance.
Read the rest of the post. I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
Yep. But if it happens again, the state racketeering law kicks in, and both the City and its PD officers and supervisors can be declared an organized crime group:
946.82 Definitions. In ss. 946.80 to 946.88:
(1) "Commission of a crime" means being concerned in the commission of a crime under s. 939.05.
946.82(2) (2) "Enterprise" means any sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, business trust, union organized under the laws of this state or other legal entity or any union not organized under the laws of this state, association or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. "Enterprise" includes illicit and licit enterprises and governmental and other entities.
(3) "Pattern of racketeering activity" means engaging in at least 3 incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics, provided at least one of the incidents occurred after April 27, 1982 and that the last of the incidents occurred within 7 years after the first incident of racketeering activity. Acts occurring at the same time and place which may form the basis for crimes punishable under more than one statutory provision may count for only one incident of racketeering activity.
(4) "Racketeering activity" means any activity specified in 18 USC 1961 (1) in effect as of April 27, 1982, or the attempt, conspiracy to commit, or commission of any of the felonies specified in: chs. 945 and 961, subch. V of ch. 551, and ss. 49.49, 134.05, 139.44 (1), 180.0129, 181.0129, 185.825, 201.09 (2), 215.12, 221.0625, 221.0636, 221.0637, 221.1004, 553.41 (3) and (4), 553.52 (2), 940.01, 940.19 (4) to (6), 940.20, 940.201, 940.203, 940.21, 940.30, 940.302 (2), 940.305, 940.31, 941.20 (2) and (3), 941.26, 941.28, 941.298, 941.31, 941.32, 942.09, 943.01 (2), (2d), or (2g), 943.011, 943.012, 943.013, 943.02, 943.03, 943.04, 943.05, 943.06, 943.10, 943.20 (3) (bf) to (e), 943.201, 943.203, 943.23 (1g), (2) and (3), 943.24 (2), 943.27, 943.28, 943.30, 943.32, 943.34 (1) (bf), (bm), and (c), 943.38, 943.39, 943.40, 943.41 (8) (b) and (c), 943.50 (4) (bf), (bm), and (c), 943.60, 943.70, 943.76, 943.81, 943.82, 943.83, 943.84, 943.85, 943.86, 943.87, 943.88, 943.89, 943.90, 944.21 (5) (c) and (e), 944.32, 944.33 (2), 944.34, 945.03 (1m), 945.04 (1m), 945.05 (1), 945.08, 946.10, 946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.31, 946.32 (1), 946.48, 946.49, 946.61, 946.64, 946.65, 946.72, 946.76, 946.79, 947.015, 948.05, 948.051, 948.08, 948.12, and 948.30.
History: 1981 c. 280; 1983 a. 438; 1985 a. 104; 1985 a. 236 s. 15; 1987 a. 266 s. 5; 1987 a. 332, 348, 349, 403; 1989 a. 121, 303; 1991 a. 32, 39, 189; 1993 a. 50, 92, 94, 112, 280, 441, 491; 1995 a. 133, 249, 336, 448; 1997 a. 35, 79, 101, 140, 143, 252; 1999 a. 9, 150; 2001 a. 16, 105, 109; 2003 a. 36, 321; 2005 a. 212; 2007 a. 116, 196; 2009 a. 180.
The definition of "pattern of racketeering" is not unconstitutionally vague. The definition of "enterprise" is discussed. State v. O'Connell, 179 Wis. 2d 598, 508 N.W.2d 23 (Ct. App. 1993).
Repeated use of illegally copied computer software did not constitute a pattern of racketeering. Management Computer Services v. Hawkins, 196 Wis. 2d 578, 539 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1995), 93-0140.
WOCCA does not require proof of intent or knowledge beyond that required for the underlying predicate offense. State v. Mueller, 201 Wis. 2d 121, 549 N.W.2d 455 (Ct. App. 1996), 93-3227.
The analysis for a "pattern of racketeering activity" under WOCCA is the same as under RICO. Brunswick Corp. v. E.A. Doyle Mfg. Co. 770 F. Supp. 1351 (1991).946.84 Penalties.
(1) Any person convicted of engaging in racketeering activity in violation of s. 946.83 is guilty of a Class E felony.
I think that is a stretch. Ain’t gonna happen.
Indeed. Criminal prosecutions are far more commonplace. But if they do not occur, any enterprising attorney who wants his one-third share of a triple-damages settlement is free to go for it.
It's happened in neighboring Indiana to the tune of an 80-million plus lawsuit for the city of Hammond.
Indeed. Criminal prosecutions are far more commonplace. But if they do not occur, any enterprising attorney who wants his one-third share of a triple-damages settlement is free to go for it.
It's happened in neighboring Indiana to the tune of an 80-million plus lawsuit for the city of Hammond.
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.