Search for shooting perpetrator becomes frustrating ...

[Bowline]

...for Oshkosh neighborhood

Local police still have no culprit in custody following a Saturday night shooting that left an officer wounded in a south-side Oshkosh neighborhood.

Now the interesting part:

---

"The ongoing search for a perpetrator continues to prove frustrating for residents of the otherwise quiet neighborhood near Smith Elementary School. Residents of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street had mixed things to say about the methods police used in searching homes Sunday morning in the aftermath of the shooting.

Terry Wesner said “a couple of shotguns and a rifle” were removed from his home by SWAT Team members after he consented to a search, though officers did not tell him they removed the firearms after they completed their search.

“That’s what makes me so mad,” Wesner said. “They had no reason (to remove the firearms) without a warrant. … I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.”
"

---

My question is this: If the officer was shot at 10:10 p.m., taken to the hospital, treated, and released the next day shouldn't the police have known, by the time they conducted the searches on Sunday morning, what type of gun was used to shoot the officer. Why would they feel the need to confiscate a rifle AND a shotgun? Shouldn't they have at least informed the citizen they were confiscating his weapons?

Serious questions, not looking for an argument.

[MrBenchley]

1. I think the interesting part

is that no link is provided....

[TX-RAT]

2. Would need to read the investigating officers report first.

Not all things are as they seem.
Its amazing how many people lie, for some reason are the other.

[Bowline]

3. I'd be interested to hear more about this.

I'm sure we have yet to hear the whole story. Still, on the surface it seems a bit extreme to confiscate weapons unless they had reason to suspect that one of the weapons was involved in the shooting, right?

[MrBenchley]

4. So why don't we have a link, I wonder?

[TX-RAT]

7. They may very well suspect, they were used.

Could be he shouldn't have a weapon.

[Bowline]

18. Certainly a possibility.

I suppose you couldn't say for sure witout reading the arrest report?

[MrBenchley]

5. Here's a news story....

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2059743&nav=51s7Owqr

Nothing about Terry Wesner's guns in there....

[library_max]

6. Funny thing.

If it had been a stabbing instead of a shooting, there would be no need for a "frustrating search." The perpetrator would have to have been within arm's reach of the cop.

[FeebMaster]

9. What if he used a crossbow?

Or did you want to ban those too while you're working on banning guns?

[library_max]

10. How tough do you think it would be

for the police to search the neighborhood and find a crossbow? Figure there'd be a lot of innocent William Tell wannabes who would have theirs confiscated by mistake?

[FeebMaster]

12. And if they found one, so what?

How are they going to prove it was the one shot at the cop?


Figure there'd be a lot of innocent William Tell wannabes who would have theirs confiscated by mistake?

Who knows? There's no record of how many crossbows are out there. Their sales aren't registered or anything. You can go to a store with cash and walk out with a crossbow that very same day. No waiting period or anything.

[iverglas]

11. okay

What if he used a crossbow?
Or did you want to ban those too while
you're working on banning guns?

Oh look. *We* have.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/whole.html

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

7. A crossbow or similar device that

(a) is designed or altered to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands; or

(b) has a length not exceeding 500 mm.

A whole lot of other things, too: Mace, pepper spray, electric-shock thingies, and various kinds of nasty-sounding bladed devices and weapons-on-a-rope. And yet we're not dropping like flies for lack of the tools to defend ourselves with ...

Of course, *we* aren't "working on banning guns".

[FeebMaster]

13. What's really funny

when you post these little tidbits is that the gun grabbers on this board can't even be bothered to read the gun laws of their own country and you seem to think someone is going to read about the laws up in Canada?

[iverglas]

14. maybe you missed the fact

What's really funny
when you post these little tidbits is that
the gun grabbers on this board dan't even
be bothered to read the gun laws of their
own country and you seem to think someone
is going to read about the laws up in
Canada?

... that I was speaking to you? You disparage someone else's alleged ignorance and sloth, and wear your own like a badge of honour?? (Just what does someone else's alleged ignorance and sloth have to do with you not going to read up about anything, anyhow?)

It isn't the firearms control advocates whom I see as being in particular need of educating -- except in so far as most USAmericans are in need of educating from that "I think of things that never were and ask, why not?" perspective. I mean, things that never were in the USA, yet *are* in so many other places. Better health care, more humane and effective criminal justice, functioning electoral systems ... y'know.

Crossbow prohibition is just a teeny tiny bit of what's out there, out in the world of possibilities that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about.

[FeebMaster]

15. Well I just don't care about Canada in general

let alone their laws on various subjects. If that's sloth, so be it. I know the federal firearms laws in the US and I'm more than happy to discuss them. The gun grabbers here are plenty happy to support them and sometimes even to discuss their support of them, but I've yet to see one that's read them. Sure, you see the occasional claim that they've read the laws, always followed up by some blindingly ignorant statement probably involving machine guns or RPGs or something.


"Crossbow prohibition is just a teeny tiny bit of what's out there, out in the world of possibilities that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about."

Robert Kennedy wanted to ban crossbows? I had no idea.

[iverglas]

16. he did??

Robert Kennedy wanted to ban crossbows? I had no idea.

Me neither! Where did you hear that??

[FeebMaster]

17. Oh, you seemed to be implying that he did.

Crossbow prohibition is just a teeny tiny bit of what's out there, out in the world of possibilities that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about.

So are you now saying that crossbow prohibition isn't just a teeny tiny bit of what's out there, in the world of possibilities that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about?

[iverglas]

20. how are we doing with that grammar education?

I wrote the sentence quite carefully to mean exactly what I meant it to mean. And it did.

So are you now saying that crossbow prohibition isn't just a teeny tiny bit of what's out there, in the world of possibilities that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about?

Uh, why would you ask that? I said it. It meant what I meant it to say. I have no idea why you would think that it something else.

Oh, you seemed to be implying that he did <want to ban crossbows>.

I "seemed". I dunno. How did I seem to be doing this? By the fact that I said something entirely different? Is that some of this fine RKBA logic I hear so much about?

Try some real logic, of the kind used in parsing prose.

You seem - perhaps - to be having difficulty with the adjectival subordinate clause "that that fine Democrat Robert Kennedy thought should be thought about". Perhaps you thought it was modifying something other than what it was modifying. If you tell me what you thought it was modifying -- or give me some other clue as to what you're interpreting my statement as meaning, and why -- I'll see what I can do to help.

Even allowing for that difficulty, I still don't know how it could have seemed to you that I was implying that Robert Kennedy wanted to ban crossbows, but maybe you'll tell.

[FeebMaster]

22. So what you're saying is that

you want crossbows banned and you're just dropping Robert Kennedy's name in the hope of garnering some support for your agenda.

[iverglas]

25. you got it!

So what you're saying is that
you want crossbows banned and you're just
dropping Robert Kennedy's name in the hope
of garnering some support for your agenda.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying!

Why I would "want crossbows banned" when they ARE ALREADY BANNED, I have no idea, but far be it from me to try to figure out what I mean when I say things.

[FeebMaster]

27. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Why I would "want crossbows banned" when they ARE ALREADY BANNED, I have no idea, but far be it from me to try to figure out what I mean when I say things."

Well, they certainly aren't banned in the US and like I said, I don't much care what happens north of the border. We were discussing events in Wisconsin, after all.

[Bowline]

19. Irrelevant and off topic.

He was shot, not stabbed. The question is, why did the police seize the homeowners guns? As TX-RAT pointed out there is insufficient information in the article to say for sure.

[MrBenchley]

23. Right on the money, far as I can see....

"why did the police seize the homeowners guns?"
Funny, there's no link to anything that says they did...the news story about the incident doesn't say anything...

"there is insufficient information in the article"
Which you are mysteriously unable to show us. Hey, for all we know the bonehead was arrested for the shooting based on evidence from those guns...in the next paragraph. Or the previous one.

[FeebMaster]

8. I hope Mr. Wesner learned his lesson.

"after he consented to a search,"

Do not consent to a search.

[Bowline]

21. "Do not consent to a search"...

...EVER! If they want to look through my home, car, or person they'd better come with a warrant or they ain't comin' in the door.

[FeebMaster]

24. I was going to say "ever"

but I was worried some gun grabber would take that to mean I'm advocating resisting a cop with a warrant and then I'd have to spend the next 20 posts explaining that wasn't the case.

[Bowline]

26. I'd never advocate resisting a police officer. . .

. . . I just advocating that people do a little research and make sure they understand their rights AND their responsibilities when they come in contact with the police. Especially if they chose to carry a gun.

[library_max]

28. Why "especially if they chose to carry a gun"?

He asked, innocently.

O8)

[Bowline]

29. 'Cause if you're carrying a gun and get into a hassle with the police...

You'll very likely lose, and lose big. When dealing with police officers one should invite trouble. Cooperate with the officer and straighten out any problems later, after the immediate incident has passed.

[library_max]

32. I'm guessing you meant "one shouldN'T invite trouble.

Which is always good advice. But I still don't see how carrying or not carrying a gun (assuming it's legal) would make any difference?

[Zynx]

30. Dumb cops.

Or thief cops. They do steal every so often.

And if the cop was treated and released, I think it's pretty safe to say he wasn't shot with either a rifle or a shotgun.

[MrBenchley]

31. Wow...reflex cop bashing from the RKBA crowd...

who'd have guessed THAT?