Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
That’s because I believe they need very little to be “reasonably suspicious” under the law.
That is, I believe under the law that the officers need far less to justify asking for ID than the men need to justify refusing to comply.
Wrong. If the situation is that an actual crime has been reported, the cop has to first verify that a crime was committed. He can’t just think a crime was committed. What he does after that depends on whether it appears to be a felony or a misdemeanor or an infraction. A misdemenaor has to be committed in his presence, as does an infraction. A felony does not.
You have become silly and are playing stupid or you really are hopelessly stupid.
Or, if you want to go with the disorderly conduct you mentioned in another post, please identify the actions they took that would give reasonable suspicion that they were being disorderly. Lawful possession of a firearm with nothing further does not meet that definition. You can confirm that with the Racine, WI police department that just paid $10k to find that out.
SCOTUS has ruled that asking a felon if he is a felon, with regard to gun possession, is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights.
Any charge resulting from such an egregious fishing expedition would rightfully be dismissed.
Perhaps you should quit corresponding with people who are as wrong and stupid as I am?
I know I don’t want to bother you.
Have a nice day.
The possible disorderly conduct charge is in relation to refusing to give ID. I need a crime they were reasonably suspected of BEFORE the officer demanded ID. Suspicion of illegal conduct must be the reason for demanding ID in the first place.
The two complainants felt uncomfortable with the conduct of the men
No, the complaintants felt uncomfortable that they were openly carrying firearms. There is no indication of anything but normal conduct by the open carriers. Openly carrying in itself does not constitute suspicious or disorderly conduct. The Wisconsin governor himself has said "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip" so carrying alone is obviously a legal practice accepted by the government.
I can understand playing Devil’s Advocate, but that is just plain silly.
Weren't they good tippers?
I have to base my opinions on more than what I believe?
Well, okay.
Let me try to figure that out.
Actions they took that were disorderly? Do you think the police have to actually witness this, or can they go by what a complainant says?
you seem to be doing contortions to give the cops a pass...if you simply believe what youre writing, fine, but the events, in the cops own words, on tape, indicate that they assumed the guys were 'legal'...
allowing things to escalate, simply on the twisted panties of anothers citizens words, is tyranny...the cops went further and enforced that tyranny...
Again, there has to be a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, according to the case you cite. It’s a repetitive theme. Maybe you’ll catch onto it some day.
Lotsa luck getting a clue.
Do the police have to witness what makes them suspicious, or can they base it on a complaint?
Can they suspect me of disorderly conduct based on a complaint, without actually witnessing me being disorderly?
I’ve already made it clear that I disagree strongly with the charges.
I even stated that the police may have set up the men for an open carrty dispute.
Why can’t I argue about the law without agreeing with the charges?
I didn’t say anybody was wrong. What I seem to be unable to get across to you and others (I won’t dignify certain others with a direct response to their snot) is that they are not advancing their cause by their actions. If a certain group wants people to realize that carrying a weapon is normal and ordinary, which I agree that it is, they should act civilized all the time and not be “in your face” with it.
Since we are using Biblical references, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient...” 1Cor 6:12
I don’t say those people were wrong but I do think they were stupid. Not the way I would handle it.
What was the probable cause? Someone said there were several men with guns in holsters. Carrying a gun in a holster is legal in that state. The men were having a quiet conversation while eating a meal. Probable cause means that the police have reason to be suspicious that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. What reason did the police officer have? What suspicious behavior were the men engaged in?
If I’m driving a car and the police have a drunk driving checkpoint, the Supreme Court says they have the right to stop me and ask if I’ve been drinking (although I disagree). I’m not sure they have the right to ask for my ID without more probable cause, such as the smell of alcohol.
What I do know is that if I’m sitting in a restaurant having a quiet meal with 4 of my buddies, they don’t have the right to ask for my ID.
If I’m walking down the street minding my own business, they don’t have the right to ask for my ID. And I don’t have the obligation to carry ID.
If the law in Wisconsin says that I must carry ID and my permit with me while I’m carrying a gun in a holster, then fine, they can ask for the ID.
But there was no obstruction of justice. There was no disturbing the peace.
The police clearly overstepped their authority.
If you think the police should have the right to ask for ID just because someone else feels threatened by my presence, then work to change the constitution and the law. And I’ll work against you.
The police do not have to witness something to have reasonable suspicion if they receive credible information that the elements of a crime may be present. The complainant in this case said she saw men with guns on their hips. This is lawful conduct. Thus, the credible information they received did not provide them with information that the elements of a crime were present.
If you can’t stand the truth, shut up and go away. It’s simple.
It’s a misdemeanor. It has to be committed in their presence.
thanks, I’m recalling several very public picnics and such headed up by this group...while some may have issues with the tactics, I see nothing wrong with doing what theyre ‘allowed’ to do in an effort to awaken the debate...
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.