Restaurant incident reveals confusion over open carry(WI)

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

[chilltherats]

It’s a sad day in America when law enforcement has to be sued into compliance with the law.

I hope the gun group gets a lot more than $10k from these thug cops this time.

[stuartcr]

I think she did. She said they were wearing weapons.

[ltc8k6]

No way do we want 911 operators making such determinations based on 911 calls.

That’s insane, imo.

I’d want that very limited. Like if someone called and said a squirrel was talking to them. They can dismiss those types of calls.

[Blueflag]

Very useful citation. FReepers should read it. I especially liked this part -- "Stop-and-identify laws have their roots in early English vagrancy laws that required suspected vagrants to face arrest unless they gave a “good account” of themselves; this practice, in turn, derived from the common-law power of any person to arrest suspicious persons and detain them until they gave “a good account″ of themselves. Modern stop-and-identify laws combine aspects of the old vagrancy laws with a guide for police officers conducting investigatory stops, such as those authorized under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)." The current law goes back to vagrancy laws -- THAT could be applied to 'are you here legally?' ... the law is always interesting if not maddening.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>> Why else would you carry a tape recorder with you?

Gluteus Protectus.

[I Buried My Guns]

I fail to see the insanity of a 911 operater getting the facts and saying “so, according to what you are telling me, these men are acting in a perfectly normal manner and are in full compliance with the law, but you are wigging out because of your own ignorance? an officer is NOT on his way”.

[cookcounty]

"what’s the big deal about handing a police officer your driver’s license?"

Much as I support the 2nd amendment, I agree. If they had a bottle of booze at the table, there would be some ID required.

[antiRepublicrat]

But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry

Somebody's dad was a James Bond fan.

[Niteranger68]

Using your (lack of) logic, the police could have demanded ID from everyone in the restaurant with a fork or knife. Just get over yourself....the 911 caller was a moron. No different from the dumbass woman who called 911 here back because Burger King wouldn't make her a Western Whopper. The five men were breaking no laws and the caller had not one trace of evidence that they intended to.

[darkside321]

Yes. “Are the men threatening anyone? Or are they just eating? Just eating? They are within their Rights. HAve a nice day.”

Easy-peasey. So easy even a liberal can do it. Can you?

---

does the police know this when they recived the call?
so you say when someone calls the police they should just not care and stay “home”?
Wow if this would be the case the crime rate would skyrocket even more. If this would be the case why not rob a bank while open carry because all i had to do is smilling at the next officer i encounter outside of the bank so he believes that i´m a law abinding citizen too and there for he will never dare to investigate me to check if i have something to do with this crime.

[chilltherats]

The cop has to have a valid reason to ask for your identification. The fact that an old lady got her panties in a wad is not a valid reason.

Consider this: The cops now know they stepped in it. They now charge the men with disturbing the peace on the strength of the old lady who was nervous. The cops were sued by this group before, successfully. So, they’ve steppped in it again, same error as before and got sued successfully then, so this time they’re trying to hide behind an old lady in order to validate charges of disturbing the peace so that they ostensibly can provide/justify at least the appearance of probable cause for detaining them and forcing them to show their ID, which was the basis for the original suit. They’re back-pedaling, in other words, to try to make a case, any case, against these men to avoid a lawsuit. If the cops can make the charges stick, then that means they had probable cause, technically speaking, and therefore no grounds for another suit.

[Balding_Eagle]

No, but as someone mentioned earlier, they were investigating.

No they weren't. At best they were fishing, and it's more likely they were harassing.

[Zeppo]

It seems like Winrich is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Why else would you carry a tape recorder with you?

These days, every smartphone is a "tape recorder".

You might want to reconsider the basis and assumptions behind your question.

[chilltherats]

That’s not how it works. John Q. Citizen doesn’t decide. The cops are required to assess the situation when they arrive on scene in response to a complaint call. Often they have to tell the caller/complaining witness that there is no violation and they have to walk away.

Just because someone is upset about something doesn’t mean they have a legitimate complaint that LE can act on.

[Balding_Eagle]

Again, please read. The ID discussion is now far superceded by further developments. Please try to follow the thread.

Yeah, even the police admit you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Electric Graffiti]

1. Fine the lady for calling 911 because she’s confused and stupid.

2. Fire the 911 operator for not enquiring what the purpose of the call was, exactly what was going on, why the lady is calling 911 and the ultimately why the operator dispatched a car to the scene.

3.) Fine the police for not asking who called 911 when they got to the scene and not ticketing her for abusing it’s function. Investigate why the police were harassing certain individuals for no reason.

[chilltherats]

No.

[GladesGuru]

ID-ing an American without reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, or is about to occur, is not in hte cop’s job description.

America is not a police state. Yet.

But the statists are trying.

[GladesGuru]

“It seems like Winrich is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Why else would you carry a tape recorder with you?”

The reasoned and prudent now carry a recorder because the police are now not your friend, indeed they are basically your hostile public servant who has been allowed to believe he is the master.

[grady]

Really? For that to be true, you must see something in this fact pattern to demonstrate that "the officer reasonably suspect[ed] that such person [was]committing, [was]about to commit or ha[d] committed a crime.."

Ok...I'll bite...please let me know what part of going about their day engaged in lawful activity gave these officers reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen had committed or were about to commit a crime?