Man In Dearborn, MI arrested for carrying a loaded AK-47 in a park

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikePGS

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
2,348
Location
Metro Detroit, Michigan
There was already a thread on this, but lets try to keep this one on the high road, per Mr. Jeff White.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=b9d585ac-980e-4fe1-b27a-0a4c126d54af

Basically what the video says (there isn't much in the way of print press as of yet) is that a 3rd-Year Medical Student at Wayne State University (In Detroit) was found wandering in a park in Dearborn (A Detroit suburb) with a loaded AK-47 rifle. In the video its a LEO who says that it's an AK-47, not the press. It also states that the man had to be detained forcefully with tasers. The man who was arrested had some association with a website that is somehow associated (perhaps merely in support of) Hezzbollah. The state of Michigan allows open carry, but i don't know if this applies to Rifles, nor do i recall offhand it its allowed on public parks, which is where the man was arrested. Furthermore this happened on Saturday, September 8th and was only reported today, September 13th. There were instructions that the press was to talk to the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick's office rather than the Police Station, due to the fact that Kilpatrick says he didn't want to have a scare of some sort due to the impending anniversary of September 11th.
 
"(perhaps merely in support of) Hezzbollah" Hezzbollah is a terrorist group, therefore he at least supports terrorists. Let's call a duck a duck and use the Patriot Act for what it should be used for. Search that sucker and ship him to Gitmo. Something about the loaded AK tells me he wasn't picking flowers.
 
Well regardless of whether it falls under the open carry laws, they can still get him for disturbing the peace.


And don't take anything Kwame's office says as truth. Kwame is about as crooked as they come. He's a murderer.
 
Kwame is about as crooked as they come. He's a murderer.
So much for keeping it on the high road

In the video its a LEO who says that it's an AK-47, not the press
Actually the officer answers yes to the reporter's question if it was a loaded AK assault rifle

A man walking around in the park with a blacked out face and wearing dark clothing is more than enough to warrant reasonable suspicion.
The rifle was just gravy

Resisting and the terrorism ties are more than enough to warrant the million dollar bond
 
Even though I may agree with you about Kwame, he isn't the mayor of Dearborn. That would be Jack O'Reilly. Maybe now my wife will take carrying her pistol seriously.
 
Seems as though the Dearborn police had every right to be very suspicious of someone wearing black clothing, face painted black and carrying a rifle in a public park.
I futher agree that the FBI did the right thing in getting involved by searching his computers and room where more suggestive mat'l was found.
This guy seems to warrent the million dollar bail and a serious looking into.
 
Joab:
''A man walking around in the park with a blacked out face and wearing dark clothing is more than enough to warrant reasonable suspicion.''

I have always been suspicious of mimes....

yesit'loaded:
"(perhaps merely in support of) Hezzbollah" Hezzbollah is a terrorist group, therefore he at least supports terrorists. Let's call a duck a duck and use the Patriot Act for what it should be used for. Search that sucker and ship him to Gitmo. Something about the loaded AK tells me he wasn't picking flowers.''

That wasn't what the PA was for. They have a whole other act for that.

Why yes, Hezzbollah is a terrorist organization. Clearly he is a terrorist. The other day I read a book about Bin Laden. I imagine to you that means I am now Al Quaida. Or maybe I am not it so hard to tell.

Perhaps he is part of a militia group that it is interested in fighting terrorism? Or does he have to be evil? Amazing with so little to go on people are ready to throw a man in dark hole forever. Hope it doesn't happen to you because you go to the wrong website and get caught carrying your deadly assault rifle in the trunk of your car in Chicago. Guilty till proven innocent I say.
 
You read a book on Bin Laden, you didn't make a website glorifying him and then run out in public with a loaded weapon while dressed up for holy war. This at least is probable cause to investigate further. If I read a book on the beltway sniper, and then ghillied up and started taking a bead on traffic with an AR it would be different than just reading the book. I wouldn't be for shipping him somewhere if he hadn't chosen of his own free will, to go around in public like that. Would I ever walk around with an AK if it were legal and I felt a need to do so, yes. But I would not dress up and play jihad commando while doing it.
 
Here's his website:
http://www.zorkot.org/JabalAmel.html

Has some Arabic (?) music, so you may want to check your volume.

I think it's fair to say it is very much supporting and glorifying Hezbollah. Claims they aren't terrorists, but a national resistance and defenders of Lebanon, and that everyone should unite behind them. Links to many Islamist websites.

CR
 
I have a Lebanese friend who doesn't quite agree with that description of Hezbollah. Picture the KKK giving out family picnics, now imagine the Islamic version.
 
At one time the KKK was highly regarded in most of this country. As recently as 40 years ago huge public rallies were held in major cities in the US. Church picnics were not unusual at all. Eventually Hezbollah will fall aside as well, as do all organizations that are based on hatred.
 
Most third world political parties are "terrorists" when they are not in power. That is to say that they have active fighting with those who are in power.
The term "terrorist" in modern political terms just means a government somewhere has decided they are a valid physical threat, or have fought a recognized government in the past.
Opposition groups to Saddam would have been terrorist groups.

That is not to excuse the actions of any radical group, simply to say if you have not lived it, it is hard to understand. It is pretty difficult to in any way be involved in the political process in a third world nation, especialy in the middle east without having connections to "terrorist" groups. Just like it would be hard to organize a neighborhood event in a neighborhood without having "connections" to your neighbors.
So I would expect any involved in any such foriegn processes to have "connections" to terrorist groups. After all the various factions competing for control are all "terrorist" groups until they win.

That is why the "war on terror" is really a blank check for governments across the world to pursue, arrest, and kill opposition.
Most governments will not relinquish power even if it is the will of the people, and power only shifts when it is siezed, or one steps down after a prolonged conflict. So "terrorists" are a part of the political process.
Those in power always have access to the resources of the nation and therefore better equipment. This means they trump any opposition on the open battlefield and so only guerrilla fighting is effective.

Not every nation is America. Our nation had to go through the same process generations ago to obtain the rights and freedoms we have enjoyed since. It was only after the major differences were decided by war that people came together to dispute the smaller ones by vote in big rooms.
Ever hear of the "loyalists" in the War of Independence? A large number of "Americans" supported the British side, and as in all disputes an even larger number supported neither side and just wanted it all to end ready to support whichever side could bring about that quicker.
 
And of course, unless it was a select-fire AK, they both got it wrong.

And your point is ....? They should let him go because they didn't identify the weapon correctly?
Uh, no. My incredibly obvious point was with regard to the probability that the use of term "assault rifle" by both the reporter AND the LEO was incorrect. If I thought that meant they should let him go (for some bizarre reason that apparently only you can think of) then I would have said as much.

I say what I mean, and am generally quite clear about what I'm saying. There's no need for you to take your imagination for a joy-ride and imply meaning that hasn't been communicated.
 
Most third world political parties are "terrorists" when they are not in power. That is to say that they have active fighting with those who are in power.
The term "terrorist" in modern political terms just means a government somewhere has decided they are a valid physical threat, or have fought a recognized government in the past.
Opposition groups to Saddam would have been terrorist groups.
Well, no. Just because someone chooses to call a pumpkin an "automobile" doesn't mean that the word "automobile" loses it's defined meaning. Terrorism, by definition, refers to acts of violence specifically and intentionally directed at non-military targets for the purpose of furthering a political or ideological goal via the fear that results from those acts.

If you engage in such action(s) you are a terrorist, regardless of whether or not you're an enemy of the current state...or are the state itself.
 
I just failed to see what your comment had to do with what was being discussed.
You failed to see what my comment about the term "assault rifle" had to do with what was being dicussed (which was who identified the weapon as an AK-47 "assault rifle")? Really?
 
What earthly difference does it make whether it was an "assault" rifle or not in the context of someone playing ninja jihadist in a public park?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top