Posted on 07/11/2012 11:52:26 AM PDT by marktwain
The trial for Sean Combs, the 18-year-old from Troy found carrying a rifle through downtown Birmingham, begins today.
Combs' trial begins at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday in front of Judge Marc Barron at 48th District Court.
Combs is charged with brandishing a firearm, disturbing the peace and obstructing an officer after an April 13 incident at the corner of Merrill and South Old Woodward.
Combs was arrested around 10 p.m. after refusing to show police officers identification after they asked about the WWII-era M1 Garand .30-caliber rifle strapped to his back, police reports state.
Under Michigan law, as an adult, Combs was legally allowed to carry the weapon and not required to show identification. However, police stated they requested an identification because Combs looked "very young."
At the June 20 evidentiary hearing, Barron denied a motion to dismiss the three charges facing Combs, filed by his attorney James Makowski. According to Barron, Birmingham's ordinances are clear.
"City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However), Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city."
Birmingham will be represented Wednesday by Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, P.C. Leading up to Combs' evidentiary hearing, Kucharek and Makowski debated the definition of "brandishing a weapon," the key charge facing Combs Wednesday. Related Topics: Birmingham Police, Open Carry, Open Carry Michigan, and sean combs How do you think Combs' trial will go? Tell us in the comments.
This young man deserves an award for defending his Constitutional rights.
He shouldn’t look so young.
A bench trial is a slam-dunk on the wrong end of the court
(pun intended)
Hope he gets a walk and a nice parting gift from the city.
How do you possibly brandish a Garand while it is “strapped to your back”?
Slung over his shoulder possibly?
Still wouldn’t be brandishing.
Anyone suggesting that they can should be shot.
Enough is enough.
Leftists believe that rights are only rights until you decide to exercise them, then they are at the discretion of the government.
Best post yet.
There were a lot of freepers on a thread yesterday agreeing that the city of Phoenix should be able to prevent bible studies on your own property. Shows how much most of us have accepted governance counter to our God give rights enumerated in the Constitution.
And the ordinance is that he has the right to openly carry, and that he does not have to show his papers. Go ahead, enforce the ordinances, and arrest the cop for overstepping his authority. And being that the cop is obviously out of control, TAKE AWAY HIS GUN.
The LAW is the LAW boys, the black robe does not make you a dictator, it makes you a public servant.
Denver used to claim that it could ignore the Bill of Rights on RKBA because of its "home rule" BS. No idea if that bit of Commie nonsense has ever gotten rectified.
Quick prediction. The “brandishing” charge is dead in the water. The failure to show identification will stick because of the obligation of the officer to insure that the person carrying the firearm was an adult and articulable suspicion under the Terry Rule is enough to stop, frisk and inquire.
This is socially approved profiling. Had the kid been brown the officer would have had the fall back of determining if he were a citizen. When these subtle definitions are inserted in the law, they have consequences.
Just a prediction unless the kid has gray hair and wrinkles.
From what I have read on here and in the news he was 18 and his state is an open carry state. I don’t see any reason they should be trying him. He was legal.
I hope him and his lawyer slaps down the anti-gun pukes and sends them running away with their tail between their legs.
He was arrested for looking so young....
He was arrested for looking so young....
“He was arrested for looking so young....”
Isn’t that profiling? To be more specific, ageist profiling?
Bastuhds! It ain’t right. No one should suffer discrimination.
Bigots.....
‘How do you possibly brandish a Garand while it is “strapped to your back”?
My understanding is that some other teens saw him with the rifle, and were admiring it when the police stopped to talk to him. So, he was carrying it across his back originally, but I think he may have unslung it to show it to the other teens.
Because he looked too young, isn’t that profiling?
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.