| Author | Post |
|---|
WIG19
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 236 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:25 am |
|
Rick Finsta wrote: Bunker-
In Wisconsin, the legal recourse a private property owner has in a manner such as this is simple tresspass, and nothing more. Tresspass is only applicable if the owner/operator asks someone to leave (for a lawful reason, i.e. not because they are, for instance, black) and the person does not comply. Parabellum complied and left, leaving no recourse at all. Also, it is my understanding that a sign is not enough legal notice in this state to make entry against the owner's expressed wishes on the sign de facto trasspass. So, even if Menard's had a sign saying "no guns," (which they do not) without a representative of the store approaching Parabellum directly and asking him to leave, he cannot be charged with tresspass, and then only if he does not comply, which he did.
Yep. Trespass is different for property, residence, and business. Signage is required to augment property lines of real private property that is not a place of employment- the absence of POSTED-No Hunting signs at the place you cross someone's line fence is not permission to enter, it's on YOU to know where you are. You aren't required to put up signs in front of your residence to keep people out. But a business gives implied consent to enter unless it's closed and secured. A "no guns" sign at a business would have as much weight as "no rollerblades" "shoes & shirt required" etc. It is not trespass until the person has been asked to not enter/remain on the property, and refuses.
|
WIG19
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 236 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:36 am |
|
Pointman wrote: Parabellum and I talked at length last night. We both noticed that every time his attorney pushes for the DA to either move forward or drop the case, a new-ish poster on OpenCarry (like Bunker) starts bouncing things off OpenCarry members to see what will stick. Basically, someone is using OpenCarry as a sounding board to try and find anything that will at least not get shot down right away in court--Parabellum is facing an "Olofson."
We both think it's best to close the thread. Let the DA's office* commit resources to both the attack and simulated defense, not use OpenCarry members do the hard work for them.
Agree; happy to discuss laws/statutes in general but specifics as applied to Para's case should be left till the case is cleared. If the above hunch is true, then someone in the DA's office might not want to quit their regular job 'cause it's obvious this sure ain't workin' out.
eta: And viewpoint taken seems rather disingenuous if the poster were ostensibly from the State Public Defender's Office.Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:42 am by WIG19
|
Pointman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:54 am |
|
Doug Huffman might have wrote: If you [this, that, the other]...
NRA Keeps Me American!
Custard, will you be in the area any time soon? I seem to remember you're in the Port Washington area every so often, and I'm southwest of there. There aren't any zombies to eat your brain, as the area was declared a "Zombie-Free Zone." (You might even get my realio, trulio name.)
----
Note: This is just in fun. I look forward to meeting people interested in discussing our rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, plus Doug probably has a lot of interesting stories to tell, given he's been around since before the transistor.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 11:36 pm by Pointman
|
WIG19
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 236 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
Pointman wrote: .... plus Doug probably has a lot of interesting stories to tell, given he's been around since before the transistor.
ROFL
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
WIG19 wrote: Pointman wrote: .... plus Doug probably has a lot of interesting stories to tell, given he's been around since before the transistor.
ROFL
Lilienfield patented the transistor in 1925 and before my time. Does y'alls County Boards have your RKABA resolution petition in their hands yet?
|
WIG19
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 236 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
For me personally, not yet. Gene had requested copies in order to shotgun various boards (which I'll scan & email) but I'm going to continue to gather sigs here, as there are a couple of events coming up in next 60 days really conducive to that.
I've also got a personal query into the local Sheriff who's asked a reasonable couple weeks to check with county DA and get back to me. He & his opponent (Dem candidate never figured) are both RKBA supporters, but he just wants to get it right because, in actuality, he's not answer me, he's answering for the county.
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 865 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:52 pm |
|
Going back and reading Bunker's previous posts I too have come to the conclusion that there is some connection between Bunker and the DA office or with the Public Defenders office. The way he puts out lies and half truths in order to get a reaction, the way he asks essentially the same question different ways, the way he belabors a lost cause, the way he makes a point and then fosters a counter-point all are typical interogation tactics. For an example of his point counter-point approach: In his long winded post to Parabellum he admits he was wrong on the enforcement of Milwaukee ordinance 105.34, admitting it was not enforcible under the preemption statute and then in later posts says 105.34 is still valid because of public safety concern.
When looked at from an interogation viewpoint there are other areas that hint that Bunker is on a "fishing" expedition. It's difficult to determine if his input is from the PD office in order to develop a strategy for defense, or if it comes from the DA office as a way to develop a strategy for prosecution. In any case
LET'S NOT TAKE THE BAIT ANY LONGER.
The views expressed are mine alone and are presented as opinions only.
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
jpierce re-opened the topic so I could make one last post. Samantha should not be given grief for what Bunker said, and if he spoke with her and still spouted the non-sense he did then he obviously did not get what he was looking for from her. If those individuals who have been supportive in their posts wish to be kept updated, send me a PM and ill do so.
Yesterday at 4 PM I served the petition for return of property to the interested parties at West Milwaukee Municipal Court. That will be the last post until something of substance, probably on November 21st.
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 06:57 am |
|
Where to begin.....
I OC everywhere I can legally do so, and when my brother said he wanted to buy some bricks for a yard project I found no illegality about carrying to Menards as it did not fall under any of the carry restrictions in Wisconsin, AND it met all the criteria I had set forth for places I would be willing to go armed, private property with an entrance from their parking lot.
I grabbed my firearm and unloaded and encased it in the truck, my brother drove to Menards. I loaded and holstered the firearm, then entered the store looking for "no guns" signs as we always do when I’m armed (I will not patronize any business with such a sign). As we enter some employee get a little too close for comfort and I get a good look at him, he’s eyeing my firearm. He turns around and hurries away. I go about my business looking for bricks and river rocks for the yard project. As we find them and start loading them into a cart about 5 employees make a circle around me and my brother. The following is my recollection of the dialog as I wrote it down on that day after getting home.
Guy B asks: Is that a real gun?
Me: Yes it is.
Guy B asks: Do you have a permit for that?
Me: I do not.
Guy B: You need to have a permit.
Me: I do not.
Guy A(manager): Can you put it in your car and come back to finish your purchase?
Me: I wouldn’t be comfortable with that, someone might steal it.
Guy A: I am going to have to ask you to leave or I’ll be forced to call the cops.
Me: Is that the stores policy?
Guy A: It is.
I tell my brother to give me the keys and ask Guy A: Can someone help my brother bring these bricks out to the truck, they’re kind of heavy.
Guy A: Sure, sure. (He is gesturing to one of the silent employees standing by as I turn around and walk calmly out of the store)
I get to the truck and un-holster, unload and encase the firearm. I then sit in the truck for another five to ten minutes while my brother finishes the purchase we went to make. He finally comes out with an employee and I get out of the truck to help load stuff into the back of the truck. There are about 3 bricks left when I see the patrol cars coming from the left and the right. This is my recollection of what was said between me and the officers. The officers version in the police report differs from mine, made me realize I need to have my recorder always on or I run the risk of having a he said she said situation with a police officer and his report.
Officer Donovan: Who has the holster? (He’s on my weak side and cannot see the empty holster on my right thigh) Seemingly noticing my brother does not have a holster he asks me less than a foot from my face (his breath smelled horrible): Why are you carrying a holster? (he did say carrying not wearing)
Me: Cause I carry a sidearm.
Donovan: Why do you carry a sidearm?
Me: To protect myself.
Donovan: Protect yourself from what?
Me: I don’t have to answer that. (Donovan is now pissed; he pauses for a moment in his agitation)
Me: Am I breaking a law?
Donovan: Yeah, you’re not allowed to carry a “sidearm”(he might have said gun or pistol, the world flipped on me at the start of his sentence and I forgot the exact word)
Me: What law is that?
Donovan: Oh, you wanna be a smart ass, you’re under arrest.
I put my hands behind my back before he even asks me to. I refuse to give consent to a search of the truck so they order my brother to retrieve it. When I tell my brother not to Donovan tells me they had a right to search the vehicle because I was under arrest. They get the keys out of my pocket and give them to my brother. He opens the truck, gets my case and gives it to them. They open the case, see the firearm and chuckle (I don’t know why but the image is stuck in my head).
They remove my holster from my leg and pat me down. Then they take me to a cruiser and pat me down again but this time Donovan hits me in the gonads (probably because he’s an ……, but more than likely given the size of his spectacles I’m guessing he has really bad depth perception, either way it hurt). They try to ask me a question and I ask: I am under arrest right? Officers: Yeah. Me: Then I have the right to remain silent.
In the cruiser the other officer Krafcheck, tries starting the good cop dialog (the bad cop is obviously the bad cop). He actually says I was only being taken to the station because I wouldn’t answer their questions. WTF! Either way I do not speak a word until after processing and the Miranda warnings (kind of late considering all the questions they were asking before would be inadmissible since they had not notified me of my Miranda rights sooner). When we walked into the processing room I get patted down again and handcuffed to a pole on a bench a child couldn’t sit on. I am informed I am being charged with disorderly conduct while armed, and they proceed to book me. They take my SSN, go thru all my papers and pictures in my wallet (sterile carry REALLY has something going for it), take my fingerprints and mug shot. Then after all that and forcing me to sign my fingerprints with the promise of time in jail if I did not comply(same with SSN) they read me my rights and I say I do not wish to answer ANY questions and I would like an attorney. They pat me down yet again and put me in a room but do not handcuff me this time. I sit there for about 3 minutes and have to sign another paper saying I will appear before a DA on May 20th, 2008 at 1:30PM. Then I am lead out a door different from the one I entered from and there is my brother waiting for me. Officer Krafcheck gives me a copy of the paper I just signed and says I’m free to go. I ask for my stuff and he refuses, I ask for a receipt and he refuses and tells me to get going, pointing at the door.
On the 20th of May I go to the charging conference, in which a problem arises because the first DA that read the case didn’t think it was disorderly conduct but he wasn’t going to let it go because it was a weapons case, so he passed it on and the next did the same thing. It even got to DDAs and they couldn’t say it was DC, but they still would not drop it. By the time a DA said it was disorderly conduct a lot of DAs were involved in the case ad they did not agree. They went to this little courtroom across the hall and had a 10 minute argument in front of a judge. I don’t know what was said, but afterwards the DA asked me a couple of questions in the hall, to which I replied with simple answers ie Why did you go to menards armed? Answer: to buy bricks. He refused to return the firearm after that, and stated “You can either choose to be charged or return on June 4th.
I showed up on June 4th only so that the DA could avoid us all day and lie to my attorney promising a decision by the afternoon, it did not happen. I learned a few days later they were planning on staffing the decision, which either did not happen or they didn’t make a decision by staffing it either. At this point I lost all hope in settling this before it got long. I filed my petition on June 18th, 2008.
On July 2nd, 2008 I received the date of the hearing and instructions to serve certain individuals in West Milwaukee; I served them in person on july17th, 2008. Due to certain individuals and tactics being used on the boards it was suggested I request the thread closed until the conclusion of the case, the argument was valid and I proceeded to ask jpierce to close the thread and keep a solid case from falling apart.
The hearing was supposed to be on November 21st, 2008 but it was adjourned until after Vegas case on December 16th 2008. The next date was March 20th, 2009. I won. No members of OCDO were there, some had emergencies, others couldn’t get off work, some did not find out in time, ultimately the seating was so limited its better no one else showed up. My name was called I went to the desk in front of the judge. The judge asked the Village of West Milwaukee attorney what the villages’ position was “the Village does not take a position at this time your Honor”. Judge Martens asked me if I had done any of the things or was subject to any of the things that would have disqualified me from getting my firearm. I swore to tell the truth then I did. He told me I could wait back in the seating section. Just as I sat down the judge says (I might be mistaken as to the actual wording but the intent was clear as water to me) [oh, and.. I meant to say this as well… this court makes the finding that since Mr. Gonzalez is getting his firearm back there was no probable cause for his arrest or the seizure of his property]. All it meant to me was that I could not be prosecuted anymore for this incident.
I currently have my firearm and will continue to carry as if it was May 15th, 2008 and none of this had ever happened. If there is something I missed or something you wish to ask, do so and I will answer, unless I really don’t want to.
Jesus
PS those with first hand information feel free to answer questions if you know the answers and if there is a discrepancy between the account I just gave and the account I gave you please let me know so I can correct the miscommunication either here or with you. I will post the police reports in an edited post because they are on a second computer.
|
rmodel65
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 09:01 am |
|
congrats dude 
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 865 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:35 am |
|
parabellum:
I am not a lawyer and what I am about to say is my opinion on what transpired in your incident. From what I extract from your account and the information you and I shared, you were arrested and processed for disorderly conduct but never formally charged with such. As judge Marten commented the fact the DA returned your firearm was an admission that the DA did not have probable cause to charge you. If there were formal charges, or the probability of formal charges, the petition to return your firearm would never have been approved before the disposition of an actual trial. I would tend to agree with you that the incident is closed. A legal opinion from your lawyer on that issue is probably in order.
As to the effect on the "open carry" cause. Judge Maten's comment to the DA was many words shorter than judge Murphy's decision in the Brad Krause case but the message is the same. Peaceful carry of a visible firearm in a non-restricted location is not probable cause for an arrest of disorderly conduct.
I wonder if Lakeland Times would be interested in reporting your situation as an adjunct to the Brad Krause case. Now that the disposition of your incident is known spreading the word outside this forum could be helpful.Whether or not you want them involved is, of course, your call.
|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
Lammie wrote: I wonder if Lakeland Times would be interested in reporting your situation as an adjunct to the Brad Krause case. Now that the disposition of your incident is known spreading the word outside this forum could be helpful.Whether or not you want them involved is, of course, your call.
I would tend to agree with Lammie. If we could get a news outlet to cover this so soon after the Krause case that would be "another shot in the arm," so to speak.
Maybe Mike could do a press release with your contact information to the media. Getting on the radio like Brad did may prove beneficial as well, but like Lammie, I will leave it up to you.
Edited to add:
I would also be wondering if anybody knew of a good attorney who could file a civil rights violation like those guys in PA did. Not that I am pro law suits, but it certainly looks like Brad and Jesus both have good grounds for violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Last edited on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:19 pm by bnhcomputing
|
trailblazer2003
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
Excellent news Para! Sorry to hear about the neglect to the pistol, but at least it is back.
So, at what point did Menards call the police? Before they asked you to leave or after? If you were in the truck for roughly 5-10 minutes before your brother came out and the police showed up, what's the deal? Were the West Milwaukee police really concerned? Seems like their response was slow for the later seriousness they took on the matter.
Do you intend to update Menards on this situation and inform them of the unnecessary legal problems they caused you? Not really for an apology, they are a private buisness afteral. But more to inform them of the legalites of OC, and the gravity of the situation when they decide to screw a store patron for following their demands.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:35 pm |
|
bnhcomputing wrote:I would also be wondering if anybody knew of a good attorney who could file a civil rights violation It would be our feather in Steve Cain's cap. Steven Cain of Houseman & Fiend, Grafton, WI. Hopefully he has something like this in mind as he runs for public office.
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 02:05 pm |
|
Congrats on getting your firearm back Jesus. You are a man of principle! I thank-you for the trail you continue to blaze through the forest of fear that keeps most of us from exercising our rights. Thank-you for not compromising yours.
|
Monkeyleg
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 02:12 pm |
|
Parabellum, I haven't logged into this forum since last year.
Did the NRA legal defense fund ever contact you?
All things considered, except for the intentional or unintentional pain to your gonads, it sounds like your interaction with the police was pretty calm. I wonder if such a confrontation with Milwaukee police would be the same.
It's interesting that a West Milwaukee judge and a West Allis judge have now found in favor of you and Mr. Krause. Given the surprise ruling in the Vegas case, I wonder how a Milwaukee circuit court judge would rule.
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 04:07 pm |
|
| Judge Martens is a Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge.
|
Max
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 143 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:25 pm |
|
The judge said, "this court makes the finding that since Mr. Gonzalez is getting his firearm back there was no probable cause for his arrest or the seizure of his property"
I think the judge had it backwards and should have said, "since there was no probable cause for his arrest, Mr. Gonzalez is getting his firearm back."
Does this mean legal precedent has now been set for open carry in Milwaukee county?
Also, had they not confiscated your weapon, and you not petitioned to get it returned to you, would the case have remained in a municipal court?
Max
|
Monkeyleg
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
| It's my understanding from talking to the attorney in the Vegas case that circuit court rulings do not establish precedent. Only appeals court or supreme court decisions/opinions do that.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
Congratulations for sticking it out! If I would have known about the appearance on the 20th, I still could not have made it becuase I was out of state (FL, a state with CC, but no OC provisions)
WOW, Bunkers comments!
what an A-hole, since his postings in this thread he made another appearance under a different name ripping on Brad by saying he did not "Need" to carry a firearm in West Allis. he really showed us how ignorant so many private citizens and LEO's are.
|
|
|
