Jury rules in favor of gun-rights activist [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Jury rules in favor of gun-rights activist


HerrGlock
07-25-2012, 01:58
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/jury-rules-in-favor-of-gunrights-activist-kc685iv-163622786.html

RussP
07-25-2012, 06:13
Congratulations, Krysta!!!

LoadToadBoss
07-25-2012, 06:33
Here's a noteworthy quote:


Benitez testified that her training told her that the presence of NRA gear makes it more likely the person might have a gun.

jph02
07-25-2012, 07:20
Interesting case. In MI, she'd be guilty as charged since the law defines a weapon in a car as concealed. Without a CPL, the gun needs to be inaccessible and unloaded.

Regardless of if the weapon was originally concealed or not, she deserves what she got for refusing to identify herself at first. That may be legally ok, but if she's done nothing wrong, why not cooperate with officers? They were, after all, investigating a suspicious vehicle outside a closed business from whom she was leaching wi-fi without patronizing the business. :shakehead:

Mayhem like Me
07-25-2012, 08:22
So was she stealing the WIFI that is intended for customers to use??

Hmmmm lets see in front of a closed business accessing their wifi router, yes I will ask her to identifiy herself.

An unlocked router can allow a computer saavy uindividual to cause all sorts of mayhem with a business..She is on the line between shady and straight.

PEC-Memphis
07-25-2012, 08:55
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but


So was she stealing the WIFI that is intended for customers to use??

Perhaps she is a routine customer.

Hmmmm lets see in front of a closed business accessing their wifi router, yes I will ask her to identifiy herself.

If I were LEO, I probably would as well - but would understand that she has no legal obligation to comply.


An unlocked router can allow a computer saavy uindividual to cause all sorts of mayhem with a business

It is easy for a business to prevent after-hours access to 802.11 networks if they don't want someone accessing it - simply disconnect the ethernet connection or power supply. Any business with any "smarts" will run separate networks for business and public access.

She is on the line between shady and straight.

Not really - particularly if she is a regular customer of the business. Even if she isn't - you've set a pretty low bar for "shady". Ever take extra napkins at a fast-food restaurant? Stash a "wet-nap" in your pocket you didn't use at a BBQ place?

Mayhem like Me
07-25-2012, 09:17
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but




Perhaps she is a routine customer.



If I were LEO, I probably would as well - but would understand that she has no legal obligation to comply.



It is easy for a business to prevent after-hours access to 802.11 networks if they don't want someone accessing it - simply disconnect the ethernet connection or power supply. Any business with any "smarts" will run separate networks for business and public access.



Not really - particularly if she is a regular customer of the business. Even if she isn't - you've set a pretty low bar for "shady". Ever take extra napkins at a fast-food restaurant? Stash a "wet-nap" in your pocket you didn't use at a BBQ place?

So you as a business owner want people who may or may not be customers parking outside of your establishment after hours and you further want the local LE to just wave and not check on what they are doing,... Interesting.. I am throwing the bull**** flag on this one.



Her actions meet RAS for a stop in most areas of the nation..That would be non consensual..

HerrGlock
07-25-2012, 10:53
I'm glad this was the verdict. More of these need to happen.

Another one or two of these and she'll start winning harassment suits too.

IndyGunFreak
07-25-2012, 12:54
So you as a business owner want people who may or may not be customers parking outside of your establishment after hours and you further want the local LE to just wave and not check on what they are doing,... Interesting.. I am throwing the bull**** flag on this one.

This is the dumbest post in this thread. When I worked overnights, I was often sitting in a parking lot on "open" WIFI of closed businesses, while waiting for calls, etc. Never ever had a problem.

You really think a business is going to put public WIFI out, and not expect "the public" to use it? If they want it for customers only, then put a password on it, and when a customer purchases something, put the password on the receipt (I've been places that do this as well). They're not going to put sensitive information on the same network as an unprotected WIFI network... It's just not going to happen.

As for whether the Officer had probable cause, they were there, I wasn't, so I don't know. Regardless, the jury had their say, which is all any of us can ask for.

FL Airedale
07-25-2012, 13:13
I was sitting in a car dealer parking lot around midnight and the local police noticed. I was in a van at a Cadillac dealer so it stood out. They wanted to know why I was there and I told them. They had a look at my face and had my tag number. I offered my ID and they didn't even want to see it.

I didn't feel harassed. I think they were doing a good job.

BTW - My dad called me because his car broke down and he was having it towed to the dealer. I was just there to pick him up and got there faster than the tow truck.

PEC-Memphis
07-25-2012, 14:00
So you as a business owner want people who may or may not be customers parking outside of your establishment after hours and you further want the local LE to just wave and not check on what they are doing,... Interesting.. I am throwing the bull**** flag on this one.

That is not what I said - so you can stick your flag back into your pocket. If I didn't want people using my public access 802.11 network I'd turn it off - which I probably would. I also said that if I were LE (which I am not) I might stop, question (which she did answer) and ask for ID - but understand that she wouldn't legally have to answer.


Her actions meet RAS for a stop in most areas of the nation..That would be non consensual..

Really? Got case law on that? Sitting in a car in a public access parking lot with a computer and an NRA hat is the totality of circumstances for reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity?

It would seem that People (CA) v. Perrusquia directly contradicts your assertion that her actions meets RAS; even though her actions were much less suspicious than Perrusquia.

redbaron007
07-25-2012, 14:32
GREAT verdict!!

Glad to see the jury used common sense.

IIRC, in prior postings, she does regularly patronize the business and may have even had permission from the owner. Either way, if she was parked in a public area and the wifi was unsecured, allowing anyone access, what crime has she committed? Is that grounds for RAS? Not too sure it gets to that level.

Anyway...CONGRATS on the verdict!! :thumbsup:


:wavey:

red

unit1069
07-25-2012, 17:59
This is an interesting story. Prior arrest leads to a financial settlement. Second arrest ends in "not guilty".

I wonder if both sides are pushing the envelope with the focus on Krista as a target and Krysta receiving compensation for challenging lawful authority.

Mister_Beefy
07-25-2012, 18:57
more people need to carry, open and concealed, in accordance with the law.

we need to undo the training the police receive that tells them that they are the only ones professional enough to carry firearms and a gun in the possession of anyone but them is a threat.

sure, not all police think this way, but for some reason cases like these just keep happening.

miruss
07-26-2012, 02:08
You guys shouldn't read into it to much the owner gave her permission

Krysta Sutterfield was parked outside Sherman Perk Coffee Shop on 49th Street and Roosevelt Drive when officers approached her car.

According to a criminal complaint, Sutterfield had a gun in a holster under her jacket.

"She absolutely was not trying to make an example of herself in this case. In fact, what she was doing that night when she was arrested was sitting in her car in the parking lot looking on the Internet. She was there with the business owner's invitation. She was doing nothing wrong," defense attorney Rebecca Coffee said.

found this she was on a gun forum she posted this from the car

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now


oI'm sitting @ Sherman Perk, using internet.
Owner knows I do, says it's OK, leaves it on all night on purpose.
PD wants to know what I'm doing... sitging in car w/ computer...
what does it look like I'm doing?
Now they're running my plate.
Told them they can call the owner & he knows it's OK

Gallium
07-26-2012, 07:22
You guys shouldn't read into it to much the owner gave her permission

Krysta Sutterfield was parked outside Sherman Perk Coffee Shop on 49th Street and Roosevelt Drive when officers approached her car.

According to a criminal complaint, Sutterfield had a gun in a holster under her jacket.

"She absolutely was not trying to make an example of herself in this case. In fact, what she was doing that night when she was arrested was sitting in her car in the parking lot looking on the Internet. She was there with the business owner's invitation. She was doing nothing wrong," defense attorney Rebecca Coffee said.

found this she was on a gun forum she posted this from the car

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now


oI'm sitting @ Sherman Perk, using internet.
Owner knows I do, says it's OK, leaves it on all night on purpose.
PD wants to know what I'm doing... sitging in car w/ computer...
what does it look like I'm doing?
Now they're running my plate.
Told them they can call the owner & he knows it's OK


Why would you go and ruin a good rant? :)

PEC-Memphis
07-26-2012, 08:11
You guys shouldn't read into it to much the owner gave her permission

If she's even remotely telling the truth on her internet post, or by statements made in court, is seems like she did have permission. What should we "read into it", or not?

And what would that have to do with the reason for the arrest, ie. concealed firearm without a permit?

MKEgal
05-21-2014, 09:38
I don't know how I didn't see this when the verdict happened, but hi! :D

Yes, I had permission from the owner to be there whenever, and he even testified for me at the trial. The wi-fi needs a password, which staff gives to customers. I've been a customer there for easily 10 years.

Yes, I was OC in the car. Nothing in WI law says OC is cc, esp. since the transport law changed (just before I was arrested) to say that it's legal to have a loaded, unencased pistol in the car.

Yes, the cops lied & said my pistol was concealed. (They also lied in their reports & in the trial.) The reason she didn't see it when she first looked in the car is because she didn't look at me. She looked at the passenger footwell, seat, and across the back seat (where the NRA staff hat was sitting, along with my WI DNR boating safety instructor hat). She never came out from hiding behind the seat to be able to look at me. Same for the guy on my side of the car.

As for why I didn't tell them anything more than they needed to be satisfied that I wasn't a criminal... well, it's none of their business. I told them that I was using my computer (which was open & running on my lap) on the free wi-fi (and pointed to the 8.5 x 11" sign in the window a few feet behind the male officer). Gave them the name of the owner, told them he lived nearby, told them to check with him. He gives all customers permission to use the Wi-fi whenever.

I knew that once they knew who I was, they'd make up some reason to arrest me, which is exactly what happened. I've won several lawsuits against Milwaukee PD for their illegal actions against me. (And no, I don't set out to get into trouble.)
There's one going to SCOTUS soon for them breaking into my home w/o a warrant, kidnapping me, and stealing one of my pistols (+ carry licenses, a case which had been locked & is now destroyed, and several holsters).

cowboy1964
05-21-2014, 12:01
The reason she didn't see it when she first looked in the car is because she didn't look at me.

:whistling:

cowboywannabe
05-21-2014, 13:19
I don't know Wisconsin gun laws, but the being parked in front of a business that is closed at midnight meets RAS to "stop and identify". once that's done and no warrants were found in NCIC the "stop" is over. again, this does not have anything to do with the gun issue since I don't know Wisconsin law.

Mayhem like Me
05-21-2014, 13:32
I don't know Wisconsin gun laws, but the being parked in front of a business that is closed at midnight meets RAS to "stop and identify". once that's done and no warrants were found in NCIC the "stop" is over. again, this does not have anything to do with the gun issue since I don't know Wisconsin law.

You are correct as I pointed out earlier the initial facts equal reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and ID the person however if her story checks out it's time to let it go.

Police officers that overstepped their boundaries with an I'm always right attitude can get into trouble.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Ohub Campfire mobile app

cowboywannabe
05-21-2014, 13:57
That is not what I said - so you can stick your flag back into your pocket. If I didn't want people using my public access 802.11 network I'd turn it off - which I probably would. I also said that if I were LE (which I am not) I might stop, question (which she did answer) and ask for ID - but understand that she wouldn't legally have to answer.



Really? Got case law on that? Sitting in a car in a public access parking lot with a computer and an NRA hat is the totality of circumstances for reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity?

It would seem that People (CA) v. Perrusquia directly contradicts your assertion that her actions meets RAS; even though her actions were much less suspicious than Perrusquia.

based on the circumstances that night she could identify herself on scene or at the station.

SpringerTGO
05-21-2014, 15:13
Even if the owner didn't give her permission, using his wi-fi is far from leaching. Businesses (and homes) prevent people from using wi-fi with passwords and by turning it off. If a business doesn't want to give out wi-fi it's easy enough to control.
And what exactly would she have been leaching? The business owner pays a monthly fee regardless. After hours, you can't even say she was slowing down the system.

Some people here are so quick to blame gun owners for asserting their rights that it is hard to believe they are on a pro gun forum instead of an anti gun one. Did you guys get lost on your way to the Brady forum?

clarson_75
05-21-2014, 16:23
I honestly don't see anything wrong with what either side did in this situation. The officer didn't see a gun and then did see it. That tells me an arrest for CCW without a permit is justified. A jury didn't believe the evidence was strong enough so they found her not guilty. It has nothing to do with the internet or why she was in the lot.
As far as I understand the law in Iowa, a loaded gun in a car is always considered concealed so she would have been guilty here as well. As far as the internet is concerned, if i was a neighboring business i might pitch in to pay some towards keeping the wi-fi on all night. Having honest people in the streets in your neighborhood is the easiest way to reduce crime! Although if this was a goal, I would definitely inform the closest precinct to give them a heads up about the possibility of people sitting around just to use the net.

unit1069
05-21-2014, 19:21
I honestly don't see anything wrong with what either side did in this situation. The officer didn't see a gun and then did see it. That tells me an arrest for CCW without a permit is justified. A jury didn't believe the evidence was strong enough so they found her not guilty. It has nothing to do with the internet or why she was in the lot.
As far as I understand the law in Iowa, a loaded gun in a car is always considered concealed so she would have been guilty here as well. As far as the internet is concerned, if i was a neighboring business i might pitch in to pay some towards keeping the wi-fi on all night. Having honest people in the streets in your neighborhood is the easiest way to reduce crime! Although if this was a goal, I would definitely inform the closest precinct to give them a heads up about the possibility of people sitting around just to use the net.

Iowa really needs a Castle Law that protects its citizens in transit the way they're protected while in their homes.

Blue states especially need Castle Law legislation as they're the most likely locales where carjackings take place when looking at wide area crime occurrence maps.

BamaBud
05-21-2014, 20:04
Well, this article is from 2012.
Here is something on her continued battles with the antis. And she lost this latest one.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/7th-circuit-upholds-warrantless-entry-seizure-of-gun-rights-activist-b99269120z1-259087731.html