Interesting read/video of open carry incident in Jackson, Michigan SOS (BMV)

[mulksman]

Followup: Interesting read of open carry incident in Jackson, Michigan SOS (BMV)

This is a story that caught my eye while glancing the paper from my hometown in Jackson, Michigan. It occurred in the Secretary of State's office (equivalent to our BMV) which is located inside of a private plaza/mall. Lots of things could have been handled better all of the way around, but as usual...... the comment section is equally as disturbing!

Many points of interest for discussion and debate...... and others not so much. Interesting read if you have the time!

Watch video of Jackson police arresting man who carried pistol at Secretary of State | MLive.com

 

[9mmfan]

He probably shouldn't have been 'agitated'. The case speaks for itself when the charges were dropped.

 

[SmileDocHill]

"in addition to his escalating defiant and unpredictable behavior," LOL I admit I don't know the majority of the story, let alone all of the story but 'escalating defiant behavior' sure sounds like spin. It seems more likely he kept refusing and it was the demands that were escalating. I'm trying to picture "escalating defiance"...at first I said no thanks, then I said no, then I yelled it, then I said no way this time I mean it?

 

[88GT]

From a comment:

Raising your voice to clearly identifiable police officers is probable cause.

News to me. Unless the charge is contempt of cop.

 

[Cameramonkey]

From a comment:



News to me. Unless the charge is contempt of cop.

Thats a thing now. Havent you heard? They call it disurbing the peace. It sounds less JackBoot-ish.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

From a comment:



News to me. Unless the charge is contempt of cop.

Disorderly conduct can literally be ANYTHING.

Thats a thing now. Havent you heard? They call it disurbing the peace. It sounds less JackBoot-ish.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Disorderly conduct can literally be ANYTHING.

Maybe in Michigan, but not Indiana.

IC 35-45-1-3 Version a
Disorderly conduct

---

Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) adversely affects airport security; and
(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.
(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:
(A) the location where a burial is being performed;
(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or
(C) a building in which:
(i) a funeral or memorial service; or
(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;
is being conducted; and
(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.70; P.L.92-1988, SEC.8; P.L.123-2002, SEC.40; P.L.3-2006, SEC.1.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Maybe in Michigan, but not Indiana.

IC 35-45-1-3 Version a
Disorderly conduct

---

Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) adversely affects airport security; and
(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.
(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:
(A) the location where a burial is being performed;
(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or
(C) a building in which:
(i) a funeral or memorial service; or
(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;
is being conducted; and
(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.70; P.L.92-1988, SEC.8; P.L.123-2002, SEC.40; P.L.3-2006, SEC.1.

highlighted sections I think are applied when the officer tells you that you are done, his/her mind is made up and you continue to debate/argue. So I respectfully disagree. We do have that here in Indiana.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Yeah, I have to agree, that's pretty overly broad or could be stretched into the thinnest strand of plausibility. Is tumultuous conduct defined? Do most people understand the plain meaning of the word? Is unreasonable noise defined? What qualifies as disrupting a lawful assembly of persons? How can one tell at a glance whether the assembly is lawful or not?

Loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through without scratching the mirrors.

Hm. 'Defiant and unpredictable.' Well, lock me up if that counts as criminal.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I don't see it as overly broad. It is pretty clear to me.

IC 35-45-1-1
Definitions
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
"Tumultuous conduct" means conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.
"Unlawful assembly" means an assembly of five (5) or more persons whose common object is to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Prior concert is not necessary to form an unlawful assembly.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

IC 35-45-1-1
Definitions
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
"Tumultuous conduct" means conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.
"Unlawful assembly" means an assembly of five (5) or more persons whose common object is to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Prior concert is not necessary to form an unlawful assembly.

I don't see it as overly broad. It is pretty clear to me.

That definition seems EXTREMELY broad to me. Let's just suppose that someone gets so uptight that he tells himself "I'm going to knock out the next - (place your demographic here) that I see! Now I come around the corner. I have now committed "conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property" in that I am next and I am visible.

By that definition the a$$ whopping I will take is completely justified on account of my "Tumultuous conduct", defined as coming around the corner resulting in serious bodily injury.........

There is a saying that "A bear won't attack you unless you provoke it......... Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes provocation to a bear is not clearly understood!" Let me change that around a little bit; "A police officer won't beat your a$$ and arrest you unless you engage in Tumultuous conduct....... Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes Tumultuous conduct to a police officer is not clearly understood!"

 

[88GT]

Disorderly conduct can literally be ANYTHING.

IC 35-45-1-1
Definitions
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
"Tumultuous conduct" means conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.
"Unlawful assembly" means an assembly of five (5) or more persons whose common object is to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Prior concert is not necessary to form an unlawful assembly.



That definition seems EXTREMELY broad to me. Let's just suppose that someone gets so uptight that he tells himself "I'm going to knock out the next - (place your demographic here) that I see! Now I come around the corner. I have now committed "conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property" in that I am next and I am visible.

By that definition the a$$ whopping I will take is completely justified on account of my "Tumultuous conduct", defined as coming around the corner resulting in serious bodily injury.........

There is a saying that "A bear won't attack you unless you provoke it......... Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes provocation to a bear is not clearly understood!" Let me change that around a little bit; "A police officer won't beat your a$$ and arrest you unless you engage in Tumultuous conduct....... Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes Tumultuous conduct to a police officer is not clearly understood!"

Um, I think you have your cause and effect actions out of sequence. Your action of turning the corner is not the "tumultuous act." The person doing the act is the one who is causing the injury in that definition.

 

[Frosty]

My wife is from jackson for some reason the cops always seemed ready to curb stomp somebody given half a chance... I don't like Michigan.

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, if it was legal for Chesney to carry at that location, end of story. My guess is they'll settle Chesney's suit.

 

[drillsgt]

Maybe in Michigan, but not Indiana.

That IC is just silly, is there anything in Indiana that doesn't have the potential to be a felony, disorderly conduct? Come on.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Personally, I like that IC because it isn't overly broad as compared to my understanding of other states' disorderly statute. It is simple; if you don't fit one of the three conditions, no disorderly conduct. It isn't a catch-all.

 

[mulksman]

Here is a follow up story to the original:

Jackson officers had probable cause to arrest man openly carrying pistol, attorney writes in response to lawsuit | MLive.com

 

[drillsgt]

Here is a follow up story to the original:

Jackson officers had probable cause to arrest man openly carrying pistol, attorney writes in response to lawsuit | MLive.com

What else are they going to say, yeah we made a mistake and harassed a guy for no reason

 

[SteveM4A1]

What else are they going to say, yeah we made a mistake and harassed a guy for no reason

Seems to me it would be easier, cheaper, and far more efficient.

 

[Somemedic]

Seems to me it would be easier, cheaper, and far more efficient.

Ah, the credo all government agencies should aspire to...