It's like a Western movie up here. Can you really just swagger around the sidewalks of Madison and Milwaukee with a gun in a holster? In your hand?
Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he'll continue to tell officers they can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.Today, tea parties. Tomorrow, a protest of cowboys.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them."
AND: Glenn Reynolds says:
So if you see Police Chief Ed Flynn, put him on the ground, take his wallet away, and then decide whether he’s accepted any bribes that day. If, after doing that, you think the money’s his, give his wallet back. Who cares what the law says? It’s the Milwaukee Way!Also, in the comments, Sigivald says:
A gun in your hand is likely to be brandishing.
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208Last, the vast majority of police chiefs etc. seem to be against "gun, gun, everywhere a gun gun" as it makes their job unsafe.
It is quite probably true that the police would be safer if only police and criminals had guns.
But police safety isn't the important priority. Civilian safety is. Civilians are far LESS safe in an environment in which only police and criminals have guns, because police virtually never prevent crime. They show up afterward and arrest people for having committed it. As a civilian, you need the ability to defend yourself for the simple reason that the police won't be doing it for you. When your wife is raped because she's unarmed and helpless, the knowledge that at least the *police* are slightly safer won't be a comfort to her. Like all rape victims, she'll wish she had had a gun.
So to sum up, HD, an armed citizenry does indeed make the job of "policeman" harder and more dangerous. And if they don't like it, they can quit.
The police have all the guns in the world - SOCOM grade hardware these days - and what do they do in a crisis? They set up a zone outside and putz around for an hour or two till the shooting stops.
Of course there are many fine people who are cops but indeed, they are not there to protect you - it is a matter of established law.
Michael McNeil - thanks. Well written.
Too bad not one liberal will bother to understand what that means.
A bit off subject but there was an earlier reference to an image of Christ in a Tree....remember?
Well, this woman just saw an image of Christ in a stickybun:
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/13132457
There are many reasons to be dismayed at a culture that's been raised by television sets, and here's one excellent example.
"Wild West" does not, and did not exist, not in the manner cited.
Suggesting that modern-day Americans going armed has anything, anything, to do with any sort of "Wild West" milieu, background, culture, attitude, or factual history is utterly false.
"Shootouts" didn't happen. Murders did, like they do now on Chicago's West Side.
Please, for Heaven's, and accuracy's sake, dispense with the "Wild West" fabrication.
It was a profit-driven activity of a for-profit industry.
Just as "Wild West" "shootouts" have never happened in the wake of arms-bearing rights being restored, ordinary citizens going armed has nothing to do with aggression, machismo, bearing, or any other psychobabble beyond normal human instincts towards self-preservation.
Any arguments based on this fantasy world have no validity.
Both the faux-historical ones, and the current-times ones.
So, please, desist!
Well, that's just racist for all those black people to be killing other black people! Don't they know there should be equality of outcomes? They should start killing more white people to even things up according to their proportion in the population. AA/EOE gun murders.
There are no such things as senseless gun deaths. There is usually a reason or a rationale.
housie, if you don't want the sight of holstered guns in public to make you and the other children cry, you should lobby hard for CCWP's. Then you can be safe (from the principle of uncertainty in the criminal's mind) and remain in your la la land of unicorns and rainbows where everybody is nice and Barney the Dinosaur hugs everyone.
The 2nd Amendment isn't just about citizens protecting themselves from criminals, but primarily from a tyrannical government, and that risk increases every day, exhibit A - this police chief's words.
I'm scared of guns, having only handled the kind made of plastic and filled with water.
However, as a single female who travels a lot, I know that some of my safety comes from the aforementioned principle of uncertainty. I owe a large debt of gratitude to those who CC. Muchas gratias.
However, I am older and weaker now, more obviously a potential target (to criminals sniffing around for a victim). Home invasions are happening in Mayberry (where I live) more nowadays because of the drug epidemic. I read the local papers. I see what happens.
That and the exponentially increasing risk of tyrannical government--these are very scary days indeed.
I am extremely highly motivated to line up training, and purchases, and permitting. I feel like I can no longer live on the generosity of CC strangers. Loving liberty, I feel I must step up now.
I have some friends in the law enforcement community to help me with this project.
No brandishing, promise.
Maureen said...
"Anybody who changed his name to Auric Gold is either a really funny guy or a person you really don't want in your neighborhood with a gun. Reporters are supposed to find out these things for us."
Those are the only choices? I guess I am a really funny guy. Hilarious at time. The neighborhood seems to have no problem...
Simple Solution:
Wisconsin police are not immune to citizen’s arrest. It’s reasonable to assume that anyone who swears an oath will keep it. After all, our entire court system runs on this reasonable belief. A guy in police uniform violating that oath is obviously an impersonator, not a real cop.
Impersonating a police officer is a misdemeanor, which increases to a felony if the impersonation is to aid or abet the commission of a crime. Assault and battery are crimes, and dressing as a police officer causes law-abiding citizens to not resist those crimes, thus aiding and abetting the commission of those crimes.
A public official using his official authority under color of law to violate a constitutional right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, violates Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the U.S. code. In other words, he commits a crime.
If a person in a police uniform violates the police oath and commits a federal crime, it is reasonable to assume that they are a police impersonator. So tackle them, take their gun away, and hold them at gunpoint until you can verify whether they can lawfully wear the uniform or not.
Hey, if it were illegal to do that, real cops wouldn’t do that, right?
Post a Comment