Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter II [Archive] - Page 3 - Glock Talk

PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 16:10
Ok... and what happens when the court determines that the imagined crime was not in fact a crime... does that make the detainment unlawful?
It might, it might not. You are asking for a broad concept for something that is decided on assorted narrow findings. More important is going to be if the detainment was reasonable given the facts available to the officer. People are regularly detained for non-criminal reasons, or who the police release after investigating, etc.
I think you are asking for black and white when reality is a lot of gray.
But if the crime is imagined that's what I'm questioning.
Most crime is imagined at the time of contact. It is proved in court. I see you running, you fit the description of a robber, I stop you and you have a bunch of money that is from the store, I imagine you are the robber. But you are not proven to be the robber until the court says so. That is why you are a suspect instead of a convict.

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 16:27
You know... there are some folks that seem to be missing a really important point. I made a funny earlier about not teasing the bears but in reality it really isn't very dang funny at all.

If you are confronted by a police officer who is obviously treating you like you are suspect and he thinks you are armed and dangerous... i.e. he is apparently conducting a high risk stop on you, you know... POINTING HIS LOADED GUN AT YOU WITH EVERY INTENTION OF SHOOTING YOU IF YOU MAKE A THREATENING MOVE... you REALLY should be paying very close attention to what he or she is saying and doing exactly what you are told.

I really couldn't give a flying fart if you think your rights are being violated or you are being harassed... maybe they are and maybe you are... YOU MAY VERY WELL BE KILLED IN THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS. Focus on that fact. :shocked:

Sort it later... AFTER he is no longer pointing a gun at you. THEN you can get pissed off and yell a little if you want or educate him on the finer points of the law and why he was wrong to point his gun at you.

Official oppression, harassment, violation of civil rights are all reprehensible acts... you can't complain if you are dead though.

Mayhem like Me
04-02-2011, 16:47
You know... there are some folks that seem to be missing a really important point. I made a funny earlier about not teasing the bears but in reality it really isn't very dang funny at all.

If you are confronted by a police officer who is obviously treating you like you are suspect and he thinks you are armed and dangerous... i.e. he is apparently conducting a high risk stop on you, you know... POINTING HIS LOADED GUN AT YOU WITH EVERY INTENTION OF SHOOTING YOU IF YOU MAKE A THREATENING MOVE... you REALLY should be paying very close attention to what he or she is saying and doing exactly what you are told.

I really couldn't give a flying fart if you think your rights are being violated or you are being harassed... maybe they are and maybe you are... YOU MAY VERY WELL BE KILLED IN THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS. Focus on that fact. :shocked:

Sort it later... AFTER he is no longer pointing a gun at you. THEN you can get pissed off and yell a little if you want or educate him on the finer points of the law and why he was wrong to point his gun at you.

Official oppression, harassment, violation of civil rights are all reprehensible acts... you can't complain if you are dead though.

I think we all tried to say that but maybe they will listen to you!!!!

Gallium
04-02-2011, 16:50
... you can't complain if you are dead though.

Nope,

but someone can start an epic thread about it on Glocktalk. :cool:

'Drew

Mayhem like Me
04-02-2011, 16:54
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.

very interesting choice of words in the second paragraph ...goes to mindset and maturity.. IF if were you and intended on pursuing this I would stop posting as that little gem will come back to haunt you.


I was disarmed at gunpoint while doing my job , but I had sense enough not to challenge the uniforms, I was also proned out and cuffed. IF you continue to carry the gun I strongly suggest some reputable training, I may not have your experience , but carrying and teaching firearms for 28 years brings some wisdom to my perception, and your doing it wrong.

RussP
04-02-2011, 17:05
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.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.Then I might come to the conclusion that they exhibited bad judgement.So you have one behavior set.

If one application of that behavior does not result in harm, it is okay.

In another application of the same set, it results in harm, it is bad.

In other words, the behavior isn't bad if you don't get caught.

Okay...I'll stick with my standards.

RussP
04-02-2011, 17:06
i think we all tried to say that but maybe they will listen to you!!!!amen!!

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 17:08
I think we all tried to say that but maybe they will listen to you!!!!

Might be the way it's been said... might be who it's coming from... might be stubborness and pride... might be anger at being treated like a criminal...

The treatment Viper received... well... I'm a pretty laid back guy and I'd be spitting mad with a serious chip on my shoulder about LEOs right now. Not saying he didn't make the situation worse than it could have been but no one likes to get assaulted at gunpoint... Grain of salt and all that.

Mayhem like Me
04-02-2011, 17:14
Might be the way it's been said... might be who it's coming from... might be stubborness and pride... might be anger at being treated like a criminal...

The treatment Viper received... well... I'm a pretty laid back guy and I'd be spitting mad with a serious chip on my shoulder about LEOs right now. Not saying he didn't make the situation worse than it could have been but no one likes to get assaulted at gunpoint... Grain of salt and all that.

I do have hurt feelings reports available online for those I may have ruffled with my direct and charming attitude.....
http://www.cvoa4.org/FEELINGS%20FORM.pdf



















THE ABOVE IS A JOKE IN CASE YOU ARE ABOUT TO FLIP OUT AND KICK YOUR DOG!!

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 17:28
The treatment Viper received... well... I'm a pretty laid back guy and I'd be spitting mad with a serious chip on my shoulder about LEOs right now. Not saying he didn't make the situation worse than it could have been but no one likes to get assaulted at gunpoint... Grain of salt and all that.

I might be very angry as well but being an adult I know how to control my emotions and my temper I also know how to express my anger in a constructive way ( a complaint filed with the dept and or a lawsuit) roadside rants and tantrums achieve NOTHING.

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:11
You know... there are some folks that seem to be missing a really important point. I made a funny earlier about not teasing the bears but in reality it really isn't very dang funny at all.

If you are confronted by a police officer who is obviously treating you like you are suspect and he thinks you are armed and dangerous... i.e. he is apparently conducting a high risk stop on you, you know... POINTING HIS LOADED GUN AT YOU WITH EVERY INTENTION OF SHOOTING YOU IF YOU MAKE A THREATENING MOVE... you REALLY should be paying very close attention to what he or she is saying and doing exactly what you are told.

I really couldn't give a flying fart if you think your rights are being violated or you are being harassed... maybe they are and maybe you are... YOU MAY VERY WELL BE KILLED IN THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS. Focus on that fact. :shocked:

Sort it later... AFTER he is no longer pointing a gun at you. THEN you can get pissed off and yell a little if you want or educate him on the finer points of the law and why he was wrong to point his gun at you.

Official oppression, harassment, violation of civil rights are all reprehensible acts... you can't complain if you are dead though.

Thank you for coming around.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but 'till now in this thread you appeared to have a different view then what you just put forth.

The last sentance of your post that I quoted is important to keep in mind.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1259036

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:13
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".


Thanks for further input in this area.

The general consensus we are coming to is yes, it is a lawful act for the officer to stop and check the license.

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:16
I think TBO read my mind a bit when he posted the link earlier to "The use of force 101".

The next place I was trying to go in this thread was getting a good understanding of RAS, which seems to be what that caused a discussion about while I was out.

I like where this is heading.

Can we all agree that the officer is the one who gets to determine what RAS is at the time of an incident?

Gallium
04-02-2011, 18:23
I might be very angry as well but being an adult I know how to control my emotions and my temper I also know how to express my anger in a constructive way ( a complaint filed with the dept and or a lawsuit) roadside rants and tantrums achieve NOTHING.


You mean like when that scrote shot you in the head and you were getting up to go over there and conduct open chest surgery on him? Like that? :tongueout:

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:34
Further:


The treatment Viper received... well... I'm a pretty laid back guy and I'd be spitting mad with a serious chip on my shoulder about LEOs right now. Not saying he didn't make the situation worse than it could have been but no one likes to get assaulted at gunpoint... Grain of salt and all that.

I don't think (but could be wrong) that anyone will disagree with you about that.

Some of the things that were said on behalf of the LEO were less then professional in the best of lights, i'd be upset myself.

Still, the sidewalk is not the place to argue about it - at the very least not at the beginning of the confrontation.

Maybe you can get a chance to say your piece after the situation has been de-escalated, but not while a loaded gun is in your face.

I'll acknowledge however that viper is still alive and has brought the situation to our direct attention through this very incident and the way it was handled.

While I wouldn't advocate it, it's going to have a positive outcome when all is said and done. At the very least some poeple have made comments in this thread about how educational reading through it has been for them, so there is that if nothing else.

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 18:34
You mean like when that scrote shot you in the head and you were getting up to go over there and conduct open chest surgery on him? Like that? :tongueout:

Yeah, like that.


:rofl:

Sam Spade
04-02-2011, 18:36
Can we all agree that the officer is the one who gets to determine what RAS is at the time of an incident?

With the caveat that all his decisions are subject to later review and approval/sanction, yes.

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:45
Good catch Sam.

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 18:50
Thank you for coming around.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but 'till now in this thread you appeared to have a different view then what you just put forth.

The last sentance of your post that I quoted is important to keep in mind.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1259036

I've said multiple times thru chapter 1 and 2 of this thread that there is no way I would argue with a LEO pointing a gun at me. In fact, I mentioned that I would probably be pissing myself and doing EXACTLY what he said very slowly and carefully. I have no desire whatsoever to get holes punched in me and I fully understand that a LEO who is alarmed enough to draw his gun and point it at you is not playing around.

So... thanks... but I never changed my initial thought that arguing with a LEO pointing a gun at you is not a survival trait.

Do I understand what Viper was attempting to do? Yep, sure do. He has previously talked to LEOs who were ignorant of the law and had a successful conclusion to that encounter and probably thought he could do so again... BUT and it's a BIG but... this time the LEO was pointing a gun at him. I do not think he made the best choice he could have made and am very glad he survived the encounter.

Kith
04-02-2011, 18:52
Chivvalry, I apologize that I misunderstood your position. In all the goings on I got a different impression, and missed that part.

chivvalry
04-02-2011, 18:59
Chivvalry, I apologize that I misunderstood your position. In all the goings on I got a different impression, and missed that part.

No biggie.

Dragoon44
04-02-2011, 19:19
You mean like when that scrote shot you in the head and you were getting up to go over there and conduct open chest surgery on him? Like that? :tongueout:

I thought that was very constructive saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial and all.

:tongueout::rofl:

Gallium
04-02-2011, 19:46
I thought that was very constructive saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial and all.

:tongueout::rofl:

In that case then I commend you for as always placing the welfare of the citizenry whom you swore to serve and protect ahead of your personal safety;

and,

for even in what must have been a highly stressful situation, having such keen appreciation on how to carefully weigh and balance how tax dollars are allocated.

:animlol:


If you'd shot the fellow, this is what I would have said at the press conference. :supergrin:

'Drew

Mayhem like Me
04-02-2011, 19:55
on a tangent to this we have gone away from our officers pointing AT people unless they intend to shoot.

I attended Rogers shooting school and found that my timed shots from ready off target to ready on target were pretty much a dead heat so there is nothing gained from actually pointing your gun AT a persons body when you can point it off target and look over your weapon for a better view.
I am surmising that had the officers in question been pointing down or off angle the reaction would not be exactly the same.

Gallium
04-02-2011, 20:06
on a tangent to this we have gone away from our officers pointing AT people unless they intend to shoot.

I attended Rogers shooting school and found that my timed shots from ready off target to ready on target were pretty much a dead heat so there is nothing gained from actually pointing your gun AT a persons body when you can point it off target and look over your weapon for a better view.
I am surmising that had the officers in question been pointing down or off angle the reaction would not be exactly the same.

Whose reaction, the OCer? I think he's young, single, (or playing the field), no kids. I think his reaction would be the same irrespective of where guns were pointed.

It's also been my casual observation that folks who've never suffered any grievous amount of pain at the hand of others tend to be VERY cavalier about threats /orders directed at them.


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

I've had the police point guns (and bad guys too) at me (Kingston, Jamaica). It's really a great way to tighten up the chest muscles while loosening the abdominal muscles, while tightening up the ol' nut sack. My computational abilities went from 8 to about -1 in no time.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 20:49
You know... there are some folks that seem to be missing a really important point. I made a funny earlier about not teasing the bears but in reality it really isn't very dang funny at all.

If you are confronted by a police officer who is obviously treating you like you are suspect and he thinks you are armed and dangerous... i.e. he is apparently conducting a high risk stop on you, you know... POINTING HIS LOADED GUN AT YOU WITH EVERY INTENTION OF SHOOTING YOU IF YOU MAKE A THREATENING MOVE... you REALLY should be paying very close attention to what he or she is saying and doing exactly what you are told.

I really couldn't give a flying fart if you think your rights are being violated or you are being harassed... maybe they are and maybe you are... YOU MAY VERY WELL BE KILLED IN THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS. Focus on that fact. :shocked:

Sort it later... AFTER he is no longer pointing a gun at you. THEN you can get pissed off and yell a little if you want or educate him on the finer points of the law and why he was wrong to point his gun at you.

Official oppression, harassment, violation of civil rights are all reprehensible acts... you can't complain if you are dead though.

I think every LEO here has tried to make that point, with varying degres of success.

David Armstrong
04-02-2011, 20:56
I think TBO read my mind a bit when he posted the link earlier to "The use of force 101".

The next place I was trying to go in this thread was getting a good understanding of RAS, which seems to be what that caused a discussion about while I was out.

I like where this is heading.

Can we all agree that the officer is the one who gets to determine what RAS is at the time of an incident?
Don't know if everyone will agree, but that is an accurate statement. Egon Bittner has an interesting phrase, he called it the right to use non-negotiable force. In essense, the officer is given pretty free reign to do what he thinks is right and/or necessary at the time without any controls other than his training, and if there are any questions about it they are looked at later on after the dust has cleared.

schaibaa
04-02-2011, 22:46
on a tangent to this we have gone away from our officers pointing AT people unless they intend to shoot.

I attended Rogers shooting school and found that my timed shots from ready off target to ready on target were pretty much a dead heat so there is nothing gained from actually pointing your gun AT a persons body when you can point it off target and look over your weapon for a better view.
I am surmising that had the officers in question been pointing down or off angle the reaction would not be exactly the same.

This is a quality post. My wife and I were talking about this -- what about a low ready? I don't really have any problem with the cop drawing his weapon but why does he have to aim it at a persons body? One wrong move and he could shoot someone on accident. I understand that a cop needs to be safe here but being in a low ready removes the threat of a quick draw race and I'm not sure if the extremely minute tactical advantage of having your weapon aimed at a person justifies the extremely increased risk.

schaibaa
04-02-2011, 22:53
Whose reaction, the OCer? I think he's young, single, (or playing the field), no kids. I think his reaction would be the same irrespective of where guns were pointed.

It's also been my casual observation that folks who've never suffered any grievous amount of pain at the hand of others tend to be VERY cavalier about threats /orders directed at them.


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

I've had the police point guns (and bad guys too) at me (Kingston, Jamaica). It's really a great way to tighten up the chest muscles while loosening the abdominal muscles, while tightening up the ol' nut sack. My computational abilities went from 8 to about -1 in no time.

I strongly disagree. It's so hard to play the what if game, but, had the cop not thought Viper was committing a felony, he probably wouldn't have drawn his weapon, aimed at viper, and commanded him to get on his knee's. Of those three things (draw, aim, knee's) - aiming his weapon at Viper seems to be the one I'd be most pissed about.

PEC-Memphis
04-03-2011, 00:34
After reading most of this thread, and then listening to the audio, my opinion is that Viper was prepared for a confrontation with law enforcement. Preparation is not necessarily bad, he had a recorder and he knew the applicable law and/or policy by number.

He gave his name and offered verification of his permit/license to the LEO.

Clearly the LEO did not know the law, or chose to ignore the law to harass a law abiding citizen. (If you are going to be an AH at least be in the right, instead of being an incorrect AH).

The LEO is clearly in the wrong and acted in a most unprofessional manner. And while I don't think I would have reacted in the same manner as Viper, considering that a LEO gun was pointed at him, I don't think Viper was in the wrong - and was clearly the most
courteous, respectful, co-operative and correct person in this encounter.

Jowens
04-03-2011, 01:10
Has anything changed or are both parties still part of the problem? I'm not reading through 21 pages of people repeating themselves, points being made/ignored and nobody's mind changing.

Gallium
04-03-2011, 05:14
I strongly disagree. It's so hard to play the what if game, but, had the cop not thought Viper was committing a felony, he probably wouldn't have drawn his weapon, aimed at viper, and commanded him to get on his knee's. Of those three things (draw, aim, knee's) - aiming his weapon at Viper seems to be the one I'd be most pissed about.

What is it that you disagree with?


1. Do you disagree that the OCer is young?
2. Do you disagree that reaction would have been the same guns drawn or not?
3. Do you disagree that folks who've never had the **** beat out of them don't generally appreciate the need to hustle when LE gives them orders?

I assume that you are not "strongly disagreeing" with my own personal experiences....


'Drew

RussP
04-03-2011, 06:10
Has anything changed or are both parties still part of the problem? I'm not reading through 21 pages of people repeating themselves, points being made/ignored and nobody's mind changing.Both are. Still no supplemental information input from PPD's side.:wavey:

RussP
04-03-2011, 06:19
...I am surmising that had the officers in question been pointing down or off angle the reaction would not be exactly the same.This is a quality post. My wife and I were talking about this -- what about a low ready? I don't really have any problem with the cop drawing his weapon but why does he have to aim it at a persons body? One wrong move and he could shoot someone on accident. I understand that a cop needs to be safe here but being in a low ready removes the threat of a quick draw race and I'm not sure if the extremely minute tactical advantage of having your weapon aimed at a person justifies the extremely increased risk.Do we know that SGT Dougherty wasn't pointing off angle?

At the range, any muzzle pointing less than 45 degrees away from me, looks like it is pointing at me.

Dashcam video will provide an answer to that.

RussP
04-03-2011, 06:47
...I think his reaction would be the same irrespective of where guns were pointed...I strongly disagree. It's so hard to play the what if game, but, had the cop not thought Viper was committing a felony, he probably wouldn't have drawn his weapon, aimed at viper, and commanded him to get on his knee's. Of those three things (draw, aim, knee's) - aiming his weapon at Viper seems to be the one I'd be most pissed about.Drew's comment was about Viper's reaction relative to where the guns were pointed. Would it have made a difference if they were at low ready or off angle? What do you think, would reaction have been different.

Remember his first reaction was to "YO JUNIOR!" before he saw the pistol. He's already said how he felt about that insult.

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 08:19
What is it that you disagree with?


1. Do you disagree that the OCer is young?
2. Do you disagree that reaction would have been the same guns drawn or not?
3. Do you disagree that folks who've never had the **** beat out of them don't generally appreciate the need to hustle when LE gives them orders?

I assume that you are not "strongly disagreeing" with my own personal experiences....


'Drew

You said that the cop aiming his weapon at Viper didn't have much to do with the way he reacted. I strongly disagree. The problem I have with the whole situation is the cop is threatening to shoot Viper the entire time. "I'll f'ing put one in you" ... that type of stuff.


There's been a few pages about the cops orders being lawful as long as he thinks there has been a crime committed. I have no problem with that in the case of a mistaken identity, etc - however do anyone have any examples (not opinions, but court decisions or laws) that say the cop can stop someone for an act that he believes is a crime but actually isn't?

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 08:25
Remember his first reaction was to "YO JUNIOR!" before he saw the pistol. He's already said how he felt about that insult.

I understood the facts of the case to be that the officer knew Viper had a pistol prior to stopping him - which is evidenced by the fact that as soon as Viper turned around the cop already had drawn and aimed at Viper.

The cop didn't discover the pistol during the stop. At the very least, he had a moment or two to think about how he'd handle the situation.

Gallium
04-03-2011, 08:30
You said that the cop aiming his weapon at Viper didn't have much to do with the way he reacted. I strongly disagree. The problem I have with the whole situation is the cop is threatening to shoot Viper the entire time. "I'll f'ing put one in you" ... that type of stuff.


There's been a few pages about the cops orders being lawful as long as he thinks there has been a crime committed. I have no problem with that in the case of a mistaken identity, etc - however do anyone have any examples (not opinions, but court decisions or laws) that say the cop can stop someone for an act that he believes is a crime but actually isn't?


Well why don't we ask Viper if the gun pointed at him adversely affected his behavior (I can't see how, based on the collective feedback here he gave the officer lip).

Perhaps you are cross pollinating the officers actions and Viper's actions. I have not commented on any of the officer's actions - only on Viper's.

'Drew

Kith
04-03-2011, 08:43
Both are. Still no supplemental information input from PPD's side.:wavey:

Unfortunate truth is...we will probably have to deal without this.

This was an understanding from the beginning, which is one reason i'm trying to put extra care into making sure i'm playing a balanced argument here.

I can't imagine that legal would let the officer speak here, even if he wanted to.

ETA:

In respone to the question that brought what I quoted,

Both are wrong, both are right, to varying degrees.

TangoFoxtrot
04-03-2011, 08:44
WOW I'm still amazed how some defend OC in major cities.

Jowens
04-03-2011, 08:53
Both are. Still no supplemental information input from PPD's side.:wavey:

Thanks!:thumbsup:

Kith
04-03-2011, 08:54
There's been a few pages about the cops orders being lawful as long as he thinks there has been a crime committed. I have no problem with that in the case of a mistaken identity, etc - however do anyone have any examples (not opinions, but court decisions or laws) that say the cop can stop someone for an act that he believes is a crime but actually isn't?

This is one point that is crippling my ability to articulate something i'm trying to figure out.

I am not good at reviewing case law and finding court decisions on things. I can google cases and come up with stuff, but it's inevitably from third party sources that I don't deem credible enough to use as a citation to support my argument.

The reason i've been harping on figuring out whether specific points are "lawful" or not is because I know there are court decisions stating that a citizen has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.

I put forth the last paragraph at the risk of not having sources to cite to support that statement, so take it as you will.

The burning question in my mind, is how do the courts decide if it's lawful or not?

In this case Viper knew what he was doing was lawful, the officer believed it was not.

If it could be later shown in court that the officer was 'acting in good faith' and doing what he believed to be lawful, then how does that impact the right to resist an unlawful arrest?

And again...no sources to cite to back up this post i've put forth, so take it as you will.

RussP
04-03-2011, 09:09
Drew's comment was about Viper's reaction relative to where the guns were pointed. Would it have made a difference if they were at low ready or off angle? What do you think, would reaction have been different.

Remember his first reaction was to "YO JUNIOR!" before he saw the pistol. He's already said how he felt about that insult.The third person pronouns are all referencing Viper, not SGT Dougherty.

Your answer was all about SGT Dougherty perspective.
I understood the facts of the case to be that the officer knew Viper had a pistol prior to stopping him - which is evidenced by the fact that as soon as Viper turned around the cop already had drawn and aimed at Viper.

The cop didn't discover the pistol during the stop. At the very least, he had a moment or two to think about how he'd handle the situation.How about trying that answer again.

Mayhem like Me
04-03-2011, 09:16
does anybody know "when " this happened, recently or has it been a while????

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 09:18
The third person pronouns are all referencing Viper, not SGT Dougherty.

Your answer was all about SGT Dougherty perspective.
How about trying that answer again.

Gotcha, my mistake.

Aiming a gun at someone still escalates the situation more than a low ready, or having your hand on your gun. It's only human nature to react equally to how someone is treating you - and yelling 'Yo, Junior' and drawing your gun, and aiming is a pretty serious thing.


What, if any reprimands do you think the officers should receive?

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 09:19
does anybody know "when " this happened, recently or has it been a while????

Late Feb I assume since his first actual meeting with a civil rigihts attorney took place March 3. ( and that was after he consulted with an attorney he already knew that then pointed him to the civil rights attorney.

And that Attorney essentially told him he had no case worth pursuing.

But hey what does he know he only makes a living handling Civil rights cases.

Kith
04-03-2011, 09:20
does anybody know "when " this happened, recently or has it been a while????

Over at PAFOA Viper's post states that it was "today" and the post is dated Feb 13th 2011

I was visiting my mother today in Philadelphia to help her around the house and spend time with her. While there, I walked over to the local AutoZone to pick up a part for my car. I was OC due to the (finally) gorgeous weather.


http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry.html

RussP
04-03-2011, 09:22
Unfortunate truth is...we will probably have to deal without this. This was an understanding from the beginning, which is one reason i'm trying to put extra care into making sure i'm playing a balanced argument here.

I can't imagine that legal would let the officer speak here, even if he wanted to.Of course he isn't going to "kwikrnu" on the internet. Viper said he made a FOIA request for everything connected to the incident. We'll know when he gets that back.ETA:

In respone to the question that brought what I quoted,

Both are wrong, both are right, to varying degrees.Yep.

Kith
04-03-2011, 09:23
And that Attorney essentially told him he had no case worth pursuing.

But hey what does he know he only makes a living handling Civil rights cases.

Just to be fair, one attorney said that.

Read further into the post over at PAFOA, and it says there is another lawyer involved who is willing to pursue it.

I'm not speaking to the credibility of either, but let's keep it fair.

RussP
04-03-2011, 09:25
Gotcha, my mistake.

Aiming a gun at someone still escalates the situation more than a low ready, or having your hand on your gun. It's only human nature to react equally to how someone is treating you - and yelling 'Yo, Junior' and drawing your gun, and aiming is a pretty serious thing.Still no answer.What, if any reprimands do you think the officers should receive?If it is determined he acted illegally or inappropriately, whatever the law and/or policy allows.

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 09:26
Drew's comment was about Viper's reaction relative to where the guns were pointed. Would it have made a difference if they were at low ready or off angle? What do you think, would reaction have been different.

Remember his first reaction was to "YO JUNIOR!" before he saw the pistol. He's already said how he felt about that insult.

I think, and maybe Viper can chime in, that my initial reaction of irritation at disrespect to the "Yo Junior!" would have been immediately out the window when I turned and saw a weapon pointed at my chest. I can conjecture that my reaction would have changed from irritation to an "oh $#!*, I'm about to get shot" feeling of fear.

How people react to fear is quite different from person to person... My reaction would most likely have been freezing (recognizing that it was or at least appeared to be a LEO) and listening while in my head thoughts of "wtf is wrong with this acehole". Viper's reaction appeared to have more vocalization of those thoughts... which of course amped up the LEO.

Now, had the LEO not had his weapon pointed at me and been at low ready my level of fear would have likely been significantly reduced and instead of freezing a more handsup/palms out and "what can I do for you officer" reaction would be likely.

It's possible that the officer was at low ready when he hollered out "Yo Junior!" and Viper's obvious irritation, evidenced by the "JUNIOR?" comment as he turned around made that officer decide that low ready wasn't sufficient. Maybe Viper turned around too fast for the officer's taste... no one knows at this point what the Sgt was thinking.

Dash cam vids, if they actually show anything, would be great.

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 09:29
Well why don't we ask Viper if the gun pointed at him adversely affected his behavior (I can't see how, based on the collective feedback here he gave the officer lip).

Perhaps you are cross pollinating the officers actions and Viper's actions. I have not commented on any of the officer's actions - only on Viper's.

'Drew

Yes I was mistaken with what you said. However, I think the cops actions were all predicated on an imaginary felony. Had he known Viper was not committing a felony, would there have been any reason to hold Viper at gunpoint and force him to his knees? And what a way to pour gas on the fire with "Hey, Junior!". If you're going to get on Viper's case for being verbally confrontational with the officer, you have to play both sides. We should hold the cop to a higher standard, not a lower.

We'll never know if and how much it would have changed Viper's behavior. Had the cop not been ignorant of the laws, would that have changed his behavior? Threatening to shoot Viper should be taken to criminal court.

RussP
04-03-2011, 09:30
Just to be fair, one attorney said that.

Read further into the post over at PAFOA, and it says there is another lawyer involved who is willing to pursue it.

I'm not speaking to the credibility of either, but let's keep it fair.I missed the post about an attorney accepting the case and can't find it. Could you post that link, please.

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 09:32
If it is determined he acted illegally or inappropriately, whatever the law and/or policy allows.

Are you saying that holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary felony is not at the very least inappropriate?

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 09:33
Just to be fair, one attorney said that.

Read further into the post over at PAFOA, and it says there is another lawyer involved who is willing to pursue it.

I'm not speaking to the credibility of either, but let's keep it fair.

I must have missed the post where he said he finally found an attorney that would pursue the case got a link? All I had seen up to this point was one that basically blew him off and he had TRIED to contact another that was not returning his calls.

Kith
04-03-2011, 09:35
We'll never know if and how much it would have changed Viper's behavior. Had the cop not been ignorant of the laws, would that have changed his behavior? Threatening to shoot Viper should be taken to criminal court.

I think we can surmise, accurately, that with more training the situation would have been handled quite differently.

Viper immediately offered up his LTCF, which would have been an indication to the officer that the activity was probably lawful.

I think that if the officer knew that open carry was legal in Philly with a LTCF we wouldn't be having this discussion here now.

I'll put forth my opinion that the officer would not have been as willing to shoot a MWAG because the offering of the LTCF would have been an immediate de-escalation of the situation and mindset of the officer.

Until the license is actually turned over and then verified, it's still a tense situation, but not in the same context as without any mention of the license.

Kith
04-03-2011, 09:39
I missed the post about an attorney accepting the case and can't find it. Could you post that link, please.

I must have missed the post where he said he finally found an attorney that would pursue the case got a link? All I had seen up to this point was one that basically blew him off and he had TRIED to contact another that was not returning his calls.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry.html

Ok wait, My apologies.

You guys are right, I am wrong.

I misread the paragraph.

At the bottom of the second post he is talking about another lawyer, but no updates yet.

Thanks for the correction.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 09:40
Are you saying that holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary felony is not at the very least inappropriate?

You keep talking like the officer is at fault. ASSuming that the stop is found unjustified (and you gotta admit that we're seeing disagreement on that here) the next question becomes, "why". Russ' post allows, and I agree, that the fault may lie with the guys making policy, not the guy implementing it.

For example: Let's say this thing goes the route of Prouse, and new caselaw is made for the nation. I refuse to punish an officer who made an on-the-spot decision when it takes Nine Dudes (and one wise Latina) in Black years of calm reflection to finally sort things out.

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 09:50
And that Attorney essentially told him he had no case worth pursuing.

But hey what does he know he only makes a living handling Civil rights cases.

There are many factors that go into a lawyers decision, and the in this case being right is a small one. I'm sure you've read the PAFOA forum based upon your other posts here so you've read how at least 1 lawyer has chimed in and stated it takes much more than being right, it takes a well funded effort and someone dying or being locked up without being charged of a crime for a few weeks. Way to cap it off with a snarky remark, classy.

johnnysquire
04-03-2011, 09:51
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.

I don't know the reality of pursuing a civil rights case - I know that fees are available, and I have no reason to doubt you that they're paid even if there are only nominal damages. But cases settle (and lawyers can't stop them), civil rights cases turn into tort cases and so on when private actors are involved.

The officer's ignorance of the law also might help the government in Viper's case, to the detriment of this being a good contingent fee case. Reasonable suspicion can be based on mistakes - I don't know if a mistake of law is treated the same as a mistake of fact, but it's another argument against a 4A violation.

TBO
04-03-2011, 09:55
I think we can surmise, accurately, that with more training the situation would have been handled quite differently.

Viper immediately offered up his LTCF, which would have been an indication to the officer that the activity was probably lawful.-Except for the fact he's:
Completely disregarding commands given to him by the Officer.
Is attempting to direct/distract the Officer.

I think that if the officer knew that open carry was legal in Philly with a LTCF we wouldn't be having this discussion here now.

I'll put forth my opinion that the officer would not have been as willing to shoot a MWAG because the offering of the LTCF would have been an immediate de-escalation of the situation and mindset of the officer. -Yet another in a long list of assumptions. No shortage of people who try to tell a Cop something to gain an advantage over them. Ever seen someone arrested for Burglary/Trespass who claimed they had the right to be there?
Ever seen someone arrested for carrying w/o a permit when they said they had one?

Until the license is actually turned over and then verified, it's still a tense situation, but not in the same context as without any mention of the license.Again, mention of a license doesn't mean much at the outset.

RussP
04-03-2011, 09:55
Are you saying that holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary felony is not at the very least inappropriate?As I've said before, and others as well, we don't have all the facts. You can draw all the conclusions you want based on partial information. I just will not.

I've been in the position of authority to investigate and make decisions based in the facts I discovered. I always made certain that every opportunity was given all parties involved to present their version of the facts. After comparing them, I would go back and clarify any differences, often needing information from people not initially involved. Every case involved historical information not presented during the first go around.

One of the recipients of a ruling against him one day told my best friend that even though he didn't necessarily like me or my decisions, he respected me for the job I did and how I did it. I was fair.

I don't know what motivated SGT Dougherty to draw his weapon. I'm not a cop, so I've never had to draw my weapon in the same situation SGT Dougherty found himself.

Instead of pounding on me for an answer to that, why not just accept the posts answering the question by LEOs? They are here.

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 09:56
You keep talking like the officer is at fault. ASSuming that the stop is found unjustified (and you gotta admit that we're seeing disagreement on that here) the next question becomes, "why". Russ' post allows, and I agree, that the fault may lie with the guys making policy, not the guy implementing it.

For example: Let's say this thing goes the route of Prouse, and new caselaw is made for the nation. I refuse to punish an officer who made an on-the-spot decision when it takes Nine Dudes (and one wise Latina) in Black years of calm reflection to finally sort things out.

Can we agree that the officer believed a felony was being committed, but he was wrong about that?

I'm not saying the stop, in and of it's self is unlawful - in fact, I believe the stop is lawful. Stop Viper, ask to see is LTCF, verify it's legit, and let him continue about his business. For me, the problem comes in when the officer threatens to shoot a citizen and holds him at gunpoint. Some people want to excuse the cop from his actions due to Viper having a gun and the inherent risk of a gun, but nobody wants to give Viper that same leeway when a gun was actually aimed at him!

In what situations can an officer threaten to shoot someone?

Kith
04-03-2011, 09:58
You keep talking like the officer is at fault. ASSuming that the stop is found unjustified (and you gotta admit that we're seeing disagreement on that here) the next question becomes, "why". Russ' post allows, and I agree, that the fault may lie with the guys making policy, not the guy implementing it.

For example: Let's say this thing goes the route of Prouse, and new caselaw is made for the nation. I refuse to punish an officer who made an on-the-spot decision when it takes Nine Dudes (and one wise Latina) in Black years of calm reflection to finally sort things out.

I agree completely with what you are saying here Sam.

But, at the risk of rising the tempurature here, are you saying that ignorance of the law is an excuse on behalf of the defense of the officer?

Given the premise that the officer did not know that open carry was legal in the City of Philadelphia with a license, (some things said aside) he acted as he knew best, given the situation as he understood it at the time.

Given that he didn't know open carry was legal, all he knew was MWAG on a public street, endangering the safety of the public, and acted accordingly.

I am not holding the officer at fault for this, because the higher ups in the Philly political structure want no guns on the street, and so the absence of correct training can't be laid on the feet of the officer on patrol.

Still, fact is the officer was ignorant of the law, no matter how it came about. This is what we are basing the decision that the officer acted in good faith on. Is this a viable excuse?

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 10:01
Can we agree that the officer believed a felony was being committed, but he was wrong about that?

I'm not saying the stop, in and of it's self is unlawful - in fact, I believe the stop is lawful. Stop Viper, ask to see is LTCF, verify it's legit, and let him continue about his business. For me, the problem comes in when the officer threatens to shoot a citizen and holds him at gunpoint. Some people want to excuse the cop from his actions due to Viper having a gun and the inherent risk of a gun, but nobody wants to give Viper that same leeway when a gun was actually aimed at him!

In what situations can an officer threaten to shoot someone?

I think we all have agreed that the officer was wrong about a felony being committed if in fact he thought one was. It's been made pretty clear the modis operandi of LEOs when they are engaging a suspect and how the use of force continuum is persued. The post on use of force by TBO was an excellent read and educated me on a number of points. I also found that the escalation of force as described made a lot of sense.

I will not attempt to reiterate that post but you might want to go read it if you have not.

Kith
04-03-2011, 10:05
Yet another in a long list of assumptions. No shortage of people who try to tell a Cop something to gain an advantage over them. Ever seen someone arrested for Burglary/Trespass who claimed they had the right to be there?
Ever seen someone arrested for carrying w/o a permit when they said they had one?



Again, mention of a license doesn't mean much at the outset.

Agreed, also consider that a license being revoked doesn't change the appearance of legitimacy of the paper copy the citizen could still possess.

I am also not arguing against the fact that Viper's actions could be seen as trying to distract the officer to gain a tactical advantage of the situation.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 10:14
I think, and maybe Viper can chime in, that my initial reaction of irritation at disrespect to the "Yo Junior!" would have been immediately out the window when I turned and saw a weapon pointed at my chest. I can conjecture that my reaction would have changed from irritation to an "oh $#!*, I'm about to get shot" feeling of fear.

YOUR stated reaction is what the average persons reaction would be.

I would disagree that Vipers reaction was based on fear. All I see is belligerence and that tells me he was not afraid he was about to be shot. Common sense should tell you that if he was truly in fear and truly thought he was about to be shot he would not be mouthing off and refusing to comply with the officers instructions.

Now you can feel free to tell me of your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise, I have just told you what my actual experience tells me and I am confident any other officers posting in this thread will say the same based on their own actual experience in this area.

It's possible that the officer was at low ready when he hollered out "Yo Junior!" and Viper's obvious irritation, evidenced by the "JUNIOR?" comment as he turned around made that officer decide that low ready wasn't sufficient. Maybe Viper turned around too fast for the officer's taste... no one knows at this point what the Sgt was thinking.

It is entirely possible. Based on what I know so far from Vipers own postings, this is what I SUSPECT.

1. Viper has a definite attitude and probably anger management issues. (This comes through quite clearly in his posts on the other forum and flares up here from time to time.

2. Viper was fully aware of the police car following him and I don't think it was a case of he caught a glimpse out of the corner of his eye then seconds later he heard the car being put roughly into park. I think he was aware of the police car tailing him for longer than a e few seconds that he believed that he was about to be stopped and was getting pretty pissed about that.

few people realize just how much their body language tells about their state of mind. or that officer are quick to look for tell tale warning signs about someones state of mind. Time and time again in these type situations I read the same thing brought up over and over. "Was he threatening anyone? was he waiving his gun around?" as if these are the only possible actions that would give an officer RAS to approach someone.

It is the type of nonsense that causes experienced police officer to roll their eyes and wonder how anyone could be that dumb.

Back tot he incident,

Now we have Viper who is fully aware of the police interest in him and his belief that he is likely about to have a contact with the police. When he hears the car being put "Roughly into park" rather than doing what any normal person would do or what anyone who practices situational awareness would definitely do, which is at least turn their head to see what was going on, Viper instead continues on his way as if he had heard nothing.

Whether or not the officer picked anything from Vipers body language or not we cannot know without the officers input but any experienced officer can tell yo that Vipers act of pretending the cop was not there when he knew he was would send up a red flag to any experienced officer. This is a common tactic of the criminal element. trying to brazen it out and pretending they don't know the cop is there and trying to act like "I ain't doin nothin"

So either way, before actual contact is made the officer has at least one possibly two red flags that he is factoring in to his decision on how he is going to handle intimal contact.

Then you have the actual contact what did vipers body language reveal to the officer as he Finally turned to face him? I suspect the only real way we would ever know the answer to that question is if there is a dash cam video that caught the full scene.

TBO
04-03-2011, 10:20
Pre-attack indicators: Conscious recognition of telegraphed cues


http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1660205-Pre-attack-indicators-Conscious-recognition-of-telegraphed-cues/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62vzwRYrop4

schaibaa
04-03-2011, 10:21
1. Viper has a definite attitude and probably anger management issues. (This comes through quite clearly in his posts on the other forum and flares up here from time to time.

This is out of line. He's tired of getting harassed by ignorant cops. You are just taking the opinion that all ignorant cops are always right and every citizen is crap under their feet (this comes through quite clearly in your posts).

RussP
04-03-2011, 10:30
In what situations can an officer threaten to shoot someone?Well...Except for the fact he's:
Completely disregarding commands given to him by the Officer.
Is attempting to direct/distract the Officer....

No shortage of people who try to tell a Cop something to gain an advantage over them. Ever seen someone arrested for Burglary/Trespass who claimed they had the right to be there?

Ever seen someone arrested for carrying w/o a permit when they said they had one? Again, mention of a license doesn't mean much at the outset. ...by being non-compliant and verbally combative......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....

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 10:32
There are many factors that go into a lawyers decision, and the in this case being right is a small one. I'm sure you've read the PAFOA forum based upon your other posts here so you've read how at least 1 lawyer has chimed in and stated it takes much more than being right, it takes a well funded effort and someone dying or being locked up without being charged of a crime for a few weeks. Way to cap it off with a snarky remark, classy.


Lets review what the the Civil rights specialist told him.

FIRST, the attorney listened to the audios before making any comment whatsoever.

Here are verbatim the reasons he gave Viper for his views

1. the probability of this case going in front of a jury and ending in any kind of positive settlement would be surprising,

BECAUSE;

A. the attitude of the jury pool from Philadelphia

B. the way the law is (the exception for Cities of the First Class).

C. considering the fact that I was released on the scene and everything was given back to me, it'd be pretty hard to convince a jury of damages.

RussP
04-03-2011, 10:36
1. Viper has a definite attitude and probably anger management issues. (This comes through quite clearly in his posts on the other forum and flares up here from time to time.This is out of line. He's tired of getting harassed by ignorant cops. You are just taking the opinion that all ignorant cops are always right and every citizen is crap under their feet (this comes through quite clearly in your posts).Actually that is not his opinion at all. I've known Dragoon for several years and know that opinion is reserved for a very, very, very, very select few who earn it. He and I haven't always agreed on his selections, but I know he is extremely selective.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 10:55
This is out of line. He's tired of getting harassed by ignorant cops. You are just taking the opinion that all ignorant cops are always right and every citizen is crap under their feet (this comes through quite clearly in your posts).

Obviously viper is not the only one with an attitude and anger management issues or with a chip on their shoulders about cops.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 10:59
Actually that is not his opinion at all. I've known Dragoon for several years and know that opinion is reserved for a very, very, very, very select few who earn it. He and I haven't always agreed on his selections, but I know he is extremely selective.


The really funny thing is I once posted a thread entitled, "People I would not piss on even if they were on fire."

The stories related as to why were about a few LEO's and one social worker.

:rofl::rofl:

ViperGTS19801
04-03-2011, 10:59
1. Viper has a definite attitude and probably anger management issues. (This comes through quite clearly in his posts on the other forum and flares up here from time to time.

2. Viper was fully aware of the police car following him and I don't think it was a case of he caught a glimpse out of the corner of his eye then seconds later he heard the car being put roughly into park. I think he was aware of the police car tailing him for longer than a e few seconds that he believed that he was about to be stopped and was getting pretty pissed about that.


I will address some of the other things here this evening - I am two steps out the door, but I wanted to touch on these points.

1) I have a bit of an attitude, but I find it extremely offensive that you are implying I have "anger management issues." This is categorically untrue, and I'd like to know who you think you are to make such an assumption about some you know nothing about.

2) Again, entirely untrue; and assumption based on zero information. Also, indicative of you calling me a liar. I have clearly stated in this thread, as you referenced, that I only saw the police cruiser out of the corner of my eye and was unaware of his presence prior. I was walking on the sidewalk with my back to the oncoming traffic and did not know that a police cruiser was on Frankford Avenue until he was alongside me and into my field of view before the traffic slowed down and he fell behind me again.

Again, I will address some of the other posts this evening when I get back home.

ETA:

Obviously viper is not the only one with an attitude and anger management issues or with a chip on their shoulders about cops.

You sure seem to enjoy making assumptions based on little or no information. In fact, I hold the police in high regard for the difficulty of their jobs and the patience (most of them) have to perform their duties around idiots. I wouldn't be able to be a police officer in a large city, I simply do not have the discipline for it. However, they're still people and they still make mistakes, and I treat them no differently than any other person who might engage me in conversation - if they do not give me a baseline level of human respect, they have not earned the same from me. Approach me with an attitude and you deserve no less in return - approach me with even the smallest degree of professionalism and politeness and I'll be happy to set your mind at ease.

If you are going to continue to make assumptions on my character without getting to know me for who I am, I am afraid your opinion has lost it's value.

steveksux
04-03-2011, 11:09
This is out of line. He's tired of getting harassed by ignorant cops. Funny. That sounds exactly like an attitude to me.

The possibility he feels the attitude is justified does not make it anything other than an attitude.

The cop doesn't know his backstory, and only sees a guy with an attitude. And a gun.

Randy

RussP
04-03-2011, 11:15
So......to make such an assumption about some you know nothing about.

2) ...assumption based on zero information....

You sure seem to enjoy making assumptions based on little or no information.

If you are going to continue to make assumptions on my character without getting to know me for who I am, I am afraid your opinion has lost it's value.Thank you.

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 11:18
I would disagree that Vipers reaction was based on fear.
....snip....



Quote a large amount of conjecture and supposition in much if not most of this post... perhaps based off long experience but presented very poorly with quite a condescending attitude.

RussP
04-03-2011, 11:20
Funny. That sounds exactly like an attitude to me.

The possibility he feels the attitude is justified does not make it anything other than an attitude.

The cop doesn't know his backstory, and only sees a guy with an attitude. And a gun.

RandyThe deliverer of an attitude never intends it to be at the intensity felt by the receiver, well, not intentionally, after the fact.

Funny how that happens, isn't it?

RussP
04-03-2011, 11:32
Quote a large amount of conjecture and supposition in much if not most of this post... perhaps based off long experience but presented very poorly with quite a condescending attitude.To make a post like that, you really need to post more than a snippet....I would disagree that Vipers reaction was based on fear. All I see is belligerence and that tells me he was not afraid he was about to be shot. Common sense should tell you that if he was truly in fear and truly thought he was about to be shot he would not be mouthing off and refusing to comply with the officers instructions.

Now you can feel free to tell me of your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise, I have just told you what my actual experience tells me and I am confident any other officers posting in this thread will say the same based on their own actual experience in this area....Okay, that covers the long experience and a challenge to ante up equal experiences to substantiate comments and opinions.

As far as the poor presentation and condescending attitude, how would you have written that to convey the same message? Maybe we can teach the old dog some new tricks.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 11:33
Can we agree that the officer believed a felony was being committed, but he was wrong about that?
We can agree that he thought a crime was being committed. Someone will have to point me to the felony reference: 4 tapes, two threads here, other boards....I've lost that in the static.

But, at the risk of rising the tempurature here, are you saying that ignorance of the law is an excuse on behalf of the defense of the officer?(...)

Still, fact is the officer was ignorant of the law, no matter how it came about. This is what we are basing the decision that the officer acted in good faith on. Is this a viable excuse?

Two part answer. I, and every cop in this discussion, have done things that are illegal and unconstitutional. "Done", past tense. "Are", present. Like in Prouse, there were legal and accepted when we acted. We weren't ignorant of the law, but it changed right in front of us. It may very well be that the courts will rule that this type of governmental intrusion is excessive in these circumstances. That will make PPD's actions illegal---in review. What I'm saying is that you don't spank the cop when the rulebook changes, after the rulebook changes. We used to be able to shoot fleeing felons. Now, we can shoot them sometimes. Summary executions have always been no-fair.

Second, I don't require as high a degree of knowledge about the law as some want. Misdemeanor, felony...who cares? Recognize that a crime is being committed, freeze the action, go to the references. And the determination is THIS case required information that no human could have known: Open carry is in fact illegal in Philly...unless he has a LCTF. The legislature has put PPD in the position that they cannot enforce the law without a stop. The legislature has made "card-carrying good guys" and criminals indistinguishable, even to a trained observer. I can't fault either the cop or the department for that piece of the cluster.

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 11:37
To make a post like that, you really need to post more than a snippet.Okay, that covers the long experience and a challenge to ante up equal experiences to substantiate comments and opinions.

As far as the poor presentation and condescending attitude, how would you have written that to convey the same message? Maybe we can teach the old dog some new tricks.

I think "Now you can feel free to tell me of your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise" clearly sets the condescending tone and ruins the rest of the message. Lacking intonations and body language the written message can still convey lack of respect.

srprex
04-03-2011, 11:40
Unless another citizen reports someone engaged in something unlawful with a gun, why would it be an issue for LE that someone is OC'ng? (assuming its legal) Of all the BG's any cop has arrested, just how many were oc'ng down the street? I doubt any! So why bother? Not too many guilty partys want to attract that kind of attention from LE.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 11:42
And the determination is THIS case required information that no human could have known: Open carry is in fact illegal in Philly...unless he has a LCTF. The legislature has put PPD in the position that they cannot enforce the law without a stop. The legislature has made "card-carrying good guys" and criminals indistinguishable, even to a trained observer. I can't fault either the cop or the department for that piece of the cluster.

That might be true if the Sgt made this stop in order to check LTCF. But, whatever else we don't know about this stop, one thing is unequivocally known to be true: the Sgt did NOT know that OC is legal in Philly with a LTCF. He stated that he believed it was not. He did not make the stop to check for license. If we know nothing else for sure, we know this, and there's no extra missing "context" necessary.

In the future, when the PPD stop OCers to demand proof of license, then your paragraph would apply.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 11:51
Technically, what I said is completely true in any case. Whether or not it matters here is a different question. :cool:

But like the difference between a stop involving a cut-down AK and a brand new Draco: Is there a difference with no distinction? I'm not sure we need cops to have a mental Rolodex with all the exceptions to the laws, all the defenses and so on. I'm not sure we need cops to be able to eyeball the difference between Dracos and sawed-off rifles before acting.

Do we need cops to have a photo registry or something to ID people with LCTF before stops? On maybe the real answer is to repeal the city of the first class crap?

Kith
04-03-2011, 11:52
Unless another citizen reports someone engaged in something unlawful with a gun, why would it be an issue for LE that someone is OC'ng? (assuming its legal) Of all the BG's any cop has arrested, just how many were oc'ng down the street? I doubt any! So why bother? Not too many guilty partys want to attract that kind of attention from LE.

Part of the issue at hand is that the officer believed that someone was engaged in something illegal with the gun.

Part of the issue here is that OC is legal, but as RussP pointed out in Philadelphia there is an exception granted to the city which requires an individual to be licensed in order to do so.

No license = Man With A Gun = endangerment to public safety.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 11:58
I have a bit of an attitude,

Some of your posts HERE in this site alone clearly show you have an attitude and are quick to become angry. Your posts on other forums only reinforces that.

but I find it extremely offensive that you are implying I have "anger management issues."

Perhaps you should try refuting that point of view without reinforcing it.

:rofl:


and I'd like to know who you think you are to make such an assumption about some you know nothing about.

I always find this accusation the most amusing. I find it almost unbelievable that someone can think that they can make post after post revealing their thoughts and attitudes and that someone else reading them cannot tell anything about them.

For instance,

You responded to one posters question and about a statement you made, He asked if a Lawyer had given you that opinion you stated no, it was your opinion based on your ability to read the plain English.

That tells me you think just because you can read English you can read and understand the law, what it is, what it means, and how it is applied, and whether or not it applies to your situation.

On the other hand you made several adamant claims about the meaning of SCOTUS rulings concerning the duty of police. Which were quickly and easily proven to be false.

That tells me you overestimate your own ability to comprehend plain english and calls into question any claims you have as to what laws are, what they mean, and how they are applied based on your Plain english theory of comprehension.

Again, entirely untrue; and assumption based on zero information. Also, indicative of you calling me a liar.

Again you demonstrate poor reading comprehension. I did not in fact call you a liar I simply stated I did not think it was a case of you caught sight of the police car out of the corner of your eye and mere seconds later the contact began. That doe snot mean you are a liar it only means you did not clarify the timeline of the incident. and going from what you said and what I know of police procedure I made and informed guess about it.

astonishingly enough after claiming that is not the way it was at all you actually prove my assumption that it was not something that occurred in a matter of seconds.

did not know that a police cruiser was on Frankford Avenue until he was alongside me and into my field of view before the traffic slowed down and he fell behind me again.


To be clear I theorized that it was not a case of you spotted the cop car out of the corner of your eye and immediately you heard it put "Roughly into park" and the encounter began.

Your statement shows my theory about the time at least is accurate. obviously him being behind you the entire time is not accurate but only because you never revealed that he had ever gotten ahead of you to begin with.

You sure seem to enjoy making assumptions based on little or no information.

My "assumptions" or observations are based on your own posts. You of course are free to believe that your own words contain little or not information I will not begrudge you that.

I see nothing in your posts that reflect any genuine regard much less high esteem towards cops. and that is your privilege. and I don't care one way or the other whether you do or not. But what I read in your posts shows me something other entirely than you claim.

RussP
04-03-2011, 11:59
I think "Now you can feel free to tell me of your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise" clearly sets the condescending tone and ruins the rest of the message. Lacking intonations and body language the written message can still convey lack of respect.I'll ask you: "How would you phrase the request so as not to be condescending?

Again, let's teach that old dog some new tricks!!

dgg9
04-03-2011, 12:03
Technically, What I said is completely true in any case. Whether or not it matters here is a different question. :cool:

That's why I responded to your "THIS case" qualifier.

But like the difference between a stop involving a cut-down AK and a brand new Draco: Is it a difference with no distinction?

Philadelphia doesn't have an enforceable AWB type law; neither does PA. So any "stop" involving AKs would come from the BATFE and no one else. And it wouldn't even be a "stop" since no one is carrying that around, hence no need to make a quick decision.

In THIS case, a Sgt, not a rookie, gets (we surmise) a MWAG call. He believes he understands the law but he has it wrong. There seems a real distinction to me between checking for a license with no presumption of criminal activity (in terms of how the LEO performs the encounter) and an LEO convinced from the start that crime is in progress. No?

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 12:04
Quote a large amount of conjecture and supposition in much if not most of this post... perhaps based off long experience but presented very poorly with quite a condescending attitude.

Since I was responding to a post equally filled with conjecture I think it was appropriate.

As far as condescending goes, your definition of that appears to be that anyone expressing an opinion based on training and experience is somehow being condescending.

Kith
04-03-2011, 12:13
...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...

Lest we forget that until someone speaks up and can prove that they are an attorney licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, this statement applies to every single poster in this thread.

Any consensus we come to on anything is non-legally binding, but we can try to do our best to sort it out.

Given the amount of experience here on GT, we can probably reason out whatever comes up, and if someone is interpreting some application of the law wrong, it can be pointed out with credible cites and sources to explain why.

This thread is a learning experience not only for the people involved in it, but anyone else who cruises through here and happens to read it.

I know i've learned a lot already, and i'm sure others will over time.

Any one of us can be just as equally wrong as anyone else.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 12:16
I think "Now you can feel free to tell me of your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise" clearly sets the condescending tone and ruins the rest of the message. Lacking intonations and body language the written message can still convey lack of respect.

And here I thought I was being rather generous in anticipating that your opinion had some basis other than mere theory.

I do not know what you do, but I will assume hre that it requires some kind of training and that you have some years of experience in doing it.

Now tell me your response to someone that tells you something about an aspect of your job that you have done many times, they have no training or experience in your field. What they state is the oppisite of your experience in actually doing the job.

What is your response to their claims going to be?

steveksux
04-03-2011, 12:20
Never try to teach an old dog new tricks when he's busy gnawing away at one of his favorite bones... :rofl:

Might as well enjoy the show... :supergrin:

Randy

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 12:20
Lest we forget that until someone speaks up and can prove that they are an attorney licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, this statement applies to every single poster in this thread.

Any consensus we come to on anything is non-legally binding, but we can try to do our best to sort it out.

Given the amount of experience here on GT, we can probably reason out whatever comes up, and if someone is interpreting some application of the law wrong, it can be pointed out with credible cites and sources to explain why.

This thread is a learning experience not only for the people involved in it, but anyone else who cruises through here and happens to read it.

I know i've learned a lot already, and i'm sure others will over time.

Any one of us can be just as equally wrong as anyone else.

My point is simply this, do not assume that just because you can read a statute that you know precisely what it means or how it is applied.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 12:20
There seems a real distinction to me between checking for a license with no presumption of criminal activity (in terms of how the LEO performs the encounter) and an LEO convinced from the start that crime is in progress. No?
Why don't you expand on this for us. What differences do you see?

dgg9
04-03-2011, 12:25
Why don't you expand on this for us. What differences do you see?

The difference between a routine check for some license and approaching someone you think is committing a crime (but the crime is imaginary).

Don't you think police effect a stop differently when they a) are just checking a license without presumption a crime is occurring and b) are sure a crime is occurring (esp a crime with a weapon)?

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 12:32
Since some individuals are apparently going to continue to keep harping on the "But he stopped him thinking something was illegal that wasn't." thing

First as I have already pointed out an officers statements in a high stress encounter do not necessarily reflect everything about what he is thinking or he knows or suspects.

Second and Sam or any other experienced officer can attest to this. There are times (especially when you are a rookie and even when yo are experienced) that you make an arrest and charge someone booking them into the county jail. Later the state attorney looks at the probable cause report and disagrees with the charge ( this can happen for a variety of reasons.) He will take one of two actions, he will either "nolle prosequi" and decline to file the charges or he will determine that another charge is a better fit and file on THAT charge rather than the one originally placed by the officer. ( Or he may even add a charge he feels is appropriate or delete on he thinks is not.

Given the claims of some here that is not what would happen if their views were correct. What would happen is no charge would be filed period and the case thrown out because the SA did not think the elements of the crime originally charged were present. If some people here's thinking were correct then that would be the ONLY possible outcome. But it is NOT.

A police officer making a particular charge based on their understanding of the law is not the final word. The State Attorney has the final word in what the charges (if any) will be. if he determines officer was wrong the first charge(s) that does not invalidate the arrest.

And that is how it works in the real world.

Kith
04-03-2011, 12:40
... Later the state attorney looks at the probable cause report and disagrees with the charge ( this can happen for a variety of reasons.) He will take one of two actions, he will either "nolle prosequi" and decline to file the charges or he will determine that another charge is a better fit and file on THAT charge rather than the one originally placed by the officer. ( Or he may even add a charge he feels is appropriate or delete on he thinks is not...



Can you expand upon this more?

I think this would help a lot of the argument in this thread.

Where did this process start, and what kind of oversight does it have?

How does this prevent the idea of "arrest them all now and sort it out later" whether the crime was real or imagined?

What are the limits to how far this can be stretched, like does the crime originally arrested for have to be close to what the new charge is, or does it not matter?

Respectfully, i'd like to know more.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 12:47
Since some individuals are apparently going to continue to keep harping on the "But he stopped him thinking something was illegal that wasn't." thing

Right, false arrest and holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary crime are things too trivial to "harp" about.

First as I have already pointed out an officers statements in a high stress encounter do not necessarily reflect everything about what he is thinking or he knows or suspects.

That whole "let's not rush to judgment until we know the context" line doesn't work here. The one thing we know for sure is the officer was unaware OC was legal with LTCF. We know this because he said so himself.

A police officer making a particular charge based on their understanding of the law is not the final word.

It's not the final word, but it does lead to an unnecessary arrest. And all because the LEO was ignorant of a law for which there was a specific directive issued recently. Sure, the DA would not file, but now you have a bogus arrest. Every time you apply for a job or a clearance or whatever, you now have something to disclose and then try to explain away. That's why the police need to keep up with their own directives. Note that this was NOT a rookie and NOT inexperienced.

James Dean
04-03-2011, 12:53
I just took my CCW class in Florida last week. It was taught by a Police officer. He was one of the nicest guys I've ever met. He gave us perspectives of both sides. One of his best words of advice was NOT to get into a pissing match with a Police Officer. Just to comply. Nothing good can come of it, and your going to lose. The next day is a whole different story. There are avenues to file complaints that do work. He also went on to say in America we have the best system. Our system is not perfect, but No other country has yet come up with anything better.

Tony our CCW instructor also went on to say if asked by an officer, just give your name address and ID. NEVER talk to the police. Always ask for a lawyer and NEVER make a statement to the police without a lawyer. I think it would help if more people took a CCW class.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 12:55
Right, false arrest and holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary crime are things too trivial to "harp" about.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but where exactly did the "Arrest" take place? All I have seen so far is evidence of a detention Not an arrest. I am open to correction if someone can establish that he was indeed arrested.

Kith
04-03-2011, 12:58
I just took my CCW class in Florida last week. It was taught by a Police officer. He was one of the nicest guys I've ever met. He gave us perspectives of both sides. One of his best words of advice was NOT to get into a pissing match with a Police Officer. Just to comply. Nothing good can come of it, and your going to lose. The next day is a whole different story. There are avenues to file complaints that do work. He also went on to say in America we have the best system. Our system is not perfect, but No other country has yet come up with anything better.

Tony our CCW instructor also went on to say if asked by and officer, just give your name address and ID. NEVER talk to the police. Always ask for a lawyer and NEVER make a statement to the police without a lawyer. I think it would help if more people took a CCW class.

Don't forget that there is a distinct difference between compliance and consent.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 12:59
Maybe I missed it somewhere but where exactly did the "Arrest" take place?

The discussion of arrest occurred in your post, the very post I was responding to.

jcsd2407
04-03-2011, 13:01
As a supporter of open carry, I use open carry when appropriate, which is mostly when I'm working, and use my own discernment to dictate when I feel it is appropriate or necessary. I don't open carry for the advocacy of it, I do it because its legal, and there are times when it benefits me.

I think there was fault on both the officers part and this new ViperGTS19801 fellow, Welcome by the way:wavey:, the officer overreacted and ViperGTS didn't help the matter either by being confrontational. I would have obeyed the officers commands, and after the situation was over, I would have decided if I felt the officers actions were out of line enough to file a former complaint with the dept and took it from there.

I support your right to open carry, and I also support the right of the officers to put their safety temporarily above all else until they better understand the situation.

This could have been handled better by all parties involved, and I hope everyone involved learned something valuable from this.

I concur.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 13:02
The difference between a routine check for some license and approaching someone you think is committing a crime (but the crime is imaginary).

Don't you think police effect a stop differently when they a) are just checking a license without presumption a crime is occurring and b) are sure a crime is occurring (esp a crime with a weapon)?

So you're comfortable with the idea of confronting an armed man who *might* be committing a crime with that weapon and calling it "routine". When you're in arm's reach and discover that you're facing an armed criminal, what do you think would be an appropriate transition for the officer to make? (BTW, is this guy a felon in PA? Never got the answer to that.) I gotta say that overall your viewpoint isn't giving me warm fuzzies. Maybe some more clarification.

See, I'm in AZ where this isn't an issue. Criminals with guns get guns pointed at them from the get-go. Neither do we tend to have negotiations like this tape You're in Philly where the situation is different---I'd like to know what you think is a proper response. It'll let me see what the population expects, and may change what I think of people who force the police to make these decisions.

ViperGTS19801
04-03-2011, 13:05
Some of your posts HERE in this site alone clearly show you have an attitude and are quick to become angry. Your posts on other forums only reinforces that.

Perhaps you should try refuting that point of view without reinforcing it.

Let me guess this straight - you're telling me that because I find your attitude offensive, I have anger management issue? You're just plain silly.

That tells me you overestimate your own ability to comprehend plain english and calls into question any claims you have as to what laws are, what they mean, and how they are applied based on your Plain english theory of comprehension.

I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, and I admitted having been wrong. Sorry I'm not perfect enough for your standards. :tongueout:

Again you demonstrate poor reading comprehension. I did not in fact call you a liar I simply stated I did not think it was a case of you caught sight of the police car out of the corner of your eye and mere seconds later the contact began. That doe snot mean you are a liar it only means you did not clarify the timeline of the incident. and going from what you said and what I know of police procedure I made and informed guess about it.

astonishingly enough after claiming that is not the way it was at all you actually prove my assumption that it was not something that occurred in a matter of seconds.

To be clear I theorized that it was not a case of you spotted the cop car out of the corner of your eye and immediately you heard it put "Roughly into park" and the encounter began.

Your statement shows my theory about the time at least is accurate. obviously him being behind you the entire time is not accurate but only because you never revealed that he had ever gotten ahead of you to begin with.

If you had been paying attention like the rest of the class, you'd know why you're mistaken. I saw him out of the corner of my eye, decided to ignore him, he fell back because traffic was slow and I kept walking, and a few seconds later (maybe ten or fifteen) he parked his car and engaged me after pulling up again. I never said it happened immediately, in fact, I said,

As I walked down the street towards the store, I caught a glimpse of a Philadelphia Police cruiser out of the corner of my eye, traveling in the same direction I was.

A few moments later, I hear a vehicle's transmission roughly slam into "P" very close by.

I have clarified this multiple times. And, yes, if you tell me that you believe something happened differently than I said it happened, that's implying that you believe me to be a liar.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but where exactly did the "Arrest" take place? All I have seen so far is evidence of a detention Not an arrest. I am open to correction if someone can establish that he was indeed arrested.

Dictionary.reference.com: Arrest

–verb (used with object)
1.
to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody:

Listening to the audio, the Sergeant states "I have him in custody."

Therefore, arrested. Simple, really.

PEC-Memphis
04-03-2011, 13:07
Pre-attack indicators: Conscious recognition of telegraphed cues


http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1660205-Pre-attack-indicators-Conscious-recognition-of-telegraphed-cues/



An interesting read. Is there any indication that Viper was doing any of the following? Scanning, The target glance, Clenching, Eye blinks (any stress can change blink rate), pugilistic stance, Flanking, or Hesitation in response.

I don't think the question about the legality of a stop where the LEO has reasonable suspicion was answered. The "Terry Stop" is commonly referred to as a result of this ruling:


In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado[4]) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of November 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.


A Terry stop may involve a 'pat down' to determine if the suspect is armed, ie. "for the safety of the officer". It does not allow for the presentation of deadly force by the officer, unless a threat is present.

It appears that Viper gave his name and co-operated to the extent required by case law as I understand it.

talon
04-03-2011, 13:09
Please share your experiences that lead you to believe otherwise.
(is there a prize ?)

I'll ask you: "How would you phrase the request so as not to be condescending?

Again, let's teach that old dog some new tricks!!

dgg9
04-03-2011, 13:10
So you're comfortable with the idea of confronting an armed man who *might* be committing a crime with that weapon and calling it "routine".

Sure, if the city intends on doing just that, across the board. Any armed man "might be committing a crime" -- do you draw down an any armed man you encounter? Always?

When you're in arm's reach and discover that you're facing an armed criminal, what do you think would be an appropriate transition for the officer to make?

It seems that police in other states manage peaceful interactions with OCing citizens without adopting the "always engage at gunpoint" default. Not to mention all those people that get pulled over for traffic infractions, volunteer their CCW status as a polite gesture, and yet don't get drawn on.

See, I'm in AZ where this isn't an issue. Criminals with guns get guns pointed at them from the get-go.

And what about armed people with no reason to think they're criminals but you interact anyway?

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 13:11
Where did this process start, and what kind of oversight does it have?

How does this prevent the idea of "arrest them all now and sort it out later" whether the crime was real or imagined?

It is important to remember that an arrest is not a conviction. Being arrested and booked on a charge does not automatically mean you are headed for court to face that charge. it is not Until the State Attorney formally files the charge against you.

IF an officer shows a pattern of making bad arrests for which there is no basis for ANY charge at all. The State attorney is going to have a very heated talk with the police chief. The State Attoenry sends written notice to the PD when he files "Nolle Prosiqui" and the letter explains why he is decling to file charges.

The reasons for the Nolle prosequi will determine how the dept.handles that information. ( Let me add here that a Nolle prosequi is NOT always the sign of a bad arrest.) The arrest could have been in accordance with the law but that particular state attorney does not feel like prosecuting for that particular offense. (And yes this happens quite a bit on certain things )

If it is determined that the officer is simply making bad arrests he is not going to have a job for very long. And it should not be difficult to understand why since retaining him would expose the dept. to lawsuits not only for the bad arrest but for "Negligent retention" (Big bucks if the plantiffs attorney can establish this)

What are the limits to how far this can be stretched, like does the crime originally arrested for have to be close to what the new charge is, or does it not matter?

Generally speaking since many laws end to overlap. the original charge will be close related to the one that the SA does file on. But not always.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 13:13
The discussion of arrest occurred in your post, the very post I was responding to.

You are the one that is making the claim that an illegal arrest was made I am simply asking you where I fond that he was indeed arrested.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 13:13
A Terry stop may involve a 'pat down' to determine if the suspect is armed, ie. "for the safety of the officer". It does not allow for the presentation of deadly force by the officer, unless a threat is present.

Bad show. Terry is utterly irrelevant to the use of force, so of course it doesn't allow it. The proper guideline for force is Graham v Connor; that decision does allow use of force in a Terry stop and lays out the conditions for it. Several of us have laid out why we think the use of force fit that ruling.

ViperGTS19801
04-03-2011, 13:14
I think, and maybe Viper can chime in, that my initial reaction of irritation at disrespect to the "Yo Junior!" would have been immediately out the window when I turned and saw a weapon pointed at my chest. I can conjecture that my reaction would have changed from irritation to an "oh $#!*, I'm about to get shot" feeling of fear.

Totality of the circumstances - his hands were shaking like a leaf and his finger was up over the slide of his Glock - he was not prepared to use it, and therefore, the fear set in afterwards, as I thought about what could have happened. Actually gave me a couple of nightmares for a few weeks.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 13:18
You are the one that is making the claim that an illegal arrest was made I am simply asking you where I fond that he was indeed arrested.

I made no such claim. Read again.

YOU were the one making the claim that the officer not knowing the law was no big deal, and as your support for that statement, you spent much (most) of your post explaining why, even if false arrest was made, it doesn't mean trial or conviction, hence don't worry about it.

Why would you put that in your post unless you're conceding that an officer making a stop on a mistaken belief of law can easily lead to arrest?

You put that theory out there, so I responded to it.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 13:27
Totality of the circumstances - his hands were shaking like a leaf and his finger was up over the slide of his Glock - he was not prepared to use it, and therefore, the fear set in afterwards, as I thought about what could have happened. Actually gave me a couple of nightmares for a few weeks.

Oh, Sweet Baby Jesus. His hands were shaking because of the adrenaline dump. He was in genuine fear for his life, not out to hassle and dominate some poor OCer. You tried to have a street debate with a cop---an experienced one---who was well into fight-or-flight body alarm reactions. Totally automatic, unfakeable symptoms of a body that thinks it's in a real fight for survival.

You have no idea how close you came. Your subconscious might.

My God.

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 13:28
And here I thought I was being rather generous in anticipating that your opinion had some basis other than mere theory.

I do not know what you do, but I will assume hre that it requires some kind of training and that you have some years of experience in doing it.

Now tell me your response to someone that tells you something about an aspect of your job that you have done many times, they have no training or experience in your field. What they state is the oppisite of your experience in actually doing the job.

What is your response to their claims going to be?

"Well, I know I could be wrong but having extensive training and experience in this field I'm very confident in stating that...." "Do you have any experiences or training that contradict that? If so please share them so I can learn."

Team building, non-condescending, inclusive, and collaborative...

vs.

"I know more than you because I have extensive experience. Go ahead and try and prove me wrong."

Divisive, antagonistic, condescending, and exclusive.

Oh... and I have extensive leadership training and have run very large groups (60+) with multiple sub-teams and managers. I have not ever led a team of tactical operators though so I could be wrong on the appropriate methods of communication and team building in those environments.

chivvalry
04-03-2011, 13:31
Totality of the circumstances - his hands were shaking like a leaf and his finger was up over the slide of his Glock - he was not prepared to use it, and therefore, the fear set in afterwards, as I thought about what could have happened. Actually gave me a couple of nightmares for a few weeks.

Your immediate reaction to that deadly threat was probably driven by your inner monkey "fight or flight" instinct. Your monkey wanted to fight and and so suppressed the fear you should have experienced.

Bad monkey... bad. It almost got you shot.

ViperGTS19801
04-03-2011, 13:34
Oh, Sweet Baby Jesus. His hands were shaking because of the adrenaline dump. He was in genuine fear for his life, not out to hassle and dominate some poor OCer. You tried to have a street debate with a cop---an experienced one---who was well into fight-or-flight body alarm reactions. Totally automatic, unfakeable symptoms of a body that thinks it's in a real fight for survival.

You have no idea how close you came. Your subconscious might.

My God.

I do have an idea - quite a good one, in fact - now that all is said and done. Hindsight and all that. However, you've also done an excellent job of proving my entire point about this particular officer - he is unfit for street duty. It is unacceptable that a police officer who witnesses a man peacefully walking down the street, minding his business, who does happen to be armed but the weapon is holstered and not being fiddled with, immediately believes his life is in danger and goes into fight-or-flight mode.

Also, he does not know the law which he is trying to enforce.

He needs to be fired.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 13:39
Sure, if the city intends on doing just that, across the board. Any armed man "might be committing a crime" -- do you draw down an any armed man you encounter? Always?



It seems that police in other states manage peaceful interactions with OCing citizens without adopting the "always engage at gunpoint" default. Not to mention all those people that get pulled over for traffic infractions, volunteer their CCW status as a polite gesture, and yet don't get drawn on.

And what about armed people with no reason to think they're criminals but you interact anyway?
Armed people aren't the same as armed suspects. Your Legislature has made criminal activity visually indistinguishable from rare, attention-drawing legal acts. Don't you have just a little problem with that? Now the cop gets to deal with either an armed criminal, caught in the act, or some legal guy who may or may not have an attitude. It's not making the "routine" category for me, even with your latest post.


And again, is this a felony without a permit?

Kith
04-03-2011, 13:44
And again, is this a felony without a permit?

Depends - could be.

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.
(a) Offense defined.--

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who
carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a
firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place
of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and
lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony
of the third degree.

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a
valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any
vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or
about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place
of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and
has not committed any other criminal violation commits a
misdemeanor of the first degree.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.006.000..HTM

It's a felony unless you were otherwise qualified to possess a license.

If you could possess a license, but just never went and got one, it's only a misdemeanor.

Around here we call them licenses, not permits.:wavey:

dgg9
04-03-2011, 13:47
Armed people aren't the same as armed suspects. Your Legislature has made criminal activity visually indistinguishable from rare, attention-drawing legal acts.

I don't follow. Outside Philly, an openly armed person could be legal OC or a criminal. The legislature decided OC in the city requires a LTCF; they didn't force police to stop everyone to verify, anymore than any other activity with a license. What makes a city-OC person a "suspect?"

It's the PPD directive that seems to require a stop.

And again, is this a felony without a permit?

Dunno. I never had reason to investigate it (I don't OC).

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 13:49
Let me guess this straight - you're telling me that because I find your attitude offensive, I have anger management issue? You're just plain silly.

You didn't get it straight, the fact that you are quickly and easily offended is a clear sign that you have anger management issues. The fact that you copped an attitude and were non compliant while being held at gunpoint is pretty much the nail in the coffin.


I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, and I admitted having been wrong. Sorry I'm not perfect enough for your standards.

Now you're going to play the victim?

The fact has been clearly established that you are stubbornly adamant about things that are later proven to be wrong about. And apparently you do not learn from your mistakes as your attempt to establish that you were arrested shows.

If you had been paying attention like the rest of the class, you'd know why you're mistaken. I saw him out of the corner of my eye, decided to ignore him, he fell back because traffic was slow and I kept walking, and a few seconds later (maybe ten or fifteen) he parked his car and engaged me after pulling up again. I never said it happened immediately, in fact, I said,

So yeah what I said generally turns out to be the case. and you might have missed the fact that I stated you were not clear in your statement about the timeline.

I have clarified this multiple times. And, yes, if you tell me that you believe something happened differently than I said it happened, that's implying that you believe me to be a liar.

And notice the details that were left out and now later revealed. he was at one point beside you, then due to traffic he fell back behind you, Then he was once again up to you.

None of those details were in your original post. And understand I don't think those details were omitted by you deliberately or in an attempt to hide something I think that,

1. like most people you cannot fathom the need for being precise and accurate in your communication.

2. if you don't see any significance in something yourself you simply do not mention it. Hence like many people you fail to give a complete and accurate statement about how events unfolded.


Dictionary.reference.com: Arrest

–verb (used with object)
1.
to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody:

Listening to the audio, the Sergeant states "I have him in custody."

Therefore, arrested. Simple, really.

I see we are back to plain english, well here is what your plain english does not tell you.

In order to be under arrest you must first be informed of that fact. Otherwise if you resist or flee you cannot be charged with resisting arrest.

Custody does not automatically equate with arrest. You can be "In custody" while being detained without ever being arrested.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 13:59
I made no such claim. Read again.

.

Your post #599

Right, false arrest and holding someone at gunpoint for an imaginary crime are things too trivial to "harp" about.

apparently you are a graduate of the Leonard Embody school of debate tactics . Pretend you never said it, pretend you don't understand. pretend anythingyou do not agree with has any validity.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 14:00
It's a felony unless you were otherwise qualified to possess a license.

If you could possess a license, but just never went and got one, it's only a misdemeanor.:You guys need to pay your cops more.

I do have an idea - quite a good one, in fact - now that all is said and done. Hindsight and all that. However, you've also done an excellent job of proving my entire point about this particular officer - he is unfit for street duty. It is unacceptable that a police officer who witnesses a man peacefully walking down the street, minding his business, who does happen to be armed but the weapon is holstered and not being fiddled with, immediately believes his life is in danger and goes into fight-or-flight mode.

Also, he does not know the law which he is trying to enforce.

He needs to be fired.

Okay. So you have repeatedly gone out and done your imitation of a felon in Philly. The only evidence as to whether you're innocent of that felony or about to be caught in a crime that will strip your civil rights for life is in your pocket. Besides having the means and opportunity to kill the responding cop, your evil twin has substantial motive to do so. The functional difference in activity, created by you and enabled by the Legislature, between "peaceful, minding own bidness", and "idiot about to be slammed" is zero.

Yeah....I'm not ready to blame the cop for getting ready for a fight.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 14:10
Your post #599

Where in that sentence did I say that both things happened to Viper? Please be exact when you read things and don't ass-u-me things.

You know, "the need for being precise and accurate in your communication."

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 14:13
I don't follow. Outside Philly, an openly armed person could be legal OC or a criminal. The legislature decided OC in the city requires a LTCF; they didn't force police to stop everyone to verify, anymore than any other activity with a license. What makes a city-OC person a "suspect?"

It's the PPD directive that seems to require a stop.



Dunno. I never had reason to investigate it (I don't OC).

When this happens outside Philly, you have more ammunition. Otherwise, its essentialy a whole 'nother world, a whole different jurisdiction and has to be dealt with by Philly rules. Inside the city, there's a certain crime with a certain exception. The number of people qualifying for that exception has got to be under 1 in 20 and there's no way of telling who they are by looking.

You guys gotta get rid of the separate tiers before someone, complacent cop or non-compliant carrier, gets killed.

Kith
04-03-2011, 14:18
You guys gotta get rid of the separate tiers before someone, complacent cop or non-compliant carrier, gets killed.

If there is one thing I took from this thread a long time ago, this is it.

I agree completely.

The exception (thanks RussP for wording) granted to Philly is the root source of the entire problem that set the stage for all the other problems to be built on.

Gallium
04-03-2011, 14:20
...

In order to be under arrest you must first be informed of that fact. Otherwise if you resist or flee you cannot be charged with resisting arrest.
...


The vast bulk of what you have said in the post I am quoting I agree with. The OCer (Viper) is young and heady.

But the part I quoted here...at least in NYC and one or two other jurisdictions I have paid attention to, you need not be charged with resisting arrest before being formally being informed of that fact. It can be as simple as "step over here and place your hands on the hood of the (police) car".

Of course, there is always obstruction etc, but "resisting arrest" does not always require the qualifier of being informed of such. Again, this is in THESE neck of the woods. I'm not even sure why cops in FL would even attempt to advise with the plethora of hearing aids in those old blue haired folks anyways...

'Drew

dgg9
04-03-2011, 14:35
Inside the city, there's a certain crime with a certain exception.

No more than all the other activities that are a crime without a license. There's no mandate to stop every car and every person. That comes only from the PPD directive.

RussP
04-03-2011, 14:44
No more than all the other activities that are a crime without a license. There's no mandate to stop every car and every person. That comes only from the PPD directive.You are partially correct. Don't like it? Take the necessary steps to amend the law to eliminate the city of the first class exception. You are not going to change it by repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in this thread.

Thanks

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 14:45
The vast bulk of what you have said in the post I am quoting I agree with. The OCer (Viper) is young and heady.

But the part I quoted here...at least in NYC and one or two other jurisdictions I have paid attention to, you need not be charged with resisting arrest before being formally being informed of that fact. It can be as simple as "step over here and place your hands on the hood of the (police) car".

Of course, there is always obstruction etc, but "resisting arrest" does not always require the qualifier of being informed of such. Again, this is in THESE neck of the woods. I'm not even sure why cops in FL would even attempt to advise with the plethora of hearing aids in those old blue haired folks anyways...

'Drew

I would more likely go with young and clueless.

As to the criteria you establish that someone being told to come here and put their hands on the car, that can occur during a Terry stop yet they are not under arrest. if they resist or flee they could be charged with resisting an officer or some other statute.

I have yet to see where the courts put the burden on the defendant to assume he is under arrest. Detained and not free to leave YES but that is not an arrest and they must REASONABLY assume they are not free to leave in order to establish they were detained.

Bruce M
04-03-2011, 14:45
I do have an idea - quite a good one, in fact - now that all is said and done. Hindsight and all that. However, you've also done an excellent job of proving my entire point about this particular officer - he is unfit for street duty. It is unacceptable that a police officer who witnesses a man peacefully walking down the street, minding his business, who does happen to be armed but the weapon is holstered and not being fiddled with, immediately believes his life is in danger and goes into fight-or-flight mode.

Also, he does not know the law which he is trying to enforce.

He needs to be fired.

That's your opinion. Opinions of people who actually make these decisions may differ. Considerably. One or three might actually believe that he did not fire under the circumstances is commendable, if for no other reason that if his tenure had been measured in weeks or months rather than in years he quite probably would have fired. In fact I would even wager that the chances of him being fired for this are pretty remote.

I remain curious as to how many people actually do carry openly in Philadelphia. Are there thousands or hundreds, or is it a rather rare situation?

malakas
04-03-2011, 14:49
When this happens outside Philly, you have more ammunition. Otherwise, its essentialy a whole 'nother world, a whole different jurisdiction and has to be dealt with by Philly rules. Inside the city, there's a certain crime with a certain exception. The number of people qualifying for that exception has got to be under 1 in 20 and there's no way of telling who they are by looking.

You guys gotta get rid of the separate tiers before someone, complacent cop or non-compliant carrier, gets killed.

Please. As long as we're kicking inalienable rights that shall not be infringed to the curb for practical convenience, what does anyone think the percentages of armed criminals in Philly OCing versus CCing is? I'd bet its well upwards of 99% concealed. The PPD, therefore, should put guns in the faces of as many random citizens as they can, scream GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!! search everyone and call it a Terry stop, and then sort it out later because, after all, that is the only way to keep our babies safe.

This is no different than a black man a generation or two ago walking down the streets of a "white neighborhood" and being harassed because people "like him" are the exception and besides they "might" be criminals.

The PO in that audio was also extremely unprofessional even if he was right in what he did (although he wasn't) and his severe predjudice towards legally armed citizens was apparent.

You can't just order every OC'er to their knees with profanity laced derogatory death threats simply because of your personal opinion against a legal activity.

Sam Spade
04-03-2011, 14:50
No more than all the other activities that are a crime without a license. There's no mandate to stop every car and every person. That comes only from the PPD directive.

You're right. And there's no doubt that some people would rejoice if PPD announced that they would no longer investigate this crime, or others. But I don't think you can fault a LE agency, presumably tied into their Council and community needs, for choosing to uniformly and consistently enforce a law on the books. Not too much.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 14:58
Please. As long as we're kicking inalienable rights that shall not be infringed to the curb for practical convenience, what does anyone think the percentages of armed criminals in Philly OCing versus CCing is? I'd bet its well upwards of 99% concealed. The PPD, therefore, should put guns in the faces of as many random citizens as they can, scream GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!! search everyone and call it a Terry stop, and then sort it out later because, after all, that is the only way to keep our babies safe.

This is no different than a black man a generation or two ago walking down the streets of a "white neighborhood" and being harassed because people "like him" are the exception and besides they "might" be criminals.

The PO in that audio was also extremely unprofessional even if he was right in what he did (although he wasn't) and his severe predjudice towards legally armed citizens was apparent.

You can't just order every OC'er to their knees with profanity laced derogatory death threats simply because of your personal opinion against a legal activity.

Yours has to be the most accurate and descriptive screen name I have ever seen.

:number1:

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:02
You're right. And there's no doubt that some people would rejoice if PPD announced that they would no longer investigate this crime, or others. But I don't think you can fault a LE agency, presumably tied into their Council and community needs, for choosing to uniformly and consistently enforce a law on the books. Not too much.

...unless they do it by drawing a gun on people who will be 90+% law abiding.

ETA: and it's no more likely a "crime to be investigated" than all those drivers who might not have licenses, etc.

TBO
04-03-2011, 15:09
...unless they do it by drawing a gun on people who will be 90+% law abiding.
You get the circle award.

A point made many many posts ago:

An Officer doesn't have to be right, he has to be reasonable.


The reasonableness standard is that of another reasonable Officer.

RussP
04-03-2011, 15:12
...unless they do it by drawing a gun on people who will be 90+% law abiding.By using the future tense, you're saying that at the moment encountered by police, the person is an unknown % law abiding, but later it will be determined he is 90+% law abiding? Why not 100%? Why did you use 90+%?

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:14
The reasonableness standard is that of another reasonable Officer.

Again, how is drawing down on someone for a license check reasonable?

I asked before, but no one answered: when LEOs here pull someone over for a traffic infraction, or have some encounter with a pedestrian, and that person volunteers his CCW status as a polite gesture, do you draw down on him as a default rule?

If "no," why is it reasonable to draw down on every OCer in Philadelphia?

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:15
Why not 100%? Why did you use 90+%?

Because, while no one can find this rash of people OCing who were actually criminals, let's say that it's non-zero.

RussP
04-03-2011, 15:17
If "no," why is it reasonable to draw down on every OCer in Philadelphia?Has every OCer in Philadelphia been drawn down on?

TBO
04-03-2011, 15:18
Again, how is drawing down on someone for a license check reasonable?

I asked before, but no one answered: when LEOs here pull someone over for a traffic infraction, or have some encounter with a pedestrian, and that person volunteers his CCW status as a polite gesture, do you draw down on him as a default rule?

If "no," why is it reasonable to draw down on every OCer in Philadelphia?
It's been answered multiple times, in multiple depths, you just don't like what you've heard.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:18
It's been answered multiple times, in multiple depths, you just don't like what you've heard.

No, it hasn't been answered at all.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:20
Has every OCer in Philadelphia been drawn down on?

Oh, there seem to be a few cops who read the directive, and if there's a group of them, maybe they feel less need to draw. Yet, I know of many incidents where, any time "gun" enters the equation, the PPD officer over-reacted and drew. Two times when drivers volunteered CCW status; once, when someone at a car wash had his cover garment ride up. All three times the PPD response was to draw.

More to the point, there seems to be a position held here that this is the proper approach, in general.

Arc Angel
04-03-2011, 15:30
I'd pay good money to give this thing a rest.

:horse:

^ (Refuses to die!)

RussP
04-03-2011, 15:30
More to the point, there seems to be a position held here that this is the proper approach, in general. Quote where anyone here takes that position.Oh, there seem to be a few cops who read the directive, and if there's a group of them, maybe they feel less need to draw.What?Yet, I know of many incidents where, any time "gun" enters the equation, the PPD officer over-reacted and drew. Two times when drivers volunteered CCW status; once, when someone at a car wash had his cover garment ride up. All three times the PPD response was to draw.How about providing some links to these events. You mention three. That's everyone who OCs in Philly? You did say "every".

RussP
04-03-2011, 15:32
I'd pay good money to give this thing a rest.

:horse:

^ (Refuses to die!)Put your money back in your pocket. :wavey:

dgg9
04-03-2011, 15:37
Quote where anyone here takes that position.

#605

What?How about providing some links to these events.

Not everything has a link. The "car wash" incident you can probably find at the PA forum.

You mention three. That's everyone who OCs in Philly? You did say "every".

None of those incidents were OC. They were CC.

"Every" comes from the notion that when approaching an armed person, even for the routine check of a license, the gunpoint approach is a reasonable route to take, since, after all, OCers and criminals are indistinguishable.

If the consensus LEO position in this thread were "approach and talk, no need to draw," we wouldn't be having this conversation.

RussP
04-03-2011, 15:58
#605Here is #605So you're comfortable with the idea of confronting an armed man who *might* be committing a crime with that weapon and calling it "routine". When you're in arm's reach and discover that you're facing an armed criminal, what do you think would be an appropriate transition for the officer to make? (BTW, is this guy a felon in PA? Never got the answer to that.) I gotta say that overall your viewpoint isn't giving me warm fuzzies. Maybe some more clarification.

See, I'm in AZ where this isn't an issue. Criminals with guns get guns pointed at them from the get-go. Neither do we tend to have negotiations like this tape You're in Philly where the situation is different---I'd like to know what you think is a proper response. It'll let me see what the population expects, and may change what I think of people who force the police to make these decisions.Sorry, don't see it...wait, you are talking about the part in bold? How did you get that big broad brush into that tiny little can?Not everything has a link. The "car wash" incident you can probably find at the PA forum.How did you know of the incidents? No, you bring the proof here.None of those incidents were OC. They were CC.Okay, well, what's the backstories on them?"Every" comes from the notion that when approaching an armed person, even for the routine check of a license, the gunpoint approach is a reasonable route to take, since, after all, OCers and criminals are indistinguishable.How about statistics, first person accounts, real stories instead of notions?If the consensus LEO position in this thread were "approach and talk, no need to draw," we wouldn't be having this conversation.So you want rigid guidelines for police encounters with armed individuals restricting the option to draw a weapon when talking to said armed person? Is that what you want?

Arc Angel
04-03-2011, 16:04
Put your money back in your pocket. :wavey:

:upeyes: So, ahh, Russ ...... Do you work on some sort of commission? I don't know how; but, you clearly have some sort of personal interest in this thread. Exactly what are you trying to prove? :dunno:

RussP
04-03-2011, 16:05
:upeyes: So, ahh, Russ ...... Do you work on some sort of commission? I don't know how; but, you clearly have some sort of personal interest in this thread. Exactly what are you trying to prove? :dunno:Just letting people discuss an issue, airing all sides.

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 16:18
Just letting people discuss an issue, airing all sides.

And because you have several people have commented that they have learned a lot from this thread.

RussP
04-03-2011, 16:27
And because you have several people have commented that they have learned a lot from this thread.I've had a few PMs also, some from people not participating. They just like the open exchange of ideas.

dgg9
04-03-2011, 16:41
Here is #605Sorry, don't see it...wait, you are talking about the part in bold?

No, first paragraph.

How did you know of the incidents? No, you bring the proof here.Okay, well, what's the backstories on them?How about statistics, first person accounts, real stories instead of notions?

Can't be bothered.

So you want rigid guidelines for police encounters with armed individuals restricting the option to draw a weapon when talking to said armed person? Is that what you want?

I want something other than "draw as first recourse."

shaffer
04-03-2011, 16:42
More important is going to be if the detainment was reasonable given the facts available to the officer.

Do you believe it passes the "reasonable" test for an ignorant officer to detain an individual with the intent of enforcing a law that does not exist?

Also please distinguish "reasonable" from "good faith".

Beck vs. Ohio:
And simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

I believe the officer may have acted in good faith but not reasonably. If we deem it reasonable for officers to enforce laws that don't exist doesn't that put us exactly where Beck vs. Ohio was trying to prevent?


Most crime is imagined at the time of contact. It is proved in court. I see you running, you fit the description of a robber, I stop you and you have a bunch of money that is from the store, I imagine you are the robber. But you are not proven to be the robber until the court says so. That is why you are a suspect instead of a convict.

I do not dispute this and I also don't think is a relevant example to the issue we are debating which is the enforcement of laws that don't exist.

malakas
04-03-2011, 16:44
Yours has to be the most accurate and descriptive screen name I have ever seen.

:number1:

LOL if you say so. In the "old country" it is a term used to refer to your closest friends as a show of brotherhood and respect, as well as a term to use in an insulting manner towards someone you do not respect. The context and tone you use the term in as well as of course who you direct it towards determines where in the good-bad spectrum it was intended. Most in the general public that are aware of the term are usually only familiar with the derogatory portion of it, so odds are that is what you meant as a reply to my post. I therefore take it that you think drawing on citizens legally OCing and ordering them to the ground under penalty of death while using foul and demeaning language simply as a standard operating procedure of harassment is OK and anyone who says its not OK is being unreasonable.

Duly noted, just be cognizant that if you are willing to bow down to authority to that extent for this issue, you should be prepared to do so for other issues. What's next, anytime someone CC's and someone can "make" them they issue a panicked left wing soccer mom "MWAG" 911 call and send a squad of cocked and locked "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!" overreaction...you know..."just in case"? You are pulled over, hands at 10 and 2 with paperwork on the dash, dome light on, no sudden movements, and you promptly inform an officer of your 100% legally armed status and suddenly "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND YOU JERK!!!!!! ON YOUR KNEES JUNIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL *expletive* SHOOT YOU!!!!!!" I mean seriously, is that OK with you? As a reactionary response to a 100% legal activity? Really?

And we're not talking about some nutjob OC'ing an AK pistol with a fake airsoft tip here, we're talking about an everyday pistol in an OC holster where it is 100% legal, and you think that kind of reaction is acceptable?

shaffer
04-03-2011, 16:48
So you have one behavior set.

If one application of that behavior does not result in harm, it is okay.

In another application of the same set, it results in harm, it is bad.

In other words, the behavior isn't bad if you don't get caught.

Okay...I'll stick with my standards.

Your standards being a "what if" scenario that didn't happen trumps the actual scenario that did? Ok...

Also using the words "behavior isn't bad if you don't get caught" is pretty ironic considering the actual scenario we are debating is that someone DID get caught for NOT doing something bad. Shows how things can get twisted around pretty quick from reality, huh?

jcsd2407
04-03-2011, 17:13
You guys need to pay your cops more.



Okay. So you have repeatedly gone out and done your imitation of a felon in Philly. The only evidence as to whether you're innocent of that felony or about to be caught in a crime that will strip your civil rights for life is in your pocket. Besides having the means and opportunity to kill the responding cop, your evil twin has substantial motive to do so. The functional difference in activity, created by you and enabled by the Legislature, between "peaceful, minding own bidness", and "idiot about to be slammed" is zero.

Yeah....I'm not ready to blame the cop for getting ready for a fight.

I echo the statements in this post.

jcsd2407
04-03-2011, 17:20
If there is one thing I took from this thread a long time ago, this is it.

I agree completely.

The exception (thanks RussP for wording) granted to Philly is the root source of the entire problem that set the stage for all the other problems to be built on.
I know my responses have been lagging behind the curve but...

This is very true, I find it parallel to the Chicago gun ownership ban that was previously found unconstitutional here in Illinois...

RussP
04-03-2011, 17:35
No, first paragraph.So you're comfortable with the idea of confronting an armed man who *might* be committing a crime with that weapon and calling it "routine". When you're in arm's reach and discover that you're facing an armed criminal, what do you think would be an appropriate transition for the officer to make? (BTW, is this guy a felon in PA? Never got the answer to that.) I gotta say that overall your viewpoint isn't giving me warm fuzzies. Maybe some more clarification.

See, I'm in AZ where this isn't an issue. Criminals with guns get guns pointed at them from the get-go. Neither do we tend to have negotiations like this tape You're in Philly where the situation is different---I'd like to know what you think is a proper response. It'll let me see what the population expects, and may change what I think of people who force the police to make these decisions.So, not the part in bold, but something in the first paragraph? You would be better off taking the part in bold as your argument.Can't be bothered.Fine.I want something other than "draw as first recourse."Okay, but you aren't going to work at getting it changed, other than arguing here on Glock Talk.

talon
04-03-2011, 17:42
? I would think the standard is how a jury member would view reasonableness.


You get the circle award.

A point made many many posts ago:




The reasonableness standard is that of another reasonable Officer.

RussP
04-03-2011, 17:44
So you have one behavior set.

If one application of that behavior does not result in harm, it is okay.

In another application of the same set, it results in harm, it is bad.

In other words, the behavior isn't bad if you don't get caught.

Okay...I'll stick with my standards.Your standards being a "what if" scenario that didn't happen trumps the actual scenario that did? Ok...No, just repeating what you said.Also using the words "behavior isn't bad if you don't get caught" is pretty ironic considering the actual scenario we are debating is that someone DID get caught for NOT doing something bad. Shows how things can get twisted around pretty quick from reality, huh?You are the one twisting.

Have fun.

NecoDude
04-03-2011, 18:10
I find this an excellent debate and am impressed with the civility that most everyone is using. I choose not to OC for many reasons and primary being the reason for this thread. What I've taken away from this discussion so far is that the LEO may have erred on the side of caution and the OC'er wasn't looking for trouble when it found him.

I have no stake in Philly issues, but do see this as an issue even in my own state. I hope through education and understanding on both sides there won't be repeats of these encounters. I'm not a LEO or Lawyer, just know that in the same situation I'd not argue with the LEO and handle the legality of the contact later. Just my .02

shaffer
04-03-2011, 18:12
No, just repeating what you said.

No. I did not say...


In another application of the same set, it results in harm, it is bad.


If a different outcome was observed then one might conclude it wasn't an "application of the same set" (aka many variables to consider in the instant judgments taking place). Furthermore, the "bad" outcome you introduced was a "what if" argument that did not happen in attempt to discredit the "good" outcome that did. There seems to be some value issues with that conclusion.

#5xbr
04-03-2011, 18:21
some body please explain to me the end game of open carry. Im 5-6 150 lbs and can easily see some one taking my firearm from me while open carrying and shooting me or others. I need this answered before i can comment on this thread. Always obey the officer,this is why we have a court system!

shaffer
04-03-2011, 18:23
some body please explain to me the end game of open carry.

Wear a bullet proof vest in Philly just in case an officer's finger slips while his weapon is trained on your back.

#5xbr
04-03-2011, 18:29
im tired of reading. there is only one story here-the ops-because the cops arent talking -let it play out. the end

Dragoon44
04-03-2011, 18:29
I therefore take it that you think drawing on citizens legally OCing and ordering them to the ground under penalty of death while using foul and demeaning language simply as a standard operating procedure of harassment is OK and anyone who says its not OK is being unreasonable.

Nice rant, the usual "if you don't drink the koolaid you ain't one of us type thinking.

Problem is I am on record stating that as it now stands with the info we know at this point that my opinion is the Sgt. acted like an ass. Of Course I also think Viper did as well.

Duly noted, just be cognizant that if you are willing to bow down to authority to that extent for this issue, you should be prepared to do so for other issues. What's next, anytime someone CC's and someone can "make" them they issue a panicked left wing soccer mom "MWAG" 911 call and send a squad of cocked and locked "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!" overreaction...you know..."just in case"? You are pulled over, hands at 10 and 2 with paperwork on the dash, dome light on, no sudden movements, and you promptly inform an officer of your 100% legally armed status and suddenly "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND YOU JERK!!!!!! ON YOUR KNEES JUNIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL *expletive* SHOOT YOU!!!!!!" I mean seriously, is that OK with you? As a reactionary response to a 100% legal activity? Really?

more ranting and basically building a strawman since none of what you are ranting about bears any resemblance to this incident which happened in Philly which just happens to be apart by Penn legislature as an exception under their "Cities of the first class" statue, which everyone here agrees is nonsense and needs to be changed.

Whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not OC in Philly is ILLEGAL unless you have a LTCF. Philly PD has a directive mandating that any person Oc'ing is to be investigated and the firearm seized until it is determined whether or not they are legally Oc'ing or not.

Kith
04-03-2011, 18:29
some body please explain to me the end game of open carry. Im 5-6 150 lbs and can easily see some one taking my firearm from me while open carrying and shooting me or others. I need this answered before i can comment on this thread. Always obey the officer,this is why we have a court system!

There are a lot of other threads here in GT about the debate of OC vs. CC.

Feel free to browse through and read up on them, or start a new one and you will be educated quickly enough.

This specific thread isn't supposed to devolve into a OC vs. CC debate, and so i', not going to address that further here, I apologize for that. It'll too quickly get us off track.

We look forward to hearing what you have to say when you find the answers you seek.

Kith
04-03-2011, 19:10
Wear a bullet proof vest in Philly just in case an officer's finger slips while his weapon is trained on your back.

I don't know if this comment was made in jest, or just frustration, but given the serious nature of this thread in general such a flippant remark could be taken as (very poor) advice for someone reading through here.

If you are found to be commiting a crime, and you are wearing body armor, you just earned yourself another felony.

Pay particular attention to part (C) of section 907, from Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the PA Consolidated Statues:

§ 907. Possessing instruments of crime.
(a) Criminal instruments generally.--A person commits a
misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any instrument
of crime with intent to employ it criminally.
(b) Possession of weapon.--A person commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree if he possesses a firearm or other weapon
concealed upon his person with intent to employ it criminally.
(c) Unlawful body armor.--A person commits a felony of the
third degree if in the course of the commission of a felony or
in the attempt to commit a felony he uses or wears body armor or
has in his control, custody or possession any body armor.
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.009.007.000..HTM

shaffer
04-03-2011, 19:17
I don't know if this comment was made in jest, or just frustration, but given the serious nature of this thread in general such a flippant remark could be taken as (very poor) advice for someone reading through here.


Do I get any other options besides (a) jest or (b) frustration? Like maybe (c) good advice given the facts of the circumstance we are discussing?

If you are found to be commiting a crime, and you are wearing body armor, you just earned yourself another felony

I didn't advise to commit a felony and wear a vest. But it is something to consider! Just think of all the trouble you'd be in if you were open carrying, committing a felony, and wearing a vest.

James Dean
04-03-2011, 21:17
Here is a video I found about another Philadelphia police officer. They do like to draw there guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvig_KbEb0&feature=related

ICARRY2
04-03-2011, 22:02
It doesn't matter if the gun owner was legal to open carry or not. He stood there and argued with the leo while being held at gun point. Very bad idea to fail to follow instructions. He should have waited to make his point/educate the officer about open carry of a firearm.

malakas
04-04-2011, 03:17
Philly PD has a directive mandating that any person Oc'ing is to be investigated and the firearm seized until it is determined whether or not they are legally Oc'ing or not.

OK, so what happenes after that? The 100% LEGAL OC'er is released (possibly with an "arrest record") and 15 minutes later another Officer sees him. Once again guns are drawn, GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!, every 15 minutes for how long? Until every single PPD Officer gets to know the individual? Seriously, is that reasonable? And does anyone think that is being done for "safety"? It is clearly harassment. It ammounts to nothing more than "you ain't from around here, are ya boy?" How many lives are saved because citizens open carrying in a proper holster for all to see are ordered down on the ground under penalty of death, even in cases where profanity and derogatory language aren't used?

Are more crimes committed by criminals who OC or CC? If the answer is CC (and we all know it is, by a vast margin) then is it now "reasonable" to draw on and Terry stop every citizen because they might be carrying? What about a CC'er who properly informs an Officer of their carry status. Is it OK for them to be treated like that?

And ironically this issue is directly related to the prevalence of open carrying more than any single other issue. If you had a few hundred open carriers (legal with proper license, etc) in Philly in one day, word would get out pretty quick and the PPD would have no choice but to ignore their departmental policy of harassment and gun pulling on any and every open carrier. But because it is rare, they can act like that and no one cares because its only just one guy here or there.

Sorry but there is no justifiable defense for that city wide policy. Its not like they give you a little sticker to wear for the rest of the day so you don't keep getting drawn on, ordered to the ground, detained, legal weapon confiscated, maybe arrested and then released, again and again and again every 15 minutes, limited only by one's own level of tolerance for harassment. This is nothing more than partisan politics being forced on the lowly commoner who dares to defy the wishes of his master.

Kith
04-04-2011, 05:20
I didn't advise to commit a felony and wear a vest.

No, you didn't.

I'd just like for people to have as much information as I can give to them, to make as informed of a decision as possible.

I don't think you can list every possible felony you can commit in the state of PA and further in Philadelphia, I can't.

I'd hate for someone to have to pay a lawyer to plead down yet another charge they weren't aware of at the time.

Kith
04-04-2011, 05:21
Malakas, I agree with most of what you've said in principle.

In practice, however:

OK, so what happenes after that? The 100% LEGAL OC'er is released (possibly with an "arrest record") and 15 minutes later another Officer sees him. Once again guns are drawn, GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!, every 15 minutes for how long? Until every single PPD Officer gets to know the individual? ...

Doubtful with an arrest record.

It would be a reasonable (though possibly incorrect) assumption that the radio traffic revolving around the incident would be the equivalent of your "paid" sticker at the grocery store... at least for a limited time given that you are on foot within a certain small radius of travel.

Over time, yes, the officers will get to know the individual - but not a good practice and only valid on an individual level, not for OC'ers in general.

... Seriously, is that reasonable? ...

Not really. Something better needs to be worked out if the present system is to function effectively/fairly.

...And does anyone think that is being done for "safety"? It is clearly harassment. It ammounts to nothing more than "you ain't from around here, are ya boy?" ...

Ostensibly it is, on the surface. Again, given the history of Philadelphia with trying to illegally curtail the legitimate rights of firearms owners i'd take that with a grain of salt.

My opinion is that since the basis was laid out by state law, it was set up with good intentions. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but now being put into practice it's turning out not to be.

I'll chalk this up to an honest mistake. Doesn't change the fact that it needs fixing now that we are starting to realize it doesn't work out so well.

The policy directive takes the good intentions of the state law and colors it with Philadelphia government thinking.

...How many lives are saved because citizens open carrying in a proper holster for all to see are ordered down on the ground under penalty of death, even in cases where profanity and derogatory language aren't used? ...

I don't think it's possible to come up with a statistic on this one.

...Are more crimes committed by criminals who OC or CC? If the answer is CC (and we all know it is, by a vast margin) ...

I would venture to guess CC, but, to be fair... a person who willfully goes out with the intention of commiting a criminal act is probably not using the same discretion and judgement that a law abiding citizen would.

Who can say? Maybe they CC because they see a tactical advantage in concealing their firepower. They might decide to OC because they don't care. An officer has to take both these points of view into account in the execution of his duties.

...then is it now "reasonable" to draw on and Terry stop every citizen because they might be carrying? ...

No, that would be a blatent abuse of power and certainly fit the definition of "Official Oppression" laid out in PA Code.

... What about a CC'er who properly informs an Officer of their carry status. Is it OK for them to be treated like that? ...

Apples to oranges. The firearm is not readily apparent from the beginning, so no overt threat is implied. The voluntary revelation of this information creates a situation quite different from the one we are discussing.

...And ironically this issue is directly related to the prevalence of open carrying more than any single other issue. If you had a few hundred open carriers (legal with proper license, etc) in Philly in one day, word would get out pretty quick and the PPD would have no choice but to ignore their departmental policy of harassment and gun pulling on any and every open carrier. But because it is rare, they can act like that and no one cares because its only just one guy here or there...

On this point I agree for the most part. It wouldn't be as much an 'ignoring of the policy' as much as a speedy overhaul to it's implementation.

If many more people decided to start open carrying, then something would give a lot sooner.

I disagree that no one cares. Almost 700 posts later in the second thread about the issue is a testament to that, if nothing else. This isn't the only forum this situation is being discussed on.

...Sorry but there is no justifiable defense for that city wide policy...

Much as I don't like to recognize it, Sam pointed this out about the policy:

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."

As much as that isn't the premise of the stop in this case in particular, it is the larger issue we are discussing in this thread beyond this one specific incident.

... Its not like they give you a little sticker to wear for the rest of the day so you don't keep getting drawn on, ordered to the ground, detained, legal weapon confiscated, maybe arrested and then released, again and again and again every 15 minutes, limited only by one's own level of tolerance for harassment...

We covered this, it's a summation of what you just said.

... This is nothing more than partisan politics being forced on the lowly commoner who dares to defy the wishes of his master.

If by lowly commoner you mean citizen, and by master you mean left-wing anti-gun thinking prevalent in Philadelphia government and policy, then we agree.

... 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...

You're mad, I am too - so are a lot of other people as evidenced by the posting in this thread. I'm glad, we all should be upset about it.

Do something constructive with it. Learn, both here and elsewhere. This thread has helped put the problem under a microscope for a lot of people. I certainly have a few things i'll be pointing out very specifically to people in my state and local governments.

After the last election we have some more gun-friendly (or at least gun-reasonable) people in positions of PA government where we may have the chance to fix this. We should capitalize on that opportunity while it's available to us.

Kith
04-04-2011, 05:41
I know there are still facets of this issue I am not particularly clear on, so there is still much to be gained by a continued discussion of this topic.

I'm glad to see people who haven't yet said anything throwing their opinions into the ring to advance this issue forward for all involved.

RussP
04-04-2011, 06:13
Here is a video I found about another Philadelphia police officer. They do like to draw there guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvig_KbEb0&feature=relatedHere is the story behind the video.

http://articles.philly.com/2009-07-20/news/24985765_1_lawless-police-officer-internal-affairs-probe

If you want to discuss the video and story, start a new thread in the Civil Liberties Issues forum. http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58

Thanks

RussP
04-04-2011, 06:30
...the PPD would have no choice but to ignore their departmental policy of harassment and gun pulling on any and every open carrier...I missed that part of the policy. How about you link to your source for that statement.

Thanks

RussP
04-04-2011, 06:32
Wear a bullet proof vest in Philly just in case an officer's finger slips while his weapon is trained on your back.Would you suggest soft armor worn under ones shirt, or an exterior model with rifle plates?

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 06:36
Sorry but there is no justifiable defense for that city wide policy.

Please point out where ANYONE in this thread has "defended" Philly's policy.

Your post appears to be little more than shadow boxing.

chivvalry
04-04-2011, 06:53
Would you suggest soft armor worn under ones shirt, or an exterior model with rifle plates?

I was thinking one of these... IIIa protection should be helpful against small arms and this particularly vest is only about 5 lbs.

http://www.partners2create.com/products/Concealed-BulletProof-Vest-Personal-Body-Armor-Level-3A-Self-Defense-.html

Any suggestions? :whistling:

Mayhem like Me
04-04-2011, 07:33
I was thinking one of these... IIIa protection should be helpful against small arms and this particularly vest is only about 5 lbs.

http://www.partners2create.com/products/Concealed-BulletProof-Vest-Personal-Body-Armor-Level-3A-Self-Defense-.html

Any suggestions? :whistling:

It is foolish to open carry without a vest..

I open carry everyday and I wear a level IIIa vest, when I go home I take it off and Concealed carry when off duty......

that rig would be fine if you prefer open carry.

Mayhem like Me
04-04-2011, 07:39
Also in some states if you commit a crime wearing body armor it add years to any sentence and in some states is a crime...

chivvalry
04-04-2011, 07:48
It is foolish to open carry without a vest..

I open carry everyday and I wear a level IIIa vest, when I go home I take it off and Concealed carry when off duty......

that rig would be fine if you prefer open carry.

I like that it has trauma plate pockets.... and if I go to the mall I can duct tape an extra plate to my ass in case I am subjected to multiple .308 shots to the back.

Mayhem like Me
04-04-2011, 07:50
I like that it has trauma plate pockets.... and if I go to the mall I can duct tape an extra plate to my ass in case I am subjected to multiple .308 shots to the back.

do you have a belt fed Shrike to open carry as well..?:wow:

chivvalry
04-04-2011, 08:12
do you have a belt fed Shrike to open carry as well..?:wow:

No, no... it's "modified" shrike missiles for the golf cart... with mp5s under the seat... c'mon man get with the program!

...but we digress...

:rofl:

RussP
04-04-2011, 08:34
...I therefore take it that you think drawing on citizens legally OCing and ordering them to the ground under penalty of death while using foul and demeaning language simply as a standard operating procedure of harassment is OK and anyone who says its not OK is being unreasonable.Have you ever dealt with gaining control of an armed person who is not complying with orders, who is argumentative, who makes motions with their hands against orders not to, who interjects their conditions as to how they will comply?

Let me ask another way. Growing up, did you ever not do what your parents ask you to do? Did they always ask a second time in the same manner as the first, or did they ask a little louder? If you still didn't do what they wanted, did they get a little louder? Duly noted, just be cognizant that if you are willing to bow down to authority to that extent for this issue, you should be prepared to do so for other issues. What's next, anytime someone CC's and someone can "make" them they issue a panicked left wing soccer mom "MWAG" 911 call and send a squad of cocked and locked "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!" overreaction...you know..."just in case"? You are pulled over, hands at 10 and 2 with paperwork on the dash, dome light on, no sudden movements, and you promptly inform an officer of your 100% legally armed status and suddenly "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND YOU JERK!!!!!! ON YOUR KNEES JUNIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL *expletive* SHOOT YOU!!!!!!" I mean seriously, is that OK with you? As a reactionary response to a 100% legal activity? Really?You aren't going to like this at all, but it all depends on the circumstances.
As to 100% legal, in Philadelphia, at what point would an officer know the person was legally carrying?And we're not talking about some nutjob OC'ing an AK pistol with a fake airsoft tip here, we're talking about an everyday pistol in an OC holster where it is 100% legal, and you think that kind of reaction is acceptable?Well, don't ya know Leonard would have just loved that to happen to him when he was carrying his S&W Model 29 in a holster on his hip. It didn't, though. He had to escalate his behavior to get his law enforcement agencies to give him the attention he was looking for.

dosei
04-04-2011, 10:46
I treat them no differently than any other person who might engage me in conversation - if they do not give me a baseline level of human respect, they have not earned the same from me. Approach me with an attitude and you deserve no less in return - approach me with even the smallest degree of professionalism and politeness and I'll be happy to set your mind at ease.

What I'm gathering from this is that if someone is "escalating" a situation, you're basically admitting that you have no intention/ability to "defuse" the situation. You are only capable (whether by choice or other reasons) of reflecting back whatever you're given. This reaction guarantees that any situation that begins to get out of hand, will only spiral farther out of control unless someone other than you steps in to defuse it. This is also what many were seeing in your previous posts and your recording. This is, fundamentally, an inability to control anger (a.k.a., anger management issues), now confirmed by your own post and thus permanently documented on the web...live & learn Viper (or not, your choice).

There are certain times in life when it is best to yield, even when technically you shouldn't have to, because to do otherwise puts your life in greater danger. It is what is often referred to as "being the better man".

Beware Owner
04-04-2011, 11:15
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?

Yes, ask for the LCTF, any day of the week. If the gentleman is peacefully walking down the street, no BOLO's, no criminal indicators otherwise, no need to draw on him, the condescension, etc. If there is a BOLO, if he is acting in a threatening way, then, by all means, draw.

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.

And the audio only tells you what the officer said, which often has little to do with what one thought.

Yes, there are multiple variables that enter any LE-citizen contact, which have yet to be produced for this case. Do you know of any reason this officer had to draw on "junior?"

RussP
04-04-2011, 12:04
Yes, ask for the LCTF, any day of the week. If the gentleman is peacefully walking down the street, no BOLO's, no criminal indicators otherwise, no need to draw on him, the condescension, etc. If there is a BOLO, if he is acting in a threatening way, then, by all means, draw...Illustrate what you mean by "in a threatening way". What do you consider minimum behavior to be threatening?

johnnysquire
04-04-2011, 12:12
There are certain times in life when it is best to yield, even when technically you shouldn't have to, because to do otherwise puts your life in greater danger. It is what is often referred to as "being the better man".

Between two private citizens, I think that's exactly right. The complication is when the government makes it best for a law-abiding citizen to yield. In any one instance, it's a small matter. Over time and in varying situations it could be a real loss of freedom. I doubt Viper did it 100% right, but I can't disagree with the principle.

Beware Owner
04-04-2011, 12:15
Illustrate what you mean by "in a threatening way". What do you consider minimum behavior to be threatening?

Minimum? I'd say that someone who is making threatening gestures or speaking to people in a threatening way would suffice.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 12:36
from viper:
Dictionary.reference.com: Arrest
–verb (used with object)
1. to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody:
Listening to the audio, the Sergeant states "I have him in custody."
Therefore, arrested. Simple, really.
I'm sure it has been answered already, but no, not simple and not an arrest, and such a claim only further illustrates your lack of understanding of the law.

RussP
04-04-2011, 12:39
Minimum? I'd say that someone who is making threatening gesturesWould moving one's hand toward a pocket after being told not to a threatening gesture? or speaking to people in a threatening way would suffice.For clarification, what would be a good example of speaking in a threatening way, at a minimum?

Beware Owner
04-04-2011, 12:43
Would moving one's hand toward a pocket after being told not to a threatening gesture?

This implies that an encounter has already begun, which is not what I was talking about. However, after an encounter, yes, I find that to be threatening.

For clarification, what would be a good example of speaking in a threatening way, at a minimum?

Forceful, hostile, intimidating.

RussP
04-04-2011, 12:47
Guess I should repeat what I posted earlier, with the caveat that no one has seen dashcam or other video to refute the fact, Viper was simply walking legally up Frankford Ave. open carrying his firearm.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 12:49
Again, how is drawing down on someone for a license check reasonable?

I asked before, but no one answered: when LEOs here pull someone over for a traffic infraction, or have some encounter with a pedestrian, and that person volunteers his CCW status as a polite gesture, do you draw down on him as a default rule?

If "no," why is it reasonable to draw down on every OCer in Philadelphia?

Without getting into Philly in particular, I think I've addressed this a few times. There rarely is a single variable that defines what the police do and how they do it. Drawing down on a license check might not be reasonable in and of itself, but when one considers the host of other variables that go along with that it might become reasonable. Some things will cause the officer to be more concerned, some things can cause the officer to be less concerned. So yes, there have been times when I have encountered the friendly legally armed person that resulted in holding them at gun point, there have been times I have not. Lots of things going into that decision-making process.

RussP
04-04-2011, 12:49
This implies that an encounter has already begun, which is not what I was talking about...Understood...see my post above.

RussP
04-04-2011, 12:55
Without getting into Philly in particular, I think I've addressed this a few times. There rarely is a single variable that defines what the police do and how they do it. Drawing down on a license check might not be reasonable in and of itself, but when one considers the host of other variables that go along with that it might become reasonable. Some things will cause the officer to be more concerned, some things can cause the officer to be less concerned. So yes, there have been times when I have encountered the friendly legally armed person that resulted in holding them at gun point, there have been times I have not. Lots of things going into that decision-making process.David, there is another question put on the table earlier. Was SGT Daugherty's weapon at low ready, off angle when he began the encounter? Did he change that position after Viper responded to "YO JUNIOR", which Viper himself says irritated him? Or, did he begin the encounter with his POA on COM?

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 12:56
No Viper is not to blame, he just added gasoline to the fire instead of letting it smoulder down.
And no you should not be subjected to unreasonable seizures, but guess what, you don't decide that on the street, a jury or judge does.
You cannot have it both ways.

A citizen has every right to resist unreasonable seizures of their person with as much force as is required, even if the death of an officer is the result. It would be reckless and ill-advised, and likely result in their demise, but it is their right none the less.

The police have the same ability to take the matter before a judge first instead of beginning an interaction with the threat of deadly violence on the street. In this instance, the officer determined to engage Viper immediately instead of taking the question before a magistrate.

The police and citizens share responsibilities, and in any given instance, the party who is the aggressor has more responsibility because they choose the time, place, and manner of their approach.

A policeman who sees a citizen open carrying has no more justification to draw down than a citizen who sees a policeman open carrying. There has to be some basis for a reasonable suspicion, and merely having a gun where guns are legal isn't suspicious. The city directive is plainly illegal because it takes away the need for an actual reasonable suspicion based upon the totality of the circumstances.

Did the cop have a reasonable suspicion in this case? I do not know. I do know that even if he did, he could have made better choices about how he handled the situation. I agree with those that have written that there are training issues.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 12:58
Do you believe it passes the "reasonable" test for an ignorant officer to detain an individual with the intent of enforcing a law that does not exist?
Don't know, since I have not been informed why the officer did that.

Also please distinguish "reasonable" from "good faith".
As a general rule, good faith is based on advice from some recognized authority while reasonable is based on what another person with the same situation and knowledge would feel appropriate. There are some specific legal issues that can come into play.

I believe the officer may have acted in good faith but not reasonably. If we deem it reasonable for officers to enforce laws that don't exist doesn't that put us exactly where Beck vs. Ohio was trying to prevent?
No.

I do not dispute this and I also don't think is a relevant example to the issue we are debating which is the enforcement of laws that don't exist.
I think it a quite relevant to the issue.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 13:07
from Beware Owner:
Yes, there are multiple variables that enter any LE-citizen contact, which have yet to be produced for this case. Do you know of any reason this officer had to draw on "junior?"
No, as we have not heard from the officer. Instead we have heard from one party with an admittedly somewhat biased viewpoint and we have heard from a lot of people arguing about what LE shod do and how they should do it without even a basic understanding of the LE decisionmaking process. Do you have any reason to believe the officer just randomly decided to draw down on someone for no reason other than the happy chance to fill out more paperwork?

dgg9
04-04-2011, 13:11
Drawing down on a license check might not be reasonable in and of itself,

That's all I'm asking. (Thanks for answering)

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 13:11
David, there is another question put on the table earlier. Was SGT Daugherty's weapon at low ready, off angle when he began the encounter? Did he change that position after Viper responded to "YO JUNIOR", which Viper himself says irritated him? Or, did he begin the encounter with his POA on COM?
AFAIK we don't have that information available to us. It certainly would help if it was, as it could indicate something about the officer's mindset and whether he felt the situation was escalating or de-escalating.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 13:15
? I would think the standard is how a jury member would view reasonableness.
The standard is what another officer in that situation and with that knowledge would view as reasonable. The jury role then becomes if the defendant met that standard. That is the theory, at least. I'm sure that the jury also rules on the standard itself at times.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 13:18
Do you have any reason to believe the officer just randomly decided to draw down on someone for no reason other than the happy chance to fill out more paperwork?

Well I think this one has been discussed. The cop was ignorant and thought Viper was committing a crime with a gun. He was treating it as a "high risk" stop (not positive on the vernacular, but basically ready to kill).

Had he been aware that the activity was not a crime I do not think he would have approached Viper the same way. It does beg the question though, because you'd think a cop trying to gain control of the situation wouldn't attempt to get the criminals attention with an insult. This is pretty clear evidence of poor judgement at the least and probably more like cop power trip syndrome.

A "STOP", or "HANDS IN THE AIR" approach seems more effective to me.

Beware Owner
04-04-2011, 13:18
No, as we have not heard from the officer. Instead we have heard from one party with an admittedly somewhat biased viewpoint and we have heard from a lot of people arguing about what LE shod do and how they should do it without even a basic understanding of the LE decisionmaking process. Do you have any reason to believe the officer just randomly decided to draw down on someone for no reason other than the happy chance to fill out more paperwork?

No, not for the happy chance to fill out more paperwork, but I don't think he did it because the affected was acting in a threatening way.

RussP
04-04-2011, 13:32
Drawing down on a license check might not be reasonable in and of itself,That's all I'm asking. (Thanks for answering)But, depending on the circumstances, it might be reasonable.

David Armstrong
04-04-2011, 13:38
Well I think this one has been discussed. The cop was ignorant and thought Viper was committing a crime with a gun. He was treating it as a "high risk" stop (not positive on the vernacular, but basically ready to kill).
No. A "high risk stop" and "basically ready to kill" are not even particularly close.

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 14:02
The police have the same ability to take the matter before a judge first instead of beginning an interaction with the threat of deadly violence on the street. In this instance, the officer determined to engage Viper immediately instead of taking the question before a magistrate.

Your posts are usually fairly well reasoned but this is just bizarre, aside from the obvious that a mobile person is going to be long gone before a officer gets the opportunity to consult with a magistrate ( which they are not likely to be able to do in a city the size of Philly to begin with and SOP would be to consult with the State Attorney not a magistrate).

Why would an officer feel the need to consult with Either since he has a directive instructing him what to do if he comes across a person OC'ing in Philly.

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 14:10
It is your understanding of the law which is flawed. The burden of proving that a seizure is reasonable is on the state. It is not the burden of a citizen to prove the reverse.

While true it is also a fact that whether or not it is or was unreasonable does not rest with the citizen's opinion.

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 14:11
Your posts are usually fairly well reasoned but this is just bizarre, aside from the obvious that a mobile person is going to be long gone before a officer gets the opportunity to consult with a magistrate ( which they are not likely to be able to do in a city the size of Philly to begin with and SOP would be to consult with the State Attorney not a magistrate).

Why would an officer feel the need to consult with Either since he has a directive instructing him what to do if he comes across a person OC'ing in Philly.

In this instance, the exigent circumstance excuses the warrantless seizure if Probable cause exists. As the citizen would likely get a lawyer for legal action, officers usually use the DA for warrants.

The problem is rooted in the illegal directive, but following illegal orders is inexcusable, especially when an officer has resources available to discern the nature of the directive. Heck, if yhe officer had just done the tactically smarter thing and waited for back-up before engaging, perhaps responding officers would have had an opportunity to avoid the absurd outcome.

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 14:15
While true it is also a fact that whether or not it is or was unreasonable does not rest with the citizen's opinion.

True. What is dependent upon the citizens reasonable belief is whether they discern that the offers actions are so abberrant that their life is in imminent jeopardy.

RussP
04-04-2011, 14:16
...The problem is rooted in the illegal directive...Your opinion is based on what?

Gallium
04-04-2011, 14:16
No. A "high risk stop" and "basically ready to kill" are not even particularly close.


Who the hell says "ready to kill" anyways? D. Armstrong, ya been holding out on me (us) with the ninja death tac stuff?

'Drew

Mayhem like Me
04-04-2011, 14:18
True. What is dependent upon the citizens reasonable belief is whether they discern that the offers actions are so abberrant that their life is in imminent jeopardy.

Good luck with that , because the Courts have ruled on this and have never advocated deadly force...

RussP
04-04-2011, 14:19
Who the hell says "ready to kill" anyways? D. Armstrong, ya been holding out on me (us) with the ninja death tac stuff?

'DrewDrew, those aren't his original words!!! :supergrin:

johnnysquire
04-04-2011, 14:20
The problem is rooted in the illegal directive

I think the legality of the directive is an open question. You may be certain that it's unconstitutional in light of Terry, but there's also the statutory requirement that LTCF holders to show proof of license upon lawful request.

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 14:21
The problem is rooted in the illegal directive, but following illegal orders is inexcusable,

The directive has not been determined to be illegal. OC in Philly is illegal without a LTCF. Philly's training material indicates that a stop and check for the LTCF is permissible given Philly's status as a "City of the first class".

Philly PD has directed it's officers to stop Oc'ers and investigate, including instructions to immediately seize the weapon until it is determined that the person does indeed have a valid LTCF. So obviously Philly is not telling it's officer to engage in consensual encounters with OC'ers.

While no one here may agree with Philly's position on this the fact remains that until such time as the "City of the first class" thing is repealed or a court rules on the matter it is not illegal.

As Sam and others here have pointed out the REAL root of the problem is the statutory "City of the first class" nonsense.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 14:23
Who the hell says "ready to kill" anyways? D. Armstrong, ya been holding out on me (us) with the ninja death tac stuff?

'Drew


I was just baiting to some degree but if you aim your weapon at someone - you're at least "ready to shoot" ...

chivvalry
04-04-2011, 14:29
The directive has not been determined to be illegal. OC in Philly is illegal without a LTCF. Philly's training material indicates that a stop and check for the LTCF is permissible given Philly's status as a "City of the first class".

Philly PD has directed it's officers to stop Oc'ers and investigate, including instructions to immediately seize the weapon until it is determined that the person does indeed have a valid LTCF. So obviously Philly is not telling it's officer to engage in consensual encounters with OC'ers.

While no one here may agree with Philly's position on this the fact remains that until such time as the "City of the first class" thing is repealed or a court rules on the matter it is not illegal.

As Sam and others here have pointed out the REAL root of the problem is the statutory "City of the first class" nonsense.

Bingo. :thumbsup:

...and in the meantime... don't tease the bears (******** got a NASTY bite) and make sure you have a recorder running when you open carry in philthydelphia...

RussP
04-04-2011, 14:31
I was just baiting to some degree but if you aim your weapon at someone - you're at least "ready to shoot" ...Not nice to poke sticks at people like that...:wavey:

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 14:32
Your opinion is based on what?

Fact. Not opinion. Fact. For a stop to be legal, an officer needs reasonable suspicion. Not a set of facts that could lead to reasonable suspicion if other factors are present, but actual reasonable suspicion. The directive has officers responding to a set of facts, even if an officer has no actual suspicion based upon the totality of the circumstances.

The parallels to the Weaver case are frightening.

Vicki Weaver Case

Set of facts:

An adult appears with a weapon.

Action:

Shoot them.

USSC:

Illegal order because no actual reasonable belief of an imminent deadly threat existed.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 14:43
Not nice to poke sticks at people like that...:wavey:

Baiting with the word "kill" - I was being dramatic. Although several people have indicated he's lucky he didn't die, so maybe not too far off.

Gallium
04-04-2011, 14:49
Drew, those aren't his original words!!! :supergrin:


I know. :) But also "knowing" D Armstrong, I'm amazed he let that pass.:faint: :cool:

malakas
04-04-2011, 15:29
Doubtful with an arrest record.


I agree that the majority of the time wouldn't technically be an arrest, but the risk is there and in any case one is detained and not free to go (obviously) and in some cases there may be a legal paper trail of that, which is never a good thing.


Over time, yes, the officers will get to know the individual - but not a good practice and only valid on an individual level, not for OC'ers in general.


Exactly. If you just ran into a specific part of town to do something and then planned to leave, you may very well only be drawn on and forced to the ground once, but anyting other than that and it will be multipile times and if you wanted freedom of movement through the entire city for a sustainable period of time, you would have to personally know every single officer, meeting each the hard way, first and that's just one citizen. Repeat for each additional one. Clearly not a functional process.

I'll chalk this up to an honest mistake. Doesn't change the fact that it needs fixing now that we are starting to realize it doesn't work out so well.

On some level I can see it as an honest mistake legislatively, but the way the PPD is directed by their bosses to enforce that is very intentional and insures that this type of outcome is guaranteed. In doing so, the social engineering hope is that radical anti-gun polititians can do with brute force and an unreasonable reaction what they can't do by law through the legislative process.

The policy directive takes the good intentions of the state law and colors it with Philadelphia government thinking.

Pretty much. But there is also a state law requiring a driver's license to drive through the city (as well as everywhere else). So why not direct the PPD to order every driver out of the car and onto the ground, just to be safe? That's exactly what this policy and how it is enforced does, only it effects legal citizens with guns rather than with cars.

I don't think it's possible to come up with a statistic on this one.
I would venture to guess CC, but, to be fair... a person who willfully goes out with the intention of commiting a criminal act is probably not using the same discretion and judgement that a law abiding citizen would.

Who can say? Maybe they CC because they see a tactical advantage in concealing their firepower. They might decide to OC because they don't care. An officer has to take both these points of view into account in the execution of his duties.


I doubt very many criminals OC other than briefly right before an illegal shooting/brandishing and that the vast overwhelming supermajority of criminals with guns start and/or end CCing rather than walking around town for all to see in a secure and plainly visibile holster. I doubt there is even a couple examples of criminals like that in a given year.


If many more people decided to start open carrying, then something would give a lot sooner.

And therein lies the rub. I prefer to CC and rarely OC and then only in situations where it is "socially acceptable" but that is for what I guess you could call "tactical" reasons for lack of a better term. Not only do I not want the harassment, but all the other pros and cons of OC versus CC tip the scales for CC IMHO most of the time. If OC was more prevalent, I would probably OC a little more, but would still prefer CC most of the time. But legal OC has its place and should be a right and if it was more prevalent we wouldn't be burdened with this rediculous out of context MWAG mentality.


If by lowly commoner you mean citizen, and by master you mean left-wing anti-gun thinking prevalent in Philadelphia government and policy, then we agree.

Exactly. And that's a mentality that is not limited to that large city or even large cities in general. We have entire cities and even states in this country that are made into defacto citizen disarmament zones through a combination of outright prohabitions, an impossible to navigave spider web of regulations, increased costs and of course politically projected power in some cases through those who are in the position to serve and protect us, which includes our lives and our rights and liberties. Be a good little disarmed subject and you shall have free passage, but dare to bare arms and we will put you in your place you lowly subject. That is the attitude and it is not the role of any PD to enforce that, and most don't...yet many do.



Do something constructive with it. Learn, both here and elsewhere. This thread has helped put the problem under a microscope for a lot of people. I certainly have a few things i'll be pointing out very specifically to people in my state and local governments.

After the last election we have some more gun-friendly (or at least gun-reasonable) people in positions of PA government where we may have the chance to fix this. We should capitalize on that opportunity while it's available to us.

I would agree with that. There is always a learning opportunity in things like this.

malakas
04-04-2011, 15:37
Please point out where ANYONE in this thread has "defended" Philly's policy.

Your post appears to be little more than shadow boxing.

On the previous page you basically say that since the policy isn't illegal then they can do it. [you said: Why would an officer feel the need to consult with Either since he has a directive instructing him what to do if he comes across a person OC'ing in Philly.] So a directive saying to overreact for the purpose of discrimination and oppression of a citizen exercising legal rights for the purpose of discouraging said underireable behavior by elitist polititans makes it OK from the enforcement end I guess. Doing something wrong even if its technically legal is still wrong. The "I was just following orders" defense is tissue paper thin in this case and we all know it because its obvious what's behind the so called directive. We all know it, it is very clear. Doing it knowing full well that you are doing so just to intimidate and discourage legal social behavior that you don't personally agree with, let alone a fundamental inalienable Constitutional right, doesn't make it any better. That's what most people would consider "unreasonable".

RussP
04-04-2011, 15:53
...So a directive saying to overreact for the purpose of discrimination and oppression of a citizen exercising legal rights for the purpose of discouraging said underireable behavior by elitist polititans makes it OK from the enforcement end I guess...I read the directive again and cannot find that verbiage. Perhaps you can quote where you read that.

RussP
04-04-2011, 15:55
...Doing something wrong even if its technically legal is still wrong...Doing it knowing full well that you are doing so just to intimidate...That's what most people would consider "unreasonable".malakas, some of us here have been saying that here for a couple of years. :cool:

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 15:56
On the next page you basically say that since the policy isn't illegal then they can do it.

That is a statement of fact. Acknowledging the facts does not equal support of the actions.

And here is another good example of the double standard practiced by the "Rights" crowd. On one hand you demand that if something is not illegal then it is ok and must be supported. One the other when someone does something that is not illegal and you don't like it, then you demand it be condemned.


let alone a fundamental inalienable Constitutional right

Here I am guessing you are an absolutist, declaring that despite court rulings to the contrary that there can be no "reasonable restrictions" on any right.

RussP
04-04-2011, 15:58
...So a directive ... for the purpose of discrimination and oppression of a citizen exercising legal rights for the purpose of discouraging said underireable behavior by elitist polititans makes it OK from the enforcement end I guess.And what exactly is the solution to the problem?

Kith
04-04-2011, 16:02
This is one point that is crippling my ability to articulate something i'm trying to figure out.

I am not good at reviewing case law and finding court decisions on things. I can google cases and come up with stuff, but it's inevitably from third party sources that I don't deem credible enough to use as a citation to support my argument.

The reason i've been harping on figuring out whether specific points are "lawful" or not is because I know there are court decisions stating that a citizen has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.

I put forth the last paragraph at the risk of not having sources to cite to support that statement, so take it as you will.

The burning question in my mind, is how do the courts decide if it's lawful or not?

In this case Viper knew what he was doing was lawful, the officer believed it was not.

If it could be later shown in court that the officer was 'acting in good faith' and doing what he believed to be lawful, then how does that impact the right to resist an unlawful arrest?

And again...no sources to cite to back up this post i've put forth, so take it as you will.

A citizen has every right to resist unreasonable seizures of their person with as much force as is required, even if the death of an officer is the result. It would be reckless and ill-advised, and likely result in their demise, but it is their right none the less.
...

You have started to delve a little deeper into one of the aspects this situation touches on that is a little unclear to me.

I re-quoted my post where I brought this up so you don't have to dig back and find it.

Can you maybe expand upon what you wrote, and cite some credible sources to back up what you put forth?

I can't come up with any sources to cite to support any talk in this area, due to my own ignorance in finding credible case law/court decisions to support this.

I would be grateful for others to add some substance to this facet of the debate that I can't bring to the table.

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 16:04
That is a statement of fact. Acknowledging the facts does not equal support of the actions.

And here is another good example of the double standard practiced by the "Rights" crowd. On one hand you demand that if something is not illegal then it is ok and must be supported. One the other when someone does something that is not illegal and you don't like it, then you demand it be condemned.




Here I am guessing you are an absolutist, declaring that despite court rulings to the contrary that there can be no "reasonable restrictions" on any right.

With the police, even if an action is illegal, they can often still do it, with the only consequence being that evidence obtained be excluded from criminal proceedings involving the defendants whose rights were violated. The exclusionary rule is inadequate in many ways..... one of which being that it fails to have consequences for the police and administrators who are violating folks rights. Another being that it does nothing at all for innocent citizens whose rights are violated.

Kith
04-04-2011, 16:06
On the previous page you basically say that since the policy isn't illegal then they can do it.

This is how the basic legal structure of this country works.

Everything is legal, unless there is a law that makes it not.

Same goes for cops (the government) as it does for you (the citizen).

Default status of any action is legal, until some legislature makes it illegal.

Sharky7
04-04-2011, 16:26
A citizen has every right to resist unreasonable seizures of their person with as much force as is required, even if the death of an officer is the result. It would be reckless and ill-advised, and likely result in their demise, but it is their right none the less.



This is not only dangerous advice to give out, but it is incorrect. The majority of states do not allow you to resist what you believe to be an unlawful seizure. It is not a "right" in every state.

Kith
04-04-2011, 16:33
This is not only dangerous advice to give out, but it is incorrect. The majority of states do not allow you to resist what you believe to be an unlawful seizure. It is not a "right" in every state.

Could you, also, cite some credible sources to substantiate your thoughts on this matter?

Do you know of any court decisions/case law that specifically prohibits the right of a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest?

Anywhere in legal code that this is written for or against would be helpful too.

I am curious about this, and would like to know more.

My cry for proof goes out to anyone willing to help thoughts on this topic move beyond unsubstantiated opinion.

Thanks!

Roering
04-04-2011, 16:59
Concealed carry could have avoided this.

Seriously though, why on earth would you open carry when you can carry concealed. Advertising "I have a gun" doesn't do you any good.

chivvalry
04-04-2011, 17:00
Concealed carry could have avoided this.

Seriously though, why on earth would you open carry when you can carry concealed. Advertising "I have a gun" doesn't do you any good.

OC vs. CC is not the point of this discussion...

Sharky7
04-04-2011, 17:01
Could you, also, cite some credible sources to substantiate your thoughts on this matter?

Do you know of any court decisions/case law that specifically prohibits the right of a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest?

Anywhere in legal code that this is written for or against would be helpful too.

I am curious about this, and would like to know more.

My cry for proof goes out to anyone willing to help thoughts on this topic move beyond unsubstantiated opinion.

Thanks!

Just do some searching for state laws. Stay away from the uneducated extremist websites that quote the John Bad Elk case from the year 1900 and claim it is valid.

Most the states that have laws that still allow resistance for unlawful arrests are in the South and many still have stipulations beyond just an unreasonable detention.

Here's a New Jersey case for you to read...
http://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/CM/ViolentCrimes/ResistingArrest-IllegalArrest.asp

You can google Illinois Law as well....

Here's an article for you written out of UC Berkeley estimating there are only about a dozen states left with a law on the books along the lines of resisting an unlawful arrest.
http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v2/v2hemmens.pdf

I'm sure there is much more out there for you if you google it a bit....there's just a few to get you started. It's a topic for a whole other thread, but I personally agree....too many people who think they "know" the law and really don't, it's fairly evident just reading posts here on Glocktalk. Let the courts decide it - that is what they are there for.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 17:14
Concealed carry could have avoided this.

Seriously though, why on earth would you open carry when you can carry concealed. Advertising "I have a gun" doesn't do you any good.

As already stated that's not the point of this thread, but I can imagine a few scenario's where I would OC. Just a few.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 17:31
Just do some searching for state laws. Stay away from the uneducated extremist websites that quote the John Bad Elk case from the year 1900 and claim it is valid.

Most the states that have laws that still allow resistance for unlawful arrests are in the South and many still have stipulations beyond just an unreasonable detention.

Here's a New Jersey case for you to read...
http://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/CM/ViolentCrimes/ResistingArrest-IllegalArrest.asp

You can google Illinois Law as well....

Here's an article for you written out of UC Berkeley estimating there are only about a dozen states left with a law on the books along the lines of resisting an unlawful arrest.
http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v2/v2hemmens.pdf

I'm sure there is much more out there for you if you google it a bit....there's just a few to get you started. It's a topic for a whole other thread, but I personally agree....too many people who think they "know" the law and really don't, it's fairly evident just reading posts here on Glocktalk. Let the courts decide it - that is what they are there for.

Did you even read the new jersey case before posting it? It's tangential to the topic but not nearly a match.

johnnysquire
04-04-2011, 18:21
This is how the basic legal structure of this country works.

Everything is legal, unless there is a law that makes it not.

Same goes for cops (the government) as it does for you (the citizen).

Default status of any action is legal, until some legislature makes it illegal.
Technically, that's not true. Americans are free, American governments are not - they are limited.

Liberal courts (for good or bad, not relevant here) have expanded government powers, including the police power (among many) to a point where it's hard to tell that governments aren't free to take any non-prohibited action, but there's always a threshold question of whether government action is permissible even if not prohibited.

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 18:39
Title: CASE NOTES - THE RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST - CITY OF NEW ORLEANS V LYONS-342 SO 2D 196 (1977) - WHITE V MORRIS - 345 SO 2D 461 (1977)
Journal: LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW Volume:38 Issue:3 Dated:(SPRING 1978) Pages:840-849

Author(s): J D HUGHES
Corporate Author: Louisiana State University
Law School
United States

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=55076

TBO
04-04-2011, 18:49
.....

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 19:05
Wear a bullet proof vest in Philly just in case an officer's finger slips while his weapon is trained on your back.

See here.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNB7Z40w00

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 19:06
isn't the whole argument about resisting ARREST a bit off topic since the guy wasn't arrested to begin with?

or are some trying to expand the concept of resisting arrest to include investigative detentions as well?

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 19:16
isn't the whole argument about resisting ARREST a bit off topic since the guy wasn't arrested to begin with?

or are some trying to expand the concept of resisting arrest to include investigative detentions as well?

If an "investigative detention" involves the seizure of a person, then the 4th Amendment affords a citizen the same protections as with an arrest that is taken all the way through a booking. It is 5th Amendment protections which do not kick in until a subject becomes a suspect or formal "arrestee".

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 19:18
.....

Matthew Courtney
04-04-2011, 19:21
Minnesota (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.50)

609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(3) interferes with or obstructs a firefighter while the firefighter is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(4) interferes with or obstructs a member of an ambulance service personnel crew, as defined in section 144E.001, subdivision 3a (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?id=144E.001#stat.144E.001.3a), who is providing, or attempting to provide, emergency care; or
(5) by force or threat of force endeavors to obstruct any employee of the Department of Revenue while the employee is lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties for the purpose of deterring or interfering with the performance of those duties.

Subd. 2.Penalty.

A person convicted of violating subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if (i) the person knew or had reason to know that the act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; or (ii) the act caused death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both;
(2) if the act was accompanied by force or violence or the threat thereof, and is not otherwise covered by clause (1), to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; or
(3) in other cases, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
========================

There is no right to resit an arrest because you "thought it was unlawful".

Right there in the statute that you have cited it says that it is a crime to resist LAWFUL apprehensions. It does not say that resisting unlawful apprehensions is a crime.