Madison Five 911 caller told police “there’s no problem”

[Bold Lib]

Last Saturday the Madison, WI police department responded to a 911 call about five men openly carrying holstered handguns near a Culver’s restaurant. Police soon arrived, detained the men, now referred to by some as “the Madison Five,” and demanded they produce identity credentials.

However the 911 call recording obtained by the Examiner.com pursuant to an Open Records Act request from Dane County does not support Capt. McLay’s characterization. The caller, Ms. Phyllis Micke, emphasized to the 911 dispatcher that the guns were in holsters, and that “there’s no problem” . . . “just sitting there extremely relaxed.”

After the dispatcher explained that open carry was legal unless they are threatening or disturbing people, Micke declared that

“there’s no problem and it’s no emergency . . .I feel bad then, if they’re not doing anything wrong then it’s my mistake.”
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/madison-five-911-caller-told-police-there-s-no-problem

Looks to me like Madison is going to have to open their check book very wide to settle this total screw up and blatant civil rights violation.

[guruoo]

1. Setup. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Probably not, but I suppose it's possible.

If there's some connection between the caller and the victims, then maybe, it should be looked into.

[Bold Lib]

4. What makes you say "setup"? Do you have any knowledge about this incident

that is not being reported?

[guruoo]

17. The way the caller so quickly changed their tune, as though it were scripted that way

IMO, first impression, is that the caller seemed to know that, one, the call would be public record, and two, that the police
would still be compelled to respond no matter how much she later claimed how
'calm and relaxed' the situation was.


You can test this theory by calling the fire dept and seeing if they show up after first telling them your house is burning down, then
telling them 'never mind, it's not that bad, we're putting it out ourselves'.

Yessir, I call bullshit on this one.

[Euromutt]

19. Maybe, but that still wouldn't put the cops in the clear

You can test this theory by calling the fire dept and seeing if they show up after first telling them your house is burning down, then
telling them 'never mind, it's not that bad, we're putting it out ourselves'.

Actually, this is more the equivalent of "we thought we smelled smoke, but it turns out the house isn't actually on fire." The police's behavior in this situation is the equivalent of the fire department not only rolling up to make sure that your house actually isn't on fire, but additionally insisting on hosing down your living room.

[guruoo]

20. Guess we'll find out when it goes to court. nt

[Bold Lib]

22. I see, based on the caller informing the dispatcher that they five were not doing anything

provocative and giving an accurate description of what she saw you believe the call was planned. If you can link the woman (who gave her name) to anyone in the open-carry group then there very well could have been some collusion. Of course I maintain that if that is the case it is still not a "setup".

No one made or goaded the police into violating the law as they did. Two of the five chose to remain silent as is their right under that states' laws. Too bad the police violated the rights of those five citizens.

Have you read my additional info I found on that states' laws regarding open carry in post #5? If not please do, I found it extremely eye opening on just HOW BAD the police screwed up in this incident.

[SteveM]

23. Hmm. I recall a lot of 60s activist incidents which were "set up..."

They were called test-cases in preparation for court challenges. So, where's the "bullshit?" If the caller broke the law, I haven't seen any indication. Do you know if the caller is related to those openly-carrying?

The bullshit may be in Madison's approach to Wisconsin law.

[cleanhippie]

7. On what basis do you make that claim?

[old mark]

3. There are lawsuits here in PA by people who were open-carrying

and were hassled by police and in several cases were arrested, despite the fact that it is legal in PA and has been forever. You can openly carry any type of firearm legally, but many people don't realise that...evidently some police don't, either.

Get a good lawyer and sue everyone involved.

mark

[Bold Lib]

5. Interesting memorandum from the Wisconsin DoJ on open carry.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf
¶1. Under Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, a person has the right to openly carry a firearm for any of the purposes enumerated in that Section, subject to reasonable regulation as discussed herein. The Wisconsin Department of Justice (the Department) believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor.

The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge.

As illustrated by a recent municipal court case in West Allis, a person openly carrying a holstered handgun on his own property while doing lawn work should not face a disorderly conduct charge.5

¶9. And “even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, ask to examine the individual's identification,” as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory.



The more and more I read about this the worse it looks for the cops.

[goddess40]

6. I'd feel threatened

if five men were in a place of business with guns. Why are they wearing the guns if not to intimidate others?

[cleanhippie]

8. It sounds like you are just insecure.

You need to get out more.

[Bold Lib]

9. Your insecurities do not make any more out of this than it is. People engaging in lawful conduct.

Perhaps you could see a counselor regarding your insecurities and begin a desensitization program.

As the Wisconsin DOD opined: "The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge."

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. If you travel outside of WI and Illinois, you may very well *be* around people with guns.

The thing is, you wouldn't know it - as they would be concealed. For that matter, how would you know if some crook in Wisconsin

decided to carry a hidden handgun around you?


Now, would you actually be more safe than you would be if these guns were openly carried? Or just feel that way?


And also for you, two quotes from Gandhi, via DUer SteveM (emphasis added):

"Taking life may be a duty... Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

-- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, comp. and ed. by Krishna Kripalani, Navajivan Pub House, Ahmenabad-14, 1971.


"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour."

-- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, The Natvajivan Trust, 1960.

[slackmaster]

13. So, you feel threatened every time you see an armed police officer or security guard?

Or does the presence of a uniform (that presumably does not include white shoes) somehow make the person not so threatening?

That must suck, but it's frankly YOUR problem.

[proteus_lives]

14. Because they can.

How is the mere presence of a holstered fire-arm threatening?

I don't get that.

[Katya Mullethov]

15. From what I gather it is assholishness , rude , intimidating

I could have missed some .

[proteus_lives]

18. Maybe it's because I grew up around fire-arms.

Because that's not what hits me when I see a gun.

[Euromutt]

16. The whole point of the "open carry" movement is to NOT intimidate

The objective of the open carry movement is to get people accustomed to seeing citizens carrying openly without feeling threatened as a result. Note that the open carry movement is not synonymous with the Teabaggers (though there's some overlap, I'm sure) and the Teabagger crap at Obama's town hall meetings last year (which was intended to intimidate, let's be honest) actually did a major amount of damage to the open carry movement's cause (and boy, were they pissed).

[SteveM]

24. Social policy is presently obsessed with "feelings." This is not good.

I have been in circumstances where many weapons were being carried (non-military/LEO) by civilians. It is not a fearful circumstance for many. Some were/are hunting, some are just in from the range, fitting scabbards in a leather shop, etc.

If you have EVIDENCE of intimidation, "brandishing," etc., then press your case. The mere presence of someone with a gun (and your feelings) is not sufficient cause to make a law.

[virginia mountainman]

10. LOL, the Police really screwed up..

Now they must pay for their incompetence.

[oneshooter]

21. No, the taxpayers will pay, and pay, and pay. n/t

[hendo]

25. Yup, the cops should be severely disciplined

but unfortunately its the taxpayers that will pay the bill for their incompetence.