Kid arrested openly carrying rifle in Birmingham, MI - no laws broken that I can tell - Page 5

Kid arrested openly carrying rifle in Birmingham, MI - no laws broken that I can tell

This is a discussion on Kid arrested openly carrying rifle in Birmingham, MI - no laws broken that I can tell within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Badey The more I mull this case over, the more I am inclined to agree with you on this. Thank you the ...

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 125
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Kid arrested openly carrying rifle in Birmingham, MI - no laws broken that I can tell

  1. #61
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    The more I mull this case over, the more I am inclined to agree with you on this.
    Thank you the MOC crowd seems vehemently against my viewpoint.


  2. #62
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    Not obeying a lawful command is disorderly conduct.
    Statute Please
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  3. #63
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    Actually if there is no reasonble suspicion they don't have to hand over the ID.

    In this case there was.
    Got a statute requiring a pedestrian to carry ID?
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  4. #64
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    Thank you the MOC crowd seems vehemently against my viewpoint.

    Ever hear of the 4th amendment? Terry v Ohio ?
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  5. #65
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgb View Post
    Got a statute requiring a pedestrian to carry ID?
    No.

  6. #66
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    Not obeying a lawful command is disorderly conduct.
    And the statute for this one is? I'm really curious as when I left Michigan LE in '88 no such statute existed.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  7. #67
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgb View Post
    Statute Please
    750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions.
    Sec. 81d.

    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (2) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (3) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a serious impairment of a body function of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

    (4) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing the death of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

    (5) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed by that individual while violating this section.

    (6) A term of imprisonment imposed for a violation of this section may run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for another violation arising from the same transaction.

    (7) As used in this section:

    (a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

    (b) "Person" means any of the following:

    (i) A police officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state including, but not limited to, a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

    (ii) A police officer of a junior college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that junior college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that junior college, college, or university.

    (iii) A conservation officer of the department of natural resources or the department of environmental quality.

    (iv) A conservation officer of the United States department of the interior.

    (v) A sheriff or deputy sheriff.

    (vi) A constable.

    (vii) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States, including, but not limited to, an agent of the secret service or department of justice.

    (viii) A firefighter.

    (ix) Any emergency medical service personnel described in section 20950 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20950.

    (x) An individual engaged in a search and rescue operation as that term is defined in section 50c.

    (c) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.



    History: Add. 2002, Act 266, Eff. July 15, 2002 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 517, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2006

  8. #68
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgb View Post
    Ever hear of the 4th amendment? Terry v Ohio ?
    You mean this one?

    It's called a Terry Stop. Terry v. Ohio

    Stop and Frisk legal definition of Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.



    Also according to Hiibel getting the ID doesn't violate the fourth amendment, and would only violate the fifth if the name would incriminate him.

    Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[
    Last edited by cmike; April 20th, 2012 at 08:30 PM.

  9. #69
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgb View Post
    And the statute for this one is? I'm really curious as when I left Michigan LE in '88 no such statute existed.
    Actually it's "obstruction". Sorry.

  10. #70
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Yep real familiar with that statute, however it has nothing to do with what you claimed. Further 750.81d(7)(a) requires that the subject "knowingly" fails to comply with a "lawful order". As no law compels a pedestrian to carry ID how does failure of said pedestrian to produce ID become a lawful order?

    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person
    performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions.
    Sec. 81d.

    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (2) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (3) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a serious impairment of a body function of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

    (4) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing the death of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

    (5) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed by that individual while violating this section.

    (6) A term of imprisonment imposed for a violation of this section may run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for another violation arising from the same transaction.

    (7) As used in this section:

    (a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

    (b) "Person" means any of the following:

    (i) A police officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state including, but not limited to, a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

    (ii) A police officer of a junior college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that junior college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that junior college, college, or university.

    (iii) A conservation officer of the department of natural resources or the department of environmental quality.

    (iv) A conservation officer of the United States department of the interior.

    (v) A sheriff or deputy sheriff.

    (vi) A constable.

    (vii) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States, including, but not limited to, an agent of the secret service or department of justice.

    (viii) A firefighter.

    (ix) Any emergency medical service personnel described in section 20950 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20950.

    (x) An individual engaged in a search and rescue operation as that term is defined in section 50c.

    (c) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.



    History: Add. 2002, Act 266, Eff. July 15, 2002 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 517, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2006
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  11. #71
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    The lawful order is show me your ID. If the person had the ID and doesn't have it he is guilty of obstruction.

    The officer, under a Terry Stop, had the legal right to ask questions and give commands. The officer gave a command "show me your ID" or something like that. The boy had the ID and refused to show it.

    Clink clink.

  12. #72
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    The lawful order is show me your ID. If the person had the ID and doesn't have it he is guilty of obstruction.

    The officer, under a Terry Stop, had the legal right to ask questions and give commands. The officer gave a command "show me your ID" or something like that. The boy had the ID and refused to show it.

    Clink clink.
    You just admitted that there is no law requiring a pedestrian to carry ID yet you continue to claim that not producing ID is a crime. This defies logic. Further Reasonable Suspicion of current, eminent or recent criminal activity must be present to invoke Terry. Stopping someone to insure compliance with the law IS NOT the same as stopping someone suspected of breaking the law.

    The Police are not infallible and this arrest appears to be a poor example of LE judgement. It smacks of "Don't defy my Authority" IMHO
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  13. #73
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    The reasonsonable suspicion occurred because he looked underage.

    He had the ID therefore he could and had to comply with the order.

  14. #74
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cmike View Post
    The reasonsonable suspicion occurred because he looked underage.

    He had the ID therefore he could and had to comply with the order.
    The claim as to age verification may or may not hold up depending on the Officers stated reasons for inquiring as well as how the actual encounter occurred. As to your contention that you as a pedestrian must provide your ID simply because an Officer demands it and you have it you are 100% incorrect. All you must provide in a valid Terry stop is verbiage of your name and age.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  15. #75
    Member Array cmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgb View Post
    The claim as to age verification may or may not hold up depending on the Officers stated reasons for inquiring as well as how the actual encounter occurred. As to your contention that you as a pedestrian must provide your ID simply because an Officer demands it and you have it you are 100% incorrect. All you must provide in a valid Terry stop is verbiage of your name and age.
    That's not what I said. He had to provide it because there was reasonable suspicion due to him looking underage.

    In this case the boy had the ID. He was ordered to show his ID. He didn't.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

birmingham mi rifle
,
can a kid carry a gun
,
michigan open carry gun law
,

michigan rifle laws

,

sean combs birmingham

,
sean combs gun
,

sean combs michigan

,
sean combs rifle
,

sean combs troy

,
sean combs troy mi
,

sean michael combs

,
troy rifle
Click on a term to search for related topics.