Kid Goes All Wild West (Side Of Detroit), Gets Wrongfully Arrested
Michigan being an "open-carry" state, and one that doesn't require ID when stopped by the police, it should have been no problem for Sean Combs to walk down the streets of Birmingham carrying the vintage rifle he got for his birthday.
The cops arrested him for refusing to produce ID to show he was 18, the legal age to carry a firearm. He was 18, and he apparently actually did produce his ID eventually.
The Observer & Eccentric's Jay M. Grossman reports:
In his testimony, Combs said he decided to walk around with the rifle to exercise his civil rights."I was just exercising my rights," he testified. "Freedom of expression, freedom of speech."
From CBS/am1270 Detroit:
So, what's next for Sean Combs, 18, who was acquitted of criminal charges for carrying a rifle through downtown Birmingham?His attorney Jim Makowski is considering a civil suit against the city of Birmingham, telling Charlie Langton Friday morning on Talk Radio 1270 "we're still looking at our options at this point."
"We tried to get the city to see reason on over a half-dozen occasions, we asked them to dismiss the case, we said 'We'll absorb out attorney fees, just dismiss the case.' The city chose to go forward anyway," Makowski said.
"I can tell you one thing, we offered to dismiss this case without any cost to the city of Birmingham on over six occasions, they chose not to. If there is a civil suit, I think people need to ask 'Why wasn't this case dismissed before trial?'"
Makowski said Combs had to pay attorney fees and had this case "hanging over his head" since April.
@mpetrie98
Factoid.
(Is this S.C. named for the famous S.C.? Has that one been famous for 18 years?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 28, 2012 1:28 AM
Not terribly sympathetic. Kid was looking to pick a fight and he found one.
I suppose you could argue that if he can reasonably be assumed to be underage, he should have had his I.D. with him, since he was doing something that required him to be a certain age. If he was buying cigarettes, he would need his I.D.
And don't bother arguing that the comparison is invalid because stores are private property. It is a matter of federal law, not store policy, that cigarettes are not sold to minors.
Patrick at July 28, 2012 4:05 AM
Let's see "obstructing a police officer" means he asserted his his 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights.
The "disturbing the peace" is that in the assertion 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights the cops drew a crowd because they had three cops and cars at the scene. When you have three of them at a scene and they don't make an arrest they look bad or ineffectual.
The "brandishing a firearm in public" means that police looked for any reason to try and control a sheeple. They didn't realize the they had contacted a sheep dog until it was too late to back down.
Now the question is why the prosecutor didn't quietly drop the charges and let it go away. I bet if you look at the prosecutors office is left leaning and anti-second amendment.
What's scary about that quote is he just finished acquitting the guy because of 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights by serving on the jury that is a 6th amendment right:
Jim P. at July 28, 2012 6:54 AM
Take a look around.
You've been sold your own fear so effectively that if you walk down the street with a .22, as I did as a teen years ago, you are automatically a terrorist. You should be jailed for life for scaring someone.
BE AFRAID, AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO SAVE YOU!
Radwaste at July 28, 2012 8:05 AM
In fast not only is MI a open carry state, one is required to open carry in several places. For example, if one has a carry permit, one can not carry concealed in a bank, the weapon must be visible.
ParatrooperJJ at July 28, 2012 8:12 AM
And there's still a law on the books in my hometown that any male is not allowed to attend a church service WITHOUT a firearm.
Also, it is illegal to walk backwards after dark (whether armed or not).
Flynne at July 28, 2012 8:49 AM
"he was doing something that required him to be a certain age."
Ya mean like voting? I see it as the same as police waiting in front of a voting place and arresting/detaining those they don't like, who don't immediately proffer valid id.
I really believe the rules and regs for voting and gun ownership should be the same.
Joe J at July 28, 2012 8:55 AM
I really believe the rules and regs for voting and gun ownership should be the same.
We have a winnah!
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2012 1:13 PM
"Kid was looking to pick a fight"
OK. Lets say he was. The authorities were directly in the wrong for giving him one, since all he did was walk around with a weapon, a perfectly legal act.
Whatever the kid was "looking" for, the authorities were absolutely wrong in providing it.
And they cannot legally stop someone just because he's carrying a firearm, the case law is very clear on this.
Frankly, EVERYONE should go about armed on a day to day basis.
I'm not saying police need to be lawyers, but for fucks sake they should be expected to know what our civil liberties and constitutional rights are.
Remaining deliberately ignorant in order to be free of liability for violating them, is NOT valid in my eyes.
Robert at July 29, 2012 6:03 AM
Don't you know that ignorance of the law is an excuse? But only if you're a cop. But if you're not a you need a license to film in public.
Jim P. at July 29, 2012 7:19 PM
Leave a comment