[Sniper03]

I agree with the license issue! It is called failure to identify. However to me there is more to the story and certainly a definite lack of common sense. OK Stupidity!!! I am sure Birmingham has a gang problem like most large to medium sized cities. And thinking it would not attract the attention of people and the police would be ignorant! I guess my take on it is you can't FIX STUPID! Not to mention the kid probably has lost his so called prize possession! "STUPID MOVE!


03

[primer1]

He was legal, but if he exercised his first amendment right on this forum like he acted that day, the moderators would have banned him, would they not? I still see both sides of this issue, must be my swiss heritage.

[DrumJunkie]

Originally Posted by primer1

He was legal, but if he exercised his first amendment right on this forum like he acted that day, the moderators would have banned him, would they not? I still see both sides of this issue, must be my swiss heritage.

You can't confuse a message board/forum with the United States. It's more like private property that has a set of guidelines that have been set by site admins/owner(s). You agree to those terms when you create an account and have the right to not agree and in doing so not register. It's nowhere near being comparable.

[Doc3402]

According to the original article:

"under no legal obligation are you required to talk to a police officer or produce identification of any kind if you are not being detained."

Then, the pair was stopped by a police officer, who asked to see Combs' driver's license, Grabowski said.

Let's address these statements first. Was he being detained? Yes. He was not under arrest at that moment, but he was being detained to determine whether or not he had the legal right to even own the firearm. At that point it became lawful, even in Michigan, for the officers to ask for his ID. Also at that point he was obligated, even in Michigan, to show it.

According to the original article:

Combs' choice to carry the M1 Garand slung over his shoulder resulted in his arrest by Birmingham Police

He wasn’t going to use it on anyone. Obviously, he could have defended himself, but he wasn’t looking for a fight.”

Grabowski said she and Combs were approached by a few teenagers who asked if his rifle was real, though "nobody was afraid, and everyone was kind of curious."

So here we have an 18 year old kid that does in fact look underage, carrying a long gun in public "slung" over his shoulder and he gets approached by a few teenagers. Was this mental midget in any position to defend and retain his firearm if the "few teenagers" decided they wanted it? Since it is a long gun in close quarters, I suggest he was not. At just over 40 inches, this gun is way too long for close quarters combat.

Okay, one more time for this statement

"under no legal obligation are you required to talk to a police officer or produce identification of any kind if you are not being detained."

So is this scholar from Michigan Open Carry, Inc. telling people that concealed weapons permit holders in Michigan don't have to show a government issued concealed weapons permit if an officer sees them with a poorly concealed weapon? Man, I sure hope not. It's obvious from this thread that many people don't understand the concept of being detained, and this clowns advice is going to get a pile of people arrested.

Let's look at the conditions for detaining a person. A police officer can detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are (1) about to commit a crime, (2) you have committed a crime, or (3) you are in the act of committing a crime. I'll address these in order with overly simplified examples.

(1) You're on patrol. You see a guy outside your wife's bedroom window at 3:00 am. He is dressed in black, he is wearing a ski mask, and he is carrying two condoms and a crowbar. Any reasonable person would deduce he is not there to deliver your paper, but is instead about to commit a criminal act.

(2) You see a man walking down the street at 3:00 AM. He is dressed in black, covered with broken glass shards and carrying a 60 inch LCD television. Chances are he is not taking the TV in for repair at this time of the morning since the local repair shops don't open until 9 AM. Any reasonable person would suspect he has stolen the TV.

(3) You see what looks like a young kid carrying an M1 Garand downtown on a Friday night.

In all three of these cases the police have an obligation to determine what is going on. In all three of these cases the police have every right to detain the person by temporarily removing their liberty to proceed with what they are doing in order to determine whether or not their actions are lawful. In all three of these cases, yes, even in Michigan, the person detained is then obligated to show ID upon request.

So, this kid will be arraigned today on charges of disturbing the peace, brandishing a weapon and obstructing an investigation. In my opinion the only charge that should stick is the last one. He did in fact obstruct the investigation by not showing ID after he was detained. The disturbing the peace appears to be bogus since no story mentions any calls to the police to report this kids actions. Brandishing should also go away since the kid did have a legal right under Michigan law to do what he was doing. Too bad he was wrong about his rights concerning the ID thing.

[gwk4667]

It is amasing what can get you jailed in this day and age

http://www.t-g.com/story/1843748.html

[rjd3282]

If you aren't under arrest you are not being detained. You can walk away from an interrogation at anytime if you haven't been arrested. According to the constitution you do not have to answer questions and that is not obstruction. Lying or deliberately misleading the police is obstruction. If a cop started asking me questions I didn't want to answer I'd walk if he wanted to continue he'd have to arrest me. What would he say after he arrested me? He'd say "you have the RIGHT to remain silent. This whole debate got started because some of you were upset about the lack of respect to police officers. Personally I think everyone should be treated with respect until they show me they shouldn't. But like it or not you are not required by law to show respect. Is it wrong? Possibly. Is it illegal? Absolutely not.

When officers pulls me over for speeding they all ask the same question "do you know how fast you were going?" I always answer "you tell me" I'm not admitting to anything. I'd be willing to bet every one of you on the respect issue have either done that or just flat out lied and told the cop you didn't know how fast you were going. If you lied, that's not very respectful.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

If you aren't under arrest you are not being detained. You can walk away from an interrogation at anytime if you haven't been arrested. According to the constitution you do not have to answer questions and that is not obstruction. Lying or deliberately misleading the police is obstruction. If a cop started asking me questions I didn't want to answer I'd walk if he wanted to continue he'd have to arrest me. What would he say after he arrested me? He'd say "you have the RIGHT to remain silent. This whole debate got started because some of you were upset about the lack of respect to police officers. Personally I think everyone should be treated with respect until they show me they shouldn't. But like it or not you are not required by law to show respect. Is it wrong? Possibly. Is it illegal? Absolutely not.

When officers pulls me over for speeding they all ask the same question "do you know how fast you were going?" I always answer "you tell me" I'm not admitting to anything. I'd be willing to bet every one of you on the respect issue have either done that or just flat out lied and told the cop you didn't know how fast you were going. If you lied, that's not very respectful.

all a person has to do to determine this, is ask, "am i being detained or am i free to go?" then the burden is placed upon the officer. really very simple, as i have have used this one myself, and trust me it works. then i simply go my own way. yes you're right that everyone should be treated with respect and it goes quite a ways when dealing with LEO. acting disrespectful probably in itself isn't illegal, but it pretty much assures the fact if there was any infraction of the law, however minor, they are then going to fine you or charge you.

there have been times i was pulled over for speeding and i didn't realize i was. i usually answer the question the same if asked, "i didn't realize i was speeding" the last time i was pulled over in 55 mph zone that had been recently changed from 60 mph. he said he clocked me at 61. i was unaware of the speed limit change. and i go down that hiway to and from my house everyday. he ran my DL and let me go with a written warning. i now drive it at 55 instead of 60.

the boy looked younger than 18 to me, so i would have probably done the same thing the LEO did to determine whether he was of legal age to have a firearm slung over his shoulder. some states have laws that restrict even possession of a firearm to minors, so if this is also the case, then he was within his rights to ask for proof of age to determine if a crime had or was being commited. teenages don't always follow the law either. remember driving before you had a license, or drinking before the legal age, or maybe buying a pack of smokes before you were of legal age to do so? so the whats to stop a teenager from walking down the street with a gun over his shoulder knowing he's underage?

[Overkill0084]

He was not doing anything that required him to even have ID on him. If he had been unable to produce ID, assuming he was willing to, does that change anything? Legally walking down the street requires no ID, last I checked.
A person can do lots of legal things without ID on them. Hell, in a lot of places they can even vote. Whether anyone likes it or not, one needn't have their "papers" on them at all times to satisfy curious govt functionaries. Nor am I necessarily obligated to answer that functionary's questions if I'm not being detained and I have broken no laws.

"Go along to get along" is a choice, not a requirement.

[kycol]

Here's the thing what upsets me the most is that his actions right or wrong give gun owners a black eye. It appears to most people that his refusal to comply with them simple task of showing his Id is extreme. . If he wants to file a civil suit later he might have tried that. I know, believe me I know that some of you don't care but a lot of us do care how people see us. We want to be seen as responsible intelligent law abiding people who take gun ownership seriously.

The second amendment guarantees us the rights to own guns, but it does not guarantee right to open carry, right to ccw, or a right to a 30 round magazine. And it is not as hard to change a state law as it is the constitution. So yes I do care how gun owners are viewed. We need to attract supporters not repel them. We sure do not need to give those who would like to see our rights and our privileges taken away the ammunition to do so. I live in Kentucky we can and do both. I can load my 30 round mag stick it in my sks hand it in my truck window and head to town. Try that in Il. you will get pulled over in a heart beat. So yes to me it's important that we don't turn those who don't own and love guns a much as I do against us. If anything we should make a lasting impression that we are not a bunch of hot headed ridicules.

I still think if I was in the loes place I would certainly asked for I'd if he did not look old enough, than that is probable cause. I mean if you leave your front door open and you see someone walking up to the door with a weapon and a ski mask would you act immediately or would you wait to see what his intentions are. That may sound absurd but so are some of the reactions in this thread. At least they seem so to me.

[partdeux]

The man demanded his papers

The chief principle of a well-regulated police state is this: That each citizen shall be at all times and places ... recognized as this or that particular person. No one must remain unknown to the police. This can be attained with certainty only in the following manner: Each one must always carry a pass with him, signed by his immediate government official, in which his person is accurately described. There must be no exception to this rule.