Troy Teen Arrested for Carrying Rifle 'Was in His Legal Right' (MI)

Maybe not in America. Not yet, anyway. Look at the countries where it has happened and does happen and tell me if you'd care to live in any of them.

 

So if the cops saw a kid with a baseball bat and did nothing and then found out the kid just offed some folks since a bat can kill just as much as a gun, then he should have the right to arrest him as well? It makes no difference, a lawful open carry gun or bat would fit just as well in your scenario but you would have an issue with a gun but not a bat. Maybe cops should arrest old folk in cars while their at it.

 

You ever heard of this "assault weapons ban" thingie?

 

Prior restraint. Exactly. I'm stayin'. I'm finishing my coffee.

 

But that's not your hypothetical. Under your scenario, the cops would still have no reasonable suspicion and therefore no PC.

 

You weren't asked if it'd be okay for cops to arrest based on the suspicion. You were asked your own personal opinion on how you'd think a public would respond... and that was made clear. Would a public praise police officers for an illegal pre-emptive strategy, or would they demand punishment for an arrest (that inadvertantly saved a life)?

 

It's an interesting subject. Kansas was a State at that time. The movies give the appearance of being anti-gun propaganda stories but the contemporary written record indicates that no one gave a crap about the Second Amendment.

The period with the greatest gun freedom was probably the 1920s when people had Thompson submachine guns.

It'll be a good subject to research sometime. Personally I like the idea of gun ownership without any restrictions. OTOH, I don't want crazy idiots shooting up the place whenever they feel like it. So in the end guns and crowded cities are incompatible.

 

Oh god PLEASE yes!

(and Seattle drivers for that matter. LOL)

 

Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause. Police officers may conduct what's known as a terry stop if reasonable suspicion exists.

 

I would demand reprimand for the cops.

 

What was the kid thinking??

 

"It could never happen here..." <-----Famous last words.

 

But that again is not the hypothetical scenario you have presented. We are not talking about a Terry stop, we are talking about a bona fide arrest.

 

You asked me for my opinion which you can probably guess my answer, then ask what the public would think of a pre-emptive strategy. Opinions are like bungholes, everyone has one, some smell good and some stink to high heaven but opinions are neither right or wrong. Some would agree with a pre-emptive strategy which is not lawful since there is no probable cause BTW and some wouldn't agree.

Do you agree with Bush's Pre-emptive strategy with Iraq, whatever your answer, then apply it to you scenario and see if you like to results.

 

Probably that he was well within his legal rights to walk down the street with a loaded rifle. Why would I say such a thing? Well, as it turns out, he was well within his legal rights to walk down the street with a loaded rifle.

 

My scenarios is a simple inquiry into your reaction if a pending crime were discovered. Same as now, or different? Your answer, please.

I'd rather not guess. Tell me.

 

Yeah, I remember reading that at one point in time you could walk a corner hardware store and buy a fully-auto tommy gun along with some horse feed. Banning guns in town limits was probably a reaction to too much gun violence erupting in town. Nowadays you don't see legal carriers shooting up the joint whenever they feel like it, so the law is likely to become more lax as it has been in recent years.

 

That all occurred before incorporation when the Bill of Rights was only a restriction on the federal government. Those same towns could also ignore the 1st Amendment if they so chose. Would you use that as a justification to allow infringements on 1st Amendment rights today?

To look at it another way, if a black man's right to vote were violated today would you offer, as a valid argument, that many towns in the South set up poll taxes, literacy tests, and many other obstructions to strip black people of their voting rights? Before the Bill of Rights was incorporated this disenfranchising of a vast segment of society was "legal" just like banning guns in Wichita was "legal" in 1873.

 

Those are very valid points you make. I have to agree.

 

Sorry for going off topic, but this is interesting. After I read this I did a little reading and it seems that the 2nd amendment wasn't officially incorporated against the states until just recently when the SCOTUS ruled against the Chicago gun ban. I don't know why I didn't think about Chicago's or Washington's gun bans as similar to Wichita's ban when Wyatt Erp was around.

 

The problem is that none of us in here are in total possession of the facts of what exactly took place. All we know is what we read in the paper or hear on radio/television; so how can you cast judgement without knowing the total truth? There could be other important facts that none of us know about that could change your opinion.

 

Tell me chicken little, has it ever happened? Of course not.

 

He was asked to produce his drivers license, and he refused. If he had just done what he was told in the first place, he might not have been arrested at all.

 

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post and what has been stated by several others earlier in the thread just cause you're probably not too familiar with US law:

Cops can't just walk up to anybody and demand to see they're ID. The cop has to have reasonable suspicion that they have or are committing a crime in order for them to demand to see their ID.

 

If the punk didn't look 18, the cop had probable cause.