OK, saw the whole thing and have lots more comments.
1. Videographer is baiting, shades of Leonard Embody and his AK pistol. He's not just carrying a holstered handgun, he's also slinging a tactitoy which seems calculated to produce maximum LEO response. He's got the preemption statute cite memorized and ready to recite, which implies that he knows he's violating a county ordinance and he's daring the brownshirts to do something about it.
Prime example of the difference between testing and baiting: If I test my employees by walking into the library with a holstered 1911, sitting in the periodical reading room for 1/2 hour, then selecting a couple of novels to take home, I'm happy as a clam if they check out my books and I walk out the door incident free. This chap on Youtube appeared to be baiting his employees into potentially violent conflict and would have been disappointed if he got ignored.
Sorry, Mr Youtube, I no longer think you deserve a huge judgment for having cops threaten to kill you, I now think there were three douchenozzles at that party.
2. Guy who committed the assault with a deadly was holding a AR/M16 patrol rifle, and the other guy had one slung. Maximum response as baited. When the guy providing distant cover dropped his gun and approached, he was out of uniform and didn't really look like a cop to me. So, was he off duty, an underdressed detective, or a special deputy? I'm voting special/reserve deputy. Do you, the professional LEO, want a special deputy pointing a gun at you and probably riding the trigger while you walk up to the subject? I mean it's idiotic to have your partner cover you like that, but you're batshit crazy if you walk into the sights of a special deputy while he's covering you, unless maybe that special deputy is the department's firearms instructor.
Did everybody else see the video of the guy who was so close to a diabetic coma that the only way they could stop him was to put a squad in front of him and hit the brakes to play bumper cars? They used the same tactic there, the regular deputy approached the subject while a reserve deputy provided cover by pointing a sidearm at them. Then the special deputy had a negligent discharge through the car's window, endangering both the regular deputy and the medical emergency victim. If Calumet's (probable) special deputy had a select fire patrol rifle and exhibited the same negligence it would have been real messy.
3. WTF kind of idiot flips through his phone reading stuff while a deputy is standing right next to him trying to lecture him on the local ordinances?
4. This matter is over our heads, we'll just have to wait for the courts to work it out (says the out of uniform or special deputy). Nope, it's been the law for 24 years now, and has been fully worked out, if there were any lingering doubts the Michigan Supreme Court settled it by rejecting all of CADL's arguments earlier this year.
