Birmingham, MI man acquitted - hit this poll

.
(To avoid the ad)

This is the 18yo in Michigan who was charged with several things for carrying a rifle slung on his back.
The poll so far (11:30 Fri 13JUL) is about 50/50.
Let's change that.
It asks if you're pleased or not that he was acquitted.
Of course we are! It's a victory not only for him but for civil rights.

http://apps.detroitnews.com/apps/forums/newstalk/lettersindex.php?topic=Open_carry_2012

Now, let the Federal 1983 cases begin.

Hopefully the arresting officers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their thuggish violation of his civil rights, and for their color-of-law brutishness and outright lying to him, on their reports, and to the media.

Hit them HARD in the only place they understand--the wallets...

The poll is almost certainly innacurate. I voted twice just to see if it would allow it and it does. Knowing how the anti-gun groups are, I'm sure the Brady Bunch has someone setting on their computer voting no over and over. Based on the comments the poll does not seem right.

opencarry.org is cited in the story as well.

http://troy.patch.com/articles/we-upheld-the-law-rifle-toting-teen-found-not-guilty

here is half of the new story post.

Sean Combs, the Troy 18-year-old arrested for carrying a rifle in downtown Birmingham, was found not guilty Thursday afternoon of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.

After nearly five hours of deliberation on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning at the 48th District Court, many on the seven-member jury were confident in their final decision.

"We upheld the law," said Rev. Julius DelPino, a jury member from Rochester Hills. "Based on how the law is written, (Combs) was not breaking the law."

Combs was arrested on April 13 after he was stopped by two Birmingham Police officers while he had his loaded M1 Garand rifle slung over his shoulder. When officers asked for identification, Combs refused.

As an adult, Combs was legally able to carry the rifle — a birthday present from an older brother — and under Michigan law, he wasn't required to show police ID. However, officers testified Wednesday that Combs appeared very young and upon refusing show ID, Combs caused enough of a disturbance to attract a crowd.

A third charge of obstructing an officer was dismissed Wednesday by Judge Marc Barron due to lack of evidence.

Case attracts attention of open carry advocates

Makowski said Thursday's verdict reaffirmed Michigan's open carry laws and most importantly, distinguished open carry from "brandishing."

"Open carry is not brandishing and brandishing is not open carry, there is a distinction," Makowski said, adding, "If I feel the need to openly carry a long gun, the courts have affirmed that I can do that."

Since Combs' arrest, the case has caused an uproar in the open carry community, which has rallied around Combs to show its support.

Open carry advocates, many of whom learned about Combs' case on opencarry.org, have gathered as a group in Birmingham's Shain Park twice now — once in June and again last week — while openly carrying rifles and pistols in support of Combs.

“The verdict was congruent with the laws as they are written," said Ken Herman, a Clio resident and participant in the June open carry protest in Shain Park. “It is just another relief that our justice system has come through and his peers were able to remain objective in finding a verdict.”

However, while the brandishing charge was the subject of a pair of heated briefs written by Makowski and the prosecuting attorney, Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, P.C., the jury actually spent the most time debating the disturbing the peace charge.

After spending two hours in deliberation on Wednesday, the jury returned at 5 p.m. noting they had reached a verdict on the brandishing charge but not the disturbing the peace charge. The jury spent nearly three additional hours debating that charge Thursday morning.
Combs says civil suit still on the table

The big question after the trial, however: will Combs do it again?

Combs said that Friday night in April was the only night he intended to openly carry his rifle, anyway.

"I probably won't be doing something like this in the near future," Combs said Thursday. "I just want to get away from the stress and the drama and be a normal person again."

Despite finding Combs not guilty, however, several jurors noted they don't necessarily agree with Combs' actions that April night and think there's room in Michigan law for tighter regulation of firearms.

"As a people, we preserve our freedom by restraining our government. But we preserve civilization by restraining ourselves," said Bloomfield Township real estate lawyer and juror Ed Kickham. "There's some gaps in our law (regarding identifying yourself to police officers)."

Still, Kickham noted even if he disagrees with Combs' actions, no law was broken and that was what the jury had to decide in this case.

"I think the police officers behaved in a perfectly reasonable manner," he said. "But I don't think it rose to a breach of the peace."

Combs said while he's been cleared of criminal charges, there are no plans for a civil suit at this time but the idea is still on the table.
.

"As a people, we preserve our freedom by restraining our government. But we preserve civilization by restraining ourselves," said Bloomfield Township real estate lawyer and juror Ed Kickham. "There's some gaps in our law (regarding identifying yourself to police officers)."

Click to expand...

Yeah, in the parts that explicity tell the police they can't just walk up to someone & demand ID, on pain of arrest.

done, 57.65 for!

This is my first post here, and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but merely stating my opinion. While I support open carry, I don't necessarily understand the people who choose to carry a rifle, like this guy did. Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town (unless it happens to be the only firearm someone owns), I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention. Like I said before, I support open carry and believe it is our right to do so, but I don't think we should carry long guns if we have other options at our disposal. I believe it just sends the wrong message.

A lot of people who do this cite educating the public as a reason. I agree with educating the public regarding gun rights, open carry, etc., but most of the time, the experience of seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle is more alarming to the public than it is educational. Also, the almost certain confrontation with police would tend to reflect negatively on the cause in the eyes of most observers passing by IMO. Face it, most people tend to think of police encounters as being a bad thing, and if they see a gun involved, a lot of people are going to assume that either carrying a firearm openly in public is illegal or that the person was just another "bad guy with a gun". Neither one of those is particularly helpful in educating the public. Sure, the outcome in this particular situation in MI can be considered a "win" for the cause, but that initial negative reaction most likely still resonates within some of those that witnessed the actual encounter with the police.

px4guy said:

This is my first post here, and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but merely stating my opinion. While I support open carry, I don't necessarily understand the people who choose to carry a rifle, like this guy did. Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town (unless it happens to be the only firearm someone owns), I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention. Like I said before, I support open carry and believe it is our right to do so, but I don't think we should carry long guns if we have other options at our disposal. I believe it just sends the wrong message.

A lot of people who do this cite educating the public as a reason. I agree with educating the public regarding gun rights, open carry, etc., but most of the time, the experience of seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle is more alarming to the public than it is educational. Also, the almost certain confrontation with police would tend to reflect negatively on the cause in the eyes of most observers passing by IMO. Face it, most people tend to think of police encounters as being a bad thing, and if they see a gun involved, a lot of people are going to assume that either carrying a firearm openly in public is illegal or that the person was just another "bad guy with a gun". Neither one of those is particularly helpful in educating the public. Sure, the outcome in this particular situation in MI can be considered a "win" for the cause, but that initial negative reaction most likely still resonates within some of those that witnessed the actual encounter with the police.

Click to expand...

If you would take a few minutes and follow the story from the start, you would see that the rifle is the only firearm the kid owned. In MI you do not have to produce ID unless you are driving and the cops know this.

I am certain that since you disagree with this young mans choice of firearm to carry (his only firearm) that you would be ready to purchase other options to be at his disposal, right?

Speaking of education, how is seeing a rifle doing nothing more then hanging on somebodies back alarming? I mean really only a complete idiot would be alarmed by just the sight of a rifle.

I am scared of fat women in spandex, will you soldier a campaign to stop that for me, please?

Super Trucker said:

If you would take a few minutes and follow the story from the start, you would see that the rifle is the only firearm the kid owned. In MI you do not have to produce ID unless you are driving and the cops know this.

I am certain that since you disagree with this young mans choice of firearm to carry (his only firearm) that you would be ready to purchase other options to be at his disposal, right?

Click to expand...

First, I never said anything about producing ID, right or wrong, and actually agree with the idea of not having to produce it unless you're driving.

Second, if you had read my entire post instead of just choosing what you wanted to read and ignoring the rest, you would have seen that I clarified my stance regarding carrying a rifle if that is the only firearm a person owns. A rifle, although maybe impractical in certain situations, is better than having nothing at all. So, no, I don't disagree with his choice of firearm to carry. I didn't see the part that mentioned the rifle being his only firearm, and I threw in the clarification in the event that it was.

Maybe I was a bit off topic, but this story made me recall several videos I have seen lately regarding carrying rifles in public. My post was directed toward those individuals that walk through towns carrying rifles merely to get a reaction from the police, since I have seen a few videos lately depicting just that. Youtube is full of videos of people doing it just to make a statement. In fact, one guy appears to be obviously disappointed when a police officer doesn't take his bait and doesn't stop. Trolling just to get a response from the police is plain stupid IMO and does nothing at all to further the cause. If the cop does take the bait, then all the general public sees when they pass by is a man with a gun being stopped by the police, regardless or whether or not it is right. That doesn't really paint a positive picture to support the cause in the uninformed public's eye. Like I said in my previous post (in case you didn't read that part either), most people are either going to think that carrying the weapon is illegal, or they're going to think he must have done something else wrong. In either case, it doesn't really help us out much.

Speaking of education, how is seeing a rifle doing nothing more then hanging on somebodies back alarming? I mean really only a complete idiot would be alarmed by just the sight of a rifle.

I am scared of fat women in spandex, will you soldier a campaign to stop that for me, please?

Click to expand...

How many people do you see on a daily basis walking down the street with a rifle slung over their shoulder? Seeing someone walking with a rifle on their back isn't the most common of sights, and when someone steps outside of the norm, especially when firearms are concerned, it could be quite alarming to some members of the public (namely the inexperienced or uninformed). If I saw someone carrying a rifle on the street, I wouldn't make trouble for them or be overly alarmed per se, but I would sure be keeping an eye out for them since I don't know their motives and it's not necessarily normal behavior. Do you trust everyone you spot carrying a weapon?

px4guy said:

... Do you trust everyone you spot carrying a weapon?

Click to expand...

More so than I trust most people driving cars, yes. Because it is not normal, as you say, it what makes it less likely to be a threat. Only someone would do so if that was their only option for arming themselves. We've already established that he did not have the option of carrying a handgun he did not own, and the law does not allow legal adults to purchase handguns until they are 21, even if they had been issued handguns while in the military.

PLEASE help us change the law to allow ALL responsible adults to purchase handguns, which, as you agree, are far more suited for personal defense sidearms.

MAC702 said:

... Only someone would do so if that was their only option for arming themselves.

Click to expand...

Not really. Browse a little on Youtube and you'll see several examples disputing that statement. In these videos, individuals carry their regular sidearms and also rifles through towns just trolling for responses, whether they be the public calling the police about a MWAG or the police randomly stopping them. All the while they are claiming to be on a mission to better the cause for open carry. In that situation, the rifle is totally unnecessary and just there for shock value. They are well within their rights to do it, but just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it's the smartest thing to do. If someone had a vehicle they owned outright, it would be perfectly legal for them to go outside and bash the hell out of it with a sledge hammer to the point that it was inoperable, as long as they didn't try to submit a claim to their insurance company for compensation, but they're still a moron for tearing up a perfectly good vehicle. Legal does not equal smart, and that was the point I was originally trying to make. Those clowns that do it for no other reason than to provoke a response from the police are morons that aren't doing anyone any favors.

When I tried reasoning with one of those people, who according to his Youtube profile is also a "freedom of speech activist", he promptly blocked me from commenting on any of his videos. Kind of ironic, don't you think? It seemed like he only wanted comments from either people who were in total agreement with him to stroke his ego or people who were extreme anti-gun folks so he could berate them and make them look bad, again... ego stroking. The fact that he blocked me when all I was trying to do was open his eyes to the possibility that he was hurting the cause and making all of us look bad kind of added to my suspicion that he did not really care about the actual issue and was just out for notoriety and causing a scene. Also, like I mentioned before, the guy being noticeably disappointed in one of the videos I saw when a police officer didn't take the bait and went about his business elsewhere showed that he's just doing it to cause a scene. He's entitled to do whatever he wants, but I still think he's an idiot and is not helping anyone.

We've already established that he did not have the option of carrying a handgun he did not own, and the law does not allow legal adults to purchase handguns until they are 21, even if they had been issued handguns while in the military.

PLEASE help us change the law to allow ALL responsible adults to purchase handguns, which, as you agree, are far more suited for personal defense sidearms.

Click to expand...

I too think having to be 21 to purchase a handgun is BS. If you can serve in the military at 18 and be issued a sidearm, then why shouldn't 18 year olds be able to purchase a handgun? Anyway, if a rifle is all someone can legally purchase for carry for the time being, then I say go for it. I'm not sure how to go about changing the law other than writing our representatives and thoughtful, researched voting, both of which i do, and peaceful protest. I'm fairly certain though that carrying a rifle with the sole purpose of causing a scene, when one has the option not to, is not the way to go. It just seems like antagonizing police officers, even though not technically doing anything illegal in the process, is a good way to turn more of them against the open carry crowd and create a hassle for the rest of us. I realize that this young man did not have the option to carry anything else, so that last part was with those who do in mind.

I would also like to note that I believe there is a distinction between a staged group protest in which members of the group carry rifles in this fashion and certain individuals with their impromptu displays on the street. The staged group protests are normally supporting a worthy cause, such as the protests supporting the young man in MI, while the individual displays I have seen seem to be nothing more than self-promoting BS from guys that desperately want to become a hero to the gun crowd but are going about it the wrong way.

zack991 said:

As an adult, Combs was legally able to carry the rifle — a birthday present from an older brother — and under Michigan law, he wasn't required to show police ID. However, officers testified Wednesday that Combs appeared very young and upon refusing show ID, Combs caused enough of a disturbance to attract a crowd.

Click to expand...

The only thing that attracted a crowd was the disturbance CAUSED BY THE POLICE who created said disturbance after Combs lawfully refused to show his ID. They created the disturbance by refusing to allow Combs to go about his lawful business.

px4guy said:

This is my first post here, and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but merely stating my opinion. While I support open carry, I don't necessarily understand the people who choose to carry a rifle, like this guy did. Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town (unless it happens to be the only firearm someone owns), I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention. Like I said before, I support open carry and believe it is our right to do so, but I don't think we should carry long guns if we have other options at our disposal. I believe it just sends the wrong message.

A lot of people who do this cite educating the public as a reason. I agree with educating the public regarding gun rights, open carry, etc., but most of the time, the experience of seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle is more alarming to the public than it is educational. Also, the almost certain confrontation with police would tend to reflect negatively on the cause in the eyes of most observers passing by IMO. Face it, most people tend to think of police encounters as being a bad thing, and if they see a gun involved, a lot of people are going to assume that either carrying a firearm openly in public is illegal or that the person was just another "bad guy with a gun". Neither one of those is particularly helpful in educating the public. Sure, the outcome in this particular situation in MI can be considered a "win" for the cause, but that initial negative reaction most likely still resonates within some of those that witnessed the actual encounter with the police.

Click to expand...

Liberty disagrees.

The poll is closed, finis, done.

px4guy said:

This is my first post here

Click to expand...

Welcome aboard.
I noticed nobody else had the manners to say it yet.

Since there doesn't appear to be a practical use for carrying a rifle through town

Click to expand...

1) Many anti's say that there's no practical use for carrying a pistol.
2) What other rights do you put to that same 'practicality' test?

I can only assume that most of those who do this are just trying to send a message promoting our rights to carry firearms by attracting attention.

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech. Ain't it great?
And again, many anti's (and some cc-only gun owners) think the same about people who OC while going about their daily life.
No, I (generally) have no intention of attracting attention. I realize that some people will notice (most don't), and when they also notice that I'm going about whatever it is I'm doing and nothing bad is happening, that is educational. Or if they choose to talk with me... that's educational.

My post was directed toward those individuals that walk through towns carrying rifles merely to get a reaction from the police
...Trolling just to get a response from the police is plain stupid IMO

Click to expand...

But not illegal, & the police can choose to ignore behaviour that's not illegal.
In fact, they should.
Sort of like when a scantily-dressed woman is walking along the street & men can choose to appreciate the scenery but drive by or they can choose to stop & offer her money for sex. She's not doing anything illegal by walking along the street in barely any clothing (though I agree it's not the smartest course of action) but the people approaching her are.

when someone steps outside of the norm, especially when firearms are concerned, it could be quite alarming to some members of the public

Click to expand...

1) being "outside the norm" is not illegal
2) people do not have a right not to be alarmed
3) the same could have been said 50 years ago about a black family moving into a formerly all-white neighborhood. Doesn't mean the newcomers should have stayed out, or that they're doing anything illegal, or that the police should bother them.

I too think having to be 21 to purchase a handgun is BS.

Click to expand...

You're right. It's not true. It's legal for an 18yo (who's not otherwise prohibited) to purchase a pistol. S/he just can't do it from a dealer & have a background check.
That makes no sense to me. I'd think that the anti's would be happy to have more people required to get background checks.
Maybe it's because (generally) juvenile records aren't available, so they want to give the 'kids' a few years to make an adult criminal history??

I'm fairly certain though that carrying a rifle with the sole purpose of causing a scene, when one has the option not to, is not the way to go. It just seems like antagonizing police officers, even though not technically doing anything illegal in the process, is a good way to turn more of them against the open carry crowd and create a hassle for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that police harassing citizens who are doing nothing wrong is not the way to go. In fact, it's a good way to turn more citizens against police. Antagonizing people who are statistically the most law-abiding & likely to step forward in a bad situation makes no sense. It's those bad officers who are creating problems for the other LEO.

staged group protests are normally supporting a worthy cause, such as the protests supporting the young man in MI, while the individual displays I have seen seem to be nothing more than self-promoting BS from guys that desperately want to become a hero to the gun crowd but are going about it the wrong way.

Click to expand...

So freedom of speech in a group is acceptable, but individually it's wrong?
I agree that trying to provoke a conflict is a bad idea.
So why do police do it?

Yes 58.2%
No 41.8%
Voting has ended on this poll