Teen to be tried for carrying rifle: UPDATE [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Teen to be tried for carrying rifle: UPDATE


Unistat
07-12-2012, 10:55
Original thread. (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1428435)

Update. (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2012/07/12/news/doc4ffdb2bdf1337941615138.txt)

Long and short of it, he was found not guilty on all charges.

The 18-year-old Troy man who walked around downtown Birmingham with a loaded rifle strapped to his back did not break the law while doing so.

A jury of six men and one woman made that determination after about five hours of deliberations in the case against Sean Combs, who was charged with brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace this morning.

HerrGlock
07-12-2012, 11:00
Outstanding. I'm glad to hear it.

HerrGlock
07-12-2012, 11:04
Just reading the various articles about it "Judge Marc Barron..." First thought was, "What the heck is a defensive safety doing as a judge?" :animlol:

rmodel65
07-12-2012, 11:10
and now i guess hes gonna file a section 1983 suit??

itstime
07-12-2012, 11:18
Good to hear.

JGlockman
07-12-2012, 11:19
and now i guess hes gonna file a section 1983 suit??

He should. He should sue everyone he can. Those prick cops deserve it.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

HerrGlock
07-12-2012, 11:25
and now i guess hes gonna file a section 1983 suit??

I would.

Unistat
07-12-2012, 11:28
and now i guess hes gonna file a section 1983 suit??

I don't know, probably.

The thing is, I don't know what the PD and prosecutor were thinking on this one. They kind of left themselves open to a lawsuit.

This particular issue has already been settled in Michigan by a couple of other cases and an Attorney General's Opinion (AG's Opinions are not binding law, but they do provide guidelines for PD and Prosecutors.)

RussP
07-12-2012, 11:30
From the Update link:Combs said he wouldn’t call himself a rebel, but said he’s OK with “making some people uncomfortable.”

JGlockman
07-12-2012, 11:31
I don't know, probably.

The thing is, I don't know what the PD and prosecutor were thinking on this one. They kind of left themselves open to a lawsuit.

This particular issue has already been settled in Michigan by a couple of other cases and an Attorney General's Opinion (AG's Opinions are not binding law, but they do provide guidelines for PD and Prosecutors.)

That's the thing... They weren't thinking. Rights get violated when you have over zealous and ignorant LEOs and prosecutors.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

RussP
07-12-2012, 11:33
and now i guess hes gonna file a section 1983 suit??His attorney may have run that battle flag up the pole already.Makowski was also pleased with the verdict.

“It was not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case,” he said.

“Birmingham police chose to violate my client’s rights and the jury saw that.”:whistling:

John Rambo
07-12-2012, 11:44
From the Update link:

The people he needs to sue are going to be real uncomfortable when they get served!

Bruce M
07-12-2012, 13:51
From the Update link:
Combs said he wouldn’t call himself a rebel, but said he’s OK with “making some people uncomfortable.”

Sounds like he accomplished that at least. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, has to pay how much in the civil suit.

collim1
07-12-2012, 13:57
I don't know, probably.

The thing is, I don't know what the PD and prosecutor were thinking on this one. They kind of left themselves open to a lawsuit.

This particular issue has already been settled in Michigan by a couple of other cases and an Attorney General's Opinion (AG's Opinions are not binding law, but they do provide guidelines for PD and Prosecutors.)

It would make you more open to a lawsuit to drop the charges. Alteast a judge agreed there was PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest or it wouldn't have made it to trial.

Probable cause for an arrest does not mean guilty.

Unistat
07-12-2012, 14:41
It would make you more open to a lawsuit to drop the charges. Alteast a judge agreed there was PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest or it wouldn't have made it to trial.

Probable cause for an arrest does not mean guilty.

That's a good point and why I don't think I would sue if I was the kid. If the police were acting in good faith, they should be protected from lawsuits. A lawsuit might just be a waste of time and money.

The prosecutor, on the other hand, could have denied the warrant and that would be the end of it. Happens everyday and does not leave either the PD open to a suit.

As I said in the original thread, it seems that the prosecutor was being as activist/stupid as the kid in this case.

jph02
07-12-2012, 17:29
...As I said in the original thread, it seems that the prosecutor was being as activist/stupid as the kid in this case.
This...

Outstanding. I'm glad to hear it.
and this.

Bruce M
07-12-2012, 17:37
Part of a prosecutor's job may be to attempt to uphold the customs of a community. I wonder how much support the prosecutor would get from Birmingham residents; whether the residents approve of him carrying a rifle or if the residents approve of the prosecution of him.

steveksux
07-12-2012, 18:07
It would make you more open to a lawsuit to drop the charges. Alteast a judge agreed there was PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest or it wouldn't have made it to trial.

Probable cause for an arrest does not mean guilty.

That's what I was thinking. A couple charges were thrown out by the judge, I believe obstruction for not providing ID. So we know the judge knows he has that option... :supergrin: Just didn't believe the gun charge warranted it.

All the prior open carrying cases that everyone is referring to all had to do with open carry of handguns, not a slung rifle, as far as I know. I'm guessing that's why the judge allowed it to go forward.

I suppose now that he was found not guilty, there's no precedent established? Not like a court decided that a slung rifle is legal to open carry. A jury just found that in this one particular case the guy was not in violation of brandishing laws.

Randy

cowboywannabe
07-12-2012, 18:43
i guess it would help to know the law in one's own state on carrying a rifle or shotgun slung on your shoulder or across your back...etc....loaded or unloaded....with no obvious attempts to deploy it.

if all that i listed above is legal i could still understand the cops detaining him to determine whats going on (until this becomes a commonly seen thing) then kicking him loose upon no finding of attempted wrong doing.

JRWnTN
07-12-2012, 20:06
Combs said he wouldn’t call himself a rebel, but said he’s OK with “making some people uncomfortable.”

Sounds like he accomplished that at least. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, has to pay how much in the civil suit.

With a statement like that before a jury, he could be awarded $1.

Brucev
07-12-2012, 22:19
Stupid is as stupid does. Those who have acted stupidly will now get to pay for being stupid. Good.

Bruce M
07-13-2012, 04:05
Anyone care to wager how much the officers or prosecutor will end up having to pay themselves in the suit??

HerrGlock
07-13-2012, 04:45
Anyone care to wager how much the officers or prosecutor will end up having to pay themselves in the suit??

Officers - nothing
DA - Doubtful so I'll say nothing
City - a bit but not enough to make a whole bunch of other people tempted to do the same thing.

Bren
07-13-2012, 04:50
He should. He should sue everyone he can. Those prick cops deserve it.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Being found not guilty does not mean your arrest was unlawful. He may give it a shot, but I doubt it would be worth it.

The fact that the charges held up long enough to go to a jury trial, means it was not dismissed as a matter of law by the judge. That indicates there was probably probable cause for the arrest, or it looked that way to a judge - either is probably good enough to defeat a lawsuit. Therefore, odds are he has nothing to sue about.

Bren
07-13-2012, 04:52
Anyone care to wager how much the officers or prosecutor will end up having to pay themselves in the suit??

Nothing.

The prosecutor is immune. The police may be immune and, even if they aren't, the government pays the damages judged agaisnt them in their individual capacity in most places.

However, nothing here tells us he has a chance of winning to begin with.

Bruce M
07-13-2012, 05:04
Nothing.

The prosecutor is immune. The police may be immune and, even if they aren't, the government pays the damages judged agaisnt them in their individual capacity in most places.

However, nothing here tells us he has a chance of winning asuit to begin with.

The people he needs to sue are going to be real uncomfortable when they get served!

Stupid is as stupid does. Those who have acted stupidly will now get to pay for being stupid. Good.


Now I am really confused. Some are saying the police and prosecutors are going to be uncomfortable and have to pay. Others are suggesting that prosecutors have immunity in civil suits and the officers most likely will be protected personally if they are acting within the scope of the law or in good faith or something like that. Some are suggesting it is a suit with a high probability of success; others are suggesting it may get nowhere. I wonder which it will be...:whistling:

Bren
07-13-2012, 05:47
Now I am really confused. Some are saying the police and prosecutors are going to be uncomfortable and have to pay. Others are suggesting that prosecutors have immunity in civil suits and the officers most likely will be protected personally if they are acting within the scope of the law or in good faith or something like that. Some are suggesting it is a suit with a high probability of success; others are suggesting it may get nowhere. I wonder which it will be...:whistling:

Well, I'm the "some" - my civilian job is to defend law enforcement/government officials, ranging from state troopers and corrections officers to commissioners and governors, in lawsuits; which I do every single day. Some of them are similar to this case. None of my clients have ever paid a penny to anybody in the 10 years I've been working in that area (except for a couple of cases of minor damage to cars where government agencies chose to pay).

If that's not good enough, here is an article on prosecutorial immunity in civil rights cases: http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html

A brief summary on qualified immunity (for the police): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

And here's a law journal article on government indemnification of police in civil suits (http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1811&context=ulj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dpolice%2520indemnified%2520for%25 20lawsuits%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.ed u%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1811%2526context%253Dulj%26ei%3DQQoAUMSfHois8QSToYj0Bw %26usg%3DAFQjCNGobWC78Vetu1LcX0N34u96OaGnFQ#search=%22police%20indemnified%20lawsuits%22), arguing that it doesn't deter police misconduct because the police never have to pay anything.

I think that covers all I said and there's lots more info, I just posted those articles from the top results of a google search.

Bruce M
07-13-2012, 06:22
Thanks, Bren. I do seem to vaguely remember that you have some experience in actually dealing with these issues. Now let's see what (if anything) we hear from the other view of the situation :whistling:

cadillacguns
07-13-2012, 06:50
"We" win one now and again.

ducati
07-13-2012, 07:34
1st thing that needs to be taken care of is the use of the disorderly conduct charge. This is a charge I have seen officers use if they can't find any other violation. Officers need to be held to a high standard of knowing the laws of their state. What was the probable cause in this case? Legal carrying of a firearm.

jph02
07-13-2012, 10:32
1st thing that needs to be taken care of is the use of the disorderly conduct charge. This is a charge I have seen officers use if they can't find any other violation. Officers need to be held to a high standard of knowing the laws of their state. What was the probable cause in this case? Legal carrying of a firearm.
That was my favorite part of the testimony videos when Combs' lawyers asked the officers "where in Michigan Compiled Laws..."

JGlockman
07-13-2012, 13:15
1st thing that needs to be taken care of is the use of the disorderly conduct charge. This is a charge I have seen officers use if they can't find any other violation. Officers need to be held to a high standard of knowing the laws of their state. What was the probable cause in this case? Legal carrying of a firearm.

This. I have a family member who was a victim of a "disorderly conduct" charge... He complied with the cops, said nothing, answered no questions and promptly hired my attorney. He is now living quite comfortably... As will his children and probably his grand children. This wasn't a gun rights issue... It's a civil rights issue. The Gestapo think they can do what they please, when they please. I thought their job was to enforce the law, not interpret or create it like seems to be happening so much lately.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Bren
07-13-2012, 13:23
This. I have a family member who was a victim of a "disorderly conduct" charge... He complied with the cops, said nothing, answered no questions and promptly hired my attorney. He is now living quite comfortably... As will his children and probably his grand children. This wasn't a gun rights issue... It's a civil rights issue. The Gestapo think they can do what they please, when they please. I thought their job was to enforce the law, not interpret or create it like seems to be happening so much lately.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

I don't really believe that.

However, a lawsuit with a settlement that big must have made a lot of news. Can you link an article or 2?

JGlockman
07-13-2012, 13:29
I don't really believe that.

However, a lawsuit with a settlement that big must have made a lot of news. Can you link an article or 2?

You can believe it, or choose not to. Up to you. It was several years ago and no, I will not link any articles. And as convenient as it is, there was an out of court settlement and a non-disclosure agreement. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that LEOs and municipalities are not infallible? I understand your job is to defend these scum, not unlike a dirtbag defense attorney... But what I said is quite true.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Bren
07-13-2012, 13:40
You can believe it, or choose not to. Up to you. It was several years ago and no, I will not link any articles. And as convenient as it is, there was an out of court settlement and a non-disclosure agreement. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that LEOs and municipalities are not infallible? I understand your job is to defend these scum, not unlike a dirtbag defense attorney... But what I said is quite true.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

As a dirtbag defense attorney, I actually know the law behind these things and what they really settle for or get at trial. That's why I'm saying your story is not true.

I'll bet both the "scum" police and the "dirtbag" defense attorneys can spot it as BS, if they have any experience with civil suits.

Even if the settlement was out of court, there had to be articles about the event and the lawsuit. You can just prove me wrong.

JGlockman
07-13-2012, 13:44
As a dirtbag defense attorney, I actually know the law behind these things and what they really settle for or get at trial. That's why I'm saying your story is not true.

I'll bet both the "scum" police and the "dirtbag" defense attorneys can spot it as BS, if they have any experience with civil suits.

Even if the settlement was out of court, there had to be articles about the event and the lawsuit. You can just prove me wrong.

That's the difference between you and I, I don't get off on proving the entire population wrong. I said what I said and it is all quite factual. You can either choose to accept it - or not. It's quite simple really.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Bruce M
07-13-2012, 15:51
Can you at least tell us whether or not he sustained any physical injury?

JGlockman
07-13-2012, 16:06
Can you at least tell us whether or not he sustained any physical injury?

He wasn't Rodney King'ed... But there was use of excessive force.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

rmodel65
07-13-2012, 17:02
a city in GA just paid 600k settlement in a suit http://www.ajc.com/news/chattahoochee-hills-pays-600k-1476398.html?cxtype=rss_news_81960

RussP
07-13-2012, 19:08
This. I have a family member who was a victim of a "disorderly conduct" charge... He complied with the cops, said nothing, answered no questions and promptly hired my attorney. He is now living quite comfortably... As will his children and probably his grand children. This wasn't a gun rights issue... It's a civil rights issue. The Gestapo think they can do what they please, when they please. I thought their job was to enforce the law, not interpret or create it like seems to be happening so much lately.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2Was there a firearm involved in this incident?

JGlockman
07-13-2012, 19:11
Was there a firearm involved in this incident?

There was, but that wasn't the initial issue. He is a CPL holder and was properly concealing at the time of contact the the officer.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

RussP
07-13-2012, 20:07
Unistat, thank you for the update.

I'm closing the thread because it is drifting in a discussion of negative behavior by law enforcement not involving a carry issue. Such discussions belong in Civil Liberties Issues or, if it is a specific case with details given, Cop Talk.