TexasCHLforum.com

Okay.

Ooh! I hope you weren't thinking that I was advocating resistance or even a shootout at the time of the arrest. I didn't intend to give that impression.

AndyC wrote:Maybe it's time for a lawyer to chime in on this subject.

I think C-dub is expecting that a cop will always and only arrest a bad guy - would that it were so. In real life, cops would then never dare arrest anyone for fear of having arrested the wrong person, or for something which they honestly believe is illegal but actually isn't - as in this case.

Yes, I agree - just as with us mere civilians, ignorance of the law shouldn't be an excuse, but it ain't a perfect world.

To me an unlawful arrest is something which was done maliciously in order to deprive someone of their liberty (and whatever other reasons/intentions they might have including assault, robbery, rape, whatever). Simply making a mistake might be wrong, but it's not unlawful.

Sorry Andy. I'm not trying to be difficult. Really.

Of course innocent people are arrested all the time, but their innocence is not unknown at the time of arrest. Is that the difference? As much as the legality of OC has been covered in Wisconsin some officers have still said that they will arrest anyone doing it. That may be the case here. If the officers did not know OC was legal then it was not unlawful, but given the coverage of OC's legality in Wisconsin I find it extremely difficult to believe they did not know.

Andy, I agree with you, except that I don't understand the distinction between unlawful and wrong. Could you or someone else elaborate?

Good morning everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is not that I think they were arresting the wrong people. They had the right people. It's just that they weren't breaking any laws. Doesn't those two circumstances make their actions unlawful? Of course, you are right Andy, and this particular incident is not worth blasting away and probably wouldn't be held up in court anyway if they had. However, what if they passively resisted this unlawful arrest and the police became violent with them? Most of us agree that the Trooper who recently slammed a woman into a concrete wall was excessive. if she would have some how been able to fight back and either disable or kill that Trooper would she have been justified?

Like Purplehood, I don't really push the envelope of what is legal and illegal, so I'm not likely to be in this situation. Even if OC were to become legal in Texas I might not do it. And if I were to OC it would be after discussing with my local PD their policy and how they would handle the inevitable calls and what I should do when they arrive. I would probably even check with other local cities I frequent and then I still might not OC.

AndyC wrote:Well, one can't claim self-defense if one shoots a policeman who is going about his lawful duties...

True enough, but were these officers' actions lawful? That is the question!

The problem is that they did not go to just investigate. They went to subjugate.

Based on the 911 call, they should not have gone in the first place.

Dragonfighter wrote:

flb_78 wrote:

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?

Sounds like a thousand other inquiry type calls to 911, "Is this normal, acceptable, legal, etc.?" No real misuse as I see it, just ignorance. Not stupid just ignorant, as in, "I was ignorant of that fact."

Although the same outcome probably would have resulted whether 911 or the non-emergency number was called I think it was still misuse. Not quite abuse, but there was no emergency. The caller clearly stated that she did not feel threatened and just didn't know if it was legal or not.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

flb_78 wrote:

C-dub 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.

That was actually flb's. However,I too have the non-emergency number for my city in my phone. I also have the numbers for several other cities around me that I frequent and also the animal control numbers for the cities that have one. I also have the Dallas and Fort Worth highway assistance courtesy patrol numbers too. I sure am glad these phones hold as many numbers as they do now.

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!