Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: Milwaukee Police arrest man for "brandishing" after BLM rioters surround his house

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Sensei View Post
    Really?
    Yeah. Really

    It's not rioting like the headline suggests. It's also not "simply heckling". It's at least harassment or disturbing another person's peace. We can have a discussion about whether that warrants muzzling.


    I sense a lot of people.....

    Really?

    And where does your sense of people's nostalgia come from? Maybe the same place the homeowner's sense that a crowd gathered en masse, outside his home shouting at him on bullhorns and shining flashlights through his house isn't exactly benign, comes from.

    Maybe both you and the homeowner should have a discussion about your theories of discerning intentions in circumstances of ambiguity, like protests in front of private residences and internet forums.

  2. #32
    I don’t give a rat’s left nut what side either was on. It’s the actions I’m judging.

    Honestly, put yourself in a similar situation. Group of protestors is outside your home acting like dipshits. Now while I may not condone the perhaps premature muzzling, if you’re going to tell me with a straight face you wouldn’t at least have your fighting gear together I’ll say you’re full of shit.

    Guy may have been an asshole as reported. If so, karma’s obviously a bitch. But let’s not act like under the circumstances someone in that crowd might feel it’s okay to escalate things because of differing political ideology.
    “If the police were forced to drive around with an inflatable pool atop their vehicles and the only authorized use of force being to challenge a suspect to a two-out-of-three Jell-O Wrestling match, there would still be people droning on for hours about how unfair it was that the cop got to pick the flavor of Jell-O”

  3. #33
    Sensei, my observations are only that intersection of time. The pointing came later. Althought I really couldnt make it out on my screen so ill go with "alleged".

    Also in the alleged category I heard a few in the crowd say he was a felon in possession. So his arrest may have had nothing to do with brandishing.

  4. #34
    Member Sensei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    MI/NC
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    Yeah. Really

    It's not rioting like the headline suggests. It's also not "simply heckling". It's at least harassment or disturbing another person's peace. We can have a discussion about whether that warrants muzzling.





    Really?

    And where does your sense of people's nostalgia come from? Maybe the same place the homeowner's sense that a crowd gathered en masse, outside his home shouting at him on bullhorns and shining flashlights through his house isn't exactly benign, comes from.

    Maybe both you and the homeowner should have a discussion about your theories of discerning intentions in circumstances of ambiguity, like protests in front of private residences and internet forums.
    Proctalgia, not nostalgia. Proctalgia is the medical term for butthurt. In other words, I get the sense that some people are upset because this guy was arrested. However, if they wait to get all the facts, it is likely that the evidence will show that the cops did the right thing...like they do the overwhelming majority of times.
    I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Sensei View Post
    Proctalgia, not nostalgia. Proctalgia is the medical term for butthurt
    Ah...medical term huh?

    However, if they wait to get all the facts, it is likely that the evidence will show that the cops did the right thing...like they do the overwhelming majority of times.
    Yeah I actually did the job for 21 years and have quite of bit of experience in tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving situations. And cops do make good decisions the vast majority of the time.

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    For reference:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...atutes/947/013

    947.013  Harassment.
    (1)  In this section:
    (a) “Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.
    (b) “Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat.
    (c) “Personally identifiable information" has the meaning given in s. 19.62 (5).
    (d) “Record" has the meaning given in s. 19.32 (2).
    (1m) Whoever, with intent to harass or intimidate another person, does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
    (a) Strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the person to physical contact or attempts or threatens to do the same.
    (b) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which harass or intimidate the person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
    (1r) Whoever violates sub. (1m) under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
    (a) The act is accompanied by a credible threat that places the victim in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
    (b) The act occurs while the actor is subject to an order or injunction under s. 813.12, 813.122 or 813.125 that prohibits or limits his or her contact with the victim.
    (1t) Whoever violates sub. (1r) is guilty of a Class I felony if the person has a prior conviction under this subsection or sub. (1r), (1v), or (1x) or s. 940.32 (2), (2e), (2m), or (3) involving the same victim and the present violation occurs within 7 years of the prior conviction.
    (1v) Whoever violates sub. (1r) is guilty of a Class H felony if he or she intentionally gains access to a record in electronic format that contains personally identifiable information regarding the victim in order to facilitate the violation under sub. (1r).
    (1x) Whoever violates sub. (1r) under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
    (a) The person has a prior conviction under sub. (1r), (1t) or (1v) or this subsection or s. 940.32 (2), (2e), (2m), or (3).
    (b) The person intentionally gains access to a record in order to facilitate the current violation under sub. (1r).
    (2) This section does not prohibit any person from participating in lawful conduct in labor disputes under s. 103.53.
    History: 1983 a. 336; 1991 a. 194; 1993 a. 496; 2001 a. 109.
    This section is not a safety statute and does not grant a private right of action for its violation. In re Estate of Drab, 143 Wis. 2d 568, 422 N.W.2d 144 (Ct. App. 1988).
    947.019  Terrorist threats.
    (1)  Whoever, under any of the following circumstances, threatens to cause the death of or bodily harm to any person or to damage any person's property is guilty of a Class I felony:
    (a) The actor intends to prevent the occupation of or cause the evacuation of a building, dwelling, school premises, vehicle, facility of public transportation, or place of public assembly or any room within a building, dwelling, or school premises.
    (b) The actor intends to cause public inconvenience.
    (c) The actor intends to cause public panic or fear.
    (d) The actor intends to cause an interruption or impairment of governmental operations or public communication, of transportation, or of a supply of water, gas, or other public service.
    (e) The actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing a result described in par. (a), (b), (c), or (d) and is aware of that risk.
    (2) Any person who violates sub. (1) and thereby contributes to any individual's death is guilty of a Class G felony.
    History: 2015 a. 311.
    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 a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 131; 2011 a. 35; 2015 a. 149.
    The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct when he appeared on a stage wearing a minimum of clothing intending to and succeeding in causing a loud reaction in the audience. State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).
    An attorney was properly convicted under this section for refusing to leave a ward in a mental hospital until he had seen a client after having made statements in the presence of patients that caused some to become agitated. State v. Elson, 60 Wis. 2d 54, 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973).
    It was not disorderly conduct for 4 people to enter an office with other members of the public for the purpose of protesting the draft and to refuse to leave on orders of the police when their conduct was not otherwise disturbing. State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973).
    This statute does not require a victim, but when the disorderly conduct is directed at a person, that person is the victim for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrator for intimidating a victim under s. 940.44. State v. Vinje, 201 Wis. 2d 98, 548 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1484.
    A “true threat" is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924.
    Purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected “abusive" conduct. “Abusive" conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. “True threats" clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.
    Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S. 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99-2317.
    Disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well. Sending repeated, unwelcome, and anonymous mailings was “otherwise disorderly conduct." State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666, 99-3204.
    Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful. Braun v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761 (2003).]
    Last edited by HCM; 09-16-2020 at 06:33 PM.

  7. #37
    I certainly hope that more information comes out about why the guy was arrested. Couple of things that come to mind here

    1. The mob of assholes targeted someones home because they disagreed with his "racism". Maybe the guy is a racist or maybe the guy is just a Trump supporter. Both are protected by the 1A as far as I know. He can spout whatever retarded gibberish he wants like the BLM troop does every damned day. I view that as escalation. Same as the the group of asshats showed up at a cops home. Escalation. Same as hooded assholes showing up at folks' home to intimidate and scare others. Its an escalation that will end badly for a lot of people if our imbecilic political creatures dont get their heads out of their asses and act to restore law and order for ALL not just pander to some. I'll wager that if the same mob showed up at the mayors home they would have been dispersed ASAFP for disturbing the peace. Thats not a good situation to put your police into where they are seen as assassins by one retarded group and seen as political lackeys by others. I dont think people realize the consequences of one group hating cops cause they are systemic racism of whatever crap they come up with and the other loosing faith in them.

    2. Being the grey man in has immense value, especially in todays whack political climate.

  8. #38
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    The Keystone State
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    There was a time where we settled asshole-on-asshole situations rather simply.

    #BringBackDueling


    OR......and this will really show my age - whatever happened to a one on one fistfight? Two guys, no weapons, just goin at it. However, that opinion could possibly have something to do with the fact I played a lot of hockey about a million years ago, soooooo
    "We are the domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization."

    Laurence Gonzales - "Deep Survival."

  9. #39
    Bit Slinger Guerrero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    The 414
    I just got some more details on this incident:

    The day prior to the "protest party," the resident got into an altercation with his next-door neighbor, who is black. During this altercation, the resident made some comments that had a racial subtext to them, and ended up brandishing a chainsaw at the neighbor. The neighbor called the police, who came and arrested the resident. The resident posted bail. This altercation was the impetus for the "protest party."

    So, the "protest party" happened, and, supposedly, the police were on-site, monitoring the situation. Just before the arrest, the resident appeared with a long-gun in the front window (it's unclear at this time if it was a rifle or a shotgun), motioned chambering a shell/cartridge, and pointed it at members of the crowd. Several of the "protesters" reported this to the police, who confronted the resident, found him under the influence of alcohol (and possibly belligerent) and with a firearm, both in violation of his bail. This was the proximal cause of the arrest (not the fact that he was just a Trump supporter).

    Now, that being said, there was all kinds of wrong on both sides here:

    1) resident acted like a douchebag the previous day, had been drinking, and was not a very "nice" guy

    2) the "protest party" was illegally blocking traffic and probably violating noise ordinances

    3) Police were on-site, but did nothing until the resident brandished his firearm

    So, all in all, this was a very ugly situation.
    Last edited by Guerrero; 09-16-2020 at 07:36 PM.
    The man who works with a stick is going to defeat the man who plays with a sword.

  10. #40
    Bunch of a-holes all around. Shocker.
    It is much easier for the local constabulary to arrest the guy who was an offender yesterday for going down the same path today.

    To the “Home is My Castle” argument, this type of protest is not uncommon. I would expect this type of activity to continue. Sounds similar to union pickets against executive’s homes and a protest in my small suburb where left wing activists targeted the Governor’s Chief of Staff. While I personally didn’t like the Chief of Staff, have 50 people causing a commotion in front yard on weekend resulted in him finding new employment within a couple months. It maybe harassment, but generally legal and usually tolerated under threat of lawsuits.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •