| Author | Post |
|---|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:49 am |
|
gollbladder13 wrote: Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Agreed. Just because it is your right does not mean it is the right thing to do.
It may not even be your right. If the officer can claim reasonable suspicion, you have to identify yourself..... You may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride....
|
eleuthera
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:02 am |
|
just sent three emails - one to the police dept, one to the police chief, and the most important one, to the MAYOR!
If you don't like the job someone's doing, tell their boss! He needs to be re-elected!
And spread the word on this, people. That's frank, he's a great guy, and it could just as well be any of us.
we need an non-corrupt jesse jackson holding vigils for us...
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:01 am |
|
Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because this is NOT a police state. Not giving your name when you are doing NOTHING wrong is good practice. For YOU and for the police to remember that people have rights.
Not perpetuating the proliferation of 'assumed' police powers is very justifiable reason.
In addition, how is giving your name different than registering your guns? I mean "whats the harm in registering your gun?"
I will continue to practice exercising my rights to remind myself and those around me including the police that this is a free state, not a police state.
|
ROOK_WI
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:16 am |
|
Van Hollen memo, Paragraph Nine - note bold sentence:
¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553-54 (1980). Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). 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. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435-36. The person approached need not answer any questions. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.
Stay safe,
|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 633 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:20 am |
|
Support group meeting on Saturday.
There will be a family support group meeting on Saturday for the victim and family of this outrageous tragedy. Let's all try to show our support.
Please PM me for details on time and location.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:24 am |
|
How do we know there even was a shots fired call? A public record request is in order.
And why would this guy lie about it if he thought the whole thing was recorded.
Let's not be to gullible people. It wouldn't be the first time the police acted outside of their authority.
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:26 am by J.Gleason
|
ROOK_WI
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:31 am |
|
| Frank's a good guy, he came to our highway cleanup twice. Time to return favor & help a brother out.
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 06:18 am |
|
eleuthera wrote: just sent three emails - one to the police dept, one to the police chief, and the most important one, to the MAYOR!
If you don't like the job someone's doing, tell their boss! He needs to be re-elected!
And spread the word on this, people. That's frank, he's a great guy, and it could just as well be any of us.
we need an non-corrupt jesse jackson holding vigils for us...
Thanks for the push. Mail sent to Mayor as well now. I think Ch. 4 should run a retraction of the story, or an update to clear him in the public eye.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 06:54 am |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
because our rights are like dominos, you let the polcie push just one them over, and the rest seem to tumble down right in line with the first one.
I have gotten charged with obstruction for refusing to answer the famous "Where are you coming from/going to" schpiel.
When he asked, I looked over my shoulder, pointed, and said "I came from that way", And I was heading this way until you stopped me" and pointed to opposite direction.
Being uncooperative is usualy the term police use for someone that is not letting them trample your rights. You aren't going to get anywhere differently by "Cooperating", you're just going to get to your final destination that they have already chosen for you quicker.
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 01:10 pm |
|
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.html
Interview with Frank on CH. 4
|
Greggy_D
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 01:22 pm |
|
hugh jarmis wrote: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.html
Interview with Frank on CH. 4
Police think the entire situation could have been a set up. "It kind of makes us wonder if this gentleman was trying to set us up as a police agency and see how we were going to react to the open carry situation," Sgt. Bernie Kupper with the Racine Police Department said.
Hysterical. If police follow the law they cannot be "set up".
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 01:52 pm |
|
Officer: "You've got a gun on you. You see where I'm coming from?"
Nope, not really.
OK now that I know who it is and it's not just some nut dumb enough to try to set the cop up, I've got his back and will do what I can to help.
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 02:03 pm by gollbladder13
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 02:58 pm |
|
Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions
As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification.
Just a random thought... How do you "walk away" when you are on your OWN FRONT PORCH?? And does your own front porch count as "in public"?????
The police spin on this "the day after" is sharply indicative of the fact that they know they messed up. "claiming" they were set up? Lieing and saying the call came from his house? (false)
And failing to admit that the call that came in (about someone shooting a racoon with a bb gun) was verified.
This is a joke. No one set the police up. Shame on the Racine Police Department for taking the low road.
Shame on the Racine police department for illegally detaining and arresting Frank.
Shame on the Racine police department for NOT knowing that caselaw has already established that remaining silent is NOT obstruction of justice (Henes v. Morrissey)
Double shame on the Racine Police department for, instead of admitting their mistake at best, or AT LEAST letting the system fix their screw up, FURTHER wronging Frank by claiming he set them up.
Its one thing to make a mistake. Racine officers don't know the law... Fine... (sad, but whatever) But to try to mitigate their mistake by further slandering the person who they have already wronged? I call for the Police Chiefs resignation. Its one thing for you officers to make a mistake. Its QUITE another for you, the chief of police to slander the very citizen you have just wronged.
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 02:59 pm by hugh jarmis
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:16 pm |
|
I'm working on my letter right now...
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
I sent emails to all of the council members.
Here are the replies i have received so far:
RE: Arrest of Open Carrier From:  You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk Sent: Thu 9/10/09 3:11 PM To: Helding, Greg (Greg.Helding@cityofracine.org); James Gleason (j.gleason@hotmail.com); Shakoor, Q.A. (Q.A.Shakoor@cityofracine.org) Cc: Coe, Jeff (Jeff.Coe@cityofracine.org); Anderson, Robert (Robert.Anderson@cityofracine.org); Shields, Michael (Michael.Shields@cityofracine.org); Kaplan, Jim (Jim.Kaplan@cityofracine.org); Maack, David (David.Maack@cityofracine.org); Weidner, Sandy (Sandy.Weidner@cityofracine.org); DeHahn, Ray (Ray.DeHahn@cityofracine.org); McCarthy, Terry (Terry.McCarthy@cityofracine.org); Stein, Kelli (Kelli.Stein@cityofracine.org); Wisneski, Aron (Aron.Wisneski@cityofracine.org); Spangenberg, James (James.Spangenberg@cityofracine.org); Hart, Ronald (Ronald.Hart@cityofracine.org); Mozol, Robert (Robert.Mozol@cityofracine.org); Wahlen, Kurt (Kurt.Wahlen@cityofracine.org) .
I might note that I have already contacted Mr. Gleason today and notified him that our 7th Circuit federal court takes a different view than the Texas court case he cited.
From: Helding, Greg
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 1:55 PM
To: James Gleason; Shakoor, Q.A.
Cc: Coe, Jeff; Anderson, Robert; Shields, Michael; Kaplan, Jim; Maack, David; Weidner, Sandy; DeHahn, Ray; McCarthy, Terry; Stein, Kelli; Wisneski, Aron; Spangenberg, James; Hart, Ronald; Mozol, Robert; Weber, Robert; Wahlen, Kurt
Subject: RE: Arrest of Open Carrier
Mr. Gleason -
This letter contains the threat of a civil action against the city. As such, the Common Council is not in a position to discuss any of this without consulting counsel. I am forwarding it on to our City Attorney for his review.
You also allege that disciplinary action is warranted against the officers involved, so I am copying our Chief of Police. Discipline of Police Officers is the purview of the Police Chief and the Police and Fire Commission, not the Common Council.
---
Gregory T. Helding
Alderman of the 11th District
Chairman - Public Works and Services Committee
City of Racine, WI
______________________________________________________________
FW: Guns, Second Amendment, etc... From: You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk Sent: Thu 9/10/09 2:18 PM To: j.gleason@hotmail.com (j.gleason@hotmail.com)Re: Your recent email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nielsen, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:03 PM
To: Weber, Robert; Wahlen, Kurt
Subject: Guns, Second Amendment, etc...
I came across the following interesting case from two months ago
in which no less a judge than Frank Easterbrook upholds state and
municipal firearm restrictions in the face of an attack based on
the Supreme Court's Heller decision. It would appear to be the law in
the Seventh Circuit that such restrictions are valid until the Supreme
Court says differently, on the theory that Heller discussed the District
of Columbia, which is a federal reserve. The Second Amendment is a
restriction on the federal government, but does not apply as against
the states until and unless incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment
due process clause. Apparently that hasn't happened and in fact the high
court has declined to do so in the past. The case is
National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. City of Chicago, IL
567 F.3d 856, 857 (C.A.7 (Ill.),2009).
I am certainly not promising or predicting what a Wisconsin court would rule,
but i know Heller has been a lively topic of conversation so I thought
I would draw the precedent to your attention.
Mark Nielsen |
___________________________________________
My Reply:
RE: Guns, Second Amendment, etc... From:  1 attachment 
FinalOpen...pdf (28.2 KB)
Mr. Weber,
Thank you for your timely response.
Mr. Nielsen is absolutely right in that the Second Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government and does not apply against the states until and unless it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. One would only have to presume that this case may be brought before the Supreme Court and the individual's Constitutional Rights shall be upheld as there has never been, to my knowledge, a time when the Supreme court did not uphold an individuals Constitutional Rights
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has verified the Rights of individuals under the Wisconsin State Constitution in a memo released on April 20, 2009. A copy of which I am attaching for your reference.
A Deprivation of Civil Rights civil suit could be filed against the officers, the police department and the City of Racine as well under:
U.S.CODE TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 Prev | Next § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Again, Could the City of Racine afford such a suit?
It is my sincere hope to save the tax payers the burden of such a suit in equity.
James Gleason
_______________________________________________________________
[code]Seems the City Council is as clueless as the Police department.Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:39 pm by J.Gleason
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because we are Americans. There is a 4th Amendment. We do not loose our 4th Amendment rights because we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because we are Americans. There is a 4th Amendment. We do not loose our 4th Amendment rights because we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
|
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:37 pm |
|
As I said in my last post, something smelled like a conspiracy theory in regards to the police statements. Every news report we hear get’s out a little more of the truth.
The other thing I was waiting to find out was whether or not he only refused to give them ID or refused to give them his name as well. Without RAS, a person isn’t even required to give a name. With RAS, the person is required to give their name but not produce ID. Everything; once again, comes down to RAS.
Wisconsin SS 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.
The police seem to be shifting their story a lot about where the call came from which makes me wonder if it was anonymous. If it was anonymous, as far as I remember, the courts have said that it isn’t enough for RAS; even with corroborating evidence.
In Florida V J.L.
Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 327. The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception,"
So, what I gather they are saying here is that to make a Terry stop, not only does the tip need to be corroborated by the fact that there is a guy there with a gun, it has to be corroborated that whatever action the guy is taking is illegal. Since carrying the gun wasn’t illegal they’d need to have something more.
I believe the argument is that they had believed a crime had taken place (discharge of a weapon in the city) and since he had a gun, he had the tool to commit the crime. The courts would most likely find this as RAS for a Terry stop.
Lastly, Nik is right. Refusing to identify oneself is not grounds for obstruction.
Wisconsin SS 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer.
(1) Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is
doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority, is
guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) In this section:
(a) “Obstructs” includes without limitation knowingly giving
false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his
or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
(b) “Officer” means a peace officer or other public officer or
public employee having the authority by virtue of the officer’s or
employee’s office or employment to take another into custody.
(2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following cir-
cumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) The violator gives false information or places physical evi-
dence with intent to mislead an officer.
(b) At a criminal trial, the trier of fact considers the false infor-
mation or physical evidence.
(c) The trial results in the conviction of an innocent person.
(3) Whoever by violating this section hinders, delays or pre-
vents an officer from properly serving or executing any summons
or civil process, is civilly liable to the person injured for any actual
loss caused thereby and to the officer or the officer’s superior for
any damages adjudged against either of them by reason thereof.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1983 a. 189; 1989 a. 121; 1993 a. 486; 2001 a. 109.
The state must prove that the accused knew that the officer was acting in an official
capacity and knew that the officer was acting with lawful authority when the accused
allegedly resisted or obstructed the officer. State v. Lossman, 118 Wis. 2d 526, 348
N.W.2d 159 (1984).
Knowingly providing false information with intent to mislead is obstruction as a
matter of law. State v. Caldwell, 154 Wis. 2d 683, 454 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1990).
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Fleeing and hiding from an officer may constitute obstructing. State v. Grobstick,
200 Wis. 2d 242, 546 N.W.2d 494 (1996), 94−1045.
There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminal-
izes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. The latter can never include the former. State
v. Reed, 2005 WI 53, 280 Wis. 2d 68, 695 N.W.2d 315, 03−1781.
“Lawful authority,” as that term is used in sub. (1), requires that police conduct be
in compliance with both the federal and state constitutions, in addition to any applica-
ble statutes. State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____ N.W.2d ___,
07−2095.
So, what's confusing to me is that the law says you must identify yourself (not produce ID) but provides no penalty (that I can find) for not doing so. If it's not obstruction what is it?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 03:44 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because we are Americans. There is a 4th Amendment. We do not loose our 4th Amendment rights because we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
I think you SHOULD state your name (1) out of an abundance of caution, (2) to make sure the police records record their interaction with you by name, and (3) it makes you look reasonable to the general public.
In other words, for self-interested purposes, state your name.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:03 pm |
|
Brass Magnet wrote: So, what's confusing to me is that the law says you must identify yourself (not produce ID) but provides no penalty (that I can find) for not doing so. If it's not obstruction what is it?
No - read 968.24 again - the statue just codifies the officer's power under Terry to stop you under reasonable suspicion of crime being afoot and ask you questions - thestatue does not create any duty for you to answer at all - and it has no penalty.
Think of it like the opposite of "don't ask, don't tell;" - the police can ask, but you don't have to tell. NOTE: But I think it is a good idea to state you name our of caution, to look reasonable, and to let the police document their stop of you in case of later litigation (AKA self interest).
And as for the obstruction charge, do the Wisconsin police chiefs not even read their onw "Police Magazine"?? In the July-August issue of "Wisconsin Police Chief" at http://www.wichiefs.org/Newsletters/July2004Newsletter.pdf there was an article titled "ARREST FOR REFUSAL TO IDENTIFY? BEWARE OF MISPLACED RELIANCE ON HIIBEL!"
The article tated flatly: "The key to the application of Hiibel is that in order to avoid a Fourth Amendment violation (and a state law false arrest
claim) a person may only be arrested for refusing to identify himself if some statute or ordinance makes it unlawful to so refuse
under the circumstances. As the majority acknowledged in Hiibel, “In some states, a suspect’s refusal to identify himself is a
misdemeanor offense or civil violation; in others, it is a factor to be considered in whether the suspect has violated loitering laws.
In other states, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wisconsin has a statute which codifies the right of officers to make Terry stops:
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.
Unlike Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171. 123, however, § 968.24 does not impose an obligation upon the person stopped to identify himself.
This is a critical distinction.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to identify oneself following a Terry stop does not constitute
obstructing under § 946.41, Wis. Stats. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 354, 533 N.W.2d 802, 808 (1995): “Mere silence, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute.”
|
Current time is 12:23 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|
|
