Idiot walks into police station carrying an AK47

[ATM]

...

Sorry I missed whatever you wrote and then decided to delete. Maybe try responding again later?

 

[ATM]

No it is not. But in the long run it is another nail in a long board with many nails in it. Mrs. Soccer mom most likely has Mr. Soccer moms jewels in her purse.He will bend to her will. See it all the time. That is 2 solid anti's now. This escalates across the country. It fuels a movement that is aimed at "US" and is gaining momentum with every incident like this.


Crime.....

Pushing something in the wrong way....you bet.
In these troubled times doing as they did put those LEO at risk as far as they could see. This could have ended very badly. If it had that would have been a huge nail. Huge.


Your liberty's end when they push mine. In a Kevin Bakin (Sp) round robin way this is fuel towards pushing mine.
I see your point but it is extreme.


JMHO of course.

There are plenty in this thread advocating prison time and supporting the trumped up felony charges these guys now face, so I ask again, WHO DID THEY THREATEN? WHAT IS THEIR CRIME?

Feel free to critique their actions, even chastise them, but that should be the extent of it. Fueling a movement is not a crime.

They did nothing to violate or threaten your liberty. That their actions could be used as motivation for others who are willing to violate or threaten your liberty is not at all the same thing.

My point is not extreme, it rests on solid principles. I accept that it is unpopular - most do not break things down that far before blurting out how they feel.

 

[phylodog]

Sorry I missed whatever you wrote and then decided to delete. Maybe try responding again later?

Not worth my time. You're not going to change your position and I simply don't care.

 

[ATM]

Not worth my time. You're not going to change your position and I simply don't care.

My position must call out your position to see if it has a defense. I do care.

... I hope they're convicted, serve prison time and learn from their mistakes...

Even if your stated hope was purely emotional and lacking a rational principled defense, you sure seemed to care when you wrote it.

 

[phylodog]

My response is logical; commit crimes and expect to be held accountable. Yours is emotional; commit crimes and you should get away with it because you don't like the police and you agree with the "cause" of the criminals. Its very simple.

Your position does not have a logical defense and you've proven you're dug in and doubling down on it. Not my concern.

 

[femurphy77]

All rather humorous really. I can see these two asshats now ranting about freedom of speech and what not. Sort of like the people that walked off their jobs on "day without an immigrant" day. I support YOUR right to protest but I also support YOUR right to deal with the consequences of your actions. If one day in the future it's determined that you were the "Rosie Parks" of your movement then so be it. Just be willing to accept the consequences of your day of fame. No disrespect towards Rosie Parks.

 

[Excalibur]

You can protest peacefully and yeah, realistically, other people's feelings don't matter compared to your freedom of expression but...we, as good nature people, should look at how our expressions are seen. Good or bad and should decided as responsible people what actions we should take.

 

[Fargo]

If you guys really want to argue about whether they committed a criminal act, shouldn't someone maybe pull up the statutes in question?Just because Kym Worthy's office filed a charge, doesn't mean that someone committed that crime. Remember, she made her name off getting two cops convicted for murder, both of which convictions were tossed. I don't know whether these guys behavior violated Michigan statutes or not, but if we are going to argue about it in any sort of meaningful way maybe we should look at those statutes?

 

[phylodog]

If you guys really want to argue about whether they committed a criminal act, shouldn't someone maybe pull up the statutes in question?Just because Kym Worthy's office filed a charge, doesn't mean that someone committed that crime. Remember, she made her name off getting two cops convicted for murder, both of which convictions were tossed. I don't know whether these guys behavior violated Michigan statutes or not, but if we are going to argue about it in any sort of meaningful way maybe we should look at those statutes?

You mean these?

Carrying a concealed weapon

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer

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.

(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.

(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.

Disturbing the peace

750.170 Disturbance of lawful meetings.

Sec. 170.

Disturbance of lawful meetings—Any person who shall make or excite any disturbance or contention in any tavern, store or grocery, manufacturing establishment or any other business place or in any street, lane, alley, highway, public building, grounds or park, or at any election or other public meeting where citizens are peaceably and lawfully assembled, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Brandishing in public

750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234e.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not willfully and knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following:

(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

(b) A person lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act, 2006 PA 309, MCL 780.971 to 780.974.


I may have already done that. The video doesn't provide enough information to determine if these crimes were committed or they weren't. Apparently the prosecutor felt that they were. I guess we'll all have to wait for the probable cause hearing to see what they judge thinks.

 

[ATM]

My response is logical; commit crimes and expect to be held accountable. Yours is emotional; commit crimes and you should get away with it because you don't like the police and you agree with the "cause" of the criminals. Its very simple.


Your position does not have a logical defense and you've proven you're dug in and doubling down on it. Not my concern.

I meant really try responding. This is just crafting an absurd narrative to avoid doing so.


Everyone can read what we've both written.

 

[cbhausen]

I remain unswayed after reading the statutes. The prosecutor is overreaching.

Again. I would not have touched any weapon I was carrying with the chaos of a bunch of amped-up cops screaming at me. If they were going to shoot I'd much rather the video show my hands away from my body. This is not resisting nor obstructing and the charges should be reduced from felony to misdemeanor as a result.

 

[churchmouse]

There are plenty in this thread advocating prison time and supporting the trumped up felony charges these guys now face, so I ask again, WHO DID THEY THREATEN? WHAT IS THEIR CRIME?

Feel free to critique their actions, even chastise them, but that should be the extent of it. Fueling a movement is not a crime.

They did nothing to violate or threaten your liberty. That their actions could be used as motivation for others who are willing to violate or threaten your liberty is not at all the same thing.

My point is not extreme, it rests on solid principles. I accept that it is unpopular - most do not break things down that far before blurting out how they feel.

On my tablet but I do have commentary.

 

[Thor]

 

[HoughMade]

Somewhere between "throw the book at 'em" and "police do it all the time" is a rational middle that realizes these guys were trying to cause fear and get a reaction and make trouble and should have some sort of consequences, but maybe a stiff fine and probation make more sense than jail time.

 

[cbhausen]

Causing fear, getting a reaction, and making trouble are not crimes. If there was a crime for being a dumbass these guys could get charged with that I guess.

 

[HoughMade]

Causing fear, getting a reaction, and making trouble are not crimes...

Unless they are. It depends on the statutes.

 

[KG1]

I don't agree with what these two provocateurs did but I also don't agree with prosecuting them solely because I don't agree with what they did. If the case can be made that they legitimately broke the law then prosecute. Otherwise...oh well.

 

[phylodog]

For the record I am in no way advocating for false prosecution. If probably cause does not exist for criminal charges then they should walk free.

 

[voidsherpa]

The prosecutor is overreaching.

This is how I should have phrased it.

 

[tbhausen]

For the record I am in no way advocating for false prosecution. If probably cause does not exist for criminal charges then they should walk free.

Good point.