Federal court says rights not violated in OC case....
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Federal court says rights not violated in OC case....

  1. #1
    ezkl2230 Guest

    Federal court says rights not violated in OC case....

    18 year old Sean Combs made headlines when he was arrested by Troy, MI, police for carrying his M1 Garand slung over his shoulder in public. He sued for the violation of his rights under MI law, which affirms the right to carry openly, and won his case.

    He went on to sue for violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. Federal court ruled on Aug 30 that, because of Combs' "youthful appearance," police did not violate his rights when they stopped him to ask for his ID and then arrested him when he didn't produce it. His appearance was reasonable suspicion.

    So police can't stop someone who might turn out to be an illegal alien and ask for their papers, even though the law provides for it, but a youthful looking person who is exercising his Constitutional rights CAN be stopped and required to provide ID.

    Anyone else see this as a problem?

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    18 year old Sean Combs made headlines when he was arrested by Troy, MI, police for carrying his M1 Garand slung over his shoulder in public. He sued for the violation of his rights under MI law, which affirms the right to carry openly, and won his case.

    He went on to sue for violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. Federal court ruled on Aug 30 that, because of Combs' "youthful appearance," police did not violate his rights when they stopped him to ask for his ID and then arrested him when he didn't produce it. His appearance was reasonable suspicion.

    So police can't stop someone who might turn out to be an illegal alien and ask for their papers, even though the law provides for it, but a youthful looking person who is exercising his Constitutional rights CAN be stopped and required to provide ID.

    Anyone else see this as a problem?
    Not at all unpredictable, but a problem? Yes.

  4. #3
    Blues, I gotta tell you I absolutely LOVE your Illegal Mayors tag. Simply outstanding.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

  5. #4
    ezkl2230 Guest
    The article on Mlive that brought the news of this court decision has generated a lot of posts. Here is a sample, and my response:

    Him: An for all you people trying to protect the constitution, it was written when people used muskets. Not automatic weapons or powerful hand guns. It's called evolution. Either change with the times or sit in the back of the bus


    Me: Yes, it was also written at a time during which writing was done with a quill pen, not computers or other machines, yet no one is arguing that the First Amendment no longer protects free speech. And it can be argued that at many times throughout history the pen has caused more damage than the firearm. In other words, the First Amendment HAS grown to accommodate changes to writing and other communications technology.

    Guess what? The Second Amendment still accommodates technological changes in firearms technology; we are not limited to muskets.

    Nice try, thank you for playing.

    Him: that is the dumbest correlation I have heard. Are you comparing a 9 mm or an AK47 to an ink pen. Get real. Ink pens do not blow people's heads off. Or saw elementary students in half because someone had a bad day. It seems to me that the only people who want guns are the people not using them for the right reason anyway.

    Me: Pens have begun wars. Pens have initiated riots. Pens have led to lynchings. The pen has arguably led to more deaths throughout history than have occurred in all of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US. If you are going to argue that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets, pistols, and cannons were the available technology of the day, that the Constitution could not have anticipated the changes in firearms technology that have taken place and which, therefore, impacts on the exercise of the right, then to be intellectually consistent you must apply that same standard to other amendments that are affected by technological changes as well. The Constitution did not anticipate the rise of the computer, or the modern printing press, or the TV, or any of the other technologies that have made it possible for muslims to issue a fatwa in the mountains of Afghanistan that would result in the loss of 3,000 lives (more than have been lost in all of the mass shootings combined) in Manhattan on 911. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we must obviously change or even eliminate the protections enumerated under the First Amendment because of the disastrous effects it has had on society. Like it or not, the parallel is valid.

    BTW, you argument that the only people who want guns are those who are not using them for the right reason anyway is one of the most misinformed statements I have ever heard. There are over 80 million legal firearms owners in this country who have never committed a crime with their firearm. In fact, the gun violence study commissioned by Obama's executive action (with the goal of defending gun control) produced the following results:

    ***Suicide - not murder - is the number one kind of gun-related death in the US.

    ***Contrary to arguments put forward by gun control advocates, civilians use their firearms in lawful self defense AT LEAST as many times as they are used in the commission of a crime.

    ***You are NOT more likely to be injured or killed with your own firearm in a defensive encounter than by the criminal's firearm.

    ***Finally, mass shootings are the rarest form of gun related violence.

    Maybe you should do some actual research before making such indefensible statements.

    Him (here's where he goes on a little bit of a rant since he can't actually refute what I said): Pens do none of this. It's the words of the document that give it meaning not the ink pen. So again, get real. And you don't apply standards you rewrite to fit today's society so people like you don't use it as an excuse to run around with a gun like an idiot. Hey you know what. Cars have slipped off the road on patches of ice and died. Maybe we should encourage global warming to rid ice patches from the earth. People have a drank too much water in one sitting and died from liver toxicity. Maybe we should stop drinking water.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    You know EZKL there is always one bozo on the bus. You just can't fix stupid and he is beyond repair!
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lacey, WA
    Posts
    344
    Most states do not require you to produce an ID, we are not in NAZI Germany 1940 time frame. "Achtung, show me you papers shwine!".

  8. #7
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    You know EZKL there is always one bozo on the bus. You just can't fix stupid and he is beyond repair!
    Yup. My remarks weren't meant for stupid, they were there to aid anyone else who might be reading the article who might still have the ability to think for themselves

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    Isnt there something in the work force that states age discrimination is illegal when being considered for jobs, promotions etc? I feel the same statue should apply when dealing with Police. Just because someone appears to be under 18, doesnt give you the right (unless its common sense obvious the person may be 15) to demand Identification considering the 4th Amendment protects illegal searches and seizures, and further more producing ID when questioned without probable cause. I feel complete justice wasnt served here, Id try again.
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    Isnt there something in the work force that states age discrimination is illegal when being considered for jobs, promotions etc? I feel the same statue should apply when dealing with Police. Just because someone appears to be under 18, doesnt give you the right (unless its common sense obvious the person may be 15) to demand Identification considering the 4th Amendment protects illegal searches and seizures, and further more producing ID when questioned without probable cause. I feel complete justice wasnt served here, Id try again.
    Does the Constitution have a section specifically for minors?

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast