Combs-Thank you all for supporting me

scot623 · Jul 13, 2012

Congrats, Sean!

Fallschirmjäger said:
Now that it's established they had no reasonable suspicion upon which to make the stop, are you going to consider a civil suit and have your record expunged?

Not to derail the thread, but the Judge specifically said he believed the officers had RAS to stop and ID Sean based on his young appearance. He then said the fact there is no law requiring Sean to show ID did not hinder the officers from doing their job. He then dismissed the obstructing charge. Bottom line is THIS judge felt RAS was met and the stop was legal, whether a Federal Judge feels the same way is unknown.

Fallschirjmäger · Jul 13, 2012

Thanks Scot623, that sorta ummm.... slipped past me.

davidmcbeth · Jul 13, 2012

Wondering, was a motion for acquittal filed after the state rested?

And what was the cost of the proceedings to you?

stainless1911 · Jul 13, 2012

I do hope that you continue with us on this forum.

griffin · Jul 13, 2012

Sean, as others have said, thank you for standing up for all of us.

I am glad that you were reading and encouraged by online forums and media reader comments. This went farther than you might realize. All over the US, as a matter of fact. But if you are interested in someplace close by, here's an Indiana firearms forum. It's still being talked about there, of course.

Open Carry event in Birmingham Michigan for protest

There is an earlier thread or two, but this one follows your trial as well.

Then there is this parallel thread once the verdict was reached.

Not guilty

And of course, there's the latest Birmingham Patch story. Story is decent, reader comments are priceless.

Rifle-Toting Teen Found Not Guilty; Jury Says: 'We Upheld the Law'

Thanks again, from all of us!

DanM · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Wondering, was a motion for acquittal filed after the state rested?

A motion for directed verdict, which is pretty much what you are talking about, was voiced by the defense after the prosecutor rested. The judge dismissed the charge of resisting the police. The judge sharply questioned the prosecutor about the disturbing the peace and brandishing charges, but allowed them to remain.

TheQ · Jul 14, 2012

Hey, congrats -- PDiddy

-- Phil Hofmeister

PS. Glad you won't need the advise about not dropping the soap

davidmcbeth · Jul 14, 2012

DanM said:
A motion for directed verdict, which is pretty much what you are talking about, was voiced by the defense after the prosecutor rested. The judge dismissed the charge of resisting the police. The judge sharply questioned the prosecutor about the disturbing the peace and brandishing charges, but allowed them to remain.

Well the jury made the judge look like a fool ... no way the remaining charges could have even been associated or supported with the facts. And this case really was just a question of law....why it was not dismissed upon a pre-trial motion to dismiss is beyond comprehension (I am assuming a motion to dismiss was filed of course)

And a resisting charge was dropped by the judge? That's usually the easiest one to get past such a motion ... the cops and DA clearly just tagged this on w/o any facts supporting it.

Its always wise to ask for such a motion ... it lets the defense know that the judge thinks that enough evidence was present to support the charges.

Glad you won your case; I don't know why you carried a M1 around and it really does not matter.

Now wait for the new bill in your legislature to outlaw this activity...it will be soon.

ken243 · Jul 14, 2012

Glad everything turned out. I would venture to say file a civil suit, federal one too. I would sue for dropping you M1 too if it damaged it in any way. Even so much as a scratch. Saving for a handgun wouldn't be an issue then. You have a slam dunk civil case. But I would go with the Sig P229. They are very nice as your mom can probably tell you. Try shooting hers.

I am glad to stand up to stupidity and ignorance about the 2A. I spent much time doing so on the Patch articles. No matter what we say though some sheep will be convinced they are not sheep. That is until they meet a wolf. But that is how some people need things proven to them. Good luck with everything and I hope to meet you again.

davidmcbeth · Jul 14, 2012

griffin said:
Sean, as others have said, thank you for standing up for all of us.

I am glad that you were reading and encouraged by online forums and media reader comments. This went farther than you might realize. All over the US, as a matter of fact. But if you are interested in someplace close by, here's an Indiana firearms forum.
Open Carry event in Birmingham Michigan for protest

One comment from the IN forum:

Looks like the people of Birmingham need to pressure their elected representatives to change the codified law. The kid was clearly trying to be a nuisance, was creating a disturbance, and should have been charged with brandishing. It's childish conduct like this that will eventually cost all of us our gun rights.

The jury may have arrived at the correct verdict per Birmingham's codified law. If so, it is the law that is incorrect and it should be changed. Open carry of a handgun is bad enough. Open carry of a rifle, "strapped to his back", is not what any of us want.

What does this guy want us to do with our rifles? Just have them in our basement? Even gun owners who are pro-gun don't understand ... if cops can have rifles in public, we can too (and tanks and battleships and fighter aircraft etc)... I don't own guns to protect me from criminals or go hunting ... I own mine to protect myself from the gov't (rogue cops, etc) and for sport (clay & trap) but my rifles have nothing to do with clay and trap shooting ..
nothin' says lovin' like a 50 cal round a-comin'

when crap hits the fan, my handguns are not the first on my mind to grab ... its my rifles

Michigander · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Now wait for the new bill in your legislature to outlaw this activity...it will be soon.

This ain't the PRK, or the snobbish elitist east coast. It's in our state constitution.

stainless1911 · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
One comment from the IN forum:

Looks like the people of Birmingham need to pressure their elected representatives to change the codified law. The kid was clearly trying to be a nuisance, was creating a disturbance, and should have been charged with brandishing. It's childish conduct like this that will eventually cost all of us our gun rights.

The jury may have arrived at the correct verdict per Birmingham's codified law. If so, it is the law that is incorrect and it should be changed. Open carry of a handgun is bad enough. Open carry of a rifle, "strapped to his back", is not what any of us want.

\

This guy should have his CPL pulled.

davidmcbeth · Jul 14, 2012

stainless1911 said:
This guy should have his CPL pulled.

If by CPL, you mean D**K, I agree.:uhoh:

stainless1911 · Jul 14, 2012

Maybe then, he would recognize what a right is, and isn't, then fight to keep it.

scot623 · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Well the jury made the judge look like a fool ... no way the remaining charges could have even been associated or supported with the facts.

If they deliberated for 5 minutes..maybe. The fact they deliberated for 5 hours says some people on the jury needed convincing to not convict. I hardly think that makes the Judge look like a fool.

Again, great job Sean. I told you I would have taken the plea...you showed great resolve not to.

Bailenforcer · Jul 14, 2012

Thank You Sean for standing tall.

Many people have hero's, and I never had one till now... Job well done.

M1fan1942 said:
Hey everyone, it's Sean Combs, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that supported me during my case. Thank you for going to the rallies and/or my Trial, or simply posting here or MGO in support. I also want to thank those who defended me on local articles against all the anti's. I read those often and it also put a smile on my face when one of you backed me up. To be honest, knowing i had people willing to stand in my conner and back me up no matter what, was probably the only thing keeping me from losing my mind. Now that i have won, and my bills are paid off, I can finally save my money up for my first hand gun. For those wondering, I am planning on buying a full size M&P9 or a Sig P229. First choice is the M&P though. Well, although BPD still has my beautiful M1 Garand (which they dropped during the trial -_-) I will finally be able to have her back soon hopefully. Not sure when exactly though -_-.
But, I won and proved I wasn't doing all the crap they claimed I was doing
I WON!!!:banana:

sasha601 · Jul 14, 2012

scot623 said:
Congrats, Sean!

Not to derail the thread, but the Judge specifically said he believed the officers had RAS to stop and ID Sean based on his young appearance. He then said the fact there is no law requiring Sean to show ID did not hinder the officers from doing their job. He then dismissed the obstructing charge. Bottom line is THIS judge felt RAS was met and the stop was legal, whether a Federal Judge feels the same way is unknown.

Yes, RAS was met because he looked too young. Meeting RAS is sufficient to detain for a short period of time. However, he was arrested. So, this means that a legal standard for a arrest should of been met. This standard is called Probable Cause. I do not believe that this standard was met. Judge did not speak to that, only RAS. I believe arresting Sean without Probable Cause is where police violated his civil rights.

sasha601 · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Wondering, was a motion for acquittal filed after the state rested?

And what was the cost of the proceedings to you?

I believe motion for acquittal by the Judge is a standard motion in any criminal case that defense attorneys voice right after prosecution rests. I would be surprised if this was not done.

sasha601 · Jul 14, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Well the jury made the judge look like a fool ... no way the remaining charges could have even been associated or supported with the facts. And this case really was just a question of law....why it was not dismissed upon a pre-trial motion to dismiss is beyond comprehension (I am assuming a motion to dismiss was filed of course)

And a resisting charge was dropped by the judge? That's usually the easiest one to get past such a motion ... the cops and DA clearly just tagged this on w/o any facts supporting it.

Its always wise to ask for such a motion ... it lets the defense know that the judge thinks that enough evidence was present to support the charges.

Glad you won your case; I don't know why you carried a M1 around and it really does not matter.

Now wait for the new bill in your legislature to outlaw this activity...it will be soon.

Your question "....why it was not dismissed upon a pre-trial motion..." is a good one. These day and age preliminary hearings are a joke in my opinion. Judges do not like to dismiss cases at preliminary hearings. Even if prosecutors case appears to be very weak. We used to have a great tool in our justice system that we lost a long time ago. This tool was there to make sure prosecutors do not bring bogus charges and do not overcharge defendants. This tool is called Grand Jury. It used to be a long time ago that any misdemeanor or felony charge must go to a GJ. And only GJ had power to indite. Prosecutors did not have power of charging people. They were only able to bring proposed charges to GJ. This was a great barrier for overzealous prosecutors. Today, GJ is just an option for a prosecutor - not a requirement. They only use it in some special cases and only when it fits the agenda

TheQ · Jul 14, 2012

The judge can only dismiss a case after looking at the evidence in the best lihgt favoring the non-moving party...keep that in mind.

Combs-Thank you all for supporting me

Regular Member

Active member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member