Woman who took gun to church jailed over night for "prowling" - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel blog

[Kolesar]

A woman who was arrested after she wore her gun to a Brookfield church service *last year*, but was not charged with any crime, was arrested again early Friday in Milwaukee.

Krysta Sutterfield, 42, of Milwaukee, is in the Milwaukee County Jail on charges of loitering and prowling, and resisting or obstructing an officer. She had not had a court appearance as of late Friday, and was being held without bail.

Sutterfield is active in the area open carry movement, which advocates for gun rights and the open wearing of weapons by those legally able to do so.

According to overnight posts on an open carry discussion board, Sutterfield was using her computer around 1 a.m. while seated in her parked car outside Sherman Perk, a coffee shop at 4924 West Roosevelt Drive. She wrote that she was also openly carrying her gun.

She wrote that police were approaching, and then stopped posting to the discussion board.
...
Bob Olin, the owner of Sherman Perk, said he Sutterfield is a regular at the shop, and also frequently uses its WiFi connection outside when the business is closed, something he encourages all his customers to do if they need a connection.

He said he only bans "concealed guns, bazookas, grenade launchers and flame throwers" from his business and has no problem with people openly wearing a gun. He said Sutterfield is his only regular customer who does.
...snip...
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/133715608.html

Fun lady. Doesn't she have anything useful to do with her life besides making cops and citizens fear for their lives?

[GreenStormCloud]

1. She has sued police and won before on this issue.

From the same article: "Sutterfield and Wisconsin Carry, Inc. sued Brookfield and the officers who arrested Sutterfield after the July 4, 2010 church incident for wrongul arrest. The paid $7,500 to settle the matter in January, according to federal court records."

I suspect this one will end up the same way. The Milwaukee police have previously stated that they will arrest anyone who is open carrying even if it is legal. I suspect overreaching by the MPD.

[Ilsa]

4. But the RW isn't going to criticize her for lawsuit abuse. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Suing the police to force the cops to comply with the laws isn't lawsuit abuse.

It makes her a civil rights activist.

[Hoyt]

7. "Civil Rights Activist" -- that's a stretch, don't you think?

Reminds me of a political forum I used to be on where an honest to God member of the KKK billed himself as a "civil rights activist." He also threatened to shoot me in the head, but that's another story of a law-abiding gun owner.

[PavePusher]

8. Your blatent attempt at insinuation and conflation is quite tacky. n/t

[SteveM]

112. HA! nt

[oneshooter]

115. But it looks quite natural on him. n/t

[Marengo]

15. Not to doubt you, but can you provide us with a link? N/T

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. +1

would love to read that account :popcorn:

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Did you detain him? Did you even file a police report?

And why are you equating lawful activity with unlawful activity?

[GreenStormCloud]

34. The ACLU once defended the KKK's right to parade.

Yes, sometimes even the KKK can be defending a right vital to us all, in that case the 1st Amendment.

[Hoyt]

37. But, have you reviewed the ACLU's stand on guns. They don't interpret the 2A like gunners do.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. You missed the point.

I pointed out that sometimes even the KKK can actually be civil-rights activists. I am well aware of the ACLU's anti-gun stance. They have already lost that fight. You may wish to quit beating that dead horse.

[Hoyt]

39. Bigots -- like Klansmen -- can only be "civil rights activists" in only the most perverse sense.

But, then many gunners here interpret things in a perverse manner.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. If rights are denied to anybody, including the KKK, then they will be denied to all, including you.

So when the Klan went to court for their right to parade, they were defending your 1st Amendment for you, even though we both hate their intended use of it.

[PavePusher]

76. Civil Rights apply equally to all... including those you despise.

I know that chaps your ass mightily. Tough shit, eh?

[Hoyt]

78. Your poor, pitiful plight related to your guns is not a "civil right issue." Sorry.

[PavePusher]

82. Expound, please. You have repeatedly failed to explain this. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. They never have, but SCOTUS does

and they are the ones that matter.

[iverglas]

50. so what?

I never have.

Yes, sometimes even the KKK can be defending a right vital to us all, in that case the 1st Amendment.

Would you like some lubricant for that slope?


The KKK was not DEFENDING A RIGHT, it was engaging in an act.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. To engage in the act, they had to defend the right. N/T

[iverglas]

55. no, they had to defend themselves

Rights don't really ask anybody to defend them; they just are.

[Euromutt]

103. Are you referring to "National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie"?

That involved the National Socialist Party of America (obviously), not the Klan (description of case).
[br />The ACLU has acted on behalf of chapters and members of the KKK on occasion, from Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 through Yarnell v. Cuffley in 2001 to pressuring the city of Minneapolis to allow the Klan and an anti-Klan group named Can The Klan (CTK) to hold simultaneous rallies by the state capitol. But those actions have never, to the best of my knowledge, been about being able to march per se.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Thanks for the correction.

I must admit to getting the groups of racist assholes mixed up.

[Euromutt]

107. An understandable mistake

One bunch of racist assholes is pretty hard to distinguish from another.

Point remains that, in defending the rights of racist assholes to speak, print, assemble quasi-peaceably etc. we defend everybody else's right to do so.

[SteveM]

113. Do you remember the KKK demonstration at Texas' Capitol?

A yellow school bus load of anti-Klan activists pulled up in front of the building, everyone got out, arrayed themselves in a line facing the Klan, turned, dropped drawers and mooned 'em. DPS stood by, stifling laughs. The Klan speakers looked at each other, and left. Never came back.

Wonderful video, digitally scrambled below waists, was made, and plays now and again on access t.v., here in Austin.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. I think I was living in another state at the time, but I love the thought. N/T

[iverglas]

19. "It makes her a civil rights activist."

Actually, it makes her a pig-ignorant provocateur.

She knows as well as the police and the rest of the world do that no one has any way of knowing whether she is legally carrying a firearm or not.

And she knows as well as the police and the rest of the world, including all her pig-ignorant tantrum-throwing foot-stamping five-year-old friends do that a person sitting in a parked car with a gun outside a closed business in the dark is a reasonable source of concern to the public and a legitimate source of concern to the police.

She's a filthy piece of right-wing shit just like all her braying comrades in arms at "Wisconsin Carry" an all its sibling outfits are.

[PavePusher]

24. Do break-and-enter criminals routinely publicy surf the net...

immediately prior to attempting their crime, with no effort to camoflauge their activities?

[iverglas]

25. do people doing or about to do something illegal

often sit in parked cars outside businesses at 1 a.m.?

Are cars in the parking lots of closed businesses at 1 a.m. something police have a legitimate interest in and possibly even a duty to investigate?

If police find a person with a gun sitting in a parked car in the parking lot of a business that is closed and that they have no interest in at 1 a.m., is this something police have a legitimate interest in and possibly even a duty to investigate?

The answers to those are "yes", in case you were wondering. Had the business in question been broken into after police drove on by, I think the owner would be agreeing.

Maybe somebody could take up a collection and buy Ms. Provocateur an internet service of her very own. Then she'd have to come up with some other excuse for her provocation.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. Big difference between investigating and arresting.

The police were completely proper to check her out. Absent any broken laws or warrants they were wrong to arrest her.

[iverglas]

35. tell it to the scum

You're suggesting they will identify themselves to police if asked?

If so, I believe you would be mistaken.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Those trolling the police often know the rules better that the average cop on graveyard shift

They also tend to have recording devices which are quite legal there. Taking bets the real issue here was "contempt of cop" and when the recording comes out, the city attorney will ask for a settlement conference.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Snork

I still haven't, but considering your spouted biases, anything approaching neutrality must look like supporting those you disagree with.

I understand the concept of provocative protest. While it may make commonwealth members antsy, most Americans accept it. Its almost traditional with us.

Open carry is provocative but so is OWS. No one is being harmed, society is not being torn down, and people's eyes are being opened. Not sure why either is considered so horrendous by the supporters of the status quo.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

77. Tantrum, much? n/t

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

89. we'll just let the facts speak for themselves

This from the post above speaks very loudly for its author:

I understand the concept of provocative protest. While it may make commonwealth members antsy, most Americans accept it. Its almost traditional with us.

And then there are the facts. We could start with the fact that Commonwealth is a proper noun spelled with a capital letter, even though the Commonwealth has fuck all to do with anything here. The mere fact that anyone would think it does speaks volumes as well.

In Canada, we've had legal same-sex marriage starting something like a decade ago.
In Canada, we've never had "free-speech zones" (although we've definitely had some bother with international summits, and what a hoohah there has been about all that, with litigation and investigations ongoing as we speak).
In Canada, prisoners may vote (and no one has ever been prevented from voting who was not actually in prison).
In Canada, there are no statutory restrictions on access to abortion services, and (with some persistent illegal exceptions) those services are paid for by the public health plan.
Hell, in Canada, we have a public health plan.
In Canada, it's illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in the private sector, and all government programs and benefits apply to gay and straight equally.
In Canada, we have union rights and all kinds of protections for nonunionized employees.
In Canada, official language minority groups have schools and hospitals that they operate in their own language.
In Canada, people challenge refusals to issue firearms permits, and succeed.
In Canada, even laws against women going topless in public have been struck down.

All these things are so in Canada ... I know, I know, because Canadians (and all our Commonwealth colleagues) are spineless sheep who just sat around uncomplaining while the government imposed all that stuff on us.

The tales I hear here about the corruption and favouritism and arbitrary exercise of discretion in, oh, the firearms-carrying permit business ... the kind of thing that no Canadian (or Brit or Australian ...) would sit still for, for an instant ... well, they just make me wonder. National/ethnic mythologies are wonderful things. If only they did something other than make some people feel superior to others for reasons the others can't fathom, but find amusing.

It is "provocative" to burn a police car and smash storefronts at a G20 summit.

The fact that something is "provocative" does not mean that it is a good thing to do.

I hope I have dispelled your apparent confusion on that point.



typo ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. You mention the G20 summit. Does the name Byron Sonne ring a bell?

It should- it looks like the Toronto cops ginned up a non-crime "crime" in order to bust him, just like what Krysta Sutterfield
went through. Aside from your disapproval of Ms. Sutterfields' politics, I can see no difference between these cases.

http://toronto.openfile.ca/toronto/text/ruse-violated-byron-sonnes-rights

...This week, the Crown conceded that Toronto Police used a ruse in order to get Byron Sonne to hand over his ID on June 15, 2010. Sonne—otherwise known as the G20 Hacker, or the Anarchist of Forest Hill—had been filming the $9.4 million security fence that went up before the international summit. A security guard called the police, and three officers stopped Sonne as he walked along Temperance St.

One asked for his identification. Sonne refused, stating that he knew it was his right not to identify himself unless he was being detained for a specific crime. So, bicycle officer Michael Wong told Sonne that he was being investigated for jaywalking under the Highway Traffic Act. “This was simply a ruse employed to obtain the Applicant’s identification,” reads the statement of fact submitted by the Crown Attorney. “It worked.”

In Sonne’s preliminary trial last winter, all three officers agreed that none of them had actually seen him cross the street illegally. On November 10, Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies decided this ruse meant Sonne was unlawfully detained, and that his rights were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Next week, Judge Spies will decide if the Toronto Police also violated his rights when searching his home, seizing his possessions, or questioning him for 12 hours without access to a lawyer. Then begins his trial for possessing explosive materials and “counseling the indictable offense of mischief not committed.” I’ll explain that one to you when the trial gets started.

A jaywalking ruse doesn’t seem like a big deal. But from this came the police department’s “open source” searches (the rest of us call it Googling), where they found the Twitter, Flickr and YouTube postings that led Toronto Police to believe Sonne was a criminal with nefarious intent for the summit. Egregrious tweets include a link to a Toronto Star map showing the locations of the G20 security cameras. Egregious photos include those of a compressed air cannon, or spudgun, which has now been ruled irrelevant (as any nerd will tell you, it's a science enthusiast's toy). His weapons charge has been dropped....

More discussion here:


http://boingboing.net/2011/11/12/trial-of-byron-sonne-security.html#disqus_thread

http://boingboing.net/2011/05/21/byron-sonne-canadian.html

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/from-print-edition-informer/2011/05/03/how-byron-sonne%E2%80%99s-obsessions-with-the-g20-security-apparatus-cost-him-everything/

[iverglas]

97. not excellent at that reading stuff either?

This was in my post in black and white:

In Canada, we've never had "free-speech zones" (although we've definitely had some bother with international summits, and what a hoohah there has been about all that, with litigation and investigations ongoing as we speak).

What I "mentioned" about the G20 summit was the people who DID set police cars on fire and smash storefronts up and down Yonge Street.

They were provocateurs. What they did was "provocative" in our professor's turn of phrase.

Oh, you also saw this bit in what you copied and pasted? --

"Sonne refused, stating that he knew it was his right not to identify himself unless he was being detained for a specific crime."

And you'll notice he's winning.

Now, getting back to our question, which you too seem quite desperate to spin away from:

How does anyone in the US know whether a person displaying a firearm on their person in public is in lawful possession of the firearm?

First one to actually answer the question, or hell, even address it (since it can't be answered) wins a big prize.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Not a germane question. Sutterfield *was* carrying legally-and got busted anyway

Thing is, even "scum" and really bad people have rights, including that of presumption of innocence.

<sigh> Once again, I'll have to remind you of John Adams and the Boston Massacre, the ACLU's representation of Illinois Nazis, and
Sabin Willett's defense of prisoners at Guantanamo. And let's not forget Mr. Ernesto Arturo Miranda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda

[iverglas]

100. >>>>>>>>>>>>> "They can't"

The rest of your sentence is totally irrelevant to the question.

But at last. An answer.

Nobody on the face of the planet has any way of knowing whether a person displaying a firearm on their person in public is in lawful possession of the firearm.

And the assembled masses here think that is a gooooood thing.


edited to add emphasis to the title so everybody knows the contest is over

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Yeah, it *is* a good thing. Would you also defend the Secure Communities program?

After all, there is no way to tell anyone's immigration status by looking at them. Better to run everyone's prints through
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's database. After all, if we're going to bust people who aren't breaking the law, why
balk at arresting those actually breaking immigration law?

http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/

...Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are booked into jails with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws....

[iverglas]

104. interesting analogy; are immigrants dangerous in your mind?

It's unfortunate that you think immigrants without legal status are equivalent to people in illegal possession of firearms.

I don't.


After all, if we're going to bust people who aren't breaking the law

Um ... who this "we", white fella?

Put another way: what the hell are you talking about?

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. What "people in illegal possession of firearms." Sutterfield's posession was legal...

...and busting her because the cops don't like it is on a par with finding a pretext to arrest OWS protesters. Or Byron Sonne, for
that matter.

"Disapproval of a legally permissable practice" is not grounds for arrest whether you're a Milwaukee cop, a Toronto cop, or
an NYPD cop raiding the Stonewall Lounge...

[iverglas]

108. what immigrants without legal status?

Can't you hold a subject in your head for the time it takes to click "reply"?

Who's talking about arresting anybody?

What are you seeing on your monitor?

Possibly if you cleaned it, your intelligibility would improve.

But perhaps you should just stop pretending to see things that aren't there.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. I am stating that in the absence of illegal activity or a warrant the police have no right to arrest

She was not doing anything illegal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Given the quality of most cops on graveyard, it was probably for contempt of cop

for pointing out his lack of probable cause. Hopefully she was recording the encounter

[iverglas]

46. I AM ASKING YOU and you can keep prancing and dancing if you want

how the police know that the person displaying a firearm on their person in public is in legal possession of a firearm.

If you don't CARE whether the police or anyone else has any way of knowing that, just say so.


Oh, and if you think a decent human being would go into a church service being held by a congregation to which they were a complete stranger and where no one present had ever done them any harm for the sole purpose of intimidating, as a way of "trolling" for cops, just say so, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Same way that they know the person driving a car is authorized to drive that car.

Absent any illegal or suspicious behavior they must assume that the person is doing so legally. If something is suspicious they can investigate. Ask to see the person's ID. In most, if not all, states the law requires a person to ID themselves to police upon request.

Why she was in church doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she was there legally, and her behavior was legal. Whether you approve or not is irrelevant.

[iverglas]

54. who's talking about cars?

Not me. Can't you stick to the subject?


In most, if not all, states the law requires a person to ID themselves to police upon request.

OMG, you poor subjects you.

In Canada, no one (who isn't driving a car) is required to identify themselves to police ever. Unless they're doing something having to do with municipal bylaws that I forget the details of. I posted all about it here a while back.

I'd like that on better authority though, I'm afraid. A cop can require that an individual produce identification for no reason at all then?


Why she was in church doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she was there legally, and her behavior was legal. Whether you approve or not is irrelevant.

Irrelevant if the discussion is about something other than what an asshole she is.

I'm talking about what an asshole she is. If you want to talk about something else, find somebody who's interested. If you want to reply to my posts, tell me what your opinion of her is.

How about this: is there anything that any gun militant could ever do anywhere that you would not approve of?

[gejohnston]

56. same concept

How does the cop know that the guy in front of them is legal to drive? They don't unless they have reason to stop and ask.
You brought up the reason you think. If you think she is an asshole, fine. Never met her, so I'll reserve judgement.
What is a gun militant? There there somethings that I would not approve of. I'm sure that is true for anyone.
Is there anything a control militant could ever do anywhere that you would not approve of? So far you seem OK with false arrest and police brutality.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Regarding ID laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes It gives a good explanation of them.

I would dissapprove of a gun militant doing anything illegal.

[iverglas]

66. and in Canada

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441925&mesg_id=442506

taken straight from the Toronto police:

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communitymobilization/newcomer/guides/tps_guide_eng.pdf

In general, you are under no obligation to identify yourself to a police officer. However, there are exceptions, which include the following:

If you are driving a car

If you have committed a Provincial Offence such as a liquor, trespassing, or driving offence

Stupid sheep subjects, never having any obligation to identify themselves to police. No "Terry stops" here. As per the wiki, in the US:

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.<10> However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.

So in other words this does not apply to someone wandering around a mall with a gun on display, or walking into a church service being held by a congregation to which they are a stranger with a gun on display ... because police have no reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. It being a crime simply to be in possession of a firearm if one is not legally eligible to do so, but who cares?

I know some people want to pretend that driving a car and wandering around in public with a gun are analogous. Too bad they aren't.

[PavePusher]

79. Actually, GSC was a bit incomplete on that.

IIRC, most states require a verbal identification if requested, i.e. "My name is -PavePusher-". Very few states require a formal, government-issued ID document be produced, unless it is germaine to the stop, i.e. producing a Drivers Licence if stopped for a traffic law violation, or a weapons carry permit if in a state that requires one.

Otherwise, the police can ask for physical ID all day, but you are under no legal obligation to provide one.

One of the tactics of the Open Carry movement is "sterile" open carry, with no physical ID, in places where no permit is required for open carry. Drives some police bonkers. Too bad for them.

[iverglas]

87. well there ya go

Otherwise, the police can ask for physical ID all day, but you are under no legal obligation to provide one.
One of the tactics of the Open Carry movement is "sterile" open carry, with no physical ID, in places where no permit is required for open carry.

So here is the question ... for the 87th time:

HOW DO THE POLICE KNOW WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM?

I don't care how little you care whether the public has some way of knowing that the person sitting on the bus or in the pew behind them is in lawful possession of the firearm they're displaying.

I just want an answer to the question.


Drives some police bonkers. Too bad for them.

And for all the rest of the public who don't care to be sharing a bus or a pew with a total stranger displaying a firearm. Fuck 'em.

[PavePusher]

90. In the U.S., we have this thing called "presumption of innocence".

Really cool stuff. You might try it some time, very liberating.

It certainly beats hell out of spending all your time nosing into other's business when they haven't given reasonable cause to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy

[iverglas]

93. and in the US you also have people who know what they're talking about

Those people know that "presumption of innocence" is of the most utter and supreme and total irrelevance to my question.

In Canada, I have a second cousin four times removed who wrote the bleeding book on "presumption of innocence" in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Sankey

Viscount Sankey's judgment in Woolmington v DPP <1935> AC 462 is famous for iterating the duty inherent on the Prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In pertinent part, his judgment stated:

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Woolmington v DPP <1935> AC 462 is a famous House of Lords case in English law, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the Commonwealth.

(Note that it was "articulated" in the sense of the statement that it was and had always been the very basis of English criminal law, else the trial judge could not have been found to have misdirected the jury; in that case, the man who had very obviously intentionally shot a woman to death was acquitted.)

Read something sometime; it may help you understand the words you type.

Understanding stuff can actually be more fun than finding what you imagine are clever little linkies for insulting people who are smarter than you.

[PavePusher]

110. And you, by the available evidence, merely have "presumption of superiority".

Interesting, but irrelevent.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Not to mention reasonable suspicion and probable cause

[iverglas]

101. which you apparently think you invented too

but which is as wholly and completely and utterly irrelevant to the question as your other sad effort was.

[SteveM]

111. Apparently lawsuit self-abuse began with Milwaukee, no? nt

[mvccd1000]

2. Cops and citizens fear a regular patron of a local coffee shop?

Perhaps they need some sort of counseling or therapy.

Sounds like this lady has another payout coming.

[hack89]

3. So you support police harassing people doing lawful things?

you honestly think she would have been arrested if she was not carrying?

[ileus]

5. Hopefully she'll win another 7000.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

109. Agree. It sounds like she was just using the shop's wifi

to connect to the internet, which the shop's owner said is normal and welcome for his customers.

Of course, she may have addressed the interrupting police officers with something other than groveling obeisance. Reason enough to be locked up for days.

I think she has another payday coming.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Beacuse spin is not limited to the media

[iverglas]

21. "How do you justify the police arresting someone who is doing something that is legal?"

In case of mishap, I wanted to quote the portion of one-eyed fat man's post that I am replying to.

How do you propose that the police determine whether the person is doing something that is legal?

Just your succinct proposal, thanks.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. She was stopped and arrested since she was open carrying

Open carry is legal in that state.

Either the cops do not know the law, or they are just carrying out illegal orders issued by the police chief. If this continues (and it will) city management should withdraw qualified immunity and make the chief and his officers defend against the lawsuits and pay the judgements perosnally.

[iverglas]

23. not too good at answering simple questions, either, are you?

Open carry is legal in that state.

What was that you were saying about "spin"?

Why did you omit this part? -- ... for people who are not prohibited from possessing firearms.

Did you think maybe nobody would think of that?

:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Open carry there doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion nor probable cause for a police stop

She is effectively being arrested for open carry even though it is legal. City has already lost that one in court with this very same person. The cops surely knew that when they ran her ID. At this point qualified immunity needs to be withdrawn for the chief and the officers on this matter. Let them pay lawyers and judgements, not the taxpayers.

Does everyone the cops see driving get pulled over to make sure they have a current license or that they are allowed to drive that particular car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause? They are both examples of legal activities being done in public.

[iverglas]

27. indeed

In other words, police are hamstrung. If someone points out a person carrying a firearm, police must look the other way. And if the person subsequently shoots his estranged wife in the head across a crowded mall, too bad, it could not have been prevented, her tough luck.

Tell me that CANNOT and WILL NOT happen. Please.

And people attending services at the church of their choice, who have been fool enough not to think of plastering NO GUNS signs on their property, must tolerate piece of shit provocateurs, who are total strangers to them, promenading around on their premises with firearms with the obvious and 100% foreseeable effect and thus INTENT of intimidating them, and may not expect police to investigate.

After all, that's not what the police are for.


City has already lost that one in court with this very same person. The cops surely knew that when they ran her ID.

Really?? The police maintain a database containing information about people who have sued the police? Phew. You like this idea, do you? Phew.


Does everyone the cops see driving get pulled over to make sure they have a current license or that they are allowed to drive that particular car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause? They are both examples of legal activities being done in public.

People driving cars are not doing it to "express their rights". They are doing it to get from point A to point B.

Too bad your heroine could not come up with something else to tell people who asked why she had intruded into their church service with her gun, eh?

SHE was and is a provocateur. As are all the rest of her ilk.


typo

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. The police are indeed being trolled quite successfully

They lack cause, arrest someone for a legal activity, and then get sued. Its a tactic being used in other parts of the US where the cops have gone rogue on open carry.

In areas that allow open or concealed carry, prohibiting signs are the law.

Police dispatch software normally lists prior activities involving the person, car, or address being queried. There are also places for "additional notes". This data is normally retrieved either by dispatch or the data terminal in the police car. I am sure the same software or something like it is used in your city too.

Why one is doing something is not for the government to judge. The car analogy is on point and has been used successfully in several court cases here in the US. That police need at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause is an important concept in US law. Police chief bluster and threats by officers can not overcome that.

For someone claiming to be a stickler for the truth, why do you claim she is my heroine? I have expressed no opinion on her actions. She is indeed acting provocatively, but that is her right and it harms no one.

[iverglas]

29. "Why one is doing something is not for the government to judge."

And neither I nor anyone else said it was.

Why don't you leave your nasty demagoguery at home? It would make a good companion for your guns.

People do not drive cars "to express their rights".

I'm not the one who said this turd went into a church with a gun to "express her rights". She's the one who said that. It is proof that she is no more than a provocateur.

"Civil rights activists" do not go into churches where people who have done nothing to harm them are simply going about their congregational business to "express their rights" by doing something that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt those people are going to find intimidating and frightening.

That is what she was doing: intentionally intimidating people. Intimidating people is not analogous to driving a vehicle from point A in order to get to point B.

That police need at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause is an important concept in US law.

Not as important as it is in Canada, you may recall from previous discussions. Which I mention only to respond to the insinuation of the superiority of the US and the ignorant benightedness of foreigners in your statement.

I don't give a flying fuck, anyway. I am talking about the people who engage in this behaviour. They are pig-ignorant provocateurs whose intention is to intimidate total strangers. The evidence of that can be seen in their every word and their every action, the treatment this one gave to the total strangers in the congregation she chose to disrupt being a fine case in point. They disgust normal people.

The fact that their behaviour and their militancy actually interfere with the ability of the police to do their job makes their bad faith more than obvious.

For someone claiming to be a stickler for the truth, why do you claim she is my heroine? I have expressed no opinion on her actions. She is indeed acting provocatively, but that is her right and it harms no one.

Every opportunity to condemn her for the piece of shit she so obviously is, and yet ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Again, you fail to address that it is the police acting illegally

They are being trolled, sued, and are losing in court, and not just by this person. They are not very happy about it when it happens


"Why one is doing something is not for the government to judge."
And neither I nor anyone else said it was.

Nor did I say you said it. However if I am doing something a a political demonstration or just doing it to get to work, the Government has no authority to treat them differently.


"Civil rights activists" do not go into churches where people who have done nothing to harm them are simply going about their congregational business to "express their rights" by doing something that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt those people are going to find intimidating and frightening.

You may not be aware of what Queer Nation and others did in some Catholic churches. St Paul's would be a more recent example.


That is what she was doing: intentionally intimidating people. Intimidating people is not analogous to driving a vehicle from point A in order to get to point B.

US courts disagree and have been issuing judgements against the cops


That police need at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause is an important concept in US law.

Not as important as it is in Canada, you may recall from previous discussions. Which I mention only to respond to the insinuation of the superiority of the US and the ignorant benightedness of foreigners in your statement.

I made no such insinuation and am the one using a neutral tone and words in this sub thread. Since this is going on in the US, I cited critical US law. Those laws are the foundation of the lawsuits open carry advocates are using to win judgements against rogue police departments.



I don't give a flying fuck, anyway. I am talking about the people who engage in this behaviour. They are pig-ignorant provocateurs whose intention is to intimidate total strangers.

Those are the same words being used about OWS...while the situations are different in many ways, both forms of protest are legal and clearly upsetting the status quo.

[iverglas]

31. maybe the police, and the public in whose interests they act,

are making a point too.

Tie their hands tightly enough, make enough of a show of how tightly you can tie their hands, and see what happens.


However if I am doing something a a political demonstration or just doing it to get to work, the Government has no authority to treat them differently.

AND I DID NOT SAY IT DID.

So why the fuck do you keep lobbing these irrelevant globs of pointlessness at me?

You may not be aware of what Queer Nation and others did in some Catholic churches. St Paul's would be a more recent example.

You may not be aware that I don't give a flying fuck because THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT.

You're probably not aware of what various activist groups have done at RC churches in Quebec (ages ago; we are ahead of you on everything).

What has the RC Church's huge contribution to the persecution of GLBT people (and others) got to do with a UU congregation in Wisconsin and a gun militant's decision to intimidate its members during their service?

I'm sure the UU church is on the NRA blacklist. I'm sure it has taken formal positions in favour of stringent gun control.

Tough shit. That is a political issue. Nobody else in the whole goddamned world has to accept some gun militants' claim that displaying firearms in public is a "civil right", or even listen to their stupid whining.

And as you keep saying, it is legal to do that in Wisconsin. So what point is being made by somebody invading the church service a bunch of total strangers are peacefully attending with a gun on display? If it's LEGAL, what is her fucking point?

"Fuck you", is her point. Her point, and her only point.

"Civil rights activists" do NOT behave this way.


Those are the same words being used about OWS

I'm sure you must have a gun handy you could blow that out of.



typo

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. I never took you for one of them law-n-order types

"maybe the police, and the public in whose interests they act, are making a point too.
Tell that to OWS in Oakland, Berkeley, and elsewhere, including some sites in Canada IIRC. The police can be counted on to act in their own interest first and foremost. Occasionally they act for "the public", but mostly it is in support of the 1%, at least here in the US.

I keep bringing up that whether it is open carry or just doing it to get to work, the Government has no authority to treat them differently since they are both legal activities. You seem to keep trying to create some sort of difference that gives the Government the compelling interest to stop one and not the other. US courts support my position and have refused yours.

One thing that should concern those interested in the rule of law is that the cops are misbehaving, and the punishments are not effective in stopping the misbehavior. That needs to change. Whether it is the withdrawal of qualified immunity or increased discipline, police behavior needs to change. I see much the same thing with cameras (another thing the cops hate).

When you brought up the demonstration at a UU church, I cited other examples of "civil rights" demonstrations being held at churches that did disrupt and scare the hell out of parishioners. Quite analogous, but you don't seem to think those were a problem. Some would consider that a double standard, since they were Civil Rights demonstrators, and they did behave "that way"

Your words continue to mirror what many who oppose OWS say about it. Pointing it out only makes for a lovely snork. Now lets see more of your law-n-order message.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Yes, indeed.

If someone points out a person carrying a firearm, police must look the other way.

Since open carry is legal there then they must respect legal activity. We have not yet arrived at Minority Report.

And people attending services at the church of their choice, who have been fool enough not to think of plastering NO GUNS signs on their property, must tolerate piece of shit provocateurs, who are total strangers to them, promenading around on their premises with firearms with the obvious and 100% foreseeable effect and thus INTENT of intimidating them, and may not expect police to investigate.

You would freak out at the church I attend. We have members who stage Western re-enactments of gunfights with real guns shooting blanks. And we have members who carry concealed in church. In Texas open carry is still illegal.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

48. she was in lawful possession of the firearm

so what is your point? If not, her possession would be illegal and not the open carry. Two different things. If anyone is playing a game, you are.
Sociopath loon? Isn't practicing psychology without a license against the criminal code?
The only other case of tele-diagnosis I know of was done by some unqualified and opportunistic right wing ass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48119-2005Mar18.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=204871&mesg_id=204876

[iverglas]

49. you're probably so used to playing the game you can't even tell

We have two subjects here.

1. Neither the police nor anyone else has any way of knowing or finding out whether a person displaying a firearm on their person in public is in lawful possession of the firearm.

2. The individual who went into someone else's church with a firearm on display on her person was an asshole, and her behaviour is the behaviour of a sociopath.

These two things are not the same.

The overlap is that the people in the church had no way of knowing whether the obnoxious stranger in their midst was in lawful possession of the firearm with which she had festooned herself -- and, even if she was, what her intent and reason for being in their church was.

Kindly don't pretend that the individual in that instance is some kind of answer to the general question.

The fact that she was in lawful possession of the firearm does not mean that the people in the congregation had any way of knowing that. They did not, and had the police attended at the scene while she was there, they would have had no way of knowing either. Police could have required her to leave at the direction of the congregation, but that is all they could legally have done.

And so far not one single person replying to me here has condemned this cretin for her disgusting behaviour. Volumes, spoken.

[gejohnston]

51. disgusting behavior to you

does not mean the same. As has explained before, the police could check to see if she is in lawful possession. They did, but arrested her for a non-crime. That is the point.
asshole and sociopath are two different things. How is that behavior of a sociopath?
They called the cops. Once the cops verified that she was in legal possession, the congregation could have asked to leave it in the car. Instead, the police abused their authority for arresting her for a non-crime.
Just because you think it is disgusting, doesn't mean anyone else has too. Quite frankly, your value judgments carry about as much weight as........pick your favorite fictional character.

[iverglas]

57. blah de blah

In case you haven't gathered, I just don't give a flying fuck about what the police did or didn't do or should or shouldn't have done. That's between them and her and it's their and her problem, and I just don't give a crap. I don't know the facts and I may never know them, and my interest in finding out the facts is about nil.

asshole and sociopath are two different things.

Okey dokey. She's both.

How is that behavior of a sociopath?

Want some wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Psychopathy and sociopathy are terms related to ASPD. ASPD replaced psychopathy as a diagnosis in the DSM but the terms are not identical. Psychopathy is now (like sociopathy) usually seen as a subset of ASPD. Many people with this disorder are not violent unless significantly and specifically provoked. ...

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

Failure to conform to social norms (you do know that the vast majority of the population does not approve of carrying firearms in public, let alone displaying them, let alone going into other people's churches displaying firearms)

Aggressiveness (I'm not the one who described her activities as "trolling" for cops)

Reckless disregard for safety of others (I can't think of a better way of describing intruding into someone else's church service wearing a firearm)

Lack of remorse (if we were to severely understate her persistent provocation and obvious revelling in doing things that cause other people distress, for no reason at all but to provoke that response)


Basically, a total disregard for anyone but herself and total lack of respect for the concerns and comfort of anyone else in the world.

This subtype of antisocial behaviour fits like a glove:
"malevolent antisocial - including sadistic, paranoid features".


But hey, I'm happy to stick to common or garden right-wing scum asshole, if you insist.


They called the cops. Once the cops verified that she was in legal possession, the congregation could have asked to leave it in the car. Instead, the police abused their authority for arresting her for a non-crime.

My reading of it is that the congregation did nothing while she was there because in the face of a stranger displaying a gun they did not want to risk provoking her. They could have simply told her to leave and not come back, gun or no gun. She knew perfectly well how unlikely that was to happen.


Just because you think it is disgusting, doesn't mean anyone else has too.

Certainly not! The mere fact that I find, oh, genocide and spitting on the street disgusting doesn't mean anyone else has to either at all.

People do ordinarily have reactions to other people's behaviour, though. My reaction to hers is disgust. Nobody else seems to have any reaction at all. Odd.

[gejohnston]

58. three of these

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

no evidence of any of them other in your own mind. You say Mary Rosh, I say Dr. Frist.

[iverglas]

68. if you want to pretend not to read my posts

that's entirely up to you.

[gejohnston]

69. I read your post

I always do, even when you pretend to have something to say.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. A purported liberal legal type does not "give a flying f*ck" if rights were violated and an arrest

improper. That is one for the history file.

I have previously asserted that there is a significant cultural differences between Canada and the US, part of which is tolerance of provocative protest. Most of us look at this and shrug. There are more important things with real impact to worry about. This is not one of them.

[iverglas]

67. why do you persist in posting false statements about me?

A purported liberal legal type does not "give a flying f*ck" if rights were violated and an arrest
Posted by ProgressiveProfessor
improper. That is one for the history file.

It would be if I were or had ever claimed to be a "liberal". I'm not, and I have said so on so many occasions I could not begin to count. So you can leave off that attempt at insult. It fell flat.

And I just don't have to care what happens to people like this one as a result of their own ugly antisocial behaviour. I could agree it was the most godawful atrocious horrific violation of her fundamental human rights the world has ever seen (as one would think it was, to read this forum), and I still wouldn't have to give a shit. And ya can't make me!

I'd agree that if someone had killed old Adolph in cold blood it would have been an illegal act of homicide, but I wouldn't give a shit about that either.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

81. Bullshit, you certainly do seem to be "giving a crap". n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Your item 1 has been debunked

Police have all the resources needed to determine if a person is disqualified to own a firearm in the field.

[iverglas]

70. will you stop leaving me in suspense???

Police have all the resources needed to determine if a person is disqualified to own a firearm in the field.

WHAT ARE THEY?

As far as I can tell, they consist of a tricorder and the Federation database.

[gejohnston]

71. it is called a radio

to dispatch or computer connected to NCIC. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic

The RCMP can not do the same for local police?

[iverglas]

72. and what do they do with this "radio"?

Please, step by step.

[gejohnston]

73. before laptops in cars

radio dispatch with information from Drivers License, dispatch types it in their computer through NCIC, tells cop with reply.
Based on watching Flashpoint, it seems that the RCMP has a similar system for local law enforcement.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Mobile Data Terminals are all the rage these days in police cars

Its abundantly clear that officers in the field can rapidly and easily determine if some one is not qualified to own a firearm. LEO IT systems are more than capable of that, and they make those kind of check daily. Even if it is a poor department, the same functionality is available from dispatch. Most small towns have that capability, as does that PD making the fraudulent arrests.

It is also clear that officers are ignoring the law and arresting people for open carry when it is legal. The result is judgements against the departments. However, those judgements are clearly not high enough to get their attention. This illegal arrests should concern all of us, but some clearly do not "give a flying f*ck".

[iverglas]

86. c'mon, you can do it

Its abundantly clear that officers in the field can rapidly and easily determine if some one is not qualified to own a firearm.

Tell me how.

Here's your scenario.

Individual is sitting in the congregation of the local UU church displaying a firearm on her person.

Individual got to church on foot.

Someone calls police and police get there before individual leaves church.

You complete the story now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Already covered elsewhere

[iverglas]

94. link?

I'd say there's more than one thing uncovered, your ass being one of them.

[iverglas]

85. ah, "Drivers License"

And how do the police lay hands on this driver's licence thing?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Answered several times previously

IIRC you did not like the answer. Do I need to give you another lecture on Police IT systems?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Answered previously

by multiple parties covering multiple aspects and scenarios.

[iverglas]

95. "Do I need to give you another lecture on Police IT systems?"

Oh dear oh dear, somebody must have taken offence.

I seem to recall asking whether the Police IT systems whereof you speak operate by tricorder accessing the Federation database ...

Do these IT systems truly work by telepathy? Nobody even has to input any data, they just magically spit out information when you point them and squint and think really really hard?

Designed by the Music Man, maybe?

The "think system" of identifying people who decline to identify themselves because the police have no grounds for demanding that they do so ...

Maybe that's the system you're using for answering my question.

Think really really hard and I'll believe you've answered it.

Oops!

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

10. What a douchbag - and glad she cooled her d-bag heels in the local gaol

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. And will win yet another suit against the city

Bet the city attorney just offers to settle up front.

[jpak]

13. Open Carry still sucks

yup

[one-eyed fat man]

14. You got a fat wallet?

Maybe you should offer to pay the damages in all the wrongful arrest suits. That way you get some value for your suckage.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Which is why I normally carried concealed

However in some places there is limited choices. Better open carry than no carry.

[gejohnston]

17. You are OK with

false arrest and false imprisonment for things you think suck, but perfectly legal. That is not liberal nor progressive.

[gejohnston]

62. Had she done it in Wyoming, she would

but she didn't. As far as I am concerned, I disagree with Wyoming because of church/state separation. Churches should be treated like any other business including taxes.

[SteveM]

114. And the taxpayers will "gladly" pay for your pleasure? Guess you don't live there.

puy

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.