arrested for open carry in police station

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.396 Wearing mask or face covering device.
Sec. 396.
A person who intentionally conceals his or her identity by wearing a mask or other device covering his or her face for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

Click to expand...

What crime was being committed that a mask was used to facilitate such crime?

Fallschirmjäger said:

Okay, so let me see if I have this right...
Someone, openly armed, wearing body armor and concealing his identity enters your place of business and your first reaction would be to.... ask if they were being served?

I work at a range/gun shop, if someone entered my place like that I probably wouldn't have been as restrained as the officers.

Click to expand...

The actual location of the incident as posted has tremendous bearing on this, not your hypothetical location. The police station is not a private business, the station/building is a public facility open to the public. Some of the public can as quantified by law, open carry firearms into that specific part of the facility. It is irrelevant how officer friendly feels about their lawful choice of dress, their look, their smell or the imagined visual threat in his mind. The police do not own the building nor the service provided. Fact of matter....they are just employees; if the trained professional police officers don't like the rules (law) , they are not prevented from quitting if they disagree. Everyone must comply with the law, isn't that what the police expect of us?..

2OLD2W8 said:

The actual location of the incident as posted has tremendous bearing on this, not your hypothetical location. The police station is not a private business, the station/building is a public facility open to the public. Some of the public can as quantified by law, open carry firearms into that specific part of the facility. It is irrelevant how officer friendly feels about their lawful choice of dress, their look, their smell or the imagined visual threat in his mind. The police do not own the building nor the service provided. Fact of matter....they are just employees; if the trained professional police officers don't like the rules (law) , they are not prevented from quitting if they disagree. Everyone must comply with the law, isn't that what the police expect of us?..

Click to expand...

Okay... so individuals armed with offensive weapons who are wearing body armor, concealing their identity and with unknown intent enter a police station and the police should... greet them with open arms and offer a cold refreshing beverage?

It is irrelevant how officer friendly feels about their lawful choice of dress, their look, their smell or the imagined visual threat in his mind.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, if you walk like a duck, talk like a duck and make every effort to be seen as a duck, then it's your fault if you are treated as one. See what happened to Kwikrnu (Leonard Embody) and his little 'walk in the park'.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Okay... so individuals armed with offensive weapons who are wearing body armor, concealing their identity and with unknown intent enter a police station and the police should... greet them with open arms and offer a cold refreshing beverage?


On the contrary, if you walk like a duck, talk like a duck and make every effort to be seen as a duck, then it's your fault if you are treated as one. See what happened to Kwikrnu (Leonard Embody) and his little 'walk in the park'.

Click to expand...

And who determined that it was an offensive weapon?

2OLD2W8 said:

Contempt of Cop... people are charged daily with erroneous crap by frustrated bigoted cops. Throw the book at them and see if something sticks. You didn't know that?:lol:

Click to expand...

interestingly, their traffic interactions did not result in any type of citations...if there was no citations ...?

now there are...

ipse

color of law said:

And who determined that it was an offensive weapon?

Click to expand...

the nice LEs who got upset with the masked men, wearing body armor who entered their headquarters...at this point that and only that is all that matters...

the judicial system can change the nice LEs minds not these two idiots...

ipse

Nightmare said:

...

Cops qua cops have no rights and particularly no right to go home safely after their shift. ...

Click to expand...

This is a false statement. A cop retains all of his enumerated rights in addition to the delegated powers he holds as a result of his employment.

OC for ME said:

Originally Posted by Nightmare
...

Cops qua cops have no rights and particularly no right to go home safely after their shift. ...

Click to expand...

This is a false statement. A cop retains all of his enumerated rights in addition to the delegated powers he holds as a result of his employment.

Click to expand...

All citizens have rights, but cops have duties. Lets not get them confused.

Nightmare said:

All citizens have rights, but cops have powers often arrogated from their public masters.

Click to expand...

And if that is the case then they breached their duty.

color of law said:

And who determined that it was an offensive weapon?

Click to expand...

Well, pistols are generally seen as defensive weapons as they only have limited range and power.
Ask yourself "Why am I carrying a pistol; is it for defensive or offensive use?"

Fallschirmjäger said:

Well, pistols are generally seen as defensive weapons as they only have limited range and power.
Ask yourself "Why am I carrying a pistol; is it for defensive or offensive use?"

Click to expand...

You are the one that used the term "offensive weapon." First of all weapons are neither offensive of defensive. Offensive of defensive refers to the frame of mind.

color of law said:

You are the one that used the term "offensive weapon." First of all weapons are neither offensive of defensive. Offensive of defensive refers to the frame of mind.

Click to expand...

+1

My firearms are inert and very well behaved, none of them have shown any defensive or offensive traits!

I'm sure you're just being deliberately obtuse; which I must admit is a brilliant tactic of deflecting the question.

Fallschirmjäger said:

... enters your place of business ...

Click to expand...

No taxation-funded entity can legitimately use the standards that would apply with private property or a privately owned business. It is a government police station. It is not private property, it is not a "place of business." That lobby might as well be the sidewalk outside for our purposes here.

ETA I see someone beat me to this.

color of law said:

What crime was being committed that a mask was used to facilitate such crime?

Click to expand...

Adding too----

1: Winter
2: Michigan
3: ski mask

Easy to suggest the wearing of such was in no way intended to "conceal ones identity"

And even to be found guilty under the offense cited---- WHAT WAS THE CRIME?

JoeSparky said:

Adding too----

1: Winter
2: Michigan
3: ski mask

Easy to suggest the wearing of such was in no way intended to "conceal ones identity"

And even to be found guilty under the offense cited---- WHAT WAS THE CRIME?

Click to expand...

oh and pray tell, after superficially blowing off the ski mask covering everything but their eyes...what about the body armor these two characters were wearing? what justification does this salient fact have to do with Michigan's winter per se!

finally, how bout those pesky offensive/defensive long gun and offensive/defensive handgun they were carrying ? oh, i know they were returning from being out hunting in vast dearborn hunting wilderness, ya that is the reason!

ipse

I seem to remember a Supreme Court ruling wherein it was stated that the "exercise of a right cannot be converted to a crime"

Open carry of a firearm--- Legal--- even a long gun.
Body armor--- Legal--- even for those NOT law enforcement in Michigan per my understanding.
Mask--- legal so long as not used to conceal identity during the commission of a crime.

So far, I don't see a crime being committed here by those "protesting" or even attempting to file a protest against an officer or even a group of officers.

Is it wise to combine all 3 of these elements in the lobby of a police station? Well, it is something I have not chosen to do-----But...
Think back 10 years ago or so at the over response by LEO's to the individual exercising a right lawfully in the carry of a sidearm OPENLY.

I fully stand by and support these persons in the LAWFUL exercise of their rights and I would admonish all others to also for we either ALL have rights or none of us do---- especially when it comes to an action that we may not agree with. Our constitution is not designed just to protect the "popular" rights or for the majority.

Intellectual honesty is required here. However, I have noted a lack of same from certain posters.

I heard someplace something about a "right UN-exercised...."

less we forget...the police have done their due diligence ~ cited individuals whom the believe were BGs, based on the situation they encountered during the circumstances of these individuals entering the DPD hqs.

it is now in the hands of the judicial system to ascertain if the actions of the individuals or the nice LEs actions were legal and ultimately legitimate.

as has been point out...sometimes the legalities of the situations require the highest court of the land to sort out the everyon's nuances.

however, w/o any type of reference to what court case is intended to prove your point joe, how are we are able to ascertain the specific nuance the court was upholding for the circumstances brought before it.

further, throwing statements out that, in your opinion, are legal w/o cites is plain reckless...driving a car is legal...until one of a myrid of things occur, then your actions could be consider illegal!

bottom line, tis just more emotional bias being thrown out to obfuscate the situation.

ipse

oh how did you word it joe...oh right intellectual honesty,,,ya thats it...might wanta brush up on practicing what you preach ~ just saying!

joe, know your busy so i took 30 seconds out of my day, and lo and behold...

Committing or attempting to commit crime involving violent act or threat of violent act against another person while wearing body armor as felony; penalty; consecutive term of imprisonment; exception; definitions.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(g2...cl-750-227f&query=on&highlight=body AND armor

ipse

solus said:

less we forget...the police have done their due diligence ~

Click to expand...

Yes, a very low bar to clear!:uhoh: