It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

West Allis man not guilty in open carry gun case

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

West Allis man not guilty in open carry gun case


www.jsonline.com

As Brad Krause planted a tree in his yard last summer, a neighbor noticed that in addition to a shovel, Krause had a tool not usually required for yard work - a gun in a holster.

Police arrived and gave Krause a ticket alleging disorderly conduct, launching a case that a national gun-rights group has been watching for months.

On Tuesday, Krause won acquittal in what some advocates say is one of the first so-called open-carry gun cases heard in a Wisconsin court.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.freerepublic.com
opencarry.org




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
With all the news about jury's not upholding property rights, this is a breath of fresh air.

"The reason people are upset about this is it's not about guns. It's about civil liberties. And we obviously have a property issue. There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk," Krause said.

Hopefully this sends out a message to everyone listening that Police aggression is not going to be tolerated. Yes that "god damn piece of paper" still means something and is worth fighting for.

www.jsonline.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Well he was really guilty of anything. He was with in the law and the constitution and was should file suit for how he was treated by the police. He wasn't a threat and was doing nothing wrong when they came in at gun point and took him down and booked him. This also goes to show how people over react to gun now a days. What business of the neighbor whether he is carrying a gun while planting a tree(which might be a little strange). You never know what kind of yahoos there are out there. Personal protection is paramount.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Yeah, I hope he sues there pants off.
The problem with that is though, its umm really our pants hes suing off because, its our tax dollars.
Individual police should be held accountable for there unlawful actions.
This was unlawful to do this to this man on his own property.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Does any one know what kind of neighbourhood he was in? Cos planting a tree while packing a handgun is, well an odd thing to do. If it was the sort of nice neighbourhood where you can lean over the fence and chat to your neighbours (like where I live) I would of been like 'so your planting a tree?' "yup"... 'So nice gun...?' "yup"

In other 'hoods' someone digging while carrying a gun can take on a whole other meaning, burying drugs, money, stolen goods, bodies??



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Fellow Wisconite.

And who cares his purposes.

Let me post this for the not so obviously knowing out their in America.

From Wikipedia


There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


DO YOU NOTICE THE PART THAT SAYS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The police, the DA and anyone else that helped with this travesty of justice should not be sued. They should be arrested for infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Fellow Wisconsinite.

And who cares his purposes.

Let me post this for the not so obviously knowing out their in America.

From Wikipedia


There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


DO YOU NOTICE THE PART THAT SAYS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The police, the DA and anyone else that helped with this travesty of justice should not be sued. They should be arrested for infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights.


edit to fix gramma-How the hell did I misspell Wisconsinite!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Cos planting a tree while packing a handgun is, well an odd thing to do.


No, it's not. The only reason it could be views as odd is because society has had the gun beaten down and out of it into some artificial realm of censorship where the less aware of the population sees it as 'odd.'


If it was the sort of nice neighbourhood where you can lean over the fence and chat to your neighbours (like where I live) I would of been like 'so your planting a tree?' "yup"... 'So nice gun...?' "yup"


You'd be surprised by how many people, gun nuts and gun paranoids alike, wouldnt even notice an openly carried firearm. Once in a while an individual might make note of my firearm and ask a question or two about it but it's no different than asking about a persons watch or shoes or offering "hey, nice jacket, is that purple velvet?"



In other 'hoods' someone digging while carrying a gun can take on a whole other meaning, burying drugs, money, stolen goods, bodies??


Those are some pretty amazing leaps. I'd hope that people would actually want to have seen a crime before flying off the paranoid handle and calling the cops. This sounds like an example I used in the LEGO gun thread about some ignorant individual calling the cops because they saw a black man walking down the street in their uppity white neighborhood. Just because you dont like or understand the gun doesnt mean it's out to get you. Same with the black man.

Ignorant prejudice is ignorant prejudice regardless of the subject at hand.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
Yeah, I hope he sues there pants off.
The problem with that is though, its umm really our pants hes suing off because, its our tax dollars.
Individual police should be held accountable for there unlawful actions.
This was unlawful to do this to this man on his own property.


The police officers who acted in this case acted outside of their jurisdictional boundaries and as such are not protected by their badge. Without jurisdiction this means they acted as private citizens and should be treated as such. They should not only be sued as private citizens in a civil court, Brad Krause should file a verified complaint with the Sheriff's office and have them, and the prosecutor who prosecuted the case, arrested for illegal detainment, trespassing, (in regards to the police officers that lacked jurisdiction), malicious prosecution, acting under color of law, and obstruction of justice.

No tax dollars need be spent in terms of a settlement as all parties involved would have to be held accountable as private citizens and the only tax dollars spent would be to establish justice, i.e. the cost of arresting these thugs, incarcerating them and the court costs of prosecuting them for their crimes. If Krause were to do this, that would send a clear and unquestionable message to the thugs of government who think they are correct in abrogating and derogating the rights of an individual.



[edit on 5-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join