June 28th, 2012 06:59 AM
What I find unsettling is the prosecutor's interpretation on brandishing, the need for a "legitimate reason" to carry, the inference of carrying at night as being some sort of evidence of malfeasance, and the prosecutor's assertion of a lack of a specific definition of brandishing as being proof of legislative intent that "brandishing" is any carrying outside of the four exemptions. If that were the case then the term "brandishing" need not be in the criminal code. Instead, OC itself would be a crime.
Also, it seems odd that so many here are ready to draw all inferences in favor of the police when we don't know the facts. I don't know how many times I've read "the kid was a tool" or "the kid was foolish," etc. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the cops overreacted. Who knows.
At most, it appears there may be an obstruction charge, *if* the gentleman was *required* to show ID to the police. I don't know if that is the case or not. I suppose that will be settled at trial.
I'm not saying what the guy did was Ok. I don't know. Just seems like there are a lot of people here that aren't abiding by the presumption of innocence. Instead they are running with what they read in the the papers. I sure as heck would not want those people sitting on my jury if I were ever charged with a crime.
June 28th, 2012 07:08 AM
We live in a paranoid world today with all school shooting...disgruntled workers going on killing sprees. What did the boy think would happen. He could of got away with it 15 years ago....not now. In the governments eyes..the safety and welfare of the people trump the 2nd amend.....and it never states "why" the kid was carrying the rifle.
June 28th, 2012 07:56 AM
He looks 15 at most. If he would have shown ID, I have a feeling we wouldnt be talking about him...
Originally Posted by slave
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......
June 28th, 2012 12:18 PM
Originally Posted by tacman605
I think you missed the point of my post, or maybe I didn't make it clear. I support the actions of the police. As I previously said, 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. Yes, this would have been easier had he complied with their request for ID, but since he chose to exercise his legal right not to, they should have and did take him in to custody to confirm his identity/age. Once this was done, down at the police station, I'm guessing, then he should have been released and charges should have been dropped. The decision to pursue charges is not the decision of the police, it's the decision of the local prosecutor. That's the person who I feel is in the wrong here. However, I agree with you that had he complied with the officers' legitimate request, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
June 28th, 2012 12:18 PM
Thanks!. I like yours too. It's making me hungry. :)
Originally Posted by Cokeman
June 28th, 2012 12:25 PM
Guys I simply used 12 as a number I typed in, that age group for sure 12-15 but not specifically that age.
"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
June 28th, 2012 01:06 PM
i rather agree with this
Originally Posted by todhog
today is so different in all ways that one is hard put to compare an event in the life of founding father's day to one today
for instance--in the long ago men (and children strong enough; women too if they were so inclined) carried rifles with them as an extension of their selves.
when they weren't busy revolutionizing, they were russling up food for the family. back than, for those who made it past the childhood diseases nor succumed to infections...
starvation was a real event. so was carring a firearm.
another for instance is the past few decades we have been debating the meaning of 'is' rather than doing something about our freedoms that are being diluted.
with all regard due the constitution--the kid carrying a rifle, round chambered in a city today is an idiot.
he is not who i want as a poster boy for the 2nd amendment.
my reason for thinking him a danger to self and others yet support his right to do so is--
it can so easily be taken from him and used in ways that would be tragic.
he is just not capable of defending the rifle.
and 200 years ago there would have been half the people on the street armed to stop a person who began shooting crazy; forgetting that he has one shot anyways...
today but for a scattering of CCW'ers the closest gun may be in a crusier, windows up, A/C on and 5 blocks away while the kids are firing 11 rounds. than tossing the
rifle, stealing some purses and running away while survivers take cell-phone pictures.
Arthritis sucks big-big
Why do those elected to positions of power than work so hard
to deny those same opportunities to the same people who empowered them
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.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors