Author Topic: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer  (Read 8564 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« on: August 06, 2014, 05:02:49 PM »
LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer for "illegally" carrying. Skip to 11:30 for encounter. Language warning.


Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2014, 08:37:42 PM »
Calumet County, eh?
That siren at 10:30 sure destroys the tranquility of the scene, but at least he has a warning of what's coming.
He chose to act blissfully unaware, which eventually led to his shocked statement a minute later of "Don't point that f-ing gun at me". It's good to know what you'll say before you find yourself in that situation. The line I've been thinking of, ever since I first read that the Milwaukee police chief would have his troops prone out a lawful OC'er, is:
"You are under arrest for assault with a deadly weapon. Please do not resist." (I have no idea what response that would get, but it sure sounds better on tape than "don't point that f-ing...")

One thing he got right, that I'm not sure I would have done as well before seeing this video, is "I am not touching my gun. I won't touch my gun". That is an excellent response when somebody who can murder you with impunity is pointing a gun at you and openly threatening to murder you with it. When the 'good brownshirt' responded by telling him to calm down, if I were in his shoes, I probably would have said "Don't tell me to calm down when that G-D felonious POS is threatening to murder me. If you don't arrest him, I will."

I paused the video after the part about 'he's pointing that gun at you for our safety', and 'the law says you can't carry in the park'.

After my blood pressure came back down, I realized that these two idiot felonious douchebags were simply responding as they were trained to apprehend an individual who they had been taught was committing a crime with a firearm.

Once I realized that, I no longer think that their actions merit hanging in the public square, I'll be happy if the coming lawsuit results in $100,000 out of the felon with the drawn gun, $10,000 from his accomplice, permanent surrender of their LEO certs, and $1,000,000 from the Calumet County treasury (followed by voter recalls of the elected officials responsible).

There. Now I think I'm ready to watch the rest of the video.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 08:43:51 PM by CitizensHaveRights »
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2014, 08:41:57 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 12:01:45 AM by CitizensHaveRights »
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline mosnar87

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • First Name (Displayed): Ervin
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2014, 12:55:19 AM »
It's impossible to "bait" a law abiding cop into an unlawful act. By definition, a law abiding cop would know and conform to the law.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible to provoke a jack booted thug into behavior that typifies his "respect my authority" attitude, simply by engaging in a lawfull but unpopular activity.
"I don't want to be someone that successfully defends himself with a pistol.  I want to be someone that never has to defend himself with a pistol."
-Bronson, 2013

"Its not what I do for a living, its that I want to keep doing it"
-Evil Creamsicle, 2010

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2014, 12:39:09 AM »
You will find many on the forum can recite MCL 123.1102. It's not baiting. It's fully understanding your legal position.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2014, 01:27:18 AM »
You will find many on the forum can recite MCL 123.1102. It's not baiting. It's fully understanding your legal position.

You typed that without looking up the MCL number, like I'm typing 42 USC §1983 right now?
If I can rattle off US code like that, I guess it's silly for me to assume experienced OCers can't rattle off MCL 123.1102 without thinking hard about it or specifically trying to memorize it immediately pre-contact.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline MI_XD

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • First Name (Displayed): Bob
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2014, 10:05:19 AM »
You typed that without looking up the MCL number, like I'm typing 42 USC §1983 right now?
If I can rattle off US code like that, I guess it's silly for me to assume experienced OCers can't rattle off MCL 123.1102 without thinking hard about it or specifically trying to memorize it immediately pre-contact.

SO, do you KNOW what 42 USC §1983 says? Because MOST responsible Michigan gun owners KNOW what MCL 123.1102 says. Especially those who carry in public.

It does not matter what the person was carrying, as long as it was a legal weapon. What does matter is, that these two LEOs broke a Michigan Law when they decided to try to enforce a "local" ordinance that was ILLEGAL to begin with. As WELL as 42 USC §1983.

Now we watch for the lawsuit!

MI_XD
MI_XD
SW Michigan
I finally can be Proud of America, again!

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2014, 10:21:05 AM »
these two LEOs broke a Michigan Law when they decided to try to enforce a "local" ordinance that was ILLEGAL to begin with. As WELL as 42 USC §1983.

This happened in Calumet County in Wisconsin, not Michigan.  (There is no Calumet County in Michigan).  However, the same thing applies.  Wisconsin has had preemption since 1995!

Offline MI_XD

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • First Name (Displayed): Bob
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2014, 10:27:35 AM »
This happened in Calumet County in Wisconsin, not Michigan.  (There is no Calumet County in Michigan).  However, the same thing applies.  Wisconsin has had preemption since 1995!

Duh! My Bad! Thought it was our Calumet... Since it WAS posted in the Michigan forum.....

Thanks for setting me straight.  :)

MI_XD
MI_XD
SW Michigan
I finally can be Proud of America, again!

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: LEOs ignore preemption and point rifle at OCer
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2014, 11:07:44 AM »
Duh! My Bad! Thought it was our Calumet... Since it WAS posted in the Michigan forum.....


X2.
We've got a city by that name, and we've got a few counties that share names with cities...
If I had MCL 123.1102 memorized, I would hopefully have noticed that the victim was citing something else, but I kept getting so angry at the deputies I had to stop the video and walk it off.
In Michigan that would have been preempted for about 24 years, and we have a 2014 Supreme Court decision reinforcing it. Therefore I assume local ignorance of state law to be willful. What's the timeline on Wisconsin's preemption law?

He should file suit, but he shouldn't get more than $10-25k. I ceased being million dollar pissed at the deputies when I saw what he was carrying. If somebody is standing on a bluff peacefully looking at a Great Lake with a holstered pistol on his hip and somebody threatens to blow him away with a 'patrol rifle', then I want to see somebody sued into bankruptcy. I don't excuse, but I do understand, the cops' response when he's got some large tricked out 'tactical-style' thing clipped to a lanyard around his neck.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?