GOOD:Brookfield pays woman who brought gun to church $7,500

Lady sticks it to the city after being wrongfully arrested for exercising her open carry right. I believe Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/112841934.html

Quote:

---

The woman who was arrested at gunpoint after she wore her gun to a church in Brookfield, and a gun rights group, have settled a lawsuit against the city and the officers who arrested her for $7,500.

An attorney for the city said police will still always respond in force to calls of a person with a gun, and if turns out to be an open carry situation, that's just the cost of doing business.

---

"Gunta, the city's lawyer, said if the lawsuit is really about the principle involved, the plaintiffs should consider donating the money back to Brookfield for gun education."

Yea, I'm sure Brookfield would use the money for gun education. Maybe for their officers.

The original call was not a complaint but an inquiry.

Quote:

---

that's just the cost of doing business.

---

I hope the cost of business continues to go up and up.

If these idiots could point to another state and say, "That's what we're protecting you against", I might think otherwise.

"There was no disturbance, but after the service someone called police to inquire and they responded, stopped Sutterfield as she was driving away and arrested her."

Yeah, throw JL v Florida into this and what they did was a complete violation of her rights. They took an anonymous call, in a state where OC is legal, and pulled her over for carrying a gun. Terry v Ohio does not cover this in any way. There is no firearms exception to Terry.


"An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30. 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. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0266_ZS.html

If I were a resident of that city I would open carry as much as possible as every gun owner should do. Maybe after the city pays out that $7500 enough times they may rethink their policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binder

If I were a resident of that city I would open carry as much as possible as every gun owner should do. Maybe after the city pays out that $7500 enough times they may rethink their policy.

---

Bring back the civil rights marches of the sixties. Also the sitins. They were effective.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coder

I hope the cost of business continues to go up and up.

If these idiots could point to another state and say, "That's what we're protecting you against", I might think otherwise.

---

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




If only they would heed the following , and partake in some due dilligence they would understand.

"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." Glenn White: President of the Dallas Police Association,
Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997

I agree she did nothing wrong, and open carry shouldn't be a problem. But it is to the majority of citizens. It's a noble quest to try and convert the general public but it's not going to happen. If anything I can see it going the other way.

If the government makes exercising your rights uncomfortable enough the hope is that you will voluntarily give them up.

Michael