Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter II [Archive] - Page 4 - Glock Talk

PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

RussP
04-04-2011, 19:30
Folks, I believe we are drifting into territory outside the scope of this thread.

If you'd like to discuss resisting arrest, start a new thread in Civil Liberties Issues.

Thanks

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 19:34
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".

And I will repeat that ones "opinion" of what constitutes a Illegal arrest or detention is not going to be the deciding factor on whether it was or not.

*Sorry Russ didn't see your post before I posted.

Kith
04-04-2011, 19:45
Folks, I believe we are drifting into territory outside the scope of this thread.

If you'd like to discuss resisting arrest, start a new thread in Civil Liberties Issues.

Thanks

No problem, I won't bring it up again here.

Kith
04-04-2011, 20:00
Let's get ourselves back on track, maybe we can do a small summation of what we agree on to get ourselves started up again with clear direction.

First point:

The exception granted to Philadelphia (cities of the first class) by state law, requiring a license to Open Carry in city limits, is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Can we agree on this?

6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property
in Philadelphia.
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time
upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of
the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section
6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried
without a license).

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.008.000..HTM

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 20:26
The part that bothers me is that he was treated like a criminal (felony stop) in a place that OC IS legal. The officer was offered the permit/license at the very beginning and was unconcerned with it because he did not know the law and was ready to KILL someone on a felony stop that should have never been a "felony stop" in the 1st place. I agree Viper did not make things better and could have ended up dead but on the same note I would expect the officer to server a nice hitch in the state pen for murder, not that it would help Viper one bit.....

Kith
04-04-2011, 20:32
Second Point:

Can we agree to the validity of these two documents:

2009 MPOETC training (OC Excerpt)
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf

Philadelphia police memo (9/2010)
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaOCMemo.pdf

As the policy Philadelphia PD has in place to pursue their duty of enforcing the state law presented to them by my previous post?

*Not asking for opinions on if we think they are a good idea.

Just asking if we agree that:
-No court or law has struck them down as no good
-Until such a time as this happens, that is legitimate department policy

bigleaf
04-04-2011, 20:57
We've got a fella here in Nashville sounds a lot like Viper. Name of Embody. Class act. Now, I can't concealed carry at Radnor Lake when I walk there, because of that brilliant boy.

...in hindsight, I think it's a good thing to make hot-topic issues more visible, because then it may more easily expose the corruption or lack of respect for the law that some police departments have, and helps to effect a change in their policies and treatment of citizens. Said Viper.

Huh? Sounds like ole' Vipe needs a life. And some help.

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 21:05
"it may more easily expose the corruption or lack of respect for the law that some police departments have"

That isn't a bad idea.....but there are WAY better ways to do it too.

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 21:21
The part that bothers me is that he was treated like a criminal (felony stop) in a place that OC IS legal. The officer was offered the permit/license at the very beginning and was unconcerned with it because he did not know the law and was ready to KILL someone on a felony stop that should have never been a "felony stop" in the 1st place. I agree Viper did not make things better and could have ended up dead but on the same note I would expect the officer to server a nice hitch in the state pen for murder, not that it would help Viper one bit.....

There is a good reason why the officer did not respond to Vipers offer to produce a LTCF.

First Viper was being non compliant and that takes precedence over everything else in an armed encounter. And second as Sam has already pointed out Vipers non compliance with the instructions he was given and running his mouth including the offer to produce a LTCF is going to be seen as a potential attempt at distraction.

Bottom line is this, you are armed you are refusing to comply with my instructions. since most people keep their ID and stuff in their wallet and their wallet is usually on their string side which is generally the side the gun is on. You can bet I am not going to accept any offers to reach for your wallet which would take your hand right near your gun.

RussP
04-04-2011, 21:25
We've got a fella here in Nashville sounds a lot like Viper. Name of Embody. Class act. Now, I can't concealed carry at Radnor Lake when I walk there, because of that brilliant boy. I had not heard that State law changed forbidding carry in parks. When did that happen?

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 21:35
There is a good reason why the officer did not respond to Vipers offer to produce a LTCF.

First Viper was being non compliant and that takes precedence over everything else in an armed encounter. And second as Sam has already pointed out Vipers non compliance with the instructions he was given and running his mouth including the offer to produce a LTCF is going to be seen as a potential attempt at distraction.

Bottom line is this, you are armed you are refusing to comply with my instructions. since most people keep their ID and stuff in their wallet and their wallet is usually on their string side which is generally the side the gun is on. You can bet I am not going to accept any offers to reach for your wallet which would take your hand right near your gun.

Very true..... That is a very valid concern and a well made point. I just feel the encounter could have started off better but, also as said before...we have no visual aids as to what Viper was doing during the encounter. Don't get me wrong....I DO NOT support his actions AFTER he was placed at gun point.

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 21:43
I just feel the encounter could have started off better

I don't think anyone here will argue with that.

shaffer
04-04-2011, 21:48
Don't know, since I have not been informed why the officer did that.
...
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.
...
No.
...
I think it a quite relevant to the issue.

I apologize if you take offense to this but I was really hoping for a higher caliber response to the issues I raised. "Don't know"... and "No"... and "I think it was quite relevant" without any further explanation isn't much of a rebuttal.

Would any of those who believe the officer's detainment was lawful please (thoughtfully) expose the flaws in post 655? I am very interested in this issue and am willing to be convinced otherwise.

RottnJP
04-04-2011, 21:52
There is a good reason why the officer did not respond to Vipers offer to produce a LTCF.

...

Bottom line is this, you are armed you are refusing to comply with my instructions. since most people keep their ID and stuff in their wallet and their wallet is usually on their string side which is generally the side the gun is on. You can bet I am not going to accept any offers to reach for your wallet which would take your hand right near your gun.

Hmm.... You got me confused a bit here- Don't most folks carry their wallet in their left butt pocket? I would have thought of the offer to get my license out as rather non-threatening, but you're suggesting otherwise.

I sure as hell would be using my left hand, and at a glacially slow pace... I'd be perfectly happy in those circumstances if I was moving so slow the officer had to say, "Well, get on with it already..." :supergrin:

Dragoon44
04-04-2011, 22:02
Hmm.... You got me confused a bit here- Don't most folks carry their wallet in their left butt pocket? I would have thought of the offer to get my license out as rather non-threatening, but you're suggesting otherwise.

I am sure some do, but my experience is many carry their wallet on their strong side just like they normally wear their watch on their right arm if they are right handed.

Not entirely sure why you think moving your hand towards your waist area at any speed is a good idea while refusing to comply with an officers instructions.

RottnJP
04-04-2011, 22:26
I am sure some do, but my experience is many carry their wallet on their strong side just like they normally wear their watch on their right arm if they are right handed.

Not entirely sure why you think moving your hand towards your waist area at any speed is a good idea while refusing to comply with an officers instructions.

LOL Well, I never said it was a *good* idea... I was just curious about your different perspective on it, and I've never held anyone at gunpoint or quizzed people on where they carry their wallets... :supergrin:

I'm pretty sure that if you have an angry guy in blue with a firearm pointed at useful parts of your anatomy (really, any part of your anatomy) you've probably made at least one choice along the way that might be characterized in hindsight as "not such a good idea..." :whistling:

ETA: Are you sure we were raised in the same hemisphere? Where I'm from, a right-handed person wears his watch on his left wrist, and carries his wallet in his left butt-pocket. Skoal goes in the right butt pocket.

schaibaa
04-04-2011, 22:27
I am sure some do, but my experience is many carry their wallet on their strong side just like they normally wear their watch on their right arm if they are right handed.

Not entirely sure why you think moving your hand towards your waist area at any speed is a good idea while refusing to comply with an officers instructions.

From what I can tell, he wasn't refusing to comply with orders that had anything to do with his hands. When approached, his hands were in his pockets. Later the cop told him to get his hands out of his pockets and he did. He did initially refuse to get on his knee's, though.

It's really hard to blame Viper for the cop not following the law. IMO they need to be held to a higher standard.

RottnJP
04-04-2011, 22:35
The question is, Are you willing to take a couple rounds in the chest while making your point? Viper compared himself to Rosa Parks... Was she ready to get her ass beat for not moving? Probably.

When you're talking about this situation, are you willing to be right in principle, but dead? Is Viper willing to to be an OC martyr?

Personally, I'm not. I have a pretty wife I like going home to, most days anyway, and two awesome little kids. So, being "not dead" is an important principle to me too... I'll get on my knees and do what the angry cop with the gun says, and take care of the lawsuit later. YMMV.

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 22:56
I'm scared that it will take an OCer getting shot and a hefty lawsuit to bring the needed change or a OC "zealot" taking the "resisting unlawful deadly force" to heart and shooting a officer. One of these two things are going to take place sooner or later if changes are not made.

malakas
04-05-2011, 03:26
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.

But this isn't a "reasonable restriction" as the right isn't directly restricted nor is drawing on every OC'er in an OC legal area"reasonable". Its harassment by massive force for the purpose of discouraging for political reasons and therefore restricted in a very cowardly back door fashion.

As for what you consider my hypocrisy of legality, there is a massive difference between a citizen exercising a legal right just because they can and a governing force restricting a legal right or engaging in extreme harassment simply because they disagree with it just because they can. The difference should be very clear. The government has the power to pull guns on its citizens and order them to the ground and threaten death while talking down to you in a profanity laced diatribe. Citizens do not have that kind of power. The government, therefore, needs to be restricted and "policed" to make sure they serve the Constitution and protect liberty. Not just to follow blind orders from some inalienable rights harassing political power monger.

As for your acid test of multipile court decisions, natural law trumps written law 24/7/365. That is the entire point of our Constitution. You could go through the ammendment process and have a 9-0 SCOTUS decision backing it up that repeals the first amendment and establishes satanism as the state religion, but that "law" would be invalid on reciept. Anyone, in any capacity, that attempted to "enforce" it would be wrong.

The officials and PO's in Philly know full well what they are trying to do. They aren't trying to save the lives of innocent babies, they are trying to harass open carriers so that they don't open carry. The city's record of trying to do so through illegal laws that violate state laws is well known. Since they can't do so on that front, they turn to chicken scat little ways of doing the same thing and order their PD to do their dirty work for them. It is still wrong.

malakas
04-05-2011, 03:29
Let's get ourselves back on track, maybe we can do a small summation of what we agree on to get ourselves started up again with clear direction.

First point:

The exception granted to Philadelphia (cities of the first class) by state law, requiring a license to Open Carry in city limits, is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Can we agree on this?

6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property
in Philadelphia.
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time
upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of
the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section
6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried
without a license).

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.008.000..HTM

Exactly. It is also a requirement to have a license to drive, practice medicine, practice law and tons of other things. Should we then order everyone to the ground at gunpoint, haul them in after making them surrender their property, only to then let them prove their innocense when there was absolute zero probable cause to do so? Is that really the kind of society we want to have?

malakas
04-05-2011, 03:46
Don't get me wrong....I DO NOT support his actions AFTER he was placed at gun point.


The entire paradigm of modern policing hinges on complying with Officer instructions, even if wrong. However, for that to work long term, there must be a fair process after the fact that makes things right. Overzealous Officers should still be complied with, but later on any wrongful actions need to be corrected through dicipline, lawsuits, retraining, fines, suspensions, even prison (if bad enough) or any number of ways. There is already that to some degree, but the question remains are there enough checks and balances on a broad scale and is the pendulum far enough on the side of John Q Public or is it almost always automatically on the side of agents of goverment?

The PPD SOP of harassing OC'ers is clearly crossing the line of what's fair or right. We can even have a plain clothed officer in an unmarked car cut off a motorcycle driver in a very threatening manner, draw his gun with his badge not visibile and the driver gets charged for videotaping the zealot. So its reasonable to expect all citizens to bow down to anyone who pulls a gun because it "might" be a police officer? And how about the LA riots and Katrina response, where little armies of police harassed people protecting their own homes and businessed and confiscated their arms and left them defenseless. There needs to be strong corrective actions legislatively and judicially to correct these kinds of abuses otherwise the entire validity of the system we count on starts to erode.


As for the Tennessee AK pistol fake airsoft guy, I thought from the second I heard his story that he was probably a Brady plant.

dosei
04-05-2011, 05:14
Hmm.... You got me confused a bit here- Don't most folks carry their wallet in their left butt pocket?

If they are left handed...yes.

Are you sure we were raised in the same hemisphere? Where I'm from, a right-handed person wears his watch on his left wrist, and carries his wallet in his left butt-pocket. Skoal goes in the right butt pocket.

In my experience and observations growing up and traveling, the vast majority of men (including myself) carry their wallets strong-side and access it with their dominate hand. Watches are worn on the wrist of the non-dominate hand. Skoal cans are generally carried in the weak-side rear pocket.

At least that's how we rolled in the midwest and it appears to be the same here in the south.

Edited to add:
Looks like Viper does it that way also. He is a "South Paw", looks like he carries a "trucker wallet" in his left rear pocket.
(This also might be his friend he was out shooting with and not Viper.)
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i170/dosei/ViperGTS19801attherange.jpg

RussP
04-05-2011, 05:39
...ETA: Are you sure we were raised in the same hemisphere? Where I'm from, a right-handed person wears his watch on his left wrist, and carries his wallet in his left butt-pocket. Skoal goes in the right butt pocket.I guess what is needed more often or reached for most frequently would go into the strong side pocket.

However, my observations over5+ decades since I started carrying a wallet in my back pant pocket, people carried their wallet like me, in their dominate side back pocket.

Now back on topic, for the record, Viper wore a vest that day and had his LTCF in one of his vest pockets. Viper, in preparation for a possible encounter, placed it there before leaving his mother's house.

RussP
04-05-2011, 05:48
...I just feel the encounter could have started off better...I don't think anyone here will argue with that.I have not read in 1,948 posts, either here or in Chapter I, that anyone believes the encounter began well.

Still, there are some who would really like to hear why SGT Dougherty began the stop the way he did before drawing final conclusions.

RussP
04-05-2011, 05:52
...As for the Tennessee AK pistol fake airsoft guy, I thought from the second I heard his story that he was probably a Brady plant.No, Leonard is not a Brady plant. He's confirmed many, many times in different ways that he is acting alone without affiliation with any group or cause.

RussP
04-05-2011, 06:06
Exactly. It is also a requirement to have a license to drive, practice medicine, practice law and tons of other things. Should we then order everyone to the ground at gunpoint, haul them in after making them surrender their property, only to then let them prove their innocense when there was absolute zero probable cause to do so? Is that really the kind of society we want to have?When was Viper "hauled in"?

Look, I believe we're past the dramatic presentation stage of this discussion. The impassioned, flamboyant, emotional cries of oppression and injustice have been heard.

How about we move on to developing solutions.

Yeah, you're thinking that's no fun, that takes work and is boring. For some, most, yeah it is. They prefer letting others do the heavy lifting.

Thankfully, there are those out there who thrive on solving problems and enjoy the satisfaction of knowing their hard work benefited many. It does feel good.

RussP
04-05-2011, 06:36
I apologize if you take offense to this but I was really hoping for a higher caliber response to the issues I raised. "Don't know"... and "No"... and "I think it was quite relevant" without any further explanation isn't much of a rebuttal...Yeah, those simple answers are frustrating. I've pissed off some really good, really smart attorneys with short, direct responses. Know what is really fun? Ask an attorney to be more specific with a question.

You're probably thinking David is being evasive. Perhaps if you ask another, very simple question it will get an answer that is more acceptable to you.

Or, make a statement and ask David if he agrees.

Okay, class dismissed, y'all have a good day.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 06:42
ETA: Are you sure we were raised in the same hemisphere? Where I'm from, a right-handed person wears his watch on his left wrist, and carries his wallet in his left butt-pocket. Skoal goes in the right butt pocket.

On the watch thing you are right and that is what I meant to say. don't know why it came out different. other than I was tired when I was posting. Now on the wallet. most people I have seen carry theirs on their dominate side.

Gallium
04-05-2011, 06:56
On the watch thing you are right and that is what I meant to say. don't know why it came out different. other than I was tired when I was posting. Now on the wallet. most people I have seen carry theirs on their dominate side.


Jesus lord I have to quote this for posterity.

Ladies and gents, Dragoon has made what appears to be something resembling a *correction*.

I for one demand you give us our real, old crusty Dragoon back this instant! :tongueout:

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 07:34
But this isn't a "reasonable restriction" as the right isn't directly restricted nor is drawing on every OC'er in an OC legal area"reasonable". Its harassment by massive force for the purpose of discouraging for political reasons and therefore restricted in a very cowardly back door fashion.

I am not aware of PPD drawing on every OC'er, In fact IIRC Viper himself has had previous encounters with PPD while OC'ing and was not drawn on.

it is rather difficult to take your posts seriously when you consistently resort to hyperbole, and over exaggerations,

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 07:36
Jesus lord I have to quote this for posterity.

Ladies and gents, Dragoon has made what appears to be something resembling a *correction*.

I for one demand you give us our real, old crusty Dragoon back this instant! :tongueout:


it is only because I rarely need to make a correction, the next time probably won't be till sometime after 2111 or so.

:tongueout::rofl:

RussP
04-05-2011, 08:15
There is a new thread, Chapter III, where the discussion can continue on how best to solve the problems in Philadelphia.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17166929

I'm going to leave this open, but do NOT even think about turning it into a free-for-all

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 08:42
Who the hell says "ready to kill" anyways? D. Armstrong, ya been holding out on me (us) with the ninja death tac stuff?

'Drew

Ahhh, grasshopper, you have discovered my secret! Now we must fight together to overthrow the Emporer!:tongueout:

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 08:57
LOL Well, I never said it was a *good* idea... I was just curious about your different perspective on it, and I've never held anyone at gunpoint or quizzed people on where they carry their wallets... :supergrin:

I'm pretty sure that if you have an angry guy in blue with a firearm pointed at useful parts of your anatomy (really, any part of your anatomy) you've probably made at least one choice along the way that might be characterized in hindsight as "not such a good idea..." :whistling:

ETA: Are you sure we were raised in the same hemisphere? Where I'm from, a right-handed person wears his watch on his left wrist, and carries his wallet in his left butt-pocket. Skoal goes in the right butt pocket.
And I was raised with watch on left arm and wallet in right rear pocket. Which I think goes to Dragoon's point....any uncontrolled/unrequested movement can be suspect as there is no standard.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 09:00
I'm scared that it will take an OCer getting shot and a hefty lawsuit to bring the needed change or a OC "zealot" taking the "resisting unlawful deadly force" to heart and shooting a officer. One of these two things are going to take place sooner or later if changes are not made.
Just so everyone is clear, resistance that includes using deadly force is not OK. It allows the charges to be changed to manslaughter instead of murder, and that is about it, even in most places that allow resistance with force.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 09:08
from malakas:
As for your acid test of multipile court decisions, natural law trumps written law 24/7/365. That is the entire point of our Constitution. You could go through the ammendment process and have a 9-0 SCOTUS decision backing it up that repeals the first amendment and establishes satanism as the state religion, but that "law" would be invalid on reciept. Anyone, in any capacity, that attempted to "enforce" it would be wrong.
No, natural law does not trump written law. That is one purpose of the Constitution, to establish a framework of laws that all are subject to including the government. And if the amendment process is followed according to the Constitution, and the SC rules is OK, then that law would be valid, legal, and enforceable. That also is part of the Constitution. Like so many it seems you want to pick and choose from the Constitution and argue that the Constitution is totally binding except for the parts of the Constitution you disagree with.
Should we then order everyone to the ground at gunpoint, haul them in after making them surrender their property, only to then let them prove their innocense when there was absolute zero probable cause to do so? Is that really the kind of society we want to have?
Perhaps you could show us anywhere in our society that is practiced on a regular basis?? Or is it just a bunch of rather nonsensical bombastic rhetoric tossed up as a strawman?

USAFE7
04-05-2011, 09:26
Just so everyone is clear, resistance that includes using deadly force is not OK.

I didn't say it was right or that I support it but, that law does exist and you know as well as I do, there is at least one person/yahoo/idiot/nut job out there willing to test that theory and once it happens.....both sides are going to suffer.
I will add : Shooting a LEO to resist unlawful arrest is a pretty insane idea.

bigleaf
04-05-2011, 09:34
I had not heard that State law changed forbidding carry in parks. When did that happen?

Each park in Tennessee, or even town, can choose to opt out. After the "incident" with Leonard, they opted out and posted at Radnor Lake State Park. Too bad, as it's the one I visit most frequently. Beautiful lake, great trails, birds galore, turtles, deer, mushrooms, wildflowers and neighbors.

And, unfortunately, the occasional Leonard.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 09:38
Hmm.... You got me confused a bit here- Don't most folks carry their wallet in their left butt pocket? I would have thought of the offer to get my license out as rather non-threatening, but you're suggesting otherwise.

I sure as hell would be using my left hand, and at a glacially slow pace... I'd be perfectly happy in those circumstances if I was moving so slow the officer had to say, "Well, get on with it already..." :supergrin:

I teach people, and reccomend to instructors I train to teach people, to carry their wallets in a place where they can get to them without going near their gun.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 09:43
Just so everyone is clear, resistance that includes using deadly force is not OK. It allows the charges to be changed to manslaughter instead of murder, and that is about it, even in most places that allow resistance with force.

Randy Weaver was convicted of Manslaughter? Can you cite your source on that, because the information I have is that he was only convicted for failure to appear.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 09:47
I teach people, and reccomend to instructors I train to teach people, to carry their wallets in a place where they can get to them without going near their gun.

I always carry my wallet on the left side, keys on a kubotan slid behind my belt on the left side ( since I regularly carry a BUG in my left front pant pocket.)

The reason being I always kept the hand of the side my primary gun was on free of any encumbrances.

RussP
04-05-2011, 09:49
Each park in Tennessee, or even town, can choose to opt out. After the "incident" with Leonard, they opted out and posted at Radnor Lake State Park. Too bad, as it's the one I visit most frequently. Beautiful lake, great trails, birds galore, turtles, deer, mushrooms, wildflowers and neighbors.

And, unfortunately, the occasional Leonard.Here is the rule regarding firearms from http://www.radnorlake.org/rules.html .Firearms are prohibited (excluding conceal/carry permit holders). So, that's not current information...okay.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 09:52
Randy Weaver was convicted of Manslaughter? Can you cite your source on that, because the information I have is that he was only convicted for failure to appear.

I believe the source he is referring to is the links to relevant court cases posted earlier. most of which show that in cases where resisting brought about the death of the officer the courts ruled the applicable charge was manslaughter not murder.

Despite your claims to the contrary I see no correlation between the weaver case and Vipers.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 09:53
I didn't say it was right or that I support it but, that law does exist and you know as well as I do, there is at least one person/yahoo/idiot/nut job out there willing to test that theory and once it happens.....both sides are going to suffer.
I will add : Shooting a LEO to resist unlawful arrest is a pretty insane idea.
That is why I thought it a good idea to point out that even at the best you are still probably looking at a manslaughter charge.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 09:53
No, natural law does not trump written law.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that our Founders invoked natural law to justify the separation from England and the forming of a new government in the former colonies.

In any instance where man's laws are in conflict with natural law, man's laws will take a backseat, unless you believe that Congress could do things like repeal the law of gravity.

Heck, if natural law is subservient to man's laws, why doesn't the Japanese Government simply outlaw the release of highly radioactive materials into the environment to stop the problems at the nuclear power plant? Heck, the UN could ban hunger and disease.

bigleaf
04-05-2011, 09:53
Here is the rule regarding firearms from http://www.radnorlake.org/rules.html . So, that's not current information...okay.

Next time you're over there, look for the rules signage they have on those molded plastic signs. Firearms are prohibited, even with an HCP. It's been that way for at least the last couple or three months.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 09:57
Randy Weaver was convicted of Manslaughter? Can you cite your source on that, because the information I have is that he was only convicted for failure to appear.
Wasn't aware that Randy Weaver shot an officer. Can you cite a source for that? Why would they charge him with any homicide-related charge if he didn't kill anyone?

RussP
04-05-2011, 10:04
You seem to be ignoring the fact that our Founders invoked natural law to justify the separation from England and the forming of a new government in the former colonies.

In any instance where man's laws are in conflict with natural law, man's laws will take a backseat, unless you believe that Congress could do things like repeal the law of gravity.

Heck, if natural law is subservient to man's laws, why doesn't the Japanese Government simply outlaw the release of highly radioactive materials into the environment to stop the problems at the nuclear power plant? Heck, the UN could ban hunger and disease.Please, if you go down that road in this thread, somehow tie it back to the situations at hand.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 10:05
You seem to be ignoring the fact that our Founders invoked natural law to justify the separation from England and the forming of a new government in the former colonies.
And what they formed was a nation of laws with the Constitution considered the supreme law of the land, not natural law which is a rather vague concept and has no legal standing.

In any instance where man's laws are in conflict with natural law, man's laws will take a backseat, unless you believe that Congress could do things like repeal the law of gravity.

Heck, if natural law is subservient to man's laws, why doesn't the Japanese Government simply outlaw the release of highly radioactive materials into the environment to stop the problems at the nuclear power plant? Heck, the UN could ban hunger and disease.
I'm not sure if that is an attempt at humour or an example of education in so much of Louisiana.

*Sorry, Russ, looks like I was writing while you were posting. Feel free to pull the post as I can't figure out how to delete the thing.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 10:08
In any instance where man's laws are in conflict with natural law, man's laws will take a backseat, unless you believe that Congress could do things like repeal the law of gravity.

Heck, if natural law is subservient to man's laws, why doesn't the Japanese Government simply outlaw the release of highly radioactive materials into the environment to stop the problems at the nuclear power plant? Heck, the UN could ban hunger and disease.

Yo invoke the laws of nature or the universe that man has absolutely no control over. And try to apply the same concept to the things that recorded history shows that man DOES have control over.

Lets reverse your reasoning and see if it works.

If certain things as you claim are "natural law" and universal then why aren't those things universal in scope?

If they are on the same level as the law of Gravity or radioactivity how can man ignore or suppress them?

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 10:11
Please, don't go down that road in this thread. :impatient:

Russ if you wish this not to be discussed I will drop it. However let me point out that attitudes like this are very much a part of the problem in cases like this.

Someone wants to claim that statutes, policies or procedures are invalid based on their claim of the supremacy of "Natural law" over all. How can anyone agree on a solution to a problem unless they first agree on what the ground rules are governing it's solution?

dosei
04-05-2011, 10:14
Deleted...was typing while Russ made the post above...deleted to avoid the derailing of the thread.

RussP
04-05-2011, 10:20
Russ if you wish this not to be discussed I will drop it. However let me point out that attitudes like this are very much a part of the problem in cases like this.

Someone wants to claim that statutes, policies or procedures are invalid based on their claim of the supremacy of "Natural law" over all. How can anyone agree on a solution to a problem unless they first agree on what the ground rules are governing it's solution?Make certain to eventually, sooner than later, bring it back to the main topic.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 10:43
Russ if you wish this not to be discussed I will drop it. However let me point out that attitudes like this are very much a part of the problem in cases like this.

Someone wants to claim that statutes, policies or procedures are invalid based on their claim of the supremacy of "Natural law" over all. How can anyone agree on a solution to a problem unless they first agree on what the ground rules are governing it's solution?

I have cited only statutes and cases. My post about natural law was to point out that all of American Jurisprudence and Law, from our separation from England forward, is based upon Natural Law as it was understood by our founders and we cannot successfully deviate from it.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 10:44
I have cited only statutes and cases. My post about natural law was to point out that all of American Jurisprudence and Law, from our separation from England forward, is based upon Natural Law as it was understood by our founders and we cannot successfully deviate from it.

Now that I would not argue with.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 11:01
Wasn't aware that Randy Weaver shot an officer. Can you cite a source for that? Why would they charge him with any homicide-related charge if he didn't kill anyone?

Randy Weaver was charged with Homicide in the death of U.S. Marshall William Degan and acquitted at trial. If you are postulating that Kevin Harris fired the bullet that killed Degan and that he was not acting in concert with Weaver at the time, we get the same result because Harris was charged with the murder of Degan also.

The indictment included a conspiracy count alleging that Harris, Weaver and others planned to resist officers, which was why Weaver was charged in Degan's death even though Harris likely fired the fatal shot.

Pretending to be unfamiliar with the concept of conspiracy?

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 11:07
Randy Weaver was charged with Homicide in the death of U.S. Marshall William Degan and acquitted at trial. If you are postulating that Kevin Harris fired the bullet that killed Degan and that he was not acting in concert with Weaver at the time, we get the same result because Harris was charged with the murder of Degan also and acquitted as well.

The indictment included a conspiracy count alleging that Harris, Weaver and others planned to resist officers, which was why Weaver was charged in Degan's death even though Harris likely fired the fatal shot.

Pretending to be unfamiliar with the concept of conspiracy?
I'm quite familiar with the elements of conspiracy. And they don't apply here. The only conspiracy charge was a conspiracy to provoke. Weaver did not shoot anyone, so it is hard to argue that he used deadly force to resist arrest, which is the issue here.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 11:18
I'm quite familiar with the elements of conspiracy. And they don't apply here. The only conspiracy charge was a conspiracy to provoke. Weaver did not shoot anyone, so it is hard to argue that he used deadly force to resist arrest, which is the issue here.

What about Kevin Harris? The case title: "US v. Weaver" includes the acquittal of Kevin Harris, who did, according to the Justice Department, fire the shot that killed Marshall Degan.

RussP
04-05-2011, 11:21
What about Kevin Harris? The case title: "US v. Weaver" includes the acquittal of Kevin Harris, who did, according to the Justice Department, fire the shot that killed Marshall Degan.What does this have to do with Viper and the incident in Philly?

bigleaf
04-05-2011, 11:22
RussP --

I just got off the phone with the ranger at Radnor Lake Park and you're correct. Concealed or open carry, if you've got an HCP. When the Tennessee law was changed, they specifically refused to spend any money on it... even to change signage. So, the signs still say prohibited, while the law says not.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 11:26
What about Kevin Harris? The case title: "US v. Weaver" includes the acquittal of Kevin Harris, who did, according to the Justice Department, fire the shot that killed Marshall Degan.
OK, he was found not guilty. So what? That no more proves the position than some being found not guilty of robbery proves the position that it is OK to commit robbery. A claim was made that the law allows you to shoot an officer to resist unlawful arrest. That is not correct. It is a defense against the murder charge but it is still against the law as a general rule. In this particular case the whole argument is irrelevant, IMO, as no arrest occurred.

RussP
04-05-2011, 11:52
RussP --

I just got off the phone with the ranger at Radnor Lake Park and you're correct. Concealed or open carry, if you've got an HCP. When the Tennessee law was changed, they specifically refused to spend any money on it... even to change signage. So, the signs still say prohibited, while the law says not.Thanks for doing that, bigleaf. :thumbsup:

USAFE7
04-05-2011, 12:08
That is not correct. It is a defense against the murder charge but it is still against the law as a general rule. That I will disagree with (unless I'm taking it wrong). You may resist unlawful force with equal force as being used. Again, I'm not advising this at all but, if we are going to discuss the subject, we need to do it accurately.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 12:31
That I will disagree with (unless I'm taking it wrong). You may resist unlawful force with equal force as being used. Again, I'm not advising this at all but, if we are going to discuss the subject, we need to do it accurately.
I think you have it wrong. The rule is not equal force, you may use reasonable force. And deadly force gets some special considerations. As I said, it can sometimes change the charge to a manslaughter in the few areas that allow it, but that is still a crime, albeit a lesser offense, going back through the common law as cited by the Court in the Big Elk decision. The dozen states that still retain the common law right to resist are probably still bound by that common law dictum.

USAFE7
04-05-2011, 12:50
I think you have it wrong. The rule is not equal force, you may use reasonable force.

I (JMO) would say "reasonable" is at the least, equal to what is being used otherwise it would be ineffective thus pointless. I would hazard to say the courts would agree. The thing is (to me) that someone will have to die before something is done. While Viper is by no means innocent, I don't think anyone wants to see him or the officer that responds shot. We can even take Viper out and replace him with "whomever". We do not need a death resulting from officers that are ignorant of a law or a citizen that is tired of being "pushed" for lawful actions.

David Armstrong
04-05-2011, 12:59
I (JMO) would say "reasonable" is at the least, equal to what is being used otherwise it would be ineffective thus pointless. I would hazard to say the courts would agree.
No, actually the courts don't agree. "Reasonable" and "equal" are very different terms. To do a quick theater of the absurd, if a six year old girl threatens you with a baseball bat, is it reasonable for you to grab a bat and fight back with it? That is equal, right?
The thing is (to me) that someone will have to die before something is done. While Viper is by no means innocent, I don't think anyone wants to see him or the officer that responds shot. We can even take Viper out and replace him with "whomever". We do not need a death resulting from officers that are ignorant of a law or a citizen that is tired of being "pushed" for lawful actions.
That is easy to do--don't give the police an excuse. If you want to argue about it go to court, take it to the city council or the state legislature, but on the streets is the wrong place.

USAFE7
04-05-2011, 13:05
To do a quick theater of the absurd, if a six year old girl threatens you with a baseball bat, is it reasonable for you to grab a bat and fight back with it? That is equal, right?

Hmmm.....I would have to think on that one...:rofl:

That is easy to do--don't give the police an excuse. If you want to argue about it go to court, take it to the city council or the state legislature, but on the streets is the wrong place.101% agree.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 14:21
What does this have to do with Viper and the incident in Philly?

Both incidents involve law enforcement following an unlawful directive.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 14:50
Both incidents involve law enforcement following an unlawful directive.

With the exception that the Philly PD directive has not been found to be unlawful by a court.

gommer
04-05-2011, 15:06
Both incidents involve law enforcement following an unlawful directive.

I'm not trying to defend the PPD Officer - the guy obviously acted unprofessionally...

But to compare him to the ruby ridge incident.. just doesn't work.

Those officials created kill on sight directives and literally tried to play cloak and dagger - used media trash as facts and all kinds of other wrongs. I mean, hell - they baited the people out of the cabin while hiding in the dark with assault weapons and night vision. I mean, seriously?

This PPD Officer lost his temper and acted unprofessionally. (Junior!)

But I think in his mind he was doing right..... "Good idea, bad execution"

I can't believe anyone involved in the ruby ridge shootings truly believed they were doing right - they may have thought they were 'legal', but they damn sure knew what they were doing was wrong.


Why is ruby ridge even part of this discussion? That's like fodder for the fire. I don't know anyone who can think of that (LEO and citizens alike) and not get angry.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 15:10
With the exception that the Philly PD directive has not been found to be unlawful by a court.

If the Philly PD directive is lawful, then the treatment of Viper was proper and this entire discussion is moot. What fun would that be? The courts will get it right eventually, but only because couragous citizens refuse to let appointed administrators in the executive branch make and/or interpret the law instead of simply enforcing laws like they are empowered to.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 15:14
I'm not trying to defend the PPD Officer - the guy obviously acted unprofessionally...

But to compare him to the ruby ridge incident.. just doesn't work.

Those officials created kill on sight directives and literally tried to play cloak and dagger - used media trash as facts and all kinds of other wrongs. I mean, hell - they baited the people out of the cabin while hiding in the dark with assault weapons and night vision. I mean, seriously?

This PPD Officer lost his temper and acted unprofessionally. (Junior!)

But I think in his mind he was doing right..... "Good idea, bad execution"

I can't believe anyone involved in the ruby ridge shootings truly believed they were doing right - they may have thought they were 'legal', but they damn sure knew what they were doing was wrong.


Why is ruby ridge even part of this discussion? That's like fodder for the fire. I don't know anyone who can think of that (LEO and citizens alike) and not get angry.

I referenced five cases. The Weaver case was the only one which people discussed. I am happy to discuss the other four.

johnnysquire
04-05-2011, 15:21
If the Philly PD directive is lawful, then the treatment of Viper was proper and this entire discussion is moot. What fun would that be?

The PPD directive (to stop, disarm and check LTCF) on sight of OC could be lawful AND Viper's seizure could be unlawful at the same time.

The extent of Viper's detention and seizure could exceed what was lawful - the balance between investigative detention and the 4A are the point of Terry v. Ohio. Also, the officer's admitted mistake about the lawfulness of OC could render the stop unlawful, irrespective of the directive. Both require a better knowledge of 4A cases than I possess.

RussP
04-05-2011, 15:35
If/when new, factual information regarding the incident is available, we'll continue this phase of the discussion.

RussP
04-05-2011, 15:55
......

RussP
04-21-2011, 07:55
Bumping for newcomers...

RussP
05-17-2011, 10:06
Bumped for reference...