Posted on 05/23/2012 3:58:54 AM PDT by marktwain
A Michigan teen is optimistic about his chances in court after being charged with brandishing a firearm, disorderly conduct and obstructing an officer.
Eighteen-year-old Sean Combs (not 'Puffy') was arrested last April by police because he was walking around town with a rifle slung over his shoulder. He'd just received his M1 Garand for his birthday and he was showing the gun to several other teenagers. Cops showed up on the scene and asked to see his ID. Combs declined, but after a few more police showed up Combs decided to give in. The police moved to arrest him the moment he reached for his ID.
According to Patch.com, Lia Grabowski, a friend of Combs who was with him during the arrest, said, "We were just walking around Birmingham. We weren't doing anything." And she added that the event was "terrifying."
As scary as it may have been for the teens, it may end up being even scarier for the police. Combs was not violating any laws (the open carry of rifles is legal in Michigan), so the police might land in hot water for violating Combs' rights. Combs' attorney, Jim Makowski, said he that he believes that the police simply "didn't like what [Combs] was doing," so they decided to arrest him.
Combs has entered a not-guilty plea in response to his charges, but he hopes that it will never even get to court. His attorney intends to file a motion to dismiss because the police stopped him without a cause. You see, there's this really important thing called the Fourth Amendment that protects American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. Unless the state can prove that the cops had a good reason to detain Combs, their whole case is shattered.
Combs added that he is "pretty confident" about the case, though he acknowledges that "anything can happen."
Very interesting.
What about the freedome to travel the 50 states without an internal passport?
If they are not sued, then they will go merrily along their way violating people's rights anytime they like.
The police need to be sued.
That will result only coming out of the taxpayers pocket better idea is to suspend without pay for a time while the officiers study the law or fire them.
Combine the two by filing an action not seeking monetary settlement but asking for the firing of the officers who responded and/or stood by while an illegal arrest was made. Word it so if said action is not taken, a subsequent monetary penalty will be sought.
Two things will happen, those who are too lazy to study and know the laws they are to enforce will be weeded out and those who want to keep their jobs will start to bone up a little. Then maybe, just maybe if Barney pops up again, the educated ones will pull the idiots aside and let them know the facts, then apologize, profusely, to the citizen(s) who are needlessly being harangued.
Same thing happened in a town near me. Guy was out shooting his shotgun at a range, took it home (uncased). (New law in Wisconsin allows transporting uncased rifles or shotguns, unloaded of course). Neighbor saw same guy toting his shotgun back into the house. Cops showed up and made abig deal of it until they got all the facts straight. Simple solution, use a gun case even though you are legal.
It's "simple solutions" like you suggest that deteriorate our Rights and Freedoms under the Constitution. Best solution is not to stand for violations of your rights - if you are legal, you are legal; period.
I conceal carry - law says the weapon cannot be visible, so in hot weather, my options are limited. A pocket holster softens the lines of my carry piece, but many of my short panyts don't have deep enough pockets to keep the butt from showing when I use the holster. I just drop it into my pocket and the outline makes it pretty evident that I have a gun in my pocket. I often get looks from folks in Wal-Mart or convenience stores, but so far, nobody has said anything. If/when someobody complains, I don't expect to be told that I need to find a better way to conceal my weapon - I expect those who don't like it to suck it up because I am legal...
___________________________________________________________
I agree with you BUT, I carry concealed and I don't want anybody to know it. I'm an old dude. I suspect people think I'm a little old man that is helpless. Well little may be a stretch at 6'4" but you know what I mean. If something goes down I don't want to be the first one shot because I have a gun. I want to be ignored so that I can help to have a positive outcome, you know, a happy ending.
I really like my Kel-Tek PF9. I carry without a holster using a built in or built on belt clip.
Very comfortable to carry this way. The butt of the gun just barely shows above your trousers belt line but when you tuck in your shirt pull it back out about 1 inch or so and it will blouse over the butt of the gun and be conpletely concealed and look completely natural. The PF9 is on the top in this picture, they make the same thing for the 380 version too which is below.
i’m glad we have open carry here so i don’t have to worry if i’m printing, or if i lift my shirt, whether or not it showe.
another nice thing about open carry is going out to mow my lawn once or twice carrying openly is a *really* good deterrent. while i’ve seen plenty of crime in my neighborhood, for some reason, my house gets skipped over. :)
This case is so typical of a police response these days. People call the police and expect them to “do something” each and every time they are call, even when no laws are violated. As a retired police supervisor with over 30 years of law enforcement experience, I can tell you that patrol officers are under enormous pressure (from both the citizens and the police command) to “do something” at each call.
I can’t tell you of all the times I’ve had to defend an officer who, after hearing all the details of a call, correctly decided that this is not a law enforcement matter and left the scene without taking any action only to to complained upon. The police command is not supportive either. They are more concerned with placating the citizens (and city council members) than with telling people “we can’t fix all your problems.
I suspect in this case the officers felt compelled to “do something” so they came up with a bogus charge knowing it would be dismissed later. No, this is neither the correct or moral thing to do, but this attitude is pervasive in the LE community.
One more note. Police commanders (and most police supervisors) are notoriously anti-gun, so the presence of a firearm just upped the ante that much more to “do something”. Liability, don’t you know.
Just my two cents worth.
I grew up in Hanover and even into the 80s no one batted an eye at the sight of guns in public. I’ve seen guys in the bank cashing checks with their shotgun leaned up against the counter.
I’m with you. The officers in this case went too far but probably had a whole crowd of panicked people screaming for action.
The best thing to do is educate the public.
Yes. Educating the public is vital and that needs to be done at all levels...from the top on down. Leaders need to lead. Mayors, City Councilpersons, Chiefs, Sheriffs, Police Commanders, etc. all need to be in one accord on this issue.
Unfortunately, people don’t want to hear, “Ma’am, carrying a firearm in public is not a crime in this city and although I see that it upsets you, you don’t have a right to be free from being upset at the sight of a gun.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence that concealed carry/open carry DOES NOT increase the incidents of guns used in crimes, most people still believe it does and are upset at the sight of firearms in public.
Until we have leaders willing to speak the truth on these issues, this illogical hysteria will continue.
What liability? The courts have ruled on numerous occasions that police have no duty to protect any individual.
Ok. In a general, broad sense you are correct. However, like most of life, the “devil’s in the details.”
The courts have ruled over and over that the police are only obligated to protect “the citizenry at large” and not any specific individual...with exceptions ofcourse.
Once police officers are called out to deal with a specific situation (say a man with a gun), how they handle that situation may or may not incur some liability, depending on whether they acted in a “reasonable and proper manner”, had “a duty to act”, “created a more dangerous situation” and/or developed a “special relationship” with the person.
Take our “man with the gun” call. Suppose the officers stopped the man, determined he was mentally deranged and intent on killing his neighbor because the neighbor’s dog craps on his lawn. But instead of taking the man into custody, they release him and he kills his neighbor. Isn’t it clear they had a “duty to act”? Not to mention they probably violated their own policies and maybe state law as well.
Clearly, some liabilibity attaches to their omissions and the family of the deceased neighbor has a pretty good case. There’s lots of case law on this point.
So, once the police become involved in a situation, they run the risk of being sued (actually the City’s get sued because that’s where the real money is)based on what actions they took.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
