Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

MPD Responds to Open Carry Incident

14K views 172 replies 62 participants last post by  SIXTO 
#1 ·
http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/103538179.html

Posted Wednesday, September 22, 2010 --- 11:27 a.m.

Press Release from the Madison Police Department:

The Madison Police Department (MPD) has conducted a review of an incident that took place this past Saturday night at Culver's Frozen Custard restaurant, 4301 East Towne Blvd. Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC). Accordingly, DC citations will be issued, and Obstructing a Peace Officer tickets given to two will be rescinded.

Officers were dispatched to the restaurant around 6:50 p.m. after a 62-year old Madison woman called 911. She had just observed several men with handguns in holsters enter the crowded Culver's restaurant. In her initial statement to officers, she stated" I didn't know what the law was, and I thought I should at least call so the police can come and check it out cause I didn't want to be that one person that saw guns and didn't call, and then have something terrible happen". In a follow-up interview with detectives, she further stated that she thought it was very odd that these individuals with guns would be at a family place. She noted she felt somewhat "rattled" and also "felt uneasy" about the subjects having the handguns at the family restaurant. She went on to say that they all appeared calm, but noted "people who shoot up restaurants also look calm before it happens." She did state that she was very concerned that if she didn't make the call and something did happen, she would feel horrible.

The MPD made contact Saturday night with the five men who were openly carrying handguns. Upon officers' requests, three of five produced identification so that officers could determine they were not convicted criminals. Two of five refused to produce identification and were issued Obstructing a Peace Officer citations. It was determined they were not felons and handguns were returned.

The officers were faced with an ambiguous situation. When responding to investigate suspicious - or potentially dangerous - circumstances, police must:

• Preserve or Restore Order and Public Safety.
• Investigate whether a crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed.
• Protect the Constitutional Rights of those involved.

The complainant's statement clearly reveals that she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men, and it was this fear that motivated her call to police. On the basis of this fact, the MPD will be rescinding the 2 obstructing citations. They were issued in error. Instead, citations for City Ordinance DC will be given to those who engaged in the behavior that led to the need for police to be called.

The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance

Chief Wray wants to make clear: It is the department's wish that concerned citizens call 911 when they see armed subjects.

Following Saturday's incident, he sent an internal memo to all officers:

MPD officers regularly are dispatched to reports of individuals who are armed with firearms. When responding to these incidents, officers should:

• Approach the suspect using the proper tactical response. The individual should be contacted, controlled, and frisked for weapons if appropriate. Officers should separate the suspect from any weapons in his/her possession during the encounter.

• Officers should conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether any violations of state statute or city ordinance have occurred. Some of the relevant offenses to consider include:
• Carrying a Concealed Weapon (§941.23)
• Disorderly Conduct (§947.01)
• Carrying a Firearm in Public Building (§941.235)
• Carrying Handgun Where Alcohol Beverages May be Sold and Consumed (§941.237)
• Being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm (§941.29)
• Safe Use and Transportation of Firearms (§167.31)
• Possession of Short-Barreled Shotgun or Short-Barreled Rifle (§941.28)
• Gun-free School Zones (§948.605)
• Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18 (§948.60)
• Endangering Safety by Use of Dangerous Weapon (§941.20)

• Officers should verify that the firearm is not stolen, and attempt to verify that the person possessing the firearm is not legally barred from doing so (as a felon, due to an injunction, etc.). However, someone who has been detained is not legally obligated to provide identification to officers if no criminal ordinance violations have occurred. A person who refuses to provide identification should not be arrested for obstructing; however, if probable cause for another offense exists the suspect should be arrested for that offense and can then be identified during the citation or booking process.

• When responding to incidents involving subjects openly carrying firearms in public places, officers should investigate to determine whether the suspect's actions caused or were likely to cause a disturbance. The primary factors to be considered include the location, time of day and witness/bystander perceptions. Remember that the disorderly conduct statute does not require that an actual disturbance take place, only that the conduct in question be of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.

• It is my expectation that MPD officers encountering individuals who are armed with firearms in public places will take a pro-enforcement approach. If the investigation shows probable cause for a violation, the suspect should be arrested or cited.
 
#3 ·
Did not see what the state was and if OC is allowed. When the officers arrived on the scene and requested ID I see no reason not to show the officers ID to allow a felony check. I would try to be as helpful as I could if I was in that situation. Again that is why I carry concealed.
 
#7 ·
Agreed... Where does it stop... "but officer...I saw a goth!" or "but I saw a ugly person... THAT one over there...ARREST THEM!"
I see fat people.
Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to eat. They don't know they're fat
I'm afraid. They might eat me. Arrest them please.
 
#6 ·
Wisconsin and OC is legal. It is NOT legal for an officer to accost someone like this and demand their papers. This chief of police just declared war on the bill of rights... most specifically the 2nd amendment but he is directing his officers to violate several others as well.
 
#9 ·
More importantly (and somebody please correct me if I am misremembering), Wisconsin is the state where the OC issue was resolved by a published opinion of the State Attorney General that said not only is open carry not forbidden by the law, but that the mere carrying of a legally owned gun is not probable cause for any further police involvement.
 
#10 ·
I do believe you are correct in that remembrance.
 
#11 ·
Lawsuit. Police Chief is trying to use the "disorderly conduct" as a catch-all to discourage OC. From what the article said, there was no disorderly conduct. Some people fear flying. Does that mean every pilot approaching the airport is acting "disorderly" toward the scaredy cats on the ground?

Hello, NRA--are you out there? ACLU?
 
#12 ·
A quick check of the Madison, WI web site shows a staff of 438. On any day shift, I think it would be fair to assume that no more than 100 or so patrol officers would be on duty. Thus I think what the fine City of Madison needs is a gathering of about 200 upstanding citizens all openly carrying arms.

Better yet, during one shift, target maybe 30 eating establishments across Madison and have 5-10 folks show up at each place at a certain hour, each participant carrying openly. Do this once a week for a month until Chief Noble Wray realizes that his erroneous beliefs are resulting in public service being overtaxed senselessly to "investigate" non-crimes.
 
#13 ·
Open-carry "incident." It should have been called, instead, an Ignorant Citizen Training Exercise. That some silly twit is unaware of the laws doesn't equal crime on the part of the people she's fearful of, without any justification to be fearful due to their (lack of) breach of law. Apparently, their crime was that she called while ignorant of what's what. What a crime: guilty if charged. No wonder justice is in the toilet.
 
#14 ·
I'm sure that this will eventually be settled...financially...when the mayor opens the city's wallet.:yup:
 
#15 ·
Something tells me as soon as a City Attorney gets hold of it the Chief is gonna get a lesson in Open Carry law.LEO's are supposed to enforce the law,not make them up as they see fit
 
#17 ·
I found this little statement by the 62 year old woman interesting.

"She went on to say that they all appeared calm, but noted 'people who shoot up restaurants also look calm before it happens.'"

She made her decision to call the police based off sheer emotion instead of fact. I wonder if these five men would have any leagal recourse against her for filling a report on people who were lawfully going about their own business.
 
#19 ·
"• Approach the suspect using the proper tactical response. The individual should be contacted, controlled, and frisked for weapons if appropriate. Officers should separate the suspect from any weapons in his/her possession during the encounter."

Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? Does Terry not require the officer to have RAS that a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed? Instead of swooping in and detaining someone who is not breaking the law. And anonymous calls of MWAG are not RAS for a Terry stop, JL v Florida.


"• Officers should verify that the firearm is not stolen,"

Again PC issue. Saying that lot's of firearms are stolen is not what I would call PC to do a search that involved seizing and searching someones property who was not breaking the law.

"The primary factors to be considered include the location, time of day and witness/bystander perceptions."

Now Constitutional rights are dependent on what others think? I think someone who is supposed to uphold our rights should not be allowed to say this. Can he be arrested for that? Sounds like GATTTOTP in NC, but at least we have case law to explain that one.

"Remember that the disorderly conduct statute does not require that an actual disturbance take place, only that the conduct in question be of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance."• Officers should verify that the firearm is not stolen,""

Seriously?

"It is my expectation that MPD officers encountering individuals who are armed with firearms in public places will take a pro-enforcement approach. If the investigation shows probable cause for a violation, the suspect should be arrested or cited."

Harass the LAC with a gun. Nice

This one will likely get settled in civil court.
 
#20 ·
Simply amazing amounts of legal arrogance in this Press Release.

Someone's making stuff up and will pay for the privalege in law-suit form...
 
#21 ·
So, in the People's Republic of Madison, if someone "fears" a gun...that is enough to charge Disorderly Conduct...
No, that is Wisconsin state law that the Madison Police Department cited. It is written in such a vague way, that it gives the police very broad powers to arrest people for disorderly conduct.

As the press release notes, whether a person could be arrested can be based solely on the "perception" of witnesses, and not the actual actions of the gun owner. I think that the Madison Police department's interpretation of the law here may be rather extreme. Basically it would make anyone open carrying subject to arrest for disorderly conduct, which is in obvious conflict with that right that citizens have.

These arrests are totally insane. It will be interesting to see how successful the local DA will be in prosecuting the 5 men.

Here is what this section of Wisconsin state law says:

WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct.

Whoever, In A Public Or Private Place, Engages In Violent, Abusive, Indecent, Profane, Boisterous, Unreasonably Loud, Or Otherwise Disorderly Conduct Under Circumstances In Which The Conduct Tends To Cause Or Provoke A Disturbance Is Guilty Of A Class B Misdemeanor.


Here is a photo of the wise police chief of Madison, WI, Chief Noble Wray:


 
#25 ·
Madison is a notoriously liberal city. I don't question so much the actions of the caller, or the police; that is clear. The 911 call paints the picture perfectly of what happened at the scene prior to police arrival. But, who knows how the information was relayed to the officers, or if it was at all. I do wonder if the disorderly charge came out of the open carry, or the actions of the OC'ers after the police arrived.
 
#29 ·
All this could be avoided with concealed carry. Why do OC'ers have this need to put their guns in peoples faces? They like to strut around knowing full well it's going to make some people very uncomfortable. Two of these nit wits either didn't have ID with them or they became defiant and decided not to give it to officers.
 
#36 ·
I have a couple friends that are LEO in Madison. Several years ago I was talking to one of them about concealed carry. She said she would hate CC because then for officer safety she would have to treat everyone like they had a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top