Wisconsin Police Held a Man and 3 Kids at Gunpoint During Routine Traffic Stop
Luke Weiland has filed a lawsuit alleging that police used "excessive" force.

Luke Weiland was driving his sons and their friend to baseball practice when he was pulled over by a police officer who inexplicably held Weiland and the three children at gunpoint, shouting bizarre orders at them before eventually letting them go with minor citations. Weiland has now sued the police arguing that the officers used excessive force and unreasonably detained him.
The ordeal started on January 29, 2023, when Weiland—an attorney in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin—was driving his two sons, ages 14 and 12, and their 12-year-old friend to baseball practice in a nearby town. According to the suit, around 9:20 am, Weiland noticed a police cruiser behind him with his emergency lights on. Believing the cruiser to be trying to pass him, Weiland pulled along the shoulder of the road to allow the officer to pass. However, after a few minutes, Weiland realized the officer was trying to pull him over, so he turned onto the shoulder of a side road.
However, instead of a typical stop, Officer Rodney Krakow opened the door of his cruiser and began yelling for Weiland to put his keys on the roof of the car and for everyone inside the car to keep their hands on the ceiling of the vehicle.
"Officer Krakow was acting erratically, yelling, and shouting demands that made no sense," the complaint reads. "His behavior was concerning to everyone in the Weiland truck to the point that they thought something might be wrong with the officer to be behaving in this manner."
Soon after, a second officer, Douglas Van Berkel, arrived and both began pointing their guns at Weiland's car. Krakow demanded that Weiland get out of his vehicle and kneel on the ground. At this point, it was only five degrees outside. As Weiland complied, holding his driver's license and registration, Krakow grabbed the paperwork and threw it on the ground without looking at it.
Krakow handcuffed Weiland, while Van Berkel kept his gun pointed at Weiland. At this point, Krakow asked who the car's passengers were, and Weiland told him they were his two sons and their friend. Eventually, after a third officer arrived, the officers picked up Weiland's discarded ID and realized that Weiland was an attorney who was family friends with the local sheriff. According to the complaint, one of the officers even remarked that "he knew Weiland and his family and that they (the officers) would be alright."
Eventually, Weiland asked what was going on, and Krakow told him that the incident was being treated as a "high risk vehicle stop" because Weiland didn't immediately pull over.
"This whole ordeal right here with pulling your guns out on me is fucking ridiculous," body camera footage shows Weiland telling Krakow.
Eventually, Weiland was released and given citations for speeding and resisting/fleeing a scene, though those citations were eventually dropped.
Weiland's suit, which was filed last week, claims that the officers violated Weiland's "rights to be free from unreasonable seizures when they detained the Plaintiffs at the scene for substantially longer than was necessary to accomplish the original purposes of the traffic stop" and that the officers used "excessive force by pointing their guns at" Weiland and the children.
Unfortunately, this is far from the first time police officers have held innocent people—including kids—at gunpoint during a routine traffic stop.
In 2020, police in Aurora, Colorado, forced an innocent family—including a 6-year-old girl—to lie facedown on the pavement at gunpoint after allegedly mistaking their car for a stolen motorcycle. In 2022, two elderly Texas residents filed a lawsuit alleging that a police officer violently arrested them and held them at gunpoint during a traffic stop. And just last year, Texas police apologized over a strikingly similar "high-risk traffic stop" that led police to hold an Arkansas family at gunpoint.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eventually, Weiland asked what was going on, and Krakow told him that the incident was being treated as a "high risk vehicle stop" because Weiland didn't immediately pull over.
Huh, you know it's interesting, I've been getting a lot of police chase/shooting/incident videos (probably because I clicked on one and now I get more) and I'm absolutely amazed at how patient most cops are in regards to people not complying with a stop/orders even chases.
This is not meant to be a critique of Reason's critique-- I think any officers that do behave badly should be critiqued-- but I'm starting to think that 99% of all police interactions with real, no-shit criminals who are literally shooting at the cops are pretty chill.
People are happier if they are more financially independent. Make 120 to 180USD / Hr by performing as1 simple tasks. We can help you achieve this. Join our strong community and earn money easily and safely from wherever you want.
Take a look............................................ http://Www.Bizwork1.com
"he was pulled over by a police officer who inexplicably held Weiland and the three children at gunpoint"
Inexplicably is right! How many hands and guns did this cop have?
No sympathy. A man pulls a gun on you for any reason whatsoever, and you don’t shoot him first, you deserve to die. No ifs, ands, buts, or who it may be. Cops are lawless and people who obey them are slaves. Those who submit deserve death. Those who do not will get it, but they won’t deserve it. I know I deserve it too, and my reason (so my dear elderly folks don’t have to bury their only kid with his craziest-looking photo all over the evening news) isn’t any defense.
Get some hinges and get hinged! 'Cause ass shit is right now, ye are seriously unhinged!
I find your theories compelling and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Spoken like an unmarried, childless deadbeat. Newsflash: your parents are already disappointed in you.
Han shot first
Not to justify the police overreaction, but pulling over and stopping when you see police or ambulance lights behind you is sensible driving.
There are lots of conditions where people don't pull over right away. Some people don't like stopping on freeways so they'll go to the next exit. Apropos of my comment above, there are lots of videos where people drive for a couple of miles before pulling over and the cop is very chill about it, until of course the driver starts shooting back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Cara_Knott
Just one example of why you don't "just pull over". Sometimes you continue to where it's safe. For a variety of reasons, maybe no shoulder on the road you're on, maybe you don't realize, maybe you do realize but don't think it's a cop at first, maybe a dozen other circumstances.
Also not making this comment to judge the article one way or another, just pointing out. I've had experiences, good and bad, with police and I'm quite picky about where I'll interact with them.
Quite right. If there is a rest area a mile down the road, putting on your 4 ways to let the cop know you see him and then waiting to pull in so your completely off the road is ok much like waiting for that upcoming exit and pulling onto the shoulder there or into a nearby parking lot.
Not necessarily stopping. Slowing down with your turn signal on and getting as far over as possible usually is sufficient. I drive a semi and that is mostly all you can do on a 2 lane road.
So I guess now the Democratic machine is pissed that it's been legally acknowledged that Biden is in cognitive decline.
White house sent out their inhouse lawyer to present a full on criminal defense to an indictment that doesn't exist. Turns out it's all the fault of Republicans. But we already knew that.
Word of the day: Gratuitous.
Good word.
Good band name, too.
How many classes in assessing mental decline do most lawyers have to take in school? This was an nonprofessional assessment. Did Mr. Hur do any specific tests like showing the President a picture of Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Halley and see if he could identify which was which.
Global warming is making Earth.... greener.
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
As always, warmer temperatures are better for life and better for humanity.
As always, climate scientists are concerned.
But there’s more to greening than meets the eye. The changing color isn’t so much a sign that forests and other ecosystems are regrowing but that humans are altering the environment on a truly planetary scale — often, with dire consequences.
After a brutally cold January in northern Illinois February has been unseasonably warm. God I Love Global Warming!
There is only one green that climate justice activists care about. And it comes with pictures of dead presidents.
Yep. That'll happen as previously frozen tundra becomes viable fertile soil again, and the increased heat puts more water vapor int he atmosphere leading to more rain in more places that previously only got snow.
100k years ago there were pine trees to the top of Norway, and hardwoods near Oulo, Finland. So that's north of the Arctic Circle.
If it warms up enough we'll be growing wheat in Siberia and the Northwest Territories of Canada. I wonder what that would do for global hunger.
But change is upsetting!
Funny how liberals turn into conservatives, depending on the issue.
I think some people would have complained bitterly about the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, if they could pin in on oil companies or capitalism. Heck, they would if asked on polls: "Do you believe AGW is the cause for retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet? Yes or no?"
Sometimes I imagine a modern society 10,000 years ago, complete with MSNBC announcers pronouncing their dismay about the loss of habitat for the Ohio Basin polar bears, because the ice "which was once 1km thick is now only 250m and completely gone at some points".
And the shear panic they'd have had when Lake Agassiz let go the last time and raised sea level several feet in one year instead of centimeters per century.
Three wood chippers on the town square at noon.
How stupid are you, Emma? I seriously can't tell anymore if you're an actual human, or like some kind of semi-functional retard using ChatGPT to churn out articles with the directive, "Write me an ACAB story using the following plaintiff's complaint."
Believing the cruiser to be trying to pass him, Weiland pulled along the shoulder of the road to allow the officer to pass. However, after a few minutes
Look at the photos. Watch the footage.
This is a bare empty road with NO traffic whatsoever. If a cop cherries you, and you make it clear that A) you’ve seen him (by pulling to the shoulder); B) he hasn’t passed you AFTER FOUR MILES; and C) you don’t stop after several minutes and then when you do it’s on a side road of your choosing, obviously they’re going to “treat it as a “high risk vehicle stop””.
The complaint is hilarious, btw. It may as well allege, “At every point following the stop, police followed normal police procedure in requesting backup and securing the scene before confronting the suspect.”
Which they HAVE to now, thanks to all this ACAB garbage, because no cop wants to wind up being the next “traffic cop shooting” story. So, they play it smart. Multiple cops, multiple camera angles, and what Plaintiffs are now laughably calling “no one attempted to initiate any communication” – yea, why would they until the secure the scene?
This is the kind of policing we’ve demanded. This is the kind of policing that will guarantee that when a cop pulls over the next ghetto hoodrat drug dealing punk packing heat and ready to flee, that he’ll be justified in using force if he has to without being called a racist killer. The fact that we now have to treat Baseball Dad and his truck full of tweens the same way – well, like I said, it’s the kind of policing we asked for.
We ASKED for this. Because of ACAB.
Also this: Weiland complied with the officers demands, while saying he had no idea why he was pulled over.
Bro, you were doing 20 over and you didn’t stop. Come on.
Threatening with a deadly weapon should be a "last resort" choice. If it is routine and excused by "I feared for my life" then the onus of proof is on the one who used a death threat. Why this criteria is not applied to everyone, e.g., LEOs is no secret, just an ignored fact, namely, we live in an unfree world, filled with rulers/ruled, masters/slaves, exploiters/exploited. And it gets worse and worse every day. If you vote, you ask to be ruled, support it by word and deed. Taxation is the price we pay to be terrorized. Why?
Threatening with a deadly weapon should be a “last resort” choice.
Keep that in mind during your next home invasion. Let me know how your efforts to talk it out work with the guy.
Also this:
“rights to be free from unreasonable seizures when they detained the Plaintiffs at the scene for substantially longer than was necessary to accomplish the original purposes of the traffic stop”
The original purposes of the traffic ceased to matter when he drove for four miles after being clearly signaled to pull over. That created an entirely new purpose which gave rise to armed detention.
A reminder that it is a felony to "brandish a weapon" at another person for any reason other than self-defense. These cops committed a felony.
Tell me you know nothing about the law without telling me you know nothing about the law.
Thank Kevin for reminding us that you got your law degree from a box of cracker jacks.
"However, after a few minutes..."
A few minutes? Kind of slow on the reaction time there, buddy! Most people should be able to figure that out in a matter of a few seconds , at most.
Eventually, after a third officer arrived, the officers picked up Weiland's discarded ID and realized that Weiland was an attorney who was family friends with the local sheriff.
"Oops, we eff'd up. Quick, everybody act chill and polite."
Pro tip --> When the po-po put on the rollers, pull over. Dude drove 4 miles oblivious to them.
Also, 62 in a 40 should result in dangerous driving and DL suspension.
I can’t imagine the amount of chutzpah it must take to be this guy. Ignoring lights and sirens for !4 miles! and !several minutes!. The sheer audacity is incredible. And then to pull the George Costanza at the end, “Wait, was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I thought they were just trying to pass me.” Good heavens.
This story only makes me want to cheer for the cops. Couldn’t he have accidentally tripped while in cuffs and smashed his nose on the asphalt or something. Come on guys.