• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Milw. Man Arrested Recklessly Endangering Safety/Negligent Handling

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
But those factors are not a element of the crime he is charged with.

Correct. He was charged with the most obvious and easy to convict violation. It can be argued that the negligent handling occurred when he placed it in the coat pocket which is not a reasonably secure method of carry. No matter what creative defense you concoct, he is facing an uphill battle if he tries to get off on a technicality based on verbiage.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Correct. He was charged with the most obvious and easy to convict violation. It can be argued that the negligent handling occurred when he placed it in the coat pocket which is not a reasonably secure method of carry. No matter what creative defense you concoct, he is facing an uphill battle if he tries to get off on a technicality based on verbiage.

Being charged with the wrong crime based on the improper interpretation of a statue is a very good way of getting that charge thrown out.

I guess we well have to how it plays out in court.

There is nothing in the statue that talks about improper carry or how one has to secure ones firearm you are reading into it.

It very clearly states what one has to do to be in violation. He has to handle or operate in a negligent manner.

If those of you believe he has met all the elements of the crime charged so be I do not.

The misinterpretation and improper charges brought under the DC and Obstruction laws caused many OCs to be arrested and convicted did that make them a proper charge.

For the better that case law has mostly been settled.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
If you actually have a Wisconsin certificate to instruct classes on firearm safety and teach the above philosphy the Wisconsin DOJ should take a closer look.

What don't you understand about using the law and your rights to your advantage you are under no obligation to help the police convict you.

Unless required by the law do some thing . Why would you help the police convict you.

I have never advocated breaking the law.

I sure advise every body to use it to their full advantage.

More people convict themselves by making stupid statements then other wise.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
He was not even touching the coat when the derringer fell out

Or did they charge him because it was his firearm and his coat

From the jsonline article:

According to the criminal complaint, Marvin W. Jackson, 34, was shopping in the Burlington Coat Factory at 3700 Durand Ave. After he took of his jacket and laid it on a rack while he tried on another, his female companion picked up Jackson's jacket and laid it over her arm because he had forgotten it on a rack earlier.

But as she did, Jacson's silver .38 caliber two-shot derringer fell out, hit the ground and fired a shot that pierced three sweatshirts before lodging in the metal display rack. The couple quickly left the store.

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/235138081.html#ixzz2o1u0Zmkk

So, if someone else picks up your firearm and drops it, you are to be charged with negligently handling and operation of a firearm?

There is almost no case here. The logical contortions that the prosection has to go through, to prove "negligent handling" are two and three times removed. It pushes the definition of "handling" to extremes that include every gun owner every day. It is not a far step from this to charge gun owners with negligence if their gun is stolen and used in a crime.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--
There is almost no case here. The logical contortions that the prosection has to go through, to prove "negligent handling" are two and three times removed. It pushes the definition of "handling" to extremes that include every gun owner every day. It is not a far step from this to charge gun owners with negligence if their gun is stolen and used in a crime.
Think that has been considered by some of our illustrious leaders. :eek:
 
Top