Restaurant incident reveals confusion over open carry(WI)

madison.com ^ | 21 September, 2010 | SANDY CULLEN

[chilltherats]

Sorry you’re unable to see when you’re being “messed” with and tweaked.

[ltc8k6]

I really don’t think the Racine case is the same, though.

At any rate, I think the police will win this one, even though they shouldn’t.

I think we have just about exhausted the topic unless new info comes up.

[Past Your Eyes]

For the last and final time, I will make one more attempt to clarify my position. NEVER did I say that they were wrong (or stupid) for open carrying. My quibble was with the one who refused to provide his ID. Please, please, please go to my original post in the thread which was in response to post #2. It was NOT about open carry or with out-of-control doofus cops or with the ninny (good word, grady!) who called the cops in the first place. Read all my posts in this thread and tell me where I showed any opposition to carrying a weapon. Some of you want to make me into your enemy/opponent/adversary and if you keep it up, you might just succeed.

[chilltherats]

Why do you think the Racine case is different? Did you read the entire article?

Why do you think the police will win this one? From what information have you deduced this? Or is that strictly your opinion based on your stellar comprehension of the law?

[grady]

Since you're bowing out without having told us, or even attempted to tell us:

1. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were felons, or

2. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were acting disorderly

I'll take this as your concession that you have no actual facts or sound reasoning to back your opinion that the officers in this case were acting within the scope of their authority under the ID statute.

[Blueflag]

You mean I missed it AGAIN????

;-)

[chilltherats]

Here’s what you said in post #195: “ 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.”

What did any of the men do that was “uncivilized”?

Why is openly carrying in a coffee shop “in your face with it”?

[ltc8k6]

“Since you’re bowing out without having told us, or even attempted to tell us:
1. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were felons, or

2. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were acting disorderly

I’ll take this as your concession that you have no actual facts or sound reasoning to back your opinion that the officers in this case were acting within the scope of their authority under the ID statute.”

For the record, I believe I have answered both of those more than once. I think the police were using the DC law and the Stop and ID law to ask for ID, and that the use was bogus.

Also, I never said a word about anyone being felons. I’m fairly certian that this post is my first use of the word on the topic.

[Big Mack]

You’re correct, it is not like carrying a cell phone or a vegetable. Carrying a gun is protected by the constitutions, US and Wisconsin.

[darkside321]

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.

---

well i think the whole situation has gotten a little bit “complicated” because of the fact that the police has been called. it´s not like the police showed up out of the blue and decieded to harass this guys. i mean we really don´t know exactly what this women has said when she called 911. But when the police is called it´s their duty to show up and investigate the situation (if only to tell this women that everything is fine). But first they have to find out if everything is allright and that this 911 call was totally “overblown” (like it finally turned out). then “we” don´t know how “cooperative” this people “really”
have been to clear the situation. maybe they have been pi$$ed too because the police shows up and ask them stupid questions when they have done nothing wrong. i agree that the police may have overreacted a little bit but at the end who really knows what really happened there. just my oppinion.

[grady]

You stated that they were well within clear meaning of the statute in asking for ID. You previously said you didn't like the law, but the officers were acting within it's limits. This entire debate has been about trying to get you to articulate what crime the officers may have thought was being committed. You never identified any basis for such a suspicion. We have been inquiring as to why, in the absence of such suspicion, you would opine that the police were acting within the scope of the statute.

Are you now saying that they were not acting within the scope of the statute?

[Comstock1]

What BS! Everybody who calls 911 is worried. Why else would you call?

[Past Your Eyes]

Would we be having this discussion if the one fellow had simply provided his ID when it was asked of him? I think not. It was a reasonable request, whether lawful or not, and apparently the other 4 men complied but this one did not. Was he looking for a confrontation or not?

[ltc8k6]

Scope vs spirit.

[ltc8k6]

Now that I agree with.

[rabidralph]

It appears that rooting for your favorite team in your own home is disorderly conduct.

[antiRepublicrat]

Do the police have to witness what makes them suspicious, or can they base it on a complaint?

The part that you're not getting is that the complaint was about the perfectly legal activity of open carry that the complaintant didn't know was legal. There was no allegation of anything that was actually a crime. It would be different if the woman had said "They're waving their guns around, terrorizing people" which is an illegal activity. But no such allegation was made.

The officer stated he asked for ID to ensure the carriers weren't felons, but the Stop and ID law doesn't allow them to do that. They need actual suspicion of a crime under the law. Thus the officer made an illegal demand of a citizen and subsequently made an illegal arrest.

[grady]

Are you now saying that the officers had no legal basis to demand identification from these gentlemen pursuant to the statute because they had no reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen were committing or about to commit a crime?

[Past Your Eyes]

Hey, I’ve been called anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, a closet liberal, “someone to be watched” and (oh, the horror!) a TROLL on this board. It is fun to have a urination trajectory competition from time to time. I hope the DU and Daily Kos morons beat each other up worse than we do because if you aren’t pure enough here on FR, you better have fire retardent clothing on!
“;^o

[Triple]

“Open carry really isn’t anything like carrying a carrot or a cell phone” - Stuartcr

You are absolutely right - carrying a cellphone or a carrot are not explicitly protected constitutional rights - while carrying a firearm is.

Nice point.