Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
Yes, we disagree about the law.
So what?
We don’t disagree about the charges.
A driver’s license is a privilege. When you apply for one, you agree to certain things, including stopping when a cop attempts to detain you and showing him your proof of insurance and your actual license when requested. It’s not the same thing as walking down the street minding your own business or eating breakfast in a coffee shop with a group of people. There’s no pre-established, signed consent to do a damn thing a cop asks you to do.
I’m retired LE. I’ve already posted as to the way it should have been handled.
lots of leeway to suspect you’ve been disorderly...
947.01 Disorderly conduct. Whoever, in a public or private
place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
From now on, every time I see a group of officers come in to a restaurant, I'm calling 911.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
you can do that, but it is a hard line to straddle when the 'law' and the 'news' info indicates that the cops were knowingly abusive of Rights...
thats why the last case was lost by them, thats why the 'obstruction' charges were dropped here...
instead of expecting everyday citizens to bend to please 'the law', how about we DEMAND that 'professionals' bend to protect our FReedom ???
Quietly eating your dinner doesn’t meet that definition by any stretch of the imagination.
The law is fine. These officers didn't follow it because they had no information on which to predicate a reasonable suspicion that the elements of a crime were present. So, uh, no you and I do not agree about the charges. No charges should have been filed because these gentlemen were not required to produce ID under the statute. If the LEO would have requested their ID, I would argue that, under the circumstances, it would have been nice if they would have provided it.
looks pretty easy to reasonably suspect that you’ve been disorderly in WI. Even in your own house.
947.01 Disorderly conduct. Whoever, in a public or private
place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous,
unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances
in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance
is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
Racine PD tried that approach also. They lost $10k in the effort.
Lawful conduct does not qualify under the statute. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Racine lost that argument. You will too.
But just about anything can be considerd DC in WI.
Which gives huge leeway for an officer’s reasonable suspicion that you’ve been disorderly. Especially if he already has a complaint or two about you.
Why were they stupid to be eating breakfast in a coffee shop openly carrying? If a coffee shop isn’t okay with YOU, where else would you like to pick and choose the curtailment locations? If their goal indeed is, as you suggest, to get people comfortable with seeing open carry, how do you propose to accomplish that by NOT openly carrying? Would it be by only openly carrying where and when Past Your Eyes thinks it’s cool? You should be the judge of that?
On that we agree!
Battles and wars. Is what they did the BEST way to advance their cause???
Arguably not.
Certainly makes it a very public spat.
Perhaps their actions as agitators opens the way for more reasonable folks to sit down and really air this out.
p.s. if we really wanna stir the pot, we could point out that building a mosque one block from Ground Zero is legal, but not right ;-) just like open carry is legal, but not necessarily right. (I’ll put MY Kevlar on now ...)
p.p.s. — sorry others are so venomous in their replies.
Where does it state they did any of the above? Even in the official police statement the "62-year old woman" states clearly that other than being openly armed they weren't an apparent threat. She was just scared to be around openly armed civilians, regardless of their intent.
That isn't enough to trigger a DC. Period.
(sigh)
This is getting cumbersome.
No. It can't. Re-read the statute. It clearly defines "disorderly".
This wasn't it.
The leeway requires resonable suspicion of a crime. There is none here. To understand the criteria, eliminate the legal open carrying of weapons first since exercising a legal right cannot in itself constitute reasonable suspicion of a crime (and neither can the reporting of the exercise of that right). Now does an officer, approaching a group of men who are simply drinking coffee, have any reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are about to commit a crime? If not, then the officer has no cause to demand ID.
personally, Id like to see charges for deprivation of Rights, and these cops lose their pensions and do a good stretch of time...
as well as possibly have the community at large foot the bill for allowing this kind of abuse and coddling idiots like the nervous-nelly that made the 9-11 call...
They do? I would like to see the law authorizing them to perform such checks. Most CCW states require identifying yourself and producing a CCW license if you're concealed carrying, but this was open carry.
In common law, people openly carrying are considered to be law-abiding citizens. Nefarious intent was only considered to be likely for those concealing their weapons.
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.