Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter I [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter I


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 11:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

"Hey, Junior!" comes a voice from the other side of the squad car.
"Junior?!" I replied, as I turned around. I thought to myself, that's kind of a condescending way to greet someone, isn't it? As I turned, I prepared to ask the police officer what I could help him with.

It was then that I noticed the officer had his gun trained on my chest.Scary stuff.

Moderator Warning: If you choose to post in this thread, please remember and follow ALL GT Rules and posting guidelines.

RussP

IndyGunFreak
03-25-2011, 11:36
Guy is an idiot for standing there arguing w/ a cop that has a gun pointed at him.

IGF

madcitycop
03-25-2011, 12:12
where's the assault?

Bill Lumberg
03-25-2011, 12:19
Typical youtube idiocy. Even less intelligent than the attention seeker are the comments on the youtube page.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:22
Typical youtube idiocy. Even less intelligent than the attention seeker are the comments on the youtube page.

I have to ask did you listen to all four parts before your standard "anti-OC pro-criminal cop actions" comment?

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:25
where's the assault?
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is a "Battery" when a physical touch occurs.

He said "I'll effing shoot you, if you make a move"and had a gun out. Can be seen as an assault. Not saying that the OCer did the right thing by arguing with the cops, but it does suck they violated his rights.

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 12:26
The cop is incompetent, plain and simple.

BryGuy
03-25-2011, 12:31
If that guy had just complied witht the officers commands, he probably would have been let go. That guy was a moron. He will probably get his ccw revoked.

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 12:34
Guy is an idiot for standing there arguing w/ a cop that has a gun pointed at him.

IGF

The cop threatened to shoot the OCer with a gun pointed at him, someone who was breaking no laws, the cop had no reason to suspect any laws had been broken. Are you saying police assaulting civilians is OK?

Maybe the OCer would have been "smart" to comply with the officer, but you could say the same for Rosa Parks also. :upeyes:

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 12:36
If that guy had just complied witht the officers commands, he probably would have been let go. That guy was a moron. He will probably get his ccw revoked.

Its a LTCF, I have one, I used to live in PA and he did nothing illegal, so not sure what you think his license should be revoked for? The cop who assaulted the guy because he was too incompetent to understand the laws he's sworn to uphold, should in fact be fired and charged with assault.

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 12:37
Some people seem to have their priorities a bit twisted.

For anyone that wonders, when being held at gunpoint by a uniformed cop who's giving you commands, the only priority is compliance and not getting shot. Arguing....excuse me, "not arguing" as moron assured us was what he was *really* doing, doesn't even make the list.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:38
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is a "Battery" when a physical touch occurs.

He said "I'll effing shoot you, if you make a move"and had a gun out. Can be seen as an assault. Not saying that the OCer did the right thing by arguing with the cops, but it does suck they violated his rights.

Under PA law, it could be Aggravated Assault. 18-2702

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:39
There is a time and place to argue about your rights I don't believe at gun point is the time, and my history is a bit fuzzy, but Rosa Parks didn't have a gun pointed at her.

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:39
Under PA law, it could be Aggravated Assault. 18-2702
Ya I know I was just distinguishing and not trying to get technical, but thanks for bringing it up.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:39
Some people seem to have their priorities a bit twisted.

For anyone that wonders, when being held at gunpoint by a uniformed cop who's giving you commands, the only priority is compliance and not getting shot. Arguing....excuse me, "not arguing" as moron assured us was what he was *really* doing, doesn't even make the list.

Sam, do you condone the police officer making up a new law to justify the stop?

Do you condone the police officer using his official position to lie about the newly made up law?

iibao
03-25-2011, 12:42
The cop is the idiot/moron here...

"Ignorance of the law excuses no one."

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 12:42
There is a time and place to argue about your rights I don't believe at gun point is the time, and my history is a bit fuzzy, but Rosa Parks didn't have a gun pointed at her.

I agree with you, certainly not what I would have done if I was the OCer. I probably wouldn't OC in Philly, but it was this guy's RIGHT to OC there. In PA, unlike many states, they have their own version of RKBA right in the constitution, which is why OC is legal without an LTCF in that state.

I don't believe in police states, just because the guy was open carrying a firearm does not mean he should have been drawn on, the first and biggest wrong here goes to the cop. What if a cop wanted to pull his/her weapon on you for anything else that is perfectly legal? Imagine having your family there with you and having that happen?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:42
Ya I know I was just distinguishing and not trying to get technical, but thanks for bringing it up.

Technical is good. The supporters of criminal action by cops will use technicalities to justify the police officer's actions.

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 12:44
Sam, do you condone the police officer making up a new law to justify the stop?

Do you condone the police officer using his official position to lie about the newly made up law?

Priorities. Number one is survival. After we get there, either in the real world or in discussion, we can move to all the quality of life issues.

So, do you recommend anything whatsoever other than immediate, unconditional compliance when a uniformed cop holds you at gunpoint and issues commands?

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:45
Technical is good. The supporters of criminal action by cops will use technicalities to justify the police officer's actions.
I didn't know I was fighting big government when I posted it, next time I will try not to be so naive.

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:48
I agree with you, certainly not what I would have done if I was the OCer. I probably wouldn't OC in Philly, but it was this guy's RIGHT to OC there. In PA, unlike many states, they have their own version of RKBA right in the constitution, which is why OC is legal without an LTCF in that state.

I don't believe in police states, just because the guy was open carrying a firearm does not mean he should have been drawn on, the first and biggest wrong here goes to the cop. What if a cop wanted to pull his/her weapon on you for anything else that is perfectly legal? Imagine having your family there with you and having that happen?
I did not say I agree with what the officer did in the slightest, but I am saying IF an officer ever points a gun at me, I am going to try and defuse the situation before I start making my point. Actually I would probably keep my mouth shut until I get a lawyer, but my first concern is to get the gun put back in the holster, and to calm the guy with the gun's nerves. Then I will worry about legal or verbal remedies/responses.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:51
Priorities. Number one is survival. After we get there, either in the real world or in discussion, we can move to all the quality of life issues.

So, do you recommend anything whatsoever other than immediate, unconditional compliance when a uniformed cop holds you at gunpoint and issues commands?

Sorry, that is why the police get in so much trouble with violations of civil rights. They put their safety, perceived or otherwise, above their duty.

If police officers are too scared for their safety to do the job, within the guidelines of the Constitution and state & local law, they should find different work.

Calico Jack
03-25-2011, 12:52
Haha...wow. Feels like we're back in 70's. Did they take him around the corner in the alley and threaten violence if he didn't pay up as well?

dayid
03-25-2011, 12:52
Maybe the OCer would have been "smart" to comply with the officer, but you could say the same for Rosa Parks also. :upeyes:

Rosa Parks was breaking the law. The man in this story was not.

fran m
03-25-2011, 12:52
If this did, in fact, occur in Phila. Open carry is illegal there and Pittsburgh.

Disregard above sentence. It's legal if you have a permit. Foolish but legal.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:53
If this did, in fact, occur in Phila. Open carry is illegal there and Pittsburgh

Can you cite the laws that make OC with a LCTF illegal in those two cities?

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 12:54
Sorry, that is why the police get in so much trouble with violations of civil rights. They put their safety, perceived or otherwise, above their duty.

If police officers are too scared for their safety to do the job, within the guidelines of the Constitution and state & local law, they should find different work.
An officer's number one goal should be make sure I and everyone else is safe first....At least that is my opinion, it is a job, and if I was an officer my responsibility would be returning home to my girlfriend every night, and trying to make sure everyone else does to. I'd rather get reprimanded or fired than shot, and once again I am not trying to defend the officer's actions.

alexanderg23
03-25-2011, 12:55
<-------has nothing nice to say

Calico Jack
03-25-2011, 12:56
Well we found something that Open Carry does not prevent.:wavey:

grecco
03-25-2011, 12:58
Its a LTCF, I have one, I used to live in PA and he did nothing illegal, so not sure what you think his license should be revoked for? The cop who assaulted the guy because he was too incompetent to understand the laws he's sworn to uphold, should in fact be fired and charged with assault.

Unfortunately alot of the Philly PD are NOT trained to handle these things,
its not their fault they do not understand all the laws.
I was pulled over a year ago in South Phila, i informed the officer my wallet and paper work were in my glove box with a loaded holstered pistol.

He instructed me to give him my LTC and Drivers Lisc.
and walked away, he left me in the front seat, with a loaded pistol on the drivers seat, while i could hear sirens coming in the back round........Do you see a problem with this?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 12:59
An officer's number one goal should be make sure I and everyone else is safe first....At least that is my opinion, it is a job, and if I was an officer my responsibility would be returning home to my girlfriend every night, and trying to make sure everyone else does to. I'd rather get reprimanded or fired than shot, and once again I am not trying to defend the officer's actions.

That is the problem, too many people think it is just a job.

It is not unlike the military. Police have a DUTY to protect, enforce, and OBEY the law, first and foremost. Second is to ensure, to the best of their ability, the safety of the innocent.

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 13:02
Sorry, that is why the police get in so much trouble with violations of civil rights. They put their safety, perceived or otherwise, above their duty.

If police officers are too scared for their safety to do the job, within the guidelines of the Constitution and state & local law, they should find different work.

Non-responsive, and I'm not talking about the cops' well-being anyway.

YOU are being taken at gunpoint and issued commands by a uniformed officer. What is your first and over-riding priority? What action OF YOURS addresses that?

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 13:02
That is the problem, too many people think it is just a job.

It is not unlike the military. Police have a DUTY to protect, enforce, and OBEY the law, first and foremost. Second is to ensure, to the best of their ability, the safety of the innocent.
Police are not obligated to protect. (Warren v. DC)

They do, however, have an obligation to their family to stay safe.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 13:03
Non-responsive, and I'm not talking about the cops' well-being anyway.

YOU are being taken at gunpoint and issued commands by a uniformed officer. What is your first and over-riding priority? What action OF YOURS addresses that?


And you were non-responsive to my questions that led to the, in my opinion, Aggravated Assault under PA law.

Bill Lumberg
03-25-2011, 13:14
Not a bad post from a guy who has, in the past, been quite anti-law enforcement, confused security guards with law enforcement, etc. Turning over a more realistic leaf? If so, congrats. That is the problem, too many people think it is just a job.

It is not unlike the military. Police have a DUTY to protect, enforce, and OBEY the law, first and foremost. Second is to ensure, to the best of their ability, the safety of the innocent.

acpd442
03-25-2011, 13:20
Ignorance of the law is no defense. That goes for both sides. That officer needs remedial training at the least and fired at the most. This has happened more than once in Philly and still they don't learn. A good lawsuit should help remedy that. Cops like that give the rest of us a bad name.

brathair
03-25-2011, 13:21
I agree. Obey the officers commands. Get a lawyer. Argue your point through a lawyer when there is no threat of your death.

Lawyers also tend to be able to articulate your own words in ways that work the law to your favor.

I would like to see some video along with the audio. Body language, and subtle movements say a lot about a situation like this. The audio gives us a little but not enough to understand either party in full.

All that said, I support open carry.

fran m
03-25-2011, 13:22
To the poster looking for the cite. It is Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes title 18 Crimes and Offenses Section 6108, Carrying Firearms on public or private property in Philadelphia.

It says:

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

(1) they are licensed to carry a firearm or

(2) such a person is exempt from licensing under 6106 (b)

I get that it is legal because he has a permit. Foolish, but legal.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 13:22
Not a bad post from a guy who has, in the past, been quite anti-law enforcement, confused security guards with law enforcement, etc. Turning over a more realistic leaf? If so, congrats.

Not a bad post, but with qualifiers. Let me once again state that I am not anti-LE, nor do I confuse security guards with LE.

Please answer my question posed to your first posting to this thread.

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 13:23
And you were non-responsive to my questions that led to the, in my opinion, Aggravated Assault under PA law.

Priorities. You gotta live through the encounter for any of these issues you're raising to matter one whit. YouTube dude was a cretin for taking things out of order. In the thread on the forum dealing with carry issues, we really ought to handle things in the same order; living is more important than the other issues, don't you think?

David Armstrong
03-25-2011, 13:24
Sorry, that is why the police get in so much trouble with violations of civil rights. They put their safety, perceived or otherwise, above their duty.
Actually police don't get in so much trouble for violation of civil rights. That is a relatively rare occurrence. As for safety versus duty, first the Court has said that officer safety IS grounds for an officer infringing on what would otherwise be civil rights; and yes, safety is paramount over duty. IF an officer chooses to place himself in additional danger for duty purposes that is his option, but it is not a requirement.

If police officers are too scared for their safety to do the job, within the guidelines of the Constitution and state & local law, they should find different work.
The problem there is that most folks who argue about the guidelines of the Constitution and law and such argue about only the parts that support their position while tending to ignore the parts that cause their position to be rather weak. Not saying you have done that, but just a general observation.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 13:25
To the poster looking for the cite. It is Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes title 18 Crimes and Offenses Section 6108, Carrying Firearms on public or private property in Philadelphia.

It says:

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

(1) they are licensed to carry a firearm or

(2) such a person is exempt from licensing under 6106 (b)

There you have it. It is not illegal to OC in Philly with a LTCF. I thank you for educating yourself.

BTW, Pittsburg is not a City of the First Class.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 13:27
Priorities. You gotta live through the encounter for any of these issues you're raising to matter one whit. YouTube dude was a cretin for taking things out of order. In the thread on the forum dealing with carry issues, we really ought to handle things in the same order; living is more important than the other issues, don't you think?

I contend that the encounter should never have happened. I contend that either the malice or ignorance of the officer were the root cause of the stop. The officer made up a law that does not exist, again through malice or ignorance, and held a law abiding person at gunpoint.

What parts of this do you condone?

kewa0501
03-25-2011, 13:30
Why would exercising what you are allowed to do under law foolish?

Frankly, the cops could have handled it in an entirely different manner. One that would behoove the police by showing courtesy and respect. As I have been in a similar situation that this young man has been in I can understand that what he went through is completely inappropriate.

Cops are professionals, at least in the state of Minnesota they are. (or are supposed to be) the cussing is totally uncalled for, the yelling is certainly uncalled for, and most certainly the worst on the police's end is not even knowing their own law.

I realize they may not receive training for this sort of thing but guess what? If I break the speed limit and did not know I was breaking it and pulled over the ignorance excuse would not work. Why should the same excuse work for the police? It is their duty to enforce the laws. That is it. As it should be they need to know the law extensively so they can practice enforcing in a proper manner.



These cops are jack booted thugs.


Now, was the individual smart with not complying with them? Heck no....do what the man with the gun and the badge say to do, especially if said gun is pointed at you.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 13:31
Actually police don't get in so much trouble for violation of civil rights. That is a relatively rare occurrence. As for safety versus duty, first the Court has said that officer safety IS grounds for an officer infringing on what would otherwise be civil rights; and yes, safety is paramount over duty. IF an officer chooses to place himself in additional danger for duty purposes that is his option, but it is not a requirement.


The problem there is that most folks who argue about the guidelines of the Constitution and law and such argue about only the parts that support their position while tending to ignore the parts that cause their position to be rather weak. Not saying you have done that, but just a general observation.

I respectfully disagree that civil rights violations by police are rare. They happen quite frequently, the problem (as I see it) is the legal system offers very little recourse to someone wronged, unless they are very wealthy to begin with. And that the systemic corruption in America's police departments perpetrate the behavior as normal.

Bill Lumberg
03-25-2011, 13:33
As well they should. They put their safety, perceived or otherwise, above their duty.

DScottHewitt
03-25-2011, 13:35
where's the assault?

as·sault
   /əˈsɔlt/ Show Spelled[uh-sawlt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2.
Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
3.
Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.
4.
rape1 .
–verb (used with object)
5.
to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

=================================

Apparently applying definition #2, as a weapon was pointed at the person.....

Scott

{Note BOLDED part of definition.}

Gunshine
03-25-2011, 13:36
So I have read every post. As far as I can tell he was licensed and therefore legally carrying a firearm. If that is true he should not have been stopped and certainly not had a gun pointed at him. I do agree with Sam in that if you have a gun pointed at you your first priority is to comly with commands. This man sounded as if he was trying to be polite but also trying to resolve the matter at a time he should have just shut up and comlplied.

The officer was still a jerk. I would have complied with every order and when it was over filed an official complaint. Then I would have gone directly to my attorney's office.

DScottHewitt
03-25-2011, 13:37
There is a time and place to argue about your rights I don't believe at gun point is the time, and my history is a bit fuzzy, but Rosa Parks didn't have a gun pointed at her.

+500,000,000,000,000,000 to the bolded part.....



Scott

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 13:43
How does assaulting an innocent victim who happens to be legally carrying a gun by pointing a deadly weapon at them, screaming obscenities, threatening to kill, and ordering that victim to his knees help officer safety?

Wouldn't it have been sufficient to have his hand on his unstrapped weapon and politely asked for the victim's LTCF? I note that NOWHERE is it mentioned that anyone called in a MWAG... so I assume it is a simple drive by mugging that the officer is engaging in. And therefore has no RAS to stop and assault the innocent citizen.

IF there had been a MWAG call then I can see the officer responding and investigating...

If I was the LEO in a MWAG call situation (note that I have received NO law enforcement training whatsoever) I would have been cautious and polite... I would also likely have had (as I stated earlier) a hand on my weapon with it ready to be drawn quickly. In fact, I would probably have engaged the "suspect" from a decent distance away and preferably where I could take cover quickly... like from the opposite side of my cruiser's engine.

"Excuse me, sir, I noticed you are carrying a weapon and we received a call about a MWAG. Do you have a LTCF?"
"Yes, I do."
"Would you please keep your hands visible, make no sudden movements or reach for your wallet, and come over here to my cruiser? Because of the call and the fact I can see you are armed I need to verify your license."
"Certainly."
"Thank you, sir. I understand this is an aggravation and I appreciate your cooperation. Where is your license to carry?"
"In my wallet in my back right pocket."
"I see your weapon is on your back right hip. Would you mind if I retrieve your wallet for you? Alternatively I can place my hand over your weapon while you retrieve your wallet."
"Um... alright, you can pull out my wallet."
"Thank you sir. Okay, here's your wallet. Would you please show me your LTCF?"
"Here you go."
"Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. That's all I needed. You are free to go and, again, I really appreciate your cooperation. Say... that's a nice looking holster, what is it?"

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 14:04
I contend that the encounter should never have happened. I contend that either the malice or ignorance of the officer were the root cause of the stop. The officer made up a law that does not exist, again through malice or ignorance, and held a law abiding person at gunpoint.

What parts of this do you condone?

I contend that the officer's actions are outside the OCer's control and that he, like the people on the thread, has no real input about being placed in that position. Once placed in that position, he needs to focus on what he does control so that he doesn't get killed. I contend that responsible carriers should take steps to ensure their survival above all else, especially over things they don't control.

What part of the OCer's action while facing deadly force was right?

Priorities. No fun fixing cops' training if you're dead.

txinvestigator
03-25-2011, 14:05
This must be a made up video.... I have read right here on GT and on MANY other forums that open carry is never an issue in locations where it is legal.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:12
Just more proof that people who open carry are only looking to make a statement. This "tool's" demeanor with the cops just confirms that. I too hope he gets his CCW revoked.

Glock940
03-25-2011, 14:14
........"In my wallet in my back right pocket."
"I see your weapon is on your back right hip. Would you mind if I retrieve your wallet for you? Alternatively I can place my hand over your weapon while you retrieve your wallet."
"Um... alright, you can pull out my wallet."
"Thank you sir. Okay, here's your wallet. Would you please show me your LTCF?"
"Here you go."
"Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. That's all I needed. You are free to go and, again, I really appreciate your cooperation. Say... that's a nice looking holster, what is it?"



:rofl: Chicka bow wow (add 70's porn music here lol)

Grammy
03-25-2011, 14:15
This must be a made up video.... I have read right here on GT and on MANY other forums that open carry is never an issue in locations where it is legal.

I was thinking the same thing, it just seems there is too much traffic over the police radios back and forth.

If it is not, there is going to be some big time trouble for the LEO's/city of Philadelphia.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:17
What part of the OCer's action while facing deadly force was right?


Apparently we are playing a game. I ask you questions that you won't answer and you respond with questions I won't answer.

Well, I'm going to break the cycle and answer this one.

The OCer remained calm (at least outwardly) when confronted with an overly belligerent and aggressive (dare I say potentially murderous) police officer. Had the OCer not maintained a calm demeanor, I honestly believe he would be dead.

Are you willing to answer this: What part of the police officers actions were right?

Here are the links to parts 2-4 in case you have not heard them.

PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/user/pistolpackintim#p/u/8/igt-vp7VF0E
PART 3 http://www.youtube.com/user/pistolpackintim#p/u/7/VFDBkHJZgi8
PART 4 http://www.youtube.com/user/pistolpackintim#p/u/6/IIu1_ieuzS0

GLOCK35TX
03-25-2011, 14:20
...Guy is a tool

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 14:21
Just more proof that people who open carry are only looking to make a statement. This "tool's" demeanor with the cops just confirms that. I too hope he gets his CCW revoked.

You should stay in NJ with that atttitude, you don't deserve to experience freedom. The cop had the attitude, the OCer was calm with no attitude. He wasn't looking to "make a statement". Lots of OCers are mic'd up because things like this happen WAY too often, and they know it.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:23
...Guy is a tool

Which guy? There are several guys (and a gal or two) recorded.

Then please clarify why the person is a "tool".

John Rambo
03-25-2011, 14:23
...Guy is a tool

And the cop was an ignorant jerkoff.

I agree.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:25
The OCer remained calm (at least outwardly) when confronted with an overly belligerent and aggressive (dare I say potentially murderous) police officer. Had the OCer not maintained a calm demeanor, I honestly believe he would be dead.



:rofl: Murderous :rofl: It's not hard to see how you feel about Law Enforcement. Perhaps you've been on the wrong side of the law??

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:26
You should stay in NJ with that atttitude, you don't deserve to experience freedom. The cop had the attitude, the OCer was calm with no attitude. He wasn't looking to "make a statement". Lots of OCers are mic'd up because things like this happen WAY too often, and they know it.

So they can make their statement on youtube. Thank you for agreeing with me.

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 14:28
So they can make their statement on youtube. That you for agreeing with me.

You assume intentions. Just because the OCer carried a mic doesn't mean he wanted that to happen, it means he was prepared for a bad LEO encounter.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:30
:rofl: Murderous :rofl: It's not hard to see how you feel about Law Enforcement. Perhaps you've been on the wrong side of the law??

You can extrapolate what you wish. The audio indicates an out of control police officer and a calm citizen. Had this been a criminal without a badge, most reasonable people would surmise that he had murderous intent.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:31
You assume intentions. Just because the OCer carried a mic doesn't mean he wanted that to happen, it means he was prepared for a bad LEO encounter.

I disagree. He was looking for attention and probably hoped this would happen so he could make his statement about open carry.

GLOCK35TX
03-25-2011, 14:32
And the cop was an ignorant jerkoff.

I agree.



..... Ok Ok ----


.... Everyone was a tool

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:33
You can extrapolate what you wish. The audio indicates an out of control police officer and a calm citizen. Had this been a criminal without a badge, most reasonable people would surmise that he had murderous intent.

Based on what?? Are you a police officer, have you ever had any police training?? Fact is you have no idea of the circumstances of the encounter, or why the officer acted as he did.

Gunshine
03-25-2011, 14:34
I lot of thoughtful and good points have been made. I do have one question though. Who recorded the whole thing? The OC'er? if so doesn't this also suggest an attempt at gaining attention? OK so thats more then one question. But if was a simple grab for attention the guys motives may have been what led to being politely confrontational.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:35
i lot of thoughtful and good points have been made. I do have one question though. Who recorded the whole thing? The oc'er? If so doesn't this also suggest an attempt at gaining attention? Ok so thats more then one question. But if was a simple grab for attention the guys motives may have been what led to being politely confrontational.

bingo!

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:36
Based on what?? Are you a police officer, have you ever had any police training?? Fact is you have no idea of the circumstances of the encounter, or why the officer acted as he did.

I do have an idea. That idea is based on the SOP of the PPD, both written and unwritten. They don't like the citizenry to carry firearms in "their" city. They have and will do anything they can to maintain their exclusivity to carry firearms. They have and will continue to use deadly force to stop citizens from exercising this fundamental civil right.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:37
I do have an idea. That idea is based on the SOP of the PPD, both written and unwritten. They don't like the citizenry to carry firearms in "their" city. They have and will do anything they can to maintain their exclusivity to carry firearms. They have and will continue to use deadly force to stop citizens from exercising this fundamental civil right.

So like I said, you have no idea.

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 14:38
I disagree. He was looking for attention and probably hoped this would happen so he could make his statement about open carry.

You're making assumptions, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Put yourself in the shoes of an OCer, certain places where OC is legal, harassment happens often. They know this, doesn't mean they are looking for attention and hope to be harassed, it means they are prepared to expose it if and when it does happen.

You don't like OC, so you can't understand that. I don't OC either, if it became legal in FL I still wouldn't OC, but that is irrelevant to this conversation. Not only is OC legal in PA, its protected by state constitution, a clear right. A right this cop trampled on.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 14:40
You're making assumptions, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Put yourself in the shoes of an OCer, certain places where OC is legal, harassment happens often. They know this, doesn't mean they are looking for attention and hope to be harassed, it means they are prepared to expose it if and when it does happen.

You don't like OC, so you can't understand that. I don't OC either, if it became legal in FL I still wouldn't OC, but that is irrelevant to this conversation. Not only is OC legal in PA, its protected by state constitution, a clear right. A right this cop trampled on.

Just be happy you can carry concealed and do so. In NJ we have no such luxury.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:40
I lot of thoughtful and good points have been made. I do have one question though. Who recorded the whole thing? The OC'er? if so doesn't this also suggest an attempt at gaining attention? OK so thats more then one question. But if was a simple grab for attention the guys motives may have been what led to being politely confrontational.

The OCer recorded everything. It is common practice of OCers to carry at lease an audio recorder.

Why do OCers carry audio recorders? Protection, plain and simple. Without audio or video, would we ever know the criminal acts commonly perpetrated by police?

John Rambo
03-25-2011, 14:42
..... Ok Ok ----


.... Everyone was a tool

Its like a the Tool isle in Lowes up in hea'! :rofl:

But yeah, its pretty obvious that the cop was out to get the guy, and the guy was more concerned about 'standing up for his rights' than actually diffusing the situation and handling it with the officers' supervisors afterwards.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:46
Its like a the Tool isle in Lowes up in hea'! :rofl:

But yeah, its pretty obvious that the cop was out to get the guy, and the guy was more concerned about 'standing up for his rights' than actually diffusing the situation and handling it with the officers' supervisors afterwards.

The police officer should be fired, at minimum, or prosecuted for aggravated assault, but seeing as it is Philly, the officer will probably be promoted.

pittrj
03-25-2011, 14:48
It seems to me that both sides are most likely in the wrong here, if not legally at least in terms of common sense. This guy seems as though he was looking for some sort of trouble. I'd have complied and then pleaded my case, rather than the way he acted. On the cop's side there is a whole lot of stupidity and arrogance. The cop and/or cops were abusive in terms of language and disrespectful to the guy. It was completely unprofessional on the part of the cop. There was no need for this ever to go as far as it did. The whole incident could have been a calm, cool exchange, but it seems as though egos on both sides caused it to escalate.

The whole issue of open carry is problematic. I live in Pennsylvania and have a license to carry. I carry concealed frequently. I also open carry, but only in rural areas, like when I'm hiking, fishing, etc... I concede that Pennsylvania allows for open carry in urban areas, even Filthadelphia with a lctf. However, that doesn't make it a good idea. Like anything else, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And, open carry should be exercised with at least a bit of common sense.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 14:51
It seems to me that both sides are most likely in the wrong here, if not legally at least in terms of common sense. This guy seems as though he was looking for some sort of trouble. I'd have complied and then pleaded my case, rather than the way he acted. On the cop's side there is a whole lot of stupidity and arrogance. The cop and/or cops were abusive in terms of language and disrespectful to the guy. It was completely unprofessional on the part of the cop. There was no need for this ever to go as far as it did. The whole incident could have been a calm, cool exchange, but it seems as though egos on both sides caused it to escalate.

The whole issue of open carry is problematic. I live in Pennsylvania and have a license to carry. I carry concealed frequently. I also open carry, but only in rural areas, like when I'm hiking, fishing, etc... I concede that Pennsylvania allows for open carry in urban areas, even Filthadelphia with a lctf. However, that doesn't make it a good idea. Like anything else, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And, open carry should be exercised with at least a bit of common sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, please. You appear to only have a problem with the officer's language, arrogance and stupidity (I'm using your words), correct?

You don't have a problem that the officer stopped someone at gunpoint for lawful activity?

pittrj
03-25-2011, 14:55
Correct me if I'm wrong here, please. You appear to only have a problem with the officer's language, arrogance and stupidity (I'm using your words), correct?

You don't have a problem that the officer stopped someone at gunpoint for lawful activity?

No, no I don't. I can understand the police stopping the guy to make sure he has a lctf. It's a major urban area and a complete crap hole. I can understand the caution on the part of the cop. Like it or not, the vast majority of the population in the area doesn't open carry. It is an aberration and one that screams out possible threat. How does the cop know that the guys is obeying the law, he didn't have his lctf out. And, I'm sure when the cop normally sees some random guy with a gun out, it's not in the most pleasant circumstance.

Goodspeed(TPF)
03-25-2011, 14:55
If that guy had just complied witht the officers commands, he probably would have been let go. That guy was a moron. He will probably get his ccw revoked.


Baaa... Baaaa....:upeyes:

pittrj
03-25-2011, 15:02
If anyone is interested, the guy involve is apparently a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum and has started a thread there about the incident in question. It can be found here; http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry.html

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 15:03
No, no I don't. I can understand the police stopping the guy to make sure he has a lctf. It's a major urban area and a complete crap hole. I can understand the caution on the part of the cop. Like it or not, the vast majority of the population in the area doesn't open carry. It is an aberration and one that screams out possible threat. How does the cop know that the guys is obeying the law, he didn't have his lctf out. And, I'm sure when the cop normally sees some random guy with a gun out, it's not in the most pleasant circumstance.

Is there any other Constitutionally protected, legal activity you would like police to stop people from preforming by gunpoint? How about worshiping as they please? Or is it only the "evil gun" that you want police to focus on?

SPIN2010
03-25-2011, 15:12
Just more proof that people who open carry are only looking to make a statement. This "tool's" demeanor with the cops just confirms that. I too hope he gets his CCW revoked.

Wow! Did you know we have a constitution, a bill of rights, and individual freedom to prevent this kind of police action in america (yes, I know that NJ is not part of america anymore but, it does not excuse ignorance of the law ... see that goes both ways [CITIZEN <ignorance is not allowed> OFFICER] see both ways).

... this kid is going to get a payday. I wonder if they will have to print more money? The "pres" is locked out of the house right now and can't have a beer summit so, PA will have to submit a form for state assistance and wait. :rofl:

pittrj
03-25-2011, 15:14
Is there any other Constitutionally protected, legal activity you would like police to stop people from preforming by gunpoint? How about worshiping as they please? Or is it only the "evil gun" that you want police to focus on?

No, I want the police to focus on a the fact that this guy had a gun out, in the middle of a high crime area and they had no visible way of determining that he was obeying the law. Try placing the whole "he was open carrying a gun" in the context of the surroundings and apply some common sense.

Beware Owner
03-25-2011, 15:16
The dude was confrontational, even if he was right.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 15:16
No, I want the police to focus on a the fact that this guy had a gun out, in the middle of a high crime area and they had no visible way of determining that he was obeying the law. Try placing the whole "he was open carrying a gun" in the context of the surroundings and apply some common sense.

Try applying court rulings (including SCOTUS) and leave the guy alone.

LEAD
03-25-2011, 15:20
It supports the argument that OC is more likely to get you unwanted attention and hassle. My opinion nothing else, just think everyone would be better off if we kept everything covered up unless you're an officer. I think the officer is in the wrong unless the OC'r was really being non-compliant and not keeping his hands up as instructed.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 15:24
Oh, since I'm still listening to the recordings, what are the opinions of our resident police officers (current and former) on the apparent attempts to turn off and/or destroy the recording device?

Could this be attempting to tamper with evidence?

AA#5
03-25-2011, 15:28
It's pretty obvious what happened.

If the OC'er was not violating any laws by OC'ing, the cop was simply using his power to voice his disapproval of OC'ing & scare him out of OC'ing in the future. That's why the cop pulled his gun & treated the OC'er like a suspected felon.

The officer did NOT pull his gun because he feared for his safety; he only wanted to teach the OC'er a lesson.

That lesson is: "I don't care if OC'ing is legal or not. I DON'T LIKE IT, so if you OC, this is what will happen to you."

pittrj
03-25-2011, 15:31
Try applying court rulings (including SCOTUS) and leave the guy alone.

Since your so big on exercising your rights without any common sense; I suggest you go to Compton or Watts and exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by screaming some racial slurs. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 15:36
Since your so big on exercising your rights without any common sense; I suggest you go to Compton or Watts and exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by screaming some racial slurs. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Can I scream "CRACKA"?

If you think the two are related in any way, you sir, are one of the biggest fools on this board.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 15:38
It's pretty obvious what happened.

If the OC'er was not violating any laws by OC'ing, the cop was simply using his power to voice his disapproval of OC'ing & scare him out of OC'ing in the future. That's why the cop pulled his gun & treated the OC'er like a suspected felon.

The officer did NOT pull his gun because he feared for his safety; he only wanted to teach the OC'er a lesson.

That lesson is: "I don't care if OC'ing is legal or not. I DON'T LIKE IT, so if you OC, this is what will happen to you."

Yeah, that must be it :rollingeyes:

pittrj
03-25-2011, 15:41
Can I scream "CRACKA"?

If you think the two are related in any way, you sir, are one of the biggest fools on this board.

To be thought a fool by a moron is a high compliment. Your manner of thinking will do more to damage our Second Amendment Rights than thousand Sarah Bradys. Go ahead; alienate the population, confirm all the liberal lies about gun owners by pulling crap like this.

MarcoPolo
03-25-2011, 15:42
Seemed like the big concern, after realizing the guy was no threat was that he was "mouthing off" and "talking back". I knew where this was headed when he started in with "don't f-ing talk back to me".

This was the perfect storm of idiocy.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 15:45
Yeah, that must be it :rollingeyes:

Apply lex parsimoniae to the situation.

Either the OCer was out to make trouble, prepared himself with a recording device, searched the city for a police officer who could be mind controlled into acting out of control, just to score a payday;

Or, a malicious police officer was acting in a criminal way.

renotrainer
03-25-2011, 15:46
Cop should be fired for conduct un becoming an officer if not for ignorance.

OC is what we all should be doing and this would not happen. crime would drop.

muscogee
03-25-2011, 15:56
If that guy had just complied witht the officers commands, he probably would have been let go. That guy was a moron. He will probably get his ccw revoked.

You mean like Rodney King?

Gunshine
03-25-2011, 16:01
I contend that the officer's actions are outside the OCer's control and that he, like the people on the thread, has no real input about being placed in that position. Once placed in that position, he needs to focus on what he does control so that he doesn't get killed. I contend that responsible carriers should take steps to ensure their survival above all else, especially over things they don't control.

What part of the OCer's action while facing deadly force was right?

Priorities. No fun fixing cops' training if you're dead.

Which I think has been Sam's point all along. Not justifying a jerks behavior but not upsetting a jerk with a gun. Not a good idea.

Warp
03-25-2011, 16:11
I agree with the statements about his priorities being out of line, for sure.

Even if you believe it to be unjust...even if it IS unjust...don't argue with the uniform LEO. Especially when he has drawn his firearm.

TBO
03-25-2011, 16:21
I contend that the encounter should never have happened. I contend that either the malice or ignorance of the officer were the root cause of the stop. The officer made up a law that does not exist, again through malice or ignorance, and held a law abiding person at gunpoint.

What parts of this do you condone?
If the Officer broke no law, you will support the Officer, correct?

PAGunner
03-25-2011, 16:28
If the Officer broke no law, you will support the Officer, correct?

He threatened to shoot a guy doing nothing unlawful, officer had no reason to suspect he was doing anything unlawful with gun drawn, and you think its possible the officer did nothing wrong????

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:28
If the Officer broke no law, you will support the Officer, correct?

Only the state legislature is authorized to create laws regarding firearms in PA. So there is one law that the officer broke. So your point is irrelevant.

TBO
03-25-2011, 16:32
Only the state legislature is authorized to create laws regarding firearms in PA. So there is one law that the officer broke. So your point is irrelevant.If he broke no law, you will support him, correct?

RussP
03-25-2011, 16:36
If he broke no law, you will support him, correct?TBO, he doesn't understand the question.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:36
If he broke no law, you will support him, correct?

Sure, but since he did break a law, I don't.

TBO
03-25-2011, 16:38
Sure, but since he did break a law, I don't.
Who decides if he broke a law?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:39
TBO, he doesn't understand the question.

I understand the question. TBO, like most other police on this board (current and former) will justify most any atrocity committed by police as long as it stays hidden from the general populous.

How about TBO (or any police officer) give direct answers to any of the questions I asked of Sam? Think you can do that? I doubt it.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:42
Who decides if he broke a law?

Must a person be convicted to break a law?

TBO
03-25-2011, 16:43
Must a person be convicted to break a law?
Do you feel comfortable passing judgement?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:46
Do you feel comfortable passing judgement?

Yes, I do. If I could sentence the officer to the appropriate punishment, I would feel comfortable doing that as well.

cowboy1964
03-25-2011, 16:46
Who recorded this audio? The guy was looking for trouble and it's funny how trouble finds people like that.

TBO
03-25-2011, 16:47
Yes, I do. If I could sentence the officer to the appropriate punishment, I would feel comfortable doing that as well.
What interpretation of the law, what rule of law, do you use in doing such?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 16:49
Who recorded this audio?

ViperGTS19801 @ PAFOA forums.

Original thread link (again):

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:00
What interpretation of the law, what rule of law, do you use in doing such?

What interpretation of law allows for a police officer to create and enforce a law without the approval of the state legislature or governor's signature?

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:04
What interpretation of law allows for a police officer to create and enforce a law without the approval of the state legislature or governor's signature?
If that is what happened, what is the venue/process to address that?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:09
If that is what happened, what is the venue/process to address that?

Firing squad?

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:10
Firing squad?
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:11
Firing squad?

Someone is chasing the rabbit...

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:13
He threatened to shoot a guy doing nothing unlawful, officer had no reason to suspect he was doing anything unlawful with gun drawn, and you think its possible the officer did nothing wrong????

No reason that you know of. Of course the youtube video will be slanted to the person who made it and as you well know, there are 3 sides to every story.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:15
No reason that you know of. Of course the youtube video will be slanted to the person who made it and as you well know, there are 3 sides to every story.

Are you accusing the OCer of manipulating the audio?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:15
No reason that you know of. Of course the youtube video will be slanted to the person who made it and as you well know, there are 3 sides to every story.

Yes but you did hear 2 sides...

R*E
03-25-2011, 17:16
Open carry would have prevented this.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:17
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

You mean a constitutional basis like the 2A? or are we talking about the PA constitution which states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Or perhaps the 4A?

Are you defending this "officer's" actions? Or just asking stupid questions in an attempt to take the focus off the blatant civil rights violations the victim was subjected to?

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:17
This thread has now become a complete waste of time. The anti establishment Zelots here will accept no other rational other then the police officer was wrong. You do your cause no good as you come across as anti establishment yahoos or worse, sovereign nation types.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:19
This thread has now become a complete waste of time. The anti establishment Zelots here will accept no other rational other then the police officer was wrong. You do your cause no good as you come across as anti establishment yahoos or worse, sovereign nation types.

You actually think the officer's actions were reasonable and appropriate? Are you a LEO?

beatcop
03-25-2011, 17:19
I will post in complete ignorance of all previous posts....I cannot bear to read the same old hackneyed junk.

Follow the directions of the uniformed authority....don't debate the issue, don't do anything but follow directions. You may be an armed robbery suspect for all you know.

The cop is clearly flustered....you're gonna debate legality during a felony stop? Shut your damn pie hole and comply....you may be right, but where's the sense in being dead right.

If the cop is wrong and has been trained, then write him up. Sounds like a case of 2 morons. I could care less about any swearing etc...you don't like it? File bs complaint.

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:20
Looks like WCrawford's PM flurry effectively summoned the horde.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:21
Yes but you did hear 2 sides...

Did you, did you see or hear the events leading up to this. What drew the officer's attention toward this chap. Did they receive a complaint from the public about a man with a gun, you don't know. All you have is the audio encounter presented by a man with an obvious agenda.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:22
This thread has now become a complete waste of time. The anti establishment Zelots here will accept no other rational other then the police officer was wrong. You do your cause no good as you come across as anti establishment yahoos or worse, sovereign nation types.

Oh, He Who Hath Suckle on the Teat of Authoritarianism, we beseech thee to share thine wisdom with us. Please enlighten the blasphemers and heretics.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:23
Looks like WCrawford's PM flurry effectively summoned the horde.

I made 1, and only 1 PM in response to one I received. No flurry.

I would expect that any moderator could confirm that.

dkf
03-25-2011, 17:23
Who recorded this audio? The guy was looking for trouble and it's funny how trouble finds people like that.

Pretty much everyone who open carries in PA carries a recorder (most cell phones record) because of moron cops who DO NOT KNOW THE LAW.

This is real and not the first time PPD assulted/harrassed this fellow for doing something that IS COMPLETELY LEGAL. The PPD is a corrupt oraganization and does this stuff on regualar basis.

Look it up.

18 Pa C.S. § 6108: "No person SHALL carry a firearm rifle or shotgun at ANY TIME upon the public streets or upon any public property in the city of the first class (Philadelphia) unless: (1) Such person is licensed to carry a firearm.

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:24
Firing squad?
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:24
This thread has now become a complete waste of time. The anti establishment Zelots here will accept no other rational other then the police officer was wrong. You do your cause no good as you come across as anti establishment yahoos or worse, sovereign nation types.

That is the typical response when your type have lost the argument.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:26
Oh, He Who Hath Suckle on the Teat of Authoritarianism, we beseech thee to share thine wisdom with us. Please enlighten the blasphemers and heretics.

Here you can read all about it.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?xpicked=4

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:26
Did you, did you see or hear the events leading up to this. What drew the officer's attention toward this chap. Did they receive a complaint from the public about a man with a gun, you don't know. All you have is the audio encounter presented by a man with an obvious agenda.

The officer never stated there was a complaint, where are you getting this "theory" from?

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:27
That is the typical response when your type have lost the argument.

:rofl:

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 17:27
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

If I said that I wished to bathe the world in fire would you bother answering even 1 question I posed to Sam?

Wait for the new question folks.

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:28
If I said that I wished to bathe the world in fire would you bother answering even 1 question I posed to Sam?

Wait for the new question folks.
Firing squad?
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:28
Looks like WCrawford's PM flurry effectively summoned the horde.

No just from people reading your constant questions. You have have only provided questions wiothout facts.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:29
Is that constructed from your own personal view/belief system, or does it have a Constitutional basis?

Yup, he's definitely a Sovereign Citizen.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:30
:rofl:

Like I said typical...

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:30
If I said that I wished to bathe the world in fire would you bother answering even 1 question I posed to Sam?

Wait for the new question folks.

You're going to have to ignore him... he's obviously just interested in antagonizing you with inane questions.

beatcop
03-25-2011, 17:30
Ok, who has been to downtown Philly? This ain't Tennessee...guess what, I don't fit in.

You CAN do a lot of things legally, SHOULD you? That's where the Tackleberry's fail to admit that the excercise of common sense is paramount to maintaining freedoms. Act like a moron and it turns into a WELL REGULATED right.

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:30
No just from people reading your constant questions. You have have only provided questions wiothout facts.
Did you miss where he admitted PM'ing?

eyelikeglasses
03-25-2011, 17:30
Here's more professional PA LEOs.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/25/brawl-territorial-pa-cops-caught-camera/?test=latestnews
With video!

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:32
Ok, who has been to downtown Philly? This ain't Tennessee...guess what, I don't fit in.

You CAN do a lot of things legally, SHOULD you? That's where the Tackleberry's fail to admit that the excercise of common sense is paramount to maintaining freedoms. Act like a moron and it turns into a WELL REGULATED right.

You of all people should know laws are laws no matter if you are in Montana or Philly.

Tackleberry's really, we are American's.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:35
Ok, who has been to downtown Philly? This ain't Tennessee...guess what, I don't fit in.

You CAN do a lot of things legally, SHOULD you? That's where the Tackleberry's fail to admit that the excercise of common sense is paramount to maintaining freedoms. Act like a moron and it turns into a WELL REGULATED right.

Alright... so we should be real careful about doing legal activities because some "tackleberry" might draw down on us and fill us full of lead. Got it.

:shocked:

dkf
03-25-2011, 17:35
The cop is clearly flustered....you're gonna debate legality during a felony stop?

What felony? The victim (the guy the cops were pointing the gun at) was leagally carrying his holstered firearm. The cop does not have a gun pointed at him why is he flustered?

Ok, who has been to downtown Philly?

Several times.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:35
Did you miss where he admitted PM'ing?

Not at all, but you provided only questions, no substance. Just my opinion....

There is a time to defend LEO & a time not to, this appears to be one of those times.

Go ahead and ask your next question,

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:36
You of all people should know laws are laws no matter if you are in Montana or Philly.

Tackleberry's really, we are American's.

I'm not sure he understands that "Tackleberry" was a cop...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJdmnMtpAwI

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:36
Alright... so we should be real careful about doing legal activities because some "tackleberry" might draw down on us and fill us full of lead. Got it.

:shocked:
If what the Officer did wasn't in violation of the law, aren't you now complaining about an Officer "who broke no law"! ???

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:39
I'm not sure he understands that "Tackleberry" was a cop...

:whistling:

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:40
If what the Officer did wasn't in violation of the law, aren't you now complaining about an Officer "who broke no law"! ???

He did "break the law" by violating the victim's civil rights granted by the 2A and 4A of the USC, upheld by the PA Constitution, and spelled out in PA law.

Unless you feel that he "lawfully" violated the victim's rights?

TBO
03-25-2011, 17:45
He did "break the law" by violating the victim's civil rights granted by the 2A and 4A of the USC, upheld by the PA Constitution, and spelled out in PA law.

Unless you feel that he "lawfully" violated the victim's rights?
It is your personal opinion that he broke the law.

What is the proper venue/setting/procedure to correct this "breaking of the law"?

Snowman92D
03-25-2011, 17:48
Maybe the OCer would have been "smart" to comply with the officer, but you could say the same for Rosa Parks also. :upeyes:

OC squirrels...the modern day Rosa Parks. Fighting for their right to scare women and little kids in the check-out line at the drug store.
:rofl:

As has been previously noted here, anyone with a lick of common sense wouldn't open carry in a hyper-violent city like Phillie unless he was deliberately wanting to provoke a confrontation with the local gendarmes. Sounds like he got want he wanted, now he and his loony-toon supporters have showed up here to express their juvenile outrage. Frankly, I'd be surprized if the Phillie cops didn't stop me for OCing and ask me some terse questions with their weapon out until they found out what was was going on.

Only a fool would expect otherwise...which, of course, brings us back to the obvious premise that we're dealing with an "activist" trying to provoke a confrontation. In-your-face tactics like that remind me of the antics of gays swapping spit in a booth at a family restaurant, desperately hoping that management will call the police so they can feel "victimized" and cry that their "rights" have been violated. Maybe the OC activists need a group hug, just like the gay activists do.
:grouphug:

I'm like most people. I realize that a percentage of the country's populace is die-hard pro-2nd Amendement, and another percentage are just as die-hard in their opposition. What's gonna save our RKBA rights is the large number of people in the middle who haven't firmly made up their minds on the subject. They're the ones who can be stampeded away from supporting the RKBA by the anti's every time there's a school shooting, for example...or any time the anti's find fodder for their argument that gunowners are all dangerous loonies who haven't the common sense to be trusted with a weapon. No matter how far they have to twist things out of context, they deal in emotion not logic or law. To them a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Anyone who gives them grist for their anti-gun mill by acting stupid, just to defend their "right" to cause a juvenile disturbance in public when it ain't necessary, is the enemy of my RKBA rights. Personally, I feel comforted to know that there are armed good guys in the area, but walking the block in Phillie ain't the place to do that when you're OC. Note that I said "armed good guys", not an in-your-face OC gun with a pathetic little "activist" strapped to it. They don't help the cause and they're no deterrent to crime. I've seen a number of cases over the years where an un-armed thug jap-slapped an OC dweeb and disarmed him.

So come on up and have a seat in the front there, Rosa. I wouldn't want anyone to get in your way when you decide to get off the bus I'm riding. There's probably some women and kids out there for you to scare somewhere anyway.

beatcop
03-25-2011, 17:49
Felony Stop....google it....you're holding someone at gunpoint in a particular manner, regardless of the guys status. It's usually used to describe a particular set of precise instructions given to the operator and occupants of a vehicle that has been stopped/seized.

In this particular case it is describing holding someone at gunpoint, suspected of committing a crime. A particular set of instructions is often given: Hands above your head, face away from the sound of my voice, get onto your knees, cross your legs at your ankles.....do not move.

There's your block of instruction.

Just to make sure we're on the same sheet here, if it's legal, great. However when you know something is not part of the accepted culture of a certain area, you tread lightly until it's fully known. If the cop WAS TRAINED and carried out his job poorly, then that's what IA is for.

Yep, the number of cops who are gun guys isn't too large, but when I go the local ranges I see plenty of "Citizens On Patrol". Hang out in a gunshop for a minute and listen to the fools that go in....yep, Tackleberry's.

As far as the State he's in...I've traveled a bit. Downtown Philly AKA the Ghetto is not generally seen as an OC area. You may be authorized by law, but it is clearly not a regular event...the OC guy is a tool and the cop sounded like he was over his head.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:49
OC squirrels...the modern day Rosa Parks. Fighting for their right to scare women and little kids in the check-out line at the drug store.
:rofl:

As has been previously noted here, anyone with a lick of common sense wouldn't carry in a hyper-violent city like Phillie unless he was deliberately wanting to provoke a confrontation with the local gendarmes. Sounds like he got want he wanted, now he and his loony-toon supporters have showed up here to express their juvenile outrage. Frankly, I'd be surprized if the Phillie cops didn't stop me for OCing and ask me some terse questions with their weapon out until they found out what was was going on.

Only a fool would expect otherwise...which, of course, brings us back to the obvious premise that we're dealing with an "activist" trying to provoke a confrontation. In-your-face tactics like that remind me of the antics of gays swapping spit in a booth at a family restaurant, desperately hoping that management will call the police so they can feel "victimized" and cry that their "rights" have been violated. Maybe the OC activists need a group hug, just like the gay activists do.
:grouphug:

I'm like most people. I realize that a percentage of the country's populace is die-hard pro- 2nd Amendement, and another percentage are just as die-hard in their opposition. What's gonna save our RKBA rights is the large number of people in the middle who haven't firmly made up their minds on the subject. They're the ones who can be stampeded away from supporting the RKBA by the anti's every time there's a school shooting, for example...or any time the anti's find fodder for their argument that gunowners are all dangerous loonies who haven't the common sense to be trusted with a weapon. No matter how far they have to twist things out of context, they deal in emotion not logic or law. To them a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Anyone who gives them grist for their anti-gun mill by acting stupid, just to defend their "right" to cause a juvenile disturbance in public when it ain't necessary, is the enemy of my RKBA rights. Personally, I feel comforted to know that there are armed good guys in the area, but walking the block in Phillie ain't the place to do that when you're OC. Note that I said "armed good guys", not an in-your-face OC gun with a pathetic little "activist" strapped to it. They don't help the cause and they're no deterrent to crime. I've seen a number of cases over the years where an un-armed thug jap-slapped an OC dweeb and disarmed him.

So come on up and have a seat in the front there, Rosa. I wouldn't want anyone to get in your way when you decide to get off the bus I'm riding. There's probably some women and kids out there for you to scare somewhere anyway.

Finally, someone with some common sense.

James Dean
03-25-2011, 17:49
If a uniform police officer give me a command I'm going to comply. If the officer is wrong after I was arrested and let go I would sue the dept, and the officer. He was smart to record it. If you open carry sooner or later this is going to happen. With a gun pointed at you, that's not the time to be arguing the law with a jacked up cop.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 17:51
It is your personal opinion that he broke the law.

What is the proper venue/setting/procedure to correct this "breaking of the law"?

You know this already... disciplinary action needs to be taken against the offending officers, new MOEPTC training (although previous training didn't work) regarding lawful carry as well as how to interact like professionals instead of jack booted thugs, perhaps replacement of several of the personnel in key leadership positions within the Philadelphia police force, etc.

How much of this do you think will actually happen? The number of incidents of the Philadelphia police force assaulting citizens and violating people's civil rights continues to grow and there has been no effective action taken to resolve the trend.

Is it your opinion that the officers recorded in this event acted reasonably and appropriately?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:53
Felony Stop....google it....you're holding someone at gunpoint in a particular manner, regardless of the guys status. It's usually used to describe a particular set of precise instructions given to the operator and occupants of a vehicle that has been stopped/seized.

In this particular case it is describing holding someone at gunpoint, suspected of committing a crime. A particular set of instructions is often given: Hands above your head, face away from the sound of my voice, get onto your knees, cross your legs at your ankles.....do not move.

There's your block of instruction.

Just to make sure we're on the same sheet here, if it's legal, great. However when you know something is not part of the accepted culture of a certain area, you tread lightly until it's fully known. If the cop WAS TRAINED and carried out his job poorly, then that's what IA is for.

As far as the State he's in...I've traveled a bit. Downtown Philly AKA the Ghetto is not generally seen as an OC area. You may be authorized by law, but it is clearly not a regular event...the OC guy is a tool and the cop sounded like he was over his head.

Regardless, I don't think walking down a sidewalk is a crime, what was the crime. It is embarrassing that the cop told him was committing a crime by OC and you could tell he didn't have a clue if he was right or not.

And in the end he was NOT.

mrsurfboard
03-25-2011, 17:57
http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a442/mrsurfboard/825644-facepalm_carl_super.jpg

Grammy
03-25-2011, 17:58
http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a442/mrsurfboard/825644-facepalm_carl_super.jpg

I thought you got plugs???

James Dean
03-25-2011, 18:04
Never wore a gun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mx52S8ZkUg

beatcop
03-25-2011, 18:06
Regardless, I don't think walking down a sidewalk is a crime, what was the crime. It is embarrassing that the cop told him was committing a crime by OC and you could tell he didn't have a clue if he was right or not.

And in the end he was NOT.

It doesn't matter what the OC guy "thought". Don't get me wrong, if the subject was something else, it still doesn't matter what the person detained thought of the incident. The event will be held up to the standard of a reasonably trained officer and the Penal Code/Laws....would a properly trained officer have responded in a similiar manner?

If OC in Philly is legit, then the cop may have made a bad call. I would like to see the event and all fact in their totality, not just an audio recording.

For example: I can do a lot of things legally, I can walk down the street OC'ing with my groceries & pass a cop. The next time I run down the street with my goods, pistol in waistband...what do you think is going to happen?

I'm not gonna make excuses for the cop, if he screwed up then so be it, but lets get real...let's have total disclosure.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 18:10
Never wore a gun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mx52S8ZkUg


Now THAT was a cop.

fmfdocglock
03-25-2011, 18:12
The idiot is lucky the cops got him before some Philly gangbanger shot him in the back of the head, took his gun, then killed someone with it.

I live in the Philly area, and would NEVER OC here.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:15
Yup, he's definitely a Sovereign Citizen.

Is that slander or libel? I can never remember. Granted, the truth is a defense for either.

Do you have proof that would hold up in a court of law? If not, I suggest you retract your comment.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 18:15
It doesn't matter what the OC guy "thought". Don't get me wrong, if the subject was something else, it still doesn't matter what the person detained thought of the incident. The event will be held up to the standard of a reasonably trained officer and the Penal Code/Laws....would a properly trained officer have responded in a similiar manner?

If OC in Philly is legit, then the cop may have made a bad call. I would like to see the event and all fact in their totality, not just an audio recording.

For example: I can do a lot of things legally, I can walk down the street OC'ing with my groceries & pass a cop. The next time I run down the street with my goods, pistol in waistband...what do you think is going to happen?

I'm not gonna make excuses for the cop, if he screwed up then so be it, but lets get real...let's have total disclosure.

I agree with you, but I can only go with what appears to be the entire audio,

I understand where you are coming from, I was overseas for 5.5 years and in sticky situations.

In the recording is at appears, there are issues. An American's Constitutional rights are an American's right's.

What would you do if someone broke leather on you just walking down the sidewalk doing nothing illegal?

We all work with idiots, been there done that. Just can't believe the supervisors didn't know the law.

TBO
03-25-2011, 18:23
Quoted post deleted for rules violation

I read post #6.

#6
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is a "Battery" when a physical touch occurs.

He said "I'll effing shoot you, if you make a move"and had a gun out. Can be seen as an assault. Not saying that the OCer did the right thing by arguing with the cops, but it does suck they violated his rights.
Don't see how post #6 either answers or refutes my post.

Olivers_AR
03-25-2011, 18:26
Glad that you made it out alive! If its true that you can open carry with a permit, then I would go ahead and file suit now.

dkf
03-25-2011, 18:27
It doesn't matter what the OC guy "thought". Don't get me wrong, if the subject was something else, it still doesn't matter what the person detained thought of the incident. The event will be held up to the standard of a reasonably trained officer and the Penal Code/Laws....would a properly trained officer have responded in a similiar manner?

A properly trained officer should have asked to see his LTCF. There are other officers in PA and throughout the US that can handle a situation like this without pointing a gun at a citizen lawfully carrying a fiearm.

If OC in Philly is legit, then the cop may have made a bad call. I would like to see the event and all fact in their totality, not just an audio recording.


It is legit. A lowly citizen can read and understand the law, there is no reason why a trained LEO cannot do the same.
If the recording laws would not be so strict perhaps we would have gotten audio as well as a visual. There is a chance a nearby camera could have caught the incident on video however the PPD would probably get ahold of it and destroy it.

For example: I can do a lot of things legally, I can walk down the street OC'ing with my groceries & pass a cop. The next time I run down the street with my goods, pistol in waistband...what do you think is going to happen?

I'd pretty much expect the officer to ask to see the persons LTCF.

I'm not gonna make excuses for the cop, if he screwed up then so be it, but lets get real...let's have total disclosure.

The LAW
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia


No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106 (http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/II/G/61/A/6106/firearms-not-to-be-carried-without-a-license/) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:28
Felony Stop....google it....you're holding someone at gunpoint in a particular manner, regardless of the guys status. It's usually used to describe a particular set of precise instructions given to the operator and occupants of a vehicle that has been stopped/seized.

In this particular case it is describing holding someone at gunpoint, suspected of committing a crime. A particular set of instructions is often given: Hands above your head, face away from the sound of my voice, get onto your knees, cross your legs at your ankles.....do not move.

There's your block of instruction.

Just to make sure we're on the same sheet here, if it's legal, great. However when you know something is not part of the accepted culture of a certain area, you tread lightly until it's fully known. If the cop WAS TRAINED and carried out his job poorly, then that's what IA is for.

Yep, the number of cops who are gun guys isn't too large, but when I go the local ranges I see plenty of "Citizens On Patrol". Hang out in a gunshop for a minute and listen to the fools that go in....yep, Tackleberry's.

As far as the State he's in...I've traveled a bit. Downtown Philly AKA the Ghetto is not generally seen as an OC area. You may be authorized by law, but it is clearly not a regular event...the OC guy is a tool and the cop sounded like he was over his head.

How about a PPD directive issued on 9/22 that specifically deals with Open Carry? Is that considered training?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81616-Philly-Police-directive-on-OC

Flared_Nostrils
03-25-2011, 18:28
Either this guy had a right to open carry in PA or not...
I don't know the law there.

My question about this thread is why hasn't it been locked yet?

Geez, I posted a thread on a Marin County cop tazing a home owner in his house when he called 911 for medical help after a fall and I was shut down right away.
I was told I can't post anything like that...
Cop threads lead to fights, etc.

TBO
03-25-2011, 18:29
Originally Posted by TheeBadOne
It is your personal opinion that he broke the law.

What is the proper venue/setting/procedure to correct this "breaking of the law"?
You know this already... disciplinary action needs to be taken against the offending officers, new MOEPTC training (although previous training didn't work) regarding lawful carry as well as how to interact like professionals instead of jack booted thugs, perhaps replacement of several of the personnel in key leadership positions within the Philadelphia police force, etc.

How much of this do you think will actually happen? The number of incidents of the Philadelphia police force assaulting citizens and violating people's civil rights continues to grow and there has been no effective action taken to resolve the trend.

Is it your opinion that the officers recorded in this event acted reasonably and appropriately?
STOP! Hold the train.

First and foremost:


Did the Officer break the law?
If he did, what is the format/venue to address it?

We will follow 1 set of rules, the OC Activist Zealot set of rules, but only the 1s rule (won't use the double standard 2nd rule).

OC Zealot Rule #1- It doesn't matter how you feel about something, it only matters if it's against the law. If it's not against the law, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. Either keep quiet or support it.

Thus, if what the Officer did is not illegal, as defined by a Court as defined by our Constitution, it doesn't matter what the OC Activist Zealot crowd thinks about how an Officer performs his job or conducts himself. All that matters is that it's legal.

By that (your) standard, this thread is much ado about nothing.

jmho

beatcop
03-25-2011, 18:39
I agree with you, but I can only go with what appears to be the entire audio,

I understand where you are coming from, I was overseas for 5.5 years and in sticky situations.

In the recording is at appears, there are issues. An American's Constitutional rights are an American's right's.

What would you do if someone broke leather on you just walking down the sidewalk doing nothing illegal?
We all work with idiots, been there done that. Just can't believe the supervisors didn't know the law.

I would be pissed, but would skip the banter until the event was over...At which point I would prob inform the guy he was an idiot (depending on my role in the incident).

I would also keep it in perspective...when you wear a lethal weapon in plain view, you invite the good and bad into your life. I live in a CC State, oops, it has been clarified in court as an OC State now....but am I going to do it? NO, it hasn't been widely advertised as such in the media or LE training....there's always some guy who missed that legal brief because he was on vacation.

There are incompetents in every vocation. Look up Malfeasance & Misfeasance.

The usual situation goes like this:

1-I see you do something that is known to me as behavior indicative of hand to hand dealing. I detain & investigate, turns out you're a politician shaking hands and handing small buttons out...there is no recourse. The stop is legit. I stopped you on suspicion of a particular crime on the books.

2-I see you doing the same things noted above. This time I arrest you for handing out your buttons in violation of statute 123. Turns out the statute does not describe this as illegal...we have a problem....lawsuit time. A "mistake of law" is a no-go. Was I acting in the scope of my duties? Yep...I'm wrong, but the city will take the hit...hopefully.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:39
STOP! Hold the train.

First and foremost:


Did the Officer break the law?
If he did, what is the format/venue to address it?

We will follow 1 set of rules, the OC Activist Zealot set of rules, but only the 1s rule (won't use the double standard 2nd rule).

OC Zealot Rule #1- It doesn't matter how you feel about something, it only matters if it's against the law. If it's not against the law, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. Either keep quiet or support it.

Thus, if what the Officer did is not illegal, as defined by a Court as defined by our Constitution, it doesn't matter what the OC Activist Zealot crowd thinks about how an Officer performs his job or conducts himself. All that matters is that it's legal.

By that (your) standard, this thread is much ado about nothing.

jmho

Aggravated assault is not a crime? Violating a person's civil rights is not a crime?

All those things are what the officer did. So, you must condemn him (or keep quiet).

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 18:40
STOP! Hold the train.

First and foremost:


Did the Officer break the law?
If he did, what is the format/venue to address it?
We will follow 1 set of rules, the OC Activist Zealot set of rules, but only the 1s rule (won't use the double standard 2nd rule).

OC Zealot Rule #1- It doesn't matter how you feel about something, it only matters if it's against the law. If it's not against the law, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. Either keep quiet or support it.

Thus, if what the Officer did is not illegal, as defined by a Court as defined by our Constitution, it doesn't matter what the OC Activist Zealot crowd thinks about how an Officer performs his job or conducts himself. All that matters is that it's legal.

By that (your) standard, this thread is much ado about nothing.

jmho

Oh dear... let me clarify something... I am NOT an OC activist. In fact, I have never OC'd other than at a range. I conceal when I carry for several reasons, one of which is that I do not wish to be proned out by an ignorant LEO.

As I stated before, which you consider to simply be my opinion and that is a reasonable consideration, I do think that violating someone's civil rights is illegal and I do think that the LEOs in question did violate the victim's civil rights.

Putting aside the legality of their actions... it was HIGHLY unprofessional and reflects extremely poorly on the Philadelphia Police Department. It is also not an uncommon occurrence for the Phildelphia Police Department to violate people's civil rights, beat, harass, and falsely arrest people. They may not be the worst department in the country but they certainly aren't the best.

"All that matters is that it's legal" is a copout... pun intended. It most certainly matters whether or not someone is being treated with respect and fairness disregarding the pure legality of that treatment. Sanctioning the behavior exhibited by the LEOs in the recording is defending some of the most unprofessional and reprehensible behavior I have seen in a long time... and ever from a LEO.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:44
I would be pissed, but would skip the banter until the event was over...At which point I would prob inform the guy he was an idiot (depending on my role in the incident).

I would also keep it in perspective...when you wear a lethal weapon in plain view, you invite the good and bad into your life. I live in a CC State, oops, it has been clarified in court as an OC State now....but am I going to do it? NO, it hasn't been widely advertised as such in the media or LE training....there's always some guy who missed that legal brief because he was on vacation.

There are incompetents in every vocation. Look up Malfeasance & Misfeasance.

The usual situation goes like this:

1-I see you do something that is known to me as behavior indicative of hand to hand dealing. I detain & investigate, turns out you're a politician shaking hands and handing small buttons out...there is no recourse. The stop is legit. I stopped you on suspicion of a particular crime on the books.

2-I see you doing the same things noted above. This time I arrest you for handing out your buttons in violation of statute 123. Turns out the statute does not describe this as illegal...we have a problem....lawsuit time. A "mistake of law" is a no-go. Was I acting in the scope of my duties? Yep...I'm wrong, but the city will take the hit...hopefully.

beatcop, you are a fairly reasonable person.

If someone in your department, in your presence, preforms a felony stop (as this incident was labeled) for a completely legal activity and treats the citizen in the same manner as the initial officer on the audio, what would you do?

BryGuy
03-25-2011, 18:45
Its a LTCF, I have one, I used to live in PA and he did nothing illegal, so not sure what you think his license should be revoked for? The cop who assaulted the guy because he was too incompetent to understand the laws he's sworn to uphold, should in fact be fired and charged with assault.

I never said I wanted his licence revoked. I said It will probably be revoked. After this guy goes through the system on a BS charge, I doubt the issuing agency will let him keep it.

I personally think everyone should be able to open carry without fear of being thrown to the ground by a passing LEO, but that is not the world we live in. This guy clearly wanted to press the issue while not complying with the officers commands.

The cop was in the wrong, but as I also said earlier when a LEO starts yelling commands with a weapon pointed at you, you shut up and do what they say/ Lawyer up.

I do feel the cops were unprofessional about the whole thing, and it is easy to make judgement over the internet when you have never been in the situation yourself.

Chances are if the guy had handled it differently, the cops would have received a free education on the law, and he would have been let go. It would have taken an hour of his life, but the department and other law abiding gun owners/ OCers would have been better off for it.

dkf
03-25-2011, 18:45
Aggravated assault is not a crime? Violating a person's civil rights is not a crime?

All those things are what the officer did. So, you must condemn him (or keep quiet).

He is responding for arguments sake. Let him do some leg work and answer some questions instead of asking questions to everyone else.

beatcop
03-25-2011, 18:48
How about a PPD directive issued on 9/22 that specifically deals with Open Carry? Is that considered training?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81616-Philly-Police-directive-on-OC

If the info in that link is valid, it isn't "training" it's policy. I don't know how they disseminated that info, but it's pretty significant policy. My organization maintains a "read & sign" binder...you read the info and sign that you got it. You are supposed to check it daily, but the new stuff is usually read at role call.

Was the PHD deficient in putting that info out? I don't know....but if they did disseminate, then old sarge is going to have an issue.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:48
He is responding for arguments sake. Let him do some leg work and answer some questions instead of asking questions to everyone else.

It won't happen. This is standard TBO. I've learned to live with it. Play along if I'm in the mood or ignore if I'm not.

Hopefully the seeds of liberty will have fertile soil with him.

TBO
03-25-2011, 18:53
Isn't the Officer innocent until proven guilty?

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 18:54
Isn't the Officer innocent until proven guilty?

Isn't the victim innocent until proven guilty?

TBO
03-25-2011, 18:57
Isn't the victim innocent until proven guilty?
Yup. It's court that sorts that out, correct?

Warp
03-25-2011, 18:57
The idiot is lucky the cops got him before some Philly gangbanger shot him in the back of the head, took his gun, then killed someone with it.

I live in the Philly area, and would NEVER OC here.

And I suppose that you can provide us with links to the stories about the many times this has happened in the past...right?

Okay...how about one?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 18:57
I would be pissed, but would skip the banter until the event was over...At which point I would prob inform the guy he was an idiot (depending on my role in the incident).

I would also keep it in perspective...when you wear a lethal weapon in plain view, you invite the good and bad into your life. I live in a CC State, oops, it has been clarified in court as an OC State now....but am I going to do it? NO, it hasn't been widely advertised as such in the media or LE training....there's always some guy who missed that legal brief because he was on vacation.

There are incompetents in every vocation. Look up Malfeasance & Misfeasance.

The usual situation goes like this:

1-I see you do something that is known to me as behavior indicative of hand to hand dealing. I detain & investigate, turns out you're a politician shaking hands and handing small buttons out...there is no recourse. The stop is legit. I stopped you on suspicion of a particular crime on the books.

2-I see you doing the same things noted above. This time I arrest you for handing out your buttons in violation of statute 123. Turns out the statute does not describe this as illegal...we have a problem....lawsuit time. A "mistake of law" is a no-go. Was I acting in the scope of my duties? Yep...I'm wrong, but the city will take the hit...hopefully.

I would skip the BS as well, but it boils down to the guy, whatever you think of him, walking down the sidewald OC'ing, he was not breaking any laws. That is what pisses me off, just because he didn't preform like a circus monkey as expected, he is not a felon.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 18:58
If the info in that link is valid, it isn't "training" it's policy. I don't know how they disseminated that info, but it's pretty significant policy. My organization maintains a "read & sign" binder...you read the info and sign that you got it. You are supposed to check it daily, but the new stuff is usually read at role call.

Was the PHD deficient in putting that info out? I don't know....but if they did disseminate, then old sarge is going to have an issue.

I don't know the validity of the info, either, but I the earliest forum thread citing this info is:

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/95744-any-philly-leos-here-open-concealed-carry-laws.html

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 18:58
Yup. It's court that sorts that out, correct?

Do you think that officer, in your opinion, did anything wrong?

AA#5
03-25-2011, 18:59
Who recorded this audio? The guy was looking for trouble and it's funny how trouble finds people like that.

Well, don't those cameras in stores, casinos, etc. do the same thing?

billyblooshoes
03-25-2011, 19:01
i used to live in philly, and know quite a few cops there. firstly, i would never open carry there, but if for some reason a cop stopped me to check my credentials regarding CCW because he spotted my weapon, so be it. if he feels the need to draw on me to make himself feel safe, so be it. what a lot of people on here dont realize is what philly cops deal with on a daily basis, and what kind of violence takes place in the city. plus the amount of officers who are shot and/or killed. in my opinion, they have a right to be a little wary if they spot a gun on someone. if youre a law abiding citizen with a CCW, COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER, then be on your way. no harm, no foul. arguing just makes it worse. whats the damn point. lose five minutes of your life being checked out, or get yourself into a whole mess by not complying and being argumentative with a cop who, by the way, has a gun on you. philly cops dont mess around with people with guns. they automatically assume you are a criminal, and frankly i cant blame them with the amount of gun violence they deal with in the city.

the cop might not have handled it in the best way, but the dude open carrying should have just STFU, put his hands on his head, and knelt down.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:06
Do you think that officer, in your opinion, did anything wrong?He absolutely may have done things wrong in a variety of ways. It's hard when you don't have the entire context.

We have an audio clip, and an OC activist telling his tale.

We don't have anything else, correct?

The only thing I'm comfortable tossing stones at is the excessive (imho) profanity. Sure, use of it during the taking into custody didn't really bother me, but I would like it to throttle down more quickly after.

Q. Are we missing the Officer's side?
Q. Do we have a Police report anywhere? If not, why not?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:07
i used to live in philly, and know quite a few cops there. firstly, i would never open carry there, but if for some reason a cop stopped me to check my credentials regarding CCW because he spotted my weapon, so be it. if he feels the need to draw on me to make himself feel safe, so be it. what a lot of people on here dont realize is what philly cops deal with on a daily basis, and what kind of violence takes place in the city. plus the amount of officers who are shot and/or killed. in my opinion, they have a right to be a little wary if they spot a gun on someone. if youre a law abiding citizen with a CCW, COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER, then be on your way. no harm, no foul. arguing just makes it worse. whats the damn point. lose five minutes of your life being checked out, or get yourself into a whole mess by not complying and being argumentative with a cop who, by the way, has a gun on you. philly cops dont mess around with people with guns. they automatically assume you are a criminal, and frankly i cant blame them with the amount of gun violence they deal with in the city.

the cop might not have handled it in the best way, but the dude open carrying should have just STFU, put his hands on his head, and knelt down.

There was no checking creds, full on draw down is what happened for a guy walking down the sidewalk.

The piont being he tried to offer him his permit, not interested, just call for back up for a man with a gun.

For the life of me I have no idea where common sense has gone.

Edit: I don't know if it is lack of training in the law or a systemic problem, I suspect the latter.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 19:07
http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc.pdf

This is an excerpt of the training that was provided in 2009.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:09
There was no checking creds, full on draw down is what happened for a guy walking down the sidewalk.

The piont being he tried to offer him his permit, not interested, just call for back up for a man with a gun.

For the life of me I have no idea where common sense has gone.
What could you see during the incident?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 19:11
He absolutely may have done things wrong in a variety of ways. It's hard when you don't have the entire context.

We have an audio clip, and an OC activist telling his tale.

We don't have anything else, correct?

The only thing I'm comfortable tossing stones at is the excessive (imho) profanity. Sure, use of it during the taking into custody didn't really bother me, but I would like it to throttle down more quickly after.

Q. Are we missing the Officer's side?
Q. Do we have a Police report anywhere? If not, why not?

No comments about the attempted tampering of evidence?

fran m
03-25-2011, 19:11
He should open carry everyday in the city of Phila, after all it's his right. I would like him to do it not in Northeast Philadelphia but in the badlands. Kensington and Allegheny will do.

I get that its his right to do so, stupid, but his right. Sgt. was heated up but non compliance by the OC of course didn't help.

Open carry is seldom seen in Phila or its suburbs. I saw one guy a few times at the supermarket doing it. It is not the norm.

How bout all of the open carriers take a trip into North Phila and have a nice meal at one of the Chinese Take outs. I can't wait to hear the stories.

I'm sure this loophole will someday be closed. Events like this do nothing for the OC advocates.

billyblooshoes
03-25-2011, 19:13
There was no checking creds, full on draw down is what happened for a guy walking down the sidewalk.

The piont being he tried to offer him his permit, not interested, just call for back up for a man with a gun.

For the life of me I have no idea where common sense has gone.

frankly, it doesnt matter to me. find me a cop in philly that is going to spot a guy with a gun, approach him calmly, and kindly ask him for his CCW. prob not going to happen. cop sees gun, cop takes measures to defend himself, secure the spotted weapon, etc. no matter the situation, the guy should have complied immediately. remember boss, this is philly, not texas. im sure your LEOs are a little more used to seeing people open carrying than cops walking beat in philly are :upeyes:. totally different ballgame.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 19:13
I'm sure this loophole will someday be closed. Events like this do nothing for the OC advocates.

What loophole? Is it anything like the gun show loophole? Or the Florida Permit loophole?

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 19:14
Quoted post deleted for rules violation

I read post #6.

#6

Don't see how post #6 either answers or refutes my post.
What?!

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 19:14
He absolutely may have done things wrong in a variety of ways. It's hard when you don't have the entire context.

We have an audio clip, and an OC activist telling his tale.

We don't have anything else, correct?

The only thing I'm comfortable tossing stones at is the excessive (imho) profanity. Sure, use of it during the taking into custody didn't really bother me, but I would like it to throttle down more quickly after.

Q. Are we missing the Officer's side?
Q. Do we have a Police report anywhere? If not, why not?

Two cogent and reasonable questions! Excellent! You are correct that we are missing the LEOs' side of this event and the police report. I will query on the police report and see if that is obtainable. I have no idea how to obtain any other version of the LEOs' side.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:16
I do have an idea. That idea is based on the SOP of the PPD, both written and unwritten. They don't like the citizenry to carry firearms in "their" city. They have and will do anything they can to maintain their exclusivity to carry firearms. They have and will continue to use deadly force to stop citizens from exercising this fundamental civil right.Where was Deadly Force used?

billyblooshoes
03-25-2011, 19:16
He should open carry everyday in the city of Phila, after all it's his right. I would like him to do it not in Northeast Philadelphia but in the badlands. Kensington and Allegheny will do.


How bout all of the open carriers take a trip into North Phila and have a nice meal at one of the Chinese Take outs. I can't wait to hear the stories.



my point exactly. its funny all these people from the south are all "oh my lord, they got mad because he's open carrying!?!". what they neglect to recognize is that while "down south" it may be socially acceptable or the norm, not so much up here, ESPECIALLY in the city.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:19
What could you see during the incident?

Enough with your question after question, you heard the same thing I did. You make a "reasonable" assumption of the incident and please explain to us lay folks here since you are the resident defender on this case.

Nothing I hate more than someone defending incompitence just by association.

Your not right on this one TBO.

beatcop
03-25-2011, 19:19
beatcop, you are a fairly reasonable person.

If someone in your department, in your presence, preforms a felony stop (as this incident was labeled) for a completely legal activity and treats the citizen in the same manner as the initial officer on the audio, what would you do?

Flattery will go a long way!

Seriously, if we take any other incident (so as not to cloud this) and it goes wrong, it's your duty to intervene...the usual training scenario involves use of physical force (contact), which is a little more clear.

If you and I were walking the beat and you drew down on someone, I'd do the same, assuming that you saw something I didn't. If I heard you yelling some nonsense that was immediately recognizable as BS, I'd try to de-escalate the situation, tell you to stand down and take control. I'd dust you off and thank you for your cooperation with law enforcement....and apologize. If I rolled up in the middle of the nonsense, without seeing the intro, I would see the "basics" (guy+gun & supervisor yelling) and get the guy disarmed and secured in order to make the environment safe enough to get on with the investigation.

The caveat to our departmental training/policy was that the mere presence of the gun would not constitute a breach of peace arrest....other behavior is required.

dkf
03-25-2011, 19:21
frankly, it doesnt matter to me. find me a cop in philly that is going to spot a guy with a gun, approach him calmly, and kindly ask him for his CCW. prob not going to happen. cop sees gun, cop takes measures to defend himself, secure the spotted weapon, etc. no matter the situation, the guy should have complied immediately. remember boss, this is philly, not texas. im sure your LEOs are a little more used to seeing people open carrying than cops walking beat in philly are :upeyes:. totally different ballgame.

So you think the PPD are the only LEOs in PA that deal with rough situations? Don't think so. Fact is there are many LEOs that will ask to see a LTCF and not treat someone like a felon.

Its just good the LEO in this situation did not accidently or neglegently discharge his firearm and injure or kill the open carrier.

chivvalry
03-25-2011, 19:22
Where was Deadly Force used?


Title 18 Section 501

"Deadly Force" : Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Pointing a loaded deadly weapon at someone is NOT considered use of deadly force in PA.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:22
Enough with your question after question, you heard the same thing I did. You make a "reasonable" assumption of the incident and please explain to us lay folks here since you are the resident defender on this case.

Nothing I hate more than someone defending incompitence just by association.

Your not right on this one TBO.
What "right"?

Where have I stated a firm opinion on right/wrong?

Perhaps, through your eyes, the world is right/wrong based upon what suits your belief system, but that's not me.

I prefer to evaluate and approach with reason from an informed perspective. Is there anything wrong with that?

fran m
03-25-2011, 19:23
This corner will do too. See it on Google maps street view.

W York St & N Marshall St.

There are some fine citizens in the view that may be able to direct him to a nice restaurant or speakeasy. Dosen't seem there is even a bar in the immediate area. That makes him safer.

Watch Phila news on a Sunday morning see how many murders they had overnight. Alway a nice fine Chinese take out or dump bar in the background. The man with a gun call is always going to hype them up because most of the man with a gun calls are not law abiding citizens like our friend here.

I would like to see this kid there as a social experiment. On a Saturday night. In the summer. He can carry all the weapons he wants. It is legal after all. He can even show the citizens his Permit to Carry.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:24
Title 18 Section 501

"Deadly Force" : Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Pointing a loaded deadly weapon at someone is NOT considered use of deadly force in PA.Ask a PA Cop.

That definition is similar to mine (MN), but pointing a gun at someone is not deadly force. It may be a 2nd Degree Assault, but it's not Deadly Force.

billyblooshoes
03-25-2011, 19:25
So you think the PPD are the only LEOs in PA that deal with rough situations? Don't think so. Fact is there are many LEOs that will ask to see a LTCF and not treat someone like a felon.


youre missing my point. cops in philly deal with a lot of gun violence. and id say its safe to say that in the past few years, way too many philly cops have been shot and killed. so if they feel the need to make their first priority their OWN safety above that of being courteous to a man carrying a gun, so be it.

Warp
03-25-2011, 19:29
frankly, it doesnt matter to me. find me a cop in philly that is going to spot a guy with a gun, approach him calmly, and kindly ask him for his CCW. prob not going to happen. cop sees gun, cop takes measures to defend himself, secure the spotted weapon, etc. no matter the situation, the guy should have complied immediately. remember boss, this is philly, not texas. im sure your LEOs are a little more used to seeing people open carrying than cops walking beat in philly are :upeyes:. totally different ballgame.

That certainly isn't the way it would be handled here. Or anywhere else I have lived.

The situation matters.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:33
What "right"?

Where have I stated a firm opinion on right/wrong?

Perhaps, through your eyes, the world is right/wrong based upon what suits your belief system, but that's not me.

I prefer to evaluate and approach with reason from an informed perspective. Is there anything wrong with that?

Bla Bla Bla Bla, you have done nothing but defend and you know it, I am done with your circular communications and lack of point of fact with a logical thought out decision. If you can not come out and do something besides provide questions and insinuate things and don't forget.... ask more questions I don't know what to say.

Call me what you want I do see things black and white, right & wrong.

But I can tell you if someone draws down on me for no reason, I would think they were crazy and act appropriately...

GeorgiaRedfish
03-25-2011, 19:33
That certainly isn't the way it would be handled here. Or anywhere else I have lived.

The situation matters.
I live in GA too, and definitely now how it works here. All the cops I know support civilian's right to CC/OC and they do not ALWAYS secure it, I'd be willing to wager they probably on "secure" 5% of the guns they run across. Seeing as most times it is a carrier, who violated a traffic law.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:34
Ask a PA Cop.

That definition is similar to mine (MN), but pointing a gun at someone is not deadly force. It may be a 2nd Degree Assault, but it's not Deadly Force.

In Texas its felony aggravated assault, deadly force.

Gunshine
03-25-2011, 19:36
Well what a great thread. I'm glad TBO showed up. He always adds that wonderful huh factor. I'll save us a little time. What do you mean by huh factor?

i don't think this cop broke any laws. But it doesn't change the fact that he was a jerk.

I don't think the OC'er broke any laws. But I'm not convinced he wasn't out there looking for negative attention and got it. This is exactly why even if Florida passes open carry I won't do it.

Because of the small minority of people who enforce the law that are jerks. And some of the jerks that carry.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:38
In Texas its felony aggravated assault, deadly force.

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:45
Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Bingo TBO, you got something right, there is hope for you after all.

Now stop defending the PPD, I don't think you would roll up on an OC'er in a jurisdiction that allows OC and pull down on them for walking down the sidewalk with no other PC, would you?

I'm taking up your habits...

Warp
03-25-2011, 19:49
my point exactly. its funny all these people from the south are all "oh my lord, they got mad because he's open carrying!?!". what they neglect to recognize is that while "down south" it may be socially acceptable or the norm, not so much up here, ESPECIALLY in the city.

Actually, a quick look at the opencarry.org maps

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

will show that there are more "red" stats, where open carry is absolutely prohibited, in the south than there are anywhere else. Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina...open carry illegal.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:50
Bingo TBO, you got something right, there is hope for you after all.

Now stop defending the PPD, I don't think you would roll up on an OC'er in a jurisdiction that allows OC and pull down on them for walking down the sidewalk with no other PC, would you?

I'm taking up your habits...
TX reads a lot like MN... in that it's about Force that's used.

Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person.


Pointing a gun at someone may be an assault, but it is not in and of itself, "Deadly Force".

dkf
03-25-2011, 19:53
youre missing my point. cops in philly deal with a lot of gun violence. and id say its safe to say that in the past few years, way too many philly cops have been shot and killed. so if they feel the need to make their first priority their OWN safety above that of being courteous to a man carrying a gun, so be it.

I understand what you are saying. The PSP is in the same situations as the PPD but has less officers and a much larger area to cover.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:54
TX reads a lot like MN... in that it's about Force that's used.

Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person.


Pointing a gun at someone may be an assault, but it is not in and of itself, "Deadly Force".

Symantics as usual, in TX it is felony aggravated assault.

You did not address my question in my last post to you, will you???

Pointing a gun at someone may be an assault, but it is not in and of itself, "Deadly Force".

I was simply saying in TX it is because you have the abilty to cause death.

TBO
03-25-2011, 19:57
Symantics as usual, in TX it is felony aggravated assault.

You did not address my question in my last post to you, will you???
Yes, it may be felony aggravated assault (just as in MN it is felony 2nd degree assault), but it is not "Deadly Force".

Your "2nd question" is disingenuous. We do not have the context in which the contact in this story occurred.

As said early, Context matters.

RussP
03-25-2011, 19:59
...Now stop defending the PPD, I don't think you would roll up on an OC'er in a jurisdiction that allows OC and pull down on them for walking down the sidewalk with no other PC, would you?

I'm taking up your habits...Has TBO "defended the PPD", or just asked questions for clarification and definition to understand all aspects of the incident? Some people call it the totality of circumstances. It's important when investigating incidents to determine if a crime has been committed.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 19:59
Yes, it may be felony aggravated assault (just as in MN it is felony 2nd degree assault), but it is not "Deadly Force".

Your "2nd question" is disingenuous. We do not have the context in which the contact in this story occurred.

As said early, Context matters.

Question was clear.

You are simply evading the question, you and everyone else knows it too.

TBO
03-25-2011, 20:03
Question was clear.

You are simply evading the question, you and everyone else knows it too.
Threads like this showcase when one has no real world experience inside a topic, such as LE work.

The simple words you put on the screen in one sentence, in real life, play out much differently, again, depending on totality of circumstances.

Depending on many variables, when coming across someone with a gun I may:


-pass on by
-shoot them
-engage in a conversation
-ask for ID and Carry Permit
-be shot at by them

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 20:04
Has TBO "defended the PPD", or just asked questions for clarification and definition to understand all aspects of the incident? Some people call it the totality of circumstances. It's important when investigating incidents to determine if a crime has been committed.

Right, RussP. So what are the totality of circumstances that cause a PPD Sergeant, who should know policy that was enacted on 9/22/10, to make up a law and then enforce that made up law?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:06
Has TBO "defended the PPD", or just asked questions for clarification and definition to understand all aspects of the incident? Some people call it the totality of circumstances. It's important when investigating incidents to determine if a crime has been committed.

Oh he has defininty asked this questions alright.

He has said nothing in defense of our Constitutional rights as free citizens and Americans.

I find it strange for you to even post this, this guy was walking down the street and got the full monte for no reason, what crime did he commit if he was released at the conclusion of the illegal search and seizure?

Deaf Smith
03-25-2011, 20:08
I watched (or I should say heard) the video.

Now since Texas laws are being displayed here let me say in Texas, even if we had OC, if a policeman stops you and sees a deadly weapon and wants to ask for your ID, yes they may draw down on you if they feel in any way threatened, AND, in Texas law, it says even if the officer is in the wrong, you are supposed to OBEY their commands.

In PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE it says:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being
made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is
unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

So when that officer says to disarm, you disarm. Don't yack around and try to turn it into an argument.

Deaf

TBO
03-25-2011, 20:09
Oh he has defininty asked this questions alright.

He has said nothing in defense of our Constitutional rights as free citizens and Americans.

I find it strange for you to even post this, this guy was walking down the street and got the full monte for no reason, what crime did he commit if he was released at the conclusion of the illegal search and seizure?
You again show your lack of knowledge/experience about Police work and the law.

Questions to perhaps help that:

1- Is Open Carry legal without a permit there?

2- What did the Officer list as his reason for contacting the gun guy (911 call, citizen report, observation)?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 20:09
I watched (or I should say heard) the video.

Now since Texas laws are being displayed here let me say in Texas, even if we had OC, if a policeman stops you and sees a deadly weapon and wants to ask for your ID, yes they may draw down on you if they feel in any way threatened, AND, in Texas law, it says even if the officer is in the wrong, you are supposed to OBEY their commands.

In PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE it says:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being
made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is
unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

So when that officer says to disarm, you disarm. Don't yack around and try to turn it into an argument.

Deaf

What is subsection (c)?

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 20:11
You again show your lack of knowledge/experience about Police work and the law.

Questions to perhaps help that:

1- Is Open Carry legal without a permit there?

2- What did the Officer list as his reason for contacting the gun guy (911 call, citizen report, observation)?

1- Why did the officer make up a law?

2- Why did the officer try to enforce a made up law?

3- Why did a couple officers attempt to tamper with evidence?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:16
Threads like this showcase when one has no real world experience inside a topic, such as LE work.

The simple words you put on the screen in one sentence, in real life, play out much differently, again, depending on totality of circumstances.

Depending on many variables, when coming across someone with a gun I may:


-pass on by
-shoot them
-engage in a conversation
-ask for ID and Carry Permit
-be shot at by them


You can't spell real world experience that I have seen, you may be LEO and I'm not versed in your field, but I am a free man and know that if someone puts a gun in my face, they will face the consequinces of said act.

So you play your word games and continue to ask your circular questions, it seems to have gotten you this far.

Oh and I must compliment you on your avitar, broke back boy, drug induced dead hollywood "star"

TBO
03-25-2011, 20:19
Sigh, personal insults, the sign of a defeated argument.

Why do some have to go there?

I don't "hate" anyone in this thread, and I'm not upset by any of the conversations we're having, or trying to have.

Let's please take the high road.

Sincerely

BritStudent
03-25-2011, 20:19
I don't see what realistic context could change the facts of the tape. The officer never mentions that he was acting aggressively, dangerously or suspiciously - just asks why he's open carrying. He was released without charge. So what could have taken place before the beginning of the recording to justify the officers' actions?

Assuming the answer is 'nothing', then I think that if I fully expressed the degree of contempt I feel for those 'police officers' my post would be removed so I'll leave it at that.

STOP! Hold the train.

First and foremost:


Did the Officer break the law?
If he did, what is the format/venue to address it?

We will follow 1 set of rules, the OC Activist Zealot set of rules, but only the 1s rule (won't use the double standard 2nd rule).

OC Zealot Rule #1- It doesn't matter how you feel about something, it only matters if it's against the law. If it's not against the law, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. Either keep quiet or support it.

Thus, if what the Officer did is not illegal, as defined by a Court as defined by our Constitution, it doesn't matter what the OC Activist Zealot crowd thinks about how an Officer performs his job or conducts himself. All that matters is that it's legal.

By that (your) standard, this thread is much ado about nothing.

jmho

First of all, I don't hold anyone to account simply for breaking a law. Laws can be wrong, and there can be things that are wrong that are not illegal.

What the open-carry-er did was not wrong because, assuming he was just walking down the sidewalk with a holstered handgun, was not threatening or hurting anyone (like cops do all day long). The cop WAS wrong because he threatened a man, and forced him to act against his will, and prevented him from leaving - who wasn't hurting or threatening anyone (and nor did he have any reasonable suspicion that he might have been). I don't know if what he did was legal in light of his position as a police officer, but if anyone else did what he did they'd go to jail for kidnap or false imprisonment or brandishing or assault or intimidation or something else, and rightly so. For that reason I'd lock them up since they are clearly dangerous.

Secondly, the officers were jerks - they were rude, disrespectful and unprofessional; thugs with badges. Now you might consider the open-carry-er to be a jerk, or an idiot, or whatever - but none of these things are wrong (as in, 'lock 'em up' wrong) nor actual crimes. That's why I wouldn't lock up the officers for being rude. But the officers hold public positions and we rightly expect them to fulfill their duties properly which I would say includes being polite, respectful and professional. On those grounds, and given that they really had no apparent reason to act the way they did towards the open-carry-er, given how polite and non-aggressive he appears to have been, I'd fire them. The open-carry-er does not hold a public position. If his boss wants to fire him for being a jerk, or not, that's his business.

It may be that the officers broke no law. That doesn't' change my view of them, nor my feeling they should lose their jobs. It does make me think the law needs changing so they cannot (legally) act in this way.

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:21
Right, RussP. So what are the totality of circumstances that cause a PPD Sergeant, who should know policy that was enacted on 9/22/10, to make up a law and then enforce that made up law?Well, now, that specific question would be an appropriate one to ask the PPD Sergeant. The answer would include facts that contribute to the totality of circumstance.

It really isn't a question for me to answer.

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 20:23
Well, now, that specific question would be an appropriate one to ask the PPD Sergeant. The answer would include facts that contribute to the totality of circumstance.

It really isn't a question for me to answer.

Can that be interpreted that there are a set of circumstances where a police officer can make up a law and enforce it??????

old wanderer
03-25-2011, 20:23
Well this thread certainly has cranked up some people.

I would like to remind some, that when people become fearful to exercise a right, that right will soon disappear. I give kudos to the OC in this article. After all what harms comes from exercising the right? If more would follow his example, then the LEO would become more familiar with this section of the law.

It appears the 1st officer, is overly fearful about his position. He supposedly has the training, and has demonstrated his ability, yet everything in this encounter shows lack of confidence.

JMHO

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:26
Oh he has defininty asked this questions alright.

He has said nothing in defense of our Constitutional rights as free citizens and Americans.

I find it strange for you to even post this, this guy was walking down the street and got the full monte for no reason, what crime did he commit if he was released at the conclusion of the illegal search and seizure?So you are satisfied that what you heard on the audio provides the entire set of facts surrounding the incident. Why did the officer stop the OCer to start with?

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:27
Can that be interpreted that there are a set of circumstances where a police officer can make up a law and enforce it??????No, it may not be so interpreted.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:29
Sigh, personal insults, the sign of a defeated argument.

Why do some have to go there?

I don't "hate" anyone in this thread, and I'm not upset by any of the conversations we're having, or trying to have.

Let's please take the high road.

Sincerely

There is no personnal insults in my posts or nor did I say you hated anyone in this thread.

I think your circular speak has come 360* and you are out of ammo and lack the fact to continue to defend the PPD, I think I'm right, I would ask the question but I know you would not answer.

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:33
So you are satisfied that what you heard on the audio provides the entire set of facts surrounding the incident. Why did the officer stop the OCer to start with?

No I only heard the 2 sides present, still waiting on the third interpitation to clear things up.

The officer stopped the OC'er because he had no clue of the law in Philly as well as his supervisors. After 45 minutes being arrested he was set free by someone that figured it out. Clueless...

WCrawford
03-25-2011, 20:38
No, it may not be so interpreted.

Then why the totality of circumstances BS?

How anyone can defend the actions of the PPD is beyond my understanding given the following FACTS.

The officer stated clearly on the audio that it was illegal to OC in Philly (2/11).

A MPOECT was issued on firearms laws to every department by the state in 2009.

A PPD policy from 9/22/10 clearly states that OC is legal in Philly with a LTCF.

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:38
...I am a free man and know that if someone puts a gun in my face, they will face the consequinces of said act......But I can tell you if someone draws down on me for no reason, I would think they were crazy and act appropriately...How would you have acted had you been the OCer in this story? What would you have done? How would you have acted appropriately and shown the officer the consequences of putting a gun in your face?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:40
How would you have acted had you been the OCer in this story? What would you have done? How would you have acted appropriately and shown the officer the consequences of putting a gun in your face?

None of "YOUR" business...

EDIT: I would have expected more from you given you signature line.

Warp
03-25-2011, 20:46
None of "YOUR" business...

Then don't go spouting off about it on a public forum.

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:48
Then why the totality of circumstances BS?Because no one has heard the other side of the story.How anyone can defend the actions of the PPD is beyond my understanding given the following FACTS.

The officer stated clearly on the audio that it was illegal to OC in Philly (2/11).

A MPOECT was issued on firearms laws to every department by the state in 2009.

A PPD policy from 9/22/10 clearly states that OC is legal in Philly with a LTCF.Who in this thread is defending the actions of the PPD? Are you saying that if someone does not issue an outright condemnation they support and defend PPD?

Grammy
03-25-2011, 20:49
Then don't go spouting off about it on a public forum.

Oh please quote the spouts, don't just throw it out there.

RussP
03-25-2011, 20:52
...I am a free man and know that if someone puts a gun in my face, they will face the consequinces of said act......But I can tell you if someone draws down on me for no reason, I would think they were crazy and act appropriately...How would you have acted had you been the OCer in this story? What would you have done? How would you have acted appropriately and shown the officer the consequences of putting a gun in your face?None of "YOUR" business...So what you say in your two statement above is just bravado. Okay...EDIT: I would have expected more from you given you signature line.Which one and what would you expect?

Sam Spade
03-25-2011, 20:53
Wow. I go and spend a little time displaying the violence inherent in the system and I come back to a thread gone metastatic. Did I miss anything?

To WC: I really did mean what I was saying, even if the format appeared like a "game" to you. Priorities matter. On the street the first concern has to be survival. This OCer failed, pretty miserably. Where you said:
Apparently we are playing a game. I ask you questions that you won't answer and you respond with questions I won't answer.

Well, I'm going to break the cycle and answer this one.

The OCer remained calm (at least outwardly) when confronted with an overly belligerent and aggressive (dare I say potentially murderous) police officer. Had the OCer not maintained a calm demeanor, I honestly believe he would be dead.

Are you willing to answer this: What part of the police officers actions were right?

You are completely out to lunch. The OCer is alive by the grace of the cop, not anything he did. Had he reached for his wallet to educate the cop further about his LTCF, the ensuing shooting would likely have been justified. Ivory tower speculation about why the cop stopped him, or whether he should have been called, "Junior", or anything else is secondary. Really; if I take you at gunpoint and you refuse to comply---that includes discussing my commands--and appear like you're trying to distract me from the situation that prompted me to draw down on you, then you're one furtive move away from shots fired. Reach for a wallet, reach inside your pocket to turn on that recorder...it's highly likely that I'll shoot you, and I don't have to give you a warning or a reason before I do.

Once carriers wrap their minds around that, we can discuss what was wrong with the gov's approach. If this were LE professional development, that might be higher on my list of things to do.

I don't know if their "made up law" as you refer to it was a result of malice or ignorance, and I don't know if the ignorance was excusable or negligent. In an ideal world, I'd like my department to be highly trained and constantly updated on the ever-changing sea of laws and court decisions. I'd also like beer that grows on trees, but that's probably thread drift. But anyway, motive and reasons matter in deciding on corrective action.

I'm not going to read and comment on the seven pages I missed. Hope that answers some of your questions. But you're still out to lunch on life's priorities and how to achieve those.