arrested for open carry in police station

[jegoodin]

Legal, probably...

But they are still a couple of stupid a$$hats.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

I'm not sure if someone told that to the press to make them look stupid, or if the press just is that stupid. But rest assured that as of this time it doesn't exist.

Actually, it technically does.

It was an AK pistol manufactured from an 80% receiver, so he just made up a model number and that's what got registered into the system.

Also, my favorite tidbit was that I made the assumption that the cops systems would be old, and probably have less than a 32 character limit on the serial number field in their computer system. So naturally he made the serial number 34 characters in length. Guess who was right?

That was good for a chuckle.

 

[The Truth]

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 entire wall of text is a huge non-sequitur - it has exactly nothing to do with anything being discussed. Why you're talking about someone walking into someone's private home, I have no idea.

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.

It's none of your concern how others choose to exercise their rights, and you have no say in the matter. Your words are rank hot air...1s and 0s.

I had originally planned on dissecting this post, but I quickly realized it would be pointless after I got to your next reply, so I'll keep it to the most egregious quote in your pointless emotional ramblings. Bear in mind I think what these guys did was very stupid...yet the cavalier way you speak of people's rights has caused me to reply in such a way.

I regularly OC a big ol' semi auto in the children's clothes section and the toy section at Target - and well, everywhere I go on a day to day basis. Unless you're completely inept, it's quite easy to discern a threat from a non-threat. Plus what are you going to do? LOL. Targets get shot up by masked guys wielding AKs all the time where you live, I guess? Are you really going to engage someone with an AK47 in a department store with a side arm? Rhetorical question...calm down...I know that of course you would. Any reasonable person would, right? /s

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.

I implore you to highlight the portion of the video where anyone but the armed citizens were looking down the barrel of a gun. Yet another red herring/non-sequitur/whatever you want to call your utter fallacy of an argument.

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.



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!!!!!'

Well, yeah, it is about individual rights. I guess you aren't that inept. At least you have an elementary understanding of what's going on here.

 

[OC for ME]

Placing our trust in a any given cop to not do the wrong thing is a fools errand. Unfortunately these cops will not be held to account for violating the law and those fellas rights.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Article says they're going for felony charges

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...in-open-carry-case-at-dearborn-police-station

WTF? Is this for real?

Anyone know what all of these charges listed in the article actually exist, and which of them are felonies? I'm researched-out for the night, not trying to be lazy...

"James Baker, 24, of Leonard, and Brandon Vreeland, 40, of Jackson, are both charged with carrying a concealed weapon, disturbing the peace and assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer. Baker was also charged with brandishing a weapon."


Also couldn't help but notice - ""The ultimate objective is public safety for everyone; including police officers," Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad said." Errrm, that's not your job, officer. Your job is peace. Peace requires liberty. Safety is a byproduct.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Stupidity is not yet a crime and officers fearing for their lives does not trump the constitution.. In my humble opinion both man will be found not guilty and they should with proper counsel win the civil lawsuit..

My .02

CCJ

 

[solus]

stealthy...see post 149

misdemeanors one and all

ipse

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

stealthy...see post 149

misdemeanors one and all

If the latest news report is correct, you may wish to reconsider the "misdemeanors one and all".

"James Baker, 24, of Leonard, and Brandon Vreeland, 40, of Jackson, are both charged with carrying a concealed weapon, disturbing the peace and assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer. Baker was also charged with brandishing a weapon."

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.​

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.227 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 206, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 8, Eff. July 1, 1986
Constitutionality: The double jeopardy protection against multiple punishment for the same offense is a restriction on a court's ability to impose punishment in excess of that intended by the Legislature, not a limit on the Legislature's power to define crime and fix punishment. People v Sturgis, 427 Mich 392; 397 NW2d 783 (1986).
Former Law: See section 5 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 16753.

If the AP14 is an AK based pistol, then I hope he has a carry license for such. Likely it's a 'throw it against the wall and see if it sticks' charge. But ya never know.

750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle might trip him up if security video shows a loaded rifle as he exits his auto.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kc...ectName=mcl-750-227c&highlight=penal AND code

 

[solus]

my post 149 was back on the sixth of Feb as attributed to the news media detriot freepress... they stated misdemeanors

from the 24th detriot news....
quote
Two men were arraigned Friday on multiple charges after allegedly walking into the Dearborn Police Department armed with firearms and wearing tactical vests.

Vreeland was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, resisting arrest and disturbing the peace, according to Dearborn police. Baker faces charges of carrying a concealed weapon, brandishing a weapon, resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.

At arraignment Friday, Vreeland's bond was set at $20,000 cash or surety while Baker received a $50,000 cash or surety bond. The men are due back in court March 10 and March 17, police said. They must wear GPS tethers if released on bond. unquote
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2017/02/24/2-who-brought-guns-dearborn-police-station-arraigned/98356800/

i see nothing about the idiots being charged for wearing body armor, er sorry, tactical vests ?

btw tks for the ref on concealed weapon statute...

ipse

 

[countryclubjoe]

They are charged with crimes, not with civil torts.

After they are exonerated, both will seek redress under U.S.C. 42 section 1983... And in my opinion they will prevail.

My .02

 

[Michigander]

After they are exonerated, both will seek redress under U.S.C. 42 section 1983... And in my opinion they will prevail.

My .02

James tried that years ago when the cops had considerably less excuse than these. And lost. The thin blue line doesn't take out its trash. So I am rather confident he won't be suing, he knows it'll get him nowhere.

 

[Thundar]

The two gentlemen were exercising a constitutional right, seeking redress of grievances. Should they be forced to give up one right to exercise another? No, of course not. Were the two gentlemen stupid? Without a doubt. Is stupid illegal? No. Did they commit the crime of breach of peace? That is hard to say. Brandishing sure seems like a stretch. Resisting arrest? I did not see it, but it could have happened after the video. In the station did the cops have RAS to detain? I wonder, based upon the knowledge that open carry is legal. The courts will say yes to the RAS question. Their defiance of the police when the courts justify the actions off the officers, based on RAS, will be the basis for whatever the prosecutors can throw upon the wall and try to make stick.

It is a pity that the rules here prevent us from having a meaningful LGOC discussion. Finding effective and unquestionably legal means to promote handgun open carry was very beneficial to those of us that were handgun OC activists. This forum was that strategizing tool. Those that are activists for LGOC do not have the benefit of this site and there are no others like it.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[Michigander]

It is a pity that the rules here prevent us from having a meaningful LGOC discussion. Finding effective and unquestionably legal means to promote handgun open carry was very beneficial to those of us that were handgun OC activists. This forum was that strategizing tool. Those that are activists for LGOC do not have the benefit of this site and there are no others like it.

No doubt. We would have used this site as an organizational hub just like the old days if it was allowed. But instead we have used the garbage platform of facebook.

While there have been a startling number of the Michigan HGOC OG's that came to the events, with the pissers and moaners being 95% people who came to OC after the hard work was done, LGOC in Michigan has never come to command the participation that HGOC did and does, and combined with people flocking to FB, that's why no forum like this exists for LGOC. And really why would it? There is already this one. Plus with how many LGOC activists are either strict libertarians or ancaps, it would be even more prone to trolling and flame warring than this forum is.

 

[solus]

ah, the way it was...wonderful memories of what is, could've, and should've beens...

thundar, and i have been accused of blant projection...wow that scenario you described was a made for tv special...

poor michigander, tough missing everything huh, but wait wasn't their commentary about you being thrown out of a MI group for agitation againt the group's leadership or other some such nonsense?

but let's remember how it was...quietly..in your own ways without the proselytizing over who's group would, could, should reign supreme and waxing quietly to yourselves...

ipse

 

[Michigander]

I had hoped you'd have more clever trolling **** to say. I knew you were good for it.

 

[Tacitus42]

I had hoped you'd have more clever trolling **** to say. I knew you were good for it.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[Venator]

If the latest news report is correct, you may wish to reconsider the "misdemeanors one and all".

"James Baker, 24, of Leonard, and Brandon Vreeland, 40, of Jackson, are both charged with carrying a concealed weapon, disturbing the peace and assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer. Baker was also charged with brandishing a weapon."




If the AP14 is an AK based pistol, then I hope he has a carry license for such. Likely it's a 'throw it against the wall and see if it sticks' charge. But ya never know.

750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle might trip him up if security video shows a loaded rifle as he exits his auto.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kc...ectName=mcl-750-227c&highlight=penal AND code

The CCW charge is for not transporting their unloaded handguns in a case designed for a firearm (Stupid Michigan Law). Sources close to the charged say they had cases. So we shall see.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The CCW charge is for not transporting their unloaded handguns in a case designed for a firearm (Stupid Michigan Law). Sources close to the charged say they had cases. So we shall see.

You're close enough to the case to tell us why the charge is what it was? Interesting.

Care to share the source for this information?

 

[FreeInAZ]

Sounds like spaghetti charges to me. In that area of S.E. MI it is common practice for opinion enforcement officers (O.E.O.'s) to engage in what I like to call "fiscal re-education". A way to discourage legal actions by citizens that you or your department may not like.


It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to fight multiple bogus misdemeanor charges. Bad, Police/Departments know this and use it to their advantage.

You'll note that none of the charges are felonies. Why, as surely if these OCers were terrorizing the police one would think those charges would be brought? The reason is: misdemeanor charges are handled by the cities hired attorneys, who do what the police say or lose their contract. Felony charges are handled by the elected Wayne County prosecutor's office. Who is in no way beholding to local police agencies.

In the end these "charges" will be tossed, most likely.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

You'll note that none of the charges are felonies. Why, as surely if these OCers were terrorizing the police one would think those charges would be brought? The reason is: misdemeanor charges are handled by the cities hired attorneys, who do what the police say or lose their contract. Felony charges are handled by the elected Wayne County prosecutor's office. Who is in no way beholding to local police agencies.

Is the emphasized portion based upon an analysis of the Michigan code or wishful thinking?