18-Year-Old Considers Civil Suit After Jury Finds Cops Illegally Arrested Him for Openly Carrying Rifle in Mich. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/18-year-old-considers-civil-suit-after-jury-finds-cops-illegally-arrested-him-for-openly-carrying-rifle-in-mich/)


While some anti-gun enthusiasts may find it unpalatable, in many states it is not illegal to openly carry a gun while walking down the street. And when stopped and asked about it, one doesn’t have to produce ID to inquiring officials.

So is the case in Michigan. And 18-year-old Sean Combs is educating plenty of people on the issue after a jury sided with him last week following an arrest for carrying his loaded M-1 rifle down Michigan streets and refusing to initially show identification when questioned by police.

It happened on April 13 in Birmingham, Mich. At the time, Combs was stopped by police after having the vintage rifle strapped to his back. He was told to show ID but refused. The Observer and Eccentric has more on what happened next:

Michigan is an open carry state that does not require a person to produce ID when stopped by the police. In this case, however, the three officers involved in the arrest each testified they wanted to see some ID from Combs because he did not appear to be 18, the legal age to openly carry a firearm.

When he refused to produce ID, they arrested him. He was charged with brandishing a firearm in public, disturbing the peace and obstructing a police officer. Judge Marc Barron of the 48th District Court dismissed the third charge on a lack of evidence.

“Michigan law does not require anyone to produce ID on demand,” Combs’s attorney, Jim Makowski, told the local CBS affiliate. ‘They were rude and disrespectful to my client from the get-go.

“Nobody called 911, nobody was following him … That was it, he was minding his own business,” he said, and added that the crowd formed because the police were “harassing” Combs.

“I was just exercising my rights,” Combs, a recent high school graduate, testified in the case. “Freedom of expression, freedom of speech.”

And the jury agreed.

“We upheld the law,” Rev. Julius DelPino, a jury member, told the local Patch site. “Based on how the law is written, (Combs) was not breaking the law.”

I'm sorry but it sounds like that young man was asking for trouble.

I'm sorry but it sounds like that young man was asking for trouble.

In America, exercising your rights is always asking for trouble from the people who would deny them.

I'm sorry but it sounds like that young man was asking for trouble.

That's what was said about Patrick Henry and John Hancock too.

In America, exercising your rights is always asking for trouble from the people who would deny them.

...a loaded M-1,I bet if your child got shot and you found out the police had seen this guy but not stop him.......you're the one sueing.%$#@ his rights!:coffee:

I hope he WINS!!!

...a loaded M-1,I bet if your child got shot and you found out the police had seen this guy but not stop him.......you're the one sueing.%$#@ his rights!:coffee:

You just demonstrated the liberal utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. :buttkick:

You just demonstrated the liberal utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. :buttkick:Ignore the troll Chief. The shell casings in the M1 have a higher IQ than he does.

So, here we have the righteous youngster doing something stupid to make a point (he's lucky they didn't shoot him since it was an M1), and a reaction by a representative of the "it's all about me and I'll sue your azz if I don't like what you do" contingent. And then folks wonder how we got that idiot in the White House... :rolleyes:

So, here we have the righteous youngster doing something stupid to make a point (he's lucky they didn't shoot him since it was an M1), and a reaction by a representative of the "it's all about me and I'll sue your azz if I don't like what you do" contingent. And then folks wonder how we got that idiot in the White House... :rolleyes:Why is it stupid for him to exercise his rights under the constitution? Why would they shoot him? Certainly they know the law and that he is allowed to carry. You just totally confuzzed me....:lol:

Why is it stupid for him to exercise his rights under the constitution? Why would they shoot him? Certainly they know the law and that he is allowed to carry. You just totally confuzzed me....:lol:

These days, even though he has the right to do what he did, had the wrong person handled that call, he could very well be dead with his parents suing on his behalf. Young males carrying guns tend to freak some people out, no matter where they are and what they're doing legally.

So, here we have the righteous youngster doing something stupid to make a point (he's lucky they didn't shoot him since it was an M1), and a reaction by a representative of the "it's all about me and I'll sue your azz if I don't like what you do" contingent. And then folks wonder how we got that idiot in the White House... :rolleyes:

Excuse me. Really? What are the odds that this 18 year old or anyone else who interprets the rights outlined in the Constitution conservatively like this would have voted for Obongo?

Excuse me. Really? What are the odds that this 18 year old or anyone else who interprets the rights outlined in the Constitution conservatively like this would have voted for Obongo?

You'd be surprised. I know quite a few of them. Some of them regret it now and some of them are still blinded by their youthful idealism.

...a loaded M-1,I bet if your child got shot and you found out the police had seen this guy but not stop him.......you're the one sueing.%$#@ his rights!:coffee:

Nobody gets the drop on my kids, they are always armed :yay:

These days, even though he has the right to do what he did, had the wrong person handled that call, he could very well be dead with his parents suing on his behalf. Young males carrying guns tend to freak some people out, no matter where they are and what they're doing legally.

Your posts make our founding fathers cry.

Your posts make our founding fathers cry.


Makes me cry, too! How far we have travelled down the wrong path! I'm sure that any day now we'll see those founding fathers levitate right out of their graves as they're spinning so fast these days!

Nobody gets the drop on my kids, they are always armed :yay:

I like the way they move though the hood. Like an army patrol advancing. One covers, others advance. Nice.

Yes, this kid was legally allowed to carry the weapon (personally i think it was rather dumb to do so but still legal.). Given that he has only months or less on the right side of legal, i dont find it unreasonable for the police to have asked him to provide proof that he was old enough to do so. We require proof of legal age to buy alchohol and cigarettes but its infringement to ask for proof to carry a loaded weapon?

Yes, this kid was legally allowed to carry the weapon (personally i think it was rather dumb to do so but still legal.). Given that he has only months or less on the right side of legal, i dont find it unreasonable for the police to have asked him to provide proof that he was old enough to do so. We require proof of legal age to buy alchohol and cigarettes but its infringement to ask for proof to carry a loaded weapon?

:yeahthat:
just because it is legal doesn't mean it isn't also stupid.

its infringement to ask for proof to carry a loaded weapon?

According to state law, yes! :confused:

We require proof of legal age to buy alchohol and cigarettes but its infringement to ask for proof to carry a loaded weapon?





[you can vote without ID]

:whistle:

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Galaxy S III )

I think he should have done it while riding his bike across the Mackinac Bridge. :coffee:

[you can vote without ID]

:whistle:

Dont agree with that one either.

I wonder if anyone ever calls him P-Diddy or Puffy or Puff Daddy. I bet he gets that all the time. If I were a cop and had asked him his name without looking at his id, I would think he were lying.