Troy Teen Arrested for Carrying Rifle 'Was in His Legal Right' (MI)

The story states that the guy is 18, not 17.

 

Sometimes jail is worth it to stand up for your rights. We all know this kid broke no laws so he in for a big payday but out a little time. It the tax payers who will suffer and not these joker cops.

 

Yes, back when firearms were one-shot jobs. It didn't take long after repeaters were invented for people to decide that it was just a REALLY bad idea to let people carry guns that could fire multiple times around heavily populated areas.

 

Apparently, we have an obligation to render obedience to the arbitrary dictates of authority figures because they're authority figures. Good to see that our proud tradition of rugged individualism and anti-authoritarianism is alive and well in modern America.

 

He'll never see penny one.

 

You side with the cops for arresting a citizen who hasn't broken the law????

 

So following the law comes with consequences? I decide to follow the law and end up in jail? or what.....?

 

The gentleman in this case was not using a gun. He was carrying it.

 

Desperation? Wha?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the cops involved in this situation aren't recent combat veterans. They think that they are in a combat zone fighting insurgents.

 

Bullcrap.

It's attitudes like yours that brought us the Patriot Act.

The kid did not break 1 single law... NONE... you do not arrest people that do not break laws. You do not give law enforcement the ability to arrest people who have not broken any laws.

What the hell is wrong with you people... you may as well vote Obama. This Neo-Con attitude you guys profess is not what the Constitution preaches nor any American should fall victim to.

 

Right, because we know how effective gun control laws are at preventing people from committing gun crimes. Just like drug prohibition stops people from abusing heroin. You see, government laws are magical. They stop bad things from happening by mere virtue of their existence. I can't wait for the government to ban death and poverty, then no one will ever die and no one will ever be poor.

 

It would appear that Michigan's law contradicts your position:

Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal…

in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot…
For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol…

Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation…

In the most general sense, police officers in any jurisdiction must have reasonable suspicion to establish probable cause and execute a consensual search of a citizen. This would include asking the citizen to produce identification. Your suggestion that the police may stop someone and verify their ID because they are legally carrying a firearm contravenes even the most basic precept of the 4th Amendment.

 

You don't know that. Pure speculation.

You'd rather they conceal a Saturday Night Special in their waistband? And the law does not require a citizen to "have common sense." It only requires citizens to comply with the law--which was exactly what this young man was doing.

Maybe in Nazi Germany...

 

In case you've forgotten, the U.S. Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

 

Repeaters? Do you mean guns such as the Winchester repeater (produced in 1873)? Or are you talking about modern day semi-auto rifles and handguns? Because people have been able to carry semi-auto rifles and handguns legally for a while now and all the bad things some people think would happen never happened.

 

How do you know he "showed the cop an attitude?"

 

Showing off gun rights triggers disapproval in Birmingham

Sean M. Combs, 18, says he's "100 percent sure" he was acting legally when he strolled on Old Woodward Avenue in downtown Birmingham earlier this month with his M-1 rifle strapped to his back, muzzle to the sky.

What's unsettling is that Combs is right about what the law says and doesn't say.

He was arrested April 13 on three misdemeanor charges — for brandishing a weapon, resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace — each punishable by up to 93 days in jail.

But no matter how the case turns out, the Troy High School senior is making his incendiary point.

A teenager out for a Friday night stroll on a crowded street with a classmate friend and his semi-automatic weapon still qualifies as a bizarre night out.

It suggests bad judgment, immaturity and a pathological need for attention — but it's not banned by law. "You can open carry, like the old wild wild West," says Michigan State Police spokesman Lt. James Shaw. "It's legal."

Still, Sean Combs was deliberately, and perhaps impulsively, pushing the bounds of social acceptability when he grabbed his rifle from the trunk, after deciding not to go to a movie. (Guns are banned from movie theaters, although a pending Senate bill would change that.)

But public strutting with guns is likely one consequence of the au courant embrace of all things NRA, including the state Legislature's 2011 bill to drop the hunting age from 12 to toddler, or the 2010 law empowering elementary schools to teach children gun safety.

Combs said he believes in "open carry" and the only way to break down social norms against it is to carry firearms openly. He used a rifle, he says, because federal regulations require him to be 21 to buy a handgun. To get the rifle, he only needed to be 18. "It's like buying a pack of cigarettes," he explains, correctly.

Why don't more people walk around with rifles?

Gun law expert Steve Dulan, who teaches firearms law at Cooley Law School, says the law doesn't differentiate between firearms. "Open carry is certainly lawful and the only reason I advise against it is because of the ignorance of the public and many law enforcement officers," he says. "You're likely to be staring down the barrel of a police officer's gun."

Combs, who was a captain of Troy High's cross-country team and gets good grades, is a regular guy, says his friend, Lia Grabowski, who was with him that night. "He's a really, really nice kid. He's not someone who's dangerous or scary."

A self-described "gun enthusiast," Combs studies "open carry" laws and websites that advocate carrying firearms out in the open as a political statement. "I did my homework," he says. He took his gun out of the trunk that night because "I wanted to change a social rule that I don't agree with" — namely the general social disapproval of guys walking down the street with military weapons slung over their shoulders.

Birmingham Police Chief Don Studt, whose officers arrested Combs on April 13, acknowledges the constitutionality of Combs' decision to carry his gun, but said "this guy was creating a disturbance and he wouldn't cooperate."

Those facts are in contention. The youth's attorney, James Makowski, says Combs had a clear understanding of the law when he decided to walk down the street with his 1942 military-issue semiautomatic rifle. "It isn't my style, but it's his right," Makowski says. "I've never had a client who is so clearly in the right."

There's no law against being a jerk. God bless America.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120423/OPINION03/204230335#ixzz1t1pIy1W9

There it is folk, show me your papers got him arrested.

 

Cops need a legitimate reason to ask for ID. We call that reasonable suspicion. Generally this means the cop needs to reasonably believe that a law has been broken.

 

The young man in this story was not breaking the law. He was therefore under no obligation to produce an ID. End of story.

 

The kid did not have to give him info since the first conversation with the cop is considered "consensual conversation" but once he was detained he began to show his ID and was arrested. Looks like this kid knows the law more than Michigan cops.

Consensual

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”[7][8]

Detention

A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk&#8221 if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]

As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.

Arrest

While detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity, an arrest requires that the officer have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Although some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest,[14] it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.

Whether an arrested person must identify himself or herself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him or her, they are required to inform the person of his or her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a “stop and identify” law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his or her name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give her name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

 

According to the laws of the State of Michigan, the cop was wrong. The young man in question was precisely respecting "State Authority" (whatever that is) by complying with the law. What's so difficult to understand here?

This was not a case of the state "asserting its rightful authority." This was a case of the state overstepping its bounds and violating one of our fellow citizens' constitutional rights.

He was 18 and he has a perfectly legal right to carry a rifle in public just as he had done. I'm not making this stuff up--read the law.

 

You are correct. Combs civil rights were violated.

 

Naruto; me things you are suffering from a bit of paranoia. I've been hearing the same line from people like you now for over 45 years and its never come to fruition.

 

I'm not sure I would ruin careers over this incident, but certainly disciplinary action of some sort is appropriate. I'll leave it up to the Birmingham Police Department to figure that out.