UPDATE: Kid in Birmingham Mi Open carrying a rifle is going to be tried

This is a discussion on UPDATE: Kid in Birmingham Mi Open carrying a rifle is going to be tried within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ccw9mm Here's one article written (back in 2011) about over-broad interpretations of vague "brandishing" statutes in MI: Using brandishing statutes to chill ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: UPDATE: Kid in Birmingham Mi Open carrying a rifle is going to be tried

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Here's one article written (back in 2011) about over-broad interpretations of vague "brandishing" statutes in MI: Using brandishing statutes to chill Second Amendment rights.
    This is a huge part of the problem. Instead of using the common defination of the word as found in the dictionary so that there can be no question what it means. The Government makes up their own meaning for words and then expects everyone to know what they mean when using the word or phrase.
    In this opinion the AG states that because the Government did not make up a new defination for the word 'brandishing' that she would have to rely on the meaning found in the dictionary. In effect using the common language every citizen who can read is privy to.
    In that opinion, Attorney General Granholm noted that neither the Michigan Penal Code nor the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions include a definition of brandishing, nor has it been defined in any case decided before the court in Michigan. Therefore, she concluded that it was appropriate to use dictionary definitions and to look to the meaning ascribed to the word in sister jurisdictions.
    Using common English as spoken by ordinary citizens should not be a last resort.

    Michael

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    the cops were within the scope of their authority to detain/arrest him until they could ascertain that he was of legal age to carry the weapon. At that point, he should have been released and any charges dropped.

    And how do you propose they do that if they do not ask for his ID? If he would have confirmed his age he would have been on his way plain and simple.

    MLR as far as I have read you are not required to have ID but that goes back to the above question. Nope poking the bear is not against the law and neither is the bear asking a simple question like how old are you.

    there are zero details being currently published in the news regarding whether the gun was merely visible by third parties or whether he actually did (as claimed) wave/display the gun in a threatening manner (which is really the common usage).

    CCW I have read both that he was simply carrying it to he was showing his friends. A rifle slung across your back is kinda hard to miss so there is a good chance others besides the police saw it which as you stated is not a crime in itself. All he had to do was confirm his age thats it but he chose not to.
    carracer likes this.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  4. #48
    Ex Member Array slave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    112
    Tacman, how come every time a cop does soemthing illegal, the term "poking the bear" comes up? Why do cops get to be bears? Cops are tax paid employed people. They have to follow the same laws. They are humans who put their pants on in the AM.

    If anything, the term should be provking a bunch pf power tripping tools who think they are bears.

    1. He is NOT required to show ID unless he is being detained.

    2. To be Detained, there must be resonable articulated suspicion.

    3. In Michigan, they open carry of a firearm is NOT reasonable articulated suspicion.

    4. If any of the three are missing, in MICHIGAN, then that man had no reason to even speak to them, they had NO right to even speak to him.

    Period. No amount of Cop logic can change the laws. Cops need to have it hammered into their thick skulls they are subject to the same laws. We are not their underlings, we have no reason to be afraid of a cop.

    Contempt of cop should get cops arrested, and locked up. That's the only thing this young man did, was commit contempt of cop.

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    This country would have never been founded if some of you bed wetters were around 200 years ago.
    My life's experience is that those who talk the biggest game are the ones to first go fetal when crunch time comes. That's if you can even find them when it comes time to man the barricades.
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

  6. #50
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    As our forum legend SIXTO notes:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    I have always believed this to be true with some exceptions. The main exception is that no person who is sworn to uphold the laws should be able to go outside the law when handing out these prizes. When or if they do it should be them who win the stupid prize.

    Taunting or disrespecting a LEO is both stupid and just plain bad manners. That said do we really want LEO's to do something outside the law to teach someone that lesson?

    Michael

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,530

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    the cops were within the scope of their authority to detain/arrest him until they could ascertain that he was of legal age to carry the weapon. At that point, he should have been released and any charges dropped.

    And how do you propose they do that if they do not ask for his ID? If he would have confirmed his age he would have been on his way plain and simple.

    MLR as far as I have read you are not required to have ID but that goes back to the above question. Nope poking the bear is not against the law and neither is the bear asking a simple question like how old are you.

    there are zero details being currently published in the news regarding whether the gun was merely visible by third parties or whether he actually did (as claimed) wave/display the gun in a threatening manner (which is really the common usage).

    CCW I have read both that he was simply carrying it to he was showing his friends. A rifle slung across your back is kinda hard to miss so there is a good chance others besides the police saw it which as you stated is not a crime in itself. All he had to do was confirm his age thats it but he chose not to.
    And how do you propose they do that if they do not ask for his ID? If he would have confirmed his age he would have been on his way plain and simple.
    Is he required by law to give out this information? If not does he give up his right not to talk when he carries a weapon?
    CCW I have read both that he was simply carrying it to he was showing his friends. A rifle slung across your back is kinda hard to miss so there is a good chance others besides the police saw it which as you stated is not a crime in itself.
    If its not a crime why did they stop him?

    I agree that the kid was probably being a *****. But, unless that is against the law we have to live with folks like that. Do we really want the Police to stop people and make them prove that they are not committing a crime? Does the law in that State require that the kid was legally carrying the weapon or does it require that the Police be able to prove that he wasn't?

    Michael

  10. #54
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,530
    If being an a..hole is a crime, then there are many career criminals on this forum...

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Gents.

    This is getting really old but I will say it again.

    Police officers observe a "KID" who looks 12 carrying a rifle. It is not the fact he is carrying a rifle it is the fact he is a "KID" who looks 12 carrying a rifle which in Michigan is against the law. They approach him and ask a simple question "How old are you". He refuses to answer nor provide proof of his age. You have seen the photos of the kid on here he does not look 18 period.

    In Michigan you do not have to provide ID to LE but in order to prove he was 18 how else was he supposed to do that? I guess they could have called his parents? They could have taken a skin sample and carbon dated it I suppose, oh wait he could have just told them he was 18 and they could have believed him without proof but oops he refused to do that to.

    You sit here and type big words and legal terms and say the cops have done this illegal and they had no right to do this or that without one damn clue of what you are talking about. Slave not sure about where you come from but in everyone else's world what an officer sees, hears, smells, can lead to reasonable suspicion which leads to probable cause. The officer saw what he believed to be a "JUVENILE, A KID, SOMEONE UNDER AGE" carrying a rifle and proceeded to investigate it based on what he saw so therefore there was reasonable suspicion for the contact and the officer acting in good faith investigated to see if a crime was in fact being committed. Now what part of that is illegal? What part of that is lacking in probable cause?

    This kid could not buy a pack of cigarettes without being carded but the officers involved are to just ignore the fact the "KID LOOKED 12" and not verify his age. If he wants to sling a rifle on his back to impress his friends and neighbors go for it but don't be shocked when people notice the fact that you have a rifle slung across your back, it is kind of hard to miss.

    The courts said something long ago that fits perfectly in this situation. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck". This young man looks like he is 12, not 18, and was simply approached by an officer who using common damn sense of "That kid does not look like he is old enough to be carrying a rifle" and asked him how old he is and the kid refused. They then had to take him to the PD to obtain the same damn information he could have given them on the street and now he wonders why he was arrested.

    I guess I am of the mindset that you have to use common sense and responsibility when carrying a firearm or doing other things in life. The kid wanted to be noticed and he got noticed. If he had looked of legal age none of this would have happened. As has been stated he was not approached for carrying a rifle, which is legal in Michigan, he was approached because he did not look old enough to carry a rifle in Michigan. Whether you want to admit it or not there is a difference.

    Please continue on making this kid a martyr for gun rights though if that makes you happy. It seems strange to me that the gun rights organizations have not come forward to support this kid unless I have missed something, somewhere. If he gets off great, if he gets convicted great it makes me no difference either way. It has been and always will be "PLAY STUPID GAMES, WIN STUPID PRIZES".
    MotorCityGun likes this.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  12. #56
    Senior Member Array Cokeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Penhall View Post
    ...which he doesn't have a legal obligation to produce or carry. IMO, the cops were within the scope of their authority to detain/arrest him until they could ascertain that he was of legal age to carry the weapon. At that point, he should have been released and any charges dropped.

    I don't agree with all of the kids actions. For instance, I don't have an issue with providing ID to a LEO, regardless of whether I'm required to, but that doesn't change the fact that based on Michigan's laws, the kid appears to be innocent of any wrong doing.
    I like your avatar.
    Glock 23 - CZ 452 ZKM Special
    Walther P22 - LMT STD 16
    Mossberg 500A - Kahr P380
    Henry H001Y - Winchester 12
    Smith & Wesson M&P Shield
    Mossberg 500B - Marlin 336Y

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Gents.

    This is getting really old but I will say it again.

    Police officers observe a "KID" who looks 12 carrying a rifle. It is not the fact he is carrying a rifle it is the fact he is a "KID" who looks 12 carrying a rifle which in Michigan is against the law. They approach him and ask a simple question "How old are you". He refuses to answer nor provide proof of his age. You have seen the photos of the kid on here he does not look 18 period.

    In Michigan you do not have to provide ID to LE but in order to prove he was 18 how else was he supposed to do that? I guess they could have called his parents? They could have taken a skin sample and carbon dated it I suppose, oh wait he could have just told them he was 18 and they could have believed him without proof but oops he refused to do that to.
    :SNIP:
    Understand your frustration and that of the officers. The kid was a tool. Personally I probably would have told the officer my age.
    Yes they need to prove that he was carrying illegally. The only question I have is this. Do citizens have to prove their innocence? Do they have to help Police gather evidence of a crime?

    Michael

  14. #58
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    At the initial approach and contact the officer is simply investigating what is going on. If there was a bank robbery and the teller stated it was John Smith I know him and gives a description then the officer stops a guy fitting John Smith's description and asks his name the guy refuses so now the officer has no other choice but to arrest/detain him and identify him by other means. You have got to apply some common sense to all this but if you want to call this proving your innocence then go ahead. Believe it or not people lie to the police!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If I see what appears to be a 12 year old behind the wheel of a car as a police officer I would think "Hey that does not look right" and stop them. Now when I stop them I will either find a 12 year old or a 38 year old little person behind the wheel but do I ignore what I have seen simply because it might not be a child? Absolutely not.
    Same situation here the officers saw something that did not appear right, or for those who like to quote legal terms, now the officer had reasonable suspicion that something may be wrong. He then approached the person and asked a simple question "How old are you" and it went downhill from there. What other choice did he have?

    Open carry of a rifle in Michigan is not a crime. Open carry of a rifle by a person under the age of 18 is. Basing this next statement simply on the information provided. The initial stop and approach had to do with his age period, if the individual carrying the rifle was a 45 year old man, there would have been no doubt about his age the officers would not even bothered and if you say they would have stopped him anyway now you are injecting your own thoughts and prejudices into this and do not care about the law just your own agenda.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,022
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    The only question I have is this. Do citizens have to prove their innocence? Do they have to help Police gather evidence of a crime?
    Idealistically speaking, given our Constitutional roots: no, on both counts. Innocent until proven guilty, and the 5th Amendment. Bedrock principles, useful toward withstanding a totalitarian state.

    Practically speaking, despite our Constitutional roots: yes, since one is in effect guilty if charged by an "authority" and one's refusal to "cooperate" is widely (universally?) seen as additional "proof" that one is guilty. Bedrock crushers, both of which are abuses that we as a society, sadly, are coming to tolerate as the way of the world.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #60
    Ex Member Array slave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    112
    Well, fair enough on the looking 12 part, but he doesn't look 12. At all. That part is subjective, and the LEOs could make a case for it.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

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 michigan boy carrying gun
,
birmingham michigan june 11th right to bear arms
,

birmingham michigan open carry

,

birmingham open carry

,
boy with gun in birmingham
,
is it legal to open carry a rifle in michigan
,
michigan man who was freed from carring a riffle
,
open carry age michigan
,

open carry birmingham mi

,

open carry in birmingham mi

,
open carry vs brandishing rifle michigan
,
why cant kids open carry?
Click on a term to search for related topics.