I have been hesitant to post my thoughts as I just hoped that such behavior would eventually subside. However, especially within the past few months, I have seen an increased tendency to not only criticize posters for the content of their posts, but to also cross the line to making personal attacks... and to continually make these attacks month after month, post after post.
I am somewhat dismayed that some here continue to browbeat Stainless, or anyone else. Although I can understand the wish to not have certain comments be indicative of the group as a whole, making comments beyond a few instructive reponses to things posted here does this group a huge disservice.
In the hope to put criticism of Stainless to rest, let me provide the following:
In regards to the Stainless’ "CC on school property" charge, the reason that he lost is that he did not appear to be as believable as the accuser. Since it was a civil infraction, a violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor which usually does not attach certain individual rights, Stainless was easily found responsible for violating the law. As one can plainly see in the excerpt below, it is pretty easy to find one responsible for a Civil Infraction. Unless you have serious substantiation backing up your claims of innocence, the most likely outcome is that you are found guilty of violating the law.
In considering the evidence presented by both parties at an informal civil infraction
hearing, the magistrate should render a decision that is supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. (MCL 600.8719[4], MCL 600.8821[5]) When the evidence shows
that a fact is more likely than not consistent with a party's description of it, that fact
is said to be established by a preponderance of the evidence. (Black's Law
Dictionary [5th Edition, 1979]) A preponderance of the evidence is sometimes
expressed as a 51 percent showing that the evidence is consistent with a party's
version of the facts.
The burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence in civil infraction cases is
much different than the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution bears a much heavier burden of proof in criminal cases than does
the plaintiff in civil infraction cases. To establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt,
the trier of fact must be entirely convinced of it, to a moral certainty. (Black's Law
Dictionary [5th Edition, 1979])
If the magistrate determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is
responsible for the infraction, the magistrate shall enter an order against the
defendant as provided in MCL 600.8727 or MCL 600.8827. Otherwise a judgment
shall be entered in favor of the defendant. (MCL 600.8719[4], MCL 600.8819[4])
-Page 37 of the State Court Handbook found here:
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/magis/mcllist.pdf
Regarding the unfortunate events that precluded the revocation of his CPL, I really feel that some here wish to just keep bringing up something that doesn’t need to be rehashed by arm-chair quarterbacks. Yes, on the face of it, the incident was predicated upon poor choices made by Stainless. However, I have made some poor choices in my life and I'm sure that many here could also say the same. Do we need to call everyone out for those choices on a public forum… over and over again?
What bothers me most about the issue is that the Sate of Michigan has an extremely large number of disqualifying violations of the law that can keep one from either getting a CPL or maintaining one that they have already received: Call an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend to get some of your things back and threaten to come over there and get you things, no CPL for 3 years (Malicious use of telephones, MCL 750.540e). Take some items inadvertently home from work (Embezzlement, MCL 750.174). Your 1st grade child, who lives with your ex-spouse takes a firearm to school because the mother's boyfriend just leaves his firearms around the house, loss of CPL for 8 years (Parent of a minor who possessed a firearm in a weapon-free school zone, MCL 750.235a); keep your prescription medication in a Pill-A-Day container instead of the original prescription bottle, loss of CPL for 3 years (Controlled substances, MCL 333.7401 to 333.7461) There was even one case that I know of second-hand that the CPL was revoked, not for any one specific conviction, but rather that the person's background convinced the sheriff that the person was a danger to themselves or others. Although I believe that the person could successfully fight the sheriff's opinion because there really is no probable cause for the sheriff to believe that the person is a danger, rather the person has been a vocal critic of the sheriff and his cronies, the person doesn't have enough money to successfully take the sheriff to court.
All of these charges, although seemingly egregious, have been successfully used to keep otherwise decent individuals from being able to get a license which allows them ALMOST unfettered carry. Most states have a very small list of disqualifying convictions that prohibit someone from getting a license to carry a concealed firearm.
In regards to a statement made about Stainless concerning the get-together in Birmingham, Stainless was advised by many members here not to attend, to "lay low" and stay out of the spotlight. Stainless wisely heeded the advice. But, much to my surprise, one of these same individuals then brought up Stainless' absence from the Birmingham event as some sort of "proof" that Stainless was not really supportive of Sean and had no right to assert an opinion. Let a person's opinions/posts be judged on the content of what they post, not based upon personal prejudices.
In regards to posts claiming that members here are racist, communist, Nazis, FUDS, etc...
As OC becomes more popular, I’m sure that there will be an increasing number of people who will do or say things that you may feel are not representative of your thoughts and therefore not representative of this group. If someone here does not care to be associated with anyone else, so be it. If you go to an event and that person is there, don't talk to the person. Agree to disagree. One or two comments on the forum that serves to instruct rather than browbeat a person is fine. But, to continually interject the disdain into post after post not only makes THE POSTER appear to be a little “off”, it communicates this to the greater community. If you wish to criticize someone beyond a few instructive comments, either keep your opinion to yourself or send the person with whom you have an issue a PM. Why is there an incessant need to denigrate in a public forum?