Category Archives: Laws

Incarceration Update: James Baker and Brandon Vreeland

In a gross oversight I have apparently posted this information on Facebook but not on the website. My apologies.

First, Brandon:

Brandon got the worse end of this stick by far, and is facing 9 months to 5 years in a state prison for simply documenting the situation as it occurred. James called me from jail specifically to implore me to impart this knowledge and its importance on you.

Like James, he’s been essentially crucified in order to make a clear statement about how the city of Dearborn, the county of Wayne, and the State of Michigan feel about your rights and freedoms. Actions speak louder than words, and in that way Brandon is now shouting for all of us. We need to make sure that he knows he is heard.

Instructions regarding how to send mail to an MDOC prisoner can be found at THIS LINK

You will need the prison name and address, as well as his MDOC prisoner number.
It should be presented on the envelope in the following format:

Brandon B. Vreeland, #393085
Charles Egeler Reception And Guidance Center
3855 Cooper St.
Jackson, MI 49201-7547

Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center is the facility he was assigned to as of last I checked, but before addressing your letter you can verify his facility location and address at THIS LINK
If you really want Brandon to know he is loved, the process for sending him some money for his inmate account can be found at THIS LINK
If you are not using the online service, you will need an accompanying deposit form, which can be found at THIS LINK

Next, James:

James has been moved to a different housing unit in the jail.
Future mail should be addressed:

James Baker
2017-00004148 Mod G1
3501 Hamtramck Dr
Hamtramck, MI 48211

James left a list of books he would like to have, which we’ve put into an Amazon wishlist at THIS LINK

Please note, all books or magazines must come directly from the publisher or a well known retailer such as Amazon or Barnes and Noble. All books must be paper back, anything hard cover will be returned to sender.

Straight from the Wayne County website: Letters will not be accepted which contain illegal or prohibited material including; Polaroid pictures, raised decorative stickers, musical or battery operated cards, stamps, personal checks, cash and items, which may be obtained from commissary. Here is a LINK so you can read the specifics before you send anything.

Also if anyone would like to put money on James’ commissary account HERE IS THE LINK to set all that up. Commissary will allow James to buy pencils, paper, hygiene products, clothes and snacks. You can send money orders $100 or less only or you can sign up for an online account and do deposit money that way. The link will tell you exactly what you need to do.

I know it is a lot to read, a lot of links, a bit of time and effort and possibly a few dollars of your hard earned money, but they are presently paying more than that for us, it is really the least we can do.
Thanks everyone!

A Brief Point-for-Point Response

As is often the case, this woman’s assertion that there was ‘quite frankly nothing to add’ has inspired me to respond to her comment point-for-point.

In the middle of the night, once upon a time, a house owner heard what seemed to be an intruder entering his house, took his gun, fired and killed his son!

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the Empire destroyed the planet of Alderaan with a giant laser fired from the Death Star.
Do you have some names and dates here so the actual facts can be analyzed, or are you simply inventing a hypothetical situation based on nothing more than misguided emotions that isn’t rooted in any factual evidence?

How about that for self defense? Come on! So tell me, how the hell do you know that guns will be properly used, once issued to the offender in beautiful disguise?

Not sure what disguise you’re referring to, but I can tell you conclusively that the best way to be sure whether or not a gun will be used properly is to observe the gun, and decide if it is, at the time of observation, being used properly. If it is not, then you had better have your own, and use it properly.

My gosh! in what kind of society are we living in…so let’s see, just as an example. My neighbor and I get into an argument. Ok! he or she gets ticked off, and pulls its gun on me, just because! then what?……There is in fact no answer to that. Quite frankly there is nothing to add.

…If your neighbor is the kind of person who would pull a gun on you for ‘no reason’, firstly, you should move, secondly, you should have a means to defend yourself from their dangerous antics.
However, if you are implying that the mere presence of a firearm means that an ordinary person will suddenly become a violent criminal, then you are projecting your own insecurity about how dangerous you know yourself to be with a firearm on others, which is irrational.

Also, as a point of advice, to state in the absolute that there is nothing more to add is to deprive yourself of the beautiful thing that is educating yourself on the opinions and facts available from the people around you, which, whether you agree with them or not, can be invaluable in understanding your environment and interacting meaningfully and safely with it. If you are truly closed-minded enough to dismiss immediately points which have not even been brought to your attention, it is no wonder that you have such a tragically skewed view of how the world works.

Submitting A Proper Freedom of Information Act Request

Hi everyone,

I figured I’d create a quick post providing a template for you to use should you need to submit a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request.
Any questions, ask in the comments or contact us.

Template courtesy of renowned firearms and aviation attorney, as well as longtime friend of liberty, Dean Greenblatt.

March X, 20XX



RE: FOIA Request

Dear FOIA Coordinator:

On February X, 20XX at approximately 00:00 PM, Anywhere Police Department Officers XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX engaged in the detention and investigation of a man with a pistol on the sidewalk at Some Street between That St and Another St in the City of Anywhere. As a result of Officers XXXXXX and XXXXXX’s investigation, Officer XXXXXX issued citations for firearm violations to You Yourself.

Pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL §15.231, I am requesting copies of documents relating to the aforementioned incident including:

Any and all recordings of radio communications related in any way to the dispatch, response, or request for assistance by the officers involved with the incident;

Any and all video recordings of the incident, including patrol car video;

Any and all documents that identify the officers dispatched to the scene as a result of the incident, including the police report; roll call rosters; vehicle logs; and, audio recordings;

Any and all emails, memos, letters and/or other correspondence between employees of the Anywhere Police Department and any other person regarding the incident; and,

Any and all property booking notes, cards, papers recording the property seized by Officer XXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX associated with the incident.

Should the cost for researching, compiling and copying the requested information exceed $30.00, please inform me of the anticipated cost, and provide me with a time and place for a physical inspection of the requested information before researching, compiling or copying the requested information.

Please respond to this request by replying to the following address:

You Yourself
123 Anystreet
Whatever City, MI 48484

I appreciate your anticipated cooperation with this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the number above.


You Yourself

Reply With Quote

Good Cop / Bad Cop

At this stage in the game I can’t believe I still have to explain this to people. Generally even people who identify as smart, educated, and ‘free Americans’. But here we are.
You light your fireworks and you post your eagles on the internet. You eat your hotdogs and watch your baseball. You love your freedom. But the second someone lodges a complaint about a cop or subset of cops that has violated the sanctity of someone’s rights, you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are calling all cops worthless pigs and advocating Somalian-style anarchy and ‘well that’s just not fair because you knew a cop once who was a good guy and so therefore you must hate America!’
Calm the fuck down.
Firstly, you are being a hypocrite, because there is not a single intelligent adult in this country, including yourself, who can tell you that they whole-heartedly believe that no department corruption, police brutality, or power abuse happens in literally every police department in the country. If I’m wrong and you ARE that person… well, I envy your naivety. That level of ignorance must be blissful.
Secondly, and more importantly, is that your assumption is wrong in the first place; That guy you know who is a cop probably really is a fantastic fellow, and nobody ever said that he wasn’t.

At this point, I need to briefly sidetrack the conversation for some prerequisite knowledge. We will call this the Heirarchy of a Free Society.
If you’re a regular reader, then you know about the Non-Aggression Principle already. If not, then please take a look at this article. In a truly free society based on the Non-Aggression Principle, your heirarchy is as follows:
Top Tier – The People
This list is your average normal person.
This includes You, Joe Blow down the street, that homeless guy on the corner, that drum-circle hippie, that bible thumping Glenn Beck fellater, the list goes on.

Middle Tier – The Law
This does not exist under the people because the people are above the law, it exists here because there should never be a law that should hinder the daily life of an average member of The People. The Law only exists to provide guidelines for Public Servants to deal with Criminal Shitbags.

Lower Tier – Public Servants
Before you get all bent out of shape, everyone in this group is in ‘Top Tier – The People’ every second of every day that they are not at work. While they are working, however, they are entrusted with a great deal of power and responsibility, and it is very important to understand that while they are working, they WORK FOR the The People. The People are the boss. The boss is in charge, and the Servant does his bidding.
This includes: cops, the government, postal workers, teachers, etc.

Lowest Tier – Criminal Shitbags
Another very important note: In this description, ‘Criminal’ is not defined by ‘The Law’, but by the Non-Aggression Principle. Therefore this list does not include things like people who don’t wish to wear seatbelts, people who wish to use their own time and money to purchase and use ‘illicit’ drugs, people who really have to pee and don’t have access to a bathroom, jaywalkers, people who are willing to provide services such as sex in exchange for money, or anything of that nature that doesn’t actually harm anybody.
It does include things like: rapists, murderers, and the like.

So back to the point; There is a difference between ‘Good’ cops and ‘Bad’ cops.
Good cops understand the tier that they are in and act accordingly. Good cops act in the best interests of the people they are sworn to protect and serve, even [or perhaps ‘especially’] in situations where enforcing ‘The Law’ is, in fact, contradictory to the goal of protecting and serving the people. Good cops understand that they have the discretion to refuse to enforce laws that are not right, moral, constitutional, etc., and they excercise that discretion accordingly.
This is an example of a Good cop:

Bad cops believe that they are two tiers above The People. Bad cops believe that between themselves and The People, is The Law. This is why there are Laws that seek to affect and regulate the daily lives [nonviolent activities that do not harm anybody] of The People, and this is a serious problem in itself. Bad cops act in the best interests of The Law and Themselves rather than The People, and The People only where it is convenient or beneficial to The Law or Themselves. Bad cops cite a responsibility to follow orders and the rule of law, even in cases where it is to the detriment of The People. Bad cops behave in a manner that is not consistent with The Law, and face no consequence, because Bad cops will not enforce The Law against other Bad cops.
There are plenty of examples of Bad cops. I don’t feel a need to reinvent the wheel, so I will post the best montage I am aware of, courtesy of Rob Hustle:

I know or have met a grand total of ‘Good cops’ that I can count on one hand. I admit that my views are skewed, because generally the only cops who would bother me are specifically the ones that are ‘Bad cops’, since the ‘Good cops’ have no reason to interfere with an average person going about a safe and legal activity. When I criticize a cop, or a subset of cops, I am calling those specific cops Bad cops. In 99% of cases, people who fall into the category of Bad cops are not Public Servants, but in fact Criminal Shitbags.

Hopefully this explanation will give you the insight you need to refrain from immediately jumping to an incorrect conclusion in the future, and enable you to have a mutually beneficial and enriching conversation about the current state of national and world affairs. If not, then I fear you are either naive, a hypocrite, an idiot, a Criminal Shitbag, or a Bad cop, or more likely some combination thereof.

The *Other* Casualties of 9/11


There’s going to be and have been a lot of posts today about 9/11, and terrorism, people saying ‘never forget’. Symbols of the American Flag, and Eagles and Patriotism are going to be and have been boundless. I’ve been mostly avoiding the internet today because I knew that this was all I was going to see.

Don’t mistake me;
It was awful.
It was disgusting.
It was tragic.

I, like many of you, remember exactly where I was on that day.
I, like you, remember watching what was happening in awe on live television.
I, like most millennials, was too young at the time to really understand what was going on.

But, now I’m a bit older, and I do understand.
I understand that something else happened that day as well.

It is equally awful.
It is equally disgusting.
It is equally tragic.

Before the bodies were even cold, the government used them as a stage, a soapbox, to start the process of eroding the essential human liberties that were once thought to be inalienable; They were to be protected by our constitution.

On 9/11, every year, people are damned angry (and rightfully so) about the lives lost in 2001.
On 9/11, every year, I am damned angry (and rightfully so) that people are not damned angry enough about having their independence and liberty siphoned away from them, deliberately and systematically, under the façade of “security”, a deliberately vague and emotionally provoking umbrella term.

Below is an overview of some [but certainly not all] of these “casualties”.


• The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of
terrorism, so that many domestic groups that engage in
nonviolent civil disobedience could very well find themselves
labeled as terrorists.
• The Government may now prosecute librarians or keepers
of any other records if they reveal that the government
requested information on their clients or members in the
course of an investigation. It has become a crime for these
individuals to try to safeguard your privacy or to tell you
that you are under investigation.


• Government agents may now monitor the First Amendment-
protected activities of religious and political institutions, and
then infiltrate these groups with no suspicion of criminal
activity. This is a return to domestic spying on law-abiding
religious and political groups.
• You may now be the subject of a government investigation
simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy
groups you are involved in, or the statements you make
within these groups.


• A U.S. Department of Justice directive actively encourages
federal, state, and local officials to resist and/or limit access
to government records through Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests.
• The Government has conducted immigration hearings in
secret behind closed doors. Such proceedings were once
open to the public. Hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrants
have already been deported in secret.


• Law Enforcement authorities may now conduct secret searches and wiretaps in your home or office
without showing “probable cause.” They need only to claim that intelligence gathering is “a significant
purpose” of their intrusion, even when the primary goal is ordinary law enforcement. They may also
monitor where and to whom you send and receive e-mail, or where you go on the Internet, recording
every e-mail address and website you have been in contact with.
• Law Enforcement may now demand any personal records held by any source including your doctor,
employer, accountant, or library. All they have to do is claim that it is related to an investigation into
“terrorism.” The record keepers may not reveal that your records were provided to the government.
• Judicial oversight of secret searches has been effectively minimized. The Patriot Act directs judges to
consent to secret searches based only on the Government’s assertion that a “significant” purpose of
an investigation is gathering information related to “terrorism,” as the government defines it.


• Americans can now be jailed without a formal charge & without the right to confront the witnesses or
evidence against them. American citizens are now being held in military jails without charge and with-
out a clear path of appeal for their indefinite confinement.
• Hundreds of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men were rounded up in the Ashcroft raids following
September 11, and held for weeks without charges until all were cleared of terrorism charges


• Hundreds of U.S. residents have been detained for months at a time, and denied access to the advice
and advocacy of an attorney. The Government may now monitor conversations between attorneys &
clients in federal jails.
• The Bush Administration filed papers in court that arguing that an American citizen held in a military
jail without charge should be denied access to legal counsel because such access would interfere with
the process of his interrogation.


• The U.S. Government may now jail its residents and citizens indefinitely without charge & without a public trial.


• The U.S. Government has taken into custody individuals they identify as “material witnesses,” trans-
ported them across the country, and held them for months in solitary confinement without charge or
contact with their family.
• According to the Justice Department’s own Inspector General, immigrant men rounded up in the
Ashcroft raids following September 11 and held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, NY
were subjected to a pattern of “physical and verbal abuse.”


• Over 82,000 men from Arab, Muslim and South Asian countries registered with the Government
under the Special Registration program. Over 13,000 are now in deportation proceedings. None
have been charged with terrorism.


• The Citizens United ruling that tossed out the corporate ban on making independent expenditures
and financing electioneering communications. Corporations/Unions can now effectively buy elections,
because they can spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools specifically endorsing or
denouncing candidates.
• The Transportation Security Administration was created. Now citizens must go through what essentially amount to
customs checkpoints, and be intrusively screened by federal employees, with no probably cause, in order to make a domestic
flight. They aren’t even effective at stopping actual terrorism.

Food for thought.
God Bless America.

Senator Mike Green, and NRA Backed MCRGO, Propose Partial Open Carry Ban

State Senator Mike Green, and NRA backed MCRGO are joining forces to try to partially ban open carry. It hasn’t been introduced to committee yet, but it is drafted and reported to be making it to committee imminently.

Read the Bill @

I know this is just another post on the internet, but for the love of your God or lack thereof, this is important. Send an email, make a call, make so much noise your reps can’t help but listen.
Unless you hate rights. But I assume you wouldn’t be here then.

Word is he is going to pull out all the stops/up-sleeve aces/tricks/etc.
In the meantime, we are already ready to try to stop him from several years ago when we campaigned against SB59. A few tweaks, and our pre written material is ready. Take action by clicking here and spending a few minutes.

Note that this pre-written material contains both pro and anti gun views so that you can recruit the help of ANY politically inclined person you know. Feel free to modify them as necessary.

Counter-SB0442 Resources

I Support the Second Amendment, but…

“I support the Second Amendment*, but…”

This is where I stop listening, usually, because whatever comes after the ‘but…’ you can rest assured is going to contradict the initial statement, at least in my experience. If you think it needs to be changed, rewritten, limited, altered, etc., then you don’t support it. You may support something similar, but not the thing as written.

While there is a lot I could say on the subject, I want to specifically address one of my, for lack of a better word, favorite ‘but…’ statements.
The conversation usually goes something like this:

Anti-Gun Guy “I support the second amendment, but I think military style assault weapons [or some gun, feature, weapon type, etc.] should be banned.”
Pro-Gun Guy “What about the first amendment? Do you think we should have speech control?”
Anti-Gun Guy “Dude, even the first amendment has limits, you can’t say ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater, its the same thing! We have to keep assault rifles away from criminals!”

It is not the same thing, not by a longshot. Looking at the right of free speech, the scenario of arbitrarily shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater assumes such is done solely with the intent of causing chaos, and can put people in danger. Based on the Non-Aggression principle covered in another post, this is the point where it would stop being within your ‘right’, because it is a purposeful infringement on someone else’s right to life. If we look at the scenario of someone coming across a murder/rape/etc in progress and pulling the fire alarm [the modern-day equivalent of shouting ‘Fire’] in order to disrupt the violent crime from taking place, this is another story. Similar to how arbitrarily firing a gun in a theater would be dangerous and stupid, but firing back at someone in a situation such as the movie theater shooting during the Batman premier would have been prudent.

So here is what a true-to-life identical first-amendment scenario that parallels what you propose for gun control would look like:

“It should be illegal to say the word ‘fire’. Nobody should be able to use it, and people should go to prison for at least five years for saying the word ‘fire’. Furthermore, once they’re released, they should permanently lose their right to speak because of that one time they said ‘fire’ all those years ago. This is for everyone’s safety, since someone could easily use the word ‘fire’ to cause panic in a crowded theater. People who use the word ‘fire’ to alert people to an actual real threat of fire, even if they save lives, should still be arrested for it after the fact.”

“Slang should be illegal. When the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment they could never have known that the spoken word was going to evolve to where it is today. The First Amendment only applies to ‘Ye Olde English’.”

Sounds pretty stupid when you put it that way, doesn’t it?


* – Footnote about ‘Amendments’. It is important to point out that Rights are not granted to the people by the Bill of Rights or by any other document or decree of any government. The Bill of Rights simply specifically identifies some, but by no means all, of the Rights that we as human beings are entitled to simply by virtue of being living people. Since it is not by the power of government that these rights are ‘granted’, it is also not within the power of the government to limit, control, or revoke them.

RANT: If the Police Police the Police, Who Polices Them?

“The department is conducting an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified.”

Read that again. Let it sink in.

“The department is conducting an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified.”

That little gem of absurdity has been included in every single article I have read recently regarding a police shooting of an unarmed person.

Let me start by saying this: It is possible for an unarmed person to be a threat to your life, and there are circumstances when shooting an unarmed person can be justified.

However, this line appears underneath dashcam footage showing literal executions of people with their hands up or who are being otherwise nonthreatening.

Here is one example, but certainly not the only.

So often, this will happen, and so rarely will anybody be charged, even in the face of this kind of evidence. We cannot let this continue.

Murder is murder, whether you’re wearing a funny costume with a shiny pin or not.

Do you know any cops who are friends with other cops? Better question, do you know any cops who are NOT friends with other cops? Have you heard of the ‘thin blue line’? Do you think it is common knowledge that cops do not get traffic tickets, that cops cover for other cops when they do stupid things that would normally land the average citizen in jail or with a hefty fine?

I bet I know how you answered all of those questions.

Now consider this. When “The department” conducts “an internal investigation into the shooting to determine whether they were justified”, what you have is these people who don’t give each other tickets, cover for each other’s stupidity from racist comments to drunk driving and more [too many to cite, I’m sure you can find some], who refuse to cross that thin blue line and take out their own trash, and they are the ones deciding whether their fellow officers were justified.

Now let me show you this definition of a term you’ve probably heard before:

Conflict of Interest

the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence:
The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.
the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.

If “The Department” conducting its own “internal investigation” to determine whether to imprison the people who have been refusing to fine and imprison them does not qualify under that definition, then I don’t know what does.

Anybody who knows me, however, knows that I try not to offer problems without potential solutions

One Suggestion:

Privatized IA. Those investigations are not handled by the department, and they do not have monetary incentives. They are to be performed by volunteers, perhaps selected similarly to a jury and viewed as your civic duty. Lets see how many of these shootings go unprosecuted then.

Have a better idea? Let me know in the comments.



Elijah Woody
Elijah Woody

Elijah Woody, the persecuted open carry activist of Detroit, MI has had his days in court today and yesterday for the malicious and bogus charge of carrying a concealed weapon, when it was in fact carried openly.

The three officers who testified could not agree on the same story. The jury knew they were lying the entire time. After less than an hour of deliberation, he was found NOT GUILTY.

Special thanks to everyone who helped make his freedom possible, including his excellent attorneys Terry Johnson and Jim Makowski.


RANT: Deputy Pulls Gun on Me, But He Gets Extra Rights

Back in July, I had an interesting encounter with an Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy in Oxford Charter Township, MI. I think the short video below sums it up pretty well:

That’s right. He was impeding traffic, we both happened to have the same destination (I was meeting my grandmother for lunch at a local restaurant), and I decided to confront him for the clear traffic law double-standard. When I initially approached his vehicle, he drove away. So, I went inside. When I saw that he had re-parked, and was just trying to avoid me, I made a second attempt. He wasn’t surprised when I returned, he was pissed off at my persistence. The rest is history.

But the story doesn’t end there. An interesting comment thread on that video began. It is pasted below:


Never approach an officer in his vehicle. He or she is in a vulnerable spot while sitting down and we do not know what your intentions are by approaching us. We don’t know you want to “ask a question”. I’d do the same thing. Get the officers attention and let him or her come to you.

Never approach a citizen in his vehicle. He or she is in a vulnerable spot while sitting down and we do not know what your intentions are by approaching us. We don’t know you want to “ask a question”. Get the citizen’s attention and let him or her come to you.

Let me clarify: I’m not saying that citizens should pull guns on police during routine traffic stops, just like I’m saying that police shouldn’t pull guns on people for walking up to an occupied patrol vehicle. I’m just saying that this deputy committed a felony by pointing his gun at me, but I would have more than a reprimand if I did the same thing. Surely you can appreciate that line of logic.


I’m all for what your doing here. Informing people about their rights but police don’t walk up to citizen’s cars for no reason. And if they don’t have a reason to stop you instead of fighting with them on the streets about the stop being illegal, fight it in court. That’s why we have court. And I believe the officer said “you ha your hands in your pocket”. That’s why he pulled his gun on you. All I seen was the officer holster his weapon. Not to say he didn’t point it at you. And if your upset about it being a felony if you did that. Make a formal complaint or something along those lines.

+Blue 5-OH He broke the law, so I approached his vehicle. If I break the law, a police officer will approach my vehicle. Does that mean I have the right to draw my weapon on him? After all, a stranger wearing what COULD be a real police uniform is walking up to my vehicle. I don’t want to have the right to just draw my sidearm on police when they have not made any valid threat (as the law defines it) towards me, I just want police to be held to the same (if not higher) standards as the rest of the citizenry. Remember that police are not the military, so they are “mere” civilians too.

I did not need to file a complaint. Someone, either one of the local police officers that watch my videos or a viewer that is completely unrelated, forwarded this video on to his Sergeant. A formal reprimand was placed on his record for talking on the phone, which led to his impeding traffic (which is, admittedly, already a pet peeve of mine). An email was sent out to every deputy in the county (since this man was a deputy) advising not to allow this situation to happen again by breaking simple traffic laws. I only know this because I have a few sources on the inside, and I know you can only take my word for it.As well, I honestly do not remember if my hand was in my pocket. If it was, he still had no legal grounds to draw on me. I did not pose a threat to him in terms of death, great bodily harm, or rape. If I had drawn a weapon and made movements to point it at him, then he can draw and fire. Anything else is felony firearm assault or attempted murder, per Michigan law.

MCL 780.972 provides that “[a]n individual who has not or is not
engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly
force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she
has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if . . . [t]he
individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force
is necessary to prevent” the imminent death, great bodily harm, or
sexual assault of himself or another individual.”

MCL 750.82 provides that “[…] a person who assaults
another person with a gun, revolver, [or] pistol […] without intending to commit
murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a
felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of
not more than $2,000.00, or both.”

Is it so much to ask that we all be treated equal under the law? This deputy for a reprimand for a felony. I wouldn’t get the same treatment. He could have shot me and there would be no debate. This isn’t the first time an officer has pointed a gun at me (yes, the camera doesn’t show it, but it was pointed at me), and yet, knowing the risk, I approached him anyway. Because he’s wrong, I’m right, and I’ll die knowing that for a just cause: standing up to corrupt government and their corrupt officials.

Now, do us all a favor: prove to me that there are still good police. Admit that I am making a logical, rational, and well-supported point that those with badges are treated differently than those without. You can enjoy the special treatment all you want (that is, if your penname describes your current career), just admit that the inequality of liberty here exists and is a problem.

Just for backup, here is a screenshot of the most thumbed-up comment for the video:
Now, consider my bias, which I really need not explain if you are already on this website. As such, I do make mistakes. I learn when I do. So I ask you: am I right in this?