'Sorry' for trampling your rights

[goju]

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/

Oshkosh, Wis. -- In what appears to be an admission of wrong-doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by the department.

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone.

Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

"However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found," said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there's no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic."



Defying logic and gun confiscation...Forgive the redundance.

[Edmond Dantes]

1. This happened in Oshkosh, b'gosh?

Residents gave permission to search -- not to seize!!

Whatever happened to the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure?

The Bill of Rights is apparently rendered "quaint" in today's age of terrorism. I guess those provisions aren't REALLY part of the main text of the US Constitution, are they? Dab on a little Right-Out and voila! Instant constitutional amendment!

This is pathetic....

[MnFats]

2. jesus, don't these yokels know anything about investigating...

a crime.
just because the bullet hasn't been found doesn't mean it won't be. doesn't mean a matching bullet won't turn up at the scene of another crime.

that part of wisconsin....appleton/oskhosh/green bay....has some scarey characters.

remember the Posse Comitatus? are they still around over there?

[Edmond Dantes]

4. You don't confiscate property because the owner is "scarey" [sic].

Some ignorant people think people with black skin are scary. Should we lock them up?

Some ignorant people think that persons suffering from psychological problems are scary. Should we perform lobotomies -- just to be sure?

Get a grip! The scariest person of all is the one who lives in the White House.

Edited to add:
OK. Thanks for the clarification! ;)

[MnFats]

6. ok, i used the wrong term. i'm talking about...

...the 100 or so people that showed up in Marathon County with rifles and handguns when the county sheriff was ordered to enforce an order to comply with zoning codes.
i'm talking about people who praised the killing of U.S. Marshals on the North Dakota prairie.
I'm talking about people who are absolutely rabid in their hatred of Jews.
I'm talking about guys who tried to declare their township an independent nation and had press conferences with a portrait of Joe McCarthy in the background, and offered privately that McCarthy had been murdered by Jews worried that he had caught on to their collaboration with Soviet communists.

those people are scarey and it has nothing to do with their skin color. Except to them, since they claim to be "Identity" Christians descended from the "true" chosen people of God.

yeah, those people are scarey to me.

[goju]

5. Thats a law, not an actual posse

if thats what you were referring to?

[iverglas]

56. it is indeed, and it is also indeed

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Posse%20Comitatus

The Posse Comitatus is a loosely-organized survivalist militia group that opposes the United States federal government and believes in vigilantism. They are considered racist as well, since the racial beliefs of Christian Identity are a part of the group's ideology. The name of the group translates from Latin to mean "power of the county," and the Posse believes that all governmental power is rooted at the county, not Federal, level.

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/berlet.html

Behind the militias is a history in this country of anti-democratic right-wing paramilitary groups that want to create a private army bent on accomplishing a series of authoritarian or theocratic goals that include rejecting federal laws and regulations, treating people of color as second-class citizens, stopping abortion by force, putting homosexuals to death, and targeting Jews by claiming they are conspiring for evil purposes. It is important to remember that one of the most famous militia movements in the U.S. is the Ku Klux Klan that arose as a militia during the turmoil of Reconstruction. In recent months a series of overlapping right wing social movements with militant factions appeared to be coalescing into the militias to create a potential for violent confrontation against the targeted scapegoats. These sectors include:

- Militant right wing gun rights advocates, anti-tax protesters, survivalists, far right libertarians, and persons promoting a variety of pseudo-legal theories.

- Pre-existing elements of racist, antisemitic, or neo-Nazi movements such as the Posse Comitatus, Christian Identity, or Christian Patriots.

...

Even I knew that.

[Bowline]

3. We're from the government and we're here to help.

So, let's see..the police don't know what kind of gun was used in the assault on the police officer so they took everyone's guns, just to be on the safe side.

If only they had been required to register their guns then the whole process would have been much quicker and more efficient. Damn those inconvenient freedoms...bring on the jackboots Herr Ashcroft!!!

[CarinKaryn]

7. Why would "law-abiding" gunowners object?

if it wasn't their bullet that killed the police officer?

[Fulcrum]

8. Because....

it's their property and they have no legal obligation to let them take their property? It's like the police confiscating your car because they *think* it might have been used in smuggling drugs. Without probable cause, you have no legal obligation to let them confiscate your car for months on end just to search it and rip it apart to look for meth.

[MrSandman]

9. Never mind...n/t

[thomas82]

11. what a load of crap!!

They should have stood their ground and called a lawyer. I would have had my wife and kids leave immediately, ask them for a warrant. If they had no warrant I would Close the door, call my lawyer asap along with the local news station and get out my video camera. If they are going to get me it will be on tape. And I would post it here play by play.
Tom

[FatSlob]

10. Are you serious?

Nah, you couldn't be. Nevermind.

[MrSandman]

12. Why don't they search everyone's hard drives

for evidence of hacking. If you are innocent, why be worried?

[Bowline]

13. Perhaps it's ok then if they tap your phone and read your mail.

After all, if your innocent then you shouldn't object. Maybe they can also come by now and then to see how you are raising your kids. Would that be ok too, since you've got nothing to hide?

[MrBenchley]

14. Because they can't stand to see their loved ones trifled with

Notice the source of this "news"....and you can wonder why there isn't a real newspaper artcile reporting the same....

[gatlingforme]

18. If you read the article, it references the Northwesten Oshkosh News paper.

article.

[MrBenchley]

22. Actually, it's a Fox TV station, and these loons don't link to it....

And when you search their archives...there's no "Wesner" found....

http://www.wluk.com/

Try to contain your surprise....

The wonder isn't that the RKBA crap is phony...it's that it's so transparently so....

[jkupski]

47. Link you asked for

Notice the source of this "news"....and you can wonder why there isn't a real newspaper artcile reporting the same....

Is the Associated Press a good enough source? From the AP wire as posted by the Duluth News Tribune:

Oshkosh police defend activity after officer was shot

I discovered this with a simple Google News search involving the terms "oshkosh police shooting."

[MrBenchley]

48. Too too funny....

"Police officials are defending their response to a shooting of an officer after a wave of criticism from Web sites and Internet message boards."
Dozens of Internet postings have suggested unconstitutional searches and gun seizures by responding officers.
Police Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said no one in the neighborhood was forced from his or her home, and police searched only four houses.
Three were searched with their owners' consent, while police attained a warrant to search the fourth home."

So in other words the story is horseshit from stem to stern, just like pretty much everything in the RKBA....

I'm trying to contain my surprise....

[jkupski]

49. Not funny at all...

So in other words the story is horseshit from stem to stern, just like pretty much everything in the RKBA....

Okay, so first you suggest that none of this happened at all, then when confronted with evidence that it's at least partially true, you again declare it "horseshit" because it's not QUITE as bad as presented?

Allow me to quote another choice bit from the article:

Police took several weapons from Terry Wesner's home after getting consent. They were returned a few days later.

Sagmeister acknowledged the firearms were taken without Wesner's knowledge, but said it was miscommunication rather than a deliberate, secretive seizure

There's that Wesner guy you earlier suggested was the figment of someone's imagination (post #22.) There, again, is an unlawful seizure of property, which you also suggest is "horseshit" (post #26.)

As to the section of story you quoted that "no one was forced from his or her home" I direct you to a story by Jeff Bollier of the Oshkosh Northwestern, published in the Appleton Post-Crescent which states:

A large area near the scene was cordoned off and nearby residents evacuated late Saturday as authorities searched for a suspect. and later goes on with By 10:25 p.m., officers had set up perimeters on Oregon, Arizona, Minnesota and Iowa streets and 16th and 18th avenues. Officers began clearing houses shortly after. Residents in the area were being kept from returning to their homes as of late Saturday night.

I guess that's "horseshit," too?

[MrBenchley]

50. Actually it is pretty hilarious...

By the way, check the last post in the thread to see what the "Wisconsin Gun Owners" is all about...

[jkupski]

51. I should've known better.

By the way, check the last post in the thread to see what the "Wisconsin Gun Owners" is all about...

I could care less--I'm talking about stories syndicated by the AP and Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers. What some pro-gun organization has to say is immaterial to the discussion between you and I.

You can believe stories put out by NRA, "Wisconsin Gun Owners," and whoever else are horseshit, but I'm giving you stories from the legitimate press. The best you can come up with in response is "Too funny" and to ignore the information posted.

I've been lurking here long enough--I should have known better than to feed the troll.

[MrBenchley]

52. Hell, your own stories

say that this is a hullaballoo created by this knot of right wing loonies....

"I'm giving you stories from the legitimate press"
And the "legitimate press" SAYS: "Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc., a Green Bay-based gun rights group, posted an article on its Web site Friday asking the department to clarify probable cause for any search - either by warrant or consent - if they had nothing more than a general direction the shot could have come from."

Which makes it pretty obvious why two different threads on this BOTH tried to avoid telling us who was promoting this horseshit...

[CarinKaryn]

16. Their refusal to allow their weapons to be inspected

seems to be proof that they want to conceal future criminal activities.
I've never understood why so called "law-abiding" gun huggers would object to ballistic fingerprinting. If it helps to solve crimes, and since it does NOT inconveinece the gun hugger to have a sample bullet registered, what is the objection. (and no, I don't believe that this is the first step down the slipperly slope where soon everyone will be forced to register their feces samples when they are born, so don't start that tired line of argument again.

[goju]

17. I do believe it

So why not start with it? Because YOU dont feel threatened? Sorry but any infringement of our rights is a threat, whether you "believe" it or not.

But the real question is, what would ballistic fingerprinting accomplish? If law abiding gun owners register the "sample", do you think they might turn into criminals and go on a killing spree? If the gun gets lost, stolen or sold, do you think the ballistic fingerprinting is going to point to the guilty party, or the honest guy who spent the time and money having the ballistics recorded? Do you think this fingerprinting is foolproof, or can it be rendered meaningless with a $1.99 file?

Dont think for a second the control groups dont know the flaws in this crap. They play dumb but they know exactly what their end goal is, and how to accomplish it. By any means necessary.

Do you have any idea how they might keep track of those ballistics? In other words, would that "fingerprinting" be successful if they didnt associate a name and address with it? Slippery slope indeed.

[MrBenchley]

20. Yeah, but you also believed the guy ranting about "liberal humanists"

"the real question is, what would ballistic fingerprinting accomplish?"
For one thing, it would catch criminals.

"Do you have any idea how they might keep track of those ballistics? In other words, would that "fingerprinting" be successful if they didnt associate a name and address with it?"
Well, duh....

[CarinKaryn]

21. No. The real question is

why the "law abiding" gun owners objected to the police investigating the murder of another officer.

I'm sure your local police department is grateful for your support...NOT!

[Bowline]

25. Flagrant Strawman violation!!!

No. The real question is why the "law abiding" gun owners objected to the police investigating the murder of another officer.

NO ONE here objected to police investigating the attack on a fellow officer. (For the record the officer was treated at a local hospital and released.) They objected to having their property seized without a warrant or even probable cause.

This incident was posted and discussed last Friday.

[MrBenchley]

26. And it was horseshit last Friday, too....

By the way, wonder why there was no link then, either?

[gatlingforme]

19. that seems to be your proof. and the officers did not have a

cartrige to reference any ballistics. prosecutors everywhere applaud your reasoning.

[Bowline]

23. On what planet do you live?

Their refusal to allow their weapons to be inspected seems to be proof that they want to conceal future criminal activities.

Is it OK if the police randomly stop you and require you to take a breathalyser? Is it OK if they come by your house to check for drugs on the premises? Did you even bother to read the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth for that matter?

[MrBenchley]

24. Wonder if she lives on a planet where there are hyperlinks?

I know she lives on a planet where the RKBA cause is a pack of lies from stem to stern....

[CarinKaryn]

27. actually it is

We are subject to breathalyser tests anytime we are driving. You can't be drunk in public and can be arrested for being so. We are subject to many inspections that are part of our social contract in exchange for public safety or services.

Did you read the article? The police were investigating a crime. There was a danger to the public's safety.

[Bowline]

28. Where do you live that you are subject to breathalyser tests?

The police cannot administer any test or conduct any search without probable cause. If one does not consent to a police search the police are then forced to get a warrant. Without probable cause it's very difficult for them to get a judge to agree to issue a warrant because the case would be too easy to beat in court. Allowing the police into my home without a search warrant is one thing I'll never do, nor will I ever consent to any search or seizure without seeing a valid warrant from a court.

As for mandatory ballistic fingerprinting, it is most certainly an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion. I see it on the same level as requiring all citizens to be fingerprinted, just in case they might commit a crime in the future. You can see where that would go over like a lead balloon.

[CarinKaryn]

29. You seem to have no clue

You are subject to drunk breathalyzer tests anytime you are driving. Just try telling the cop no and see what happens

[minavasht]

30. Man, i hate these new cars!

at least my '93 escort doesn't have that gadget. How does it work - you blow somewhere before starting the car, or pour urine sample?
Or in your place all cars are kept at the police parking and you get the keys after you pass the test?

[MrSandman]

36. Pre arrest breathalyzer tests are NOT covered by implied ...

Consent:

Elements. The State must prove each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) before the court can convict you of breath test refusal:

• 1. The arresting officer had probable cause to believe that you were driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on the public highways or quasi-public areas of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drug or marijuana.

• 2. You were arrested for drunk driving.

• 3. The officer asked you to submit to a breath test.

• 4. You refused to submit.

http://www.dwi1dwi.com/btr1.html

See #2: If not arrested, no violation.

Maybe NJ is less strict than other states.

[Bowline]

39. I am subject to no such thing.

If I don't submit to a breathalyser test there is little the police can do until they get a warrant. I will NEVER voluntarily submit to a breathalyser test, blood test, or any other test, search, or seizure. That leaves me far to exposed for false accusations and abuse of my rights. I submit to nothing and admit nothing. If the police want something of mine they can come back with a court issued warrant.

[goju]

40. Cant they take your license for that?

In CA they can. When you get your license, you sign away the right to refuse. Actually, you sign off on your license priveleges if you refuse to submit to a test. Reasonable suspicion is the loophole but video cams in cars usually take that Ace off the table.

[Bowline]

42. Some states can take your license

However, if the state loses it's case in court they have to give the license back. Don't EVER give them any evidence or ammo to use against you. Make them take you to court based solely on your word vs. the cops. If they have not valid BAC test, and no admission from you that you were drinking it makes for a weak case for them.

It's sort of like getting a speeding ticket. When the cop ask if you know why he stopped you the answer should always be NO. If you say yes you've just admitted to breaking a law. If he asks you how fast do you think you were going the answer should always be "the speed limit". Again, NEVER admit anything. Once you admit guilt you're pretty much screwed.

[goju]

43. I tend to admit it when Im guilty

Never been stopped for anythng other than speeding, a few tail lights, and some red light issues (actually they were all more of a pinkish hue ;))

I know I could have gotten out of one stop sign ticket, and probably should have since it was 125 dollars. But, the time to go to court would have cost me that much. Lose lose situation.

[gatlingforme]

45. alot of people do and they pay for it unfortunately. The DUI laws

are such to make money for the state. States rack in big bucks on DUI cases. (even if the state had a lousy case) more than not the "offender" is scared to the extent he waives his rights and gets screwed. It's all about money. Also, if I ever got a ticket for blowing off a stop sign I would always contest it (as well as anything else) The village more so than not will not have a traffic study done on the location where the stop sign was at, thus, the sigh should not have been there to begin with. LOL

[MrBenchley]

44. Too too funny....

How difficult, do you suppose, is it for cops to get a warrant to give a drunk driving suspect a breathalyzer? I'd bet it's not very hard at all...

"I will NEVER voluntarily submit to a breathalyser test, blood test, or any other test, search, or seizure."
Yeah, there's the sort of "responsible, law abiding" person I think ought to be toting a gun....

[TX-RAT]

53. Sobriety check points in TX

Also Border Patrol check points. None require probable cause.

[Bowline]

54. The two serve entirely different purposes.

It is my belief that random sobriety check points are a violation of my 4th amendment rights. I don't even drink yet I am subject to an unreasonable search by some yahoo with a badge looking to raise a little extra revenue for the city coffers. How very police state.

[TX-RAT]

55. So you would rather have more drunks on the road?

[Bowline]

57. Not at all.

I just think we'd be better served if the dozen or so officers I see milling about the checkpoint were actually out, in a patrol car, responding to calls for assistance, tracking down criminals, or looking out for drunk drivers in the other 99.9% of the city not covered by the checkpoint.

[TX-RAT]

58. Question

Where did you get this vast knowledge of Law Enforcement, and their particular duties?

[Bowline]

59. Since when did it become a requirement to study law enforcement...

...in order to voice one's opinion. I'm not claiming my opinions are the best way to run a police force. They're just my opinions. Isn't that what this site is all about?

[TX-RAT]

61. Nothing like an uninformed opinion.

[Bowline]

62. So, inform me.

[TX-RAT]

63. I can tell already, it would be a waste of time.

Especially with your love of Law Enforcement.

[Bowline]

64. Actually, if you present a reasonable discussion, I'm quite interested.

I don't dislike police. I count four active and one retired police officer among my personal friends. What I dislike is the abuse of authority by SOME police, and I dislike the treatment of ordinary citizens by SOME police who believe that their badge makes them immune to the laws governing our rights. You were in law enforcement long enough that I'm sure you know of more than one instance of police acting badly and in direct contravention to their oath.

I fully realize that not all, nor likely even most, police fit into the above category. I just don't like the fact that you never know which type of cop you're dealing with until it's too late.

[TX-RAT]

65. four active and one retired police officer among my personal friend

How do they like being called Yay-hoo,s. I bet they get one hell of a chuckle.

[Bowline]

66. As I said before, not ALL police officers are yay-hoos.

It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch.

[slackmaster]

31. Not very clear on the concept

We are subject to breathalyser tests anytime we are driving.

No, only when you are exercising the privilege of driving on public roads.

You can't be drunk in public and can be arrested for being so.

What does that have to do with the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure?

BTW - I don't know about where you live but here in California it's perfectly legal to be drunk in public. You just can't be engaging in disorderly conduct; a misdemeanor for which you can be arrested. But you don't have to be drunk to qualify as disorderly. (For many people it helps, but it's not a legal requirement.)

We are subject to many inspections that are part of our social contract in exchange for public safety or services.

We're not subject to arbitrary inspections of personal property in our own homes. Go read the Fourth Amendment. It's pretty clear.

[library_max]

32. "The privilege of driving on public roads"?

Weren't you just arguing in a different thread that anything that isn't proscribed by due process of law is a right, not a privilege? How come you're changing your tune now?

[slackmaster]

33. Driving has been restricted by due process

Weren't you just arguing in a different thread that anything that isn't proscribed by due process of law is a right, not a privilege?...

Use of automobiles on public roads has been regulated by due process of law. Driving on public roads without a license is proscribed by law.

Before we had traffic laws and vehicle licensing and registration and driver licensing anyone could legally drive any car anywhere without restrictions. Before we had those restrictions, driving was a right. (Of course we've had regulations for most of the history of the automobile, but before it was regulated it was a right just like everything else that isn't restricted.)

How come you're changing your tune now?

My point here is perfectly consistent with what I said earlier.

[library_max]

34. I believe the "right" to use a gun in self-defense has also been regulated

by due process of law.

Your side of the argument was that it was inappropriate to describe owning a firearm and using it for self-defense as a privilege. Please explain how your argument here is not contradictory.

[slackmaster]

35. Please see reply #96

I believe it addresses your question.

[slackmaster]

38. Whoops, I mean reply #96 in the Nevada seniors with guns thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=76433&mesg_id=77097

Sorry about that!

[iverglas]

60. driving and owning firearms are both rights

Leaving aside that 2nd amendment dog's breakfast entirely, doing things and owning things are exercises of the right to liberty.

The right to drive on the public highways is indeed restricted by due process. There's US case law. Due process is required before prohibiting someone from driving on the public roads.

The fact that the exercise of a right is subject to meeting certain conditions does *not* make it a "privilege". Rights and privileges are entirely different things.

Your side of the argument was that it was inappropriate to describe owning a firearm and using it for self-defense as a privilege. Please explain how your argument here is not contradictory.

The statement is correct, and it indeed corrects the *incorrect* statement that driving is a privilege.

Both are rights, and the exercise of both may be restricted in accordance with the established rules for restricting the exercise of rights.

And if we absolutely had to throw the 2nd amendment into the mix, I'd be wanting to know, as usual, how

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

could possibly be interpreted more onerously than

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...

-- which of course Congress and state legislatures do all the bloody time.

[MrSandman]

46. Only after arrest,Slack...n/t

[MrSandman]

37. No, only after being arrested...

Unless you waive your rights.

[Bowline]

41. NEVER, EVER waive your rights!

Be polite and cooperate with the police, say NOTHING, and demand an attorney. Don't submit to any searches, tests, or answer ANY questions until your attorney is present. The police count on being able to intimidate suspects into screwing themselves.

[MrBenchley]

15. My goodness me....

There's a swell lot of loonies for a progressive democrat to be slumming with..

And, gee, what a fine reasonable progressive guy the executive director of this little knot of loonies is:

"A history lesson: On September 13, 1994, humanist-liberals shoved a communist-style gun law down our American throats.....Until gun owners and other conservative, liberty-minded groups move the fulcrum, shift the leverage, and begin to offer "reasonable" requests for "compromises" from those who already stole of what was not theirs -- our rights and freedoms.
   That's why Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. exists. We move fulcrums. "

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/Assaultweapons.htm

"Fulcrums"...what a wonderful euphemism for "ignorant and dishonest right wing screwlooses."

Rush Limbaugh and his audience of fulcrums.

That Larry Pratt--what a fulcrum.
 

[Pert_UK]

67. Well f*ck me.........

Whilst I deplore the Police's misuse of search and seizure powers, the first thing that struck me is how much better the situation is in the UK.....

Police don't have to start confiscating and examining a shitload of guns found in the area where an officer got shot.....'cause there aren't that many.

Chances are that if you find A gun in the area, it's the one that shot someone...if you find a few, you've also found a few criminals so HURRAH!

In the States the Police are effectively having to say, "Well, we've got no idea at all who owns a gun in this neighbourhood, so we're going to have to check all the ones we find."

Of course, if they'd got a record of who owned which guns then they could have made a targeted search once they'd established the type of ammunition used (if they manage to do that).