michagan teen arrested for legal open carry - Page 16
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > michagan teen arrested for legal open carry

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2012, 02:25 AM   #151
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 3,076
Liked 1047 Times on 632 Posts
Likes Given: 229

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by primer1 View Post
He also said expect to be harassed, which started an argument.
That in itself is scary!

Every state is different. This thread is specifically about MI. Everything I've seen, the young man was completely in the right, just the question if his "looking underage" is a RAS.
__________________
partdeux is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 02:31 AM   #152
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
primer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,668
Liked 2573 Times on 1673 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by partdeux

That in itself is scary!

Every state is different. This thread is specifically about MI. Everything I've seen, the young man was completely in the right, just the question if his "looking underage" is a RAS.
I know its about Michigan, just giving another example of a Leo's opinion.
__________________

Feral cat waterboarder

primer1 is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 02:44 AM   #153
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bear304inc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,027
Liked 57 Times on 51 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota
. If the LEO was really a BG with a badge.
I think many here have taken a hard stance under the impression that the leos integrity are being questioned , far from it. I think largely its their grasp of the law that is, granted leos are not lawyers and most just retain what was taught to them. Its that limited knowledge that upsets most.
__________________
Bear304inc is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 03:33 AM   #154
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kankakee County,Illinois
Posts: 1,766
Liked 714 Times on 431 Posts
Likes Given: 860

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear304inc View Post
I think largely its their grasp of the law that is, granted leos are not lawyers and most just retain what was taught to them. Its that limited knowledge that upsets most.
You are correct, but unfortunately that is not an excuse.

"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
Is an often quoted line in court rooms.
__________________
An Armed man is a Citizen,
An Unarmed man is a Subject. -- Unknown

"I am prepared are you?" -- Shade

"Regulation, registration, confiscation, domination, that's the Progressive agenda." -- RED Caddy

Shade is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 08:42 AM   #155
I don't come with an "edit" option....
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,717
Liked 855 Times on 537 Posts
Likes Given: 4466

Default

http://birmingham.patch.com/articles/police-arrest-man-carrying-a-rifle-downtown-friday-night

Another link to the story, that tells a bit more...

“Officers stopped the teen and asked for identification so they could verify if he was old enough to be in possession of the rifle. Birmingham Police Cmdr. Terry Kiernan said adults are allowed to carry firearms in Michigan, though Combs appeared "very young," Kiernan said.”

Now, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but to me, that sounds as though the police were well within their right.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 08:52 AM   #156
I don't come with an "edit" option....
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,717
Liked 855 Times on 537 Posts
Likes Given: 4466

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by partdeux View Post
In MI you do not have to produce ID

Why would he have "prove" his age? It was pure and simple to harass a completely legal citizen, because some in the city do not believe mere citizens should be allowed firearms.

Other City's in the general area have had similar policies, and they have changed their policies only after someone with the balls to directly confront the situation.

Robo, you raise an interesting situation, but lets change that scenario around a bit. Guy walks in to start shooting the place up, and most of the people sitting in the restaurant are open and/or conceal carrying. Bad guy gets the message real quick to go to a liberal area where guns are restricted.
Have you seen pictures of this kid? Does he look like he's 18? I'm talking the "there's no possible way this kid is under 18" look. If not (and to me, he looks like he could be 18, but also could be 16) then the cops were well within their rights to ask for it (cuz if he were under 18, then he would have been commiting a crime).

Do you have 100% irrefutable proof that it was nothing more than the cops wanted to harass this kid? No, I didn't think so.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 09:42 AM   #157
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Hmmmm what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You just can't go around suspecting that everyone is up to something, that leads to paranoia.
Do you own a firearm for self defense?
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 10:04 AM   #158
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
You just don't get it and you probably never will. Simply by saying that the police have a right to stop and ask for papers when you are doing nothing illegal, you have given up your rights.
No, you just don't get it, and you probably never will. The kid looks much younger than 18. There was every reason in the world to believe a crime was being committed. So did the budding legal scholar do what would have helped him and produce the requested ID? No. After all, he knows his rights. Arraignment is May 2nd.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 11:09 AM   #159
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Todd_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 238
Liked 9 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402

No, you just don't get it, and you probably never will. The kid looks much younger than 18. There was every reason in the world to believe a crime was being committed. So did the budding legal scholar do what would have helped him and produce the requested ID? No. After all, he knows his rights. Arraignment is May 2nd.
The problem here is there is no strict definition of what can be construed as "probable cause". A man may be 40 but look 12, does that give every LEO the right to stop him if he is OCing? It very well may. The judgement of an officer, as long as it is reasonable, is the defining matter in this case. What if a 12 year old walked around town with his dads piece slung on his hip? Can the police not stop him because he may be 18 and just look really young?

Thats about all there is to this case.

On another note, someone said "what is there to gain by not showing the ID". I think you had better reword that to "what is there to lose by showing the ID". If you live in a state that does not require you to furnish ID upon request of an LEO, then DON'T. We do not have these rights just so we can read about them! Having a right in a book that we cannot use in real life is actually just us having the APPEARANCE of a right we don't. Those carrying "just to exercise my rights" are doing the US a favor by making sure that those rights we hold dear are recognized both in text and on the street, even if it leads to some hassle.
__________________

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Todd_ is offline  
 
Old 05-01-2012, 11:17 AM   #160
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wake, NC
Posts: 1,134
Liked 112 Times on 78 Posts
Likes Given: 86

Default

In a follow up to my previous post, Justice Byron White had this to say about the the famous Terry vs. Ohio case:

Quote:
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34).
Further:

Quote:
"... it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly." (392 U.S. 1, at 16–17)
My point with the second quote and bolding is that police time and time again overstep their bounds in these incidences where a weapon is present and they use this simple presence as justification for seizure and arrest, when in fact as held by the supreme court, greater justification is required. It happened to me in my own residence. It happened to this man, and I'm sure it continues to happen to many others. And you guys wonder why there's no respect for police...

Further text, this time from the dissenting judge, Fortas:

Quote:
To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. [p39] Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, [n4] is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.
I'm sure some smart alec will pipe up, "Yeah but what's probable cause?"

Quote:
To give power to the police to seize a person on some grounds different from or less than "probable cause" would be handing them more authority than could be exercised by a magistrate in issuing a warrant to seize a person. As we stated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, with respect to requirements for arrests without warrants: Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained.
If simple possession of a rifle is grounds for issuing a warrant, then we all better turn ourselves in...

I think this post fairly succinctly puts this issue to rest. The boy's rights have been violated. Anyone who argues otherwise, saying the police were just doing their job, I suggest you do not become a laywer.
__________________
[Remington 870 12GA][Stoeger Model 3500 12GA][Savage 116 .30-06][Savage Model 10 Bull Barrel .223][Marlin 336SS .30-30][Marlin 39A .22][Marlin 795 22LR][Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm][Ruger MkIII 22LR]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Terry V Ohio Commentary

Last edited by tCan; 05-01-2012 at 11:39 AM.
tCan is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Legal responsibilities with no carry signs? MattMac27 Legal and Activism 22 06-26-2012 11:58 AM
South Carolina Teen Arrested for Alleged High School Bomb Plot sculker The Club House 18 06-04-2012 02:27 PM
Is it legal to shoot in open areas felix1904 Legal and Activism 4 04-17-2012 03:15 AM
Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry Debate Tony Soprano The Club House 31 08-06-2009 05:23 AM