Discussion in 'Use of the Law Forum & News' started by army judge, Oct 8, 2020.
I'll just go with a$$holes.
Almost anything is possible.
Maybe they're PINOs?
One never really knows, does one?
Michigan Sheriff Defends Man Suspected of Planning Whitmer Kidnapping Conspiracy During ‘Wild’ Interview
Well, well, well, Sheriff cites MI statute regarding "citizen's felony arrest":
764.16 Arrest by private person; situations.
A private person may make an arrest—in the following situations:
(a) For a felony committed in the private person's presence.
(b) If the person to be arrested has committed a felony although not in the private person's presence.
(c) If the private person is summoned by a peace officer to assist the officer in making an arrest.
(d) If the private person is a merchant, an agent of a merchant, an employee of a merchant, or an independent contractor providing security for a merchant of a store and has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated section 356c or 356d of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.356c and 750.356d of the Michigan Compiled Laws, in that store, regardless of whether the violation was committed in the presence of the private person.
Michigan Legislature - Section 764.16
We have a "novel" virus, Sheriff gives us a "novel" defense.
But they don't organize members into military units and train them in military tactics, do they? I have no problem with gun owners getting training in the safe use of their firearms and practicing their shooting to get more proficient in their aim, etc. I've had that myself. However, I do have a problem with groups of people organizing into private militias. My encounters with such groups have convinced me that they are, on the whole, dangerous to free and democratic society.
Goes to show that not all sheriffs know the law and that some sheriffs are, in fact, idiots. Just being able to win enough votes to get the job doesn't make you competent for it. One need only look at Trump for evidence of that.
If they go for that "defense" they will have to explain:
1. Why they wanted 200 armed men to take over the State House.
2. Their need for molotov cocktails to throw at police.
3. Why they planned on taking the "arrested" Governor to a remote location for "trial" ...and so much more.
I never knew until last night when reading a bit about militias- here in California there is a category called the unorganized militia that includes all able bodied males 18-45 minus a few exceptions.
The governor can call the unorganized militia into service if needed.
While one is free to join a private militia group, the state already has dibs.
For what's is worth, he did claim to be unfamiliar with the details and said it would be resolved in court rather than the media.
I'm not so sure he was defending them so much as trying to avoid media sensationalism.
No, but they both practice skills that could easily be considered "military" style shooting.
I've always wondered how the Democrat Party classified it's MILITARY WING, the KKK.
Mom always said they were terrorists.
Dad called them law breakers and murderers of Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
Press accounts always disassociate the KKK from the Democrats.
I wonder why?
If they do that as part of the training programs you linked then I have a problem with that.
There's the problem when they start to about law certain training. The USPSA is the US chapter of the IPSC. And international organization governing the sport of Practical Shooting. It has been around since 1976 and now has 108 regions (countries).
Come on, Army, you're smarter than that. Are you really going to try to claim that the Democratic Party as it stands today hasn't changed since the KKK was founded more than a century and a half ago? Or that the Democratic party today has the same values as the KKK does today?
Give me a break. You're trolling here, admit it.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Just because an organization has been around for a long time doesn't make it good. Just look at the NRA.
Me either. I took a call in the middle of writing that sentence. The point is who gets to decide what "military-style" training is. Some far-left Democrat floated a bill not too long ago that could have easily been read to ban any sort of shooting practice and certainly would have banned the INTERNATIONALLY recognized sport, IPSC.
If IPSC has worsened in any way over the years is that it is less "Real Life" oriented than it once was. Hence the need for the second organization I listed.
Much of the advancement in personal arms have come from IPSC shooting. Those red dot sights that you see on the military rifles were first used and tested (and made good enough for combat) in IPSC shooting.
Say what you want about the NRA but if you look at the side of the association that isn't political there is simply no better source for firearms training and education.
While their firearms education efforts are worthwhile, the organization is tainted by its rather extreme political stance on firearms regulations and by some of the financial mess that it has recently found itself in, at least some of which is brought about due to alleged top officials of the organization profiting off of it. I've long thought the organization should dump La Pierre as its leader, and the revelations of his apparent lavish personal spending with organization money make it even more clear to me that he needs to go. Donations to the organization have dropped considerably since the details of his handling of organization finances have come to light. I think they need to get rid of him and install a much more responsible and pragmatic leader to regain confidence of supporters. I certainly won't give a penny to the NRA until it changes direction, starting with getting rid of La Pierre.
Actually, the organization takes heat from both sides. Those that think they are too aggressive and those that think they aren't standing up enough. The NRA is a much of weenies camp was very surprised that even made a statement about the Honey Badger issue I mentioned earlier.
I do agree that La Pierre needs to go.
The KKK is still active today.
The KKK wasn't an orphan, or an immaculate conception.
The KKK was founded to harass, harm, and kill Blacks, Jews, and Catholics (as well as Mexicans along our southern border).
The KKK served to assist certain states (not only those of the former Confedracy), but border and northern states, too, pass laws that restricted rights for Black citizens, along with those of the Jewish and Catholic faiths.
In fact, some historians allege that the KKK was the "armed military wing" or "armed militia" of the Democrat Party.
You're right, I am smart enough NOT to believe what today's Democrat Party wants to erase, a deep and abiding connection to the KKK, in fact a hand in the creation of the KKK.
That same KKK that killed "peaceful freedom riders", "voter right's activists", "integrationists", and law abiding citizens just because their mission was to preserve and promote slavery's evil cousin, "Jim Crow".
Of course it still exists today. So does the Democratic party. And yes, it began as a Democratic arm. That is historical fact.
However, if CURRENT accounts are not associating the KKK with the CURRENT Democratic party, it's because TODAY the two are not linked except in that historical perspective.
And you know it.