Forced Video Deletion By Police in Michigan - Man Arrested for Open Carry on His Property

I would appreciate that everyone that intends to post a comment on this thread keep it respectful, and not make comments that are hateful towards police officers, because there are many very good ones out there.


Now to the story. Although I think a police officer has every right to secure a situation so that they and everyone else in the area is not in fear for their lives, I think they may have made a few errors.

1) The fact they try to intimidate the wife to stop video taping by telling her she would be arrested was tactical error #1.

2) The fact the video was deleted or how they made the woman delete the video had the intent to cover something up tactical error #2

3) In Michigan you have the right to open carry especially on your property.

4) And 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments of the US constitution I believe have been violated here.


Now from what I read from the half-ass news source is that the property owner (Military Veteran) and his son were out hunting, he had an unloaded .410 and his son a crossbow, they found a dirt bike rider trespassing on their property and escorted him back, then called the DNR.

If this is the actually story they gave I find it hard to believe first that he was hunting with an unloaded gun, seconding I think that the trespasser was held at gun point by the owner of the property then forced to return with them, until he called the DNR.

I personally think they may have threatened the dirt bike rider and he didn't want to lose his life so he complied and returned with them, for fear he would lose his life, but you never know the rider may have threatened the property owner.





gunsnfreedom.com...

A military veteran in Crawford County, Michigan has been arrested and charged with a felony assault with a deadly weapon even after HE was the one who called the cops in the first place when he found a man trespassing on his property.

When the man’s wife tried to video tape what was happening the cops told her to turn off the camera and tried to take it. (You can see the video below… only because the wife figured out how to restore the “deleted” file)

The Blaze has reported that Thomas Donald was out hunting with his son on his own land when they came across the trespasser. Donald had an unloaded .410 shotgun while his son was using a crossbow.

When they came across the trespasser on a dirt bike, they escorted him back to the house and called the Department of Natural Resources. But when the police showed up everything went downhill fast. According to Heather Donald when the cops showed up Thomas Donald held up his open shotgun in one hand and held a shell in his other hand to show that he was not a threat.

Someone needs to take some time and do a thread on the various options for real time off-site streaming of a video recording. This stuff is getting to be too much and the Police who believe this is their right to do need the option simply removed from their lives entirely.

The technology was new...cumbersome...hard to make work right in 2011 in the Occupy protests. People wearing full body rigs from Live Stream that were awkward as ever to make it work. Now? SO much has advanced in so short a time for Wi-Fi, home wireless network options and handheld recording devices working together, it shouldn't be that hard for people at most levels to use something that works.

This whole deletion of recording issue is getting to be too much. Stop having a recording for them to delete within miles or states of where you're standing.

Heck, if you really want to cook their noodle on it, use a Host service like Rochen to stream offsite TO. They are based in London to make getting your recording a State Department issue. lol.... One can make this absurd to extremes for the cops with a little effort.

Any time a cop deletes a recording, they should do time for destruction of evidence. A few examples and that would stop.

So although she was on her own property she couldnt film the event going down? how does that make sense? I do notice at large events or gatherings cops have their own recording devices and cameras, so again the Cops are acting above the law instead of upholding the law as they are supposed to. Definitely need more background on this story.

Downturn
So although she was on her own property she couldnt film the event going down? how does that make sense? I do notice at large events or gatherings cops have their own recording devices and cameras, so again the Cops are acting above the law instead of upholding the law as they are supposed to. Definitely need more background on this story.

It doesn't that is why I posted it.

1st, 2nd amendment rights and 4th amendments most likely were violated.

reply to post by Realtruth


Myself being Canadian there is always stories about the RCMP doing whatever they want. Keep us updated on how this story transpires?

Downturn
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Myself being Canadian there is always stories about the RCMP doing whatever they want. Keep us updated on how this story transpires?

Here is how the law is supposed to work in Michigan.

Once the responding officers identifed who the caller and the home owner were they should have immediately removed the cuffs and apologized, but that didn't happen.

Huge mistake.

If for some reason the dirt biker threatened the property owners right, he had every right to call authorities.

I think the property owners are soon to be millionaires.

I don't know anything about gun laws in any state or laws about video taping police officers, but I do know that if that father and son really found a guy on a dirt bike there is no way the dirt bike guy would have went back with them and waited for police to be called. He would have hopped on his bike and tore out of there. There are only two reasons I can think of that would have made the dirt bike guy follow the father: (1) He had either a loaded or unloaded gun pointed at him by the father or (2) his dirt bike stalled, wouldn't start, or was out of gas, etc...

Sportbominable
I don't know anything about gun laws in any state or laws about video taping police officers, but I do know that if that father and son really found a guy on a dirt bike there is no way the dirt bike guy would have went back with them and waited for police to be called. He would have hopped on his bike and tore out of there. There are only two reasons I can think of that would have made the dirt bike guy follow the father: (1) He had either a loaded or unloaded gun pointed at him by the father or (2) his dirt bike stalled, wouldn't start, or was out of gas, etc...

You are correct in part because we don't know the whole story, but you don't know the mentality of the backwoods dirt bike riders and even hunters.

I have had people trespass on my land and tell me to F off while hunting and dirtbike riding. I have never had a gun leveled on me by a trespasser, but it happens often in Michigan.

The property owners actually have the law on their side, so a heresay story isn't going to matter in this case when clearly their right were violated by police, on video.

I think the police department is in trouble on this particular matter.

reply to post by Realtruth


I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. I can see everyone is just fuming over this case but realistically I wouldn't expect much to happen to these officers. Law enforcement are ABOVE the law they enforce. Not on paper, mid you, but in 99% of cases in real life. So a cop violates your rights. Who do you call? More law enforcement? I'm sure this officer's first cousin Judge Numbnuts is super interested to hear how he acted illegally and deserves to go to prison, but imo super unlikely to happen. You can't rely on a broken crooked justice system to fix itself. Something ELSE is needed.

Wrabbit2000

Someone needs to take some time and do a thread on the various options for real time off-site streaming of a video recording.

A group in NH has a phone number set up that will record when you call it just for situations like this. No video but audio is better than nothing. Shouldnt be too hard to set one up in your own state or town.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There's a thread about this buried somewhere in the pits of ATS. There wasn't much interest in it obviously. Dropbox and one other came out as top options I think. Qik or something was the other one. It was desinged around the occupy for documenting police abuse.

I do take issue with police demanding video be destroyed, or even demanding someone to stop filming. Especially when someone is on their own property. It's BS and it needs to stop. That being said...

I don't actually take issue with police responding to a call where one party is armed and handcuffing everyone while they figure out what's what. Seems like common sense.

It also seems like common sense to put your gun down when the cops show up, not hold it in the air with a shell in the other hand (yeah even if it's a double barrel broke open).

I would not be at all surprised if the guy on the bike had that gun pointed at him the whole trek back to the home. I don't care if the homeowner was ex military and knew better than to point the gun. That doesn't mean he didn't. If anything the gun being unloaded probably would have bolstered his confidence in pointing it, even though a gun is always loaded.

If I had been the responding officer I probably would have handcuffed everyone, asked the wife to stay out of the way (I would be antsy having someone running around like she was) but allowed her to continue filming, patted everyone down, taken the statements and told the guy on the bike to kick rocks and obviously not come back. Really the only issue here was the BS with the camera. I don't think the family is going to be able to sue, and I don't really think they should anyway. Maybe to have a review about department policy regarding video, but that's really it.

Wrabbit2000
The technology was new...cumbersome...hard to make work right in 2011 in the Occupy protests. People wearing full body rigs from Live Stream that were awkward as ever to make it work. Now? SO much has advanced in so short a time for Wi-Fi, home wireless network options and handheld recording devices working together, it shouldn't be that hard for people at most levels to use something that works.

This isn't quite what you're talking about but it's close.

Eye-Fi, they're SD cards that operate over wifi and upload their contents automatically. You can get programs for tablets and laptops which will then automatically upload those contents to offsite storage. The cards work in cameras or phones.

reply to post by Realtruth


I like that...

Cop: "because he had a handgun."

Dude on ground: "I had a rifle"

Cop: "Excuse me! a rifle"

Dude on ground: "shotgun"

Cop: "...shotgun..."

You can't make this stuff up. hahaha!

The Rat.

This seems to happen everywhere and I'm not really sure why?

Are there any police officers on ATS that can explain the logic behind this nonsense?

It must suck being a police officer, people can film you and take your actions out of context, but surely by now some kind of media training program should already be under way in multiple countries for police officers? Or better yet, jam a camera on every police officer's chest. They're getting cheap enough.

Realtruth
I would appreciate that everyone that intends to post a comment on this thread keep it respectful, and not make comments that are hateful towards police officers, because there are many very good ones out there.


Now to the story. Although I think a police officer has every right to secure a situation so that they and everyone else in the area is not in fear for their lives, I think they may have made a few errors.

1) The fact they try to intimidate the wife to stop video taping by telling her she would be arrested was tactical error #1.

2) The fact the video was deleted or how they made the woman delete the video had the intent to cover something up tactical error #2

3) In Michigan you have the right to open carry especially on your property.

4) And 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments of the US constitution I believe have been violated here.

But when the police showed up everything went downhill fast. According to Heather Donald when the cops showed up Thomas Donald held up his open shotgun in one hand and held a shell in his other hand to show that he was not a threat.

So .... you make a post about out-of-control cops ...... acting like typical, everyday, out-of-control cops and you want to control the content of the responses?

Sorry my friend, but after reading 1000's of press reports and watching 1000's of videos of police/civilians interactions, I'm totally convinced the police in general do not have even a base-level understanding of civics, law and the Constitution. When you factor in typical intelligence-level, coupled with inordinate levels of power, we have a recipe for disaster.

Simply put, even good cops don't really understand the restricting principles they are supposed to operate under. What's worse is that typical police management does not seem to understand these principles either.

juspassinthru


So .... you make a post about out-of-control cops ...... acting like typical, everyday, out-of-control cops and you want to control the content of the responses?

Sorry my friend

Since your new to ATS you may not understand ad hominem attacks derail threads and topics, in regards to police and have in the past, so I added a simple awareness clause. People can post whatever they want within ATS guidelines of course.

Now to evaluate your "Sorry my friend" comment which is extremely interesting, because since we are not friends, or even acquaintances this term is used to control the other party, in a derogatory manner, to make the person speaking points seem more valid.

Attacking the messenger adds nothing to the thread or ATS, for future reference.

Peace,

RT

I was on a jury for a felonious assault case once. The guy was accused of waving around a handgun and making threats. The law says that if you even feel threatened by someone with a weapon of any kind, that's a felony assault.

The property owner has a right to walk around his property with a loaded gun in his hands, but he can't make a trespasser feel intimidated by that. He could have put the gun down and talked to the trespasser or at least just stood there, pointing the gun to the ground, to get a good look for a description to give the cops. He probably had a cell phone and could have called right then and there.

The property owner most likely intimidated the trespasser with his gun and was guilty of felonious assault (felony). The trespasser was only guilty of recreational trespass (misdemeanor).

Realtruth

Since your new to ATS you may not understand ad hominem attacks derail threads and topics, in regards to police and have in the past, so I added a simple awareness clause. People can post whatever they want within ATS guidelines of course.

Now to evaluate your "Sorry my friend" comment which is extremely interesting, because since we are not friends, or even acquaintances this term is used to control the other party, in a derogatory manner, to make the person speaking points seem more valid.

Attacking the messenger adds nothing to the thread or ATS, for future reference.

Peace,

RT

If I wanted to attack you, trust me, it would be a clear in-your-face attack. I'm not subtle. I was pointing out what is now typical police behavior in opposition to your defense of "good" police.

"My friend" is a conversational device not meant to signify personal attachment of any type. It's not a control thing.