arrested for open carry in police station

[color of law]

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

There is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet.
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

 

[OC Freedom]

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...."

+1

The only laws I see that have been broken is by the Police.

 

[chowda]

let's see here...wearing ski mask covering everything but your eyes, long gun strapped to your chest; w/other bloke wearing a middler eastern traditional style keffiyeh head garb

Some "open carry" kids do that and their excuse for acting out is they want to "normalize" it.
Yeah, so as their wife is walking to her car, they see me wearing a mask and carrying a gun walking towards her.....it's normal, it should be an every day occurrence just like walking around on the sidewalk outside of a mcdonalds playland with a mask and carrying an AK, looking at the kids there.
Nothing to see there...it's the new normal.

 

[chowda]

most who push the envelope and video their escapades...

Seem to have a HUGE chip on their shoulders are angry people.
Be interesting to see how many of them served in the military vs. those that didn't, yet play it. My guess would be every single one of them never served and that is somehow tied into these events where they act out and make us normal gun owners look like we're borderline unstable personalities.

Stupid kids also go around open air farmers markets with what most people would call "assault weapons", being the fine ambassadors of the firearms community....
Sometimes I think these types are really soros paid anti-gun nutz.

 

[chowda]

In Ohio open carry in Ohio government buildings is legal, with some exceptions.

walking into someone's house isn't legal, but one can do that and claim a "mistake".
walking into someones house wearing a mask....

 

[chowda]

I wouldn't put it beyond someone intending harm to ... well.. LIE about their intentions in an attempt to allay suspicion and gain the element of surprise.

Nah, that would never happen. People need to just wait until someone starts shooting them before they will be allowed to use common sense and precautions. Masked people with body armor, pistols and AKs walking around is normal. They certainly saw it in dallas during one of the anti-police protests there. Don't give those people a second thought.

 

[solus]

+1

The only laws I see that have been broken is by the Police.

for the judicial process to adjudicate not the nice LEs who felt threatened...

tho...750.227f of the MI Penal code seems to disagree a smidgen...

interestingly, if found guilty by the judicial system...these nice individuals are now labeled as a felon...

hummm...guess there are consequences for your actions ~ if found guilty by the judicial system...

ipse

 

[color of law]

Originally Posted by color of law

In Ohio open carry in Ohio government buildings is legal, with some exceptions.

walking into someone's house isn't legal, but one can do that and claim a "mistake".
walking into someones house wearing a mask....

Your point????

 

[OC for ME]

walking into someone's house isn't legal, but one can do that and claim a "mistake".
walking into someones house wearing a mask....

Unfortunately your position is counter to the law. You may not walk into another citizen's home without being invited regardless of your manner of dress, or whether or not you are armed.

If you are wearing a mask, body armor, and carrying firearms and are invited in there is no mistake.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

for the judicial process to adjudicate not the nice LEs who felt threatened...
tho...750.227f of the MI Penal code seems to disagree a smidgen...
interestingly, if found guilty by the judicial system...these nice individuals are now labeled as a felon...
hummm...guess there are consequences for your actions ~ if found guilty by the judicial system...

... and who is going to introduce these fine openly carrying gentlemen to the judicial system if not the people that felt threatened, i.e. the police?

Some of the posters seem to be of the opinion that those employed by law enforcement do not enjoy the same rights guaranteed to all other citizens of these United States. Are we now championing the removal of rights based upon a person's chosen field of employment?

 

[Ken56]

There seems to be some confusion between rights and authority. Maybe its me, I don't know........Individuals are bestowed rights, all people have rights. Police officers have authority along with their individual rights. I have been wrong before but that's my understanding on this. While it may not be the wisest action to do, these guys didn't threaten anyone from what I saw on the video. They no sooner walked in the door and they were in the sights of the officers. These guys said they (police) knew that they were coming so I guess the officers had time to set up a welcoming committee.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

There seems to be some confusion between rights and authority. Maybe its me, I don't know........Individuals are bestowed rights, all people have rights. Police officers have authority along with their individual rights. I have been wrong before but that's my understanding on this. While it may not be the wisest action to do, these guys didn't threaten anyone from what I saw on the video. They no sooner walked in the door and they were in the sights of the officers. These guys said they (police) knew that they were coming so I guess the officers had time to set up a welcoming committee.

It's quite probable that they called the department and told them that they were coming.

It occurs to me that if I wished to cause harm to someone, I just might call ahead to say that my carrying of arms into their establishment was entirely peaceful and lull them into a false sense of security before springing an ambush on them. The element of surprise is almost always a force multiplier.

But then again, I tend to have a suspicious mind.

 

[Bikenut]

Unless I am mistaken .... feeling... threatened is not justification for instituting force. There must actually .... be ... a threat.

So did those guys present a threat or did the cops just.... feel .... they did?

The question is important because, at least to my mind, therein lies the answer as to who acted, and who did not act, in a legal manner.

Please note I am putting the emphasis on the legality.... not the feelings of those involved or the feelings or opinions of all of us discussing the matter.

 

[JoeSparky]

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.

Our 2A protected rights as stated say nothing about offensive or defensive---- simply, "...The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" (emphasis mine)

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Unless I am mistaken .... feeling... threatened is not justification for instituting force. There must actually .... be ... a threat.

So did those guys present a threat or did the cops just.... feel .... they did?

The question is important because, at least to my mind, therein lies the answer as to who acted, and who did not act, in a legal manner.

Please note I am putting the emphasis on the legality.... not the feelings of those involved or the feelings or opinions of all of us discussing the matter.

I suppose that one may wish to refer to the Michigan law on self defense in regards to such a situation.

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.​

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Out of curiosity... Is it your position that the a person must actually wait until he's being fired upon or people start dieing before he may take action? (one may read 'police officer' as 'person' without changing the context in the least.)

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

And who determined that it was an offensive weapon?

Well, the owners of the web site seem to think that it's inappropriate:

(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry. Exception: This rule does NOT apply to discussions about long gun carry in jurisdictions such as California which ban handgun carry and thus require long gun carry as a matter of public policy.

If long guns and handguns are the same in everyone's mind, then I don't see why they would be discriminated against in discussions.... do you?

 

[chowda]

Your point????

Made many times...just because you can doesn't mean you should. And the intent of these little creeps wasn't to do anything more than to antagonize and probably entrap police officers doing their job. Those pieces of hot fecal matter could get someone killed (themselves, no loss) or later, a cop because he wasn't fast enough when a masked piece of fecal matter comes after him wearing a mask and carrying a rifle...and it turned out it wasn't just some kid with anger control issues acting out, but someone that really was going to kill him....and they did.

 

[chowda]

Unfortunately your position is counter to the law. You may not walk into another citizen's home without being invited regardless of your manner of dress, or whether or not you are armed.

You clearly did not read what I wrote and missed "by mistake".
If someone walks into your house and you are there, you'd probably be startled and say "what are you doing here?" or something similar.
If someone walks into your house and he's wearing a mask and has an AK in his hands, I'm sure you would also sit there and say, "what are you doing here?" or something similar as, like the OC rifle people like to say, "it's normal".

In most places, your mistake wouldn't get you immediately attacked/shot.
In most places, your mistake while wearing a mask and having an AK will get you immediately attacked/shot.

If my neighbors saw someone enter my house, they'd look and not think much.
If my neighbors saw someone with a mask on and carrying an AK, I'd hope they'd call the cops as I don't invite over people like that.


This is along the lines of walking into a target store with an AK and hanging out in the children's toy section. We were told by people here that's OK. No it's not.
So can this person walk into a target or a bank wearing a mask and an AK, then whine that people are making assumptions about him/her/it?

I don't mind if any of these people get shot as "it's their choice". I don't take kindly to these creeps forcing the decision on me whether they are there to kill me/my wife/etc. or are just doing it because they can. And I'm sure I can speak for 99% of the police out there and whoever else has to deal with life or death situations with armed people.

 

[solus]

Nah, that would never happen. People need to just wait until someone starts shooting them before they will be allowed to use common sense and precautions. Masked people with body armor, pistols and AKs walking around is normal. They certainly saw it in dallas during one of the anti-police protests there. Don't give those people a second thought.

humm, if mem serves the chief of PD blew the bloke up with C4...

ipse

 

[Bikenut]

I suppose that one may wish to refer to the Michigan law on self defense in regards to such a situation.

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
​

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Out of curiosity... Is it your position that the a person must actually wait until he's being fired upon or people start dieing before he may take action? (one may read 'police officer' as 'person' without changing the context in the least.)

I am not an attorney but it appears to me the qualifier in the law of "honestly and reasonably believes" is tempered by the stipulation of "imminent unlawful use of force" so for the law to be applicable both have to be present.

So do scary clothes and a scary mask along with a scary gun equal an "imminent unlawful use of force" all by themselves and justify responding in a lethal manner just because someone "honestly and reasonably believes"?

Just because those guys did what I personally consider a very unwise and foolish thing and what they did is currently outside the societal norm doesn't mean they did something illegal.

And just because the police responded in a manner most (including myself) would consider appropriate considering the appearance of the guy(s) doesn't mean those fellow(s) did something illegal by walking into a police station dressed the way they were carrying firearm(s) they had in the manner they did.

Edited to make sure I said exactly what I meant to say.