WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine sentenced to life in prison
Not that it should matter, but Lori wasn't the only one having an affair. Ken was carrying on a sexual relationship of his own. His lover actually testified for the prosecution during the trial. Ken does not hold any kind of moral high ground in this issue... And he certainly had no justifiable reason for killing her. I've been cheated on by girlfriends more times than I can easily remember. But I've never had the urge to do physical harm to the woman I was dating. I just left the relationship.... In time, the anger passed. (Tuesday Aug 26 | post #56)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine sentenced to life in prison
The prohibition on the death penalty is written directly into the Michigan Constitution of 1963. As such, it would take much more than gubernatorial support to re-establish capital punishment in Michigan. It would take an amendment to the state constitution. Have fun getting one of those passed in this political climate. (Monday Aug 25 | post #23)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine guilty of killing wife
FYI - Ken DeKleine's sentencing is scheduled for Monday, August 25. It got pushed back a week from the original date. (Saturday Aug 23 | post #207)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Girl survives 150 foot fall into chimney
If that kid is lucky enough to survive a 150 foot fall, the first thing she needs to do when she gets out of the hospital is buy a lottery ticket. (Saturday Aug 2 | post #11)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Ugh... it's getting late. In the list above, the prohibition isn't on "Open Carry" per se, but on any possession of a firearm without a Concealed Pistol License. (the 1931 language reads 'A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.') (Jul 25, 2008 | post #119)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Hmmmmm.... It didn't like my link. I'll just quote the text itself; The law was written in 1931. 750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty. Sec. 234d. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: (a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution. (b) A church or other house of religious worship. (c) A court. (d) A theatre. (e) A sports arena. (f) A day care center. (g) A hospital. (h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (2) This section does not apply to any of the following: (a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity. (b) A peace officer. (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. (d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity. (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #118)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
That one is easier... The first document you link to contains a link to the Michigan Penal Code with a list of prohibited locations for carrying weapons. Open carry is prohibited at these locations, per state law. Here's a direct link. http://www.legisla ture.mi.gov/(S(on2 q1p3xrxzjfvb1aekar o55))/documents/mc l/pdf/mcl-750-234d .pdf (Jul 25, 2008 | post #117)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Great information find there, Bob. The MCRGO vs. Ferndale case cited in the second document you link to was decided when the Michigan Supreme Court elected not to hear Ferndale's appeal of the Michigan Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of MCRGO. The question you ask is excellent. That might be one to ask MCRGO's lawyers. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #116)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Oh yes, I almost forgot your very first question. An individual must be 21 years old to apply for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #109)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
Under state law, Concealed Pistol License holders are still prohibited from carrying in certain areas. These are referred to as "Pistol Free Zones": Here is the list of where licensees can't legally carry: http://www.michiga n.gov/msp/0,1607,7 -123-1591_3503_465 4-10947--,00.html Serious pro-firearm advocates usually refer to these "Pistol Free Zones" as "Criminal Empowerment Zones". This is a politically charged way of speaking, but they might have a point, since mass shootings frequently happen in places like churches and schools, where law-abiding individuals can't carry. So, if some mentally unstable individual wanted to go to a place with plenty of available victims, AND at the same time be pretty sure that nobody would be armed and capable of stopping him, why not go to a school, which is a Pistol Free Zone? Certain individuals with additional qualifications are exempt from the pistol free zone rules. I can't find the list at the moment, but generally these are retired law enforcement officers. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #108)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
I guess I should add that cities and municipalities have enacted all kinds of ordinances attempting to regulate possession and carrying of firearms. In theory, these ordinances are not enforceable. Next time you see a sign at a county park prohibiting the carrying of firearms in the park, take a moment to write to the county board of commissioners and ask that the wording be updated to comply with Public Act 319 of 1990. Don't be surprised when the commissioners scratch their heads, talk to their legal counsel, and then say something along the lines of, "Wow... you mean we really can't prohibit guns in our parks?" After that, take a moment to consider whether or not you want to vote for morons like that again in the next election cycle. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #104)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
First of all, thank you for your intellectual honesty in saying that Concealed Pistol License holders are NOT part of the problem. If rank-and-file law enforcement officers are beginning to recognize this, then real progress if finally being made. Part of your statement was troubling, however. You indicated that you have arrested subjects for carrying in public. If that is true, you might want to take a look at Michigan P.A. 319 of 1990: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT) Act 319 of 1990 Regulation of pistols or other firearms. Sec. 2. A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state. History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 This is the famous (or infamous, depending on your view) "preemption clause" that pro-firearm advocates commonly refer to. Thus, under state law, the ability of a local unit of government to regulate firearms is limited to establishing rules or prohibitions on the DISCHARGE of firearms. After "Shall-Issue " (for Concealed Pistol Licenses) became state law, several cities, including the City of Ferndale attempted to establish its own ordinances prohibiting concealed carry in certain public spaces. The city's effort failed because the wording of P.A. 319 of 1990 is very clear, and the court saw it that way as well. So... if your arrest was based solely on the fact that the subject in question was carrying in public, you violated state law. My guess is that if you were able to make the charges stick, you had to base the arrest more on a theory of "disturbing the peace" as opposed to simple open carry. If your arrest WAS based completely on the open carry aspect, and the charges actually stuck, then the defendant either had a really lousy lawyer, or had other, more serious legal problems to contend with. Or maybe he didn't even have a lawyer, and pleaded guilty out of simple ignorance. For what it's worth, I DO believe that concealed carry is far less complicated and risky than open carry, but hey... the law is the law. (Jul 25, 2008 | post #103)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine guilty of killing wife
Several of the people commenting here, including myself, believe that the penalty Roe received for taking advantage of his patients was too light. This is particularly important when you consider what happened to Lori DeKleine. You are actually talking about an issue that has already been discussed at length... or at least several pages ago on this topic. In short... the issue of Roe's abuse of position does not excuse IN ANY WAY the actions of Ken DeKleine. However, Roe had complete knowledge of the unstable nature of Ken, and should have known that participating in a sexual relationship with Lori DeKleine would actually be making her situation much worse. If you are supposed to be CARING for someone, you don't put them in even greater physical danger simply because you can't keep your pants zipped. Allegations have now surfaced that Roe has some amount of history with crossing the patient/care-giver line, and this justifiably has some people upset. Roe was a state-licensed psychologist that had his license suspended for some really serious rule-breaking. Those facts are on the public record, and available to anyone under the Freedom of Information Act. If he hadn't been a professional therapist bound to a code of ethics, it may have been a private, personal matter... but that is NOT the case. Roe carried out the affair, knowing full-well that it would play right into Ken's fears and paranoia. That doesn't excuse what Ken did, but a psychologist with judgment THAT bad shouldn't really be allowed to start practicing again without some more serious scrutiny of the facts, especially when someone got murdered in part as a result of his professional misconduct. The focus of the discussion HAS drifted more to Roe's actions as opposed to Ken's, but Ken will be sentenced to life in prison next month. In contrast, John Roe could, in theory, but practicing again in a short period of time. What you are seeing here is VERY justifiable concern about that. (Jul 23, 2008 | post #191)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine guilty of killing wife
Ooops! Sorry for the double post. (Jul 15, 2008 | post #155)
WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan
DeKleine guilty of killing wife
According to reports in the Holland Sentinel and Grand Rapids Press (the only media outlets that published Roe's name, as far as I know), Roe's actual suspensions were for terms of six months AND A DAY. That's important because apparently, suspensions longer than six months do not automatically allow reinstatement at the end of the term. He must therefore re-apply if he wants to legally practice again. (Jul 15, 2008 | post #154)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
