Posted on Jul 13, 2017
Michigan Open Carry Activists Convicted on 'Technicality' - The Truth About Guns
2.29K
31
7
8
8
0
This can be classified under STUPID. I am all for our second amendment rights and I currently carry under LEOSA but there are some places you have to think about what you are doing. They didn't just walk into the police station carrying, the armed guy is wearing a vest and and face mask. I can't blame the police for taking them down and arresting them The videos are pretty interesting and there is a link to a longer one when you are watching the first video. Let me know what you all think. Maybe they are Darwin Award wannabes!
Michigan Open Carry Activists Convicted on 'Technicality' - The Truth About Guns
Posted from thetruthaboutguns.com
2nd Amendment
Police
Firearms and Guns
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 7
8
8
0
They're lucky they didn't get ventilated. The officers involved showed a lot more restraint than I think I've got.. lol
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
In reality what these individuals did was a terrorist act. Why - because it was planned and they deliberately masked themselves to instigate the police. I am all for gun rights, but what these individuals did was a criminal act, and the justice system once they have them locked up should just throw away the key. Activists my a**, they are terrorist.
(6)
(0)
2
2
0
The smell of horsesh*t was wafting out of the speakers on my computer just listening to these two.
They messed up on so many ways, it isn't even worth enumerating. The rules of deadly force are pretty straight forward and the jurisdictional laws with respect to its legitimate use are almost always in line with the definition I learned in the Navy decades ago: Deadly force is that amount of force I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all other means have been exhausted or cannot reasonably be employed.
The "rules of engagement" for civilians is a bit different than that for military or law enforcement, primarily because civilians do not have a duty to go in harms way for a variety of reasons.
While in a great many jurisdictions a civilian does not have a "duty to retreat" ("Castle Doctrine"), deliberately placing oneself in a position of danger where deadly force may be required OR deliberately instigating a conflict, or potential conflict, places them in the wrong.
These two nitwits did EXACTLY that...and got their keisters handed to them in court.
And they were so kind as to video themselves with all the verbiage required to make this absolutely plain in court.
They messed up on so many ways, it isn't even worth enumerating. The rules of deadly force are pretty straight forward and the jurisdictional laws with respect to its legitimate use are almost always in line with the definition I learned in the Navy decades ago: Deadly force is that amount of force I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all other means have been exhausted or cannot reasonably be employed.
The "rules of engagement" for civilians is a bit different than that for military or law enforcement, primarily because civilians do not have a duty to go in harms way for a variety of reasons.
While in a great many jurisdictions a civilian does not have a "duty to retreat" ("Castle Doctrine"), deliberately placing oneself in a position of danger where deadly force may be required OR deliberately instigating a conflict, or potential conflict, places them in the wrong.
These two nitwits did EXACTLY that...and got their keisters handed to them in court.
And they were so kind as to video themselves with all the verbiage required to make this absolutely plain in court.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google