Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter II [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

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


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

RussP
04-01-2011, 09:58
I would love to, actually. I doubt they'll let me carry in their cruisers, though. :rofl:Seriously, are you willing to go on some ride-alongs?

RussP
04-01-2011, 10:01
Sorry RussP, I need to short circuit that line of thinking, because it's not entirely accurate.

Philly isn't special because it's Philly, Philly is special because it has a population level that reaches a section of the law reserved for a municipality that has greater then 1 million people.

If the law was written to say "Philadelphia" then I would agree, but the law is written to say "city of the first class".

Philadelphia just happens to be the only city that can claim 'first class' status.Understood, it is just easier, and I believe, more understandable to use "Philly" than "the only city of the first class in PA".

dgg9
04-01-2011, 10:02
A good friend PM'ed me yesterday to tell of a discussion he was having with a cop-hating professor about this incident.

He asked the professor simply, "Given that OC is only legal in Philly with a permit, and the officer has an obvious obligation to confirm that he has said permit, how DO you suggest he approach the open carrier without exposing himself to being the second man to reach for his gun in a quick draw contest?"

In that case, if the LEO is doing a traffic stop, or some encounter with a pedestrian, and as a courtesy, the person volunteers that he has a CCW, should the cop always draw down on him instantly? If not, why not?

For that matter, outside Philadelphia, where OC-police encounter is ok but not detention, why not draw instantly then as well? After all, you're approaching an armed person, and "risk of quick draw contest" is the most important consideration.

Or maybe the right to draw on an armed citizen is not absolute?

Kith
04-01-2011, 10:05
Understood, it is just easier, and I believe, more understandable to use "Philly" than "the only city of the first class in PA".

I agree completely.

A constitutional challenge wouldn't even make it to court, much less do anythign more then get you laughed at by a lawyer.

The law, as written, applies to every municipality within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

If 550,000 people moved from Philly to Pittsburg, then Philly would no longer be a city of the first class, Pittsburg would, and we'd be talking about Viper's cousin instead :tongueout:

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 10:07
On the other hand, would you be kind enough to explain to me how does, "In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter," translate to a felony stop when and if the boss here is calmly walking down the street, not acting suspicious in any manner, with no BOLO's matching his description that the officer is aware of?

I don't believe it does.

At the root of it, I can't help but see these guys as only a hair removed from people who treat their guns as magic talismans.

Seems to me that's backwards - the anti-OC view is the less realistic one.

The police CAN see an OC firearm and evaluate the threat. They CAN'T see a CC firearm - every guy with a hoodie could have his finger on a trigger.

The reason Viper was hassled was because OC is unusual - NOT because it's more dangerous to the public than CC in general.

Or am I missing something?

Kith
04-01-2011, 10:09
For that matter, outside Philadelphia, where OC-police encounter is ok but not detention, why not draw instantly then as well? After all, you're approaching an armed person, and "risk of quick draw contest" is the most important consideration.



Sometimes you hit paydirt.

How is the exact same situation handled in the rest of the state?

If it was the same way, we would hear about it a lot more.

I think the answer to this question should set the SOP of Philly PD.

TBO
04-01-2011, 10:16
In that case, if the LEO is doing a traffic stop, or some encounter with a pedestrian, and as a courtesy, the person volunteers that he has a CCW, should the cop always draw down on him instantly? If not, why not?

For that matter, outside Philadelphia, where OC-police encounter is ok but not detention, why not draw instantly then as well? After all, you're approaching an armed person, and "risk of quick draw contest" is the most important consideration.

Or maybe the right to draw on an armed citizen is not absolute?
Strawman.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 10:21
Swatbwana - thanks for your input in this thread.

I would hope that a better analogy would be to substitute a small-% shareholder for the mailroom guy. The police are the government, and the government should (not that it often does) remember who's boss. Same end result most likely, but the suggestion should be accorded serious due diligence.

agreed, but in his case the mailroom employee also paid taxes that allowed him to have his position since he was educated and trained at the taxpayers expense that allowed him along with his hard work to gain the position he has today.

The OC lobby does not have the best interests of all at heart, they are focused on a VERY SMALL group of people , and quite frankly vocal beyond their numbers. Police administrators should not form policy on whose feelings are hurt, but rather on what makes the most sense for public safety in their area .

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 10:25
agreed, but in his case the mailroom employee also paid taxes that allowed him to have his position since he was educated and trained at the taxpayers expense that allowed him along with his hard work to gain the position he has today.

The OC lobby does not have the best interests of all at heart, they are focused on a VERY SMALL group of people , and quite frankly vocal beyond their numbers. Police administrators should not form policy on whose feelings are hurt, but rather on what makes the most sense for public safety in their area .

Let me ask you, do you think that OCers are more dangerous than CCers? Or, do you think that OCing is a public safety threat moreso than CCers? I ask because, to my knowledge, criminals don't OC.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 10:26
Actually, knowing a little about the credentials and intelligence of the person who wrote these docs I think a more appropriate analogy is of a consultant providing some excellent fodder for discussion that might shed some insight into improving my operations. I use consultants extensively to ensure we aren't doing stupid things and point out improvement opportunities.



My very minimal introduction of those documents to this discussion was an experiment... or a set up if you want to take it that way. I wanted to see what reaction they would engender. To be honest I am not surprised at the reaction they received. Not too many people are open to accepting advice or criticism from an "outsider".

Approach is certainly an important element in any interaction... such as approaching an armed civilian at gunpoint and screaming obscenities vs. approaching an armed civilian at low ready or even hand on holstered weapon near or behind good cover with a polite request to see his LTCF.

The reaction was a very defensive one... and occurred almost as an instinctual response.

No these documents show no concept of public or officer safety in this case you need new consultants.

Kith
04-01-2011, 10:29
Police administrators should not form policy on whose feelings are hurt, but rather on what makes the most sense for public safety in their area .

100% agree - with the qualifier 'within the confines of the law'

The anti-gun lobby would argue that 'gun registration' is safer.

PA has a very strict 'no gun registry' clause.

Assuming the flawed thinking that it's 'safer' to register guns, then forcing citizens to register their guns would make the most sense for public safety, but is clearly illegal. Any directive to do so would not be legal application of powers vestted by the people.

This is what i'm curious about in this thread, is the stop legal?

The officer who made the stop may think it was, he may have been instructed to by his superiors, but when it gets to court, is the blanket idea to stop and detain/disarm someone openly carrying legal.

I don't care about this specific incident, I care about whether the actual detainment and disarmament of someone legally exercising their right is legal behavior.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 10:30
Let me ask you, do you think that OCers are more dangerous than CCers? Or, do you think that OCing is a public safety threat moreso than CCers? I ask because, to my knowledge, criminals don't OC.

Many criminals OC and I feel that if the word gets out cops can't question you if they see a gun on you in the open more will....it's a built defense for illegally carrying the firearm.
No OCer's are not more dangerous , but it has been my experience that as a group they are well Peacocks and in need of validation (look at me) they see the gun as power, not as a tool, and that is dangerous.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 10:32
100% agree - with the qualifier 'within the confines of the law'

The anti-gun lobby would argue that 'gun registration' is safer.

PA has a very strict 'no gun registry' clause.

Assuming the flawed thinking that it's 'safer' to register guns, then forcing citizens to register their guns would make the most sense for public safety, but is clearly illegal. Any directive to do so would not be legal application of powers vestted by the people.

This is what i'm curious about in this thread, is the stop legal?

The officer who made the stop may think it was, he may have been instructed to by his superiors, but when it gets to court, is the blanket idea to stop and detain/disarm someone openly carrying legal.

I don't care about this specific incident, I care about whether the actual detainment and disarmament of someone legally exercising their right is legal behavior.

let's wait till the court rules I am willing to bet this is upheld as legal in PA the way the first class city law was written...

Kith
04-01-2011, 10:39
Actually, knowing a little about the credentials and intelligence of the person who wrote these docs I think a more appropriate analogy is of a consultant providing some excellent fodder for discussion that might shed some insight into improving my operations.

Let's run with that then.

We all seem to agree that those documents bear no legal weight whatsoever.

This talk about it being a 'felony stop procedure' to do anything more then simply ask for the license of a person openly carrying in a city of the first class claims to be supported by some caselaw

"Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997)"

I've tried and tried, but I can't seem to look up caselaw well, or at all. Never was a lawyer, and never had to do anything like that before.

Can anybody come up with a LEGITIMATE cite of this case law, and how it would support this argument, as the document from PAOpenCarry claims it does?

This seems to tie in with my interest of the thread here, so if anyone here on GT who knows how to look up caselaw could spend some time on this, I would be very appreciative.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 10:40
Many criminals OC and I feel that if the word gets out cops can't question you if they see a gun on you in the open more will....it's a built defense for illegally carrying the firearm.

To the day I haven't personally, actually seen a criminal OC (I don't get out much), and I would have no way to know they are, but they seemed like normal people going about their business, or a news article, or a post here on GT that even hints to a criminal OCing. However, I do believe that they would continue to CC because they don't want to be suspects if anything were to happen. They plan to not get away with it, they have something to hide, so hide they will.

No OCer's are not more dangerous , but it has been my experience that as a group they are well Peacocks and in need of validation (look at me) they see the gun as power, not as a tool, and that is dangerous.

That may be true. Question is, is it possible that they have a valid argument, yet the wrong message sent?

TBO
04-01-2011, 10:43
To the day I haven't personally, actually seen a criminal OC (I don't get out much), and I would have no way to know they are, but they seemed like normal people going about their business, or a news article, or a post here on GT that even hints to a criminal OCing. However, I do believe that they would continue to CC because they don't want to be suspects if anything were to happen. They plan to not get away with it, they have something to hide, so hide they will.

Ask the LEO's out there what a criminal looks like.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 10:44
Ask the LEO's out there what a criminal looks like.

A criminal can look like anybody.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 10:44
Seems to me that's backwards - the anti-OC view is the less realistic one.

The police CAN see an OC firearm and evaluate the threat. They CAN'T see a CC firearm - every guy with a hoodie could have his finger on a trigger.

The reason Viper was hassled was because OC is unusual - NOT because it's more dangerous to the public than CC in general.

Or am I missing something?
My rant was to the OC movement and their tactics. What, really, are the zealots trying to do? How are they trying to do it?

This isn't about self-defense. This isn't about saving lives. Other movements were about those important issues, using legal OC as a means to win CCW rights. But having the ability to protect themselves already, these guys see the gun as a display piece, an item that allows them to make a statement. Some go to extreme extremes, choosing weapons that will attract the most attention in locations that will get the greatest reaction. IOW, their gun is a variant of the talisman, not lifesaving emergency gear.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem with knee-jerk support for that from other gunners, who focus nearly exclusively on the fact that there's a gun involved without considering the larger circumstances. Again, JMO, and I work to keep personal opinions separate from professional ones.

RussP
04-01-2011, 10:50
Is it time to try those other ways, or would you advocate more confrontations with PPD?We disagree on the word "confrontation." Are you really implying that it's best to let PPD actions preclude OC in Philadelphia?

The status quo right now is that you can OC in Philadelphia, and PPD should by now be aware it's legal. You can expect to be stopped and asked for your LTCF. Based on what falls out from the recent incident, that request may be more calm and civil than that one was. But I think the more of the PPD now know the ground rules.

So your choice is to OC in Philadelphia or not. The mere act of OCing is not a "confrontation." It's not a matter of "starting a confrontation." It's a matter of deciding if your preference for OC is worth the hassle -- one would hope less hassle next time around.

ETA: my personal opinion is that if people continue to OC in Philadelphia, BUT both sides stay calm, and over time it's seen that OCers are uniformly law abiding, the antagonism by PPD will (or may) diminish. I don't see that rewarding undue PPD aggression with a retreat from OC does anything other than reinforce that tactic. IMO, let it be known that people will not be bullied away from legal OC, but OCers should go out of their way to be calm and comply with all legal requests.That did not in any way answer my question.

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 10:52
Are you asserting that there are facts (other than the fact Viper was OCing) in Viper's situation that gave the officer a perception of danger? If so, can you cite them?
No, of course I can't, as I was not there and do not know what the officer saw or thought.
If not, how is the fact that some officers are comfortable with OC relevant to the propriety of the treatment given to (or the officer' perception of danger from) Viper?
Again, as I'm not another officer or at that scene, I can't speak for another officer. I can speak for the fact that multiple factors are at play in virtually all discretionary acts on the part of an officer.

Kith
04-01-2011, 10:54
Many criminals OC and I feel that if the word gets out cops can't question you if they see a gun on you in the open more will....it's a built defense for illegally carrying the firearm.


Agreed.

What is the mechanism to determine if someone has a license?

The first thing SHOULD be a simple, verbal question "do you have a LTCF?"

In this particular incident, even after Viper claimed to have a license, he was still disarmed and detained.

It's resonable to assume the officer did not know at the time that open carry was legal in Philly, given the audio. By that logic also, it's reasonable to say the officer disarmed and detained him.

But that should not have happened.

So the mechanism needs to be worked out to figure out how to:
-Determine that someone openly carrying is legally doing so
-While still preserving their rights to be so armed.
-And taking into account the safety of the officer.

It's a touchy situation, and is something that demands resolution.

ETA:
This was already touched on by the training manual put forth at the beginning of this thread, which unfortunately didn't come into play at all during this specific incident.

dosei
04-01-2011, 10:55
Let me ask you, do you think that OCers are more dangerous than CCers? Or, do you think that OCing is a public safety threat moreso than CCers? I ask because, to my knowledge, criminals don't OC.

It is not a question of "is one more dangerous than the other".

IMHO, an unknown person with a gun should be considered by a LEO to be a potential high risk encounter. If a LEO sees a gun on someone, I personally fully expect the LEO to investigate things...and to do so in a manner that gives themselves as much "edge" as possible should the SHTF. OC or CC makes no difference, other than the fact that with OC it is rare for it not to be noticed and with CC it is rare for it to be noticed.

TBO
04-01-2011, 10:55
A criminal can look like anybody.
As such:
To the day I haven't personally, actually seen a criminal OC (I don't get out much), and I would have no way to know they are, but they seemed like normal people going about their business, or a news article, or a post here on GT that even hints to a criminal OCing. However, I do believe that they would continue to CC because they don't want to be suspects if anything were to happen. They plan to not get away with it, they have something to hide, so hide they will.
That may be true. Question is, is it possible that they have a valid argument, yet the wrong message sent?
...that statement may be factually incorrect. Agree?

RussP
04-01-2011, 10:56
I agree completely.

A constitutional challenge wouldn't even make it to court, much less do anythign more then get you laughed at by a lawyer.

The law, as written, applies to every municipality within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

If 550,000 people moved from Philly to Pittsburg, then Philly would no longer be a city of the first class, Pittsburg would, and we'd be talking about Viper's cousin instead :tongueout:A more appropriate statement would be "the exemption granted Philly based on population". Yeah, that is more accurate.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 11:06
Strawman.

Nonsense. Look at the post I was responding to.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 11:06
That did not in any way answer my question.

Maybe you should present a clearer question.

RussP
04-01-2011, 11:16
That did not in any way answer my question.Is it time to try those other ways, or would you advocate more confrontations with PPD?Maybe you should present a clearer question.Is it time to try those other ways?

Do you advocate more confrontations with PPD?

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 11:18
I see no interest, and often the outright dismissal ("Maybe he should find a new job"), of the concerns of guys saddled with responsibility for public safety in Philly.

If they were actually tasked with public safety, I'd agree with you more, but the police have zero responsibility to protect the public of ensure that anyone - aside from themselves - stay safe. That's each individual person's responsibility, which is precisely why I carry.

Seriously, are you willing to go on some ride-alongs?

Absolutely, but again, I highly doubt they would allow me to carry on said ride-along, which is a real shame. I've been on ride-alongs before for other departments but not Philadelphia, yet.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 11:19
It is not a question of "is one more dangerous than the other".

IMHO, an unknown person with a gun should be considered by a LEO to be a potential high risk encounter. If a LEO sees a gun on someone, I personally fully expect the LEO to investigate things...and to do so in a manner that gives themselves as much "edge" as possible should the SHTF. OC or CC makes no difference, other than the fact that with OC it is rare for it not to be noticed and with CC it is rare for it to be noticed.

Rarity doesn't make things dangerous. I do believe that "a man with a gun" alone is not cause of alarm, but what follows that observation, as if he is brandishing, screaming, foaming at the mouth, calmly walking down the street, minding his own business, helping an old lady with her grocery bags, talking over the phone with his wife about where she'd like to go for dinner, etc. It is also my opinion that if you can't tell the difference between any of these, it's time to retire or find another profession.

As such:

...that statement may be factually incorrect. Agree?

What I mean is that I haven't seen or read about a crime in which the criminal was OCing.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 11:20
Do you advocate more confrontations with PPD?

I've already said this, so I'll repeat in compact form:

I disagree with the claim that the mere act of OCing is a "confrontation." Since I disagree with your premise and terminology, it follows your question does not make sense to me.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 11:25
As such:

...that statement may be factually incorrect. Agree?

I like how you bolded the part of what he said that supports the above assertion, but ignored the remainder of it which qualifies that he wouldn't be able to tell what a criminal "look like"...lol, selective argument.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 11:28
I like how you bolded the part of what he said that supports the above assertion, but ignored the remainder of it which qualifies that he wouldn't be able to tell what a criminal "look like"...lol, selective argument.

Which is a form of "derailing" an argument and then disqualifying it as a valid one. Get used to that.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 11:32
Do you advocate more confrontations with PPD?

I know this question was not directed at me, but what I advocate for is a greater understanding of the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it, and a higher level of respect given to citizens by law enforcement officers, without violating said citizen's rights.

If the initial Sergeant were properly trained, or had paid attention to the training he was (supposed) to have received, this entire thing would have been very different right from the start.

Since a greater level of training for the police seems to be off the table (how DARE the citizens suggest to the police what to do, even if it's in everyone's best interests), more confrontations with the police and more follow up that pressures them into doing their jobs properly is the next option. JMO.

TBO
04-01-2011, 11:33
Rarity doesn't make things dangerous. I do believe that "a man with a gun" alone is not cause of alarm, but what follows that observation, as if he is brandishing, screaming, foaming at the mouth, calmly walking down the street, minding his own business, helping an old lady with her grocery bags, talking over the phone with his wife about where she'd like to go for dinner, etc. It is also my opinion that if you can't tell the difference between any of these, it's time to retire or find another profession.



What I mean is that I haven't seen or read about a crime in which the criminal was OCing.
What are you looking to read, a news article with: "Man arrested for Armed Robbery, was Open Carrying while committing crime"?

Have you read a lot of headlines: "Armed man...." or "Gunman..."?

If you have the factual information from being there first hand, or having read a full Police Investigation/Report, might some fit "OC"?

I think in most of the articles I've read the only reason Open Carry is mentioned is because it deals with an Open Carry advocate, who uses the term himself multiple times.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 11:40
What are you looking to read, a news article with: "Man arrested for Armed Robbery, was Open Carrying while committing crime"?

No, I'm looking to see anywhere that it's mentioned that the criminal had the weapon in a holster or waistband in a visible manner.

Have you read a lot of headlines: "Armed man...." or "Gunman..."?

Yes, but upon further reading, what the criminal was doing was brandishing or assaulting at gunpoint and/or threatening.

If you have the factual information from being there first hand, or having read a full Police Investigation/Report, might some fit "OC"?

Honeslty, never. I'd like to see some actual, factual information that a person drew a visibly carried weapon and deployed it in an unlawful manner.

I think in most of the articles I've read the only reason Open Carry is mentioned is because it deals with an Open Carry advocate, who uses the term himself multiple times.


Have any of those actually broken the law?

RussP
04-01-2011, 11:46
You keep ignoring the first question...Is it time to try those other ways?I've already said this, so I'll repeat in compact form:

I disagree with the claim that the mere act of OCing is a "confrontation." Since I disagree with your premise and terminology, it follows your question does not make sense to me.That's funny...but, you're right, and we'll let everyone interpret your answer anyway they want.

My answer would be, "No, I do not advocate deliberate confrontations with PPD. However, I do not and would not discourage licensed carriers from open carrying while going about their normal activities in Philly. I would counsel that they do so only when and where appropriate."

RussP
04-01-2011, 11:49
I know this question was not directed at me, but what I advocate for is a greater understanding of the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it, and a higher level of respect given to citizens by law enforcement officers, without violating said citizen's rights.

If the initial Sergeant were properly trained, or had paid attention to the training he was (supposed) to have received, this entire thing would have been very different right from the start.

Since a greater level of training for the police seems to be off the table (how DARE the citizens suggest to the police what to do, even if it's in everyone's best interests), more confrontations with the police and more follow up that pressures them into doing their jobs properly is the next option. JMO.Thank you...

DeadMansLife
04-01-2011, 11:51
It is the law that needs changing to conform to the law applicable to the remainder of the state.


Be careful what you wish for. The issue at hand is what gets dumb law changed to stupid laws.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 11:56
My answer would be, "No, I do not advocate deliberate confrontations with PPD. However, I do not and would not discourage licensed carriers from open carrying while going about their normal activities in Philly. I would counsel that they do so only when and where appropriate."

I see this as undecipherable. In what way is a "deliberate confrontation" distinguished from "open carrying while going about their normal activities in Philly?" Or rather, in what way have ANY of the events in Philly been "deliberate confrontations?" It was precisely normal, routine carry that has resulted in police-initiated confrontations. You seem to be implying that there is some sort of deliberate provocation happening apart from everyday carry. But there isn't, and there hasn't been.

That's why your "Is it time to try those other ways?" question is meaningless to me. I'm not "ignoring" it; it doesn't make sense.

Given that, what is "appropriate" vs not?

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 11:58
I know this question was not directed at me, but what I advocate for is a greater understanding of the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it, and a higher level of respect given to citizens by law enforcement officers, without violating said citizen's rights.

If the initial Sergeant were properly trained, or had paid attention to the training he was (supposed) to have received, this entire thing would have been very different right from the start.

Since a greater level of training for the police seems to be off the table (how DARE the citizens suggest to the police what to do, even if it's in everyone's best interests), more confrontations with the police and more follow up that pressures them into doing their jobs properly is the next option. JMO.

Umm do you know HOW MUCH mandatory training they already need to have, and the cost, would you like to explain why the city needs to spend XXX more dollars to train ALL THE COPS on how to deal with .05% of the population they see...

Training is not free knowledge there will be questions to do it correctly, and they will have to track it and know who attended and make sure that make uptraining is provided to and signed off on for those not on the initial wave. It is not a Simple matter to deal with and peopel wonder why taxes go up..it's becasue of you (we the people)

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:00
No, I'm looking to see anywhere that it's mentioned that the criminal had the weapon in a holster or waistband in a visible manner.



Yes, but upon further reading, what the criminal was doing was brandishing or assaulting at gunpoint and/or threatening.



Honeslty, never. I'd like to see some actual, factual information that a person drew a visibly carried weapon and deployed it in an unlawful manner.



Have any of those actually broken the law?

have a local guy who robs banks with a thigh rig on...can't send yopu a BOLO it's still LE only.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:01
I wonder how much training does a person need in order for them to understand that a person OCing, unless otherwise committing a crime or suspicion of that other crime, need be approached and investigated with no more than with a mere encounter.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:03
have a local guy who robs banks with a thigh rig on...can't send yopu a BOLO it's still LE only.

Is he walking around town with a thigh rig on? Or, that's what he wears when he jumps out of the car for the robbery?

Doesn't sound like OC to me.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:06
Is he walking around town with a thigh rig on? Or, that's what he wears when he jumps out of the car for the robbery?

Doesn't sound like OC to me.

He walks through the parking lots and into the bank with a thigh rig on in the open,,, sounds like open carry to me are you that entrenched that you do not understand an openly carried gun in the public is OPEN CARRY?

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 12:08
If they were actually tasked with public safety, I'd agree with you more, but the police have zero responsibility to protect the public of ensure that anyone - aside from themselves - stay safe. That's each individual person's responsibility, which is precisely why I carry.





Major fail, YES the Police are tasked with public safety, while that does not negate the need for people to accept personal responsibility for their own safety, neither does it negate that public safety is indeed a function of the police.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:10
He walks through the parking lots and into the bank with a thigh rig on in the open,,, sounds like open carry to me are you that entrenched that you do not understand an openly carried gun in the public is OPEN CARRY?

That's a mile-long stretch. In this entire discussion, OC has been understood to mean carrying your gun routinely around in the street as you conduct your daily business.

Saying that a bank robber who exposes a gun in the 5 seconds it takes him to go from his car to the bank entrance is somehow "OC" is trying to lump two entirely dissimilar things together by technicality and wordplay.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:10
have a local guy who robs banks with a thigh rig on...can't send yopu a BOLO it's still LE only.

I understand you're saying that you have a local case in which the suspect is OCing, but it is an ongoing investigation that cannot be shared with me. I understand your position, and, although I could take the position that it's anectodal, can be made up on an internet forum by an unknown individual at the other side of the keyboard, I don't think you're making it up. If it can be shared, has the person robbed with a mask on, gun in hand (the one on the rig or otherwise), and holding people at gunpoint? If so, the fact he's OCing coupled with the fact that he's obviously breaking other laws while OCing does not affect the lawful OC position.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:14
I understand you're saying that you have a local case in which the suspect is OCing, but it is an ongoing investigation that cannot be shared with me. I understand your position, and, although I could take the position that it's anectodal, can be made up on an internet forum by an unknown individual at the other side of the keyboard, I don't think you're making it up. If it can be shared, has the person robbed with a mask on, gun in hand (the one on the rig or otherwise), and holding people at gunpoint? If so, the fact he's OCing coupled with the fact that he's obviously breaking other laws while OCing does not affecting the lawful OC position.

No it does not, but not ALL oc'ers are upstanding citizens, neither are all cops good.. The overwheming majority on both sides 99 plus percent are.. but when you run into that one percenter on either side it's a bad day for you and it could cost the Cop his life....

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:14
That's a mile-long stretch. In this entire discussion, OC has been understood to mean carrying your gun routinely around in the street as you conduct your daily business.

Saying that a bank robber who exposes a gun in the 5 seconds it takes him to go from his car to the bank entrance is somehow "OC" is trying to lump two entirely dissimilar things together by technicality and wordplay.

so you change definitions to fit your adgenda???

dosei
04-01-2011, 12:15
What I mean is that I haven't seen or read about a crime in which the criminal was OCing.

have a local guy who robs banks with a thigh rig on...can't send yopu a BOLO it's still LE only.

Doesn't sound like OC to me.

:faint:

"...some people, you just can't reach..."

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:16
No it does not, but not ALL oc'ers are upstanding citizens, neither are all cops good.. The overwheming majority on both sides 99 plus percent are.. but when you run into that one percenter on either side it's a bad day for you and it could cost the Cop his life....

Perfectly understandable. I don't want it to cost any good cop/person's life, at all.

However, there has to be some kind of differentiation between a masked gunman and a normal person walking down the street.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 12:17
Since a greater level of training for the police seems to be off the table (how DARE the citizens suggest to the police what to do, even if it's in everyone's best interests), more confrontations with the police and more follow up that pressures them into doing their jobs properly is the next option. JMO.

And let me guess, Citizens such as yourself with absolutely no knowledge, training, or experience in police work are undoubtedly the most qualified not only to judge how police work should be done but what is truly in the best interest of "Everyone".

Like the far left you appear to be of the opinion that what you want is "in the best interest of everyone" and you will be more than happy to enforce it on everyone else given an opportunity to do so.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:17
That's a mile-long stretch. In this entire discussion, OC has been understood to mean carrying your gun routinely around in the street as you conduct your daily business.

Saying that a bank robber who exposes a gun in the 5 seconds it takes him to go from his car to the bank entrance is somehow "OC" is trying to lump two entirely dissimilar things together by technicality and wordplay.

Much like saying a cop doing his job checking permits on folks who carry guns in the open is commiting an assault???

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:18
so you change definitions to fit your adgenda???

No, that's your post, actually, not mine. I follow the terms set in the discussion leading up to the post. The context of "criminals OCing" has been the claim that when you walk around town and do your normal travels, some of those people in your travels who OC might actually be criminals.

But this guy isn't anything like that. He's a guy who makes a beeline from the getaway car to the scene of the robbery, and doesn't bother to hide the holdup gun. Since that has no resemblance at all to people OCing through their day, it's a poor fit to equate him to OCers.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:19
Perfectly understandable. I don't want it to cost any good cop/person's life, at all.

However, there has to be some kind of differentiation between a masked gunman and a normal person walking down the street.

The guy wear a hat and sunglasses like anyone else in the south.
the mask would draw too much attention..

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:19
Much like saying a cop doing his job checking permits on folks who carry guns in the open is commiting an assault???

I was content to say "ignorant of the law."

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:20
No, that's your post, actually, not mine. I follow the terms set in the discussion leading up to the post. The context of "criminals OCing" has been the claim that when you walk around town and do your normal travels, some of those people in your travels who OC might actually be criminals.

But this guy isn't anything like that. He's a guy who makes a beeline from the getaway car to the scene of the robbery, and doesn't bother to hide the holdup gun. Since that has no resemblance at all to people OCing through their day, it's a poor fit to equate him to OCers.

He Oc's his gun so if a Cop runs into him two parking lots over it's the same as your guy yes or no???

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 12:20
so you change definitions to fit your adgenda???

SOP for OC zealots and their admirers.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:21
I was content to say "ignorant of the law."

How so when he is following it to the letter? As it stands right now correct!

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:22
How so when he is following it to the letter? As it stands right now correct!

He was detaining someone for the stated reason that OC was illegal. OC is not illegal. He was NOT "stopping to check LTCF."

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:24
He Oc's his gun so if a Cop runs into him two parking lots over it's the same as your guy yes or no???

From the cop's POV, I would say yes.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:25
He was detaining someone for the stated reason that OC was illegal. OC is not illegal. He was NOT "stopping to check LTCF."

Wordplay OC is ILLEGAL IN PHILLY without a permit..

Philly PD guidlines have them confront and disarm suspects until permit is verified,,

Agian he is Legally enforcing the law as written!

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 12:25
A good friend PM'ed me yesterday to tell of a discussion he was having with a cop-hating professor about this incident.

He asked the professor simply, "Given that OC is only legal in Philly with a permit, and the officer has an obvious obligation to confirm that he has said permit, how DO you suggest he approach the open carrier without exposing himself to being the second man to reach for his gun in a quick draw contest?"

He said it was amazing how well that toned things down.
that is the crux of it, IMO, and the element that many seem to miss. When you ask the "how" question then folks start (or should start) to understand it is not a one-size-fits-all response. How you would approach depends on a lot more factors than the simple issue of OC, it includes all those other variables that have noting to do with OC but everything to do with "how do I approach this person and how much of a problem are they likely to be?"

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:25
From the cop's POV, I would say yes.

What about the open carrying citizen that runs into him or vice versa?

RussP
04-01-2011, 12:26
I see this as undecipherable. In what way is a "deliberate confrontation" distinguished from "open carrying while going about their normal activities in Philly?" Or rather, in what way have ANY of the events in Philly been "deliberate confrontations?" It was precisely normal, routine carry that has resulted in police-initiated confrontations. You seem to be implying that there is some sort of deliberate provocation happening apart from everyday carry. But there isn't, and there hasn't been.

That's why your "Is it time to try those other ways?" question is meaningless to me. I'm not "ignoring" it; it doesn't make sense.

Given that, what is "appropriate" vs not?I see you've been taking lessons from kwikrnu and slowfiveoh...:supergrin:

Are you familiar with the gentleman in Tennessee I noted above, kwikrnu - Leonard Embody? He represents the "deliberate confrontation" I speak of.

I did not say anyone has deliberately carried at such a time or in such an environment that would result in a confrontation with Philly PD.

Let me remind you that you are the one who suggested the use of other ways:I'm not sure I agree. In PA, what progress in OC that has been made has come from "carrying guns in front of cops" and from nothing else. The fear of lawsuits has effected what progress in LE training and legality awareness that there's been, limited as it is.

Of course it's possible that the next set of gains are best achieved in some other way.I'm simply asking if now is the time to begin using those other ways.

By the way, when you say, "other way", what exactly are you talking about?

As to your "appropriate" question, I've been advocating for years that those who open carry do so responsibly and only when and where appropriate, and that when and where will vary from person to person, community to community, state to state. It isn't the same for everyone.

RussP
04-01-2011, 12:27
Be careful what you wish for. The issue at hand is what gets dumb law changed to stupid laws.There is that risk, unfortunately.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:28
Wordplay OC is ILLEGAL IN PHILLY without a permit..

The cop was ignorant of that fact. He thought OC was always illegal.

Philly PD guidlines have them confront and disarm suspects until permit is verified,,

Obviously the cop never read the guidelines, i.e., the directive.

Agian he is Legally enforcing the law as written!

Except, as has been discussed ad nauseum, he did not do that. He stopped someone at gunpoint for an imaginary crime. Officers arriving later bailed him out.

billyblooshoes
04-01-2011, 12:30
for what its worth, i talked to one of my criminal justice professors about this at class today. he is a retired PPD Inspector, who started in the 60's. coincidentally he happens to be an expert on constitutional law. i gave him an overview of the events herein, and he immediately laughed. his simple judgement, OCer was in the wrong, and the officer (while he probably could've kept more calm) was in the right to make protecting himself his first priority, not courteously asking an armed man in philly if he could kindly see his credentials. frankly, he said the OCer is lucky he wasnt shot. he also added, that him having dealt personally with SIMILAR cases before (CCWer being non compliant), that the OCer will almost certainly not have a chance in court. although the officer did not have full probably cause, he did have what is called REASONABLE SUSPICION, which, at least and especially in philly, is justification enough for the officer to act in the manner that he did. its the same grounds that "stop and frisk" is upheld by. im not saying this was a stop and frisk situation, but he officer could easily substantiate that he had reasonable suspicion...IE a man in plain clothes walking the streets of philly with a firearm.

my professor also pointed out that he wears his line of duty deaths pin on his suit jacket every day for a reason, and suggested that anyone who is unclear on why the officer acted the way he did, to look up philly line of duty officer deaths and injuries (by shooting) and see what pops up in the last 5-10 years. he is in no way against citizens lawfully carrying firearms, but he is more for officers worrying firstly about their own safety, than being courteous.

that whole cliche that everyone throws around on here..."id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", yeah id say that applies.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:31
The guy wear a hat and sunglasses like anyone else in the south.
the mask would draw too much attention..

Is this the only person possibly legally OCing on his way to committing a crime that you know of?

RussP
04-01-2011, 12:32
That's a mile-long stretch. In this entire discussion, OC has been understood to mean carrying your gun routinely around in the street as you conduct your daily business.

Saying that a bank robber who exposes a gun in the 5 seconds it takes him to go from his car to the bank entrance is somehow "OC" is trying to lump two entirely dissimilar things together by technicality and wordplay.Are you aware that those who open carry the northern tier states in the winter do indeed routinely carry in thigh holsters?

RussP
04-01-2011, 12:32
Is this the only person possibly legally OCing on his way to committing a crime that you know of?See above.

RussP
04-01-2011, 12:34
for what its worth, i talked to one of my criminal justice professors about this at class today. he is a retired PPD Inspector, who started in the 60's. coincidentally he happens to be an expert on constitutional law. i gave him an overview of the events herein, and he immediately laughed. his simple judgement, OCer was in the wrong, and the officer (while he probably could've kept more calm) was in the right to make protecting himself his first priority, not courteously asking an armed man in philly if he could kindly see his credentials. frankly, he said the OCer is lucky he wasnt shot. he also added, that him having dealt personally with SIMILAR cases before (CCWer being non compliant), that the OCer will almost certainly not have a chance in court. although the officer did not have full probably cause, he did have what is called REASONABLE SUSPICION, which, at least and especially in philly, is justification enough for the officer to act in the manner that he did. its the same grounds that "stop and frisk" is upheld by. im not saying this was a stop and frisk situation, but he officer could easily substantiate that he had reasonable suspicion...IE a man in plain clothes walking the streets of philly with a firearm.

my professor also pointed out that he wears his line of duty deaths pin on his suit jacket every day for a reason, and suggested that anyone who is unclear on why the officer acted the way he did, to look up philly line of duty officer deaths and injuries (by shooting) and see what pops up in the last 5-10 years. he is in no way against citizens lawfully carrying firearms, but he is more for officers worrying firstly about their own safety, than being courteous.

that whole cliche that everyone throws around on here..."id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", yeah id say that applies.Thank you...

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:35
Is this the only person possibly legally OCing on his way to committing a crime that you know of?

He is not legally Oc'ing he is commiting felonies, and using an openly carried firearm, we also have complaints on a road rage incident where Oc'er unassed his car and pointed to a holstered pistol...he also may or may not be legal .

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:37
I see you've been taking lessons from kwikrnu and slowfiveoh...:supergrin:

Are you familiar with the gentleman in Tennessee I noted above, kwikrnu - Leonard Embody? He represents the "deliberate confrontation" I speak of.

I was talking about OC in PA and Philly, which you knew full well, and there hasn't been deliberate confrontation.

I did not say anyone has deliberately carried at such a time or in such an environment that would result in a confrontation with Philly PD.

Your question was:

"Do you advocate more confrontations with PPD?"

That was your question. Since there WERE no deliberate confrontations with PPD, your question made no sense.

Let me remind you that you are the one who suggested the use of other ways:I'm simply asking if now is the time to begin using those other ways.

Other ways, but NOT "other than confrontations" which was YOUR term. And the OC harassment events that occurred which effected change in MPOETC did not occur in Philly.

By the way, when you say, "other way", what exactly are you talking about?

Some of what Sam listed. That doesn't mean that people should stop OCing nor does it mean that those who are OCing are "provoking confrontations" or that any of that was a strategy.

As to your "appropriate" question, I've been advocating for years that those who open carry do so responsibly and only when and where appropriate, and that when and where will vary from person to person, community to community, state to state. It isn't the same for everyone.

To paraphrase someone: that doesn't answer my question.

When merely OCing gets you accosted just about anywhere in Philly, where in Philly is appropriate and where is inappropriate?

You used the term "appropriate" so maybe you should explain it.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:38
for what its worth, i talked to one of my criminal justice professors about this at class today. he is a retired PPD Inspector, who started in the 60's. coincidentally he happens to be an expert on constitutional law. i gave him an overview of the events herein, and he immediately laughed. his simple judgement, OCer was in the wrong, and the officer (while he probably could've kept more calm) was in the right to make protecting himself his first priority, not courteously asking an armed man in philly if he could kindly see his credentials. frankly, he said the OCer is lucky he wasnt shot. he also added, that him having dealt personally with SIMILAR cases before (CCWer being non compliant), that the OCer will almost certainly not have a chance in court. although the officer did not have full probably cause, he did have what is called REASONABLE SUSPICION, which, at least and especially in philly, is justification enough for the officer to act in the manner that he did. its the same grounds that "stop and frisk" is upheld by. im not saying this was a stop and frisk situation, but he officer could easily substantiate that he had reasonable suspicion...IE a man in plain clothes walking the streets of philly with a firearm.

my professor also pointed out that he wears his line of duty deaths pin on his suit jacket every day for a reason, and suggested that anyone who is unclear on why the officer acted the way he did, to look up philly line of duty officer deaths and injuries (by shooting) and see what pops up in the last 5-10 years. he is in no way against citizens lawfully carrying firearms, but he is more for officers worrying firstly about their own safety, than being courteous.

that whole cliche that everyone throws around on here..."id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", yeah id say that applies.

I understand the officer safety part, wholly. That's probably what got my family members to live as long as they did. The question is about reasonable suspicion, as a man OCing in Philly wouldn't have any reasonable suspicion, IMHO, unless there are cases that prove that OCers not in commission of other crimes in Philly shoot cops when encountered, or that this man was breaking the law, which, by them letting him go, I suspect he wasn't.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 12:38
The cop was ignorant of that fact. He thought OC was always illegal.



Obviously the cop never read the guidelines, i.e., the directive.



Except, as has been discussed ad nauseum, he did not do that. He stopped someone at gunpoint for an imaginary crime. Officers arriving later bailed him out.

It's not an imaginary crime he saw something suspicious to him and acted again lets see what the court of law , not the court of OC says about this, yes it COULD have been handled better by the cop.. It seems that the OC'er is not capable of admitting he was also a tool in this scenario.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:40
for what its worth, i talked to one of my criminal justice professors about this at class today. he is a retired PPD Inspector, who started in the 60's. coincidentally he happens to be an expert on constitutional law. i gave him an overview of the events herein, and he immediately laughed.

Good example of the groupthink in PPD.

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 12:40
I've already said this, so I'll repeat in compact form:

I disagree with the claim that the mere act of OCing is a "confrontation." Since I disagree with your premise and terminology, it follows your question does not make sense to me.
Could we clarify it a bit by distinguishing between an unplanned or unexpected encounter in which the OCer cooperates fully with the police and does not attempt to argue with or otherwise impede their investigation of him (confrontation?) and an anticipated encounter in which the OCer does not comply with all police requests in a timely fashion (aggressive confrontation?). I find that often the defining of terms can clear up some differences.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:42
It's not an imaginary crime he saw something suspicious to him .

It's definitely an imaginary crime because the words came directly from the Sgt's mouth, plain as day, and they are wrong. There's no guesswork here. He stated OC was illegal in Philly, with or without LTCF. He was wrong about his own stated reason for detention.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 12:46
Major fail, YES the Police are tasked with public safety, while that does not negate the need for people to accept personal responsibility for their own safety, neither does it negate that public safety is indeed a function of the police.

No, the police are not tasked with public safety. Police officers have no duty, responsibility, or obligation to protect any individual citizen. See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

The police are there to enforce the law and stop the law from being broken. That's it. Sometimes, they help to protect someone's life, or save it from imminent threat, and those acts are the acts of heroes. But to say the police are there for "public safety" is incorrect. If an officer chooses to do so using his legal authority, that's one thing, but it's not his job.

Also,

It seems that the OC'er is not capable of admitting he was also a tool in this scenario.

Please do not make untrue statements about me. I don't appreciate being misrespresented.

Could I have handled the situation better? Perhaps, yes.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:47
He is not legally Oc'ing he is commiting felonies, and using an openly carried firearm, we also have complaints on a road rage incident where Oc'er unassed his car and pointed to a holstered pistol...he also may or may not be legal .

One could argue that he wasn't committing a felony until the act took place, but you're right about that.

This is the first time I hear of anything like that. Maybe by bringing these things to the forefront more people can understand your position. What I have seen work in the past is when officers actually educate people, put them in their shoes in actual situations, not just say, "because I'm God out in the streets and you should turn around, bend over, and take it like a man whenever I say so." Not saying that's what you're doing, but that usually just makes enemies than not. People need to be shown, not told.

On one hand, when people see that there is an actual risk for the situation at hand, I'm sure that most people would agree, as would I, shoot the bastige. Me? I'll buy you a drink, good work buddy, you're going home today. On the other, if there is no evident behavior/BOLO/indicators that the person is violent or otherwise committing a crime, I can't see where anybody would find it a problem that the officer keep his hand on the grip while asking for the LCTF in this case.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 12:47
Could we clarify it a bit by distinguishing between an unplanned or unexpected encounter in which the OCer cooperates fully with the police and does not attempt to argue with or otherwise impede their investigation of him (confrontation?) and an anticipated encounter in which the OCer does not comply with all police requests in a timely fashion (aggressive confrontation?). I find that often the defining of terms can clear up some differences.

That's "a" distinction, but not "the" distinction. The context was "deliberate confrontations," as in "doing something unusual to cause an OC detention." But that hasn't happened. The PPD are choosing to do these gunpoint detentions.

Having the OCer conduct himself differently if/when this happens is something to discuss, but the conduct AFTER it starts isn't really relevant to the issue of "OCers actions CAUSING it to start."

IOW, these events haven't been "OC rallies" or sit-ins or some other staged event, which would be considered deliberate and volitional. These events have been people walking down the street and being stopped.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 12:57
By the way, the definitions I found of confrontation are:

•a bold challenge
•discord resulting from a clash of ideas or opinions
•a hostile disagreement face-to-face
•the act of hostile groups opposing each other; "the government was not ready for a confrontation with the unions"; "the invaders encountered stiff opposition"
•a focused comparison; bringing together for a careful comparison

Is anyone here saying that by OCing he provoked a confrontation by OCing? In other words, do you believe that him exercising his right is an act of hostility or a bold challenge to anyone? As per the audio, there was a kind of confrontation, but it was AFTER the hostile contact by the officer, not BEFORE.

DeadMansLife
04-01-2011, 13:11
BOTH involved in the initial confrontation were wrong.

First, as said elsewhere, I agree with officer safety. But the officer had no justifiable reason to POINT his sidearm at the OP. Holding his sidearm at low-ready would have been sufficient. (Also being a bit more professional than shouting "Hey Junior!")

Second. The OP, when challenged by the officer pointing a gun at him, should have carefully followed orders. Are you seriously going to take the chance of getting shot arguing with an officer? I rather fight for my RIGHTS while still breathing than take 2 in the chest and be marked a criminal in the media.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 13:13
What do you think motivates a felony stop and pointed guns? It's precisely a fear of death and the reasonable need to be instantly ready to use deadly force to stave that off. Your advocacy for these "training plans" is in fact a demand for cops who were "almost but not quite" in fear for their lives to handle things your way. The administrative consequence for a failure to comply is punishment. Then you dismiss as hubris the honest and experienced reaction of those who have to deal with these, presented by a group looking for some marginal personal benefit out of the deal.

If you want to discuss things, great, and I mean that. Start by asking your local agency what the concern is with armed men in a crowded city. Ask what the concern is if they confront, or fail to confront, the guy. I see plenty of push for the PD to understand what the OCers think their rights are. I see no interest, and often the outright dismissal ("Maybe he should find a new job"), of the concerns of guys saddled with responsibility for public safety in Philly.
If the sight of a civilian walking down the street with a holstered gun puts a LEO in fear for his life then something is wrong. I have NOT advocated the training plans I linked to in anyway so please stop saying that I have. I pointed them out as interesting documents that might be useful to spur a discussion, no more, no less. I “dismiss as hubris” the contempt and disrespectful reaction those documents immediately garnered with very little thought. That, IMHO, shines a light on character flaws… perhaps more character scars from previous experience… but still not bridge building reactions.
agreed, but in his case the mailroom employee also paid taxes that allowed him to have his position since he was educated and trained at the taxpayers expense that allowed him along with his hard work to gain the position he has today.

The OC lobby does not have the best interests of all at heart, they are focused on a VERY SMALL group of people , and quite frankly vocal beyond their numbers. Police administrators should not form policy on whose feelings are hurt, but rather on what makes the most sense for public safety in their area .
Official oppression and civil rights violations are reprehensible regardless of the context they occur in. Policy must NOT conflict with law nor can it violate civil rights.
No these documents show no concept of public or officer safety in this case you need new consultants.
I disagree. I think it is MORE dangerous for a LEO to assault an innocent civilian at gunpoint to verify their papers than it is for them to either pass them by given no clear indication of a law being broken or to casually and politely ask them to see their license. Felony stops or high risk stops are emotional charged events where catastrophe and death are a finger twitch away.
It is not a question of "is one more dangerous than the other".

IMHO, an unknown person with a gun should be considered by a LEO to be a potential high risk encounter. If a LEO sees a gun on someone, I personally fully expect the LEO to investigate things...and to do so in a manner that gives themselves as much "edge" as possible should the SHTF. OC or CC makes no difference, other than the fact that with OC it is rare for it not to be noticed and with CC it is rare for it to be noticed.
I can certainly see a LEO’s “attention to detail” going up considerably in even a casual stop with someone they KNOW is carrying a gun. It doesn’t excuse treating that person as a criminal and holding them at gunpoint. It is not a valid assumption or presumption for them that every person they see open carrying is a violent criminal that intends to kill them. Given that concealed carry is legal and criminals will conceal carry even without a license the open display of a weapon should be welcomed by a LEO as an indication that the bearer IS armed. No guessing involved… or do you maintain that most LEOs would prefer to keep guessing as to whether or not the person they are talking to is carrying a weapon vs. knowing? Do you treat a suspect who is not openly displaying a weapon as one who is definitely NOT armed? I think that is faulty logic if you do, but I have stated previously I am not a trained operator so what do I know.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 13:14
BOTH involved in the initial confrontation were wrong.

First, as said elsewhere, I agree with officer safety. But the officer had no justifiable reason to POINT his sidearm at the OP. Holding his sidearm at low-ready would have been sufficient. (Also being a bit more professional than shouting "Hey Junior!")

Second. The OP, when challenged by the officer pointing a gun at him, should have carefully followed orders. Are you seriously going to take the chance of getting shot arguing with an officer? I rather fight for my RIGHTS while still breathing than take 2 in the chest and be marked a criminal in the media.

That's the bottom line.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 13:18
No, the police are not tasked with public safety. Police officers have no duty, responsibility, or obligation to protect any individual citizen. See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts



Thank you for regurgitating that overused and improperly employed staple of CCW and OC argumentation. It is precisely the response I anticipated.

Lets start with pointing out the difference between "The Public" and "individual" The PUBLIC is a collective term meaning ALL THE PEOPLE, when an individual is in view and the term public is employed it is "MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC"

INDIVIDUAL means a single solitary person who may be a member of the PUBLIC but is not himself alone the PUBLIC.(ALL THE PEOPLE)

The Court decisions you want to present as evidence for your flawed view have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Police are tasked with Public safety Which as our previous lesson we learned means "All the people".

It simply means that the Police have and obligation to society as a whole not to any ONE individual person. In short, the police are not your private bodyguards. So you cannot sue them if they do not arrive in time to deal with your problem. The rational here is that police resources have to allocated and that means calls get prioritized and add to the fact that given the volume of calls with calls backed up an officer may not be immediately available to be dispatched to your location right away. it is NOT because police are not tasked with public safety.

"I am guessing ehre that you are apparently unaware that many LE agencies function under a division of the governmental body that is called. "DEPTARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.


The police are there to enforce the law and stop the law from being broken.

Why? and for what purpose would they do that?

Oh wait, I know! because it is a matter of public safety!!!

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 13:21
Holy cow... it actually does happen the way I laid out earlier!! With even LESS drama than I had in my scenario! Not Philly of course...



Still cold here in PA but a buddy is buying my old street bike since I got a new one so we decided to take the bikes out for a spin.

I was riding my Ninja the other day and I was going about 60, and my bike just died on me. Immediately I tried to fire it back up and nothing. Noticed I lost all power. I coast to a stop and turned the bike off, then back on. Had both feet planted on the ground to keep the bike stable on the side of the road with all the loose gravel and what not. The bike wouldn't turn over.

I was riding with my buddy and he was in front and he was gone! He's a new rider so he didn't know I ran into problems. He then came back about 2 minutes later and was like wtf? After going over all the basics I still couldn't figure it out. So I was going to get off the bike and went to put my kickstand down, but it was already down haha. I was like SOB. Went to put it back up and it fell right back down. hmmm wtf? Got off the bike to look at it and saw the spring just hanging there. Lucky right?

As I look up I seen the "Red and Blue", and immediately thought "Ah ****tttt, come on, not now!" OC my glock 27, clear as day. He pulled up, lights flashing.

(I'm on my hands and knees trying to fix the spring, glock on my right hip, he's on my left so he can't see it)
Trooper: What seems to be the problem?
Me: Kickstand spring fell off.
Trooper: How do you fix it?
Me: Need pliers or something.
(Trooper reaches into his pocket and whips out what looked like a butterfly knife that opened up into pliers)
Trooper: Will this work?
Me: Yessir, thats exactly what I need.
( I stood up and walk towards the car. Reached out and accepted the pliers. Went back to my bike, got back on the ground. My buddy held my bike and I forced the spring back into place. At this time we both were still in full gear, helmets and all, visors up. Handed the officer back his pliers)
Me: Thank you sir.
Trooper: Is that all you guys need?
Me: Yessir
Trooper: Alright, Have a nice time riding.
Me: Thanks, have a good weekend.
(Trooper drives off)
Buddy: Dude, I so thought we were getting arrested.
Me: What? Why?
Buddy: He was eyeballing your piece!
Me: So? You sure he wasn't staring at my ass? HAHA
Buddy: Haha, your crazy. Your lucky he didn't arrest you.
Me: haha Just another exciting day (big smile)
(We fired the bikes up and left)

I'll mark it up as a great confrontment and couldn't of fixed my bike without his help, since I dont carry tools with me.

He didn't call for backup. The SWAT team didn't show up with helicopters. They kept the dogs at home and we went along our way. My guess is "some" cops actually know the laws and repsect the fact that there are law abiding citizens out there.

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 13:25
No, the police are not tasked with public safety. Police officers have no duty, responsibility, or obligation to protect any individual citizen. See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Sorry, but that is completely wrong. The police are tasked with public safety. That is the safety of the public as a whole. Because the task is to the public as a whole there cannot be an obligation to any specific individual.

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 13:26
for what its worth, i talked to one of my criminal justice professors about this at class today. he is a retired PPD Inspector, who started in the 60's. coincidentally he happens to be an expert on constitutional law. i gave him an overview of the events herein, and he immediately laughed. his simple judgement, OCer was in the wrong, and the officer (while he probably could've kept more calm) was in the right to make protecting himself his first priority, not courteously asking an armed man in philly if he could kindly see his credentials. frankly, he said the OCer is lucky he wasnt shot. he also added, that him having dealt personally with SIMILAR cases before (CCWer being non compliant), that the OCer will almost certainly not have a chance in court. although the officer did not have full probably cause, he did have what is called REASONABLE SUSPICION, which, at least and especially in philly, is justification enough for the officer to act in the manner that he did.

Here's a test to see how expert your prof is - give him the facts of Hawkins (an anonymous, unverified MWAG call) and ask if there's "reasonable [articulable] suspicion" to temporarily seize/stop and frisk. If you're up to a little Socratic method - see if he can give you a good distinction between an anonymous, unverified MWAG call and Viper's "suspicious" sidewalk perambulation.

BTW - unless the "especially in Philly" is a section 6108 reference, it's news to me that the cradle of liberty has a different constitution than the rest of the state/country.

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 13:31
If the sight of a civilian walking down the street with a holstered gun puts a LEO in fear for his life then something is wrong.
Agreed, and I bet that no officer has ever done that. Again, it is not the lone act of walking around with the gun that creates the issue, it is all those other variables that go along with the gun that can put the officer in fear, or can also decrease the fear.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 13:32
Lets start with pointing out the difference between "The Public" and "individual" The PUBLIC is a collective term meaning ALL THE PEOPLE, when an individual is in view and the term public is employed it is "MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC"

[etc]

Thank you. I stand corrected.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. The police are tasked with public safety. That is the safety of the public as a whole. Because the task is to the public as a whole there cannot be an obligation to any specific individual.

As I said.

dosei
04-01-2011, 13:37
No, the police are not tasked with public safety. Police officers have no duty, responsibility, or obligation to protect any individual citizen.

Public safety and individual safety are not interchangeable terms. Actually, it is not uncommon for the two to be in conflict with one another.

Police are tasked with public safety, not individual safety.

A body guard, on the other hand, is tasked with an individuals safety.

A LEO must put the safety of the public above the safety of any one individual.

A body guard must put the safety of one particular individual above the safety of everyone else (aka, the public).

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 13:38
Agreed, and I bet that no officer has ever done that. Again, it is not the lone act of walking around with the gun that creates the issue, it is all those other variables that go along with the gun that can put the officer in fear, or can also decrease the fear.

The question is just what is wrong. I still believe it falls on the city and the police department for lack of training. I also can agree to the fact that the city's high crime rate holds a portion of the blame as well, but not so much that proper knowledge of the law by those tasked with enforcing it would still leave this problem unresolved.

We're not talking about some ninny law like exactly how many feet from a STOP sign you have to park. These are laws regarding lethal force, iow, ending a person's life if they present a threat to your own. They're kindof important, and the "prohibitive" cost of keeping that training up to date is no excuse. Honestly? If the cops carry guns, each and every damn one of them should know the gun laws of the state in side and friggin' out, especially since they fall under LEOSA and have the same rights as we do when they are off duty.

Dukeboy01
04-01-2011, 13:39
I agree. I think you nailed it pretty well.

So it is now simply the methodology of conducting the stop we should be discussing? Along with perhaps how do we change the law making philly "special"...

Man, this place has been busy while I was out today. I haven't read back through the other six pages of posts, so somebody else might have made this point regarding changing the law:

Before they go too far down that path the OC lobby needs to be really, really sure that the state legislature will change the law so that Philly becomes like every place else in PA and doesn't instead change the law so that every place else in PA becomes like Philly.

Right now you are good to OC everywhere else in the state. That could change, perhaps much quicker than you think that it would. I will not pretend to have any idea how the political games are played in PA. In KY, depending on the issue, it can be a real crap shoot. Just as PA can be generally divided culturally into Philly and Pittsburgh vs. everybody else, KY can be divided culturally into Louisville and Lexington vs. everybody else. Most times the KY General Assembly will hear some fool liberal notion brought before them by a legislator from Louisville or Lexington and ignore it. Sometimes, however, they hear a fool liberal notion and think "If it works for Louisville or Lexington, maybe we should give it a try."

PA strikes me as an overall more liberal place than KY. Be careful what you wish for (and how you go about getting it.)

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 13:52
If they were actually tasked with public safety, I'd agree with you more, but the police have zero responsibility to protect the public of ensure that anyone - aside from themselves - stay safe. That's each individual person's responsibility, which is precisely why I carry.
You have confused the police having no responsibility to you as an individual with the police responsibility for pubic safety.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 13:52
You have confused the police having no responsibility to you as an individual with the police responsibility for pubic safety.

Again, I stand corrected.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 13:53
Agreed, and I bet that no officer has ever done that. Again, it is not the lone act of walking around with the gun that creates the issue, it is all those other variables that go along with the gun that can put the officer in fear, or can also decrease the fear.

Apparently one just did in this case, unless you're aware of any of those variables that made the officer react the way he did. In the audio his only reason was that he was OCing, which, as you stated, alone isn't a reason for him to fear for his life.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 13:54
Viper,

I have a question for you, in your post on the other forum concerning this incident you indicated that you were aware of the police car and even heard it come to a sop behind you, As you put it, "Put roughly into park". From your post it appears you made no reaction to this not so much as to even turn your head and look. you only turned when you heard the cop call out, "Hey junior". is this correct?

Kith
04-01-2011, 14:03
Wordplay OC is ILLEGAL IN PHILLY without a permit..

Philly PD guidlines have them confront and disarm suspects until permit is verified,,

Agian he is Legally enforcing the law as written!


I think this is the closest someone is going to get to saying what i've been trying to get someone to say this whole thread.

Presumption of non-licensure = Presumption of guilt.

A citizen legally exericising their rights is presumed guilty until proven innocent?

I think that very reason is why the training directive states:



Question #3-
What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in

open carry?



Answer #3-


In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other

than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in

violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a
restricted area (For example: prohibitions contained in §6105, possession by a
minor §6110.1, possession on school property §912, possession in a court
facility §913, carrying in Philadelphia §6108, carrying in a vehicle, carrying
during a declared state of emergency §6107), the officer would not have specific
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person
engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would




not be legally justified.


This is the most important reason as to why I have been trying to focus on the premise of the stop itself throughout the thread, and not regarding the specific incident, but in general.

Will-21
04-01-2011, 14:04
If the sight of a civilian walking down the street with a holstered gun puts a LEO in fear for his life then something is wrong.

Official oppression and civil rights violations are reprehensible regardless of the context they occur in. Policy must NOT conflict with law nor can it violate civil rights.

I think it is MORE dangerous for a LEO to assault an innocent civilian at gunpoint to verify their papers than it is for them to either pass them by given no clear indication of a law being broken or to casually and politely ask them to see their license. Felony stops or high risk stops are emotional charged events where catastrophe and death are a finger twitch away.

I can certainly see a LEO’s “attention to detail” going up considerably in even a casual stop with someone they KNOW is carrying a gun. It doesn’t excuse treating that person as a criminal and holding them at gunpoint. It is not a valid assumption or presumption for them that every person they see open carrying is a violent criminal that intends to kill them. Given that concealed carry is legal and criminals will conceal carry even without a license the open display of a weapon should be welcomed by a LEO as an indication that the bearer IS armed. No guessing involved… or do you maintain that most LEOs would prefer to keep guessing as to whether or not the person they are talking to is carrying a weapon vs. knowing? Do you treat a suspect who is not openly displaying a weapon as one who is definitely NOT armed? I think that is faulty logic if you do, but I have stated previously I am not a trained operator so what do I know.

Those LEO need more training on what the Law is. You should not be pointing your sidearm at someone who is NOT a lethal threat. Having an OC weapon on your person is not an "imminent lethal threat" to a LEO who spots you.

For me, the bottom line is that in the 49 years of my life I do not think of LEOs as being on my side. The vast majority of them I have seen, met, worked with or encountered are stuck with that Darryl Gates "Us against Them" mentality. I do all I can to stay clear of them to include not OC-ing ANYWHERE.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 14:07
Deleted. Everyone else is typing faster than I am.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 14:17
Those LEO need more training on what the Law is. You should not be pointing your sidearm at someone who is NOT a lethal threat. Having an OC weapon on your person is not an "imminent lethal threat" to a LEO who spots you.

For me, the bottom line is that in the 49 years of my life I do not think of LEOs as being on my side. The vast majority of them I have seen, met, worked with or encountered are stuck with that Darryl Gates "Us against Them" mentality. I do all I can to stay clear of them to include OC ANYWHERE. And NO! I have not called the cops in over 25 years.

If it is readily apparent that someone is a lethal threat they would be justified in shooting them not just pointing a gun at them.

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 14:18
I'm new around here, but I'd like to share some of my experiences. They are not strictly related to OC/CC but I'm hoping they may add some perspective to my opinion.

First, I'm not sure why one would wish to OC. I agree with the 'proud peacock' thing. I'm in Ohio and AFAIK it is legal to carry OC everywhere you can cary CC. In general, I believe cops are ignorant to most laws and hold the interest of themselves and their co-workers far above the interests of safety, the public, the individual, etc. In my experience, when cops aren't absolutely 100% sure that you are innocent of everything, they treat you as if you are a felon. They lack the ability to use environmental and behavioral clues to behave appropriately.


Example 1:
I was 17 - it was my birthday and my tags had expired on my vehicle. I had purchased new ones, but I hadn't put the sticker on. I was traveling to my (now wife's) parents house to pick her up and was stopped by a police officer. The area where I was stopped has a few sets of train tracks perpendicular to the roadway followed by some skeevy areas and a general lack of area's to get out of the way of traffic. The road I was traveling was a 25mph zone and I was probably not even going 20 due to the tracks, etc. I drove roughly 1/8 mile at 5-10mph after the officer turned on his lights so I could get into a stretch of roadway that was acceptable to pull over.

Within a minute of me stopping 3 other police cruisers arrived and several officers drew their weapons and were pointing them at me. I did not engage in any behavior that would indicate I was risky for them. While finding the safe spot to pull over, the officer didn't provide any instructions over his megaphone, and I had activated my hazard lights to indicate I was complying with his request for me to pull over. He said they had reports of an auto theft ring in the area, and that he thought that my (beat up old dodge dakota) could be related. My situation probably would have been a lot more like viper's but I complied with all of their orders/etc.


Example 2:
My CCW class was taught by 3 long time officers still on the force. One was in his mid 30's, one was in his mid 40's, and one was probably in his late 50's. Ohio requires a 12 hour class that doesn't really have much ciriculum so the officers broke up the time telling stories. Lots of the punch lines were officers accidentally discharging their weapons (firearms, tazers, etc). One female officer in a story shot the ground less than a few inches away from a suspects face while there was a male officer straddling him applying handcuffs - he was not struggling. They made jokes about how 'jumpy' cops are.

These cops were not unfamiliar with oc/cc laws of course and I don't think these 3 would be the ones to hassle you over carying your weapon - but the anecdotal evidence is enough for me to realize that in general, cops probably are not competent enough to carry a firearm. I really don't think Viper is in the wrong too much. He was a little bit of a jerk to the cop, but the cop was a HUGE !#!@#!@ to him. The life of a cop is worth no more than the life of a civilian, and after what I learned in my CCW class I do not trust an officer to not fire when pointing a gun at a civilian even if the civilian is just standing there. In their own words 'cops are jumpy'.

For arguments sake, I'm not sure a badge gives someone the right to aim his weapon at a civilian if the civilian isn't doing anything illegal. I do agree that the cop shouldn't have to get into a quickdraw scenario - but forcing a civilian onto their knees holding them at gunpoint like a bank robber or rapist isn't the right answer.

As far as the guy that said 'boo hoo' about getting put on your knee's - you lack perspective. The world is changed in baby steps. It's a VERY slippery slope. Cops, too, have the 'proud peacock' syndrome and will continue to force their agenda of physical domination by badge as far as they can.


And lastly, as far as the professor goes - his opinion is just that. There's no argument that he had reasonable suspcion. There's nothing reasonable about forcing a law abiding citizen to their knees and detaining them for 45 minutes because he was ignorant to the laws he has sworn to uphold. Reasonable suspicion would be checking his permit in a non-aggressive and non-disrespectful way.

You can tell the cop is power tripping by the way he initiates the stop - by hollaring 'junior'. It was so trashy to begin with. The cop created a situation that didn't need to happen. IMO he is a dbag.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 14:20
Deleted. Everyone else is typing faster than I am.

it gets worse, I think faster and am better looking too.

:tongueout::rofl:

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 14:23
Viper,

I have a question for you, in your post on the other forum concerning this incident you indicated that you were aware of the police car and even heard it come to a sop behind you, As you put it, "Put roughly into park". From your post it appears you made no reaction to this not so much as to even turn your head and look. you only turned when you heard the cop call out, "Hey junior". is this correct?

This was discussed earlier in either this thread or Chapter I, and someone else had already drew the proper conclusion, so I didn't mention it.

However, in answer to your question: I noticed the hood and quarter panel of the police cruise as I was walking along, in my peripheral vision (situational awareness ftw). You are correct in that I made no outward notice of the vehicle, because I had no reason to - I knew I was doing nothing wrong and everything legally and peacefully, and as far as I knew, he was a police officer on routine patrol who happened to be passing me at the time. As far as I was concerned, he could have driven right by, having not noticed the firearm altogether - but me turning and acknowledging his presence would have made that impossible. I figured that if he saw, he might ignore me or he might give me a bit of a hard time and ask for my LTCF, which I was fully prepared to give him.

I was not expecting death threats, verbal abuse, and arrest.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 14:27
This was discussed earlier in either this thread or Chapter I, and someone else had already drew the proper conclusion, so I didn't mention it.

However, in answer to your question: I noticed the hood and quarter panel of the police cruise as I was walking along, in my peripheral vision (situational awareness ftw). You are correct in that I made no outward notice of the vehicle, because I had no reason to - I knew I was doing nothing wrong and everything legally and peacefully, and as far as I knew, he was a police officer on routine patrol who happened to be passing me at the time. As far as I was concerned, he could have driven right by, having not noticed the firearm altogether - but me turning and acknowledging his presence would have made that impossible. I figured that if he saw, he might ignore me or he might give me a bit of a hard time and ask for my LTCF, which I was fully prepared to give him.

I was not expecting death threats, verbal abuse, and arrest.

Thank you

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 14:54
I think this is the closest someone is going to get to saying what i've been trying to get someone to say this whole thread.

Presumption of non-licensure = Presumption of guilt.

A citizen legally exericising their rights is presumed guilty until proven innocent?

I think that very reason is why the training directive states:



This is the most important reason as to why I have been trying to focus on the premise of the stop itself throughout the thread, and not regarding the specific incident, but in general.

Question #3-
What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in

open carry?

Answer #3-
In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other
than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in
violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: prohibitions contained in §6105, possession by a
minor §6110.1, possession on school property §912, possession in a court
facility §913, carrying in Philadelphia §6108, carrying in a vehicle, carrying
during a declared state of emergency §6107), the officer would not have specific
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person
engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would

not be legally justified.

The justification is right there in bold... the stop is legal while in Philadelphia.

Kith
04-01-2011, 15:00
The justification is right there in bold... the stop is legal while in Philadelphia.


Thank you.

Is it?


Presumption of non-licensure = Presumption of guilt.

A citizen legally exericising their rights is presumed guilty until proven innocent?


Can we please address this issue, now that it's plainly out there?

Dukeboy01
04-01-2011, 15:07
I'm new around here, but I'd like to share some of my experiences. They are not strictly related to OC/CC but I'm hoping they may add some perspective to my opinion.

First, I'm not sure why one would wish to OC. I agree with the 'proud peacock' thing. I'm in Ohio and AFAIK it is legal to carry OC everywhere you can cary CC. In general, I believe cops are ignorant to most laws and hold the interest of themselves and their co-workers far above the interests of safety, the public, the individual, etc. In my experience, when cops aren't absolutely 100% sure that you are innocent of everything, they treat you as if you are a felon. They lack the ability to use environmental and behavioral clues to behave appropriately.


Example 1:
I was 17 - it was my birthday and my tags had expired on my vehicle. I had purchased new ones, but I hadn't put the sticker on. I was traveling to my (now wife's) parents house to pick her up and was stopped by a police officer. The area where I was stopped has a few sets of train tracks perpendicular to the roadway followed by some skeevy areas and a general lack of area's to get out of the way of traffic. The road I was traveling was a 25mph zone and I was probably not even going 20 due to the tracks, etc. I drove roughly 1/8 mile at 5-10mph after the officer turned on his lights so I could get into a stretch of roadway that was acceptable to pull over.

Within a minute of me stopping 3 other police cruisers arrived and several officers drew their weapons and were pointing them at me. I did not engage in any behavior that would indicate I was risky for them. While finding the safe spot to pull over, the officer didn't provide any instructions over his megaphone, and I had activated my hazard lights to indicate I was complying with his request for me to pull over. He said they had reports of an auto theft ring in the area, and that he thought that my (beat up old dodge dakota) could be related. My situation probably would have been a lot more like viper's but I complied with all of their orders/etc.


Example 2:
My CCW class was taught by 3 long time officers still on the force. One was in his mid 30's, one was in his mid 40's, and one was probably in his late 50's. Ohio requires a 12 hour class that doesn't really have much ciriculum so the officers broke up the time telling stories. Lots of the punch lines were officers accidentally discharging their weapons (firearms, tazers, etc). One female officer in a story shot the ground less than a few inches away from a suspects face while there was a male officer straddling him applying handcuffs - he was not struggling. They made jokes about how 'jumpy' cops are.

These cops were not unfamiliar with oc/cc laws of course and I don't think these 3 would be the ones to hassle you over carying your weapon - but the anecdotal evidence is enough for me to realize that in general, cops probably are not competent enough to carry a firearm. I really don't think Viper is in the wrong too much. He was a little bit of a jerk to the cop, but the cop was a HUGE !#!@#!@ to him. The life of a cop is worth no more than the life of a civilian, and after what I learned in my CCW class I do not trust an officer to not fire when pointing a gun at a civilian even if the civilian is just standing there. In their own words 'cops are jumpy'.

For arguments sake, I'm not sure a badge gives someone the right to aim his weapon at a civilian if the civilian isn't doing anything illegal. I do agree that the cop shouldn't have to get into a quickdraw scenario - but forcing a civilian onto their knees holding them at gunpoint like a bank robber or rapist isn't the right answer.

As far as the guy that said 'boo hoo' about getting put on your knee's - you lack perspective. The world is changed in baby steps. It's a VERY slippery slope. Cops, too, have the 'proud peacock' syndrome and will continue to force their agenda of physical domination by badge as far as they can.


And lastly, as far as the professor goes - his opinion is just that. There's no argument that he had reasonable suspcion. There's nothing reasonable about forcing a law abiding citizen to their knees and detaining them for 45 minutes because he was ignorant to the laws he has sworn to uphold. Reasonable suspicion would be checking his permit in a non-aggressive and non-disrespectful way.

You can tell the cop is power tripping by the way he initiates the stop - by hollaring 'junior'. It was so trashy to begin with. The cop created a situation that didn't need to happen. IMO he is a dbag.

Ahhh, youth. So lacking in wisdom and experience and yet still so certain of the correctness of their POV despite these chasms. Welcome. You'll do well in GNG. Two posts in and I bet you've already got your first PM from the mods.

dosei
04-01-2011, 15:19
Thank you.

Is it?



Can we please address this issue, now that it's plainly out there?

Seems like a few people (at least one...) confuse juror rules with LEO procedures.

A LEO must have the ability to operate from reasonable suspicion. I know there are some radicals out there under the delusion that the police should only act after it can be proven the individual is guilty. But if that was the case, they could never respond to your phone call saying an intruder is in the house...after all you could be half-asleep, drunk, stoned, and the racket downstairs is really just your wife (or maybe your mastiff got into your medicine cabinet and is now stumbling around stoned and making one heck of a ruckus). If the police cannot act on reasonable suspicion, they cannot act...at all...until it's too late.

Comprende Amigo's?

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 15:24
Thank you.

Is it?



Can we please address this issue, now that it's plainly out there?


Innocent until proven guilty pertains to the court room not the street.

Stop and think about it for a minute, the only place where someone can be proven to be guilty or not guilty is in court.

The police job is not to "Prove" or adjudicate someone guilty it is to present evidence of guilt. A Judge or Jury rules on the evidence and determines guilt or not guilty.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 15:40
I think this is the closest someone is going to get to saying what i've been trying to get someone to say this whole thread.

Presumption of non-licensure = Presumption of guilt.

A citizen legally exericising their rights is presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Are cops forbidden to check hot dog vendors for health and business license compliance, absent any suspicion other that seeing him operate? When someone cranks up an assembly in the park or on the public street, can the cops enquire about parade permits, absent any other clue? At least the assembly is protected activity, and I'd argue that engaging in commerce is covered by the Constitution as well.




You asked to deal only with the justification for the stop, so that's what I'm doing: not talking method, mannerisms, outcome or anything else.

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 15:41
The justification is right there in bold... the stop is legal while in Philadelphia.


1. The stop is justified by that language. Whether it's legal is a question for the court.

2. Even the bold language doesn't state that a Terry stop is per se ok in Philly. It says that in a non-restricted area no Terry stop or other seizure is ok.

I'm admittedly out of my area of expertise here, but I'm guessing the requirement to produce "evidence of exception" under 18 PaCS 6122 upon lawful demand would be an "other seizure" since no RAS is required.

I don't think 6122 justifies Viper's treatment though.

Kith
04-01-2011, 15:43
Yes, this is what i'm looking for.

Is the necessity of having the license, reason enough to stop and determine whether the person has one or not?

PSUEng
04-01-2011, 15:53
Wow, those cops are pros! "shut the ****** up!"...."get on the ******ing ground!"....what a bunch of chumps. tough guy chumps. hiding behind a badge. Are they that tough with the savage african's in center city? I doubt it. Thugs.....Nazi SS thugs.....:whistling:

"Honor...Integrity...Service"....LOL.

dosei
04-01-2011, 15:54
Yes, this is what i'm looking for.

Is the necessity of having the license, reason enough to stop and determine whether the person has one or not?

Yes, it is. And they can (and on occasion do) stop someone driving simply to check and make sure the driver can produce a valid license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. They can, and do, ask a corner vendor to show their license allowing them to sit there and sell those hot dogs. (Many places make this simpler for everyone by requiring street vendors to have their license openly displayed.)

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 15:59
Read Delaware v Prouse the 1979 case where the Supreme Court laid out its logic in forbidding stops of drivers who had committed no violation. The key is the balance between the interests of the government and the individual's 4th Amendment interests.

This has not been done for either open carry or hot dog carts. Until it has been, everyone is welcome to create their own personal Land of Should Be. In the real world, though, neither the Legislature nor the Courts have told the Executive to stop the practice.

At the risk of inflaming people, I'll say that what the OC individuals want doesn't count. This is a republic, not a democracy.

dosei
04-01-2011, 16:04
Read Delaware v Prouse the 1979 case where the Supreme Court laid out its logic in forbidding stops of drivers who had committed no violation. The key is the balance between the interests of the government and the individual's 4th Amendment interests.

This has not been done for either open carry or hot dog carts. Until it has been, everyone is welcome to create their own personal Land of Should Be. In the real world, though, neither the Legislature nor the Courts have told the Executive to stop the practice.

Then what premise is used at checkpoints (commonly used to catch drunk drivers), where every vehicle passing thru must stop and the only thing asked is "drivers license please"?

Kith
04-01-2011, 16:05
PSUEng that's not helpful, posts like that are why I didn't participate in chapter I of this discussion.

--------------------------------------------

Thanks Sam, this is what i'm trying to determine.

I'm trying to figure out if the basis of such a stop is legal, both for this instance and in the future in general.

If a citizen can be stopped, just to check there license, then i'd like to know.

There is some debate over whether just openly carrying the firearm in and of itself is reasonable suspicion to do a license check, and I want to clear that up.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 16:08
Then what premise is used at checkpoints (commonly used to catch drunk drivers), where every vehicle passing thru must stop and the only thing asked is "drivers license please"?

The idea is that checkpoint serve a safety, not an enforcement purpose, and that they operate under rules which prevent singling out an individual. They were mentioned in Prouse as a possible way that the state could address its need to regulate the rules without trampling on a particular individual. Even so, it took another SCOTUS case to establish their framework.

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 16:09
Ahhh, youth. So lacking in wisdom and experience and yet still so certain of the correctness of their POV despite these chasms. Welcome. You'll do well in GNG. Two posts in and I bet you've already got your first PM from the mods.

What chasms do you speak of? The irony here is that you're chastising me for being so correct in my POV yet you're describing me as 'Ahhh, youth.' I'm not old, but I am 31 now -- but I do remember the years before. Regardless, life experience isn't completely based upon age - and I've been around a bit.

Why don't you be more specific, rather than generalize? My point was the encounters I've had with law enforcement officers have not been positive in one way or another.


Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread - the purpose of my post is to provide some perspective on why not every someone might choose to not trust cops. As a rule I don't distrust them, but just as a cop posted above 'what does a criminal look like' - what does a corrupt/jumpy/etc cop look like? No one individual has a stronger claim to their rights than another regardless of a badge, and a badge doesn't make someone have better judgement/etc. Some would have you believe that when a human (flawed like anyone else) puts a badge on they can suddenly disregard respect and other things that make us civilized. Cops are no more entitled to their rights than any other citizen. I'm not sure how that is disagreeable.

Kith
04-01-2011, 16:18
Why don't you be more specific, rather than generalize? My point was the encounters I've had with law enforcement officers have not been positive in one way or another.

At the risk of dragging the thread off-topic, my experiences with law enforcement have been positive. (haven't had any in Philly concerning firearms though)

The thread here is not about comparing experiences (good or bad) with law enforcement, so your anecdotal stories haven't added anything of substance to this discussion.

Kith
04-01-2011, 16:20
Determining the limits the law allows for PhillyPD to interact with it's citizens revolving around the interaction of openly carrying a firearm seems to me like the place to start in hashing out this (and future) incidents, and also the first place to start for people openly carrying to avoid confrontational encounters with PhillyPD.

That's why I am trying to beat this part of it to a consenual death.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 16:31
Thanks Sam, this is what i'm trying to determine.

I'm trying to figure out if the basis of such a stop is legal, both for this instance and in the future in general.

If a citizen can be stopped, just to check there license, then i'd like to know.

There is some debate over whether just openly carrying the firearm in and of itself is reasonable suspicion to do a license check, and I want to clear that up.
Right now it's legal. I'm saying that because no one has yet come up with a federal or PA law or a court decision that says it's illegal. The legislature has give the Philly City Council a law to enforce, and the city gets to do that until someone stops them. The executive doesn't go to the other branches to be told each and every detail of how they enforce laws. Now in AZ, or elsewhere in PA...no go on the action of the executive.

"You said that this activity requires a license. We are checking people engaged in the activity to make sure they have a license. You could have made it unlicensed, you could have forbidden us to check, you didn't. Ball's in our court for now."

shaffer
04-01-2011, 16:39
Right now it's legal. I'm saying that because no one has yet come up with a federal or PA law or a court decision that says it's illegal. The legislature has give the Philly City Council a law to enforce, and the city gets to do that until someone stops them. The executive doesn't go to the other branches to be told each and every detail of how they enforce laws. Now in AZ, or elsewhere in PA...no go on the action of the executive.

"You said that this activity requires a license. We are checking people engaged in the activity to make sure they have a license. You could have made it unlicensed, you could have forbidden us to check, you didn't. Ball's in our court for now."

Except for Delaware v Prouse comes to the opposite conclusion about licensed activity, right? Who's court does that put the ball in?

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 16:40
At the risk of dragging the thread off-topic, my experiences with law enforcement have been positive. (haven't had any in Philly concerning firearms though)

The thread here is not about comparing experiences (good or bad) with law enforcement, so your anecdotal stories haven't added anything of substance to this discussion.


After reading all 15 pages, there seems to be two main conflicts here.

1. Did the officer have the right to stop the citizen in the first place (which seems to be the dead horse legal debate that's been going on for a while). By my reading of the laws posted on this site and without further research of case law or a full examination of every applicable statute, it appears that post 17149850 by chivalry indicates the stop is legal.


2. When an officer chooses to stop someone for open carry, what is the procedure for determining if the activity is legal or not. This is the part I'm talking about. The point I tried to make is that some people in this thread seem to feel that the officer has the authority to threaten to take the life of a civilian just because he calmly verbally protests the actions of the officer while physically complying and it's not like we don't have enough reasons to distrust officers.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 16:42
No, the police are not tasked with public safety. Police officers have no duty, responsibility, or obligation to protect any individual citizen. See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

The police are there to enforce the law and stop the law from being broken. That's it. Sometimes, they help to protect someone's life, or save it from imminent threat, and those acts are the acts of heroes. But to say the police are there for "public safety" is incorrect. If an officer chooses to do so using his legal authority, that's one thing, but it's not his job.

Also,



Please do not make untrue statements about me. I don't appreciate being misrespresented.

your attitude was juvenile and really ignorant given your situation in my opinion if you were my best friend I would call it toolish I am being kind.

I "could have handled it better" is a cop out you knew what you were doing and did your best to aggravate the situation.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 16:45
Except for Delaware v Prouse comes to the opposite conclusion about licensed activity, right?

This is the same exclusionary case logic that was presented earlier and may be the only hope we have for case law.


Facts of the Case:
A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse's car to make a routine check of his driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.

Question:
Did the officer's search of Prouse's automobile constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the privacy interests of travelers outweighed the state interests in discretionary spot checks of automobiles. The Court found that random checks made only marginal contributions to roadway safety and compliance with registration requirements; less intrusive means could have been used to serve the same ends. Officers must be held to a "probable cause" standard for searches, otherwise individuals would be subject to "unfettered governmental intrusion" each time they entered an automobile.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 16:49
After reading all 15 pages, there seems to be two main conflicts here.

1. Did the officer have the right to stop the citizen in the first place (which seems to be the dead horse legal debate that's been going on for a while). By my reading of the laws posted on this site and without further research of case law or a full examination of every applicable statute, it appears that post 17149850 by chivalry indicates the stop is legal.


2. When an officer chooses to stop someone for open carry, what is the procedure for determining if the activity is legal or not. This is the part I'm talking about. The point I tried to make is that some people in this thread seem to feel that the officer has the authority to threaten to take the life of a civilian just because he calmly verbally protests the actions of the officer while physically complying and it's not like we don't have enough reasons to distrust officers.

Right... and there are two basic schools of thought on #2. Officer safety necessitates a "high risk" stop with drawn gun pointed at the suspect vs. a polite encounter and directive "License, please." There are of course lots of gray shades between the two but that is the basics.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 17:01
Except for Delaware v Prouse comes to the opposite conclusion about licensed activity, right? Who's court does that put the ball in?

Not quite. Prouse comes to the conclusion about driving, based on the State's stated concerns. They could have written the case more broadly, but they didn't. SCOTUS is a court that issued separate cases on drivers' rights and passenger rights given nearly the exact fact pattern---stretching a case from driving to firearms might be too much of a reach.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 17:10
The point I tried to make is that some people in this thread seem to feel that the officer has the authority to threaten to take the life of a civilian just because he calmly verbally protests the actions of the officer while physically complying and it's not like we don't have enough reasons to distrust officers.

That is like saying that a shoplifter who runs from the police and in the course of his flight turns and produces a weapon that the guy was shot for shoplifting.

He was not threatened with being shot for calmly walking down the street, he was threatened with being shot for non compliance with the officers instructions.

I don't know what tape you listened to but the one I heard had the officer telling him "Get on your knees" and the op responded "I will be happy to stand here."

however much it may distress you ARMED people exhibiting belligerent non compliance can and will be the subject of force including the threat of deadly force.

No one here is stating that the Sgt. began the encounter right. most of the LEO's here want more than the OPs side of the story before they make any definitive statements. The police report and or a dash cam video would go a long way in establishing a firm basis for judging the encounter.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 17:23
That is like saying that a shoplifter who runs from the police and in the course of his flight turns and produces a weapon that the guy was shot for shoplifting.

He was not threatened with being shot for calmly walking down the street, he was threatened with being shot for non compliance with the officers instructions.

I don't know what tape you listened to but the one I heard had the officer telling him "Get on your knees" and the op responded "I will be happy to stand here."

however much it may distress you ARMED people exhibiting belligerent non compliance can and will be the subject of force including the threat of deadly force.

No one here is stating that the Sgt. began the encounter right. most of the LEO's here want more than the OPs side of the story before they make any definitive statements. The police report and or a dash cam video would go a long way in establishing a firm basis for judging the encounter.

I think it is a legitimate criticism of viper's reaction to the stop to say he wasn't as compliant as he should have been. I also think it is legitimate to say that non-compliance escalated the situation. However, he WAS threatened with being shot for walking down the street. The pointing of a gun at someone is most defintely an implicit if not explicit threat of being shot.


The police report and dash cam have been requested.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 17:30
I think it is a legitimate criticism of viper's reaction to the stop to say he wasn't as compliant as he should have been. I also think it is legitimate to say that non-compliance escalated the situation. However, he WAS threatened with being shot for walking down the street. The pointing of a gun at someone is most defintely an implicit if not explicit threat of being shot.


The police report and dash cam have been requested.

While the pointing of a weapon certainly implies the threat of deadly force, the fact remains the officer did not say "I will shoot you" or "I will kill you" until viper was refusing to comply with his instructions. a definitive answer as to whether the pointing of the firearm is justifiable or not awaits the report and video for a definitive answer.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 17:32
While the pointing of a weapon certainly implies the threat of deadly force, the fact remains the officer did not say "I will shoot you" or "I will kill you" until viper was refusing to comply with his instructions. a definitive answer as to whether the pointing of the firearm is justifiable or not awaits the report and video for a definitive answer.

I agree.

dosei
04-01-2011, 17:39
This is the same exclusionary case logic that was presented earlier and may be the only hope we have for case law.

Doubtful, the case revolved around evidence gleaned/seized as a result of the stop (marijuana in the car). In Vipers case, he did the equivalent of walking down the street with a clear bag of marijuana tied around his neck in plain view of all the world. In that case there is no search and seizure, as the item is being paraded in plain view for all to see. He may have had a license for it (much like those who have a prescription for marijuana and thus may legally have it on their person), but it was indeed an unusual sight for the police to see and thus brought the attention it did. Unlike marijuana, Viper's gun was capable of killing much quicker and generally kills someone other than the user of it.

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 17:41
That is like saying that a shoplifter who runs from the police and in the course of his flight turns and produces a weapon that the guy was shot for shoplifting.

If he turned and the weapon is holstered and he was shot, then yes he was shot for shoplifting. If he drew the weapon, then he was not shot for shoplifting. AFAIK Viper did not draw his weapon and was not committing any crimes while walking down the road. You can't play 'what if' here because any 'what if' drastically changes the scenario.

He was not threatened with being shot for calmly walking down the street, he was threatened with being shot for non compliance with the officers instructions.

Which is kind of my point. How is the cop justified in threatening to shoot him for saying he'd rather stand then get on his knees, etc.

however much it may distress you ARMED people exhibiting belligerent non compliance can and will be the subject of force including the threat of deadly force.

The belligerent party was the officer. Not to be a jerk, I just want to be clear on what belligerent is: Of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone. IMO "I'm going to f'ing shoot you" is belligerent, while "I will be happy to stand here." is not and does not warrant drawing a weapon.

shaffer
04-01-2011, 17:41
Not quite. Prouse comes to the conclusion about driving, based on the State's stated concerns. They could have written the case more broadly, but they didn't. SCOTUS is a court that issued separate cases on drivers' rights and passenger rights given nearly the exact fact pattern---stretching a case from driving to firearms might be too much of a reach.

From the case:

An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles.

Based on this line of reasoning, don't you think the court would most likely rule that the officer did not have the authority to make the detainment?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 17:46
Doubtful, the case revolved around evidence gleaned/seized as a result of the stop (marijuana in the car). In Vipers case, he did the equivalent of walking down the street with a clear bag of marijuana tied around his neck in plain view of all the world. In that case there is no search and seizure, as the item is being paraded in plain view for all to see. He may have had a license for it (much like those who have a prescription for marijuana and thus may legally have it on their person), but it was indeed an unusual sight for the police to see and thus brought the attention it did. Unlike marijuana, Viper's gun was capable of killing much quicker and generally kills someone other than the user of it.

No, no... the driver's license check was deemed a violation therefore the pot got tossed out... the scenario would have to include Viper having been searched for the open carry and finding some pot or other contraband on him. He gets busted for that and not for open carrying. The case then gets tossed out because the initial search is illegal and that sets precedent to stop the harassment and civil rights violations for open carriers.

So all you guys open carrying make sure you got a bag of dope on you and maybe we can make some progress here.

shaffer
04-01-2011, 17:46
Unlike marijuana, Viper's gun was capable of killing much quicker and generally kills someone other than the user of it.

And unlike marijuana the possession of a gun is not illegal.

dosei
04-01-2011, 17:53
And unlike marijuana the possession of a gun is not illegal.

The carry of a gun (in a manner where it is immediately accessible) in Philly is illegal without a permit.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 17:54
From the case:



Based on this line of reasoning, don't you think the court would most likely rule that the officer did not have the authority to make the detainment?
You can't produce half the facts and claim that there's a line of reasoning. The court acknowledged that the state had an interest, but said that this wasn't the way to secure the balance between individual and collective. For example, they also said:(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.
You up for stopping all pedestrians at a sidewalk-block? Think the court is?

The balancing act between state and individual is the same, but the interests are different, the expectation of privacy is different, the facts are different. The Court specifically said in Heller/MacDonald that the RKBA is subject to regulation. Beyond that, no one is really in a position to predict outcomes. But if you needed another reason to vote smart in 2012, you're reading it on this thread.

dosei
04-01-2011, 18:02
No, no... the driver's license check was deemed a violation therefore the pot got tossed out... the scenario would have to include Viper having been searched for the open carry and finding some pot or other contraband on him. He gets busted for that and not for open carrying. The case then gets tossed out because the initial search is illegal and that sets precedent to stop the harassment and civil rights violations for open carriers.

So all you guys open carrying make sure you got a bag of dope on you and maybe we can make some progress here.

Except that according to directive 137, the police are explicitly instructed to check for a possible VUFA violation and seize any weapons:
B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
In order to seize any firearms, a search must be conducted to see if any firearms are concealed, thus search and seizure is mandated procedure. So the discover of pot would just get the OC'er in trouble.

But hey, don't listen to me...give it a whirl!
:rofl:

shaffer
04-01-2011, 18:03
For example, they also said:


(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.

I don't think quoting this does your argument any good. Surely the officer's stop did not involve "less intrusion" and did not involve "all" those passing on the sidewalk which may have been "one possible alternative".

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that there are relevant parallels in this case and viper's and that if we are to determine who's ball the court it is in then that would be viper's.

You can't produce half the facts and claim that there's a line of reasoning.

Please, lets discuss the other half of the facts then. The line of reasoning I provided was surely applicable.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 18:15
My reasoning is that we need to wait for either the courts or the legislature to change things. I'm positive that it's on solid ground.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Viper been turned down by several attorneys in a quest to sue? Given that they'd collect their complete fees from the government if he were awarded even $1 for a violation of his civil rights and given that the local lawyers would have way more information than we do, I'd say his inability to find a champion speaks volumes about the merits of his case in PA. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong about his quest for representation.

shaffer
04-01-2011, 18:21
My reasoning is that we need to wait for either the couts or the legislature to change things. I'm positive that it's on solid ground.

If you are not willing to concede that the stop was bad until Viper's case is ruled on in court then I suppose this is a pointless discussion.

I think that we can look at case law and see relevant parallels in the line of reasoning and interpretation of the law and come to a conclusion that if Viper's case was taken to court then it is more likely the court would rule in his favor than it is likely they would rule in the officer's favor.

Do you dispute that?

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 18:39
If you are not willing to concede that the stop was bad until Viper's case is ruled on in court then I suppose this is a pointless discussion.

I think that we can look at case law and see relevant parallels in the line of reasoning and interpretation of the law and come to a conclusion that if Viper's case was taken to court then it is more likely the court would rule in his favor than it is likely they would rule in the officer's favor.

Do you dispute that?
I'm not willing, because I don't see that. I do dispute the other, because no one who's earned an opinion has provided a reference.


And I stop hot dog vendors, too.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 19:16
If he turned and the weapon is holstered and he was shot, then yes he was shot for shoplifting. If he drew the weapon, then he was not shot for shoplifting. AFAIK Viper did not draw his weapon and was not committing any crimes while walking down the road. You can't play 'what if' here because any 'what if' drastically changes the scenario.

No he would not have to draw a weapon, all he would have to do is refuse to comply with instructions and make any movement at all that could be construed as reaching for the weapon.


Which is kind of my point. How is the cop justified in threatening to shoot him for saying he'd rather stand then get on his knees, etc.

You seem to be under the delusion that compliance is optional And that an encounter on a stop is similar to being at burger king and you can have it your way. You are seriously in error.

The belligerent party was the officer. Not to be a jerk, I just want to be clear on what belligerent is: Of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone. IMO "I'm going to f'ing shoot you" is belligerent, while "I will be happy to stand here." is not and does not warrant drawing a weapon.

Refusing to comply with the officers instructions is, whether you like it or not or whether you want to admit it or not, belligerence. and it is being demonstrated by an armed man.

shaffer
04-01-2011, 19:24
And I stop hot dog vendors, too.

I'm sure you do...

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 19:47
No he would not have to draw a weapon, all he would have to do is refuse to comply with instructions and make any movement at all that could be construed as reaching for the weapon.

There you go bringing what-if's back into the equation. If the cop has a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death, he/she is justified in taking reasonable and equitable steps to protect themselves against this threat. The mere act of having a hostered firearm does not put the officer at imminent risk. If a movement towards the firearm is made, then that's a different story - but again that's throwing another 'what if' into the equation. Merely having a firearm isn't enough.

You seem to be under the delusion that compliance is optional And that an encounter on a stop is similar to being at burger king and you can have it your way. You are seriously in error.

You seem to be under the delusion that we live in nazi germany or soviet russia. If an officer knocks on my door and demands that I let him in to search my home without a warrant, I am not required to comply. We have rights, limits, and procedures in this country. I would probably comply because being correct and dead is still dead, but the fact of the matter is non-compliance is what keeps America free and other countries under tyranny. What's ironic is that you're probably in favor of small government and all of that stuff but feel that we should comply with every order of an officer right or wrong because they have a badge.

Refusing to comply with the officers instructions is, whether you like it or not or whether you want to admit it or not, belligerence. and it is being demonstrated by an armed man.


I presume you have a law enforcement background based upon your bigoted views on the subject matter - the way you state your opinion implies it is more valid than the opinion of someone else. Go back and listen to the recording again. Viper had a smart ass attitude no doubt, but I'd classify it as defiant and calm. When the cop says "If you don't get down on your knee's I'm going to f'ing shoot you" that is belligerent. "I'll put one right in ya". That is just nuts.

The officers are straight up nuts here.

Bruce M
04-01-2011, 20:08
Refusing to comply with the officers instructions is, whether you like it or not or whether you want to admit it or not, belligerence. and it is being demonstrated by an armed man.


And sometimes it has real bad consequences. And often it results in legal consequences for the non-compliant.

Gallium
04-01-2011, 20:10
Deleted. Everyone else is typing faster than I am.

:faint:

Try to keep up, gramps. :tongueout:

Gallium
04-01-2011, 20:19
No he would not have to draw a weapon, all he would have to do is refuse to comply with instructions and make any movement at all that could be construed as reaching for the weapon.




You seem to be under the delusion that compliance is optional And that an encounter on a stop is similar to being at burger king and you can have it your way. You are seriously in error.



Refusing to comply with the officers instructions is, whether you like it or not or whether you want to admit it or not, belligerence. and it is being demonstrated by an armed man.


We (as too are the police, when given orders by their superiors) are only required to comply with lawful orders.

Roadside is not the place to determine the legality of an order....maybe that's why this thread is hundreds of responses long.

'Drew

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 20:34
We (as too are the police, when given orders by their superiors) are only required to comply with lawful orders.

Roadside is not the place to determine the legality of an order....maybe that's why this thread is hundreds of responses long.

'Drew


I agree 100% with this statement. As I stated before, I agree that the roadside is not the right place to determine the legality here - however, there are two different angles to this. The difference between logical, and right.

If we want to stay logical, we'll do whatever the cop tells us to do. If a cop draws on me I'm going to do whatever he says because I don't want to get shot.

I believe Viper was 'right' but not 'logical'. That said, I'd rather be living than right - but it's a slippery slope, and we don't have to go too far back in history to see where that's taken us.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 20:43
There you go bringing what-if's back into the equation. If the cop has a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death, he/she is justified in taking reasonable and equitable steps to protect themselves against this threat. The mere act of having a hostered firearm does not put the officer at imminent risk. If a movement towards the firearm is made, then that's a different story - but again that's throwing another 'what if' into the equation. Merely having a firearm isn't enough.


I didn't bring a "what if into the situation I responded to a claim that someone had to make X action before the officers action would be justified.

Again an armed man behaving in a belligerent manner refusing to comply with the officers instructions is more than sufficient reason for the officer to employ a firearm and even threaten to employ deadly force. Don't really care whether you like that or not.

You seem to be under the delusion that we live in nazi germany or soviet russia. If an officer knocks on my door and demands that I let him in to search my home without a warrant, I am not required to comply. We have rights, limits, and procedures in this country. I would probably comply because being correct and dead is still dead, but the fact of the matter is non-compliance is what keeps America free and other countries under tyranny. What's ironic is that you're probably in favor of small government and all of that stuff but feel that we should comply with every order of an officer right or wrong because they have a badge.


Didn't take you long to bring up Nazis did it? and what does an officer showing up at your home and demanding to search your home without a warrant have to do with what I said. You even quoted me correctly. maybe you just cannot fathom this part.

an encounter on a stop


Seems to me you are the one indulging in "What ifs".

the way you state your opinion implies it is more valid than the opinion of someone else.

My opinion is backed up by knowledge, training and ACTUAL experience whats your backed up by?


Viper had a smart ass attitude no doubt, but I'd classify it as defiant and calm.

I see you think defiance and non compliance are perfectly ok as long as it is done in a calm manner.

:rofl::rofl:


The officers are straight up nuts here.


Nobody is making you stay, after all it isn't Nazi germany.
:rofl:

schaibaa
04-01-2011, 21:06
I didn't bring a "what if into the situation I responded to a claim that someone had to make X action before the officers action would be justified.

Again an armed man behaving in a belligerent manner refusing to comply with the officers instructions is more than sufficient reason for the officer to employ a firearm and even threaten to employ deadly force. Don't really care whether you like that or not.

So you'd be ok if the officer shot Viper?



Didn't take you long to bring up Nazis did it? and what does an officer showing up at your home and demanding to search your home without a warrant have to do with what I said. You even quoted me correctly. maybe you just cannot fathom this part.

It has to do with the officer being out of line. It has to do with citizens standing up for their rights. It has to do with the fact that if a cop says jump, you can say go F yourself. The point is cops do not have ultimate authority no matter what. They do have limits, and while some of those limits are not as well documented as others - as another poster made the point earlier, what if Rosa decided to go to the back of the bus? A right is a right, an officer commanded her to move to the back of the bus but she refused to comply. Her choice to do so.


Seems to me you are the one indulging in "What ifs".
Not sure what to say, you're the one that is trying to justify using lethal force just because someone refuses to comply. I'm glad not all cops think like you.


My opinion is backed up by knowledge, training and ACTUAL experience whats your backed up by?
And this statement, by definition, is bigotry. Your opinion is no more important than anyone elses.



I see you think defiance and non compliance are perfectly ok as long as it is done in a calm manner.
You're failing to comprehend what I'm saying and plucking items out of context to make a general point. You've made quite a habit of that throughout this thread. Anyway, to summarize - you stated that Viper was being belligerent. He was not. The officer is being belligerent. He is calmly disobeying an unlawful order, which is fine by me. It's quite the double standard - how can you defend a cop that doesn't even know the law he's sworn to uphold?


Nobody is making you stay, after all it isn't Nazi germany.

By 'here' I meant in this case. Aside from an incident 14 years ago I haven't had any contact with officers outside of my CCW class - so I don't know of any local crazies.

James Dean
04-01-2011, 21:30
I don't know if this was posted yet http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns

TBO
04-01-2011, 21:31
I don't know if this was posted yet http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Alamogordo, NM

Openly carrying a handgun requires no license in New Mexico.

http://naomidayneswood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sketch_comedy_EVITE_apples&Oranges.thumbnail.jpg

James Dean
04-01-2011, 21:46
Alamogordo, NM

Openly carrying a handgun requires no license in New Mexico.

http://naomidayneswood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sketch_comedy_EVITE_apples&Oranges.thumbnail.jpg
Was that really you on Halloween in the picture? if so that's a great makeup job

igor
04-01-2011, 21:54
i have read moist of these threads adn my first question is why would someone with a ccw license carry open anywway. the less folks know i have a weapon that is an advantage to me. as a police with 40 yrs on the street i would have a chat with someone open carrying too but i would do so out of officer safety. my own firewarm would be drawn but hidden behind my leg. reason is if this is a crazy or a bad guy i hz\ave lead time if i hAVE to defend myself. i would ask him to keep his hands in plain sight till we sort this whjolle thing out and away from the firearm again for officer safey and i would tell him that. although i am fropm pa well i haVENT POLICED THERE SINCE 1973 SO IM SURE THE Laws have changed some. i didnt know that open carry was allowed in pa,although apparently not in philly without a ccw license.
i do have a question do you have to be a pa resident to open carry there.
the key to the whole encounter is to be direct, polite and prepared for this person to be a nut. if he isnt great. we asll walk away from hte encounter in one peice and with new knowledge. i cant access the you tube soubnd videos so i dont knpow twhat the officer said although ill bet he was surprised by the oipen carry person thats not something you see from non police every day ini a big city

bigj480
04-01-2011, 22:28
Alamogordo, NM

Openly carrying a handgun requires no license in New Mexico.

http://naomidayneswood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sketch_comedy_EVITE_apples&Oranges.thumbnail.jpg

It does not matter if a license is required or not, though they are two different states with with differing laws. My point is, an officer shouldn't have the right to detain a person to see if they MAY be committing a crime unless there is reasonable suspicion. If it is legal to open carry firearm with a license, just as it is legal to drive a car with the proper license/insurance, then one should not get stopped merely because they MAY be doing so without the required license. Right? That is, unless there is evidence that they ARE committing a crime.

The OCer was apparently doing nothing that would give one any reason to reasonable suspect that he was breaking the law. If the average GTer would not suspect anything or pull a gun on this guy, why should a cop? Now, after he was stopped I'm not sure about the legality of his actions and I would not have behaved the same way. I would have complied and taken on the legality of the officer's actions at a latter date if I was bothered by it, which I would be.

AZson
04-01-2011, 22:42
I love the curtsy these cops show him not to mention the language they use.
Their no better then the criminals they arrest. I hope he has their badges and is very rich off this city.
I also love how they try and try to find dirt on him to cover their buts.
If you expect nice comments about this cities cops your mistaken.
I wont be visiting this city soon.:pig:

My signature says it all.
I better quit listening to it or I will hate phillie cops.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 23:00
So you'd be ok if the officer shot Viper?

Depends on what the officer can articulate as to why he shot him.

It has to do with the officer being out of line. It has to do with citizens standing up for their rights. It has to do with the fact that if a cop says jump, you can say go F yourself.

Sure you can say that but not necessarily without consequences. Most states have statutes that make refusing to obey a lawful order a criminal offense. So go ahead and do whatever you can bear the freight of.

what if Rosa decided to go to the back of the bus? A right is a right, an officer commanded her to move to the back of the bus but she refused to comply. Her choice to do so.

You guys always want to bring up Rosa Parks but none of you want to act like her. Rosa Parks was chosen to do what she did because she was the least likely person to "act out" when she was confronted by the police. She was the perfect "victim". And thus she gained a lot of sympathy. And rightfully so.

And this statement, by definition, is bigotry. Your opinion is no more important than anyone elses.

Not more important but certainly and informed opinion rather than one based on nothing more than feelings an opinion.

Lets test you apparent belief that all opinions are equal.

You have a serious legal problem whose opinion holds more value the lawyer who has training and actual experience with handling your problem or the guy that has no training or experience but has a opinion on it based on his feelings about it.

Whose opinion has more merit?

you stated that Viper was being belligerent. He was not.

That is your opinion others here have heard the same audio and think otherwise and plenty of them are not cops. since in your world all opinions are equal then I guess you both must be right.
:rofl:


He is calmly disobeying an unlawful order

Your opinion again, based on what besides your feelings? What exactly was "unlawful about the officer telling him to get on his knees?

Neither YOUR opinion or MINE establishes for a fact that is was or was not an unlawful order.

But wait I forgot, Your opinion is just as valid as a courts right?

how can you defend a cop that doesn't even know the law he's sworn to uphold?

I have not defended the cop, what I have done is is challenge some people claims about various aspects of the encounter and what the police can or cannot do under particular circumstances.

ViperGTS19801
04-02-2011, 05:50
i do have a question do you have to be a pa resident to open carry there.

I have repeatedly answered your question as to why I prefer to open carry. People keep asking, and saying "I don't get it - why do it if you have a license?" Read the thread and you'll know why. If you're simply trying to say that you disagree and prefer not to carry that way, that's another thing.

As far as carrying in PA goes - This has been an open carry state for a long, long time. Anyone from any state who is not a prohibited person may carry a firearm openly anywhere in the state while subject to the exemptions under Title 18. If you have a License to Carry Firearms as issues by a county within the state, or a valid and current reciprocal license from another state, you may also carry concealed, in a vehicle (with ANY license/permit for guns), within 1000 feet of a school, and either openly or concealed in Philadelphia.

johnnysquire
04-02-2011, 07:13
The carry of a gun (in a manner where it is immediately accessible) in Philly is illegal without a permit.

The driving of a car in Philly is also illegal without a license. That line of reasoning doesn't get you anywhere.

Except that according to directive 137, the police are explicitly instructed to check for a possible VUFA violation and seize any weapons:


That directive isn't law. It may be enough to make an officer's actions in accordance with it's instructions reasonable, but only the court can decide if its legal (and if people treated in accordance with the directive have had their rights violated).

My reasoning is that we need to wait for either the courts or the legislature to change things. I'm positive that it's on solid ground.
The legislature has already spoken. Section 6122 allows the police to ask anyone carrying (open in Philly, CC anywhere or even walking home from a gun shop with a purchase) to provide evidence that they're behaving lawfully. That's not the question in Viper's case though - the issue there is whether the officer went too far and violated his rights.

Given that they'd collect their complete fees from the government if he were awarded even $1 for a violation of his civil rights and given that the local lawyers would have way more information than we do, I'd say his inability to find a champion speaks volumes about the merits of his case in PA.
It's not at all correct that attorney's fees are always awarded, nor that every award is for "complete fees". The difficulty in finding a lawyer has more to do with the lack of easy to identify damages that a contingent fee arrangement could be based on, I suspect.

Kith
04-02-2011, 07:21
I have repeatedly answered your question as to why I prefer to open carry. People keep asking, and saying "I don't get it - why do it if you have a license?" Read the thread and you'll know why. If you're simply trying to say that you disagree and prefer not to carry that way, that's another thing.



Yes, you have.

This isn't an OC/CC debate, which some don't get right away. The amount of worthwhile information that can be added to this thread by making a comparison between OC and CC is slim to none at this point.

I wouldn't let myself get drug into justifying myself on that front anymore, as you've already answered it several times.

There are plenty of other threads around here that deal with the debate of OC vs. CC, this one is not supposed to be another of those.

Kith
04-02-2011, 07:47
Your opinion again, based on what besides your feelings? What exactly was "unlawful about the officer telling him to get on his knees?


Unlawful? That's debatable. Humiliating and demeaning? quite a bit.

A citizen who has done nothing wrong, is detained, disarmed and humiliated on a public street in a city with over 1 million residents.

Believe me, there are a lot of poeple walking around all the time here, so there were witnesses to this event. It was more then just a matter of his personal pride, others saw it too.

The premise of the stop in this particular instance was unlawful, because the officer was under the mistaken impression that open carry was illegal in Philadelphia.

As to my 'debatable' comment, the answer to this question determines that:

Given that the premise of the stop itself was unlawful, how much legitimacy do the subsequent orders hold, when given based on the stop being their origin?

He would not have been ordered to his knees, had the officer not stopped him becuase he (mistakenly) thought he was breaking a law where none was being broken.

This is a legitimate question though, I would like an answer.


No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

Further:

It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145

The premise of the stop, in this particular circumstance, was unlawful.

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 07:56
Unlawful? That's debatable. Humiliating and demeaning? quite a bit.

A citizen who has done nothing wrong, is detained, disarmed and humiliated on a public street in a city with over 1 million residents.
....snip....
The premise of the stop, in this particular circumstance, was unlawful.

Most excellent post.:goodpost:

shaffer
04-02-2011, 08:00
The legislature has already spoken. Section 6122 allows the police to ask anyone carrying (open in Philly, CC anywhere or even walking home from a gun shop with a purchase) to provide evidence that they're behaving lawfully.

6122:
When carrying a firearm concealed on or
about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to
carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement
officer, produce the license for inspection.

This does not apply in Viper's case. There was no "lawful demand of a law enforcement officer" to produce the license because this was not the issue at hand. The reason for the detainment was an imaginary law in the officer's mind prohibiting all form of open carry. The officer was set straight during the detainment and Viper was freed without charge in under an hour.

Even if the sole reason for detainment was to produce the license, it still would have not been a "lawful demand" per Delaware v Prouse and other RAS decisions.

The detainment was unlawful.

RussP
04-02-2011, 08:12
...That directive isn't law. It may be enough to make an officer's actions in accordance with it's instructions reasonable, but only the court can decide if its legal (and if people treated in accordance with the directive have had their rights violated).So, under current Pennsylvania law and the exception granted cities of the first class, and existing case law, there is nothing illegal, under current laws, in the directive. Is that correct?The legislature has already spoken. Section 6122 allows the police to ask anyone carrying (open in Philly, CC anywhere or even walking home from a gun shop with a purchase) to provide evidence that they're behaving lawfully. That's not the question in Viper's case though - the issue there is whether the officer went too far and violated his rights.Help us out with your legal experience and knowledge. You are prosecuting Viper's case, where would you base the complaint?

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 08:24
Except that according to directive 137, the police are explicitly instructed to check for a possible VUFA violation and seize any weapons:

In order to seize any firearms, a search must be conducted to see if any firearms are concealed, thus search and seizure is mandated procedure. So the discover of pot would just get the OC'er in trouble.

But hey, don't listen to me...give it a whirl!
:rofl:

Except that the same mandate stipulates that it should be no more than a mere encounter, not a high risk stop.

DrBob
04-02-2011, 08:29
LTCF

License To Carry A Firearm

A LTCF is required when:

You carry a weapon concealed

You carry a weapon in your vehicle (Other than the stated transporting, sporting etc…)

You openly carry your weapon in a city of the first class

Philadelphia is a city of the first class.

Mark was openly carrying a firearm in said city.

Mark knows that openly carrying a firearm in said city causes problems with law enforcement. As has been stated and linked to his own words and experiences several times.

By the directive of the PPD:

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

...

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.


The responding police officer did what the directive states.

Was he professional about it? Hell no!

Was Mark professional about it? Hell no!

Did the officer follow the directive? Yes

Did the officer in fact confront someone who was openly carrying a firearm in Philadelphia? Yes

By the officer's own recorded statements he is under the impression that OC is illegal. Now, did he make those states during a time of duress, with adrenalin pumping, not giving a crap about it because a person is being defiant and not complying? Who really knows

Who's fault is it if an officer is uninformed of the law? PPD and the officer

By Mark's own recorded statements he was defiant with the police officer. Which in fact escalated the situation even more.

Should you argue with a police officer who is giving you commands while at gun point? Hell no!

Do you swallow that pride and live to fight another day? Yes

Who is to blame for all of this?

I'll leave that for you to answer.

It seems that what a lot of people are missing is:

The fact that Mark KNOWS what attention he will get if he acts the way he does. By his own admissions on another forum (That has been linked more than enough) he has had negative encounters time and time again.

The most important thing of all:

A person could have lost their life because they wanted to prove they were smarter and knew the laws better than the police.

Now, that last part is my opinion based on all the reading and following I have done with this particular situation.

Take it for what it is.


As a former psychologist and a physician (with a fellowship in Psychiatry), it seems to me that we are stuck with two separate elements of this situation that are almost at right angles to each other: The Law and the motivation of the participants.

The law is pretty clear. OC is legal in philthydelphia under certain circumstances/places.

The motivation is in question. Why was Mark doing something that a reasonable and prudent person might find to be 'confrontational?' Why did the Sgt. choose to confront him in the way he did?

Legalese discussions are not a good framework for understanding motivation. That is why we have courts and juries. Questions about Why certain actions were taken by the parties to the encounter probably go beyond simple citations from documents like constitutions or training manuals. That's why some laws include terms like 'knowingly" or "with malice afore thought..."

IMHO the most Mark is going to be able to accomplish in this case is likely to be some more 'training' for officers. What he risked is his life and limb - THAT is chilling!

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 08:31
It's not at all correct that attorney's fees are always awarded, nor that every award is for "complete fees". The difficulty in finding a lawyer has more to do with the lack of easy to identify damages that a contingent fee arrangement could be based on, I suspect.
How to tell an attorney that he's wrong about the law without sounding snarky? Here goes...

If, as some claim, Viper was illegally detained, then his 4th Amendment rights were violated. There is no question that this was done under color of law. This puts his claim squarely in Federal 1983-land. That law and the related sections mandates that the government pay his complete attorney's fees if there is any award of damages, however slight. They make out like bandits, then take $0.33 from what the plantiff got.

Now if you can offer a reason why 1983 doesn't apply, I'm interested, but that would also make part of my point for me.

No snark intended, you've been gracious in the thread, but I really think you're wrong about the redress available IF he were actually wronged. You might not deal with this, but cops and civil rights attorneys do; that's why his inability to find someone to represent him casts a lot of doubt on his claim.

ETA: If someone's going to say that the officer went too far in his threat of force, that's still a 4A violation, and all I've said applies.

guyandarifle
04-02-2011, 08:31
For those of us trying to keep up:

Isn't the Viper case more a matter of ignorance than law? Working on the assumption (there seems to be pretty good support for the contention) that the officer simply did not know that OC was legal under any circumstances in Philly goes a long way in explaining how the stop was intiated. If we look at it in this context wrangling about the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me as everything from that point is "tainted", isn't it?

Now having said all that it's heap-bad-mojo to have officers pointing weapons at people because of ignorance of the laws they themselves are supposed to be enforcing. Things can be complicated enough under normal circumstances...having LEO out there stumbling around knowing less about the law than the people they've got a weapon leveled at shouldn't be acceptable to anyone on either side. I'm not sure where the buck stops on how street officers are kept current on the laws they're supposed to be enforcing but I see THAT as the failure from whence all else derives here.

I think it's a separate (though certainly interesting) issue in how LEO that DO know the law interact with legally OC'ing citizens.

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 08:32
After reading all 15 pages, there seems to be two main conflicts here.

1. Did the officer have the right to stop the citizen in the first place (which seems to be the dead horse legal debate that's been going on for a while). By my reading of the laws posted on this site and without further research of case law or a full examination of every applicable statute, it appears that post 17149850 by chivalry indicates the stop is legal.

Yes, the stop was legal.

2. When an officer chooses to stop someone for open carry, what is the procedure for determining if the activity is legal or not. This is the part I'm talking about.

The procedure is to investigate and it should be no more than a mere encounter. The officer had no reason to threaten the man's life by pointing a gun at him in order to initiate the stop/investigation.

The point I tried to make is that some people in this thread seem to feel that the officer has the authority to threaten to take the life of a civilian just because he calmly verbally protests the actions of the officer while physically complying and it's not like we don't have enough reasons to distrust officers.

Here, if the officer doesn't have the authority, in my eyes, he certainly has the right. First, he wasn't calmly verbally protesting, he got in a pissing match with the officer. Second, he was disobeying a direct order. Whether you distrust him or not, by disobeying him, NOW he has a reason to escalate force in order to control the situation.

DrBob
04-02-2011, 08:37
He would not have been ordered to his knees, had the officer not stopped him becuase he (mistakenly) thought he was breaking a law where none was being broken.
.

Do people not understand that this is a tactical maneuver to put the 'suspect' in a position that limits his movement and enhances the officer's safety? I've seen this procedure in mililtary settings so it is certainly not exclusive to police. Even the NRA videos recommend something of this sort...

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 08:40
Do people not understand that this is a tactical maneuver to put the 'suspect' in a position that limits his movement and enhances the officer's safety? I've seen this procedure in mililtary settings so it is certainly not exclusive to police. Even the NRA videos recommend something of this sort...

When the officer is mandated to investigate, but it should be no more than a mere encounter, being put on their knees is more than a mere encounter.

TBO
04-02-2011, 08:43
Do people not understand that this is a tactical maneuver to put the 'suspect' in a position that limits his movement and enhances the officer's safety? I've seen this procedure in mililtary settings so it is certainly not exclusive to police. Even the NRA videos recommend something of this sort...
You are correct. Even CCW civilians use it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTC1Jk9h8Q

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1331881

schaibaa
04-02-2011, 08:46
Yes, the stop was legal.



The procedure is to investigate and it should be no more than a mere encounter. The officer had no reason to threaten the man's life by pointing a gun at him in order to initiate the stop/investigation.



Here, if the officer doesn't have the authority, in my eyes, he certainly has the right. First, he wasn't calmly verbally protesting, he got in a pissing match with the officer. Second, he was disobeying a direct order. Whether you distrust him or not, by disobeying him, NOW he has a reason to escalate force in order to control the situation.


So I agree'd with you until the last part. You say the investigation should be a mere encounter (I agree) - yet the officer holds him at gunpoint immediately - so the officer initially escalated the situation. Viper chose to further escalate the situation, too. Take a look at some of the hundreds of video's on Youtube of people being stopped for open carry. I've only found one in Newark, OH that is anywhere near as offensive as Vipers, and in that case the person who is being stopped is definitely belligerent.

The fact of the matter is that the officer presumed Viper was committing a crime, thus treated the stop as if he was approaching an armed criminal. Viper, sure in his position that he was not committing a crime, initially refused to be treated like a criminal. I think it's fair that none of us expect to be treated like a criminal unless we've broken a law.

Kith
04-02-2011, 08:47
Legalese discussions are not a good framework for understanding motivation.

IMHO the most Mark is going to be able to accomplish in this case is likely to be some more 'training' for officers.


Astute perceptions.

We happen to be discussing both here, this is neither a courtroom nor a psychologist's office, yet it is both (in a non-legally binding way).

I should hope that at the very least, more training is forthcoming.

It would be very helpful if the officers knew the law a little better concerning firearms and their regulation within the City of Philadelphia.

Not only would future encounters like the one we are discussing be safer and more professional for all involved, but also as Dragoon44 pointed out:

Originally Posted by Dragoon44
Because it is, but I have less of a problem with the idiocy of it than I do with the fact that it is obviously politically motivated handed down by the left wing political masters (Philly Govt.) of the PD.

As I stated before, Philly has a history of trying to curtail and restrict the legitimate rights of firearms owners within it's reach, in direct opposition of the laws laid out to protect those very rights.

If Philly didn't have such a history of trying to make up it's own rules (quite illegally), we probably wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

Kith
04-02-2011, 08:50
Do people not understand that this is a tactical maneuver to put the 'suspect' in a position that limits his movement and enhances the officer's safety? I've seen this procedure in mililtary settings so it is certainly not exclusive to police. Even the NRA videos recommend something of this sort...

No, I understand. I am not debating the legitimacy of the action by the officer "as he understood the situation at the time".

I am debating the legitmacy of that action from an 'after-action' report, where we have the luxuray of more details then were present during the encounter, a mindset not clouded by adrenaline and fear, where we can pick it apart and figure out what's right.

More importantly, how to address such situations in the future on both sides.


Edit:

Wrong quote, sorry

RussP
04-02-2011, 08:57
Your opinion again, based on what besides your feelings? What exactly was "unlawful about the officer telling him to get on his knees?Unlawful? That's debatable. Humiliating and demeaning? quite a bit.

A citizen who has done nothing wrong, is detained, disarmed and humiliated on a public street in a city with over 1 million residents.

Believe me, there are a lot of poeple walking around all the time here, so there were witnesses to this event. It was more then just a matter of his personal pride, others saw it too.

The premise of the stop in this particular instance was unlawful, because the officer was under the mistaken impression that open carry was illegal in Philadelphia.

As to my 'debatable' comment, the answer to this question determines that:

Given that the premise of the stop itself was unlawful, how much legitimacy do the subsequent orders hold, when given based on the stop being their origin?

He would not have been ordered to his knees, had the officer not stopped him becuase he (mistakenly) thought he was breaking a law where none was being broken.

This is a legitimate question though, I would like an answer.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

Further:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145

The premise of the stop, in this particular circumstance, was unlawful.Why is it so damn hard to give a simple answer to a simple question.

The question was, "What exactly was "unlawful about the officer telling him to get on his knees?"

Where is the response to that direct question?Unlawful? That's debatable....

As to my 'debatable' comment, the answer to this question determines that:

Given that the premise of the stop itself was unlawful, how much legitimacy do the subsequent orders hold, when given based on the stop being their origin?

He would not have been ordered to his knees, had the officer not stopped him becuase he (mistakenly) thought he was breaking a law where none was being broken.

This is a legitimate question though, I would like an answer....

The premise of the stop, in this particular circumstance, was unlawful.[/QUOTE]You present an argument that if the premise of the stop is unlawful, everything that occurred was unlawful. I will not argue with that. Dragoon44 will not argue with that. Sam Spade will not argue with that. Others will not argue with that as I stated it. Notwithstanding these opinions, your argument still needs affirmation in the Courts.

Until such time when the Courts rule that the premise for the stop was unlawful, the question from Dragoon44 about a singular element of the encounter stands, "What exactly was "unlawful about the officer telling him to get on his knees?" Nothing else, just that one order.

You do not need to keep reciting what was the remainder of your post. It has been stated once, twice, many times. Endless repetition does not help your arguments. If anything, it distracts from the point you are trying to make.

Kith
04-02-2011, 09:05
You present an argument that if the premise of the stop is unlawful, everything that occurred was unlawful. I will not argue with that. Dragoon44 will not argue with that. Sam Spade will not argue with that. Others will not argue with that as I stated it. Notwithstanding these opinions, your argument still needs affirmation in the Courts.

You do not need to keep reciting what was the remainder of your post. It has been stated once, twice, many times. Endless repetition does not help your arguments. If anything, it distracts from the point you are trying to make.

Forgive me, I was not trying to dilute the question or my answer.

If, in fact, the premise of the stop was unlawful, and there is no argument to the sebsequent orders being unlawful, then the order for him to get to his knees was ,in fact, unlawful.

I would consider that question answered then. The order was unlawful.

As you pointed out, quite truthfully, everything in this thread IS conjecture and opinion. We are trying to put forth the facts and argue the situation to come to some consensus of agreement.

RussP
04-02-2011, 09:05
I think it's a separate (though certainly interesting) issue in how LEO that DO know the law interact with legally OC'ing citizens.Those interactions are like "good news" in the main stream media - mentioned once and forgotten by most.

Kith
04-02-2011, 09:07
Forgice me if i'm playing catchup throughout this thread, but I was trying to figure out if the stop itself was legal, and working up from there.

Kind of like a 'begin at the beginning' approach, that wasn't hammered out until last page of this thread.

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 09:15
So I agree'd with you until the last part. You say the investigation should be a mere encounter (I agree) - yet the officer holds him at gunpoint immediately - so the officer initially escalated the situation. Viper chose to further escalate the situation, too. Take a look at some of the hundreds of video's on Youtube of people being stopped for open carry. I've only found one in Newark, OH that is anywhere near as offensive as Vipers, and in that case the person who is being stopped is definitely belligerent.

The fact of the matter is that the officer presumed Viper was committing a crime, thus treated the stop as if he was approaching an armed criminal. Viper, sure in his position that he was not committing a crime, initially refused to be treated like a criminal. I think it's fair that none of us expect to be treated like a criminal unless we've broken a law.

I definitely agree with refusing to be treated as a criminal when he didn't commit a crime, but by refusing to comply, he can, in fact, become a criminal. Kinda defeats the purpose.

No, I understand. I am not debating the legitimacy of the action by the officer "as he understood the situation at the time".

I am debating the legitmacy of that action from an 'after-action' report, where we have the luxuray of more details then were present during the encounter, a mindset not clouded by adrenaline and fear, where we can pick it apart and figure out what's right.

More importantly, how to address such situations in the future on both sides.


Edit:

Wrong quote, sorry

These parts of the memo stand out to me, if I were to interpret them in my own words, as though they said, "Open carry is NOT illegal, and you may or may NOT check an open carrier for licensure. The simple act of open carrying is NOT an offense of disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc." In other words, it is not absolutely, positively, you'll be fired and lose your pension, necessary to stop them.

Officers should be aware that citizens may become alarmed or concerned when they witness persons engaged in open carry. This may be due in part to individual sensibilities regarding firearms and the fact that persons engaged in open carry are infrequently encountered in Pennsylvania. However, a citizen’s alarm or concern does not alone negatively impact the rights of a person engaging in the lawful open carrying of a firearm. Officers receiving citizen reports of a “man with a gun” would be prudent to respond to determine the nature of the report. However, the rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be carefully considered when interacting with such person. Persons engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may they be required to produce identification or other documents. A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption. Of course, a person engaged in the open carrying of a firearm may engage in violations of other laws or handle the firearm in an inappropriate manner which could constitute offenses such as: disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc. However, merely engaging in the open carrying of a firearm would not necessarily constitute such an offense.

RussP
04-02-2011, 09:18
Forgive me, I was not trying to dilute the question or my answer.

If, in fact, the premise of the stop was unlawful, and there is no argument to the sebsequent orders being unlawful, then the order for him to get to his knees was ,in fact, unlawful.

I would consider that question answered then. The order was unlawful.

As you pointed out, quite truthfully, everything in this thread IS conjecture and opinion. We are trying to put forth the facts and argue the situation to come to some consensus of agreement.You forgot the parts of my post about until the Courts rule.

The question is not answered with authority. And, yes, while the Court may agree at a later date, it is only conjecture and opinion that the premise was unlawful.

Tarowah
04-02-2011, 09:20
The best way to change a man's direction, is to walk beside them for a while first.

That is going in my sig for a while.

I have nothing to add to the thread but I am having a great time reading so many points of view and I am learning a great deal, I will say that keeping my mouth shut and taking the time to read and understand where both side are comming from has kept me from inserting my foot into my mouth (more than once).

Awesome thread.

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 09:21
When the officer is mandated to investigate, but it should be no more than a mere encounter, being put on their knees is more than a mere encounter.

Why do you think it should be a "mere encounter"?

In a mere encounter, Viper's participation is purely voluntary. If he chose not to participate, what should the cop do? Bear in mind that Viper's choice to ignore/not participate in the encounter does not allow the cops to move to an investigative stop. So how does he fulfill his mandate to investigate?

guyandarifle
04-02-2011, 09:30
Those interactions are like "good news" in the main stream media - mentioned once and forgotten by most.

As far as your statement goes on it's face I agree.

What I meant was if this exact scenario had begun with the LEO knowing OC was legal in Philly (with permit) what would be expected to happen? It's been a little frustrating keeping up with that as the two contexts, this particular incident with an ignorant officer and what is legal for an officer "in the know" happening upon an OC'er, seem to keep getting tangled.

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 09:42
Unlawful? That's debatable. Humiliating and demeaning? quite a bit.

A citizen who has done nothing wrong, is detained, disarmed and humiliated on a public street in a city with over 1 million residents.

Believe me, there are a lot of poeple walking around all the time here, so there were witnesses to this event. It was more then just a matter of his personal pride, others saw it too.

My response from the stand point of the law is So what??

Unless he is pressing a suit for alienation of affections his butt hurt feelings are not compensable. there is no constitutional right not to have your feelings hurt, or not to be embarrassed as a result of your own choices or actions.

The premise of the stop in this particular instance was unlawful, because the officer was under the mistaken impression that open carry was illegal in Philadelphia.

As to my 'debatable' comment, the answer to this question determines that:

Given that the premise of the stop itself was unlawful, how much legitimacy do the subsequent orders hold, when given based on the stop being their origin?

He would not have been ordered to his knees, had the officer not stopped him becuase he (mistakenly) thought he was breaking a law where none was being broken.

This is a legitimate question though, I would like an answer.

Here and the rest of your post is what I would call "Jail house lawyer" reasoning. Inmates do it all the time they read something in a law book and assume they understand what it means, file a suit and are quite befuddled when the suit is dismissed out of hand by the court.

You are attempting to make hay out of the officers comments on the stop. The problem is more complex than that. I could tell you that I stopped you because the moon is blue and its the 6th Monday of the month. That does not make the stop unlawful.

The only thing that would make the stop unlawful is if a court determines that the philly cannot stop an oc'er and check for an LTCF.

RussP
04-02-2011, 09:42
As far as your statement goes on it's face I agree.

What I meant was if this exact scenario had begun with the LEO knowing OC was legal in Philly (with permit) what would be expected to happen? It's been a little frustrating keeping up with that as the two contexts, this particular incident with an ignorant officer and what is legal for an officer "in the know" happening upon an OC'er, seem to keep getting tangled.That is a question I would ask of SGT Dougherty, "Would you have handled the stop differently knowing that OC with an LTCF is legal in Philadelphia?"

As to what would be expected, Stop, Disarm, Request, Verify, and if no conditions exist precluding it, Release.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 09:52
You forgot the parts of my post about until the Courts rule.

The question is not answered with authority. And, yes, while the Court may agree at a later date, it is only conjecture and opinion that the premise was unlawful.

So "until the Courts rule" that Viper's detainment (or a similar detainment dealing with a case regarding legal open carry when licensed) then an officer may detain a citizen without RAS or imagine a crime/RAS in his head and detain based on that?

The problem that I have with that position is it puts the burden of proof on the citizen rather than on the officer. This is not how the law and case law works. Existing case law can be applied to this detainment and a reasonable conclusion can be made, until the courts say otherwise, that the stop was unlawful. I have yet to see anyone point to a law or case law that grants the officer authority to detain in Viper's case.

Anyone can do anything until they are proven guilty in court. This is kind of an obvious fact and I hope this discussion goes beyond that and delves into how the courts would rule if this case was taken to court or... how would you rule? Let's not abort the conversation with "until the courts rule".

RussP
04-02-2011, 10:15
So "until the Courts rule" that Viper's detainment (or a similar detainment dealing with a case regarding legal open carry when licensed) then an officer may detain a citizen without RAS or imagine a crime/RAS in his head and detain based on that?Here again, I spoke about this incident, and this incident only, and someone makes a global assumption.

I do believe there are laws and case law that deal with those issues. All you need to do is take the case(s) to Court and prosecute.The problem that I have with that position is it puts the burden of proof on the citizen rather than on the officer. This is not how the law and case law works. Existing case law can be applied to this detainment and a reasonable conclusion can be made, until the courts say otherwise, that the stop was unlawful. I have yet to see anyone point to a law or case law that grants the officer authority to detain in Viper's case.It's been posted several times.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 10:17
Here again, I spoke about this incident, and this incident only, and someone makes a global assumption.

I do believe there are laws and case law that deal with those issues. All you need to do is take the case(s) to Court and prosecute.

No one is disputing that's all you need to do. How do you think the court would rule and why? How would you rule and why?

It's been posted several times.

I've stated my argument against both the directive and 6122. Neither of those apply to Viper's case. Are there any others?

dosei
04-02-2011, 10:24
Except that the same mandate stipulates that it should be no more than a mere encounter, not a high risk stop.

Directive 137 mandates that the stop be more than a "mere encounter".
GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

As you can see, search and seizure is mandatory, thus it is not and cannot be a "mere encounter".

ViperGTS19801
04-02-2011, 10:30
Directive 137 mandates that the stop be more than a "mere encounter".


As you can see, search and seizure is mandatory, thus it is not and cannot be a "mere encounter".

But Directive 137 is not law. It's a policy, which instructs officers to illegally detain a person without having reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place or having taken place. The directive has no basis in case law or state law.

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 10:35
Why do you think it should be a "mere encounter"?

Because he was not, as far as we know (what the officer admitted on the audio), being violent or suspect of another crime.

In a mere encounter, Viper's participation is purely voluntary. If he chose not to participate, what should the cop do? Bear in mind that Viper's choice to ignore/not participate in the encounter does not allow the cops to move to an investigative stop. So how does he fulfill his mandate to investigate?

A mere encounter, to me, is that you speak with the person in normal terms, so the investigation can be performed without putting the person's life at risk via threat of lethal force.

RussP
04-02-2011, 10:37
No one is disputing that's all you need to do. How do you think the court would rule and why? How would you rule and why?Any response I give would be more conjecture. There may be more facts not yet heard. Call it a fault if you will, but I like to make decisions based on all the facts. I've stated my argument against both the directive and 6122. Neither of those apply to Viper's case. Are there any others?Already been posted.

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 10:37
Directive 137 mandates that the stop be more than a "mere encounter".


As you can see, search and seizure is mandatory, thus it is not and cannot be a "mere encounter".

nor a consensual one.

RussP
04-02-2011, 10:39
But Directive 137 is not law. It's a policy, which instructs officers to illegally detain a person without having reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place or having taken place. The directive has no basis in case law or state law.Has an attorney given you that opinion?

RussP
04-02-2011, 10:41
Because he was not, as far as we know (what the officer admitted on the audio), being violent or suspect of another crime....Do you firmly believe that an officer should wait until violence is put upon him/her before taking action?

Beware Owner
04-02-2011, 10:45
Do you firmly believe that an officer should wait until violence is put upon him/her before taking action?

Not at all.

ViperGTS19801
04-02-2011, 10:45
Has an attorney given you that opinion?

No. That is my opinion based on the plain English in State law, the MPOETC update, and my common sense. However, the next time I speak to a lawyer about this, I will ask for his opinion.

Gallium
04-02-2011, 10:46
Directive 137 mandates that the stop be more than a "mere encounter".


As you can see, search and seizure is mandatory, thus it is not and cannot be a "mere encounter".


Since there is no directive for search and seizure for interacting with those who concealed carry, I would propose that the threat level is hardly different.

Also technically speaking, pistol permit holders are not the only class of folks (outside of law enforcement) who can openly carry in Philly. Armored car guards can open carry, and it's not always a case where markings or uniforms are clearly visible.

What are the procedures for interacting with armored car guards? Do we search and seize their guns too? After all, an armored guard licensed in NY, NJ, FL or any other state in the nation can be actively working in any other state. Does the mere presence of a uniform or multiple people wearing the uniform mitigate or diminish the real or perceived threat to the officer?


I understand Philly, as I spend more time than I'd like working there. I think open carry is un-necessary in such an urban space, but that's just my opinion, fit for me, and for those who would solicit my opinion.

The truth is, there are other urban areas of US where police encounter folks open carrying, where there are no searches and seizures. FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT (vs legislative) perspective, what is different with Philly? More crack? Lower ratio of police:citizenry? More migrants? Less education (gun or otherwise)?

I understand the preponderance of caution being taken by the dept. However given the amount of leeway OCers have in that state, and with permit in that city, where is the balance?

Also, is there a bright delineating line as to where the city limits of Philly are? Do PPD enforce laws immediately outside of those municipal borders?

'Drew

shaffer
04-02-2011, 10:47
Any response I give would be more conjecture. There may be more facts not yet heard. Call it a fault if you will, but I like to make decisions based on all the facts.

I think we have plenty of facts from the audio to make a reasonable conclusion with the standard disclaimer that should any new facts emerge all opinions are subject to change. But of course if you don't want to weigh in on how you think the courts would rule or how you would rule until more evidence is supplied then... ok... but to me this is the most valuable conversation in this whole thread.


I've stated my argument against both the directive and 6122. Neither of those apply to Viper's case. Are there any others?

Already been posted.

Might I trouble you for a link?

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 10:58
A mere encounter, to me, is that you speak with the person in normal terms, so the investigation can be performed without putting the person's life at risk via threat of lethal force.

Okay, I see. You're going to run into problems talking to cops like that. To us, a mere encounter is one where the government has no authority whatsoever to compell any behavior or response whatsoever. See the "LE Contacts" thread stickied above for some of the rulings and references. This is at odds with a mandate to investigate (your words). The result of this position is that there can be no investigation of something the legislature has made illegal, unless it was maybe incidental to another investigation.

In your use of the term, would the cop have the authority to require the OCer to identify or produce a permit? Or how do you think the would proceed--what citizen rights and governmental powers would be in play?

dosei
04-02-2011, 10:59
But Directive 137 is not law. It's a policy, which instructs officers to illegally detain a person without having reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place or having taken place. The directive has no basis in case law or state law.

So take it up using the avenues designed for changing such things, instead of trying to become a dead martyr. Yes, the LEO that stopped you didn't exactly start things off on the right foot...but you did absolutely nothing to improve the situation and in fact your actions only added to the "dance of many fools" that you recorded. Here is something for you to think about, What can you do to make the LEO's feel more calm, comfortable, safe, and in control during an encounter? The more encounters LEOs have with OC'ers that the officers come away from thinking "that was actually a pleasant encounter", the better it will be over time for the OC'ers. The more OC'ers do to accommodate the LEOs, the more comfortable the LEOs become with OC'ers. And you want LEO's to be comfortable and un-alarmed by the sight of an OC'er...right?

And if you are being completely compliant and cooperative unto the extreme, and the LEO is doing nearly everything wrong, what sort of position and light do you think that will put you in the eyes of the court or IA? If you want to have the high ground, there may be times you will need to accept getting on the ground.

ViperGTS19801
04-02-2011, 11:07
What can you do to make the LEO's feel more calm, comfortable, safe, and in control during an encounter?

Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 11:08
No. That is my opinion based on the plain English in State law, the MPOETC update, and my common sense. However, the next time I speak to a lawyer about this, I will ask for his opinion.

Plain English such as the plain English difference between "Public" and "Individual" which you plain did not understand?

Let me point out something to you directives like that are not issued after a brainstorming session in the chiefs office they are only going to be issued after consultation with the State Attorney's office and or the city's legal counsel. That doe snot mean they are right or that a court will agree with them. But it does mean that some attorny's think there is sufficient legal basis for it.

TBO
04-02-2011, 11:11
Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.
Are you mad/upset at the Officer involved?

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 11:23
Are you mad/upset at the Officer involved?

Given his choice of analogies I think maybe he harbors lust in his heart.


:rofl::rofl:

Kith
04-02-2011, 11:26
I understand the preponderance of caution being taken by the dept. However given the amount of leeway OCers have in that state, and with permit in that city, where is the balance?



This is one of the things we are trying to determine in this thread, where is the balance?

PA is a very gun-friendly state. People who choose to exercise their firearms rights here enjoy quite a few protections of law in doing so.

One thing that concerns me, given that Philly has had several laws struck down by the superior court as unconstitutional, is that should Philly be allowed to start curtailing the rights of it's populace that it will start spreading to other areas of the state and it's legislature.

"oh, look, you let philly get away with that, why can't we?"

The rest of this posting may not exactly help advance this thread, but is something I need to say so my contributions are hopefully not misunderstood.

Let me make my position in this thread crystal clear:

I want to understand the entirety of the situation to take what I learn here and do something about it.

I have maybe more of a vested interest in this discussion then others posting here, being a resident of Philadelphia. DO NOT take this to mean that I feel my opinion is any more valid then anyone else's.

It's the responsibility of a citizen to know and understand the laws under which they are bound, and to question their government when it violates those same laws. (however that comes about)

What I am trying to take from this is the understanding of what is vs. what should be, and what I can do to help set things right.

I don't think the cop in question is a criminal.

I DO think it could have been handled better, on both sides.

What happened, should not have. The officer was not properly trained to handle the situation that he was put into. I also don't think that is his fault, which could be wrong, but is my opinion. In this case I would cast the blame towards his superiors and not at him.

There are many things that have been said in this thread that I would like to comment on, but haven't because:
-I don't have an opinion yet, or
-I don't have a good enough understanding to make a sensible comment, or
-I haven't been able to find a credible source to cite to back up my statement.

There are many things that still need to be said, or further understood in this discussion. I know i've got a lot yet to say, but refrain for the reasons just mentioned.

And yes, i've championed some ideas that I don't agree with to get others to argue against me to prove my point. We're talking here, don't take it personally.

I am trying to remain as objective as possible in this discussion, and not take any side other then 'somethings broken and we need to fix it'.

I am also trying to not be intentionally inflammatory while posting in this thread, I really am trying to learn and get a better understanding of what's exactly going on here.

I've been corrected a few times in this thread, and that's what i'm looking for. If my thoughts are wrong, set me straight and show me why. Others can be wrong just as i've been, it would be helpful to recognize that no one is going to be right on all points they put out.

Most people posting here should maybe take one emotional step back before they continue, as some tempers have been flaring in this thread. It's a hot issue, no doubt, but we should be posting with as calm of a mentality as possible. I certainly want to see this thread through, and would hate for it to end up dying as did chapter I.

I'm just out of minor surgery a day ago, and the meds i'm on are making it difficult for me to wrap my head around some of what's being said here - I don't wan't to make things worse by digging into something that's been figured out. But I am trying to understand what's being said. I'm not looking for a pass, just a little patience.

Some people may not want to hear this, but, (excepting some things that were said) I support the actions taken by the officer. He was doing what he thought was right and his duty, given the facts he knew at the time.

Was he wrong? mostly yes, some no, is my opinion -but- that doesn't change the fact that he was enforcing the laws as he understood them at the time.

Please don't think that my posting here is looking to crucify a cop.

Already it's been proven that more training is needed for PhillyPD to do it's job well, let's see what else we can come up with.

So help me figure out exactly where and what is wrong, so I can start writing letters and taking action to help fix this situation.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope it gives some perspective on why I am asking the questions I am.

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 11:45
Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.


Well, if that's the hill you want to die on, no one can stop you.

I chose that metaphor deliberately, BTW, because you are literally in the world of life and death decisions here. Non-compliance raises the tension. Talk such as on your tape, which is distraction, raises it further. It's obvious that you've got the means to be a deadly threat. It's obvious that you've got the opportunity. You're working real hard, even if you're unintentional about it, to establish intent. Is your control so great that your hand won't drift toward your waist? Once you've done something that firms up your intent---based on the officer's training, experience and perception, not yours---the only thing that can save you is bad marksmanship. Maybe Divine intervention.

I want to be clear: I'm not calling for you to be shot, and it would be a tragedy if it happened here. I'm simply laying out the forseeable possibilities of your choices.

Still a free country and you make the decisions that drive police response. If this particular principle is the one worth engraving on your tombstone is wholly up to you.

OldCurlyWolf
04-02-2011, 11:53
My first response would have been to have the thought " Holster that weapon, Idiot" cross my mind. Whether or not I would have uttered the same is not as yet known. And I really do not want to find out.

dorkweed
04-02-2011, 12:23
This thread has been great IMHO!!!:cool:

If I may slightly change the issue on the last 10 or so pages though................near the end of audio #4 when Viper (I believe) is getting his gun, magazine, ammo and belongings back, It sure sounds like one of the LEO's says, "don't do that here, do it in a safe place". Was Viper re-inserting the magazine in his gun, or was he putting loose cartridges back into the magazine??? Viper, can you enlighten me/us please.

Obviously by this time, it was determined that he was "legal" in what he was doing before the LEO's detained him.

My question is this........What is a "safe place" here????? Why would the LEO's not allow him to restore his gun to the same condition prior to this event??? He was legal as was determined after 45 minutes or so. I understand that emotions were running high, but with multiple LEO's around, most would consider that a safe place.

What would the LEO's there or here on GT prefer have him do...........walk 50 yards away, reload his magazine, take his weapon out of his holster on the sidewalk and put his gun back into battery??? Would not or could not that be considered "brandishing"???

Viper, what did you do after this event???? Mainly concerning the status of your gun/ammo etc. Did you continue to the auto parts store????? Did you head back to your Moms place............Later!!:wavey:

Kith
04-02-2011, 12:35
Would not or could not that be considered "brandishing"???



To my knowledge Pennsylvania has no laws on brandishing.

TBO
04-02-2011, 12:48
Use of Force 101 thread:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=933667

Kith
04-02-2011, 13:04
Use of Force 101 thread:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=933667

That was a good read, thanks for sharing.

The PDF link a few posts down was a good contribution to your thread.

USAFE7
04-02-2011, 13:37
Use of Force 101 thread:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=933667


Very good read.

kensteele
04-02-2011, 13:48
I have nothing to add to the thread but I am having a great time reading so many points of view and I am learning a great deal, I will say that keeping my mouth shut and taking the time to read and understand where both side are comming from has kept me from inserting my foot into my mouth (more than once).

Awesome thread.

+1.

I usually engage in some of the active threads but not this one. I'm reading as much as I can and taking it all in....both sides. For me, it's quite a learning experience.

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 14:05
Daddy always told me not to tease the bears... :whistling:

shaffer
04-02-2011, 14:25
I'd also like to disagree with critical opinions of Viper's behavior. In spite of the entire encounter, he has not been charged with unlawful behavior. With that as a baseline, everything else becomes instant value judgments based on risk/reward. Maybe in some cases the "risk" factor was higher than others would have been willing to assume. That's a fine personal opinion to have, but in the end Viper himself was assuming the risk so it was his prerogative, however stupid or smart others think it may have been.

Because of how Viper behaved, the rewards were exposing various degrees of police incompetence and also, I believe, unlawful behavior (hopefully we get a judgement to confirm). I don't think we would have had the insight into the motivations of the officers involved had Viper (a) not been open carrying and (b) was able to engage the officers as he saw fit which resulted in some valuable insight into their state of minds and motivations and (c) recorded the event. Viper walked away physically unharmed and uncharged. So, I say his instant value judgments were spot on. Or to put it more bluntly... Hell of a job man!

In the end I think we should be grateful of the truths that were exposed in this incident and thankful that a citizen behaving in a lawful manner was willing to take on the risks that he did.

RussP
04-02-2011, 14:31
What can you do to make the LEO's feel more calm, comfortable, safe, and in control during an encounter?Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.Look at the part of a sentence out of dosei's entire post you picked to comment on. I'll break his post into its different parts.So take it up using the avenues designed for changing such things, instead of trying to become a dead martyr.

Yes, the LEO that stopped you didn't exactly start things off on the right foot...

but you did absolutely nothing to improve the situation

and in fact your actions only added to the "dance of many fools" that you recorded.

Here is something for you to think about, What can you do to make the LEO's feel more calm, comfortable, safe, and in control during an encounter?

The more encounters LEOs have with OC'ers that the officers come away from thinking "that was actually a pleasant encounter", the better it will be over time for the OC'ers.

The more OC'ers do to accommodate the LEOs, the more comfortable the LEOs become with OC'ers.

And you want LEO's to be comfortable and un-alarmed by the sight of an OC'er...right?

And if you are being completely compliant and cooperative unto the extreme, and the LEO is doing nearly everything wrong, what sort of position and light do you think that will put you in the eyes of the court or IA?

If you want to have the high ground, there may be times you will need to accept getting on the ground.Now look at what you added that dosei did not even allude to.Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.There was so much more in dosei's post to comment on... But, it does help understand your mindset.

Based on your prior posts about your other encounters with Philly and your hometown police, you had this mindset when you walked out of your mother's house. You'd had enough of cops pushing you around and you had decided already that you were not going to take it again without expressing your dissatisfication, putting it mildly.

Then when that Philly cop had the balls to disrespect you, "YO JUNIOR!", that did it, didn't it. From that point on you were out to show that ******* cop that he had no right to insult you, demean you. You know your rights and you were hell bent on teaching that cop a civics lesson right there on the sidewalk, weren't you.

And you were ready to. You'd turned on your recorder when you left the house, 'just in case'.

Even when you knew a cop car was beside you, you didn't flinch. You didn't move a muscle toward acknowledging him. You kept your head forward and your eyes focused ahead, even when he jammed the car into PARK. You knew then, didn't you, that he was probably pissed at seeing you walking down 'his street' with a pistol strapped on your side. Then he said, "YO JUNIOR!". That really got on your nerves. Well, yes, it did. You said so....I don't mind the term being tossed around amongst friends, but for someone I don't know to have the audacity to call me by what amounts to a pet name gets on my nerves...You really need to think about your actions and consider changing your mindset. You keep this pissed off attitude and your subconscious is going to make a comment or a furtive move that will have dire consequences.

RussP
04-02-2011, 14:39
Daddy always told me not to tease the bears... :whistling:Well now that is excellent advice.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 14:40
The question is just what is wrong. I still believe it falls on the city and the police department for lack of training. I also can agree to the fact that the city's high crime rate holds a portion of the blame as well, but not so much that proper knowledge of the law by those tasked with enforcing it would still leave this problem unresolved.

We're not talking about some ninny law like exactly how many feet from a STOP sign you have to park. These are laws regarding lethal force, iow, ending a person's life if they present a threat to your own. They're kindof important, and the "prohibitive" cost of keeping that training up to date is no excuse. Honestly? If the cops carry guns, each and every damn one of them should know the gun laws of the state in side and friggin' out, especially since they fall under LEOSA and have the same rights as we do when they are off duty.
Again, the mere carrying of the gun is only one part of the equation. You have to include all sorts of other variables that come into play as the officer decides what to do and how to do it.

RussP
04-02-2011, 14:42
I'd also like to disagree with critical opinions of Viper's behavior. In spite of the entire encounter, he has not been charged with unlawful behavior. With that as a baseline, everything else becomes instant value judgments based on risk/reward. Maybe in some cases the "risk" factor was higher than others would have been willing to assume. That's a fine personal opinion to have, but in the end Viper himself was assuming the risk so it was his prerogative, however stupid or smart others think it may have been.

Because of how Viper behaved, the rewards were exposing various degrees of police incompetence and also, I believe, unlawful behavior (hopefully we get a judgement to confirm). I don't think we would have had the insight into the motivations of the officers involved had Viper (a) not been open carrying and (b) was able to engage the officers as he saw fit which resulted in some valuable insight into their state of minds and motivations and (c) recorded the event. Viper walked away physically unharmed and uncharged. So, I say his instant value judgments were spot on. Or to put it more bluntly... Hell of a job man!

In the end I think we should be grateful of the truths that were exposed in this incident and thankful that a citizen behaving in a lawful manner was willing to take on the risks that he did.I don't know what to say...but, later, I might come up with something.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 14:45
Apparently one just did in this case, unless you're aware of any of those variables that made the officer react the way he did.
Again, given that there are always multiple variables that enter into any LE-citizen contact, it is a safe bet that there were multiple variables. I wasn't there so I can't tell you what the officer was thinking when he decided what to do an how to do it, but I think I'm on pretty safe ground to say that multiple factors enter into the decision.
In the audio his only reason was that he was OCing, which, as you stated, alone isn't a reason for him to fear for his life.
And the audio only tells you what the officer said, which often has little to do with what one thought.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 14:51
I don't know what to say...but, later, I might come up with something.

A "HooRah!" would be great, but based on your previous post (which felt something along the lines of how a rape victim might be questioned as a witness in court) I'm not expecting that.

Also, don't forget about #456! Still waiting for an reasonably undisputed law or case law giving the officer authority to make the detainment. Everything I've seen so far has been (I believe) reasonably disputed.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 14:52
Yes, this is what i'm looking for.

Is the necessity of having the license, reason enough to stop and determine whether the person has one or not?
As a general rule, yes. It would be much like seeing a person with a red vest and a rifle walking in the woods during deer season. Would you think that reason enough for the game officer to stop and determine if the person has a hunting license? Or a fishing license for fishing? There are some specific exceptions in various jurisdictions, but the general rule is that if a license if required to do "X", LE can check for that license if the person is doing "X".

RussP
04-02-2011, 15:01
...Also, don't forget about #456! Still waiting for an reasonably undisputed law or case law giving the officer authority to make the detainment. Everything I've seen so far has been (I believe) reasonably disputed.Then you need to consult legal counsel if you do not understand where the authority comes from. We aren't licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. You need legal opinions.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:04
Then you need to consult legal counsel if you do not understand where the authority comes from. We aren't licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. You need legal opinions.

You are the one making the claim that the officer had the authority to make the detainment. The officer had an imaginary crime in his head and no RAS for a real crime which is a requirement to make a detainment according to the law and case law that I'm familiar with. So I'm just asking you to back up your claim with something so I can consider the argument from your point of view.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 15:05
My opinion is backed up by knowledge, training and ACTUAL experience whats your backed up by?
Come on, Dragoon, you know how it goes here.....as long as you have watched "COPS" at least twice you know more than officers that have done the job for 20 years. Sort of like if you have driven by the county courthouse at least once while court was in session you are automatically given all the legal knowledge of someone with a law degree.:faint:

RussP
04-02-2011, 15:08
A "HooRah!" would be great, but based on your previous post (which felt something along the lines of how a rape victim might be questioned as a witness in court) I'm not expecting that...I look at things objectively.

Will good things come out of the incident? I would hope.

Is Viper's behavior from the "YO, JUNIOR" moment laudable? No.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:10
Is Viper's behavior from the "YO, JUNIOR" moment laudable? No.

Based on the results his behavior produced I disagree. But no matter what it it was his call to make and we can leave it at that if you want.

RussP
04-02-2011, 15:16
Based on the results his behavior produced I disagree. But no matter what it it was his call to make and we can leave it at that if you want.Nope, because someone would take that as an endorsement and that they could/should try similar behavior and would achieve the same results. You may be willing to accept that responsibility. I will not. Viper's actions were risky at best.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:20
Nope, because someone would take that as an endorsement and that they could/should try similar behavior and would achieve the same results. You may be willing to accept that responsibility. I will not. Viper's actions were risky at best.

I wouldn't accept responsibility for what someone else decides to do. But if someone else behaved in a manner that exposed police negligence/unlawful behavior and walked away unharmed and uncharged then I would say HooRah to them as well.

I have no problem with police but the fact is they have an awesome amount of power. And with that power comes great responsibility. We should hold them to very high expectations. And the fact that we have an officer willing to threaten the life of another over a crime he has imagined requires accountability. If you choose to initiate this type of encounter you'd better be damn sure of yourself otherwise you should't be carrying a badge. And it does surprise me that anyone can look at this situation and choose to analyze Viper's actions through a magnifying glass and criticize him when on the other had we have police behavior that needs some serious correction.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 15:25
So "until the Courts rule" that Viper's detainment (or a similar detainment dealing with a case regarding legal open carry when licensed) then an officer may detain a citizen without RAS or imagine a crime/RAS in his head and detain based on that?
He may not detain without RAS. He may detain based on what he imagines to be a crime/RAS.
The problem that I have with that position is it puts the burden of proof on the citizen rather than on the officer.
Not in the least. Every time an officer acts on what he thinks is reasonable suspicion or probable cause it is the result of what the officer has imagined in his head based on the information available to him. But the first thing that happens in court is that the officer has to justify his belief and why he felt he has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do what he did. There is no burden of proof on the citizen.
This is not how the law and case law works. Existing case law can be applied to this detainment and a reasonable conclusion can be made, until the courts say otherwise, that the stop was unlawful. I have yet to see anyone point to a law or case law that grants the officer authority to detain in Viper's case.
This is exactly how it works. Officers look at a number of variables and use their discretion and their understanding of the law to determine if a contact is appropriate. As the contact proceeds they refine that understanding of how the law impacts the situation and their discretionary decision making. Determination of if the officer was right or wrong in his decision (lawful) is decided after the fact.

crsuribe
04-02-2011, 15:31
Everything in the world sucks dude!!

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:32
He may not detain without RAS. He may detain based on what he imagines to be a crime/RAS.

Thank you for making this argument, it is at least fresh. Can you please cite any law or case law to back it up? I would love to review it.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 15:33
Although I see the logic in your post, and I thank you for the candor, I find the attitude of "allow them to violate my rights and make them feel comfortable doing it" to be entirely unacceptable. That's what this course of actions is...let the police officer feel all happy-unicorn-bunny-fru-fru while he tramples on my human and civil rights because he doesn't know how to do his job.

No.

I have no problem with this course of action if he asks me for my LTCF and DL to verify it, but I will not willingly be treated like scum and stroke the officer's cock while he does it.
Well, up to that point you were doing OK, I thought. But that post really does show that you are not the good guy, you are intentionally antagonistic and look for confrontation with the police when it is not helpful or needed. You bias and attitude says it all, IMO, and it doesn't say anything good.

dosei
04-02-2011, 15:35
Well, if that's the hill you want to die on, no one can stop you.

I chose that metaphor deliberately, BTW, because you are literally in the world of life and death decisions here. Non-compliance raises the tension. Talk such as on your tape, which is distraction, raises it further. It's obvious that you've got the means to be a deadly threat. It's obvious that you've got the opportunity. You're working real hard, even if you're unintentional about it, to establish intent. Is your control so great that your hand won't drift toward your waist? Once you've done something that firms up your intent---based on the officer's training, experience and perception, not yours---the only thing that can save you is bad marksmanship. Maybe Divine intervention.

I want to be clear: I'm not calling for you to be shot, and it would be a tragedy if it happened here. I'm simply laying out the forseeable possibilities of your choices.

Still a free country and you make the decisions that drive police response. If this particular principle is the one worth engraving on your tombstone is wholly up to you.

Viper, take note of what is being said. The risk you put yourself in by being non-compliant and verbally combative is very high. OC or CC, it does not matter...when a LEO knows you have a deadly weapon at the ready, it is in your best interest that they feels safe. Who here still remembers the Eric Scott incident at the Summerlin Costco? Handling a stop the way you think it should be handled instead of following the instructions of the LEOs is a good way to get yourself killed.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1243219
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1269553
http://www.lvrj.com/news/officer-testifies-he-heard-shots-but-did-not-see-shooting-103943584.html
Take the "cops are the enemy" mindset and get rid of it. Cops are just people, like you and me. They want to get home alive and in one piece...with no extra openings in their body. Don't give them a reason to believe that you might make that simple desire not come true...and in turn you'll be increasing the chances that you go home alive as well.


...and don't offer to stroke their cock for them, guarantee it'll only make them less comfortable.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 15:39
Thank you for making this argument, it is at least fresh. Can you please cite any law or case law to back it up? I would love to review it.
HUH??? With very few exception, EVERY stop an officer makes is based on what he imagines to be the case. Whether the officer was right or wrong in his belief is ALWAYS determined later at court.

Bruce M
04-02-2011, 15:47
Let me point out something to you directives like that are not issued after a brainstorming session in the chiefs office they are only going to be issued after consultation with the State Attorney's office and or the city's legal counsel. .


Get outa town! Next thing you're going to suggest is that some larger departments may even have an attorney on staff or perhaps even a legal bureau to help with decisions.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:48
HUH??? With very few exception, EVERY stop an officer makes is based on what he imagines to be the case. Whether the officer was right or wrong in his belief is ALWAYS determined later at court.

Reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or is about to be committed.

The R.A.S. part of this phrase is what the cop needs to supply. The "crime" part of this phrase, I believe, must be in fact a crime, not in imagination a crime.

RussP
04-02-2011, 15:50
I wouldn't accept responsibility for what someone else decides to do. But if someone else behaved in a manner that exposed police negligence/unlawful behavior and walked away unharmed and uncharged then I would say HooRah to them as well...What if the behavior got them killed or gravely wounded.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 15:53
What if the behavior got them killed or gravely wounded.

Then I might come to the conclusion that they exhibited bad judgement.

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 15:56
Get outa town! Next thing you're going to suggest is that some larger departments may even have an attorney on staff or perhaps even a legal bureau to help with decisions.

sum of em even got a cement pond!

:supergrin:

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 15:57
Reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or is about to be committed.

The R.A.S. part of this phrase is what the cop needs to supply. The "crime" part of this phrase, I believe, must be in fact a crime, not in imagination a crime.
You seem to be confusing what happens in the courtroom and what happens on the street. The officer gets to act based on what he imagines is happening. The court later determines if that belief was correct and/or if the officer was reasonable in his belief. The actual facts are a different issue than the reasonable officer belief.

shaffer
04-02-2011, 16:02
You seem to be confusing what happens in the courtroom and what happens on the street. The officer gets to act based on what he imagines is happening. The court later determines if that belief was correct and/or if the officer was reasonable in his belief. The actual facts are a different issue than the reasonable officer belief.

Ok... and what happens when the court determines that the imagined crime was not in fact a crime... does that make the detainment unlawful?

He could be imagining something reasonable about an in fact crime. I get that's ok. But if the crime is imagined that's what I'm questioning.