A group of men decided to eat at a Culvers here in Madison on Saturday night while carrying unconcealed and holstered pistols. Presumably someone called the police and eight of Madison's finest showed up. The guys packing heat were asked for ID and 3 of the 5 complied with the officers' request. Two remained silent and were subsequently arrested for obstruction.
Now here's how Isthmus blogger Jack Craver referred to the incident:
The constitution clearly says people have the right to carry bazookas in the street. So it's clearly an affront to democracy when a guy strapping a glock at a Culver's is pinched.
Where does this whole bazookas thing come from? Why be substantive when hyperbole will do, right Mr. Craver? And no, you dumbass, the affront to democracy isn't about, as you imply, a guy getting busted for carrying a pistol. If you'd bother to read the very article you linked to, the guy was arrested for not providing identification to the police. The affront to democracy is that some of the police – you know, those people who are supposed to uphold the law – apparently don't know what the law is and so arrested two people who had not broken it.
Here's a quote from the Henes v. Morrissey decision found in the City of Madison's Legal Update:
We do not equate the failure to identify oneself with the act of giving false information…mere silence, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute… without more than mere silence, there is no obstruction.
Considering that the City of Racine and two of its police officers were successfully sued over this very issue just six months ago, I am going to assume that it's still the law of the land.
So where is Craver's mockery of police who apparently don't even know the law? We've got a pretty good prima facie case here that it was the police who were in the wrong yet he gives them a pass. If it were he that got arrested for engaging in lawful activity, you can bet that he'd be shouting from the highest mountain that he was wronged. It's too bad he's only willing to extend fairness to those with whom he agrees. If a lefty gets unlawfully arrested, it's tragic. But if it's a "gun nut", then, well it's OK and they deserve mockery, right Mr. Craver? The future of Isthmus is assured with the likes of Craver.
And how much do you want to bet that, if it is found in a court of law that the police officers illegally arrested those two guys, absolutely nothing will happen to those officers? When citizens plead ignorance of the law, we're laughed out of court and told that that is no excuse. But when it's the police, all too often it’s a shrug and a sigh and we all move on. Heck, even when they're simply being investigated they get nice paid leaves.
Lastly, kudos to the 2nd Amendmentarians for recording their encounter with the law. Recording interactions between citizens and law enforcement officials can help provide accountability for both sides. Ask John McKenna how important that is. Most Madisonians don't pack heat but it still means that any encounter with the police has lethal weaponry present because it's the cops who bring it. (Along with the non-lethal variety.) And while the Madison police officers I've known and encountered have been great people, there are still plenty of cops in this country who get off on beating the living crap out of people.
10 comments:
"Where does this whole bazookas thing come from? Why be substantive when hyperbole will do, right Mr. Craver?"
Brunch Links was never meant to be substantive –– it's meant to be an assortment of stories for the readers to check out themselves. I'm glad you did. Do I read all of them at 6:30 am, before I go to work? Nope.
Nevertheless, I'm flattered you attribute so much of Isthmus' future to my blog.
You've clearly not read it much, otherwise you wouldn't accuse me of only extending "fairness to people with whom I agree."
Or maybe you have read it, and you're just selectively criticizing to create a narrative about my bias.
Fairness for thee, but not for me.
"Brunch Links was never meant to be substantive" is not an excuse for writing something that's misleading at best and false at worst. You may never have meant it to be substantive but when you mischaracterize a story you link to, then it is substantive.
Not Substantive: Men arrested for refusing to show police identification.
Substantive: The constitution clearly says people have the right to carry bazookas in the street. So it's clearly an affront to democracy when a guy strapping a glock at a Culver's is pinched.
Why don't you read an article you're linking to before writing mocking commentary? Oh, that's right. When it's Brunch Links, you suddenly absolve yourself of responsibility for being truthful. I get it.
"You've clearly not read it much, otherwise you wouldn't accuse me of only extending 'fairness to people with whom I agree.'"
Well, where else have you written about people who openly carry guns?
You're right, I don't read you. After reading your stupid comments at your old blog about how banning plastic bags and having everyone use paper would be an environmental panacea, I decided you have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in learning. Besides, I'm just not cool enough to enjoy your hard-hitting and insightful reporting on the best liquor stores downtown.
Apologies for my poor use of the word "substantive" in my above comment.
The idea is to simply to say that your sentences were not a simple description of an incident which was linked to.
"I'm just not cool enough to enjoy your hard-hitting and insightful reporting on the best liquor stores downtown."
Don't be so hard on yourself Palmer. Smell the roses, and read my blog.
No. I'm sorry but you're just too cool for me. I just can't handle it. All those liquor stores downtown. Oooh...information overload.
Too bad the Culvers wasn't in Arizona, then these assholes refusing to show their IDs wouldn't be a legal issue for the cops. I'm against the Arizona law, but when life hands you lemons...
Sorry Palmer, but you're just another silly libertarian on this. Some gun nuts want to play at being big swinging dicks at my child's expense while she's trying to buy a friggin' custard? Fuck them, and those that defend them.
Anonymous:
"Some gun nuts want to play at being big swinging dicks at my child's expense"
Whose life was in jeopardy at the Culvers?
Sorry Anonymous, but fuck you if you think that cops should be allowed to disregard the law at their whim. There's nothing libertarian about the law being followed. If you want to rally against open carry laws, go for it. But, for now, it's the law of the state of Wisconsin and fuck you if you think cops should selectively enforce or not enforce laws that you personally like or dislike.
"...selectively enforce..."
Selectivity.
Let's think on that word, shall we? When it comes to cops, there is selectivity in law enforcement, whether to ignore or enforce a law in a given situation, and then to how much degree. It happens every day, everywhere, and there are countless examples of it. Good ones and bad ones. Point being, it's a fact of life.
Then there's the selectivity shown by the armed men at the Culver's. Five men who are active members in a gun-carry rights organization, all from different parts of the state, who selected a family restaurant in leftist Madison as their personal Little Big Horn, bringing along recording devices to record their glory. It would seem they selected wisely as they got just what they were hoping for.
Then there's angry bloggers who, when not expressing deep thoughts about mirco brews and sci-fi, selectively choose which battles to which they should rightously take up the cause of raging against the machine.
Some say you should choose your friends and your battles wisely, for they show who you truely are. For example, in your case they show you to be pretty much an asshole.
Doesn't matter. Sure, a cop can, say, be selective in choosing which of multiple speeders to pull over. Big deal. They aren't pulling over someone driving 55 in 55MPH zone. Selectivity doesn't give cops the right to arrest people who haven't broken the law. It doesn't matter if the law biding person is a jerk or not. That's it. Why do you think they should have that power?
I can't speak for the guys at the Culver's. They may be assholes for all I know. Go ahead and argue all you want that going into a Culver's packing heat was stupid, inconsiderate, etc. I'd probably agree with you. Do I want everyone to carry pistols around town? No. But, if open carry is the law of the land, then cops shouldn't be arresting people who are following the law.
"Some say you should choose your friends and your battles wisely..."
Yes, that explains why a self-righteous, angry asshole such as yourself was so selective in coming here and leaving a comment saying "Fuck them, and those that defend them" after offering the deep thought that if their child goes within 20' of a holstered gun, the kid is as good as dead.
You got me. I feared that someone who was really clever would foil my plan of passing off saying how I enjoy "mirco" brews and sci-fi as deep philosophical treatises. There's goes my book deal and my admission into Mensa. Your powers of perception know no bounds. You're like Superman with that X-Ray vision seeing through all my ruses.
Since I see you're poking around...
1) My name isn't Palmer. My friends call me Skip and, despite the low opinion you have of my friends, I'd still ask you to feel free to call me that when you're not calling me asshole.
2) I see you're in Madison. Perhaps I'll see you at Culver's with your kid while I'm with mine and we can sit around sans guns and clog arteries.
Have a good weekend,
Skip
Post a Comment