Judge Disarms Officers Who Showed Up To Testify, Because Guns…

Judge Gonzalez disarms officers who show up to testify at jury trials.

Judge Gonzalez disarms officers who show up to testify at jury trials.

Judge Disarms Officers Who Showed Up To Testify, Because Guns Are Scary Looking

La Crosse County Circuit Judge Ramona Gonzalez disarmed officers called to testify in a battery case. Her reasoning is because jurors who have had a traumatic experience with a firearm could see the officer’s gun. Those people could then be suddenly compelled to find somebody guilty of a crime.. Or something. It doesn’t make sense to us either.

Anne Jungen with La Crosse Tribune reported that on Tuesday, three La Crosse officers showed up to court to testify against a suspect who had assaulted one of the officers. Upon their arrival, Judge Gonzalez ordered that they be disarmed because their guns were a distraction and could be grounds for an appeal.

Police Chief Ron Tischer didn’t mince words when speaking to Jungen, “How many court cases have been appealed due to an officer wearing a duty belt with a weapon exposed? I’ve never heard of one.”

Judge Gonzalez said that she disarms officers every time she has a jury, pointing out that Federal Courts have rules against firearms. She seemed to ignore the facts that Federal Court rules don’t make sense either, and she’s a circuit court judge, not federal.

Jungen got another Judge to speak on the matter, “I believe there is general agreement that officers are permitted to carry firearms, the exception being in front of a jury,” Circuit Judge Scott Horne said. “The concern has been expressed regarding an intimidating atmosphere and that may be the most common circumstance in which weapons may not be permitted. For many years, they had been denied entirely.”

In 2012 a policy was adopted about firearms in the courtroom, and since that agreement, this is the first time that La Crosse officers were told to disarm.

“You can never have just one person armed,” Chief Tischer said. “When you take away all an officer’s tools, it puts everyone at a significant risk and you’re forcing them to potentially use a higher level of force than they would otherwise be able to use had they had all their equipment available to them.”

This isn’t Judge Gonzalez’s first controversial move. Last year, Jungen reported that Judge Gonzalez helped deliver a criminal’s car back to him after he was repeatedly stopped for driving it recklessly.

Do you think that Judge Gonzalez’s decision to disarm officers makes sense? Let us know on our Facebook page.

  • NewWest 123

    Yeah and this idiot would be the first one to cry for help and then sue cause it wasn’t there!!

  • Donald Jo

    I think she should be ordered to have a mental evaluation to determine if she is fit to serve as judge…because apparently her decision making is quite distorted

  • Doug Packer

    What an idiot she is.

    • Bryan

      the idiots are the ones who think cops have special rights. The article shouldn’t be about a cop not allowed to exercise our rights, the article should be about anyone not being allowed to exercise our rights.

      • William V. Saladrigas

        Bryan, carrying a gun for a cop is not a “right.” It’s their duty. Police officers are paid to do a job, and that job and all of its accoutrements make up the things that they need to do their job. In other words, your rambling diatribe makes no sense.

        • Bryan

          so you don’t believe we have a right to bear arms?

          • William V. Saladrigas

            Bryan, I am trying to elucidate for your benefit the distinction between the right of all Americans to bear arms (which has specific legal restrictions) and the duty of police officers to carry as a by-product of their job: It is their duty. If you can not see the difference, then you need to delve deeper into the fundamental differences between being an ordinary citizen and a police officer.

          • Bryan

            So what you are saying is that it isn’t a right, it is a privileged?

          • William V. Saladrigas

            No. It’s a duty. A burden, if you will.

          • Dr. Robert Neville

            Police are AUTHORIZED the use of firearms, police are AUTHORIZED their use of police powers, the people AUTHORIZED this and that makes police the AUTHORIZED and the people the AUTHORITIES.

          • Bryan

            So what you are saying is that there is no right to bear arms, it is just a privilege….. only police are authorized to be armed in all locations, the people are not.

        • Dr. Robert Neville

          Correct, police are AUTHORIZED their powers of arrest and carrying firearms, POLICE do not have a right to bear arms except as an individual.

  • Scribler

    Many judges, police chiefs, politicians, and a large portion of the public, support these kinds of decisions. The problem is, they are pushing the very people who stand to protect us and our rights to the very brink. What happens when officers decide to no longer respond to calls, when all of a sudden they decide to quit and there is no one left to protect us, because no matter what they do, those above them will always see it as flawed because they are more worried about r-elections than right or wrong. If we continue this way without standing up against this anti-law enforcement campaign, eventually it will happen, we will lose these brave men and women. Then what? We are left at the mercy of the thugs and terrorists that are pushing this agenda. Reconsider who you should be wary of, the police are not the enemy.

    • Tom Currie

      The judge’s ruling is totally flawed – police officers in uniform are going to have the same effect (good or bad) on individual jurors regardless of whether or not they wear their guns. And the Chief of Police’s “logic” is equally flawed. Exactly who were these witnesses planning to shoot? Or who did they expect to need to shoot? Is the courtroom full of unarmed people going to suddenly attack them? Or is the Chief saying that his officers need their guns so they can feel good about themselves and confident enough to testify.

      • John Reilly

        The firearm is PART of an Officers uniform, without it he/she is OUT of uniform and liable for punishment…..this Judge should revisit her decision, anyone?

  • Devnulled

    Has she heard about the courtroom shooting where the defendant was able to disarm balliffs and shoot people in berrien county michigan i beloeve it was?

  • Mobey Dick

    They are testifying in front of a Jury, they have no need for a firearm in that situation! BTW I’m a Second Amendment supporter and I own many of the scary black firearms! Police have no need for firearms while giving testimony!

    • How Not To Play The Game

      ……..courtrooms have outbursts ALL the time. To not have armed personnell in a courtroom at ALL times is irresponsible.

      • Mobey Dick

        So I can carry a firearm in a courtroom to control outburst, thanks! BTW most bailiffs are armed!

        • Papa Smurf

          I’m not seeing your line of reasoning. You say you’re unwilling to surrender your rights to carry, but say police officers should surrender their rights when testifying? And no, as a civilian, you are prohibited by law in most jurisdictions from having a firearm in a courtroom… usually the whole building. But cops aren’t civilians, and in this case, it isn’t the law preventing them from wearing their service weapons… just one idiot judge.

          • Mobey Dick

            So you are saying police have a responsibility that ordinary citizens do not! The Supreme Court disagrees with you! As a matter of fact the Supreme court makes it clear Law Enforcement doesn’t have to know the laws they enforce but ordinary citizens do!

          • Papa Smurf

            You’re what we reasonable Second Amendment supporters call a “zealot.” You rarely know what you’re talking about, are usually wrong, and worst of all, you do great harm to our cause. Sit down and STFU.

          • Mobey Dick

            I’m not a Zealot of any kind. I believe there should be reasonable firearms restrictions. As a matter of fact I believe we have those restrictions already in place! What I don’t agree with is someone in a clown suit having less obligation to know the law, or having to obey all laws having more rights then ordinary citizens who are incumbent to know the law and obey the laws of our country!

          • Papa Smurf

            And this relates to police officers testifying under arms in court… how? You sound very much like someone who desperately wanted to be a cop, but didn’t (couldn’t?) make the cut.

          • Mobey Dick

            Never wanted to be a cop, garbage men make more money! I own three businesses!

          • Papa Smurf

            Still trying to convince yourself, eh? Your excessive use of exclamation points gives you away. We’re done here.

          • Mobey Dick

            I like using the ! it makes the point!

          • Papa Smurf

            It! becomes! meaningless! when! you! use! it! for! every! sentence! But! you! wouldn’t! know! that! because! you’re! obviously! not! very! bright!

          • Mobey Dick

            Periods have been meaningless for a hundred years then!

      • starrdusk

        The question is not insinuating that there will not be an armed officer in the courtroom; it is only referring to the person who is going to stand as a witness. There will be others, at least one, who is armed. I think they should also place two more inside the door for the time that the officer is on the stand as witness, while his own gun be removed for that short period of time.

    • Dave Bennett

      They are on duty and yes they do need to have their guns. If things go bad as they have in a number of courtrooms over the years you want all the help you can get. If you are on duty, in uniform you should be armed. This includes courtroom testimony and depositions.

      • Mobey Dick

        So I should be able to carry a firearm in a court room is things go bad?! Thanks!

        • Ray8285

          You are not on duty and you are not a police officer….

          • Mobey Dick

            That makes no difference, You may surrender your rights, I refuse to do so!

          • Ray8285

            You do realize that there are laws preventing the carrying of firearms in certain places?

          • Mobey Dick

            “that there” You do realize I refuse to step foot into those certain places!

          • Ray8285

            I can respect that…you seem like you are not a zealot..PS, I carry also.

          • Bryan

            You do realize that such laws assume being armed is a privileged, not a right? Do you believe it is only a privileged?

          • Ray8285

            I believe we are a nation OF laws, and currently those law restrict when and where we carry weapons. The USSC has not ruled on carrying weapons as of yet. They have ruled on the 2nd amend. but only so far as ownership goes.
            And no, those laws do not assume carrying a weapon is a privilege, they protect private businesses rights.

          • Bryan

            If laws prevent you from being armed, the lawmakers don’t believe it is a right. If you think it is ok, you don’t understand what a right is.

          • Ray8285

            LOL…I have a pretty good idea about rights. The right to carry a firearm is not an absolute right, just like the 1st amendment is not absolute. There are laws restricting every right.
            Then you must be ok with a convicted felon carrying a firearm? Because the 2nd amendment says nothing about that.

          • Bryan

            what part of shall not be infringed do you need explained to you?

          • Ray8285

            So, you are ok with a person who has been convicted of murder carrying a gun in public? Or a bank robber carrying a gun into a bank or any other business? The Constitution is not a suicide pack. There are laws restricting every right. Don’t like the laws, support persons to have it changed.
            I think you might need to do some reading about rights and responsibilities. NONE of any of the rights enumerated in the USC are absolute. There are restrictions on voting, speech, religion etc.

          • Bryan

            I’ve never murdered or robbed a bank so what does that have to do with my rights being infringed? To answer your question, the only people who should have their rights infringed, should also be in a cage. If they’ve done their time in a cage and have been released, they should be allowed to exercise all their rights. If they are released early and agreed to infringed rights as part of that early release, then, that was their decision.

          • Ray8285

            Why should your rights infringe on the rights of a business owner? There is no requirement that any business owner NOT allow anyone to carry a weapon into their business. They don’t have the right to say no?

          • Bryan

            I wasn’t aware the court was owned by a private business owner. Why do you keep bringing arguments that have nothing to do with anything. I’ll answer your retarded comment anyway: A PRIVATE business owner, being the owner of the PRIVATE property has every right to keep people from bringing arms on HIS property…… he can even keep a cop from entering his property, armed or not.

          • Ray8285

            So, dumbass, your rights can be infringed upon, but YOU get to choose when and where. Got it. (see prior post that YOU put on about “what part of shall not be infringed do you need explained to you?”) So my points were in relation to a post that YOU made.
            You are either uninformed or willfully ignorant. Your rights end where my rights begin. There is very little overlap. The court system (you know, that place that laws go to make sure things are Constitutional) has been very clear. Those rights not enumerated within the USC are left to the states to decide. Don’t like the laws of the state, leave it or get involved in the process to ensure that persons who feel the same as you make laws that support your beliefs. That is why all elections are local…because the people we send to DC effect what happens in our backyard.
            Want better carry laws…then you better not vote for Hillary, she is coming for the 2nd amendment. Trump is not much better, but I feel better with his potential USSC picks than Hillary.

          • Bryan

            No, dumbass, I have no right to someone’s PRIVATE property. A PRIVATE property owner has the right to set terms for entering HIS PRIVATE property and I have the right to go elsewhere. No rights are infringed.

            BTW, Hillary isn’t coming for anyone’s 2nd amendment, men in blue are. You would have nothing to fear if cops respected everyone’s rights.

          • Ray8285

            Glad you ignored the rest of the post….you can’t argue the facts, only that you have the right to do whatever you want regardless of what the legal system says. Good luck with that…

          • Bryan

            I didn’t ignore your post, I recognize that the state has no authority over our rights. They can enumerate them, but, they still have no authority over them. Our rights come from our creator. Do you think the state is our creator?

          • Ray8285

            Well, I will probably shock you…I agree with what most of what you posted. I do believe all rights come from God. However, we live on earth and we are bound by mans laws. “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars”. We should follow the laws as long as they do not conflict with what is Gods laws. Have to get to work Bryan….good chatting with you, have a great day 🙂

          • Bryan

            The point Christ was making is nothing is Caesar’s, the inscription on the coin is a lie, Caesar is not god and everything is God’s.

            The inscription reads “Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs” (“Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”).

            divine: of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

          • Joshua Black

            A courtroom has rules. Even cops have to respect those rules.

          • Bryan

            no, Joshua, unlike us mere mortals, cops are above the rules……. it’s their job and duty, they are gods. Blue = gods, not blue = subject to rules even if they infringe on our rights because we have no rights.

          • Bryan

            Actually, rights are UNALIENABLE, you can neither take or give.

  • starrdusk

    Of course it makes since; on the psychological level it makes perfect since. On the social/psychological level it makes even more sense, in light of the atmosphere and fear that has been produced by perceived or real and towards, officers, yes, but more, the sight of a weapon. This fear can affect a witnesses view and their answers could become more defensive then they might be with out the presence of arms.
    My first instinct is to defend the officers duty to carry;
    As a witness, the officers are not on duty in the courtroom so the removal of their guns also makes sense.
    snap snap 🙂 just funny, a bit; as long as everybody in the courtroom has been searched and no doubt clear of weapons, not having weapons makes sense.
    I want to go back and read again because I feel I am missing something here.

    • Dave Bennett

      Really? I have been a law enforcement officer for 34 years. We never remove our guns when testifying in court. The jury might be intimidated? Why would they be intimidated when an armed officer testifies? There is no case law of cases being overturned because the officer was armed. Witnesses are not allowed in court except when they testify, unlike tv where all the actors playing cops, witnesses, etc. sit in court during the entire trial. In real life if you are a witness you are only allowed in the courtroom when you are testifying. You do not get to watch while other people testify. So what happens if a defendant who is on trial gets his hands on a bailiff’s gun? So now you have an armed suspect and the officer on the stand is unarmed. As far as the officers being on duty, yes they are on duty in the courtroom.

      • starrdusk

        I apologize for my unfinished answer. Mostly at this point I was answering to the question that asked if the judges reasoning made any sense. Psychologically, as I said, it did make sense; it I then wanted to go back and read the article again to clarify what it had said about the court order that had seemingly been put into place at some time and only now used, thus only now being challenged. Something seemed off but I wasn’t sure yet what.
        I don’t find anything ruling anywhere specifically about an officer being a witness and his or her legal right for having a gun on the stand. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t something there that speaks to this specifically.

        The officer may be on duty, but is their duty pertaining to a peace officer in the courtroom? Either way, the idea, and the real question is not if a police officers gun should be removed in the courtroom, but is the removal of her or his weapon ok or sensible while on the stand and testifying.
        The only thing I could find was concerning the 2012 ruling;

        Pen Code § 171b(a) General prohibiton on possession of firearm or deadly weapon “within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public…state or local public building…includes…a building that contains a courtroom.”

        Pen Code § 171b(b)(2) (A) [Pen Code § 171b(a)] shall not apply to, or affect..a duly appointed peace officer…a retired peace officer with authorization to carry concealed weapons…a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), [Pen Code § 171b(a)] shall apply to any person who brings or possesses any weapon specified therein within any courtroom if he or she is a party to an action pending before the court.

        Psychologically it makes sense; since there is a jury present, and since “she disarms officers every time she has a jury,” it makes sense. She is concerned that the weapon could put somebody on the jury who has had an experience with battery (or violence, or weapons) could vote differently because the sight of the weapon could raise defensive flags for them psychologically. This makes sense from the psychological point of view. And that was the question being asked;
        “Do you think that Judge Gonzalez’s decision to disarm officers makes sense? Let us know on our Facebook page.”

    • Ray8285

      Yes, they are on duty when they testify. That’s why they are in uniform and get paid.

      • starrdusk

        I guess my question was more about being on duty as a peace officer specifically for the trial; in other words, they are not the acting officer on duty over that particular courtroom case. There are actual officers other than the witness who are appointed as that trials peace officer who does carry.

        • Ray8285

          if anything were to happen in that courtroom, they would have a duty to respond. That is what the law says.

  • Michael

    This POS should be thrown out on her ass!

  • Bryan

    Why should a cop be able carry when the rest of us can’t? Rather make the story about cops not being allowed, make it about all of us not being allowed.

    • starrdusk

      The real question being asked by the writers of the article is if the judges reasoning makes any sense at all; The problem, not the question, is about witnesses being allowed to be armed on the stand, specifically those who are officers. Next is the question of what is the actual written law on this topic. Since that is not covered it then falls to the penal code that speaks of weapons and there is nothing that speaks directly to that.

    • Ray8285

      Easy…police have a DUTY to enforce all laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside. Citizens do not have that same duty. So, even when they are in a place most citizens may not carry a weapon, the office is because of their sworn duty.

  • spike

    As a citizen, I would wonder what the hey a police officer was doing without his sidearm?! I would further wonder if there was someone hidden who would be there in case there is a sudden need for law enforcement!!

  • bobfairlane

    Dumb bitch lol. She’s probably fucking all those groids.

  • bobfairlane

    While we’re at it, has the judge been disarmed? A lot of judges carry pistols.

  • Dr. Robert Neville

    why not let everyone wear one?

    • William V. Saladrigas

      Dr. Neville, is this last question rhetorical? Or do you really not understand the distinction? It seemed that you understood in your first comment in this line. But that last question sounds a lot like what Bryan was asking.

  • John Reilly

    It just keeps getting worse and worse……one IDIOT is never enough, the Judges in the US are getting dumber and dumber by the minute……one person with an AK in her courtroom and you’ll have a hundred dead people…and no one to fight back………….this is insanity.