arrested for open carry in police station

[OC for ME]

For clarity:

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

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.

This discussion is focused on what the cops did, not what you or I would do.

The video does not appear to show rifles in hand.

Did the cops' actions violate Michigan state law? Only a judge will be able to determine this.

North Carolina has (had?) a statute regarding "going armed to the terror of the people." Does Michigan have such a law?

From the limited cites to Michigan state laws regarding the conduct of the fellas in the video it appears, at this juncture, that they may not have. If this is the case thosecops did violate the law and should be criminally prosecuted as well as being held civilly liable for their acts.

 

[color of law]

A police officer is often in many states taken to epitomize the reasonable man even in case law. A police officer's honesty is presumed by the court, absent strong evidence to the contrary.

A co-worker was given a traffic citation in familiar circumstances. We decided to fight the citation and prepared what we thought was an adequate defense based on engineering principles. The officer flat out lied on the stand and the judge overruled our protests. I have never since given a cop the benefit of the doubt.

Absolutely correct. But I must say it is more than strong evidence of a cop lying. It must be blatant and unabashed lying before the court will even consider acknowledging the lie. I've sat in court watching a special agent lie through his teeth and was proven to be a liar using documents, procedures and other agents testimony and the court refused to strike his testimony and instructed the jury to accept the testimony as true.

The honest cops I know are usually never in court. When they are, they are there for an actual crime; murder, robbery, etc. With most cops you can't even trust, but verify.

Trump wants us to support our law enforcement, but I hear nothing about police departments reforming their systems holding their officers accountable.

 

[solus]

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.

absolutely sure of my statement...that is the purpose of the judicial system to validate the legality of their actions...tho as previously pointed out...so far, wearing body armor is a illegal!!

ipse

btw, to quantify my personal, JQPublic, uh normal man on the street stance: ski mask covering all but eyes, body armor bulge, one long gun, one side arm...qualifies in my humble opinion as an 'oh crap, prepare for the use of deadly force in defense of my person and loved one(s)' at which point the center engagement point is the legs and crotch...not center mass!!

 

[solus]

750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

Absolutely correct. But I must say it is more than strong evidence of a cop lying. It must be blatant and unabashed lying before the court will even consider acknowledging the lie. I've sat in court watching a special agent lie through his teeth and was proven to be a liar using documents, procedures and other agents testimony and the court refused to strike his testimony and instructed the jury to accept the testimony as true.

The honest cops I know are usually never in court. When they are, they are there for an actual crime; murder, robbery, etc. With most cops you can't even trust, but verify.

Trump wants us to support our law enforcement, but I hear nothing about police departments reforming their systems holding their officers accountable.

Judges enjoy absolute immunity. They can be pilloried for their unacceptable judicial acts that are contrary to the constitution and statute.

If they are appointed they can be "outed" as a corrupt judge. If they are elected they can be in fear of their bench the next election cycle. If documentation exists that is evidence of their corruption place it in the public domain for all to see. Oh, and be sure to high light the corrupt cops lies as well.

 

[OC for ME]

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931

750.222 Definitions. Sec. 222.


As used in this chapter:


(c) "Brandish" means to point (not on shown on the video), wave about (not shown on the video) , or display (firearms were displayed) in a threatening manner with the intent to induce fear in another person.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ji...tname=mcl-750-222&query=on&highlight=brandish

If these fellas are smart, and have a smart lawyer, they will have rehearsed their story regarding their intent.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

If these fellas are smart, and have a smart lawyer, they will have rehearsed their story regarding their intent.

If Griffin's post on what the charges were is correct, why would they need to rehearse an alibi for something they weren't charged with?

Dearborn police charged them with resisting, breach of peace, and failure to comply. The PD kept their guns and their cameras.

 

[chowda]

For clarity:
This discussion is focused on what the cops did, not what you or I would do.

I personalized this because a lot of people have one expectation of reasonable for us not being in that kind of job or put in that kind of situation......vs someone that actually does face the risk of being shot every day, actually is in that situation for a job.
What I've found is a lot of people babble about what "a cop" should do or is reasonable to do, or not, in a situation they themselves have never been in and most likely never will be in.
To put it more bluntly, there's a big difference in watching it on tv versus looking down the barrel of a gun, or turn your back and get killed.

Did the cops' actions violate Michigan state law? Only a judge will be able to determine this.

And if some nutbag with a mask and a rifle walks up to him and he let's them go out of fear of being fired and lawsuits, then the cop gets the back of his head blown off....Could you maybe spring for a cheap card for his widow and the kids? That would be nice.

Or if the cop shoots someone faking like they're going to shoot him and....he shoots first as a wise person would, will you adopt that cop and his family once he gets out of prison? They may lose their house, vehicles, etc. so they'll need a place to stay.

North Carolina has (had?) a statute regarding "going armed to the terror of the people." Does Michigan have such a law?

Don't know, but what I do know is the games that some kids play can get themselves killed. Or others. But it's all about 'me! me! me! my rights!!!!!'

 

[chowda]

btw, to quantify my personal, JQPublic, uh normal man on the street stance: ski mask covering all but eyes, body armor bulge, one long gun, one side arm...

....is what a some fringe in the firearms community want you to think is "normal", ya know, they only do such things to "normalize it" as they have told us.
So I guess you're supposed to just ignore the guy until he's bringing up his rifle....
....but what gives you the right? Maybe he was just grabbing his rifle quickly because it was falling? Or he wanted to change position?
Has he shot anyone yet? Much less at you? He hasn't broken any laws yet.

 

[OC for ME]

I personalized this because a lot of people have one expectation of reasonable for us not being in that kind of job or put in that kind of situation......vs someone that actually does face the risk of being shot every day, actually is in that situation for a job.

I do not personalize this because not all cops may react as these cop did.

What I've found is a lot of people babble about what "a cop" should do or is reasonable to do, or not, in a situation they themselves have never been in and most likely never will be in.
To put it more bluntly, there's a big difference in watching it on tv versus looking down the barrel of a gun, or turn your back and get killed.

True, but this is besides the point given that the alleged crimes reported are resisting, breach of peace, and failure to comply. The video goes dark after it appears that the that citizen complied with the command to get on the floor. Usually if a citizen complies with that order the citizen usually would not be charged with resisting (the old cop catch all charge), breach of peace (OC is legal and should not be breaching the peace in MI if I understand MI statutes), and faliure to comply? We shall see.

And if some nutbag with a mask and a rifle walks up to him and he let's them go out of fear of being fired and lawsuits, then the cop gets the back of his head blown off....Could you maybe spring for a cheap card for his widow and the kids? That would be nice.

Appeal to emotion.

Or if the cop shoots someone faking like they're going to shoot him and....he shoots first as a wise person would, will you adopt that cop and his family once he gets out of prison? They may lose their house, vehicles, etc. so they'll need a place to stay.

Appeal to emotion.

Don't know, but what I do know is the games that some kids play can get themselves killed. Or others. But it's all about 'me! me! me! my rights!!!!!'[/QUOTE]Should be about the law.

 

[OC for ME]

...

chowda: Don't know, but what I do know is the games that some kids play can get themselves killed. Or others. But it's all about 'me! me! me! my rights!!!!!'

Should be about the law.

Sorry, inadvertently deleted a quote tag.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Reasonable minds can agree that wearing body armor and a mask while open carrying weapons is Stupid in any location however stupidity is NOT A CRIME, if it were, many citizens and many LEOS would be incarcerated for a long time..

This current stupidity is called COP BAITING on a new higher level...

Onus, has been filming cops for a long time, some of his work is justified and heroic and indeed always legal however I hope he has his life insurance current.. High level cop baiting is a risky endeavor even if totally legal..

My .02

Regards
CCJ

 

[Michigander]

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.

You utterly missed the point of voluntaryism/the non aggression principle, which is the category of activism that Brandon and James fall into, as well as me when I used to do walks with them. It'd be something I'd suggest researching.

Main stream gun people make themselves look bad by being statists who neither understand nor practice real world fighting techniques and even more important conflict deescalation techniques, and yet about 12 million of them carry anyway. How they look to other statists is not something of concern in any way shape or form to a voluntaryist.

 

[Michigander]

The police did well not to just assume that the youths were innocent, especially when they were doing everything in their power to make themselves look suspicious.

Though I don't suggest face masks and exposed body armor like that for the same reason the cops wear them to terrorize people for victimless crimes, I'm still not so sure about that.

LEIN ensured the cops already knew who they were. If Brandon and James tell a cop they're going to come to his department to file a complaint and he knows who they are from LEIN, it would take a cop with a single digit IQ to think they would show up unarmed. And besides that, it's how they were dressed when pulled over. The only addition was the guns.

 

[lockman]

He should have got on the ground on top of the rifle and left the disarming to the police. Police barking commands to handle a gun you are not currently handling is a recipe for disaster.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

 

[solus]

You utterly missed the point of voluntaryism/the non aggression principle, which is the category of activism that Brandon and James fall into, as well as me when I used to do walks with them. It'd be something I'd suggest researching.

Main stream gun people make themselves look bad by being statists who neither understand nor practice real world fighting techniques and even more important conflict deescalation techniques, and yet about 12 million of them carry anyway. How they look to other statists is not something of concern in any way shape or form to a voluntaryist.

wow i knew MI after their economic issues was rough but to have to practice real world fighting techniques in the Dearborn PD HQs sounds a bit hazardous for a place to practice!!

as for their application of conflict de-escalation techniques...those might need some further finessing as it was a FAIL!!

as for your use of voluntaryist ~ this is a concept of advocating non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society ~ me thinks you and your buddies might grasp some other buzz words better suited to justify your follys!

ipse

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Though I don't suggest face masks and exposed body armor like that for the same reason the cops wear them to terrorize people [ logical fallacy] for victimless crimes, I'm still not so sure about that.

LEIN ensured the cops already knew who they were. If Brandon and James tell a cop they're going to come to his department to file a complaint and he knows who they are from LEIN, it would take a cop with a single digit IQ to think they would show up unarmed. And besides that, it's how they were dressed when pulled over. The only addition was the guns.

A question for you, sir; if a police department has been warned that armed individuals are approaching with the intention of confronting the police, how many IQ points must one have to assume that such a visit must be peaceful in nature?
I mean, it's not as though someone might lie about their intentions, is it?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

You just gotta absolutely love it when the one young man relates how they were 'afraid for [their] lives' by the officer who addressed the two as 'sir' and received a tirade of expletives in return. I don't know about anyone else, but the last time I was afraid of physical violence I wasn't tempted to escalate the situation by antagonizing my opponent.
Things may be different up North.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0WuTW4RLQ

(The video IS biased, of course. I advise listening to the words said, not the sensationalist reporting.)

 

[Michigander]

wow i knew MI after their economic issues was rough but to have to practice real world fighting techniques in the Dearborn PD HQs sounds a bit hazardous for a place to practice!!

as for their application of conflict de-escalation techniques...those might need some further finessing as it was a FAIL!!

as for your use of voluntaryist ~ this is a concept of advocating non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society ~ me thinks you and your buddies might grasp some other buzz words better suited to justify your follys!

ipse

You have posted things so ass backwards that I can't tell whether you're confused or trolling.

I said statists are unaware of those techniques, not them. And there was no negotiating with those pigs. I agree with the lawyer's statement having now reviewed the evidence. They set a trap for them.

Voluntaryists are not for non violence as a rule, we are for non aggression. Confusing the two is not a good idea.