TexasCHLforum.com

I'm seriously considering tossing some coppers in the bucket for their legal defense.

I find it fitting that the police chief refers to citizens as "subjects".

The Disorderly Conduct charge should be easy to defend by playing the 911 tape. The caller clearly stated she was sorry she called and there was no threat or action from the gentlemen calmly and relaxed sitting at a picnic table. I do hope the police chief can be held accountable for issuing harrasment instructions to his officers to intimidate law abiding citizens.

Can he be charged with behavior that provokes and disturbs?

Unfortunately, even though legal, this is the exact type of thing that can and does occur with individuals calling in 'man with a gun' calls. The 911 tape in this case definitely proves that the individuals were within their total legal rights and the charges are trumped up since the caller stated she was not threatened or really alarmed by it, just didn't know it was legal. This will make for a good 1983 civil rights violation case, so we need to see how it plays out. While a pain for the individuals involved, it may help the overall cause if they are awarded punitive damages from the city. These type of things will eventually get the word to those who think they can push their own version of the law that they must follow it by the letter when trying to enforce it.

Actually if this makes it to the federal circuit level and the Open Carriers loose then that federal circuit decision would be in conflict with (I think) the 10th Circuit decision (a New Mexico case I think) that said OC by itself was not grounds for a Disorderly Conduct charge and we could easily see a Supreme Court decision on this issue.

Ok I'll admit it, I have been drinking too much of the SAF kool-aid and have started seeing Potential Supreme court cases all over the place.

That is amazing that the police would push it that far after the caller said they weren't alarmed, but found it "unusual".

flb_78 wrote:I find it fitting that the police chief refers to citizens as "subjects".

99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.

G.A. Heath wrote:99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

I read quite a bit in a memo that says investigate where no crime has been commited, look to see if you can get any of these charges to stick even if they don't really cause a disturbance other than exercising RTKBA. It is not too difficult to infer exactly what the chief thinks of them and it's not citizen. Maybe next if you're reported with a bottle of beer in your hand are taken disbeered, taken into custody so the cops can investigate to see if you offended or disturbed anyone or you are thinking of commiting disorderly conduct. Although no one really has to be disturbed. They could maybe start making random phone calls and poll to see if they can find someone who is disturbed if no one is around except you when the get there. I mean no disrespect to you and I know this is a little facetious, but I find it disturbing to see an order such as this from law enforcement.

Not only did the caller state that they were not a threat but "extremely" relaxed, she didn't even sound alarmed. She just thought it unusual!?

So, instead of sending a couple officers out to check out the situation and calling her back and informing her of the law and that these citizens were within their legal right they decide to charge them with bogus charges.

Thats great police work.

I know it won't happen, but what about charging her with misuse of 911? She gave all the information needed to do that on her own. There was no emergency!

I've been loosely following this since the "Madison 5" first posted this on Open Carry dot org.

2 of them were first charged with obstruction since they would not give their names or ID's. There is no law in Wisconsin requiring a citizen to give any ID, verbal or actual, to an officer. After the first 2 were arrested, the other 3 did give ID. A day or two later the obstruction charges were dropped, but then all 5 were charged with disorderly conduct.

Wisconsin Carry has already won one lawsuit about for an open carrier that was arrested for disorderly. That resulted in a $10,000 judgement against the offending police force.

The precedent has already been set. This is going to cost Madison a bunch of money.

C-dub wrote:I know it won't happen, but what about charging her with misuse of 911? She gave all the information needed to do that on her own. There was no emergency!

She truthfully thought she was calling in a crime. Open carry is still fairly new to Wisconsin. The lady was regretful for bothering the police once she learned that no laws were being broken. None of the Madison 5 have any harsh feelings for the lady. The police are the ones who overreacted to law abiding citizens.

It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

flb_78 wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

Not trying to be smart but I actually do.