If they were planning on killing innocent people, yes, they would. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Like it or not, the cops actually broke the law. It's funny how many people think the police are the law. They are public servants who are commissioned to UPHOLD the law. These officers should have let the men go. These men should have never been stopped other than maybe a mutual conversation between the suspects and the police. Anything other that a mutual interaction without Probable cause is illegal. Carrying a rifle is not Probable cause if it's legal.
Obviously looking at Cablebob's response. You DO NOT NEED to carry an assault rifle. This is not Palestine or Afghanistan. You are not going to run into a bunch of AK-47 toting terrorists at the local Farmer's Market. A sidearm of some kind will do just fine.
Could you please cite a case? In my life I have only heard of the mass shootings taking place after someone concealed the weapon only to reveal it right before the shooting. I'm not saying it hasn't happened the way you explain, I'm just not aware of any cases like that. I'm sure it could happen, but what would be the benefit? If these men were headed to "shoot up" the Farmers market they would have concealed until they got there. If they were planning on shooting the people on the sidewalk, the police would have never got there in time.
So now we are going to get into personal attacks? Okay you go that route, most people do when they run into an argument they can't refute with facts. The opinion that you don't think anyone in america needs an assault rifle is just like your opinion man...not fact. And that's your right to have that opinion.
So I take it you are of the believe that our government should legislate what we NEED to be able to do? That sounds a lot more like a dictatorship than a republic to me.
You don't know where they were wanting to start shooting. Happens all the time that police get called into these situations and get shot at. Listen to some of virginiashadow's stories here. I'm as much for personal liberties as the next guy but come on. This is whole situation is assenine. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
you can't pick and choose what portion of a right you want to defend. Either what they did was illegal and they should have been ticketed or arrested, or what they did was legal and they should have been left alone, or let go immediately. Regardless of weather you agree with it. A bakery recently got in trouble because they refused service to a gay couple. They don't like gay people so they didn't want to make their cake. The problem is, that's discrimination. So they have to make the cake and you have to deal with people taking their rifles on a stroll. If you like it or not.
The problem is what our society has become, not the law of open carry or decision making of either side. Society has created panic. If you look at mass shootings/bombings, the number has actually decreased according to criminologists and university studies. Just 40-50 years ago kids were taking their guns to school for show and tell and leaving their shotgun in the truck so they could go hunting after school. We have to remember, a law only prevents law abiding citizens from doing something. A criminal doesn't care about the law. Were they within the law, yes. Did they probably know it would have created panic, yes. Should it have created panic is the big question here. This is our scociety.
I'll be the first to tell you that the end doesn't justify the means. I've said it many times here. I don't think the cops did anything wrong here. I believe they handled it as they should. They used laws at their disposal to ensure the safety of everyone. Once they established they were just punks, they sent them on their way. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Just for the record. I think the guys in the video are stupid. I don't see the reason they thought they needed the rifles to go to the farmers market. But it's not my place to determine what they think they need for protection. No matter how asinine it seems to me.
These guys were not detained for open carry weapons per se. It was for disorderly conduct. Then they were in posession of concealed weapons, which the police do have a right to do a back ground check on. Coming up with guns drawn might have been over the top but the police were within their rights as well to protect themselves. "Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer."Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.Throughout the stop, both men appear polite and cooperative. Another officer orders that they be put in handcuffs and moved to separate squad cars.Branstrom asks, "Why are we being detained? Have we broken any laws?"An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating." Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Taken Directly from the Wisconsin Law. 947.01 Disorderly conduct. (1) 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. (2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried. Openly carrying a fire arm is NOT Disorderly conduct in Wisconsin. It actually has it's own subsection. Once they were asked why they were carrying, they should have been let go.
I think we can ALL agree that two guys walking down the street carrying AR15's is going to get attention and make some people nervous. Given the amount of bad press this rifle has gotten in the last two years or so, I don't think it surprises anyone here that someone called the cops to report a couple suspicious characters. As I said before, these cops are responding to two armed men, so one officer covering them while the other investigates is common sense. We can play Monday morning quarterback all we want, but these officers were called out, and had to do a job in a situation that could have gotten very ugly. They had no reason to believe that these guys were just making a political statement. They responded in a cautious manner, and I'm ok with that. I'm not at all saying that we, as gun owners, need to put our heads down and feel guilty. I'm very proud of my guns. I'm especially proud of the custom 1911 my girlfriend's father built for me. I carry pictures of it in my phone everywhere I go, and when I get a chance to promote my views on the 2nd Amendment, I do so without a shred of shame. I deal with law enforcement officers on a daily basis, and I talk guns, bows, and hunting with them all the time. I can assure you that the vast majority of them are not jackbooted thugs just waiting for a reason to violate your rights. They ARE, by and large, men and women just like you and me. They have families that they want to go home to, and who want them home. I'm confident that this is the reason these guys were drawn on. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a matter of "hey, let's go point guns at these two guys with AR's." EDIT: I can't remember who made the comment about whack jobs planning mass shootings concealing their weapons until the last minute, but think about that for a minute. Isn't it reasonable to assume they conceal them because someone carrying an AR15 down the street is likely to be stopped and questioned? Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2
Thet must check the concealed carry permits. They were let go Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2 Define causing or provoking a disturbance. There are instances where the law is subject to interpretation by the responding officers. In cases where otherwise legal actions would cause a public nuisance, disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace can be applied. According to the letter of the law that you posted, "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent..." The only way to determine if this was the case is to investigate, correct?
Yep. Here's the investigation. Or at least how it should have gone. Officer: How ya'll doin today? suspects: Good officer Officer: Are those guns real? we had a call about it. Suspects: yes officer Officer: Why are you carrying them? Suspects: For protection Officer: Ok...where ya'll headed Suspects: to the farmers market to shop Officer: Well, some people might not like those rifles strung around your neck Suspects: yeah, I guess some people don't like guns Officer: So you guys are just going to do some shopping and you are openly carrying rifles for protection? Suspects: Yes sir. Are we free to go? Officer: Can I get your names first? Suspects: sure. I'm blah blah and hes blah blah (depends on state law if they need to tell the officer or give ID) Officer: Okay, have a good day Suspects: you too officer! 1-5 minutes Officers can not predict the future but through a simple round of polite questions they can get a sense of what's going on. We cannot presume these men are guilty of a crime. If we do, then we throw freedom out the window.
I agree to an extent. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. These officers were asked to investigate a situation, and I feel like they took reasonable steps to ensure their safety. In this case, I agree that the conversation between the cops and the civilians would have gone exactly the way your dialog laid out. However, we're looking at the incident after the fact, and we have more information than the officers did walking into this. Personally, I only know of one other situation where someone was carrying an "unconventional" firearm for self defense. In that case, it was a guy in TN carrying a Krinkov in a park. In both cases, I feel like the civilians in question acted with a lack of discretion and common sense. Stunts like this don't help support the 2nd Amendment. If anything, they damage our reputation and give the anti's another albatross to hang around our necks. Still, I realize that what these two did isn't technically illegal. Fortunately (for them) stupidity isn't a crime. Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2
But wait...how do they hurt it? Are you saying exercising a right is wrong if not everyone is in agreement with it? So you must not like freedom of speech when people get offended? What did it give the Anti's? Anti: Look! Look! two guys with assault style rifles walked down the street! That's scary and wrong because it bothers me. Pro: But, they didn't hurt anyone Anti: But they could have! Pro: They didn't Anti: But those rifles are deadly! Pro: so are cars. Anti: That's not the same! Pro: how so? Cars kill more people than guns every year. Anti: Well, I don't like guns. Pro: I'm sorry you feel that way
