Milwaukee shooting case puts focus on gun rights

[jpak]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-shooting-case-puts-focus-on-gun-rights-132388913.html

Wisconsin residents planning to carry concealed weapons after a new state law takes effect next month may want to follow a trial set to start Monday in Milwaukee.

State vs. Jesus Gonzalez may prove to be the best evidence for either side of the gun rights debate: Did Gonzalez save his own life because he carried a gun, or did he kill one man and paralyze another because deadly force was readily available at his hip?

Gonzalez, 24, faces charges of first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide in the May 9, 2010, shootings that killed Danny John, 29, and wounded John's nephew, Jered Corn, 22, who had just left Mamie's tavern a couple of doors away from Gonzalez's home on S. Shea Ave. Neither victim had a gun.

<snip>

Before that incident, Gonzalez was well known in the open carry movement in which gun rights supporters wear visible guns in public, a practice allowed in Wisconsin without a specific statute. In 2007 and 2008, Gonzalez was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct after wearing his gun into a Menards and a Walmart. Neither arrest led to formal charges.

<more>

[msongs]

1. "gun rights" only apply to government agencies, not on private property

[jpak]

2. Open carry douchebags that gun down unarmed citizens can suck it

this guy is an asshole

yup

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[jpak]

12. Umm - he admitted to the shooting and he was a open-carry douchebag

the end

yup

[rl6214]

16. And you know they were unarmed?

talk about douchebags.

[jpak]

19. read the post

yup

[PavePusher]

22. If you are making your assumptions from the LACK of evidence in the article....

that you linked too, you may want to review those assumptions and find some actual evidence for them.

[krispos42]

118. Was he in danger of serious injury or death at the time he pulled the trigger?

That is the question. Can you answer it?

[SteveM]

70. This needs correction...

"Gun rights" are more appropriately the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Moreover, the Constitution guarantees this right to individuals, affirmed by the SCOTUS in Heller, and most certainly includes private property and where legislation has made in legal, on public property as well. Government agencies may by legislative action arm citizens within those agencies; some do, some do not.

[MadMaddie]

3. Apparantly

He admitted to going back inside the house to get the gun, then coming back out and shooting them.

If this is the case why didn't he stay inside the home and call police?

People cannot walk on a sidewalk and not be considered threats? Do we all have to stay in our homes because we feel threatened by dumbasses like the shooter?

[jpak]

4. Why didn't he call the cops? Cuz in open-carry-douchebag fairy land - the cops won't protect you

heard it right here on DU

shoot first, etc.

yup

[ObamaFTW2012]

10. Let's go voer the numbers again

300,000,000 people in the U.S.
800,000 police officers
80,000,000 gun owners
280,000,000 privately owned firearms

You would have to be an imbecile to rely upon having a police officer save you from a criminal at the moment you need them.

[MadMaddie]

65. Those numbers are probably right but that's not the issue

here. He went back inside his house where he could have stayed until the danger passes, (if there was really danger). He chose to go back out with a gun.....

[SteveM]

71. It is quite possible that he was not justified in taking these actions...

We'll have to see what kind of evidence comes from the investigation. You can be assured that gun-control/ban advocates will jump on this case with the intent of inferring that gun-owners are somehow depraved and itching to kill. We have seen a number of these posts before, and some of the incidents portrayed have turned out differently with time, a few did not find favor with anyone. But the intent is to cast gun-owners as somehow morally deficient, and to distort what pro-2A folks here believe; it is culture war attendant to a prohibitionist cause.

BTW, one would not need a concealed-carry license to go back into one's house to retrieve a gun.

[ObamaFTW2012]

86. In my other posts

I make statements suggesting just that. My previous post was more a matter of arguing in the abstract.

[DrDan]

17. he was itching to use that gun - and here was his chance

[rl6214]

18. You wanna post a link or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

[krispos42]

119. Can the cops protect you from an open-carry douchebag that decides to waste you?

Yes or no?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. No, and it isn't their job to do so.

I resent the implication that anyone who open-carries is a douchebag.

[krispos42]

139. That's my point

And I was using their terminology. I probably should have put it in quotes so the sarcasm was clear.

But here's the point they seem to be making:

A: I think people shouldn't have guns to defend themselves from attackers because the cops can do it better.

B: I'm scared of open-carriers because the cops can't protect me from them.

:shrug:

Seems a tad inconsistent.

[ObamaFTW2012]

9. And that is what I am having trouble with

If you are confronted, and have the opportunity to retreat into your home without being followed, you can't reasonably argue that you shot in self-defense if you retrieved a firearm and left the safety of your home to join in the confrontation again. It seems as though this scenario may be what happened, and if so, Gonzalez is a murderer.

And, either way, this story has no relationship to the concealed carry debate in Wisconsin.

[gejohnston]

5. the bold print

is not relevant to the case, logically nor legally. This does not prove to be best evidence of anything. The best evidence is comparing before and after (and details of each) in the various jurisdictions.

[jpak]

6. He'a a trigger happy open-carry douchebag - & worthy of all the bold text in the DU server

yup

[ObamaFTW2012]

11. You paint with a broad brush

In your mind, are all gun owners fag-hatin', book-burnin', racist, sexist, baptist, white antigubmint rethugs?

[jpak]

13. you wish

:rofl:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

73. Watch out! His viewpoints are permissible when describing pro-2A people...

...but not permissible when they are used to describe those against 2A.

[ObamaFTW2012]

87. Double standards?

And stereotypes? When did liberals start doing that, or is he really not a liberal at all?

[SteveM]

134. I've found over the years that even the most "liberal" folks always reserve...

...a private warm, tightly-closed place to shit.

[rl6214]

20. He wasn't open carrying if the reports here are correct

so the only douchebag is the one misrepresenting it.

[ileus]

40. Even if he was OCin' if it's legal it's legal...nothing wrong with that.

[SteveM]

72. "'Round, 'round, punk around, I punk around" (chorus) Yeah! Oh, woo-ooo...

I punk around..."

Sung to the Beach Boys' "I Get Around." I couldn't help myself when I saw your hateful posts.

puy.

[ObamaFTW2012]

7. This story does not fit

into the debate about concealed carry in Wisconsin, as this was a situation involving a gun that was not concealed, and carried to a shooting scene in the immediate area of the shooter's home. Supposedly, Gonzalez retrieved his firearm from his home after an initial confrontation, which would remove any right to claim "self defense" in this shooting, and would further distance this situation from the concealed carry debate.

As for Gonzalez being "well known in the open carry movement in which gun rights supporters wear visible guns in public, a practice allowed in Wisconsin without a specific statute", you must understand that open carry is legal because no WI statute prohibits it. Open carry in Wisconsin is not a crime, though many LEO's there disapprove of the practice and therefor use "disorderly conduct" charges to criminalize a perfectly lawful practice. The Menards and Walmart incidents, resulting in "no formal charges" for "suspicion of disorderly conduct" for openly carrying a firearm, illustrate that fact clearly.

[rl6214]

15. I used to live just outside Milwaukee and

there are parts of the city I wouldn't go into without a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. So, he didn't commit any disorderly conduct at all. Thanks for highlighting that.

Sounds like a good guy after all. I would never have known if you hadn't brought it up.

[ileus]

23. Guns don't have rights...humans do...and this human was protecting himself.

[Logical]

24. Here is the worst part of this story....

"Even as Wisconsin becomes the 49th state to allow concealed carry, the National Rifle Association has criticized the requirement that permit holders get four hours of training."

Only the NRA would complain because someone needs 4 hours of training before someone can CCW.

I 100% favor CCW laws but training is not a bad thing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Mixed views

If ownership and carrying is a right, can the state require training. We don't for voting and other rights.

As a firearms instructor, my take is 4 hours may not be sufficient for a new shooter to be safe, let alone competent.

[Logical]

26. I agree 4 hours is not enough. My class in kansas was a joke and......

the instructor admitted no one had not passed the training.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. For an experienced shooter 4 hours is more than enough. A new one is another story

Like I said, I can see both sides, but tend to err on the side of safety.

[oneshooter]

28. In Texas it is 10hr and a 50rd live fire test. n/t

[Logical]

29. That sounds legit.

[gejohnston]

30. I took class in Florida

(but never got around to sending off the paperwork) and I thought it was a joke. My attitude is if you are going to have the mandatory training, it should be done right.

[Logical]

31. I 100% agree.

[Katya Mullethov]

61. They just want your bread

No different than the newly mandated MSF rider safety courses for a MC endorsement on your TX (among others)drivers license . I have polled them at length and roughly 30 % of the instructors feel "the art and mystery of laying it down " would be a good thing to add to the curriculum , but it would be too hard on the equipment . Just one more group of fucking putzes glomming onto the kind of innovative thinking that is driving our national economic recovery .

http://slayerhater.blogspot.com/2011/08/sometimes-you-just-gotta-slay-er-down.html

[SteveM]

74. I agree, with the emphasis on safe handling of the gun, even if routine.

This is the area where most people who get into trouble will experience it. I don't think 4 hrs. are going to instruct anybody who is new to firearms in combat gun use. But safe handling can be of some benefit.

[HALO141]

133. +1

I have the exact same conundrum. Texas requires a 10-hour course for first time licensees and that, in many cases, is not sufficient. The course is not, and should not be, designed to teach a student to shoot. It is designed to ensure the applicant has at least a working knowledge of the laws governing weapons and the use of deadly force. That being said, I have seen students on the line who are not comfortable with the firearm in the least. Still, they pass the shooting test. (It is also worth mentioning that the test administered to Texash CHL applicants is the same as the qualification test for law enforcement with the exception that CHL students do not have to shoot one-handed.)

[Hoyt]

32. Excellent example of why police need to be check out anyone suspected of carrying a gun.

I know those who carry in public think the police are just supposed to wink at those who might have a weapon. But, this shows why police need to stop and check out anyone toting in public.

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive. You just never know when the gunner is a criminal, has bad intentions, or just walked off their compound with a plan to harm innocent people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. That is a well over the top, even for you

Basic rule for those carrying concealed out of a uniform: If you are engaged by an LEO for any reason, you inform them and show your credentials. If challenged by by a civilian tell them your paperwork is in order, if you have a badge, show it to them. Works every time. Done right no one involved will notice.

For the paranoid civilian you seem to exemplify: If you notice someone carrying concealed, feel free to call the cops if it makes you feel better, though it will mostly be a waste of police time. But to suggest that a citizen detain someone they believe to be armed is about as dumb as it gets.

Consider the possible outcomes:
- If it is a bad guy, they are dead meat literally
- If its a good guy they are dead meat legally
- If its a plain clothes or off duty cop they are dead meat legally and under arrest

While you have posted some incredibly uninformed things, this is about the dumbest thing you have ever suggested and if followed would end up with misled people being hurt, sued, or jailed. I understand your irrational phobia, but think before you post things that will clearly lead to people getting hurt.

[Hoyt]

34. That's hardly the way I look at it. Anyone with a gun, sword, spear, grenade, etc., is a potential

threat to those in close proximity and society in general.

The "misled people" are those encouraged to think carrying a gun in public is just dandy and we should all smile at the the son-of-a-guns like they are law enforcement officers doing their best to protect society. If you have your "papers" for carrying a deadly weapon, then it is up to police to make sure it's proper and you are not up to "no good" carrying a deadly weapon increasing the possibility -- no matter how remote you score it -- that someone will be harmed.

Carrying responsibly, is leaving the dang things at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. You are advocating violation of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale.

Do you also advocate "driving while brown" stops, or the routine inspection of the immigration status of Hispanic persons?
Because detaining people without probable cause seems to be popular amongst statists like you.

Or is it just people with guns, because you fear those people?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. While clearly the net effect of this would have racial overtones, at least he is honest

Dumb, but honest.

First issue is he would have to spot a someone carrying a gun. Those of us who carry concealed work hard to keep it concealed. He is just as likely to confuse a Droid3 in an Otter case for a sidearm in a pancake holster under a polo shirt. Amateurs do things like that.

Second he would have to run somewhere and not pee his pants while he calls 911. After he does that a few times and it does not pan out, his cell number will be noted as one generating false calls

Third would be the lawsuits if he takes his own bad advice and tries to detain someone. If he is not immediately killed (bad guy) he will be killed later in the courts by those he tried to detain (good guys).

In the end people like him are self defeating.

[Hoyt]

44. "Racial overtones" -- where I live it's the bigoted white guys who carry guns most often.

As to the common "pee in pants" comment you and other gunners make. I, and hundreds of millions other non-toters, are not the ones who need to carry a gun into a restaurant to feel "safe."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Still will not admit your mistake...

Your paranoia is what it is. Nothing I say will change it. However, consider the scenarios outlined and see if you really want to take your own bad advice and attempt to restrain someone you think is carrying. Your life and that of your family to destroy

[Hoyt]

52. Again, are you saying some toters will shoot someone unarmed trying to ensure compliance with laws?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. I am saying that criminals who are illegally carrying guns could shoot someone following your bad

advice. Someone doing lawful carry will make sure enough evidence is gathered to simply sue the bubba out of house and home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Why don't you give us an example of same, instead of him proving a negative.

Go on, we'll wait....

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Since your "trying to ensure compliance with laws" is actually assault and battery- Yes

And it would be a justifiable shooting.

Feel free to follow your own piss-poor advice, Hoyt- just don't expect anyone else to...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. How would you know? You are a total amateur and cannot read someone

You would confuse a smart phone under a polo shirt for a weapon in a heart beat.

[Hoyt]

51. So, you are a "professional" gunner?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. I have carried for a very long time. I know how to do it right

It also means that I have the experience to read others much better than you do.

[Hoyt]

67. Every gunner I've ever met thought they were god's gift to safety. Even ones who shoot an innocent

person, or who leave guns around for their young kids to shoot a friend, etc. I don't exactly view being proficient at shooting as the equivalent of being proficient at important/meaningful things. And it's clear there are a lot of gunners --even ones with permits -- who should not be allowed to even own a gun. Finally, even if you are as "good" as you think, others aren't.

[SteveM]

75. So, how many of 80,000,000 "gunners" are "god's gift to safety?"

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. And you know a lot of these people do you?

How many people do you know who have shot an innocent person? How many do you know who leave their guns lying around specifically so their young children can shoot a friend?

Any? Just making it up?

[Hoyt]

79. Happens more than once every day. And we don't even get reports of gunners using their weapons for

intimidation, spousal abuse, etc. You don't have to pull the trigger to misuse a gun.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. You said you know these people.

I'm not the one who made that statement. YOU are.

So, in short, you lied - rather clearly and intentionally too - in an attempt to lend some degree of weight to your statement.

My guess, based upon your obvious utter lack of understanding, is you really don't know shit and you just parrot what you read somewhere.

[Hoyt]

81. No I didn't lie. As I've posted before, I've had permit holders pull a gun on me more than once.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Why did they do that?

Did you report it?
What was the outcome?

[rl6214]

93. Don't you know?

He disarmed them without having to call the police. At least that's what he's claimed here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. I wrote up a such a scenario for him in post #92

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=471849&mesg_id=472307

That would be pretty much how it would go. Bucko would have a felony arrest, his DNA in the system, and lose a civil lawsuit, provided the DA let him off with a lesser charge for being so stupid.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

130. Apparently....

...you do not understand the concept.

You stated, quite clearly, that every gunner you have met thought they were gods gift to safety, and yet they shot innocents and left guns lying around for kids to pick up.

Now you state something entirely different.

You're a liar hoyt, plain and simple.

[Hoopla Phil]

135. Did you detain them for this?

:rofl:

[oneshooter]

137. Of course he didn't. Hoyt talks a good fight but is probably hiding in his Mothers basement

Shaking in fear. Your basic cowardly boaster.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. Ahh, but Hoyt, *you're* a gun owner. Do you believe you store your guns safely? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. So you call the cops on these carriers, or attempt to detain them, right?

IOW: Do you actually eat the dish you are trying to persuade others to eat? Do tell...

[Hoyt]

46. I definitely do not advocate those things. However, your guns are not anywhere near the same thing.

I just want people to leave their guns at home. If they feel the need to pack -- despite the impact on society -- then they need to be checked out by proper authorities. If you don't want to be checked out, don't tote in public. If you can't leave home without a gun, get some professional help.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. Effectively you do, complete with the advice for civilians to detain those they think are carrying

Consider the scenarios I laid out...its a loser for you, especially if you try and detain someone you think is carrying.

[Hoyt]

50. Are you saying gunners will shoot people doing their civic duty to ensure compliance with laws?

That's precious.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. No I am saying that if people are stupid enough to follow your bad advice

criminals they try to apprehend could well kill them. The good guys who carry will simply sue them into poverty.

Civilians have no business nor right to intervene if all they think is the person is carrying. They lack the authority, tools, and training. Its not their civic duty and it endangers themselves and others.

Call the cops, they might respond to you, at least for a few times

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. You are advocating false arrest and/or assault. That's not 'civic duty'- They're crimes.

And you have advocated committing crimes here at DU.

[Hoyt]

82. How can it be false arrest until you've seen their permit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Civilians have no authority do demand documents in public

It is no different than me asking a Hispanic for his citizenship paper. In both cases if you think there is a problem, call the appropriate law enforcement agency. Do not try to intervene directly. The life you save maybe your own, the livelihood you save will be your family's.

You continue to compound your stupidity on this.

[gejohnston]

96. As I understand it

you have to witness the crime to make a citizens arrest.
You realize that if you do something like that in Vermont, the cops are not even going to show up. Some places in Wyoming, response time could be an hour or more.

[oneshooter]

58. Hoyt, you and others have spoke often of the "impact on society "

that concealed carry has. I would at this time explain to me exactly what this "impact on society" is.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

125. Talk about rude anti-gun people. Hoyt was asked a simple question

about his core beliefs and has ignored it.
Might lead one to believe that he has no core beliefs that he can describe.
Sorry state of being.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[abogado]

66. How much force are you willing to expend to 'detain' someone you think might be armed?

Or do you just farm out that little task to others...?

[Hoyt]

83. Nope, I don't farm it out. If you are going to carry, citizens need to make sure you are "legal."

Just like in OP. With only about 3% of population carrying "legally," it is very likely that someone with a gun has bad intentions. Far more likely that anyone carrying a gun will need the dang thing in a public place.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Your stats are bogus since it does not include law enforcement

plain clothes, off duty, or retired.

[Hoyt]

98. Well, why don't you add a percent or two if you feel LE should be included in citizens totin tally.

Doesn't change the fact that most people live their lives without a friggin gun or two in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. You have no effective way to know if someone is carrying, if they are LEO related...give it up

Many today cannot carry since that choice is not available to them, especially in SoCal. With the latest dumb move by the legislature, they have breathed new life into a once dead lawsuit.

I carry for reasons that suit my circumstances. I am allowed to do it. Harassing me, false imprisonment, and such will only get you put in jail and sued out of house and home. Maybe I should ride through Pasadena more often.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. I dont know if you realize this...

...but most states which allow for open carry do not require a permit, hence everyone who chooses to carry openly is legal.

In other words, your 3% is inaccurate and if an activity is legal in a state, one must assume someone doing that activity is doing so legally.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Face up to your mistake

You suggested that unarmed civilians should consider attempting to detain an armed person while waiting for police. As I pointed out, that is about as dumb as it gets, no matter what the outcome for the civilian. Accept that in your phobic haze you posted about the worst advice possible.

Those authorized to carry concealed firearms, particularly in SoCal have paperwork and most civilians would not know what it was or if it was correct. Most LEOs do. If you think someone is carrying who should not, call the cops and then get the hell out of there. The good news is that those of us who carry are pretty good at keeping it concealed. If a phobic amateur like you were to spot someone either they were careless or a non-pro/not authorized. So call all you want, eventually your phone number will be noted as someone who cries wolf and your calls will be prioritized accordingly. However, if you were to follow your own bad advice and attempt to detain me, I will own your house in Pasadena before it is over.

The fact is that I have been read a few times over the years. Never been a problem. Cops were never called and the adults handled things. Now be an adult and admit your screwup.

[Hoyt]

45. Sorry, PP, guns in public are a problem waiting to happen. Those packing need to be checked for

proper permits. If you don't like that -- don't carry in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. By civilians? That is what you have suggested

Which is about as dumb as it gets. They lack the authority, training, and skills to do that successfully and safely. Your advice would get them killed by criminals and sued into the poor house by the good guys. Cops will also arrest them.

Please try it yourself if that is what it takes for you to realize how screwed up your ideas are.

[Hoyt]

84. Whatever it takes. I would prefer they wait for police to arrive. But gunners think they are Elite

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. You have no authority to challenge, let alone detain

If you do it there is no good outcome for you...shot or homeless. Why would you persist in pushing such nonsense when the police clearly want you to call them and let them handle it.

Scenario: You walk up to me in my favorite local restaurant and say:

Hoyt: I think you are carrying a gun, please show me your papers.

PP places his cell phone on the table

PP: And you are?
Hoyt: A civilian who thinks people should not have guns in public
PP: That's nice, go away
Hoyt: I insist.
PP I am leaving
Hoyt: I require you to stay until the cops get here, I have already called them

Hoyt physically detains PP. Crowd starts to gather.
Cops arrive:

Hoyt: I think this man is carrying a gun. He refused to show me his paperwork. I made sure he stayed here until you got here.
Cop to PP: Are you?
PP: I am, left shoulder holster. My credentials are in my left hand

Cop looks at the credentials and nods.

Cop to PP: What is you side of things?
PP: This nut case came up to me and demanded to see my paperwork. I declined since he is a civilian. He then forced me to stay here and wait. Its all recorded on my smart phone. Here is the memory card.
Restaurant Owner: That is exactly what happened
Cop to Hoyt: Turn around you are under arrest.
PP waves for a coffee refill and calls his lawyer telling him there is a nice payday coming.

[Hoyt]

97. One does like in the OP -- calls police. If they arrive in time great. Then, you try to reason

with the gun toter -- which is obviously a losing proposition because the mere fact they carry a gun into a family restaurant shows they are irrational. You do your best to detain them, short of capturing the reprobate and opening yourself to charges by those who can't leave home without a gun. Then, you get their license number and any other identifying info. And, finally, you chase them down the street yelling at them for polluting society.

There's more.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Hard for you to do in handcuffs...

1) Have you ever really spotted someone carrying concealed
2) Did you call the cops?
3) Did you try to restrain or delay them? (illegal harassment)
4) Did you actually make a disturbance (you can get arrested for that too)

Since many of the "toters" in your area are LEOs, all you are going to do is look stupid and shocked while cuffed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. They also tend to dislike false police reports, so there's that...

[Hoyt]

114. How much jail time can I get? SS ain't gonna cover room and board.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. Min 1 year for felonies, guess would be 10. Disbarred, loss of firearms and voting rights.

Fairly serious stuff for most of us.

[Hoyt]

122. That ought to be penalty for carrying guns in public.

[jmg257]

127. But it isn't is it? So save yourself some effort (and maybe some bruises),

and go yell at squirrels in the park. They like nuts!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. It can be if being carried illegally...legally there is not penalty

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Hoyt, it took you less than 24 hours to change your tune.

You've gone from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

"...Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive...."

to:

"You do your best to detain them, short of capturing the reprobate and opening yourself to charges by those who can't leave home without a gun."

At this rate, your advice tomorrow will be:

"Every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public --then give them a dirty look while you're waiting for the cops to show up."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. He still will not admit it...

Metal or nylon, what would look best on him?

[oneshooter]

110. I tend to be more traditional, metal. n/t

[Hoyt]

113. You would.

[oneshooter]

126. I asked you a simple question in Post #58. I was polite and am really looking for an answer. n/t

[Hoyt]

112. Whatever it takes to slow proliferation of guns in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. Have you considered a legal, liberal, and progressive approach instead of illegal actions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. It's not as if *you'll* do what you have advocated others do, is it?

In your quest for "Whatever it takes to slow proliferation of guns in public.", you are Mitt Romney. You expect others
to fight your war for you.

This is what you proposed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472294

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472316

During this thread, you mentioned that guns had been pulled you.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472290


Naturally enough, you were asked if you had taken the actions you have repeatedly advocated- asked not once, but
three times:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472189

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#472319


The silence was deafening. You, sir, are all wind and no windmill.

But you may still redeem yourself- by practicing what you preach. In all candor, I doubt you will.
You might surprise us- stranger things have happened. And if you do, and get nabbed for assault, kidnapping
and/or filing a false police report for harassing someone carrying a gun, I will donate $100 in your name to the Brady Camapign,
or your defense fund, as you prefer.

You would have to post the date, time, place, arresting authority and case number here at DU. Remember, Hoyt, this applies only
to you. Frankly, I don't expect be out the Benjamin, but we'll see, won't we?

[oneshooter]

39. Well now you have raised the bar for him "dumbest thing you have ever suggested "

I am sure that Hoyt will try his best to rise above it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

85. Not a "dumb" as strapping a gun or two on before going to Chuck E Cheeze or church.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Your approach risks lives and livelihoods...for nothing. Not even you are that stupid.

Let the cops do their job, call in anyone you think is carrying. Hopefully no one follows your asinine advice

[Hoyt]

102. Your "public packing approach" risks lives, and livelihoods, too. Probably more so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Your approach causes direct, immediate and certain consequences to the civilian illegaly playing cop

My carrying is at best a vague potential.

I really hope you live to the bad advice you have been giving out

[Hoyt]

123. I still can't believe you guys would shoot unarmed person trying to make sure man with gun is legal.

[jmg257]

124. I still can't believe you would become a criminal & try to illegally detain an innocent person.

[friendly_iconoclast]

136. No chance of him becoming a criminal by doing that. His diktats are for *others*, not him.

Hoyt is a chickenhawk in the war on publicly carrying guns. Various posters on this thread have asked him four times now if he has done what he's repeatedly advocated- reported and attempted to detain the people he's claimed to have seen carrying handguns in public. So far, there's been no response whatsoever from him on the subject.

In short, he's another Mitt Romney or Dick Cheney: A noisy supporter of wars they'll never fight...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

128. A criminal might....a legal person could, but most likely would think of the judgement against you

[We_Have_A_Problem]

132. I wouldn't shoot someone attempting to illegally detain me...

...to ensure my legally carried firearm was legal.

I'd do one of two things depending upon my mood and amount of spare time:

1) Ignore him and walk away. If he placed his hands upon me, I would at that point inform him that he would be facing some very severe physical and legal consequences if he did not immediately remove his hands from my person.

2) Wait for the cops while mentally calculating the legal payday from the upcoming civil suit.

[oneshooter]

104. Oh, but I bet he is. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. Thinking I may have to spend more time in Pasadena

and reel this fish in...

[PavePusher]

35. Are you a former employee of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit? n/t

[jeepnstein]

41. Are you insane?

Unless you have a gun, a badge, and the blessing of the state, you are better off not trying to do some kind of cowboy "citizens' arrest". I'm a cop and I wouldn't even do that off-duty. If a person is perceived as a threat by the totality of their actions, then yes I'm going to act under the color of my office if at all possible. But if you think people should become self-appointed concealed carry permit inspectors you're so far out there it's not even funny. Just because someone hatches a theory that anyone with a gun is a possible threat isn't enough. There has to be a clear and articulable reason for detaining someone for questioning.

[pipoman]

42. LOL

You better be a big ol'boy if your going to try to "hold" me. You'll be picking your teeth out of your morning biscuit..."Maybe even hold them until police arrive."..LOLOLOL

[jmg257]

43. Wow - I bet lawyers love the smell of False Arrest in the morning...keep those lawsuits a-coming!

And don't forget the always fun and well-related "Resisting unlawful arrest"...those scuffles should make for REAL ineresting anecdotes.

No wonder you want to carry a sword, though if this detaining people illegally is going to become a new hobby of yours, I would strongly recommend you join LE.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. This brings up the ethical issue...is it fair to impoverish his family over his dumb ass mistakes?

If he does something as dumb as he has suggested, and is sued, this will impact his wife and children. How does one crush the idiot while not unfairly impacting the rest of the family?

[oneshooter]

59. You don't. If his decision effects his family badly, that is the result of

HIS decision. How things fall from there are because of him.

Tough times.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

60. You are actually advocating an illegal act: kidnapping.

IIRC, that should be a deleteable, and possibly a bannable violation of site rules.

It's also legal to shoot kidnappers while resisting them.

Interesting moral/legal cornor you've painted yourself into.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Which he refuses to recognize or acknowledge

What he should do is admit that mistake...and if he wants anyone who thinks they see someone carrying concealed call 911, that is fine. The cops will soon learn to prioritize it accordingly.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. Stopping someone for a legal act....

...just because they feel like it would get the cops in a big ole pile of hot water. Legal is legal. Period. It would be no different than stopping someone for driving the speed limit or wearing religious attire in public.

Reporting someone for a legal activity is a waste of time and resources, and would seriously endanger others as the switchboard would be too busy with the stupid to handle real problems. Additionally, if you think the "man with a gun" phone calls would cause a change in the law to make OC illegal, think again.

Hold someone until the cops arrive? Well that's just stupid on so many different levels I don't know where to begin. Assuming the person has done nothing wrong and you're holding him because he has a firearm, you have at best committed assault and battery. You are also opening yourself to unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. That is at best. At worst, you'd find yourself with an extra bellybutton where you got shot - and the shooting would be 100% legal.

[rl6214]

95. "every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police ar

You practice this in front of the mirror at home, don't you?

What do you think you are, a cowboy in the wild west now?

Maybe even strap one or two onto your leg when you go out in public?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. Dumbest thing he has posted to date

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. It's not the first time prohibitionists have advocated extralegal harassment here

In a way, he's not even the worst-as it's obvious he boards the short bus to get on the Information Superhighway.

Some of the posts on this thread, however, are quite disturbing. They are basically advocating criminalizing speech
and approved of police harrassment for daring to advocate expanded carriage of handguns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=203717#204089

[krispos42]

120. Sure... charge towards the guy with the gun prominately displayed on his hip...

...screaming "citizens' arrest" while waving ropes and handcuffs. Are you trying to CAUSE justifiable homicides?


You first. I'll watch and document for the coroner's inquest.

[krispos42]

117. The article is short on details of the shooting.

<snip>

Corn told police that as he left the parking lot he saw Gonzalez pointing a gun at him on the sidewalk. He said Gonzalez ordered him to back up, which he did for several feet before Gonzalez shot him. Corn said he recalled John's car had arrived in the parking lot and then sped away, but he couldn't remember more. Evidence suggests John was shot inside his car and managed to drive to a tavern around the corner before he died.

The complaint does not include a post-interrogation statement from Gonzalez but indicates that he called police about 12:30 a.m. to report that "I just had two individuals try to assault me when I was going outside to move my car." He tells the dispatcher that he shot out the window of a car, and one of the men fell down, but he wasn't sure whether he hit either or both of the men, and that he ran after firing the shots.

When the dispatcher asked if the men had a gun, Gonzalez replied, "I don't know what they had, but they must have thought that I was not armed."

<snip>

So what happened? Hell if I know. I presume that Corn had been drinking before he got shot, so there is every reason to believe that his recollection of the event is not trustworthy.

Gonzalez, facing murder charges, also has every reason to paint himself in the best light possible, so HIS recollection of the event is also untrustworthy.


However, we don't know if he was carrying the gun or retrieved the gun from inside the house and we don't know if an altercation took place. At the time, concealed-carry was illegal in Wisconsin, so this definitely not a case of a CCW permitee going nuts in public.