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

reply to post by Realtruth


The cops on hand had to assume that this bike rider would not have gone willingly to the landowners house and was most likely forced. This should have been the conclusion even if the guy with the bike didn't say that but probably did. This sort of case, a dirt bike rider, doesn't warrant a homeowner to take custody. There may however be history here with this individual or others that aggravated the homeowner. Like ignoring no trespassing sighs ect.


As for the video the homeowners do have the right to record anything that takes place on their property.

Just look at all the filmed TV shows of cops in action and yet a homeowner cant film the better half in cuffs? LOL

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.

Is that written into the law? Doesn't quite sound correct unless there is some part that limits it once the person knows the trespasser cannot be a threat. But a person can be a threat with just their body.

Wondering if a trespasser can never be held at gunpoint there.

Edit:

Looking around the web, the opinion seems that in a lot places a person cannot be held at gunpoint.

Urantia1111
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.

This attitude is very frustrating to me, it is simultaneously recognitive and stoic.

It isn't 'something else' that is needed, what is needed is clear. It is time to remove most of these positions of power and then fire these violators of our rights from those then defunct positions.

MichiganSwampBuck
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).

What the hell is the point of having a gun to protect your property if you can't brandish it at someone who isn't suppose to be there? I really have a hard time believing your claim.

I'm almost 100% certain that Michigan has the Castle Doctrine in affect, meaning you can use justifiable force if certain circumstances are met in a situation like this. Yet you're saying you can't even brandish the weapon at someone without getting a felony charge? What sense does that make?

reply to post by MCJustJ


You make a great point in regards to the "Castle Doctrine", however in this case unless they can somehow prove they were in grave danger, or in fear from their lives, then the property owners are sol.

Now if the property owners were somehow threatened by the trespasser with a firearm, then they have full rights to take him into custody, by making a citizens arrest and calling the police.

But the "Castle Doctrine" also protects an innocent defendant and a civil suit can be filed with full attorney fees paid for by the plantiff.

www.ammoland.com...

Thanks for bringing this up.

RT