Posted on 07/14/2012 6:06:02 PM PDT by marktwain
The Daily Tribute reports that Michigan teenager Sean Combs won a not-guilty verdict after being placed on trial for brandishing a firearm a public.
We covered this story a while back and we’ve been cheering for Combs ever since. For those of you who missed our original article, Combs was walking through a public area with a M1 Garand slung over his shoulder. And just to be clear, openly carrying a weapon in legal in Michigan.
So, why did three police officers stop Combs and ask for his ID? Officer Rebecca Springer, who testified in the case, said “I had no problem with him having the gun. If he looked 32 (years old) he would have enjoyed the night.” Michigan law requires that anybody carrying the rifle be 18 or older, and the officers feared that he might be younger. The only flaw in their plan is this silly old thing called the Fifth Amendment, which means that cops can’t just search and seize property based on a hunch.
Combs initially refused to produce ID, but he eventually complied when police threatened him with a citation. This earned him three charges: brandishing a weapon, disturbing the peace, and obstructing police. Judge Marc Barron threw out the obstruction charge when the police couldn’t supply any evidence, but he left the other charges. That’s another funny thing about the US legal system. As it turns out, cops also need to supply evidence for the charges they file.
District attorney Mary Kucharek, lacking any actual evidence of illegal actions, rested her case on the argument that Combs was a broody teenager, as if that somehow made what he was doing less legal. She said that Combs was carrying the rifle “ostentatiously” and she highlighted his emotions: “You felt frustrated. That’s a reasonable emotion, yes? And you felt angry, yes?”
We searched through Michigan legislature, but we couldn’t find anything in the books about it being illegal to carry a gun ostentatiously, or laws against getting angry when the police stop you.
Jurors met for two hours and returned with a not guilty verdict. So, a person who broke no laws and who had no evidence against him was found to be not guilty. Sounds good to us!
For updates, stay tuned to Guns.com. For all breaking gun news, keep browsing Guns.com’s news feeds.
Cops with the IQ of body temperature. Carrying a rifle slung over your shoulder is not brandishing. If he was pointing it at people, yeah.
The prosecutor should have to reimburse him (personally!) for all his legal costs.
Can the state appeal?
The State cannot appear a not guilty verdict by a jury. They might appeal the judges ruling, but I doubt that they would.
appear should be “appeal”
And it cost him how much in legal fees?
Was he reimbursed by authorities for wrongful arrest?
Loss of wages, Harm to reputation?
Will his history of arrest be expunged?
The case was bogus from the get-go and everyone knew it.
The kid should be reimbursed for all his expenses plus lost time, plus a penalty paid by the cops and the prosecutor, who were simply trying to make their bones with a lot of extra-legal nonsense.
It sends an extremely dangerous message when the police feel they can hassle people outside the law just because they don’t agree with the law.
If he was an attractive female in Israel wearing a bikini, he would not have been in jail, but would have been an internet sensation. Israel, a civilized country.
Back in the seventies in Florida before we had CCW and stand-your-ground and all the other stuff, it was nothing to carry a rifle openly. I carried a Mauser strapped to my back on a motorcycle from Tampa to Tallahassee and did not get a second look from any police I passed on the road or in town. And I got stopped and told about my faulty taillights with a .38 on the seat beside me in my car. The officer told me I needed to put it in the glove box. I said “oh excuse me” and “sure” and put it in the glove box.
Thirty five years ago in Florida, at least north of Newyorkian Miami, people didn’t worry about guns much unless someone was holding up a bank or something and “brandishing” was pointing a gun at someone with implied or explicit threats accompanying. Now after we have all the 2AMD protections enacted into law “brandishing” means someone sees your gun.
Prosecutors usually don't like to get embarrassed twice on the same charge.
LET THE LAWSUITS BEGIN ! ! ! ! !
Girl playing cop. Girl playing lawyer. Is there a problem with guns being emotional for some folks, and the law being abstract? I know women in law or law enforcement who can handle the difference between an assault on their sensibilities and a breach of the law—but for what it's worth, not many.
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.