• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ALERT: MI Sheriff's training on how to arrest OCers.

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Venator wrote:
I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.

I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...

That's a pretty serious charge, V.

Wouldn't that be...illegal?

I hope your info is correct....and not just alarmist misinterpretation.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Venator wrote:
I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.

I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...

That's a pretty serious charge, V.

Wouldn't that be...illegal?

I hope your info is correct....and not just alarmist misinterpretation.


I have it on good authority that a talk by two lawyers will be presented on methods to successfully prosecute OCers.

Since the talk has yet to be given (Monday or Tuesday) I don't know what information will be discussed. I will know after reviewing any tapes of the training. This is a heads up that something may be coming and we need to be proactive. If the information turns out to be false then I will retract and apologise.

As for being illegal, if the prosecutors thought it was legal then it wouldn't be illegal would it. As ignorance of the the law IS an excuse for LEOs.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

Lawyers are sneaky bastards. Tricking someone into saying the wrong thing isn't illegal. Could it be that the subject matter will be strategies to this end?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Venator wrote:
HankT wrote:
Venator wrote:
I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.

I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...

That's a pretty serious charge, V.

Wouldn't that be...illegal?

I hope your info is correct....and not just alarmist misinterpretation.


I have it on good authority that a talk by two lawyers will be presented on methods to successfully prosecute OCers.

Since the talk has yet to be given (Monday or Tuesday) I don't know what information will be discussed. I will know after reviewing any tapes of the training. This is a heads up that something may be coming and we need to be proactive. If the information turns out to be false then I will retract and apologise.

As for being illegal, if the prosecutors thought it was legal then it wouldn't be illegal would it. As ignorance of the the law IS an excuse for LEOs.

For any sheriff's office to make plans to arrest people, starting with (your words) "a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers" would be an illegal act, would it not?

The key term in your charge is the word "lawful Ocers."

No LE departement should be making preparations to arrest members of any group who they know to be behaving lawfully. If believe federal charges would be in order if they did, regardless of their ignorance at certain levels.

You seemed to be making an allegation of illegality--without any real support for charge. That's a dangerous, and ineffective, type of activism. I'd recommend against it.

It's great that MOC is proactive. You guys in MI are doing some good stuff. But thiskind of talk doesn'tcome off well...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:
Lawyers are sneaky bastards. Tricking someone into saying the wrong thing isn't illegal. Could it be that the subject matter will be strategies to this end?

This would be my first guess. Police are pretty good at figuring out for themselves all the loopholes in the case law to squeeze through. These attorneys may have a few wrinkles for them to add.

Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.

In any event, OCers need to be especially on their toes with respect to their own legality. For example, no questionable knives as back up. Ifyou carry a knife as back up, make sure it isone that is unquestionably legal. Carry coffee or something in you gun hand when its feasible fornullifying accusations of reaching for a gun (menacing/inducing panic). You want to be in rock-solid territory legally speaking, and then some.

If the report is true, probably the least you can expect is detentions on the flimsiest excuses. Anywhere there is a hole in the case law that can be "interpreted" to allow a detention for some reason.

It goes without saying that if the police in a certain area are "gunning" for OCers, then the OCers need to be really on their toes with respect to exercising their 4th Amdendment and 5th Amendment rights.

After lots of thought, looking at a number of angles, I always advocate politely, verbally, refusing consent while complying with all orders.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....

Such a mis-statement, if it is one,is likelyborne out of ideological extremism and we're better off without that kind of stuff.

Actually, the charge is, on its face, unbelievable. It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome. But it's probably too early to start publicly accusing them all of illegal activity.

There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

HankT wrote:
SNIP There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
The same can be said of unnecessary needling and baiting, Hanky.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Venator wrote:
[suggested letter]
I'm reminded of something from Terry v Ohio, something that might fit into a letter. No matter what the real nature of the lawyer training, it can't hurt to remind the attorneys and cops.

For as this Court has always recognized,

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Terry vs Ohio, quoting Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

This undermines "creative" ways to prosecute lawful OCers--clear and unquestionable authority of law. If they are looking for loopholes or twists, those mechanisms are hardly "clear and unquestionable."

Also, notice that handy little phrase, "For as this court has always recognized." (emphasis added)

Anybody getting creative, looking for ways to arrest lawfulOCers, is bucking the US Supreme Court, throughout its history no less. And, if they are really just trying to update the police training to keep them out of trouble, this won't hurt. Might even cut down on illegal detentions for other people a little bit, too.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

dougwg wrote:
I guess we should all just sit back and see how this goes then.
Yes. Doing nothing is best. Wait until after someone gets arrested. Don't want to undermine our credibility, do we? Oh, no. Not with police who accuse us of seeking to entrap them just to make money. Heavens no. And not with certain segments of the public whoget the vapors and rants overOC anyway. Oh, no. Must maintain credibility.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Goof with a keyboard.

PS: This isn't directed at Dougwg.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Venator wrote:
[suggested letter]
I'm reminded of something from Terry v Ohio, something that might fit into a letter.


How about the ole CitizenT-shirt gambit (CTG)? :p



Citizen wrote:
Just wear a T-shirt that says: "False arrests will be vigorously sued."

Or you could be more subtle about it: "My attorney wants another Lear jet."

Or, perhaps even better: "My attorney'swife is driving him nuts with her demand fora vacation home in The Hamptons."

"My attorney is a legal activist. His slogan is 'LITIGATE NOW!'"

"My attorney especially likes targets who mistakenly think they are protected by qualified immunity."

:)
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....

Such a mis-statement, if it is one,is likelyborne out of ideological extremism and we're better off without that kind of stuff.

Actually, the charge is, on its face, unbelievable. It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome. But it's probably too early to start publicly accusing them all of illegal activity.

There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone? Venator is relaying information he received from a source he trusts, and admits that he does not have the details, and will not until it happens.

A tornado siren before a severe thunderstorm may not necessarily yield an actual tornado, but wouldn't you rather have been warned and prepared and be relieved when it didn't happen than be outside jogging or something and be jumped by a tornado you were unaware of?

You say what Venator says is a serious charge... and it is, if it is true. However, I think that directly calling him an extremist is also a serious charge. And after all, reduced credibility is the cost for making wild and spurious allegations... so, since it seems likely that there will be a video of the event, why not wait for it to happen before unquestioningly disregarding its possibility.

Besides... its not exactly like Michigan police have never gone out of their way to hassle OCers before...
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:
HankT wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....

Such a mis-statement, if it is one,is likelyborne out of ideological extremism and we're better off without that kind of stuff.

Actually, the charge is, on its face, unbelievable. It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome. But it's probably too early to start publicly accusing them all of illegal activity.

There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone? Venator is relaying information he received from a source he trusts, and admits that he does not have the details, and will not until it happens.

A tornado siren before a severe thunderstorm may not necessarily yield an actual tornado, but wouldn't you rather have been warned and prepared and be relieved when it didn't happen than be outside jogging or something and be jumped by a tornado you were unaware of?

You say what Venator says is a serious charge... and it is, if it is true. However, I think that directly calling him an extremist is also a serious charge. And after all, reduced credibility is the cost for making wild and spurious allegations... so, since it seems likely that there will be a video of the event, why not wait for it to happen before unquestioningly disregarding its possibility.


How do you define "unquestioningly disregarding its possibility?"

Especially in light of my statement that "It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome?"
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:
SNIP Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone?

Uh, oh. You fell for it, EC. :)

HankT is our resident troll. He is fishing for reactions. He wants you to get annoyed, upset, angry, etc. His existence here is one long history of needling and baiting people.

By the way, don't answer his questions. He doesn't really want to know. He's just using them to get a rise out of you, to lure you intosatisfying his need to see other people upset. He feeds on it.
 
Top