September 21, 2010

"A 62-year-old woman visiting a local Culver's sees several restaurant patrons with guns on holsters in plain view."

She thought it was an appropriate time to call the police. She didn't understand Wisconsin. It was time to calmly scarf your butter burger.

P1010192

198 comments:

Rialby said...

Mmmm... cheese curds.

Triangle Man said...

Without the caller or the police, the point they set out to make would never have been made. Just like getting tased was the best thing that could have happened to "don't tase me bro".

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

They weren't clinging to Bibles were they?

Lem said...

I know I've seen this image before..

MadisonMan said...

The police were put between a rock and hard place.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the women called because the men asked her to. As TMan says, no call, no publicity.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

I thought the police always had the right to ask you for identification, meaning that Messr Strong and Silent were breaking the law.

And refusing a simple Police request, like "May I see some ID please?" whether it is legal or not, is simply foolish and asking for trouble. There are times to NOT comply with the Police, but this isn’t one of them. And by that I mean when marching on Selma or when supporting a Bus Boycott, one might not comply with the Police. In all three cases you WILL be arrested, but at least in the latter two you are going to jail in a particularly good cause. Short version, “Pick your fights with the Police carefully.”

roesch-voltaire said...

How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon-- especially if they walk into a bank. I mean how are we to determine probable cause; we must wait until after the crime has been committed I guess.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon-- especially if they walk into a bank. I mean how are we to determine probable cause; we must wait until after the crime has been committed I guess.
Stick with that Environmental Engineering RV….Apply your “logic” to Speech and get back to me. As to banks or bars or my house, as a property owner I am allowed to PROHIBIT fire arms as I see fit. Other than that, nice try.

MadisonMan said...

There are times to NOT comply with the Police, but this isn’t one of them.

What do you mean? One of the non-responders has already made $10000 by not responding. Seems like a good gig to me.

Crimso said...

"How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon"

Similarly, it should be SOP to ask to see ID to verify that a person attempting to vote is in fact eligible to vote. Or to verify that someone in the US is here legally. Agree, rv?

TRO said...

Criminals don't walk around with their guns visible and safely holstered. The people in that restaurant while those guys enjoyed their meal were safer than every other person in that city.

I'm more torn on the ID thing though. Maybe the police shouldn't have demanded ID, but frankly it would be better PR for open-carry if the men had just gone along with it and displayed a sense of humor and understanding to the other patrons. Getting yourself arrested in front of everyone really didn't do much for public acceptance I'm thinking.

Rockeye said...

So let me get this straight. I've been reading the comments on the original article that Ann linked to and the wrrgbl is strong there. If I'm exercising my legal right to openly carry a firearm, that constitues probable cause for the police to investigate me? Does that mean that police can demand I present ID to them, and submit to questioning for conducting other lawful business, like buying plumbing supplies, auto parts, or bicycling around Shorewood if I'm black?
Next thing, our government will want to ask people applying for government benefits, but can't speak English, to show some proof of citizenship or legal immigration status.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
What do you mean? One of the non-responders has already made $10000 by not responding. Seems like a good gig to me.
I guess, I have better things to do with my Saturdays than not answer to Police questions and go to jail. I see your point, though. I guess I’m not that much a crusader as this lot.

LarsPorsena said...

"How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon"

Similarly, it should be SOP to ask to see ID to verify that a person attempting to vote is in fact eligible to vote. Or to verify that someone in the US is here legally. Agree, rv?

You beat me to the punch, Crimso.

k*thy said...

is simply foolish and asking for trouble..

Exactly. Don't be an asshole, it doesn't help your cause. It creates apprehension and resistance.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Does that mean that police can demand I present ID to them, and submit to questioning for conducting other lawful business, like buying plumbing supplies, auto parts, or bicycling around Shorewood if I'm black?
Because you might also be “casing” the joint for a robbery…I believe one of set of phrases involves the words, “Totality of the situation” and “Police officer’s trained eye”..so YES, if the Peace Officer, in his/her estimation, based on his/her experience and training, within the totality of the situation wants to stop you and ask for ID, even if you are just buying solder flux and Teflon Tape. Unless, of course, you’d prefer the bad guyz walk in, pull their fire arms, and then escalate the situation into a hostage-taking one. The State has a right to Proactive Violence, you don’t…..

Lem said...

Refusing to ID yourself.

You would think that requirement to ID yourself to the police would be made clear to them when they got the permit.

"Citizens of Madison.. they get worked up"

ouch.

traditionalguy said...

Roesch-Voltaire...That is correct. The law does not disarm citizens before any probable cause is shown to suspect criminal acts. Your attitude that favors disarming all citizens is what sparked the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord. Sorry that the world seems so scary in your fantasy life. All places where open carry is practiced have a sharp decline in crime rates. Why not arm yourself and become part of the solution to your fear problem? And have you ever seen an ATF female agent that weighs 100 lbs and is 5'2'' carrying a cannon on her hip and a badge that looks like a small shield pinned over her breast? That makes sexual predators and Marxists think twice.

Pastafarian said...

As I understand it, unless the police have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they don't have a right to demand ID.

And since it's legal to carry, I don't see how they had reasonable suspicion. Was it based on something else? That they ordered both onion rings and cheese curds? (That would be a sure sign of someone unable to restrain their own selfish urges, even to the point of sociopathic behavior).

Yes, these men could have been more compliant and given the cops their IDs; but then the police will continue to harass those who exercise their right to carry a weapon. Maybe after a few $10,000 judgments in the citizens' favor, the police will gradually learn not to harass them.

Pastafarian said...

Lem: The permit is the second amendment. And I don't see anything there about having to identify oneself if you exercise that inalienable right.

Lem said...

ohhhh.. as long as you are not a felon and you "carry it openly" its like carrying groceries.

It kind of make sense to refuse then..

Richard Dolan said...

Contrast this incident with Eric Scott's shooting by police at a Las Vegas Costco. Scott (West Point grad, combat vet) had a concealed carry permit. A security guard saw his gun when Scott stooped down, and Scott explained that he had a concealed carry permit in his wallet. The security guy reported the incident to someone in the store office, who called the cops. The call generated a cop-frenzy -- 15 cop cars, helicoper, the whole para-military bit. When the store was being evacuated and Scott was pointed out near the entrance, three cops starting yelling conflicting instructions -- drop the weapon, lie down, hands up, etc. As Scott started to comply with the 'drop weapon' instruction and his fiance was screaming that he had a permit, one of the cops shot him in the chest. As he fell he was shot many times more -- including about five times in the back. The cops later confiscated all of the discs and back-up tapes from the many security cameras -- it all happened at the exit of the Costco store -- and now claim that none of them has any usable data. Sounds likely.

Scott's father posted an account of the shooting of his son on the West Point alumni website, and the story got some play from Glenn R and elsewhere.

It seems that, for all its lefty wackiness, Madison had a much more sensible police response to a baseless 911 call from a clueless observer. Since WI has an open carry law, there was nothing to suggest that any of these guys were in violation. After three of them complied with the request for ID, there was even less reason to suspect a problem. It's a free country even for cops, and asking for ID is perfectly OK. Unless the open carry law requires a gun-toter to produce ID upon demand, I don't see why a refusal without more is a crime.

The insistence on manufacturing a crime where there wasn't one -- obstructing an officer, or disorderly conduct -- in order to validate otherwise improper official assertions of authority is what bureaucracies do. The first and highest law of any bureaucracy is protect your own. Fortunately, in Madison the incident had a (relatively) happy ending.

MadisonMan said...

Was it based on something else?

The 62-yo woman who called them. She was freaked out!

Bru said...

For get about the whole reasonable suspicion issue, the best part of this article is the name of Wisconsin Carry's secretary - "Auric Gold." Do you think his parents actually named him that?

Lem said...

If I'm carrying groceries and the police pulls over and ask me for ID w/o "probable cause" that would be.. whats the word.. racist!!! (SNL church lady)

So why ask these (I presume to be white men) for their ID?

Kirk Parker said...

To improve upon Rockeye's example: should the police be allowed to pull over random vehicles just because some of them might be stolen, or being driven by unlicensed drivers?

And Lem, Wisconsin doesn't have permits.

The Musket said...

""How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon"

Similarly, it should be SOP to ask to see ID to verify that a person attempting to vote is in fact eligible to vote. Or to verify that someone in the US is here legally. Agree, rv"

And how dare a policeman ask to see a man's ID when he is breaking into a house, especially when the man claims he's breaking into his own house. Yes, I know, the police acted stupidly.

Rockeye said...

The fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That is, unless the police had some reasonable suspicion that the men had commited some crime (they clearly did not) then the search (i.e. asking for their ID) was unreasonable. Why is it that so many lefties seem to be in love with KGB-style law enforcement tactics?

edutcher said...

This, presumably, is why many states do concealed, instead of open, carry.

roesch-voltaire said...

TRO Smart criminals read the newspapers and will now walk around openly carrying their weapons, knowing no one will have a right to ask them for an ID. And yes we ask folks to prove they are here legally-- in case you have not noticed ICE removed a total of 136,126 criminal aliens from the United States last year, a record number. And Traditional, I do not walk around in fear, but I do take rational precautions and avoid, as best I can, folks in public with guns. Now if someone breaks into my house that is a different story--then I bring out the guns.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The 62-yo woman who called them. She was freaked out!

Where does it say that? I think you are projecting.

If the police can ask for ID when you are doing nothing illegal (no probable cause) and that is OK with you..... why then is it not OK to ask for ID of people in Arizona, who are stopped with "probable cause"?


Either you ask EVERYONE for ID for any reason, which I don't think you want, or you can ask NO ONE for any reason. You can't have it both ways.

The liberals want to pick and choose who is a protected class (Illegal Aliens) and who is not (Bitter Gun Clingers).

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
To improve upon Rockeye's example: should the police be allowed to pull over random vehicles just because some of them might be stolen, or being driven by unlicensed drivers?
No, but if I see you driving a BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Escalade with a broken driver’s side window, you are obviously mis-dressed for the vehicle and neighborhood, and you are driving very fast or at EXACTLY the speed limit, and if I pull in behind you, you immediately turn off the street onto another, then YES I have the right to “randomly” stop you and ask if you have a license and registration for that vehicle. It isn’t that cut and dried.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
To This, presumably, is why many states do concealed, instead of open, carry.
Personally, I prefer Open Carry to Concealed Carry…when I see you with a gun, either as a citizen or a Peace Officer there is a whole lot less room for miscalculation, it seems to me. YOU KNOW, that the person you are interacting with has a fire arm. Concealed Carry, which I’m NOT opposed to, lends to “surprises”. You’re interacting and then you see a gun, and for me that’s off-putting, I immediately think I’m about to be robbed…and when you interact with the Police, you have to be absolutely clear and non-threatening when you interact, by announcing clearly and calmly you are armed, otherwise “misunderstanding” may occur, and they will generally result in aversive consequences for YOU, not the Peace Officer.

Pastafarian said...

MadMan: "Was it based on something else?

The 62-yo woman who called them. She was freaked out!"

Oh, I see. So if a 62 year old woman calls the cops and tells them that she thinks maybe you have a kilo of cocaine in your rectum, just because she feels it in her bones, and if she's sufficiently "freaked out"...then you're going to have to drop your pants and grab your ankles.

And you're OK with that. Interesting notion of "probable cause" you have there, MadMan.

HDHouse said...

from the article:

"But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry, and Mike Stollenwerk, cofounder of OpenCarry.org....."

Auric Gold. Mike STOLLENWERK..

ohmygod on what planet is Wisconsin

Skipper50 said...

I still wax nostalgic about my old high school days in Wisconsin, when kids brought their hunting rifles to school either after an early morning hunt or in preparation for an afternoon session, and noone thought twice about it (except the deer, perhaps).

Pastafarian said...

Joe said: "'should the police be allowed to pull over random vehicles just because some of them might be stolen, or being driven by unlicensed drivers?'
No, but if I see you driving a BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Escalade with a broken driver’s side window..."

I didn't see anything in the article about additional causes for suspicion that might lead to probable cause. And as much as the police and their representatives were quoted, if there had been some additional damning piece of evidence (say, if one of the men had a Halloween mask hanging out of his back pocket, or one of them had a prison gang tattoo on his face), I think they would have mentioned it.

dbp said...

MadisonMan said...

Was it based on something else?

The 62-yo woman who called them. She was freaked out!

Would it be okay is some old lady freaked out from seeing some unfamiliar racial minorities at her favorite dining joint?

Her ignorance of the law is no reason to harass law-abiding citizens. The police should have calmly informed the lady that her fellow patrons are within their rights to carry fire arms.

HDHouse said...

Rockeye said...
".... unless the police had some reasonable suspicion that the men had commited some crime (they clearly did not) then the search (i.e. asking for their ID) was unreasonable."

i guess you could make the same point in Arizona...besides if you owned a pawn shop in say some seedy part of Madison or Milwaukee (not that there are any..just for agrument's sake) and 5 guys walked in with weapons...what would be your initial reaction? that they wre looking for depression glass?

MadisonMan said...

Pastafarian, I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote -- I admit that's easy -- if you think I'm okay with it.

Maybe I should have said She was freaking out, Man!

Titus said...

I was at Culver's last night. I had the chicken cashew salad.

I love cheese curds but Culvers has Sysco turds. I prefer The Village Green which has big fucking homemade turds.

One of the rare clumbers had surgery this morning. He had a big tumor (benign praise the lord) by his anus.

The vet called and said everything went excellent. No muscle or tendons around the anus were damaged during the surgery so I won't have to worry about him pinching loafs all over the place and not even knowing it-that would be challenging to say the least.

The first Culvers was in the cute little town of Sauk Prairie.

This weekend we are going to the parents cottage on Lake Delton. I will be fishing, going to see deer at sun down and spooning with my rare clumbers.

We may also go to the Log Cabin Restaurant in Baraboo-yum.

I am so Wisconsin right now.

My dad asked me if I wanted to go bow hunting with him-that was pushing it a bit too far.

Do you know when you open the garage to my parents home there are deer heads and elk heads and antlers and a huge moose head-My Indian Vegan husband would D.I.E die if he saw those things.

How are you, I care?

Tits.

former law student said...

The police were simply trying to determine if the gun toters were legally in the country, sheesh.

MadisonMan said...

The first Culvers was in the cute little town of Sauk Prairie.

Sauk City. And it was an A&W before it was a Culvers.

Pastafarian said...

MadMan -- sorry, reading comprehension isn't my strong point. I interpreted your first comment at 9:57 as...ambivalent. And I interpreted your 10:03 comment as disdain toward the person winning a $10,000 settlement. Your first comment actually suggested that the whole thing was a set-up to get another payday.

Cedarford said...

I tend to support concealed carry over open carry. If I see someone in a store or just walking down the street with a bayonet in his hand and he is close enough to me to be a threat - I have to spend time and a little adrenaline with the whole fight or flight reflex being dealt with.

If the person has the gun or knife tucked away, I don't have to go through this thought or reaction process.

Studies show that concealed carry is more effective overall in deterring criminals - because you get a "herd immunity" by the crooks not knowing which target of opportunity could do them in. With open carry, they just select a victim who isn't carrying.

2nd Amendment rights or not, people will always have a similar reaction to seeing a stranger near them with a dangerous impliment, and they inherently disrupt social tranquility. Armed agents of the government provoke less of a reaction because people rationalize (1)they need a weapon as part of their job duties (2)Their identifiable uniform also signifies that they have been vetted in some way.

Presumably I have a "right" to walk around with a container of gasoline or sporting a spike-studded mace in my hands, wearing boots with a 3 inch sturdy knife in the tips - for self-defense - but I would also expect such behavior to be challenged by strangers evaluating me as a possible threat to public safety.

Open carry disrupts social tranquility, laws permitting concealed carry permits and only concealed carry of handguns, etc, are superior to that.

former law student said...

Wisconsin has a stop and identify law, identical to the Nevada one the conservatives on the Supreme Court found legal in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

Stop electing Presidents who put Rehnquists, Thomases, and Scalias on the court, and your local law enforcement officers will quit trampling on your civil rights.

Titus said...

My dad also has a hunting/gun room in our home.

His gun cabinet has over 50 guns. There are bows and cute orange outfits and snowmobiles suits and tractor and four wheeler ensembles. Oh and those butterscotch candies which are in all his pockets-for some reason they are a requirement for him while hunting. I also road a tractor last week.

I am totally thinking of building a prefab small modern house on my parents farm in Lodi-like maybe 700 square feet. Lot's of windows and set in the woods.

I am so red state right now.

They are big democrats though-go figure. He loves Feingold. Feingold knocked on my dad's door when he was first running and I think my dad sprung one.

My dad fought in the Korean War and he thinks we should get the guys out of the Afghan War-he says there is no chance of winning in a place like that where those people are so fucking crazy. He calls them crazy cats.

Good day.

Lastly for some reason I don't jerky jerky in Wisconsin. Two weeks and no popping load.

Pastafarian said...

fls: "The police were simply trying to determine if the gun toters were legally in the country, sheesh."

Yeah, except in Arizona, they have to be under suspicion of having committed another crime, like speeding, in order for the police to demand ID.

These guys were eating at Culvers, and legally carrying. I expected this sort of argument, but more from Jeremy or garage majal.

Class factotum said...

How dare anyone ask to see an id to determine if the person openly displaying a weapon is a felon

Felon status is noted on Wisconsin ID? I don't remember answering any questions about time in the Big House when I got my WI DL. And there is no space for felon/non-felon on my DL.

edutcher said...

HDHouse said...

from the article:

"But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry, and Mike Stollenwerk, cofounder of OpenCarry.org....."

Auric Gold. Mike STOLLENWERK..

ohmygod on what planet is Wisconsin


It's the world HQ of SPECTRE. Emilio Largo is CoS, Pussy Galore is treasurer, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld is really governor.

Hey, would double aught what's-his-name ever look in WI?

deborah said...

Looking directly at my id could cause serious psychological damage.

Wouldn't concealed carry be safer, first, for preserving the element of surprise, and second, an open carry could possibly be snatched from you?

RD, that's such a sad story. When my son began to drive, I firmly instructed him, if he ever got pulled over, to tell the officer he was reaching for his wallet, and to reach slowly.

Titus said...

Sometimes I like to not take a shower for two days and stick my hands down my pants and smell the aroma.

Does anyone else enjoy that simple pleasure in life?

I especially enjoy digging into the creases by my ball sac and rushing up my hands to my nose really fast. I usually get a pretty good whiff that way.

It is pungeant and very manly. I should bottle that shit.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Is it usual for bank robbers to target banks that have cops stationed in them? If not, who is it that's supposed to be checking their ID?

Shanna said...

I'm kind of surprised open carry is banned in Arkansas, but we're pretty free with our concealed carry stuff, so maybe that's why.

Pastafarian said...

fls said: "...when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime..."

And these officers didn't have a reasonable suspicion. So even under this statute, what the police did here was illegal.

MadisonMan said...

For the record, let me state that if open carry is the law, people should be allowed to open carry.

That should be unambiguous.

I can see, however, the POV of the police, called to a place where someone has lodged a complaint about someone else, and someone else is -- although innocent -- reportedly a wise-ass. Being a wise-ass is not illegal, but it will frequently escalate things. And I think that's what the wise-ass wanted.

I'm not sure why the police didn't explain to the 62-yo, and to the Culvers Manager, that Open Carry is allowed in WI. That would have made more sense.

But I wasn't there -- it was on the East Side, for God's sake -- so I don't know what was actually happening.

Hoosier Daddy said...

if you owned a pawn shop in say some seedy part of Madison or Milwaukee (not that there are any..just for agrument's sake) and 5 guys walked in with weapons...what would be your initial reaction?

I guess it would depend. If they were in holsters I'd probably assume cops.

Many moons ago I was in Chicago with Mrs. Hoosier. Its a Friday afternoon, about noon and we go into this restaraunt/bar that I think was down the street from the Lennox house. Anyway, the bar is nearly empty so we sat down and are having a few drinks when these two guys and an absolutely gorgeous brunette walk in, saddle up to the bar a few seats down from us and order a bottle of wine.

Now talk about living the sterotype because these two guys looked like they just walked off the set of Goodfellas. I mean they screamed goomba. Anyway, they were laughing it up and at one point, I noticed the one guy lean over the bar and the nickle plated .45 was clearly visible.

It gets better because at one point, the one goomba looks over at us and invites us over for a drink to celebrate his neice graduating from UIC. I was going to politely decline but then I thought, 'hey this could be fun' so joined them for, well actually I forgot how many drinks we had but they paid for all our drinks and I got a nice bear hug and a kiss on the cheeks from the guy that looked like a thin Paul Sorvino.

Lem said...

These guys were eating at Culvers..

The Michelle Obama angle.. (see the pic on this tread ;)

There is your probable cause.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sometimes I like to not take a shower for two days and stick my hands down my pants and smell the aroma.

Every so often I come across someone who makes me re-think my position on abortion.

Pastafarian said...

Titus, I've really missed your wit. Tell me more about what comes out of your various bodily orifices. Please, spare no details. I just love to hear about other people's ejaculant and anal mucus, particularly right after lunch.

It's such a treat.

Ball sacs....the depth, the layers, to your humor. It's been years since I've heard anything so clever. (Since fifth grade, to be exact).

bagoh20 said...

I'm a big gun rights supporter, but what are the cops supposed to do? I think it is reasonable to have an ID requirement in cases where the ID of a person is all that separates a peaceful citizen from a very dangerous armed felon.

If you combine the right to carry with freedom of speech and right to assemble, and no requirement to identify, then you could have a group of armed gang members in a restaurant talking about killing people and refusing to talk to the cops. Are the cops supposed to just walk away and not ask, who are you guys?

Pastafarian said...

fls said: "Stop electing Presidents who put Rehnquists, Thomases, and Scalias on the court, and your local law enforcement officers will quit trampling on your civil rights."

I agree 100%, fls.

This trampling will be taken care of at a much higher level.

You won't have to worry about being hassled by the cops for openly carrying, because you won't have any weapons to carry.

That's a win-win right there, fls. You've solved the problem completely.

deborah said...

HDH:
"Presumably I have a "right" to walk around with a container of gasoline or sporting a spike-studded mace in my hands, wearing boots with a 3 inch sturdy knife in the tips - for self-defense..."

I will if you will.

I love depression glass.

Pastafarian said...

bagoh said: "...talking about killing people..."

I missed that part, where these guys were threatening people between cheese curds.

Seems like everyone has to add just one more wrinkle to their hypotheticals in order to justify this search and seizure.

PatHMV said...

FLS, the key language there is: "when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct."

The officers here had no such reasonable suspicion.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Well Pasta, I started off saying that I would have complied with the Police request, legal or not, because I have better things to do with my Saturdays. Apparently these guys don’t or at least two of them, don’t. The rest is trying to point out that, YES, the Police do have the right to stop and ask you for ID, in certain circumstances….even if the “perp” or potential perp claims there was no justification, after all it’s the rare offender that says, “That’s a fair cop.”

Lastly, I’d like to point out the obvious fact, that a fire arm on your hip, is categorically different, from being Black, having a bag of groceries, or a package of solder flux on you and therefore the response of both onlookers AND Peace Officer’s is and should be different. Had the old lady called in and said, “they’re five Negroes in Culvers and I fear for my life”, the 9-11 Operator and the Peace Officers should have ignored her, but when she said “There are five armed men in the Culver’s” it should evoke a different response. I’m sorry if this offends Second or Fourth Amendment purists. But to think anything is else is just silly, five guys with fire arms are INHERENTLY different than five guys or five Black guys, or five plumbers at the local Culvers.

And I also think it’s silly to refuse to respond to reasonable request from the Police for ID, even if it’s not “legally” justifiable. Again, I’m sitting in a roomful of folks, and as long as the Police are forthright about the reason for the request, “Someone reported five guys with fire arms” I think it’s reasonable to comply. Why, because I’ve got a kilogram of metal on my hip whose SOLE PURPOSE IS THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE, people might justifiably, if not legally, be concerned about this. It’s no skin off my nose to understand their concern and to move on peacefully with the rest of my day. Sure if the Police asked me to leave, I’d demur, UNLESS Culver’s ahs a “NO Weapons Policy and it’s clearly posted. I’d demur if the Police asked for my fire arm, for “safe keeping”, but just to make a “point”, no thanks…like I said I’ve got better things to do with my Saturday.

bagoh20 said...

"Seems like everyone has to add just one more wrinkle to their hypotheticals in order to justify this search and seizure."

We know these guys were not a threat, but only because they got identified. It's that simple. They could have been serial violent felons and if the cops followed the law they could shot the place up after refusing to speak to the cops. It may be the law, but it seems suicidal.

No matter which side you take you have to assume a lot to make your argument work.

deborah said...

Tits, when you say 'prefab,' are you talking about something upscale and avante garde?

deborah said...

Ooops, that one comment was for Cedarford, except for the depression glass part.

Kirk Parker said...

FLS,

Try a more careful reading:

"… when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime…

The statute as written supports our contention, that the police were acting beyond their legal authority.

Kirk Parker said...

C4,

"Studies show that concealed carry is more effective

Let's see some citations!

Lem said...

There is something weird about "having the right to remain silent" and then the silence gets used as an incriminating act or lack thereof..

You have the right to remain silent but if you don't answer my question - yes or no, I'm hauling you off to jail.

There is something dissonant in that logic I've never understood.

The only way I interpret that part of Miranda is that there is no courteous way of arresting someone other than exerting force over that person and there is no justifiable way to do that other than by force.

It all comes down to - if you don't do what I ask I'm going to do something to you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

...a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing

One of the words used a lot in the legal word is 'reasonable'. I think that word means something entirely different outside of the world of legal books because when lawyers use words like 'reasonable' as in 'reasonable attorney fees' in which those can run to the $500/hour rate, I don't think that word means what they think it means.

Alex said...

Similarly, it should be SOP to ask to see ID to verify that a person attempting to vote is in fact eligible to vote. Or to verify that someone in the US is here legally. Agree, rv?

I notice rv hasn't answered that one. I guess not all laws are meant to be enforced, only the ones that target conservative Republicans.

former law student said...

Yeah, except in Arizona, they have to be under suspicion of having committed another crime, like speeding, in order for the police to demand ID.

But under 18 USC Section 922, illegal aliens cannot possess firearms that have traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. Are you opposed to local law enforcement officers enforcing federal laws? How will you know if they're legal or not unless they show you ID?

Alex said...

The only thing is open-carry does give off a whiff of the "wild West" which would make some people nervous(not me). Those guys would have been better off concealing their guns. It's not as if in a real emergency it would have slowed them down.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You have the right to remain silent but if you don't answer my question - yes or no, I'm hauling you off to jail.
Once you’ve been arrested, this applies. Because prior to arrest, what you say can’t be used against you, for one thing.

Alex said...

FLS - so you are in favor of selective law enforcement. Whatever hurts conservative Republicans.

former law student said...

The officers here had no such reasonable suspicion.

So open carry defeats the rationale for Terry stops? Bad guys will be glad to hear this, I know.

I think if cops' life experience tells them that five armed civilians are, more often than not,up to no good, then it's reasonable for them to request ID.

Further, one or more could be civilly enjoined from possessing guns. Convicted felons are more numerous than you think, and they look just like anybody else.

Lem said...

Convicted felons are more numerous than you think..

I didn't know civil rights hinged upon felony statistics.

wfgodbold said...

Everyone suggesting that they would have been better off concealing their guns, Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry. At all.

If you're going to legally carry a gun in WI, you have to carry it openly.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I didn't know civil rights hinged upon felony statistics.
You miss the point, INNUMERABLE felons have been arrested at routine stops….Frank Felon doesn’t always have fake ID…so when stopped and asked for ID, Frank, quite often, hands over his REAL ID. And you can run a outstanding warrant check on that ID. So yes, routinely asking for ID DOES, in fact, catch felons…and it has NO BEARING on Civil Rights. I’ll say it again, the Police have EVERY RIGHT to ask you for ID, in certain circumstances, and it is NOT a violation of your Civil Liberties.

I’ll further state that even in those cases where there is no “right” for the questioning, it is usually wise, no ALWAYS wise, to comply with the Police request. Very seldom is it worth the hassle to “prove” your point. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp…showing my driver’s license at Culvers is hardly the same thing as being denied the right to vote or eat at Culvers, on the basis of my skin colour. And if two of these doods can’t see that having fire arms on their hips might disturb their neighbors, then they’re morons. For me it’s the same thing as wearing your Nazi or Klan regalia at Culvers, you have a RIGHT to do so, but don’t expect the customers to welcome you. In Wisconsin you have a RIGHT to Open Carry, but don’t expect the customers to think nothing of it.

Personally, I’m thinking MadMan is on to something, these guys are like Fred Phelps, they like to go around and prove their points, to the tune of $10,000 pay outs. Which is, I understand, one of Pastor Phelps’ main support mechanisms, for his “ministry.” So too at least two of these fellows, “hey let’s go make our point at Culvers this weekend, then we can go to Vegas.”

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Why, because I’ve got a kilogram of metal on my hip whose SOLE PURPOSE IS THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

No it isn't

Original Mike said...

Titus: "The first Culvers was in the cute little town of Sauk Prairie."

MM: "Sauk City. And it was an A&W before it was a Culvers."

A lot of people call the megalopolis of Sauk City and Prarie du Sac Sauk Prarie

And I miss that A&W.

Hagar said...

Cognitive disconnect.
Fls totally misses that his attitude here is 180 degrees opposite from his position on illegal immigrant stops, especially in Arizona.

Well, "a foolish adherence to consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," and the progressives certainly have large enough minds, if somewhat gaseous!

Kirk Parker said...

Joe,

911 operators in civilized venues like Washington state are being trained to sort out MWAG calls in exactly this manner.

former law student said...

Fls totally misses that his attitude here is 180 degrees opposite from his position on illegal immigrant stops, especially in Arizona.

I have no position. I'm looking for consistency from the usual suspects. Packing heat is allowed in Wisconsin, outside of public buildings, school zones, and establishments that sell booze, so have at it. You need to make a tighter argument why cops can't ask to see your ID, however.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You need to make a tighter argument why cops can't ask to see your ID, however.

You first. You explain why police in Arizona can't ask for ID and proof of legality from people who are stopped for probable cause.

Then explain why the police SHOULD be able to ask for ID and proof of legality for people stopped for no good reason or lack of probable cause.

Try to do it without bringing race, political correctness and professional victim class into it. I bet you can't.

Personally, I would have just shown my ID, since I have nothing to hide, and then told the busy body old biddie to mind her own business.

Do an Obama.....Can't I just eat my cheese curds?

(I had to google cheese curds, which seem to be gigantic cottage cheese chunks. They look yummy)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Why, because I’ve got a kilogram of metal on my hip whose SOLE PURPOSE IS THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

No it isn't.

Sure it is DBQ. You can make the case that a Remington 870 12 ga. Or the Mauser 8mm or the cross bow has a dual use, hunting, or self-defense, and I’d agree, wholeheartedly. Not a pistol, in a holster, on your hip….Pistols are for self-defense, and the rules of self-defense are, never point a pistol unless you mean to shoot, and if you shoot, shoot to kill.

Pistols, unlike many other devices, knives, axes, shovels, rifles, or shot guns, are designed to put down human beings. It is the very rare pistol, one not likely to be on one’s hip, in a Culvers that is designed for bear-hunting. Had these five fellows had their Remington 700 rifles with them or even their Barrett .50 Caliber with them, I’d be inclined to not worry, too much, about robbery. Still might worry about accidental discharges…but a man with a Sig-Sauer or Smith & Wesson is saying “If push comes to shove, I WILL kill you.” And if that person isn’t thinking that with the pistol on their hip, they have no business carrying a pistol. It’s the point of a pistol, it’s not a “Smith & Wesson Visa” card (for those inclined to rob liquor stores) or a “Steer clear of me” sign (for those hoping to avoid confrontation). It is a deadly weapon, designed to kill your fellow human being, 99% of the time. That’s fine with me, I have no problem with lethal force, but please don’t try to fool others that that’s not the purpose of the fire arm, in the case of a pistol.

former law student said...

I didn't know civil rights hinged upon felony statistics.

Statistics argue for or against reasonability.

But to listen to the civil rights' advocates on this thread, enforcing felon-in-possession laws is impossible, unless the suspect commits another illegal act.

former law student said...

Try to do it without bringing race, political correctness and professional victim class into it. I bet you can't.


Race is not a factor in the AZ stops? News to me.

Hagar said...

I think cops can ask for I.D., if they have reason to talk to you at all, which I definitely think they had in this case. "Just what do you guys think you are doing here?" will do for me.

But so also in Arizona and elsewhere for "undocumented" immigrants or whatever. This hullaballoo about first having to observe some other illegal behavior is nonsense.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Race is not a factor in the AZ stops? News to me..
SB 1070 SPECIFICALLY forbids using race as a determining criteria….try reading the bill rather than simply listening to Jon Stewart.

traditionalguy said...

Everyday several hundred times I am passed by about 6 feet from a 4000 lb steel vehicle going 50 mph and sort of pointed at me but, beyond belief, staying in its own lane...and all of this potential violence happens continually without police intervention for the scared old women. What a chicken world the Authorities now want to develop so we will always NEED them. In Ft Worth Texas a man not carrying his holstered gun is the exception.

garage mahal said...

And I miss that A&W.

Wonder if they even make the same food/burgers as they did when I was a kid. The papa burger, baby burger, mama burger, etc.

traditionalguy said...

The "peacemakers" still do their magic in public. Did you about the bar that is so rough that they ask incoming patron whether they are carrying a gun, and if not, then they are issued one.

Alex said...

FLS - race is not a factor in this Wisconsin ID check? I bet they were all white conservative Republicans.

Shanna said...

I’ll further state that even in those cases where there is no “right” for the questioning, it is usually wise, no ALWAYS wise, to comply with the Police request. Very seldom is it worth the hassle to “prove” your point.

I agree with you on this and if a cop asks for ID you can bet I’m going to give it to him, for the same reasons. Who wants to waste time with jail when I’m doing something legal? But I can also see why there are people that want to push it when police have no legal reason to request ID. It’s the slippery slope thing. If you are doing nothing wrong why should you have to give the police id? And I don't see any reason for the police to think some dudes eating cheeseburgers were any special threat.

Pistols, unlike many other devices, knives, axes, shovels, rifles, or shot guns, are designed to put down human beings.

I don’t agree with you on this. Pistols are designed to be handy and compact, as compared to rifles, etc…but they do the same thing. Carrying a pistol around is a more compact way to protect yourself from lots of creatures other than man. If you are wondering around in the woods and scared of wolves, a pistol is handier than a big rifle. It’s probably quicker too.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Did you about the bar that is so rough that they ask incoming patron whether they are carrying a gun, and if not, then they are issued one.
My advice would be to AVOID, not enter such an establishment…… Funny, in Tombstone they took the OPPOSITE approach, you know OUTLAWING fire arms in bars.

Sofa King said...

I'm looking for consistency from the usual suspects.

Where is the inconsistency in arguing that ID may be required in the case of an arrest for probable cause, but not required if there is no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion?

How, in your imagination, is that inconsistent?

PatHMV said...

FLS, you say: "But to listen to the civil rights' advocates on this thread, enforcing felon-in-possession laws is impossible, unless the suspect commits another illegal act."

Again, not accurate. It's entirely possible to enforce the felon-in-possession laws. If the busy-body lady had heard one of them talking about his time in prison, that would be reasonable suspicion to believe that he was a felon illegally in possession of a firearm. If the busy-body, or the cop, had recognized him from previous arrests, THAT would also be reasonable suspicion to believe that the gun-carrrier might be committing a crime, which would provide grounds to require him to ID himself.

But sitting at a table carrying a gun, in a state and locality where it is 100% legal to carry a gun openly, is NOT, cannot be, in and of itself "reasonable suspicion" to believe that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

The hypocrisy you imagine you're seeing between this case and the Arizona case just isn't there. The Arizona law, like the one you quote, requires reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal alien before the officer can require the stopped persons to identify themselves and provide proof of citizenship. The police in Arizona cannot just walk up to a brown-skinned person, with no other cause, and demand that he prove his citizenship. To do so would be in violation of the Arizona law itself.

It is not a crime to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin. By definition, then, the mere act of carrying a gun cannot provide reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

prairie wind said...

The kid at Costco had no idea who else in the store was carrying. The 62-y-o freaking out lady had no idea who else was carrying at Culvers. If all we worry about are the people who let us know they have a gun, we will be caught off-guard by the bad guys. I always assume that someone around me is carrying, for good or bad reasons.

Had lunch at Dairy Queen the other day and the couple in line ahead of me were carrying, open. If the DQ had been in a bad neighborhood, I would have felt reassured and parked my burger and fries near theirs.

How does looking at my ID assure the cops that I am not about to commit a crime? Wouldn't it be more effective to sit at the next table and watch and listen for a bit before deciding?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Funny, in Tombstone they took the OPPOSITE approach, you know OUTLAWING fire arms in bars.

Wyatt Earp: Go ahead, skin it! Skin that smokewagon and see what happens...

Johnny Tyler: M-mister, I'm gettin' tired of your...

Wyatt Earp: I'm gettin' tired of all your gas, now jerk that pistol and go to work!

Wyatt Earp: I said throw down, boy! You gonna do somethin'? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Billy Clanton: Why, it's the drunk piano player. You're so drunk, you can't hit nothin'. In fact, you're probably seeing double.

Doc Holliday: I have two guns, one for each of ya.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
How does looking at my ID assure the cops that I am not about to commit a crime?
Generally, this won’t be your first crime. Generally you don’t have false ID. Ergo, generally, ID checks catch lots of felons, because felons aren’t particularly smart. An ID check generally, forces the felon to cough up their ID and then we can run a check on them….in my state we have E-Warrant that allows us to instantaneously determine any outstanding warrants. Usually whilst out on bail for one crime, the criminal will commit other crimes, it’s the beauty of E-Warrant.

OTOH if you don’t have any outstanding warrants it generally means you AREN’T a criminal. And hence, not likely to be sticking up this Culvers. Funny how that is.

Original Mike said...

papa burger, baby burger, mama burger, etc.

I miss The Goliath at Hungry!Hungry!Hungry! on Monona Drive. Not that I could eat a whole one anymore.

ndspinelli said...

Wisconsin is a paternalistic state that is dangerous to women. Reasonable people can disagree about concealed carry or open carry. However, my wife and daughter cannot even legally own a stun gun!

In Wisconsin you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, be assaulted w/ no means of protection, and be asked by a District Attorney to wear high heels and a miniskirt to an autopsy..I'm not making this shit up.

Moose said...

So, the FBI's crime stats for 2009 show that something like 2600 of the 2900 homicides of blacks were committed by black males.

Shouldn't all police departments have policies to stop and question all black men? I mean formal policies?

Superdad said...

"You need to make a tighter argument why cops can't ask to see your ID, however."

This is the problem. Your got it backwards. In a free society, you have the burden of establishing why the gov't can act. It is never the burden of the free citizen to justify governmental inaction.

"So open carry defeats the rationale for Terry stops?"

The point is that the simple act of carrying does not raise to the level necessary to justify a Terry stop.

former law student said...

SB 1070 SPECIFICALLY forbids using race as a determining criteria….try reading the bill rather than simply listening to Jon Stewart.

Read SB 1070 yourself, instead of listening to Sean Hannity -- there is no such provision there.

But you are likely thinking of the later HB 2162, which does indeed forbid using race as a criterion.

But give me a friggin' break -- how many white folks -- or black or Asian -- will fall under the reasonable suspicion umbrella? When I have been driving close enough to the border for the Border Patrol to check me out, my whitebread face has always been sufficient to let me keep moving on. They don't ask if I'm an illegal Irish bartender or Polish roofer. Looking Mexican is the first filter.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
In Wisconsin you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, be assaulted w/ no means of protection, and be asked by a District Attorney to wear high heels and a miniskirt to an autopsy..I'm not making this shit up.
Walk me thru how this works. I can openly carry a pistol, but I can’t own a STUN GUN? I’m confused, seriously…but let’s be honest. IF you can carry openly, you don’t need a stun gun, do you? Carry a pistol, on your hip. If your wife and daughter don’t want to take the responsibility for taking another human’s life, that’s certainly their call, but they aren’t precluded from defending themselves, from the framework of this story at least. And drunk driving isn’t proof of “paternalism.” You’re much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver ANYWHERE, I’d imagine, than be gunned down by a criminal. But the high heels and a skirt at the autopsy, now THAT must be a good story, do we really want to hear it?

Chip Ahoy said...

I'm surprised this story isn't about the Trans Fats Police demanding ID and health records for the lunch you ordered. I'm dismayed.

Cedarford said...

Kirk Parker said...
C4,

"Studies show that concealed carry is more effective

Let's see some citations!
==========================
thanks to Google, the tedious demand in blogs to "show citations!" is disappearing. If you type in "concealed carry vs open carry", you get 297,00 hits.

Have fun reading and educating yourself, Kirk!

garage mahal said...

I miss The Goliath at Hungry!Hungry!Hungry! on Monona Drive. Not that I could eat a whole one anymore.

I live in Monona, must have been before my time. I am like family at David's Jamaican though. Perks! Like access to David's private stash of goat and conch soup. David once asked me if my wife liked the soup, and I said "she hasn't tried it". Then he laughed, and it dawned on me later what he meant. Hehe. Now every time he brings out the soup I make muscle.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

No C4 you’re wrong as you usually are…you’ve made a claim, now provide evidence of that claim. It’s not incumbent upon us to do that. Thank you for contributing.

former law student said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BJM said...

The rationale the police give for asking for ID doesn't pass the laugh test. Why would five felons strap on handguns and go for burgers?

Police are expert at assessing people/situations they knew perfectly well that these guys were not a threat and that their buttons were being pushed.

As to the stupid woman, she should butt the fuck out. Over the past few years armed citizens killed gunmen and saved lives at restaurants in the Greater Miami area. I'd rather have these guys around when an armed whack job with a grudge shows up than everyone sitting with their dicks in their hand.

A true story, years ago after the mass shooting on California Street in SF we decided to bring a legal, registered handgun to the office to protect ourselves. There were four people in our office who were Vets and weapons trained so we figured we had a good chance to thwart an attack.

One morning the building alarm rang and a swat team burst though our office suite door guns drawn. The matter was quickly resolved, but we could have been shot had we done the wrong thing.

It turned out that the office cleaners were rifling desk drawers at night and reported the handgun to management. Of course, Ms Airhead Realtor, the manager, didn't think to ask us, long-term tenants with whom she had a friendly relationship, about the handgun nor that the cleaners searching desks was a problem. We negotiated a release and moved out of SF permanently.

That was the last straw after years of 4 hour bridge commutes, having our cars broken into, stepping over human waste in the doorways and generally being under siege by the ever growing army of aggressive panhandlers, addicts, runaways and miscreants the compassion whores at city hall allow to live on the streets.

bagoh20 said...

"Looking Mexican is the first filter."

Well, that's just insane to be looking for Mexican's on the Mexican border. You're right, it's the gingers we need to be hassling, the evil SOB's. Using the southern border is just like those freckled frauds.

DADvocate said...

I was checked for a valid driver's license and insurance on the way home from my son's football game Friday night. But, driving a car isn't a constitutionally protected right.

Did the lady's call create probable cause? I doubt it. Otherwise, the anti-gun crowd could endlessly harrass carriers and the police.


A greater threat than holstered men eating peacefully at Culver's is plain clothes policemen in ski masks raiding biker bars.

former law student said...

the simple act of carrying does not raise to the level necessary to justify a Terry stop.

The purpose of a Terry stop is to determine if suspicious people are armed, for officer safety. In the interest of officer safety, inquiring if armed people are in fact harmless seems reasonable to me.

But then my cousin was a cop his whole working life.

former law student said...

Well, that's just insane to be looking for Mexican's on the Mexican border.

So you agree the stated prohibition of using race as a factor is fatuous.

dbp said...

Not to side-track, but what would have happened if the two men were felons (wanted or on parole)?

Would they have had to be released since there was no reasonable cause for the arrest in the first place?

former law student said...

driving a car isn't a constitutionally protected right.

Well, drinking alcohol is Constitutionally protected under the 21st Amendment. And yet in one recent nine-month period, San Francisco alone issued over 6,000 citations for drinking alcohol in public. Of this, San Francisco Chronicle columnist (I almost typed Communist) C. W. Nevius said, "That's not a civil rights issue. It is just bad behavior." Clearly Mr. Nevius is mistaken. Freely exercising one's Constitutional rights in public is no quality of life crime.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/19/MN2O1F6A5T.DTL#ixzz10BxGjwR5

Let us fight
for the right
to par-tay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk

Original Mike said...

I live in Monona, must have been before my time.

Long gone. Was close to the cornor of Monona and Walter St. Big condo there now.

I am like family at David's Jamaican though. Perks!

I ate there once, awhile back. Don't find myself on the East side much, though I ate at Edo's last week.

Did David's Jamacian use to be the Burger King or was that up a block?

BJM said...

@FLS

Hispanic is not a "race", it's a made-up PC ethnicity. The word itself is a racist label used to identify a class of people for benefits and preferential treatment in exchange for votes.

My Latin friends & relatives dislike being lumped together with other Latin nationalities which they have little in common.

btw- The race on my Sth American bother-in-law's birth certificate is Caucasian as is friends from Cuba, Costa Rica and Mexico City.

Get a fucking clue.

ndspinelli said...

Joe,

The Calumet County District Attorney, Ken Kratz, was sexting an abuse victim and now another woman has come forward. This woman alleges Kratz invited her to an autopsy after disclosing confidential info on an open murder investigation. Kratz told this woman she could come to the autopsy only if she wore high heels, skirt, and acted as his girlfriend.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of DWI's and the lowest penalties[strong beer lobby]. I know guns can be wrestled from people, particularly women, and used against them. If a stun gun is wrestled from my daughter, it won't kill her.

former law student said...

Hispanic is not a "race", it's a made-up PC ethnicity.

Did I use the word "Hispanic"? I think not.

Mexicans are only about 10% white; the rest are Indians or mestizos, i.e. racially nonwhite.

garage mahal said...

Did David's Jamacian use to be the Burger King or was that up a block??

That old BK is still vacant.

bagoh20 said...

So you agree the stated prohibition of using race as a factor is fatuous.

Mexican is not a race.

The truth is that opponents believe that people who look Mexican should never be assumed to be, unless you also assume the Gingers are.

It may satisfy your fantasy of equality, but it's clearly a stupid standard.

bagoh20 said...

Where would racists be without the made-up idea of race?

Answer: Out of constituents, arguments and bogeymen.

Superdad said...

The 21st Amendment does not say the right of the people to drink shall not be infringed. It says the 18th amendment is repealed and that people can only possess or use alcohol in compliance with state and federal law.

There is no analogy to be drawn.

traditionalguy said...

Joe...In Tombstone days the cowboys at the end of a trail drive had been paid off and were all getting drunk as skunks. The town citizens were more afraid of accidental shootings and noise from shootings into the air as a youthful display of wildness than they feared any crime. Not that there is anything wrong with getting drunk as a skunk. So those old western gun laws were more like Carrying While Intoxicated ( CWI ).

Michael said...

FLS: I am amused at your racial theories. If Mexicans are "racially non-white" then does that make them a race unto themselves? You use the phrase "looking Mexican." Would you explain? And while you are at it explain "looking El Salvadoran, looking Guatemalan, looking Nicaraguan." Etc.

Belkys said...

So she is not from the old state of Texas

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I know guns can be wrestled from people, particularly women, and used against them. If a stun gun is wrestled from my daughter, it won't kill her.
I see your point, but it’s the resistance that gets you killed or injured. Meaning IF you fight, you need to win. Losing a stun gun can still mean her death, mayhap not at the “hand” of the stun gun, but at the hands of the criminal.

Generally the display or “brandishing” of the weapon is sufficient, BTW. Which is not to say that your daughter need only display the and/stun gun, but must also be prepared to use it, however, the possession and display of a fire arm, generally, discourages the crime. It’s a version of outrunning your friend, not the bear…criminals don’t usually want to have a hard time in their crime, once they perceive that the cost may be hi, they move onto to a less well-protected victim.

former law student said...

that people can only possess or use alcohol in compliance with state and federal law.

Try rereading it -- it's nothing like your summary.

Actually the Constitution never prohibited alcohol consumption -- drinking alcohol must have been one of the "inalienable rights" the DoI spoke of.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Traditional, I don’t see that it makes any difference. Men with guns and alcohol are a combination that do not mix well:
1) Any bar that offers me a fire arm if I do not have one already is not the place any sane person should want to frequent; and
2) Fire arms were restricted, not encouraged…in certain towns.

traditionalguy said...

I have a Bob Dylan type dream of Christine O'Donnell standing up in the well of the Senate to take her oath of office on November 4th and wearing a Dirty Harry 357 magnum on her hip. That would do more to intimidate Muslims who treat women as bad cattle than anything ever broadcast over the world media. Plugs BiteMe would giggle a lot less too.

traditionalguy said...

I believe that the old American gesture of tipping ones hat is said to originate from a stranger meeting a stranger showing thereby that his gun was still holstered and not drawn.

David said...

"Wisconsin has the highest rate of DWI's and the lowest penalties[strong beer lobby]."

There's a made up bullshit statistic, if I ever saw one.

former law student said...

If Mexicans are "racially non-white" then does that make them a race unto themselves?

This question is outside the scope of HB 2162, which merely forbids using race as a criterion. If a LEO gives a pass to all who look white, black, or Asian, focusing his attentions solely on what's left, then he's using race as a criterion.

You use the phrase "looking Mexican." Would you explain?

Sure:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Mestizo.jpg

Michael said...

FLS: The daily double of racial stereotyping and the use of Wiki.

Priceless.

And thanks.

David said...

The woman freaked out. (Ok, it happens.)

The cops responded to the call. (Well, I think they should have. They have a call--men with guns--and a freaked out caller, so it's prudent to check out the situation.)

Cops see 5 guys with holstered guns having a meal. No one is being threatened (yet.) (Ok--they are observing, as they are supposed to do.)

Cops demand ID's. (Ooops--why? On what authority?)

Gun guys say nothing but make no threat. (Cops pissed. Sassin' an officer, silent version.)

Cops arrest citizen for having food while carrying an unconcealed weapon and refusing to identify self.

(Cops think they are enforcing the public peace. But they are not. They are creating an unnecessary confrontation between two armed groups in a restaurant frequented by grannies and kids.)

Legally armed civilians are pissed too, but keep guns in holsters and otherwise don't escalate.

Who looks more reasonable here?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Who looks more reasonable here?
How about the citizens who say “sure, what’s the problem officer?” Please note three did…again it’s like the Ground Zero Mosque…the difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. Once you’re there, as the Peace Officer, you might as well check out the guys at the table, you never know one MIGHT be wanted for something, plus it lets the “concerned citizen” know that her call and concern was addressed.

Whilst we’re talking “reasonable” here, why didn’t the five guys with deadly weapons decide to be reasonable and acknowledge that though legal, it might be disturbing to some others? Reasonable is as reasonable does.

BJM said...

@fls

That's just silly.

Most adults, other than the terminally stupid, know that public drunkenness can land them in the lockup and that drinking from a container of alcohol on a public street or place is illegal in most cities and towns.

Your strawman construct fails and I call bullshit on your premise in general in respect to SF.

All one needs to do is slide the container into a bag/wrapper or pour it into a disposable cup and unless you're a drunken nuisance it's perfectly legal to sip a cold one from a paper bag or from a disposable cup in public in SF. We've done so many times without being issued citations or drawing attention from anyone. Happens every day all around the city.

On a nice day we'd pour some Chard into cups, grab a crab sandwich at the deli downstairs and head over to South Park for lunch. Or grab a hot dog and a cup of beer and stand on the sidewalk waiting for the ball park to open. Or sit on the ferry pier and sip a cold one from a paper bag and watch the sunset.

btw-How could 9000 citations be issued in a city with SF's geographic footprint (very small as major cities go, if you're not familiar, the city covers less than 45 sq miles) unless there was a massive army of drunks on the streets. Oh, that's right there is. Your point fails again.

Synova said...

"I still wax nostalgic about my old high school days in Wisconsin, when kids brought their hunting rifles to school either after an early morning hunt or in preparation for an afternoon session, and noone thought twice about it (except the deer, perhaps).

In my school they brought them because they made custom stocks in wood-shop.

BJM said...

@Synova

In my school they brought them because they made custom stocks in wood-shop.

I'd forgotten that...ours did too. In the valley getting a bird gun at 12 or 13 was a rite of passage.

I like to shoot but not killing critters except for them that need killin' like rattlers.

I blame it on Walt Disney.

Pogo said...

"the difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. Once you’re there, as the Peace Officer, you might as well check out the guys at the table, you never know..."

If the citizen is expected to show ID whenever asked by a cop or they will be jailed, then that is the de facto law.

It doesn't seem to comport with the US Constitution as written, but such are the habits of the living dead, never to do what you expect.

The Zombie Constitution: it means exactly the opposite of what it says!

Suburbanbanshee said...

But why would you have ID on you, just to go out to eat? I mean, if you didn't drive yourself there, and this Culver's place doesn't serve beer, what would you have an ID for? Most of the time, as a non-driver, I don't have any ID on me. How on earth could I produce any, if I had a gun, or if somebody decided to call the police because I have an itsy-bitsy pocketknife on my keychain?

And what would have happened if those gun carriers had been off-duty cops? Heck, why didn't the woman assume that a burger place would be full of off-duty cops carrying guns?

And geez, why did the police care? Heck, why did the police go looking for me, when my grandma called them in a panic because I'd been out walking in her (crime-free) neighborhood for five minutes more than the designated hour? Sheesh, if I call the police, they're not going to show up for a couple of hours or more, or they'll just tell me to lump it.

Sigh. I realize the police probably try to be helpful in these situations to those most likely to need help, but this sort of thing gets ridiculous.

holdfast said...

"But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry... "

I guess this guy's parents were Bond fans. Makes me feel better about naming my son after a science fiction character.

Dudley Do-right said...

Probably an easy question for the legal eagles who flock to this site, but anyway:
Why should my rights be affected by the insecurities and fears of others?

...beyond the obvious yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that is.

c3 said...

this case reminds me of a certain Professor in Massachusetts who lost his house key and had to break into his own home....

I'm not a gun guy so take this with a block of salt. Gun rights folks don't see that guns scare some folks. If I say five guys at Five Guys eating burgers I'd be alarmed but likely also say (since they were peacefully eating) they must have permits. Other folks might let their fears get the best of them

Calypso Facto said...

garage: you can still get a Papa Burger at A&W, but you'll have to go to Windsor for it. Mama and Baby Burgers must've left Papa's greasy ass and moved back with the Mother-In-Law Burger.

Monona? Damn, I didn't know we were neighbors. That explains the Barrett/Feingold sign! I used to love David's, but it seemed to me to really tail off in quality (and cleanliness) the last couple years, so I stopped going. But not your opinion?

c3 said...

And FLs;
As to your racist assertion about SB 1070 (and remember I'm not a supporter of it) Tell my why the Tucson police office who works in the south Tucson precinct was so upset that the law would force him to racially profile.

He's hispanic; he speaks spanish. His precinct is overwhelmingly hispanic (of Mexican ancestry) and largely spanish speaking. How is this racially profiling?

Synova said...

"Mexicans are only about 10% white; the rest are Indians or mestizos, i.e. racially nonwhite."

And the thing is... really... the legal "Mexicans" in Arizona or in New Mexico where I am make up a large, probably majority, of the population. Right near the borders the population is almost entirely Hispanic and "brown".

What this does, actually, is make racial profiling *pointless*. If the police (most of whom are also Hispanic) ask some "brown" people for proof of citizenship and don't ask other "brown" people for proof of citizenship, they are almost certainly responding to other cues than the person's racial appearance.

All of which really doesn't matter, since the AZ law does require there to have been some other reason for the cops to have been asking them for ID.

Which is why this came up at all in relation to the cops asking the guys in Wisconsin for their ID's.

What I sort of don't get is... I probably would have assumed that the guys with the guns were either cops or security people rather than bad-guys. But then I wouldn't have been all concerned to begin with.

traditionalguy said...

A last thought about this Confrontation at Culvers comes from my memory of how fiercely the police enforce laws against Impersonating a Police Officer. In a community that has an open carry law, a policeman may see these men as having partially broken the Impersonating a Police Officer prohibition and making the jobs of these sworn officers almost unnecessary.

Gabriel Hanna said...

This is funny, FLS demanding consistency from people. Let's take a walk down memory lane:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/09/senator-acorn.html

How much time and effort did FLS and its ilk spend telling us that asking voters for ID disenfrachises the poor, that it was a violation of their rights?

Hacks.

Middle-class people are far more likely to have identification than are poor people. Middle-class people have homes, utility bills, drivers licenses, library cards, corporate IDs, credit cards, etc. etc. etc.

In terms of voting, I have never had to show an ID. I showed my birth certificate the very first time I registered -- back in the days when drivers licenses were not photo IDs.


That's what FLS said when it was unreasonable and violating rights to ask for ID.

Pogo said...

Apparently, the Constitution says you have certain rights, but don't expect to exercise them.

The Bill of Mights.

Synova said...

"I like to shoot but not killing critters except for them that need killin' like rattlers.

I blame it on Walt Disney.
"

Well, shame on Disney!

I don't shoot rattlers, I just move them. ;-)

(The coyotes around here could use some shooting, just to remind them they're supposed to be afraid of people.)

Maguro said...

So...given the fact that the vast majority of illegals in this country are of Mexican or Central American origin, is there any way to enforce immigration law without "racial profiling"?

Or do we just have to scrap the laws and declare an open border?

former law student said...

they must have permits

No permits are necessary

The issue is that police don't know if those are good guys are not. Let's put on our Scalia hats and figure out what the original public meaning of the Second Amendment was. Could and did citizens go about with their flintlock pistols strapped to their waists as if they were so many pirates? Did the constabulary know who were the solid citizens and who were the miscreants?

According to the Census Bureau, these were the ten largest American cities in 1790, close enough to the passage of the Bill of Rights:

1 New York city, NY 33,131
2 Philadelphia city, PA 28,522
3 Boston town, MA 18,320
4 Charleston city, SC 16,359
5 Baltimore town, MD 13,503
6 Northern Liberties twp, PA 9,913
7 Salem town, MA 7,921
8 Newport town, RI 6,716
9 Providence town, RI 6,380
10t Marblehead town, 5,661
10t Southwark dist, PA 5,661

I grew up in a town of 35,000 -- larger than the largest city of 1790's America -- and we knew who the thugs were and who were the decent citizens, by sight. So no one would need to ask for a gun toter's name and address.

traditionalguy said...

Instead of calling today's immigration issues "Racist" ones, we are better served by honestly admitting to ourselves that the issue has always been a cheap labor issue. The Spanish used the abundant Aztec and other tribes as their slaves and therefore had no need to import enslaved Africans, except where the indigenous tribes were MIA, where the did use African slavers services. In the good old USA the southern States stupidly made themselves into a slave society using African slaves. We are therefore justly dealing with our African descendant citizens here. But we are not excited about dealing with the Spanish enslaved indigenous tribes from Mexico and Central America. And the Democrats only want Mexican immigrants to be their owned ballot box stuffers.

Pogo said...

"The issue is that police don't know if those are good guys are not."

Oh, they most assuredly do, but they aren't allowed to say it aloud, or even think it, much less act on it.

Thanks to the leftists among us.

garage mahal said...

Monona? Damn, I didn't know we were neighbors. That explains the Barrett/Feingold sign! I used to love David's, but it seemed to me to really tail off in quality (and cleanliness) the last couple years, so I stopped going. But not your opinion?

Yea I've lived in Monona for 3 yrs now. You should come over sometime for a beer and check out all my Che posters and berets ;) For David's, I always thought it was great in the time I've lived here - they just did a small renovation there, you should check it out.

former law student said...

As to your racist assertion about SB 1070

Huh?

That's what FLS said when it was unreasonable and violating rights to ask for ID.

Sure, my voting in my local precinct where the burly guy who lives in the middle of the next block watches me sign my name next to the printed Former L Student at 1776 Liberty Lane, is not the same as some random stranger packing heat with his buddies in the burger joint.

In the first case, my identity is well known, and my harm potential is low. In the second case, my identity is unknown, and my potential to do harm is high.

JAL said...

I know some open carry states allow you to open carry if the gun is not loaded. You can have ammunition on your person though. (California? I don't remember.) So "wresting" -- while a tempting theory -- isn't operative in that state anyway.

Some thoughts:

@Richard Dolan 10:28

re the Eric Scott murder / manslaughter in Las Vegas

The cops ....now claim that none of them [video suveillance tapes of the store and incident] has any usable data.

That is probably a correct statment fom the LVPD's point of view.

My guess from following that horrendous story is that Eric Scott did nothing at all to incur being shot 7 times - 4 in the back after he was already on the ground and probably dead - by probably 3 LVPD officers when stopped walking out of a COSTCO. The videos are not usable in justifying why the LVPD killed him.

(Did they say they were all "damaged?" And where is LV CSI when we need them?)

@Joe (Crypto) 12:17
So too at least two of these fellows, “hey let’s go make our point at Culvers this weekend, then we can go to Vegas.”

See above for why that is clearly not what they were saying.

@fls 12:23 PM
You need to make a tighter argument why cops can't ask to see your ID, however.

Several people answered that quite effectively. It's not a legal request in most places.

We the people create the government. Not the other way around.

@fls 12:34 PM
Race is not a factor in the AZ stops? News to me.

Not in the "stops."

@ Hagar 12:35 PM
"Just what do you guys think you are doing here?" will do for me.

Well that is certainly a bizarre question to ask a group of guys in a restaurant having burgers, fries and cheese curds.

"Just what do you guys think you are doing here?"

Are you kidding me? You think cops can -- and should walk in and randomnly ask people that?

How about "We had a call from a lady who was worried when she saw you guys carrying. If you're all cool, we'll have a chat with her and explain. Sorry to bother you" will do for me.

And then have a chat with the lady. It's called a "teaching moment."

@fls (you're on the roll, aren't you?) 1:24 PM

When I have been driving close enough to the border for the Border Patrol to check me out, my whitebread face has always been sufficient to let me keep moving on.

Ha ha!

True story:

I drove my elderly parents and then 9 year old daughter across the country in a Ford van a few years back. Did all the driving myself. I can assure you I was and am a very whitebread face.

I was pulled over into an immigration inspection station in the southewest. Whitebread face and two elderly whitebreads peering out the windows of our van wasn't enough to keep them from checking me and the van out.

Fail.

Gene said...

Joe: guess, I have better things to do with my Saturdays than not answer to Police questions and go to jail. I see your point, though. I guess I’m not that much a crusader as this lot.

He stood up for a constitutional right (which we all should do) and got $10,000 to boot. If I had his address, I'd send him a birthday card.

I like the idea of his carrying a tape recorder to establish his innocence. A lot of cops try to arrest people who photograph them in public for illegal wiretapping. At least in Maryland, that is, where the laws given them some kind of of toehold to do that.

Cops hate cameras, cause it shows judges and ordinary citizens how they really act when they think no one's looking.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

The issue is that police don't know if those are good guys are not.

Lacking probable cause, the police should assume "good guys".

I'll even buy a fairly loose definition of "probable cause". If this is a known high-crime area, for example, I want the police to be extra cautious. But so far as this story indicates, there was no probable cause here.

I agree it was silly not to show ID. But "silly" does not mean "illegal". "Silly" does not mean "obstructing an officer". The arrests here are every bit as silly as the refusal to show ID.

Synova said...

"The issue is that police don't know if those are good guys are not."

FLS, If I can tell the "good guys" on the street in Dau, 20-somethings sitting in the back of a civilian truck with their ratty fatigues and athletic tape around the stocks of their mismatched weapons in an atmosphere of high threat, the police in Wisconsin can tell the "good guys" having a burger and curds with their friends.

The explanation that makes sense is the police "talked" the guys to make a show of having done their job, "stupidly" asked for ID when just a "hey, fellas" would do, and since two of them didn't need to be on their way back to work they decided to take a hit for the team, which the police cooperated nicely with by become offended at the non-cooperation.

Synova said...

"How about "We had a call from a lady who was worried when she saw you guys carrying. If you're all cool, we'll have a chat with her and explain. Sorry to bother you" will do for me."

This should be on the training video.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

I grew up in a town of 35,000 -- larger than the largest city of 1790's America -- and we knew who the thugs were and who were the decent citizens, by sight. So no one would need to ask for a gun toter's name and address.

So if these gun-carrying guys had been trying to vote and no one knew if they were felons, then they should be asked for ID, right? And if they were poor it would be unreasonable for them to have anything at all on their persons establishing their ID, and it would be tantamount to denying their right.

Whereas if they have a legal right to carry openly in a state that allows no other kind of carrying, then they should have to show ID to any cop who asks.

But not if they look Mexican and the cops might report them to ICE.

Gene said...

If the citizen is expected to show ID whenever asked by a cop or they will be jailed, then that is the de facto law.

I once saw a blog post by a woman who claimed she was floating down the river in an inner tube on a summer day when a cop tried to stop her for using a "non-approved flotation device" and demanded to see her identification.

She answered that she didn't carry an ID when wearing a bikini. She also wouldn't paddle to shore to be arrested so he followed her as she drifted down the river for half a mile.

The problem of cops exceeding their authority will always be with us. I suspect that many cops have a psychological need to dominate. This coupled with their average IQ (only 90 I once read) just leads to one problem after another.

c3 said...

FLS;

Huh back at your Huh?

I was responding to this:

But give me a friggin' break -- how many white folks -- or black or Asian -- will fall under the reasonable suspicion umbrella? When I have been driving close enough to the border for the Border Patrol to check me out, my whitebread face has always been sufficient to let me keep moving on. They don't ask if I'm an illegal Irish bartender or Polish roofer. Looking Mexican is the first filter.

Looking Mexican is the first filter

In south Tucson its a pretty lousy filter.

JAL said...

Why does the newspaper story include the woman's age? How do they *know* how old the lady is? Did the cops check her ID too? Did she give it to the reporter? Why was she asked?

Was that to establish her credibility? Or was it "Shhh -- old people are easily upset...."

Is it ageism to include an age in a story in which the age plays no part?

Another question -- why did the woman bypass the management of Culvers?

I mean -- did she ask the waitress about it? The manager? If they were cool with it, why did she not take a cue from that?

Oh. One reason is she thought "I didn't want to be that one person that saw guns and didn't call and something horrible happens."

So she thought she was the one person who saw the guns. (Was she eating alone?)

And a meteorite might hit my house tonight.

Pogo said...

Re: the old lady and the Costco employee:
Some people really shouldn't leave home.

They are dangerous and stupid; they get people jailed and killed for no good reason.

Cedarford said...

Joe said...
(The Crypto Jew)

No C4 you’re wrong as you usually are…you’ve made a claim, now provide evidence of that claim. It’s not incumbent upon us to do that. Thank you for contributing.
=================
Sorry little Crypto-Jew, that doesn't work anymore.

You dispute a claim that concealed carry is a better crime disruptor and promotes better social tranquility than open carry...it is incumbent on you to do the research and back up your counterclaim with "citations" that dispute Kleck or the states that decided to regulate handgun use with permits but opted for concealed carry for those sort of reasons.
I know, I am in such a concealed carry-only state. And we have an exemption for security guards, storeowners that have made a good case for opem carry because of plausible "quick draw" considerations.

If you think any claim or opion must be backed by a citation, please cite the "rule" that made that happen as SOP on internet posts - well outside pedantic professors wanting a citation from students because they can because they have the power of the grade and a superior-inferior power relationship going.

former law student said...

So if these gun-carrying guys had been trying to vote and no one knew if they were felons

I would hope that courts would send your local registrar of voters a note when you're convicted of a felony -- the system seems to work if you try to buy a gun, but not so well when it comes to confiscating the guns of convicted felons.

David said...

How about "We had a call from a lady who was worried when she saw you guys carrying. If you're all cool, we'll have a chat with her and explain. Sorry to bother you" will do for me.

But . . . . . that would be so reasonable.

JAL said...

Pogo -- I'm with you. I think the (ir)responsible employees at Costco should be in deep s--t along with the police officers. And that's perhaps what Costco's attorneys are working furiously to fix. While the 911 tape and the videos are deep sixed.

Who made the report that the weapon was being brandished by someone behaving erratically and where is the evidence?

Do you have a question on your intake forms at your office that ask whether there are guns in the home? It was on the form my daughter had to fill our when she took her baby in for her one week checkup at the pediatrician's.

I told her not to answer the question. They don't have any guns, but I felt it was intrusive and inappropriate.

Since we bend over backwards to make sure that people understand sexual harrassment, and anti-discrimination laws, it seems reasonable to expect that the rights of citizen civilians to own and sometimes carry guns should routinely be explained to people to compensate for the anti-gun PR that has been inflicted on America the last 40 years.

Joe said...

(the Crypto Jew)
If you think any claim or opion must be backed by a citation, please cite the "rule" that made that happen as SOP on internet posts

It's called the Rules of Debate...what you have made is a Gratuitous Assertion. It may be negated by an equally Gratuitous Assertion, No States with Open Carry are Safer....

We judge the relaitive merits of the various poV advanced on a number of things, internal coherence, AND EVIDENCE.

Sorry C4 whilst you were reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion the rest of us were learning how to discuss and argue. Not my problem if you were too caught in "The Eternal Jew" to learn how to make good points.

Also discuss with Synova or DBQ as they blistered someone about a week ago for trying the same Sh!te, I believe it was Voltair in fact, for making a claim...Ah yes "Palin Lies" and then failing to provide any evidence, but merely saying "Google" it.

It's up to YOU to prove your claim, otherwise it's just a lie, see...

Pastafarian said...

Joe said: "For me it’s the same thing as wearing your Nazi or Klan regalia at Culvers..."

Exercising my right to keep and bear arms is exactly the same thing as wearing a Swastika arm band.

Congratulations, Joe. You just wrote the single stupidest thing ever written on the internet.

I feel so much safer knowing you're out there protecting me, while equating me with Nazis and Klansmen, and thinking that your itching left nut gives you probable cause to stop and harass me.

Please tell me you're just a mall cop, Officer Einstein, and that you carry nothing more lethal than a walkie-talkie and a can of pepper spray.

Pastafarian said...

Pogo at 4:04: "Apparently, the Constitution says you have certain rights, but don't expect to exercise them.

The Bill of Mights."

That is just about perfect. I wish I could comment so succinctly and effectively. I might have to quote that sometime.

That's why these men hesitated to hand over ID, Joe -- because if they do, then they can expect the same hassle every time they go somewhere with their perfectly legal weapon; and so after a while they'll stop carrying to avoid the hassle.

Which apparently would suit you just fine, huh, Joe? Can't have too many armed honest citizens out there -- might drive down crime and cut down on your overtime.

Pastafarian said...

fls at 4:14: "I grew up in a town of 35,000 -- larger than the largest city of 1790's America -- and we knew who the thugs were and who were the decent citizens, by sight."

Wow, fls. You knew all 35,000 people? That's remarkable. And you knew the criminals by sight.

Huh.

I wonder how you could tell someone was a criminal by sight. You couldn't possibly know the personal history of 35,000 people. I wonder if there was some demarcation, some unique characteristic distinguishing them...

Melanin? Was that it, fls? Were all the criminals those terrible dusky people from the wrong side of town?

Funny thing about the wild west, when it was more common to be armed than not, to protect yourself from injuns and varmints and such...it wasn't so wild. Crime was a fraction of what it is now that most of us have been disarmed.

I wonder why that is. Probably because of demographics and population density, huh, fls? Because there are so many of those scary dusky people about now.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@FLS:

I would hope that courts would send your local registrar of voters a note when you're convicted of a felony

Felons never move, and are always instantly recognized by precinct workers? I wish I were making fun of your argument, but I'm not.

Because you seem to have limitless confidence that everyone recognizes and is recognized by everyone they live near.

I wish I were satirizing your argument. I'm not.

Clearly there are no such things as absentee ballots or large apartment complexes where no one knows anyone.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@FLS:

And if these guys are poor, it would be denying their right to open carry to ask them to show ID of ANY kind, according your arguments against asking voters to show ID.

And if they were Mexican and in Arizona, it would be racist and discriminatory to ask them for ID and try to determine their immigration status.

So let's see some consistency from you before you go demanding it from others.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the cops to ask them for ID, or a violation of their rights. It was a violation to arrest them afterward.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Wisconsin cops seem to have a history of overreacting to people carrying openly:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html

As Brad Krause planted a tree in his yard last summer, a neighbor noticed that in addition to a shovel, Krause had a tool not usually required for yard work - a gun in a holster.

Police arrived and gave Krause a ticket alleging disorderly conduct, launching a case that a national gun-rights group has been watching for months.

On Tuesday, Krause won acquittal in what some advocates say is one of the first so-called open-carry gun cases heard in a Wisconsin court.

Municipal Judge Paul Murphy said he had reviewed several state statutes and court cases related to the right to keep and bear arms. "There being no law whatsoever dealing with the issue of an unconcealed weapon or the so-called open carry is why we're here today," Murphy said.

In the end, he determined Krause's actions did not rise to disorderly conduct and found him not guilty.

City Attorney Scott Post declined to comment Tuesday.

Police responded to Krause's home in August after the neighbor called. They arrested Krause, gave him a disorderly conduct ticket and seized his gun.

Krause hired an attorney, Steven Cain, and fought the charge during a court trial in December.

After Murphy's ruling Tuesday, Krause said the significance of the case extends beyond gun rights.

"The reason people are upset about this is it's not about guns. It's about civil liberties. And we obviously have a property issue. There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk," Krause said. Asked why he was carrying a gun to plant a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

His attorney said the overarching issue in the case was whether it is legal to openly carry a gun.

"The law in Wisconsin really only limits concealed carry," Cain said. Cain argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found Washington, D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional concluded that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. That's what the case is generally all about."

West Allis Deputy Chief Rick Balistrieri said Tuesday's verdict will not change the way his officers respond to similar calls, noting they must assess all calls on a case-by-case basis, particularly when a gun is involved.

Krause's case had been one of several around the country followed closely and promoted by Virginia-based OpenCarry.org.

"Really, the larger issue is not even a gun rights issue," said organization co-founder John Pierce. "It's the issue of having a disorderly conduct statute that is a catch-all statute for otherwise legal behavior."

John Lynch said...

Wow, what a safe restaurant. Armed civilians AND police. Probably the safest place to be in the entire state.

Gabriel Hanna said...

The Attorney General, in fact, has had to issue a memo on the subject:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes. As illustrated by a recent municipal court case in West Allis, a person openly carrying a holstered handgun on his own property while doing lawn work should not face a disorderly conduct charge. If, however, a person brandishes a handgun in public, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection....

...several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes...

...An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests.

peter hoh said...

To improve upon Rockeye's example: should the police be allowed to pull over random vehicles just because some of them might be stolen, or being driven by unlicensed drivers?

Do police still pull over random cars on the chance that one of them might be driven by someone who is under the influence?

Synova said...

"Do police still pull over random cars on the chance that one of them might be driven by someone who is under the influence?"

I don't think they do.

I was going to say, "Yes, but I think they shouldn't."

I'm not at all fond of DWI check points, but I think they get around the legally problematic issues by the fact that it's *not* random (or pseudo-random) because they pull over *everyone*.

Methadras said...

So if the police determine that the two were not felons, had no cause to be disturbed by the police outside of the lady's concern of GASP!!! men carrying guns openly, did they find the need to cite them at all? They should rescind the two citations for the absurdity alone.

JAL said...

According to the link Gabriel Hanna posted aboove from the WI AG:

...An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests.

Does this not mean according to the AG that the two guys did not have to answer the questions or show their IDs?

Sounds like it to me. The threat of being arrested, handcuffed and carried off to jail more than "implies" the subjects had to comply.

Mmmm. Wonder if some retraining is in the cops' future.

former law student said...

because if they do, then they can expect the same hassle every time they go somewhere with their perfectly legal weapon; and so after a while they'll stop carrying to avoid the hassle.

But during the discussion of photo IDs for voting you guys emphasized how trivial and ubiquitous showing ID was: cashing checks, buying liquor, etc. etc.

All of a sudden it's a major hassle?

BTW it's crazy to hassle someone for carrying on his own property, just like it's crazy to hassle someone locked out of his own house.

former law student said...

Were all the criminals those terrible dusky people from the wrong side of town?


My hometown was 100% white. The local thugs were Irish and Italian (no offense to the Troop).

Gabriel Hanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Hanna said...

@FLS:

If it's trivial for a gun owner openly following state law to show ID when asked, it's trivial for a voter to do so.

If asking a voter to show ID is equivalent to disenfranchising them, then asking a gun owner openly following state law to do so is likewise a violation of civil rights.

Choose one position or the other. I assume you chose the first one. Harassing other people about their "inconsistency" is just trollery. Snark is not a subsitute for argument. I plan to confront you with your trollery here every time you do it again.

Most people here seem to agree with me that the gun owners' rights were not violated by being asked for ID, but were violated by being arrested when they refused. The Attorney General seems to agree. Just like it would violate a voter's rights to arrest him for not showing ID; and no one in this thread or the ACORN thread said anything like that.

So, search out the beam in your own eye, etc.

former law student said...

If asking a voter to show ID is equivalent to disenfranchising them, then asking a gun owner openly following state law to do so is likewise a violation of civil rights.


Nice topic sentence, but the argument is missing.

"Openly following state law." Can you tell by sight that a gun toter is not a convicted felon, and that no estranged wife has obtained a restraining order? Can you even tell by sight if the gun toter is old enough to possess a handgun?

Hanna's argument would have to address at least the obvious differences between the two:

Voter:

Registered
Name and address on a list of authorized voters published by the relevant government agency.
Likely personally known to one of the gatekeepers, because of the small geographic area covered by a precinct.
Qualified by age or citizenship
Barred if not on list, but can vote provisionally otherwise.

Gun toter

Unregistered
No list of authorized users available or possible.
Unknown to these gatekeepers
Barred if
-- illegal alien
-- convicted felon
-- convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, in some jurisdictions
-- underage
-- civil injunction
-- TRO
-- etc. etc.
Identity must be established to determine if person is prohibited.

that the gun owners' rights were not violated by being asked for ID, but were violated by being arrested when they refused.

So, in Hanna's world, cops can ask whatever they need to, but no one is obliged to cooperate with them. I'm trying to picture how a world of cops without authority would work -- would bad guys acquiesce out of guilt?