City Settles With Gun-Rights Group Over Fast-Food Incident

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#1
Its always good to hear about the people winning one against anti constitution tyrants.

Court Orders $10,000 Payment Over Fast-Food Incident

Updated: 8:10 am CST December 26, 2011
Text Size
AAA

MADISON, Wis. -- A federal court has ordered the city of Madison to pay members of a gun-rights group $10,000 to settle a lawsuit.

The judgment last week closes a case that developed when police cited five people for disorderly conduct after they openly carried handguns into a Culver's fast-food restaurant on the city's East Side last year.

A Wisconsin Public Radio report said the citations were eventually dropped, but the group sued the city. Wisconsin Carry alleged that the officers violated the members' Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

Wisconsin Carry spokesman Nik Clark said he would have preferred a higher damage judgment to send a stronger message.The city attorney's office was closed on Sunday when The Associated Press tried to reach someone for comment.

The state has since passed a concealed-carry law that codifies open carry.
The cops should have been fired but hopefully that 10g will teach them to stop violating peoples rights.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#2
Wisconsin Carry spokesman Nik Clark said he would have preferred a higher damage judgment to send a stronger message.The city attorney's office was closed on Sunday when The Associated Press tried to reach someone for comment.

The state has since passed a concealed-carry law that codifies open carry.
I completely agree with the attorney, and I honestly think codifying open or concealed carry should be unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, not to own one but have to stick it in a locked safe buried in my back yard.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#3
hopefully that 10g will teach them to stop violating peoples rights.
You don't actually expect that do you? Police groups are some of the biggest gun grabbers. They don't want anyone else to carry.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,155
9,444
768
#7
it would be funnier if it had rainbow stickers on it.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#10
You don't actually expect that do you? Police groups are some of the biggest gun grabbers. They don't want anyone else to carry.
Depends on the cop group. I've see plenty of pro-gun legislation backed by police groups.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#11
Depends on the cop group. I've see plenty of pro-gun legislation backed by police groups.
Thats true, not all cops are assholes.

A South Carolina sheriff said it’s time for citizens to start carrying concealed weapons as a way to fight back against crime.

“Gun control is not the answer,” Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright told Fox News. “Carry a concealed weapon.”

Wright echoed comments he made at a heated press conference after a local woman was attacked in a park. The alleged assailant was a man who the sheriff said had been convicted at least 20 times.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#12
Depends on the cop group. I've see plenty of pro-gun legislation backed by police groups.
And even if the group is against it, the cops themselves rarely are. Cops know more legal guns keeps them safer.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#13
The cops in Chicago had to start carrying fully auto rifles to fight the gangs during the 25+ year gun ban in Chicago. Gun bans make a cops job more dangerous than it already is.
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
10,590
2,570
566
KC Metro
#14
I seriously doubt that cops carried machine guns on a regular, or even semi-regular basis.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#15
I seriously doubt that cops carried machine guns on a regular, or even semi-regular basis.
Did I ever say machine guns?

Chicago Police, Assault Rifles, & No Demonstrable Need!


The decision by Mayor Richard Daley and Police Superintendent Jody Weis to deploy assault weapons on the streets of Chicago has been made without providing a demonstrable need for the weapon. Over...

The decision by Mayor Richard Daley and Police Superintendent Jody Weis to deploy assault weapons on the streets of Chicago has been made without providing a demonstrable need for the weapon. Over the last several weeks, the Chicago Justice Project has made inquiries to find out what information the Chicago Police Department used to make the decision to deploy this weapon. Our inquiries uncovered a dangerous lack of knowledge of past practices that could have informed present decisions. Present day practices of information gathering by the Chicago Police Department are lacking and are incapable of informing the ongoing decision-making process regarding any need to deploy the assault rifles for their use by patrol officers.

The Chicago Justice Project does not take a stance on the deployment of assault rifles other than to question the process used to make the decision to deploy the weapon. We do feel that there are inherent risks to both the general public and police officers alike with the deployment of an assault rifle to domestic police agencies. The risks involved must be weighed against past experiences and current circumstances to allow authorities to make a completely informed decision.

The Chicago Justice Project made three specific attempts to the gather information that we believe should have been used to inform decisions made by the Chicago Police Department regarding the deployment of the M4 carbine. The Police Department's response to our inquiries demonstrate that the department is more concerned with blocking access to information and that it lacks the necessary data to improve its decision-making process. Decisions regarding public policy must be made openly and transparently, by taking into consideration past practices and their impact as well as the best information available about the situation we presently confront. The actions of the Chicago Police Department to block access to information that could inform both policy makers and the public are inappropriate and disappointing. Superintendent Weis took the job on the heels of a significant scandal of abuse at the hands of the Special Operations Section and other widely publicized scandals. One of Superintendent Weis' goals when he accepted the job was to restore relations between Chicago's communities and its police personnel.

Transparency is a significant requirement for there to be improved relations between the Department and the public. With the denial of our requests the Department has only continued a pattern of blocking access to critical information that could inform both the public and policy makers.

Below you will find detailed accounts of the information we were able to gather about the deployment of the M4 assault rifle. Meeting With Weis:

On July 28th the Chicago Justice Project in association with the Chicago Coalition for Police Accountability met with Superintendent Weis and members of his staff to gain insight into the information they used to make their decision.

Question:
Why is there a need for the M4?

Answer:
The deployment was motivated by the need for the Chicago Police Department to respond to "low frequency events" like Columbine or "active shooters" like the events recently at Northern Illinois University without having to wait for SWAT teams to arrive on scene.1 This motivation does not square with the reality of the deployment underway by the Chicago Police Department. The Department is deploying the weapon to any officer who volunteers to undergo training and carry the weapon. This means that the weapon will be randomly deployed over different shifts and different districts depending on the will of the district's patrolmen. As it is now, the only way the Chicago Police Department will have an assault rifle at the scene of a "low frequency event" will be mere coincidence. We question if this is how an urban police agency should deploy its limited resources to respond to "low frequency events."


Fact: From 2003-2007 there were over 25 million calls for police service to 911. Of these calls there was not a single Columbine like or active shooter incident.2


Question:
How many times did Chicago Police officer's report being fired at from assault weapons in the last year?

Answer:
We were informed that the M4 could be used anytime an officer felt the need to use deadly force. We asked this question to help us understand to what degree statistical data about past experiences of the Chicago Police Department were being used to assist the Superintendent with his decision making process. Because of our previous inquiries with the Research and Development Division of the Chicago Police Department we knew that the Chicago Police Department did not collect this data (see RDD below). This response is also a complete contradiction of their earlier stated reason being solely based on "low frequency event". If the weapon is being deployed to be used in the City on a daily basis then community members and policy makers need to be informed and included in the decision making process to deploy this weapon.

Question:
We asked the Department if they have drafted a new general order to provide guidance about when and how the weapon should be used on the street by officers.

Answer:
We were informed that they neither drafted, nor planned on drafting any such guidelines. Officers could use the M4 consistent with the current use of force policies. This answer definitely provides evidence to question the "low frequency event" motive for deployment of the weapon. The Chicago Police Department has deployed high powered weapons with patrol officers in the past. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the Chicago police deployed shotguns in patrol vehicles. This experiment with shotguns was relatively short lived. Eventually, the weapons were removed from patrol vehicles amidst an outpouring of community protest and resentment. Today, Chicago Police Department policy requires District Commander approval for shotguns to be removed from the district stations to be deployed in the field.

Question:
We asked if any members of the department that were present had knowledge of why the shotguns were removed from the patrol cars.

Answers:
The group answered with silence. Then asked why? We told them that it seemed important to have as much information as possible about a previous failed deployment of a high powered weapon. We believe that this information should play a significant role in future decisions to deploy high powered weapons. Deputy Superintendent Tobias claimed that because it happened before those officers present at the meeting had joined the force, they did not have the ability to know.3 Superintendent Weis commented that the rounds from M4s are much safer than "slug" rounds fired from the shotguns. He continued to say that the "slugs" can go through cars where rounds from the M4 will be stopped.4 Currently the rounds that are used by patrol officers when they are given authority to use a shotgun are buckshot and not slugs. Buckshot rounds are significantly safer than either slug rounds or the rounds fired from the M4.

Question:
Would past sustained Complaint Registry files (CR), citizen complaints against an officer, for abuse or misuse of a weapon prohibit an officer from carrying the weapon?

Answer:
We were informed that the Department considers these to be two separate issues and sustained CRs would not prohibit an officer from carrying the assault rifle.5 Currently the bullet proof vests that Chicago Police Officers wear are rated to stop the bullet of the gun they and their partner carry. With the deployment of the M4 officer's vests will no longer be able to protect them if the M4 is taken away from them and used against them, their partner, or any other officers on the scene.

Question:
Is the Department going to upgrade the vests of officers to protect them from rounds fired by the M4?

Answer:
When questioned about this fact we were informed that because of the "low frequency" of an officer having his gun taken away and used against him the department does not want to burden the officers with the extra weight of the new vests.6 CJP participated in a conference call with Colt Manufacturing's General Council Jeff Grody on July 21, 2008. During this call, we were informed that officers would need to wear level three vests that weigh approximately 38 lbs.7

Question:
Rounds fired from the M4 carbine can travel a maximum of 2.25 miles. Is the distance a round can travel from the M4 a concern?

Answer:
Deputy Superintendent Tobias acknowledged that the distance a round from the M4 can travel is a matter of concern.8 Sgt Ray Hamilton and Superintendent Weis' Chief of Staff Mike Masterson immediately countered Tobias' comment. Hamilton stated that because the weapon is being used in an urban area the round will hit something before it travels its maximum distance.9
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
10,590
2,570
566
KC Metro
#16
Yes, a fully auto rifle is a machine gun, which is what you said.

An M-4 assault rifle is not fully automatic, nor a machine gun.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#17
Yes, a fully auto rifle is a machine gun, which is what you said.

An M-4 assault rifle is not fully automatic, nor a machine gun.
Hopefully I won be accused of derailing the thread since you brought it up but I never said it was a machine gun, you did.

Chicago Police to use M4 carbines
Associated Press
7:31 AM CDT, April 26, 2008

CHICAGO - Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis has plans to equip the department's officers with M4 carbines to match the firepower of the street gangs they have to face to stop the wave of shootings in the city.

Weis' decision to arm and train his 13,500 officers with more powerful weapons was disclosed Friday.

Chicago Police SWAT teams are already equipped with M4 carbines, but rank-and-file officers are currently only allowed to carry handguns.

The M4 is a short assault rifle used by the Marine Corps, and it fires more shots in less time than most handguns. The fully automatic version can fire up to 1,000 rounds a minute, although the magazines only hold from 20 to 30 shots.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-chicagoviolence-c,0,7343680.story
[video=youtube;IDjwWBUZQjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDjwWBUZQjw[/video]
 

Plunkies

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
5,958
2,722
543
#18
Yes, a fully auto rifle is a machine gun, which is what you said.

An M-4 assault rifle is not fully automatic, nor a machine gun.
M4 is a carbine, has three round burst. M4A1 is fully automatic.

I learned that from battlefield 3. :)