Man Shoots Lawn Mower

What an idiot. 

A 57-year-old south side man, who might have been struggling with a hangover, is charged today with shooting his lawn mower with a sawed-off shotgun.

“I’ll tell you the truth,” a criminal complaint quotes an apparently inebriated Keith Walendowski. “I got pissed because my lawn mower wouldn’t start, so I got my shotgun and shot it.

“I can do that. It’s my lawn mower and my yard, so I can shoot it if I want,” Walendowski told police.

Ignorance of the law, however, is not a legal defense.

Walendowski is charged with a felony count of possessing a short-barreled shotgun and a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct while armed. If convicted of both charges, he faces up to six years and nine months in prison.

But this really bothers me:

Police recovered the shotgun, shells, a handgun, rounds for the handgun and a stun gun.

I can understand confiscating the shotgun because it’s evidence in connection with the alleged commission of a crime, but why did the police confiscate the handgun, handgun ammunition, and stun gun?  Since I presume that they confiscated them after he was in custody and was of no threat to them, why did they do it?  I’d be majorly ticked off if I was arrested for something and they confiscated all of my guns.  And does he have to wait until his case is over before he can get the handgun back?

Perhaps some of our lawyer and law enforcement readers can enlighten me. 

1. Oh, praise the Lord!

   If the NRA would really do us a favor and remove all gun restrictions!

   I’d like to know what part of the Almighty Second Amendment these “law officers” don’t understand.

   Only in Socialist beer-swilling Milwaukee would the jack-booted police-state thugs confiscate guns from our G-d-given right to do whatever we want on our property!

   Property/gun-rights Uber Alles!

   Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1812 hrs




2. My goodness, Adam.  You’re an idiot.

   Posted by Owen on July 25, 2008 at 1821 hrs




3. Nice comeback. Especially from a so-called Christian.

   I was merely exercising my right to being sarcastic. I should think you could handle that.

   Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1829 hrs




4. I can handle it fine.  That doesn’t negate the fact that you’re an idiot.

   Posted by Owen on July 25, 2008 at 1832 hrs




5. I’ll consider the source.

   G-d bless you!

   Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1838 hrs




6. By the way, Owen--did you mean to write “That doesn’t negate the fact that you’re an idiot.”, using ‘you’re’ in place of ‘your’?

   Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1843 hrs




7. Already corrected, Adam.  Criticisms of grammar are usually the last redoubt of those with nothing else.

   Posted by Owen on July 25, 2008 at 1847 hrs




8. I can think of a couple reasons.  First he was drunk, so maybe they took the guns so he couldn’t do anymore harm, though I do understand your point.
   Maybe they were unsecured so perhaps there was no place to store them safely in case his house is robbed.  And finally, maybe weren’t properly registered or the guns were defective.  Not being a gun owner, that’s the only thing I can think of.

   Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 2003 hrs




9. First he was drunk, so maybe they took the guns so he couldn’t do anymore harm, though I do understand your point.

   He was already in custody.  He wasn’t going to get to his guns and do anything.

   Maybe they were unsecured so perhaps there was no place to store them safely in case his house is robbed.

   There isn’t any requirement for guns to be secured.  If I was in a home without children, I would leave a gun or two out and there isn’t any safety or legal problem with that.

   And finally, maybe weren’t properly registered or the guns were defective

   Guns don’t have to be registered and it’s not the business of the police to evaluate their working condition.  I have a couple of antique guns that don’t work.  The police have no right to take them.

   Posted by Owen on July 25, 2008 at 2052 hrs




10. If “stun gun” means taser, that’s also felony possession of an electronic weapon.  Yeesh, I might not agree with some of these laws, but it’s still a gun owner’s responsibility to know them (even if they do decide to discretely break any...).  This guy did not decide to do anything discretely!

    There is no legal reason (in WI) for any weapons that are not contraband or evidence to be siezed.  (I don’t mean temporarily taken during a detention for officer safety, for such action is certainly lawful.) That does not mean the police won’t do it, though.  I agree this guy is an idiot, but that doesn’t give the police carte blanc to take any legally owned belongings that are not needed as evidence.

    Oh, and Adam is most certainly an idiot; sometimes a Christian must realize that giving credibility to an idiot’s argument in the name of civility is like pissing upwind.

    Posted by Mike Gallo on July 25, 2008 at 2314 hrs




11. I can understand confiscating the shotgun because it’s evidence in connection with the alleged commission of a crime, but why did the police confiscate the handgun, handgun ammunition, and stun gun? 

    Well…

    Because we live in a police state.

    The police do what they want.  Rarely having any level of accountability until something goes REALLY off the wall (Frank Jude)

    The rest of the time, Its a cops world.  We just live in it.

    Posted by on July 26, 2008 at 0006 hrs




12. it’s called a search pursuant to arrest.  He was arrested in the basement of his home on probable cause for firing the shotgun (presumably if not for the type of weapon than for the location within city limits).  At the time of his arrest, all areas within his ‘control’ will be searched and anything illegal will be seized and he will be charged.  It could be child porn, it could be more weapons, it could be a bag of marijauana.  If the city of Milwaukee doesn’t allow citizens to keep weapons, or if his were unregistered or not within standard (sawn off vs short barrel, auto vs semi-auto), then those would be contraband eligible for seizure and he would be charged with possession of such contraband.  Its not a gestapo, it is regulatory law.  He shoulda kept his handgun under his pillow and his taser in his wife’s purse and he would have avoided those charges because the police could not have lawfully searched those areas.
    But otherwise, he was a dumbass drunk to think he could discharge a weapon within city limits for any purpose other than personal protection. period.

    Posted by on July 26, 2008 at 0501 hrs




13. Now wait a minute. 

    The guy was arrested for at least one weapons related crime and you think it would be a grand idea to leave the rest of his weapons lying around for him to come home to?

    I’m thinking that there’s more than one idiot in the conversation.

    Posted by on July 26, 2008 at 0612 hrs




14. At the time of his arrest, all areas within his ‘control’ will be searched and anything illegal will be seized and he will be charged

    So what’s “illegal” about a handgun and ammo?

    If that’s the case, I could be in Waupun for the rest of my days…

    Face it, Bruce, Unless there’s a lot of info NOT published in the story, the cops (or their policy book) were wrong.

    Posted by dad29 on July 26, 2008 at 0833 hrs




15. The guy was arrested for at least one weapons related crime and you think it would be a grand idea to leave the rest of his weapons lying around for him to come home to?

    It is legal for him to have the handgun.  Are you saying that the police should confiscate guns from people if they think that they shouldn’t have them regardless of the law?  Interesting view on the law you have there.

    Posted by Owen on July 26, 2008 at 0927 hrs




16. Maybe the police were trying to avert another tragedy:  Imagine this scenario:  Mother posts bond so that sonny can come back home (the lawn still needs to be mowed and the day isn’t over yet, ya know).  Sonny starts drinking again, mom nags to mow the lawn, sonny gets mad again and fires random shots at the lawn because he is pissed at the grass.  Everything fine, until random shots hit someone next door (i.e., family with four kids next door who are playing outside).

    Now, I admit this is just a imaginary scenario, but one thing I know for sure is that if that would have been the way things had played out, there would be a post here basically ripping the police/court system for not doing everything they could have done to prevent that from happening.

    Posted by on July 26, 2008 at 0954 hrs




17. By that logic, the police should just start confiscating all guns.  I know that some people would like that, but that doesn’t make it legal.

    Posted by Owen on July 26, 2008 at 0958 hrs




18. This is what I hope will be a more coherent answer to the same question posted on dad29’s blog.

    He was arrested for a felony offense—Possession of a Short-Barreled Shotgun.  He could’ve been arrested for a violation of Wis. Stats. sec. 941.295—Possession of Electric Weapon—which is another felony offense.

    If the handgun was in what is called his “lunge area,” it can be taken pursuant to a search incident to arrest.  It likely was.  In that even the gun was taken for officer’s safety rather than because it was contraband (as Owen pointed out, it appears to be a handgun he can legally possess). 

    It’s no different than a domestic violence arrest where the arrested party has a handgun on the nightstand next to where he is arrested.  Cops can take the gun and hold it pending the outcome of the case.  If convicted of a domestic violence offense, federal law prohibits possession of a firearm—the person doesn’t get their gun back.  If not convicted of a domestic violence offense, the arrested party can (and should) get the gun back.

    This guy is likely going to be convicted of at least one felony.  He was very likely sitting near a stun gun (possession of which is a felony), and he admitted using an illegal shotgun (use demands possession, and possession is a felony).  The shotgun is illegal because it must have a barrel longer than 18 inches from the breech face to muzzle, or a total length longer than 26 inches.  See Wis. Stat. 941.28(1)(c), 941.28(2) and 941.28(3).  He’s NOT going to get the shotgun back, because it is contraband.

    Once that guilty plea is entered, he will be barred by state law from possessing any firearms, and barred by federal law from possessing any ammunition.  So, in the event the case against him is dismissed (or he pleads to a misdemeanor), the handgun and ammo can be returned to him.  Otherwise, he can’t have them—better to have to give the weapon back than have him surrender them down the road.

    By the way, there are misdemeanors he could possibly plead guilty to—intoxicated use of a weapon [Wis. Stat. 941.20(1)(b) ] being one of them.  At which point he would be entitled to the return of his property.

    There’s nothing here, folks.  Cops did their job.

    Posted by Prosqtor on July 26, 2008 at 1055 hrs




19. Dammit.  In the above post, second sentence of the third paragraph, “even” = “event”.

    Posted by Prosqtor on July 26, 2008 at 1057 hrs




20. Third sentence, not second.  Owen, you need to let us edit posts

    Posted by Prosqtor on July 26, 2008 at 1059 hrs




21. Thanks for the insight, prosqtor.  (BTW, I added you to the blogroll)

    While the confiscation may have been procedurally correct, I disagree with the procedure.  Setting aside the stun gun, which was illegal, the handgun and ammunition should not have been confiscated.  The man was in custody and not a threat to the officers.  The gun was legal.  And it will be legal up to the point that the man may be convicted of a felony.  The government has no justification to take the gun.  Even if they confiscated the gun because they felt threatened, they should return it immediately after the threat has passed.

    For example, when I lived in Texas, I had my carry weapon confiscated once when I was pulled over for speeding.  The officer took my weapon and returned it when we were done (I didn’t get a ticket).  That was appropriate.  If he had kept my gun, it would not have been appropriate. 

    The officers may have acted correctly according to policy, but if so, the policy is wrong.

    Posted by Owen on July 26, 2008 at 1112 hrs




22. I think I agree, particularly in light of Heller.  I think they should return the handgun and ammunition.  I’m not sure they don’t have the ability to check to see if the gun is involved in other crimes—via a ballistic check of the striking pin and/or lands/grooves on a bullet fired from the gun.  But (1) those don’t take long and (2) would seem to require some belief that the gun was involved in a crime or stolen.

    The guy’s lawyer could file a motion for return of property.  The reality is that a court receiving the motion is likely to hold a decision in abeyance until the criminal case is resolved.

    Posted by Prosqtor on July 26, 2008 at 1619 hrs