And an Anthony Newley Musical (Stop The World I Want To get Off!)
+ 
Posted on 10/13/2016 9:40:32 PM PDT by ThE_RiPpEr.
La Crosse’s police chief argues a La Crosse County judge jeopardized courtroom safety when she disarmed officers called to testify in a police battery case.
La Crosse County Circuit Judge Ramona Gonzalez at the start on Mark Topness’ trial on Tuesday for 10 crimes told three uniformed La Crosse police officers that they could not wear their firearms or duty belts in the courtroom.
“It was the first time I’ve ever been asked to disarm,” officer Ethan Purkapile said. “I was definitely concerned because it compromised my ability to protect the DA’s office staff, the jurors, the circuit court staff, Judge Gonzalez and myself.”
The judge argues that her policy, enforced only during jury trials, allows jurors to view police as “witnesses without distraction.”
“And sometimes guns can be a distraction,” she said.
Gonzalez also contends the policy protects jurors who suffered a traumatic experience with a firearm. A gun visible to jurors, she said, could be grounds for an appeal.
“How many court cases have been appealed due to an officer wearing a duty belt with a weapon exposed?” Police Chief Ron Tischer said. “I’ve never heard of one.”
At least one juror agreed with her policy, which does allow police to wear a firearm during trials if it’s concealed by clothing, Gonzalez said.
State Supreme Court rules allow each circuit judge or court commissioner to decide whether officers can carry weapons inside a courtroom on a case-by-case basis.
“This happens every time I have a jury,” said Gonzalez, who pointed out officers cannot carry firearms in federal courtrooms.
“We’re not in federal court,” Tischer said.
Circuit Judge Gloria Doyle did not disarm three uniformed officers who testified during a misdemeanor jury trial in her courtroom on Wednesday.
“I will evaluate on a case-by-case basis,” Doyle said.
The local bench in 2012 adopted a policy addressing officer firearms in courtrooms, although police would not discuss terms of the confidential agreement that requires judicial order to release. The police department maintains its followed policy and that a judge never before has disarmed a uniformed officer called to testify since the agreement.
“I believe there is general agreement that officers are permitted to carry firearms, the exception being in front of a jury,” Circuit Judge Scott Horne said. “The concern has been expressed regarding an intimidating atmosphere and that may be the most common circumstance in which weapons may not be permitted. For many years, they had been denied entirely.”
But emotionally charged courtrooms can be prone to violence and stripping an officer of a firearm presents serious safety issues, Tischer said. In 2015, La Crosse County Courthouse security confiscated more than 1,400 knives and more than 300 box cutters or razor blades.
“Purkapile had nothing to protect himself from a man who threatened to kill him,” Tischer said. “To take away their ability to protect themselves and others is a frightening thought.”
Topness, who has a criminal history, punched his roommate in the head before he fled from Purkapile on foot on Nov. 4, according to the complaint. He resisted arrest, spit on Purkapile before threatening the officer’s life and trying to kick him. The jury on Tuesday convicted him of nine charges, including attempted battery of a police officer.
Gonzalez ordered extra courtroom security for the trial, Tischer said. The sheriff’s department does not discuss security procedures but deputies regularly carry firearms during court hearings.
“You can never have just one person armed,” Tischer said. “When you take away all an officer’s tools, it puts everyone at a significant risk and you’re forcing them to potentially use a higher level of force than they would otherwise be able to use had they had all their equipment available to them.”
After Gonzalez’s order before the start of the trial, Purkapile said he left the courtroom to relay the information to the two officers waiting outside and notified his supervisor because removing his firearm while on duty is against department policy. Topness told the officer during a break in the trial that he would “burn in hell as a result of the testimony,” Purkapile said.
Police maintain they’re not looking for a fight with Gonzalez, but that they hope to work with her to develop a courtroom firearm policy that protects everyone’s safety and interests.
“The public is accustomed to seeing officers with duty belts and weapons,” police Capt. Troy Nedegaard said. “It’s abnormal to see us missing equipment.”
Arden Ross served on the jury for Tuesday and Wednesday’s trials in front of Gonzalez and Doyle. He said Gonzalez addressed potential jurors in Doyle’s trial, some of whom served during the Topness trial, to ask how they felt about unarmed officers testifying.
“I was much more comfortable during the (Topness) trial,” he said. “I thought they were more imposing (Wednesday). They had a gun.”
Topness faces a host of new charges after police arrested him about five hours after his trial for trying to break into an RV and car parked on South Fifth Avenue. He fled from officers into the basement of a house on South Sixth Street before threatening to kill police, according to reports.
Topness, 30, is jailed on a $2,500 cash bond, which he repeatedly called “excessive” during his court appearance Wednesday.
Lord stop this bus, I want to get off.....
“I believe there is general agreement that officers are permitted to carry firearms, the exception being in front of a jury,” Circuit Judge Scott Horne said. “The concern has been expressed regarding an intimidating atmosphere and that may be the most common circumstance in which weapons may not be permitted. For many years, they had been denied entirely.”
Sounds like Wisconsin Judiciary have their collective head’s up their a$$es! But then it is Wisconsin, home of the three GOPe a$$holes, Walker, Ryan and Rancid Penis! As for “judge” Gonzalez, it appears that the “wetbacks” have made it all the way to this country’s northern border, or just shy of it
Welcome to the world the rest of us live in, officers.
Sorry don’t have a problem with this - they don’t let me carry why should she allow them to? Besides they aren’t responsible for the safety of the court - the Bailiff and his deputies are...typically from the county sheriffs office.
A police officer has no business trying to make his testimony more credible than any other citizen by wearing a uniform and a gun at a trial.
The entire practice makes a mockery of the concept of a fair and impartial trial.
I agree about stopping the bus. . . but I want to toss the judge off.
My experience:
When I testified I was just excused for a little while. The minute I was excused I was back on duty. I was in uniform in court because I came from being on duty and returned immediately to being on duty.
I have no reason to believe these days that a jury gives any more credence to an LEO than to anyone else.
The entire premise that an officer is always telling the truth, over any citizen, is ridiculous. These are officers that often lie in the field to charge people with crimes. It is a mockery, and the whole criminal justice system is a mockery of true justice.
We’re in trouble as a culture if the sight of a holstered handgun will render a juryman incapable,of objective thought.
You are correct sir. For 15 year, our district court has required civilian dress for officers under subpoena for proceedings. The consensus arose that it could be determined prejudicial for either side’s purposes. I agree. And I am much more comfortable not being recognised as a threat to any bad guy who might want to unlaod into a prosecutor or judge. Our court officers are unarmed....except for ranking supervisors, lieutenant and above. That means the courtrooms are often gun free zones...except for police disguised in suits. It’s win-win.
Sworn officers receive judicial notice of their veracity. The price is that the officer, if ever caught lying, receives judicial notice that he may never bring a case before the court again.....desk job, at best; prosecuted, at worst.
‘...... the whole criminal justice system is a mockery of true justice.’
I’ve been involved in the process for 30 years, and seen bad, good, frustrating and superb adjudication. Time and observation informs me that it works pretty darn well most of the time....the best obtainable among human participants....and could be very much worse.
If a police officer wearing a gun is intimidating to a jury, then what is a psycho criminal/suspect who is on trial, a saint?
Stupid thinking. I was in court once where I had a person staying with a neighbor arrested for assaulting and injuring me.
When the wackjob (drug conviction) came into the court (run by the worst magistrate I’ve ever seen, he was wearing a trench coat. Could have hidden a tank under it and he wasn’t checked for weapons.
I warned one of the court deputies about this guy and he positioned himself so that he could take him down if he attacked me or my family.
Since my hand was crippled at the time, I could hardly defend myself.
Some judges just are liberal pricks and made the victim and the witness a defenseless target for some nut or his friends in the gallery.
Fortunately our local court has a good body check before you can even get into the courthouse.
+
I don’t have a problem with anyone on the witness stand being asked not to bear arms during their testimony...
I don’t like being disarmed every time I have to go into the courthouse either. I have a ccw on top of it.
Cops don’t like being treated like the little people.
I,agree. The whole trusted witness concept is inherently unjust when trying to determine what actually occurred. Cops do not want to go to jail just as much or more as criminals do.
I have seen a lot,of officers in courtmin plainclothes and doing a very good job of testifying and presenting their record of events, very well. They can impress the jury very well without a duty uniform.
"Little people" is an archaic term. Current usage is "deplorable." The superlative is "irredeemably deplorable."
If one person has to rot in jail for a crime they didn’t commit for years and years, then it can’t work.
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.