Wow, watching this video blew my mind. What a terrible idea with a completely expected outcome. Immediate detention and a felony charge.
What's more interesting is actually what played out after the fact. The person with guns (James Baker, Dearborn MI) was charged with disturbing the peace and brandishing a weapon. The cameraman was charged with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.
James Baker was found not guilty of both charges. He did nothing illegal at that police station. Was it a lawful arrest? Yes, in my opinion. There was certainly probable cause that he was committing a crime (misdemeanor disturbing the peace). Ultimately, a jury found he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
His own video actually got him a separate felony conviction, improperly transporting a firearm, because apparently there was video of him putting the rifle in his trunk, unloaded, but not in a gun case. Which would have been perfectly legal, except he didn't account for the fact where his CCW was suspended when he got a misdemeanor charge at a previous protest (charges were dropped). So, honestly, judicial somersaulting over what is really a non-crime.
Even more tragic is that the cameraman was found guilty of disturbing the peace (what?? filming what was ultimately a non-crime and not wanting to be arrested?) as well as resisting arrest (because, yeah, if you're convicted of disturbing the peace then they're going to say it was a lawful arrest).
This is the reason why people hate the courts; because the laws suck and the courts suck. When the rules are 10,000 pages no one can read, everyone is a criminal. And that's bad, because then anyone can be selectively persecuted. And that's why people don't like cops, because they're the complicit enforcers. When you do 75 in a 55, but write someone a ticket for doing 75 in a 55, that's not upholding the law, that's collecting revenue.
So, would I recommend doing what these guys did? Absolutely not, I'm shocked a jury found them not guilty of disturbing the peace; you don't pull the holy trifecta of a ski mask, body armor, and multiple firearms outside of a combat zone. If that's your daily routine, then you have an argument. If not, you're not going there to "file a complaint", you're going there to protest. In full on combat gear and concealed identity? Probably intimidation and disturbing the peace.
But, the jury found them not guilty. I defend their right to exercise their rights, anything less is a "first they came for..." mentality. Big brother strong-armed a conviction and it serves as another example to be fearful, when they want you convicted they'll get a conviction.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by asurfaholic
Connect With Us