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

PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

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

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

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

RussP
03-30-2011, 19:57
We are going to continue discussing this incident.

If you choose to post in this thread, follow ALL GT Rules, TOS and posting guidelines.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Rude and insulting posts will not be tolerated.

This is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion to resolve the problem with the Philly PD.

Make positive contributions to the discussion and all will be good.

RussP

DrGlock36
03-30-2011, 20:12
..I do not agree, in this situation, the onus of responsibility (for avoiding conflict regarding carrying a gun) falls on the gun owner..

Just paraphrasing your response to my statement in the old thread and hoping you would clarify.

I happened to have read through a majority of the Mark's posts on PAFOA regarding his several encounters with PPD regarding his open carrying (one time he was stopped while on a park bench OCing while also wearing headphones)..and I can say without a doubt, he knew this encounter was coming.

Kith
03-30-2011, 20:38
From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.021.000..HTM


From Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and
ammunition.
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may
in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession,
transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition
components when carried or transported for purposes not
prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.020.000..HTM

§ 6122. Proof of license and exception.
(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or
about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to
carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement
officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce
such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary
hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.022.000..HTM

§ 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;

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


If anyone would like to cite any Pennsylvania law during this discussion, usage and linking to what is on the Pennsylvania General Assembly website would be best.

Pennsylvania General Assembly Website:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm

Consolidated Statutes (Main contents page):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/Public/cons_index.cfm

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.HTM

Title 18 in it's entirety:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/18.HTM

Title 18 Chapter 61 only (PA UFA):
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061..HTM

RussP
03-30-2011, 20:57
Just paraphrasing your response to my statement in the old thread and hoping you would clarify.

I happened to have read through a majority of the Mark's posts on PAFOA regarding his several encounters with PPD regarding his open carrying (one time he was stopped while on a park bench OCing while also wearing headphones)..and I can say without a doubt, he knew this encounter was coming.I will, tomorrow...long day.

Kith
03-30-2011, 21:57
I would like to put forth a few more sections of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for your consideration:

§ 1. Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have
certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those
of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of
pursuing their own happiness.

§ 25. Reservation of powers in people.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we
have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is
excepted out of the general powers of government and shall
forever remain inviolate.

§ 26. No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision
thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil
right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of
any civil right.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001..HTM


I live in Philadelphia, and would like to see this thread discussed.

I hope this helps us get a clear start, so everyone has access to the Pennsylvania Code from the most reputable place possible, at the PA General Assembly website.

I've tried to make it as easy as possible for anyone to cite any specific section of the consolidated statutes, so we don't have to waste time second guessing the validity of links or information.

Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) Chapter 61 is the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, which comprises the laws concerning firearms in Pennsylvania.

A few other sections of Title 18 can bear relevance, as laid out by some case law, which is why I included a link above in case anyone needs it.

Section 6120 is a pre-emption, prohibiting a municipality (such as Philadelphia) from drafting it's own laws to prohibit anything not specifically covered by state law. Laws concerning firearms in Pennsylvania are laid out by the state, Period. Just in case anyone was unclear on that point.

The only "City of the first class" in Pennsylvania is the City of Philadelphia.

I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 05:45
Patrick Link, ADA, letter on open carry.
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaDALetter.pdf

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

Philadelphia police memo (9/2010) *note that this memo seems to violate their training materials
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaOCMemo.pdf

Samspade's excellent discussion on legalities of police encounters
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145

RussP
03-31-2011, 07:59
This was posted on Real Police on 10/09/2010 by one of their Moderators, Joeyd6. http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/95744-any-philly-leos-here-open-concealed-carry-laws.html#post1108411 GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RussP
03-31-2011, 08:06
...Philadelphia police memo (9/2010) *note that this memo seems to violate their training materials
http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaOCMemo.pdf...How does it do so?

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 08:30
How does it do so?

Question and answer #3 in the MPOTEC_OC training states that:

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

Answer #3- In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: prohibitions contained in §6105, possession by a minor §6110.1, possession on school property §912, possession in a court facility §913, carrying in Philadelphia §6108, carrying in a vehicle, carrying during a declared state of emergency §6107), the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified.This does allow the exception of carry in Philadelphia being a legal justification for a stop and frisk, however, the memo demands the stop and frisk action which eliminates officer discretion and, in my opinion, amounts to an official stance that open carrying is to be oppressed by harassment.

Additionally:

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

This also states that an individual MAY BE required to produce when carrying in Philadelphia... making it clear that it is officer discretion and should not have been mandated by the memo.

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 08:51
Just paraphrasing your response to my statement in the old thread and hoping you would clarify.

I happened to have read through a majority of the Mark's posts on PAFOA regarding his several encounters with PPD regarding his open carrying (one time he was stopped while on a park bench OCing while also wearing headphones)..and I can say without a doubt, he knew this encounter was coming.

The headphones thing was a bad idea on my part. I've learned from everyone OC encounter I've had and that's one of the important ones. No more compromising my SA while carrying. Or in general.

As for knowing it was going to happen - first of all, I did not know that it was going to happen that day. I was not trying to set up the police or anything like some people seem to think. However, 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.

I have to bring up Rosa Parks, but do you think she thought she was going to be left alone when she refused to move?

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 08:56
The headphones thing was a bad idea on my part. I've learned from everyone OC encounter I've had and that's one of the important ones. No more compromising my SA while carrying. Or in general.

As for knowing it was going to happen - first of all, I did not know that it was going to happen that day. I was not trying to set up the police or anything like some people seem to think. However, 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.

I have to bring up Rosa Parks, but do you think she thought she was going to be left alone when she refused to move?


Viper! Welcome and glad you made it. I never pictured you as a small black woman though... :wow:

RussP
03-31-2011, 08:59
...Welcome, sir!

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 09:06
Thanks for the welcome. I'm excited to see how this thread turns out - I welcome dissenting opinions, but I hope it can focus on the behavior of the police and their disregard or ignorance of the law, and how to rectify the issue, and not an OC vs. CC debacle.

RussP
03-31-2011, 09:13
...As for knowing it was going to happen - first of all, I did not know that it was going to happen that day...

I have to bring up Rosa Parks, but do you think she thought she was going to be left alone when she refused to move?There's a little conflict here. First you say, "...I did not know that it was going to happen...", but, then you compare your situation that day to Ms. Parks, saying, "...do you think she thought she was going to be left alone when she refused to move?"

Did you think, as you imply Ms. Parks thought, you were just going to left alone open carrying there in Philly?

Kith
03-31-2011, 09:14
Viper, welcome! Glad you could make it over here.

RussP
03-31-2011, 09:20
Thanks for the welcome. I'm excited to see how this thread turns out - I welcome dissenting opinions, but I hope it can focus on the behavior of the police and their disregard or ignorance of the law, and how to rectify the issue, and not an OC vs. CC debacle.We're glad you came in.

The behavior of certain members of PPD is well documented on different forums. PPD's policy on dealing with open carriers is posted above as well as the applicable laws.

However, any discussion of this incident must include some discussion about you and the events leading up to that day. Around here it's referred to as totality of circumstances.

No, any effort to expand the focus of this thread to a broader discussion not directly, very directly linked to this topic will not be tolerated.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 09:26
However, any discussion of this incident must include some discussion about you and the events leading up to that day. Around here it's referred to as totality of circumstances.

Or as I like to call it cop-speak for "How can I avoid taking responsibility for my unlawful actions".

This term comes up every time we discuss bad (or criminal) actions of a LEO and citizens. It appears to also be used when Police brass want to hide bad officers from the public view.

Bill Lumberg
03-31-2011, 09:30
Top score! You've demonstrated a total lack of comprehension of what the totality of the circumstance means, legally speaking. Better go back and guard the hotel. Totality speaking, of course.

BailRecoveryAgent
03-31-2011, 09:36
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.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 09:41
Or as I like to call it cop-speak for "How can I avoid taking responsibility for my unlawful actions".

This term comes up every time we discuss bad (or criminal) actions of a LEO and citizens. It appears to also be used when Police brass want to hide bad officers from the public view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior


FYI good reading you should look into it...

Dragoon44
03-31-2011, 09:45
Or as I like to call it cop-speak for "How can I avoid taking responsibility for my unlawful actions".

This term comes up every time we discuss bad (or criminal) actions of a LEO and citizens. It appears to also be used when Police brass want to hide bad officers from the public view.

Nice rant, only problem is "Totality of circumstances" is not "cop speak" is is "legal term speak" as in "Court speak"

johnnysquire
03-31-2011, 09:48
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.


Suppose you're in your Philadelphia driveway working on your Harley. Would you support the right of a police officer to draw on you and order you to the ground if he observed your apparently illegal aftermarket exhaust?

Does it matter that there are violent biker gangs here in Philly, so that the officer is "put[ting] their safety temporarily above all else"?

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 09:48
Viper , I heard the tape and the officer comes off as well being a tool...
HOWEVER...

You should not antagonise the situation with flippant answers when held at gunpoint YOU HAVE NO IDEA,, what is going through his or her head at that moment.
I have three BOLOS on my desk today about nondesript W/M's that are reported to be armed open carrying and in our area as part of the sovereign citizen movement wanting to engage law enforcement . You may or may not fit a description of a bolo he read he is processing alot of things that you may or may not be doing or showing.
In the end you will find that complying with those orders is in your best interest at the time.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 09:49
Suppose you're in your Philadelphia driveway working on your bike. Would you support the right of a police officer to draw on you and order you to the ground if he observed your apparently illegal Harley exhaust?

Does it matter that there are violent biker gangs here in Philly, so that the officer is "put[ting] their safety temporarily above all else"?

What if you fit the description of a suspect in a felony vehicle theft or carjacking...

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 09:54
Nice rant, only problem is "Totality of circumstances" is not "cop speak" is is "legal term speak" as in "Court speak"

That may be the origin of the phrase, but I see it most often used by those who wish to obfuscate the bad or criminal actions of police.

I have read the term in a few legal documents (specifically court opinions), and have little trouble with how it is used in those. It is when the phrase is used outside of a court room setting that the meaning gets perverted and twisted into something else.

When the term is bandied about whenever there is a likelihood of bad or criminal behavior on the part of a police officer, especially by police brass (you know the political cops), it gives the appearance of spin doctoring, damage control, and even cover up.

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 09:57
There's a little conflict here. First you say, "...I did not know that it was going to happen...", but, then you compare your situation that day to Ms. Parks, saying, "...do you think she thought she was going to be left alone when she refused to move?"

Did you think, as you imply Ms. Parks thought, you were just going to left alone open carrying there in Philly?

No, not at all. In fact, it is my understanding that she knew she was going to be given a pale of crap for what she was doing, but simply did not know when it would be. She was trying to affect change in her own way, by standing up for what she thought was right - and, although I do not expect encounters, I am prepared to use a potential negative encounter to expose flaws in the system, so carriers like myself are not continually treated as criminals by ill-informed LEOs.

However, any discussion of this incident must include some discussion about you and the events leading up to that day. Around here it's referred to as totality of circumstances.

Can't argue with good logic! ;)

The totality of the circumstances is this:

I was stopped on Kelly Drive by the Art Museum last year by three bicycle officers. I don't know if someone asked them to look into me, or if they just saw me riding my bike down the drive. They told me OC was illegal. I told them it was not, and gave them my LTCF and DL. They told me again that it was illegal, and "secured" my firearm. I told them that I did not consent to a seizure of my property, or a search of my person. I was told that "it doesn't matter what you consent to" and they searched me against my will. After about 13 minutes on the phone, the officer in charge found I was right, and admitted that I had broken no laws and was in full compliance with such. I was given back my effects and was sent on my way. I ultimately filed a complaint with IA because I do not appreciate being told I am breaking the law when I know for a fact I am not.

The second time I was stopped, a couple months later, was outside of Jonny Rocket's on South Street. They saw me walking into the restaurant with my then-girlfriend, and followed us in, grabbed my arm, and took me outside. Again, I was told OC is illegal and my firearm was taken from me against my will. I gave them my LTCF and my DL, and they (by "they" I mean a total of about 13 to 15 officers had shown up on the scene) all told me that OC is illegal and they were confiscating my firearm. I was not charged with anything and was given a property receipt stating in detail what was taken. It was listed as "Being Held For Safekeeping." After a four or five month process, I finally got the firearm back, but they "destroyed" the ammunition because "that's the policy." I filed a complaint with IA which resulted in an in-person meeting and a change to Directive 137, which clarifies that open carry is legal in Philadelphia if the carrier has an LTCF.

This was the third incident. Three months after it was made unequivocally clear to the PPD that OC is legal (the updated directive was to be read three days consecutively at roll call in all districts), a police officer (Sgt. Dougherty) happened to be on patrol on Frankford avenue and saw me walking on the sidewalk, OC. I do not know if they received a phone call from earlier in the day when I took my mom's dogs for a walk, but I wasn't out long and the area I walked them in was not along Frankford Avenue. I turned on my recorder when I left to walk to AutoZone, just in case something like this might happen, and the counter on the recorder when the Sgt. calls out "Yo, Junior!" is at about 2:45. The audio speaks for itself as to the rest of the encounter.

Was I trying to provoke an encounter? Absolutely not. Was I trying to set the police up? No, but the fact that they seem to think so indicates (in my opinion) a guilty conscience. After all, how can you be "set up" unless you're doing something wrong in the first place that you might get caught for? Am I looking for a "quick pay day?" No, I am looking to exercise my supposedly inalienable right to defend myself without being threatened, abused, and arrested for doing so.

Viper , I heard the tape and the officer comes off as well being a tool...
HOWEVER...

You should not antagonise the situation with flippant answers when held at gunpoint YOU HAVE NO IDEA,, what is going through his or her head at that moment.
I have three BOLOS on my desk today about nondesript W/M's that are reported to be armed open carrying and in our area as part of the sovereign citizen movement wanting to engage law enforcement . You may or may not fit a description of a bolo he read he is processing alot of things that you may or may not be doing or showing.
In the end you will find that complying with those orders is in your best interest at the time.

That's perfectly fine, but unless the officer has temporarily lost the ability to comprehend English and put a sentence together, I expect an answer to the question of "Why are you pointing a gun at me?". His answer was "because I don't know you and you have a gun!" If it had been "You match the description of someone we're looking for and you have a gun!" then I would have shut the hell up.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 10:04
Can't argue with good logic! ;)
<SNIP>

Viper, for reference, do you mind linking to the discussions of those instances?

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 10:11
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/107298-negative-encounter-ppd-afternoon-schooled-sgt-39th.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/108570-ppd-strikes-again-confiscates-weapon-because-i-refused-conceal.html

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

RussP
03-31-2011, 10:27
Let me edit your post a bit for readability...How does it do so?Question and answer #3 in the MPOTEC_OC training states that: Question #3- What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in open carry?

Answer #3- In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter.

Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: ... carrying in Philadelphia §6108, ..., the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified.This does allow the exception of carry in Philadelphia being a legal justification for a stop and frisk, however, the memo demands the stop and frisk action which eliminates officer discretion and, in my opinion, amounts to an official stance that open carrying is to be oppressed by harassment.I believe this is the section of the memo you reference:GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA
...
4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION...

Additionally:...A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption.

Of course, a person engaged in the open carrying of a firearm may engage in violations of other laws or handle the firearm in an inappropriate manner which could constitute offenses such as: disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc. ...This also states that an individual MAY BE required to produce when carrying in Philadelphia... making it clear that it is officer discretion and should not have been mandated by the memo.Now, what you are saying is that the Commonwealth's Q&A says that in Philadelphia, a person maybe stopped just because they are open carrying, and the City's memo says that pursuant to the exemption granted a City of the First Class allowing officers to stop someone simply because they are open carrying, officers should stop someone open carrying.

Is the City's "should" illegal under Commonwealth law, or lawful within Commonwealth law?

JASV.17
03-31-2011, 10:29
I have three BOLOS on my desk today about nondesript W/M's that are reported to be armed open carrying and in our area as part of the sovereign citizen movement wanting to engage law enforcement . You may or may not fit a description of a bolo he read he is processing alot of things that you may or may not be doing or showing.
In the end you will find that complying with those orders is in your best interest at the time.

Perhaps I'm wrong about you swat, but I don't think you're going to head out in your cruiser and confront people at gunpoint.

The two biggest issues I have are the sgt's taking him at gunpoint as well as his overall complete lack of professionalism.

I thought Viper's interaction with the police to be respectful and fine, ESPECIALLY for someone who was lawfully walking down the street, to be confronted with "Yo Junior" and the business end of a handgun.

Viper also offered his LTCF and informed the sgt of the law. Bottom line, is that had this LEO known the law, this would have never happened. Further, to think of how long it took for him to find someone who did. Sgt was taken to task, and he was wrong.

Viper...I hope you do cash out on this, you deserve it. Equally, I hope the PPD learns a lesson and the law.

BailRecoveryAgent
03-31-2011, 10:33
Suppose you're in your Philadelphia driveway working on your Harley. Would you support the right of a police officer to draw on you and order you to the ground if he observed your apparently illegal aftermarket exhaust? Does it matter that there are violent biker gangs here in Philly, so that the officer is "put[ting] their safety temporarily above all else"?

You're really reaching here johnnysquire, but I'll play along anyhow. First, in your scenario, I'm in my driveway, not out in public where this ViperGTS fellow was, second, not sure about PA's emission laws, but I'm pretty sure my aftermarket exhaust is only illegal in Kalifornia. An illegal exhaust system doesn't really pose a threat to anyone, but a weapon could in the wrong hands, and verifying a persons identity and legal right to carry a weapon, whether concealed or openly, doesn't seem to be an infringement of rights.

There's violent biker gangs where I live too, and I probably look more like a biker, no tats or piercings though, than the youth group leader at my church, or the guy that teaches the adult sunday night class, which are two of the positions I hold at church, but at our yearly biker event in WA called The Oyster Run, I may one day be mistaken for someone the cops are looking for, and if so, I will cooperate and obey the officers commands and if I feel like I was harassed without cause, I will file complaints or whatever I need to do.

Feel free to come up with another off the wall scenario in rebuttal if you'd like, maybe like if I was watering my front yard in the summer, and there was a water shortage and the cops came by and proned me out at gun point until they verified that the spray nozzle I had was up to code for the allotted gpm that is legal in the city? Use your imagination, like you did with the exhaust system/openly carried weapon comparison.

RussP
03-31-2011, 10:34
That may be the origin of the phrase, but I see it most often used by those who wish to obfuscate the bad or criminal actions of police.

I have read the term in a few legal documents (specifically court opinions), and have little trouble with how it is used in those. It is when the phrase is used outside of a court room setting that the meaning gets perverted and twisted into something else...That is your opinion.

Do you agree that, when there is a dispute of any type, knowing all the facts leading up to the dispute (the history) presented by all parties involved in the dispute as well as all others with factual knowledge of the dispute is valuable in resolving the dispute?

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 10:39
Or as I like to call it cop-speak for "How can I avoid taking responsibility for my unlawful actions".

This term comes up every time we discuss bad (or criminal) actions of a LEO and citizens. It appears to also be used when Police brass want to hide bad officers from the public view.
Sometimes I am amazed at the total lack of comprehension about police, the law and law enforcement. And then I realize that often it is not a lack of comprehension it is instead a direct rejection of that comprehension in order to further a preconcieved bias.

RussP
03-31-2011, 10:43
Suppose you're in your Philadelphia driveway working on your Harley. Would you support the right of a police officer to draw on you and order you to the ground if he observed your apparently illegal aftermarket exhaust?

Does it matter that there are violent biker gangs here in Philly, so that the officer is "put[ting] their safety temporarily above all else"?Does the authority granted to enforce vehicle equipment violations come from the Cities of the First Class exception?

I don't believe it will be, so not a strong comparison.

Lets keep closer to the topic at hand.

Thanks

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 10:43
Suppose you're in your Philadelphia driveway working on your Harley. Would you support the right of a police officer to draw on you and order you to the ground if he observed your apparently illegal aftermarket exhaust?

Does it matter that there are violent biker gangs here in Philly, so that the officer is "put[ting] their safety temporarily above all else"?

There is rarely a single isolated event that leads an officer to do much of anything. Go back to that "totality of circumstances" that Russ mentioned. How does the illegal exhaust tie in with assorted other variables that the officer notices that are all telling him something? So yes, if the officer reasonably felt that his safety was in danger when coming into contact with you for your illegal exhaust or any other reason, yes he should be supported.

JASV.17
03-31-2011, 10:47
David, I'm amazed at the officer's (a sgt, no less) lack of comprehension (actually complete lack of knowledge) of the law, especially as it pertains to OC in this state.

I'm more amazed in the timeframe in which it took to determine that in fact, OC with a LTCF is legal in Philly.

jetdefiant
03-31-2011, 10:52
all this could have been avoided if the cops would have just pulled up GT on their phones... :rofl:

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 10:59
That's perfectly fine, but unless the officer has temporarily lost the ability to comprehend English and put a sentence together, I expect an answer to the question of "Why are you pointing a gun at me?". His answer was "because I don't know you and you have a gun!" If it had been "You match the description of someone we're looking for and you have a gun!" then I would have shut the hell up.

Bad move when an officer issues and order, and it was an order since he was pointing a gun at you.
We are trained Not to engage in tit for tat as that is a tool used and practiced by fast talking scumbags to gain a reactionary gap to assault us or make a move.
I would not answer you I would simply repeat my command since at that point you would be leaving ask,tell and headed to MAKE.

Kith
03-31-2011, 11:02
Let me edit your post a bit for readability...I believe this is the section of the memo you reference:

Now, what you are saying is that the Commonwealth's Q&A says that in Philadelphia, a person maybe stopped just because they are open carrying, and the City's memo says that pursuant to the exemption granted a City of the First Class allowing officers to stop someone simply because they are open carrying, officers should stop someone open carrying.

Is the City's "should" illegal under Commonwealth law, or lawful within Commonwealth law?

I think what we are looking at here is the balance between:

From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

§ 8. Security from searches and seizures.
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no
warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things
shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor
without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
subscribed to by the affiant.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.008.000..HTM

And:

From Title 18:

§ 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;

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

Penalty for violation of 6108:

§ 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.

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

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 11:03
That is your opinion.

Absolutely no dispute.

Do you agree that, when there is a dispute of any type, knowing all the facts leading up to the dispute (the history) presented by all parties involved in the dispute as well as all others with factual knowledge of the dispute is valuable in resolving the dispute?

I find that to be a loaded question. Not all facts that lead up to a dispute are relevant. All relevant facts should be considered, but that is not how I see the term "totality of circumstances" used. I see it used to get all facts that lead to a situation and use that abundance of facts to obfuscate the situation and shift blame.

I see this as no different than when a prosecutor dumps every document they can get their hands on in a particular case on a defense lawyer at the last moment.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 11:04
David, I'm amazed at the officer's (a sgt, no less) lack of comprehension (actually complete lack of knowledge) of the law, especially as it pertains to OC in this state.

I'm more amazed in the timeframe in which it took to determine that in fact, OC with a LTCF is legal in Philly.
The first doesn't surprise me. I've got a pretty good background in adult learning and it isn't surprising to find adults who, when exposed to new information that contradicts either their own beliefs or a well-established set of facts already processed simply lose that new information completely. The second does bother me, however, particularly given the existence of the recent directive. Material like that should be easily accessible through dispatch or some other source.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 11:06
Sometimes I am amazed at the total lack of comprehension about police, the law and law enforcement. And then I realize that often it is not a lack of comprehension it is instead a direct rejection of that comprehension in order to further a preconcieved bias.

Yeah yeah, everyone "knows" I hate cops. I eat their babies for breakfast. WCrawford is evil. Blah, blah, blah.

Besides the hyperbole, what is your point? What comprehension do you believe I'm rejecting?

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 11:08
Bad move when an officer issues and order, and it was an order since he was pointing a gun at you.
We are trained Not to engage in tit for tat as that is a tool used and practiced by fast talking scumbags to gain a reactionary gap to assault us or make a move.
I would not answer you I would simply repeat my command since at that point you would be leaving ask,tell and headed to MAKE.

Which would be fine if he observed any illegal or suspicious activity. But, he didn't, which would make the ask/tell/make sequence invalid. Besides, what would "make" have been - opening fire on a law-abiding citizen with a holstered gun?

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 11:10
Yeah yeah, everyone "knows" I hate cops. I eat their babies for breakfast. WCrawford is evil. Blah, blah, blah.
Interesting that you would take that post and get that comment out of it. Says a lot, IMO.
Besides the hyperbole, what is your point? What comprehension do you believe I'm rejecting?
Perhaps if you can point out any hyperbole first and then we can discuss it. As for what comprehension you are rejecting it seems to revolve around the concept of "totality of circumstances", as Russ and Dragoon have pointed out.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 11:12
Which would be fine if he observed any illegal or suspicious activity. But, he didn't, which would make the ask/tell/make sequence invalid. Besides, what would "make" have been - opening fire on a law-abiding citizen with a holstered gun?

Again YOU at the time HAVE NO IDEA what he knew..
I have told many an armed robbery suspect I have stopped them because someone said they had a gun....Why because I don't want them on guard and give them more information than I need to. You have no IDEA at the time what is happening or what picture you fit in. You are very immature with your attitude on this and can't seem to comprehend the other side, whether it's from ignorance or other motives I have not figured it out.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 11:14
Which would be fine if he observed any illegal or suspicious activity. But, he didn't, which would make the ask/tell/make sequence invalid. Besides, what would "make" have been - opening fire on a law-abiding citizen with a holstered gun?
The officer HAS observed something illegal or suspicious...a person walking down the street visibly carrying a gun. The officer may be mistaken in his belief, but that does not change the belief and the way the officer acts on that belief. I think that is swatbwana's point.

Kith
03-31-2011, 11:19
The officer HAS observed something illegal or suspicious...a person walking down the street visibly carrying a gun. The officer may be mistaken in his belief, but that does not change the belief and the way the officer acts on that belief. I think that is swatbwana's point.

Then at what point does it become this:

From Title 18:

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits
a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.053.001.000..HTM

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 11:28
Then at what point does it become this:

From Title 18:

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits
a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.053.001.000..HTM

see the line KNOWING HIS CONDUCT IS ILLEGAL... It looks as if they received little or very poor training in this area and a very scetchy directive.

Kith
03-31-2011, 11:30
see the line KNOWING HIS CONDUCT IS ILLEGAL... It looks as if they received little or very poor training in this area and a very scetchy directive.

Knowing the training directives put forth in this thread alone so far, are you saying there is a double-standard between "ignorance of the law is no excuse" on the part of the citizen, but not on the part of the officer?

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 11:34
Then at what point does it become this:
Who cares? If it becomes that, AT ANY POINT, the street is the wrong place to have the discussion. That is what the courts are for. That is the point here. Yes, the officer can be wrong as rain on a wedding but making a big deal of it there on the street is not a good idea.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 11:35
The officer HAS observed something illegal or suspicious...a person walking down the street visibly carrying a gun.

Why not pull every driver over? Driving on a suspended or revoked license or with out one is illegal? That officer probably doesn't know who is driving.

Or are you saying that guns are more deadly than cars when misused?

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 11:36
Knowing the training directives put forth in this thread alone so far, are you saying there is a double-standard between "ignorance of the law is no excuse" on the part of the citizen, but not on the part of the officer?

I'm saying how do you prove WHAT HE KNEW that is specifically written in the law YOU provided and that wording is absent in many other laws..

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 11:39
Why not pull every driver over? Driving on a suspended or revoked license or with out one is illegal? That officer probably doesn't know who is driving.

Or are you saying that guns are more deadly than cars when misused?

Care to guess how many people he observes driving every day vs carrying a gun in the open in Downtown Philly... which is more unussual?

Kith
03-31-2011, 11:41
I'm saying how do you prove WHAT HE KNEW that is specifically written in the law YOU provided and that wording is absent in many other laws..

Purportedly the training directives were read at 3 consecutive roll calls.

Please clarify what you mean by that wording being absent in other laws, I would like to know what you are referring to specifically.

The law I provided comes from the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which specifically deals with the place of the incident we are dsicussing.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 11:44
Purportedly the training directives were read at 3 consecutive roll calls.

Please clarify what you mean by that wording being absent in other laws, I would like to know what you are referring to specifically.

The law I provided comes from the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which specifically deals with the place of the incident we are dsicussing.

you don't find the wording "Knowing his conduct is illegal" in any other law because it is an important part of the equation in this case.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 11:50
Why not pull every driver over? Driving on a suspended or revoked license or with out one is illegal? That officer probably doesn't know who is driving.

Or are you saying that guns are more deadly than cars when misused?
As usual, I am saying exactly what I have said. Please don't try to change it. As for pulling drivers over, experience shows officers that most drivers do have valid licenses. That is normal. However we do at times establish certain parameters where we do stop all drivers that fit the parameters to check their DLs (assuming state law also allows it). Like it or not OC is NOT NORMAL and LE tends to check out things that are not normal. Let us also point out that not everyone who OC's gets stopped by the police, as mentioned by several posters here.

ViperGTS19801
03-31-2011, 11:57
Fact: There was no suspicious activity taking place on my part. I know because I was there.

Fact: Officers are supposed to have received training on the fact that OC is legal and how to approach someone, regardless of whether or not some people think it's a wise idea.

Fact: The officer was under the impression that OC is illegal and made a felony stop as a result.

Fact: Officers are not getting the training they need to properly perform their duties and a citizen's rights were violated as a result, not to mention the citizen was verbally abused by a very unprofessional group of officers.

Could I have handled the situation better? Perhaps, yes. But I will continue to stand up for my rights as both an American and a human being. Being told to get on my knees for doing nothing wrong is unacceptable and dehumanizing, and any officer who stands behind this kind of behavior is a disgrace to their badge. Period.

JASV.17
03-31-2011, 12:06
I agree with you, Viper. But....an officer points a gun at me and tells me to get on my knees, I'm on them.

I'm going to apply his lack of professionalism and the law to his weapon handing.

That's just me, though.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 12:08
Fact: Officers are not getting the training they need to properly perform their duties and a citizen's rights were violated as a result, not to mention the citizen was verbally abused by a very unprofessional group of officers.

Viper, I'm going to have to say that I believe this fact is in dispute. I believe that Philly police are getting the training they need, but despite that training continue to violate citizen's rights.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 12:11
Fact: There was no suspicious activity taking place on my part. I know because I was there.

Fact: Officers are supposed to have received training on the fact that OC is legal and how to approach someone, regardless of whether or not some people think it's a wise idea.

Fact: The officer was under the impression that OC is illegal and made a felony stop as a result.

Fact: Officers are not getting the training they need to properly perform their duties and a citizen's rights were violated as a result, not to mention the citizen was verbally abused by a very unprofessional group of officers.

Could I have handled the situation better? Perhaps, yes. But I will continue to stand up for my rights as both an American and a human being. Being told to get on my knees for doing nothing wrong is unacceptable and dehumanizing, and any officer who stands behind this kind of behavior is a disgrace to their badge. Period.
By all means, stand up for your rights. Go to court, files complaints, etc. But arguing with an officer who feels you are a threat, rightly or wrongly, and refusing to follow orders is a pretty good recipe for not having to worry about your rights any more. Again, that is what the courts are for. The officer gets to respond at the time based on what he thinks the situation is, not on what you think he should know the situation is. Being told to go to your knees is dehumanizing? Boo, hoo, hoo. Getting shot is a lot more dehumanizing. Why is that so hard for folks to understand? Few here are saying the officer was right. What is being said is that right or wrong there is a right and wrong way to respond to the officer. Some ways make the situation worse, some make it better. At the time and the location, the basic idea should be to make it better.

Kith
03-31-2011, 12:17
Viper, I'm going to have to say that I believe this fact is in dispute. I believe that Philly police are getting the training they need, but despite that training continue to violate citizen's rights.

And here it sits.

Either they are getting the training, as we believe to be the case, and willfully disregarding citizens rights,

Or,

They are not being correctly trained, and the Governemnt of City of Philadelphia is negligent in it's duties to the citizens it should be serving.

Neither one is a pretty thought, and in either case it's a serious civil rights issue.

RussP
03-31-2011, 12:21
Totality of Circumstance:Or as I like to call it cop-speak for "How can I avoid taking responsibility for my unlawful actions".

This term comes up every time we discuss bad (or criminal) actions of a LEO and citizens. It appears to also be used when Police brass want to hide bad officers from the public view.That may be the origin of the phrase, but I see it most often used by those who wish to obfuscate the bad or criminal actions of police.

I have read the term in a few legal documents (specifically court opinions), and have little trouble with how it is used in those. It is when the phrase is used outside of a court room setting that the meaning gets perverted and twisted into something else.

When the term is bandied about whenever there is a likelihood of bad or criminal behavior on the part of a police officer, especially by police brass (you know the political cops), it gives the appearance of spin doctoring, damage control, and even cover up.That is your opinion.

Do you agree that, when there is a dispute of any type, knowing all the facts leading up to the dispute (the history) presented by all parties involved in the dispute as well as all others with factual knowledge of the dispute is valuable in resolving the dispute?...I find that to be a loaded question. Not all facts that lead up to a dispute are relevant. All relevant facts should be considered, but that is not how I see the term "totality of circumstances" used. I see it used to get all facts that lead to a situation and use that abundance of facts to obfuscate the situation and shift blame.

I see this as no different than when a prosecutor dumps every document they can get their hands on in a particular case on a defense lawyer at the last moment.Okay, let's see. You believe the collection of all facts involved in a situation, when discovered and discussed on an internet forum, is done solely to the benefit of law enforcement. The presentation and review of all facts has no potential to benefit non-law enforcement persons or groups. Do I understand your position?

johnnysquire
03-31-2011, 12:21
You're really reaching here johnnysquire, but I'll play along anyhow. First, in your scenario, I'm in my driveway, not out in public where this ViperGTS fellow was, second, not sure about PA's emission laws, but I'm pretty sure my aftermarket exhaust is only illegal in Kalifornia. An illegal exhaust system doesn't really pose a threat to anyone, but a weapon could in the wrong hands, and verifying a persons identity and legal right to carry a weapon, whether concealed or openly, doesn't seem to be an infringement of rights.

So is it fair to say you support the police's right to put their security over any civil rights when the exercise of civil rights "pose a threat to anyone"?

(BTW, every non-HD exhaust violates the unenforced EPA noise laws, as do modded stock pipes like mine).

So yes, if the officer reasonably felt that his safety was in danger when coming into contact with you for your illegal exhaust or any other reason, yes he should be supported.
You've convinced me that OCers are right. The police can only get comfortable with the fact that an OC gun doesn't put him in danger (or be legally forced to act as though it doesn't) if a lot more owners actually OC.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 12:25
Let me edit your post a bit for readability...I believe this is the section of the memo you reference:

Now, what you are saying is that the Commonwealth's Q&A says that in Philadelphia, a person maybe stopped just because they are open carrying, and the City's memo says that pursuant to the exemption granted a City of the First Class allowing officers to stop someone simply because they are open carrying, officers should stop someone open carrying.

Is the City's "should" illegal under Commonwealth law, or lawful within Commonwealth law?

Lawful. I didn't say it was illegal. I believe it to be a deliberate attempt to harass open carriers to discourage the activity because the leadership of the PPD feels it is inappropriate for a citizen to open carry a weapon. IMHO, it is official oppression of law abiding citizens.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 12:34
I think what we are looking at here is the balance between:

From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

§ 8. Security from searches and seizures.
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no
warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things
shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor
without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
subscribed to by the affiant.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.008.000..HTM

And:

From Title 18:

§ 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;

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

Penalty for violation of 6108:

§ 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.

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

I agree. However, I think your penalty statement is incomplete:

(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.

Is this situation similar to someone driving a car, which could certainly be considered a deadly weapon, is not a constitutional right, and requires a license to do?

EDIT: crap... the car analogy was being beaten to death earlier... I should know to read all the posts before responding.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 12:36
And here it sits.

Either they are getting the training, as we believe to be the case, and willfully disregarding citizens rights,

Or,

They are not being correctly trained, and the Governemnt of City of Philadelphia is negligent in it's duties to the citizens it should be serving.

Neither one is a pretty thought, and in either case it's a serious civil rights issue.

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

Kith
03-31-2011, 12:40
I agree. However, I think your penalty statement is incomplete:

(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.

Is this situation similar to someone driving a car, which could certainly be considered a deadly weapon, is not a constitutional right, and requires a license to do?

You are right in that I should have posted both penalties.

Thanks for reminding us why linking sources are important.

:wavey:

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 12:42
Totality of Circumstance:Okay, let's see. You believe the collection of all facts involved in a situation, when discovered and discussed on an internet forum, is done solely to the benefit of law enforcement. The presentation and review of all facts has no potential to benefit non-law enforcement persons or groups. Do I understand your position?

Quite possibly not.

In this situation, "totality of circumstances" appears to be used to defend the indefensible actions of an out of control police officer. Attempting to shift blame to Viper (partially or wholly).

Personally, I think Viper should have invoked is right to remain silent and asked for an lawyer immediately and then kept his mouth completely shut. But I am not Viper and his actions when confronted with this near homicidal police officer were acceptable. None of the police officers actions were acceptable.

Kith
03-31-2011, 12:50
In this situation, "totality of circumstances" appears to be used to defend the indefensible actions of an out of control police officer. Attempting to shift blame to Viper (partially or wholly).


I disagree with the truth of this statement.

I do not disagree with your opinion of it's validity.

I do not think that RussP was trying to shift blame to viper, as much as it was to make sure we could collect as much factual information as possible concerning the situation.

Beware Owner
03-31-2011, 12:52
The thing is that if the PPD isn't training their officers well, that's a police issue. If they are and the police still choose to harass americans, it's still a police issue. Wow.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 12:53
And here it sits.

Either they are getting the training, as we believe to be the case, and willfully disregarding citizens rights,

Or,

They are not being correctly trained, and the Governemnt of City of Philadelphia is negligent in it's duties to the citizens it should be serving.

Neither one is a pretty thought, and in either case it's a serious civil rights issue.

Yup and I'm willing to bet with Philly's track record that proper training was not given and documented to all involved..
Which would only add to their problems of negligent hiring , supervision, retention and now training.....
They gave the training at three whole roll calls wow did they document the lesson plan and have each officer sign for a copy,,, if you don't have documentation in this day and age it did not happen.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 12:54
You've convinced me that OCers are right. The police can only get comfortable with the fact that an OC gun doesn't put him in danger (or be legally forced to act as though it doesn't) if a lot more owners actually OC.
Ummm, sorry, but that really doesn't jive with the facts. Plenty of police are comfortable with OC and have no reason to think it puts them in any danger. It is assorted other facts that work in conjunction with the OC that lead to the perception of danger. Just like not all police have a reason to think someone with illegal exhausts puts them in danger, but assorted other facts in conjunction with the illegal exhausts can lead to that perception. Again, as I said earlier, "There is rarely a single isolated event that leads an officer to do much of anything."

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 12:55
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.

RussP
03-31-2011, 12:58
Thank you for the responses.

I'd like to delve into a few things......I turned on my recorder when I left to walk to AutoZone, just in case something like this might happen, and the counter on the recorder when the Sgt. calls out "Yo, Junior!" is at about 2:45.Before he called out, you had noticed the patrol car in your peripheral vision, correct?

Did you turn your head, even just a little bit to see behind you, or was the car in a position to see it without turning?

What was your first reaction on knowing the car was coming up on you?

When you heard the car go into Park, did you turn your head any at all, or did you keep facing forward?

Now, when Dougherty called out, "Yo, Junior," what immediate thought did you have? Did you feel insulted? The audio speaks for itself as to the rest of the encounter.Yes it does...Was I trying to provoke an encounter? Absolutely not. Was I trying to set the police up? No, but the fact that they seem to think so indicates (in my opinion) a guilty conscience. After all, how can you be "set up" unless you're doing something wrong in the first place that you might get caught for? Am I looking for a "quick pay day?" No, I am looking to exercise my supposedly inalienable right to defend myself without being threatened, abused, and arrested for doing so.I'll hold comment on that for now.That's perfectly fine, but unless the officer has temporarily lost the ability to comprehend English and put a sentence together, I expect an answer to the question of "Why are you pointing a gun at me?". His answer was "because I don't know you and you have a gun!" If it had been "You match the description of someone we're looking for and you have a gun!" then I would have shut the hell up.I looked, but cannot come up with a law or directive that requires a law enforcement officer to explain in terms deemed acceptable to a suspect what they are doing prior to that officer having control over a scene.

Yeah, maybe it sucks, but it isn't illegal, not that I can find where it's required.

David Armstrong
03-31-2011, 12:59
Quite possibly not.

In this situation, "totality of circumstances" appears to be used to defend the indefensible actions of an out of control police officer. Attempting to shift blame to Viper (partially or wholly).

Personally, I think Viper should have invoked is right to remain silent and asked for an lawyer immediately and then kept his mouth completely shut. But I am not Viper and his actions when confronted with this near homicidal police officer were acceptable. None of the police officers actions were acceptable.

I know it won't matter, but when you frame your posts around blatant falsehoods and unproven claims or hyperbole you really lose any credibility as anyone who is willing to look at an issue honestly.

BailRecoveryAgent
03-31-2011, 13:11
So is it fair to say you support the police's right to put their security over any civil rights when the exercise of civil rights "pose a threat to anyone"?

Temporarily, yes, until they have further assessed the situation, and whether or not it was justified will have to be assessed on a case by case basis.

I've put my safety temporarily over a persons rights before in an incident I won't discuss on the interweb. I did it knowing it could get me in trouble later on down the road, but getting out of the situation safely was more important at that moment than the potential for a fine or lawsuit.(No,it did not involve me drawing my weapon or shooting anybody.)

I discussed the situation with the police when they arrived and they determined based on my statement as well as two other witnesses that my actions fell well within what is considered exigent circumstances and I wasn't charged, arrested or fined for anything.

Antagonizing the police even when they're clearly in the wrong will get you nowhere, its best to follow orders and commands and take it up with them and their dept in the court system.

RussP
03-31-2011, 13:13
Quite possibly not.

In this situation, "totality of circumstances" appears to be used to defend the indefensible actions of an out of control police officer. Attempting to shift blame to Viper (partially or wholly).How about quoting those posts using facts gathered here or on other sites to shift blame to Viper.

How can the totality of circumstances be used when the test has neither been completed nor applied?

Kith
03-31-2011, 13:23
How about quoting those posts using facts gathered here or on other sites to shift blame to Viper.

How can the totality of circumstances be used when the test has neither been completed nor applied?

And to be fair, we here on this board will never have all the facts during this debate.

The best we can do is collect as much information as we can, of which viper is one more resource to help us try to get the story straight.

The best we can do is try to beat each fact we can get to death, and try to be as objective as possible.

There are enough knowledgeable people here and resources at our disposal to come up with a fair approximation of the situation, so hopefully some future progress can be made on fixing it.

RussP
03-31-2011, 13:38
And to be fair, we here on this board will never have all the facts during this debate.

The best we can do is collect as much information as we can, of which viper is one more resource to help us try to get the story straight.

The best we can do is try to beat each fact we can get to death, and try to be as objective as possible.

There are enough knowledgeable people here and resources at our disposal to come up with a fair approximation of the situation, so hopefully some future progress can be made on fixing it.Exactly, Kith, and was the reason we encouraged Viper to participate.

RussP
03-31-2011, 14:01
Fact: There was no suspicious activity taking place on my part. I know because I was there.In Philadelphia, does an officer need evidence of suspicious activity to stop a citizen openly carrying a firearm to determine if that person does possess a LTCF?

RussP
03-31-2011, 14:05
...Fact: Officers are supposed to have received training on the fact that OC is legal and how to approach someone, regardless of whether or not some people think it's a wise idea...In the documents posted and or linked to at the beginning of this thread, which one describes the training received in how to approach someone open carrying?

JASV.17
03-31-2011, 14:07
Viper....if you plan legal action, should you be talking about all this on the internet?

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 14:16
I know it won't matter, but when you frame your posts around blatant falsehoods and unproven claims or hyperbole you really lose any credibility as anyone who is willing to look at an issue honestly.

I can accept unproven claims or hyperbole (this is your and others opinion), I can not accept you claiming I'm lying without calling you out on that. Where exactly am I lying?

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 14:20
How about quoting those posts using facts gathered here or on other sites to shift blame to Viper.

Make of this as you will.

I won't be doing this due to those who are the most egregious in the blame shifting are on my ignore list and I refuse to remove them from that.

RussP
03-31-2011, 14:33
Make of this as you will.

I won't be doing this due to those who are the most egregious in the blame shifting are on my ignore list and I refuse to remove them from that.I believe this would be a good time to take them off ignore and substantiate your position.

I've read every post and cannot find any substantiation of blame shifting based on facts discovered and confirmed.

There are still facts needed from Vipers side, and no one has read the police report. What facts do you know that were used to shift blame?

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 14:44
In the documents posted and or linked to at the beginning of this thread, which one describes the training received in how to approach someone open carrying?

I think the only thing that describes or even comes close to describing how to approach someone open carrying is the memo that violates a law abiding citizen's 4th amendment rights in the interest of officer safety.

Can a LEO articulate the appropriate use of a felony stop for us?

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 14:44
I believe this would be a good time to take them off ignore and substantiate your position.

Believe what you will. I still refuse to take them off ignore. I'm attempting to behave myself and prefer not to be tempted into misbehavior.

RussP
03-31-2011, 14:54
Believe what you will. I still refuse to take them off ignore. I'm attempting to behave myself and prefer not to be tempted into misbehavior.While I understand that, I would suggest you not make statements you refuse to substantiate.

RussP
03-31-2011, 15:00
I think the only thing that describes or even comes close to describing how to approach someone open carrying is the memo that violates a law abiding citizen's 4th amendment rights in the interest of officer safety...Can you quote the section of the memo that describes how to approach someone open carrying, the method, the technique?

Thanks...

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 15:05
Can you quote the section of the memo that describes how to approach someone open carrying, the method, the technique?

Thanks...

The entirety of numbered paragraph 4 including all subsections dictates actions to be taken. It does not dictate those actions be at gunpoint or not though it does set, in my opinion, a confrontational tone in its wording.

Can you articulate the standard for when an officer is to conduct a felony stop?

RussP
03-31-2011, 15:05
...Can a LEO articulate the appropriate use of a felony stop for us?That is a very broad question, chivvary.

I believe a better question is whether, based on the facts as they are known, understanding that there are no statements from the SGT involved regarding why he initiated a felony stop, any officer here believes a felony stop was required under the circumstances as we know them.

johnnysquire
03-31-2011, 15:08
Ummm, sorry, but that really doesn't jive with the facts. Plenty of police are comfortable with OC and have no reason to think it puts them in any danger. It is assorted other facts that work in conjunction with the OC that lead to the perception of danger. Just like not all police have a reason to think someone with illegal exhausts puts them in danger, but assorted other facts in conjunction with the illegal exhausts can lead to that perception. Again, as I said earlier, "There is rarely a single isolated event that leads an officer to do much of anything."
Are you asserting that there are facts (other than the fact Viper was OCing) in Viper's situation that gave the officer a perception of danger? If so, can you cite them?

If not, how is the fact that some officers are comfortable with OC relevant to the propriety of the treatment given to (or the officer' perception of danger from) Viper?

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 15:09
I don't think it's too broad a question for an answer... this is a wikipedia quote so I'm sure people will be hurling flames for me posting it, especially as it is more focused on a vehicle stop vs. a ped stop. However, can we get an assessment of this definition of a felony stop?

A "felony" or "high-risk" traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle which they have strong reason to believe contains a driver or passenger suspected of having committed a serious crime, especially of a nature that would lead the police to believe the suspect(s) may be armed (such as an armed robbery, assault with a weapon, or an outstanding felony warrant for the registered owner). In a high risk stop, officers attempt to provide for everyone's safety by issuing instructions to maintain absolute control over every step of the proceedings. They will have additional officers on scene for back-up, often waiting for additional officers to join up before initiating the stop. They will typically have their weapons drawn, and stay back from the suspect vehicle, using their patrol cars for cover. If there is no choice but to make the stop on a busy street they will often stop traffic. They will address the driver and any passengers over the PA speaker of the patrol car, typically instructing the driver to turn the engine off, remove the keys from the ignition, and sometimes toss them out the window. They will instruct the occupants, one at a time, to exit the vehicle with empty hands showing, place their hands on top of or behind their heads, walk backwards some distance, and then lay flat on the ground, where they will remain until all occupants have done likewise, at which point officers will move up, apply handcuffs, do a body search and then secure the suspects in the patrol cars. The vehicle is then typically searched for weapons and other evidence.

RussP
03-31-2011, 15:15
The entirety of numbered paragraph 4 including all subsections dictates actions to be taken. It does not dictate those actions be at gunpoint or not though it does set, in my opinion, a confrontational tone in its wording.GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.That is what they can/should do, but it doesn't describe or limit the methods or procedures to be employed.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 15:25
That is what they can/should do, but it doesn't describe or limit the methods or procedures to be employed.

It does describe that it is legal to OC in Philly (with a LTCF).

RussP
03-31-2011, 15:25
I don't think it's too broad a question for an answer... this is a wikipedia quote so I'm sure people will be hurling flames for me posting it, especially as it is more focused on a vehicle stop vs. a ped stop. However, can we get an assessment of this definition of a felony stop?I believe I said earlier that we need to limit discussion here to topics and subjects directly linked to or immediately relevant to this incident.

This is still way too broad and not similar to what we're discussing.

RussP
03-31-2011, 15:26
It does describe that it is legal to OC in Philly (with a LTCF).That is not in dispute.

Gallium
03-31-2011, 15:31
Again YOU at the time HAVE NO IDEA what he knew..
I have told many an armed robbery suspect I have stopped them because someone said they had a gun....Why because I don't want them on guard and give them more information than I need to. You have no IDEA at the time what is happening or what picture you fit in. You are very immature with your attitude on this and can't seem to comprehend the other side, whether it's from ignorance or other motives I have not figured it out.

I have not seen the video, and that last thread was something else. My few (weak :)) points I kept to myself, because I dreaded hitting the "search all recent posts) and seeing my name associated with that 200 page (it FELT that way) thread. :cool:



The officer HAS observed something illegal or suspicious...a person walking down the street visibly carrying a gun. The officer may be mistaken in his belief, but that does not change the belief and the way the officer acts on that belief. I think that is swatbwana's point.

Ok.


Fact: There was no suspicious activity taking place on my part. I know because I was there.

Fact: Officers are supposed to have received training on the fact that OC is legal and how to approach someone, regardless of whether or not some people think it's a wise idea.

Fact: The officer was under the impression that OC is illegal and made a felony stop as a result.

Fact: Officers are not getting the training they need to properly perform their duties and a citizen's rights were violated as a result, not to mention the citizen was verbally abused by a very unprofessional group of officers.

Could I have handled the situation better? Perhaps, yes. But I will continue to stand up for my rights as both an American and a human being. Being told to get on my knees for doing nothing wrong is unacceptable and dehumanizing, and any officer who stands behind this kind of behavior is a disgrace to their badge. Period.

Swatbana, the guy is coming across here fairly balanced to me.



By all means, stand up for your rights. Go to court, files complaints, etc. But arguing with an officer who feels you are a threat, rightly or wrongly, and refusing to follow orders is a pretty good recipe for not having to worry about your rights any more. Again, that is what the courts are for. The officer gets to respond at the time based on what he thinks the situation is, not on what you think he should know the situation is. Being told to go to your knees is dehumanizing? Boo, hoo, hoo. Getting shot is a lot more dehumanizing. Why is that so hard for folks to understand? Few here are saying the officer was right. What is being said is that right or wrong there is a right and wrong way to respond to the officer. Some ways make the situation worse, some make it better. At the time and the location, the basic idea should be to make it better.

aand

Yup and I'm willing to bet with Philly's track record that proper training was not given and documented to all involved..
Which would only add to their problems of negligent hiring , supervision, retention and now training.....
They gave the training at three whole roll calls wow did they document the lesson plan and have each officer sign for a copy,,, if you don't have documentation in this day and age it did not happen.


The term "vicarious liability" comes to mind when considering the actions of the Sgt (as described here and in the other thread).

It's only a matter of time before they have to eat more crap over something that is easily remedied. Like someone said (Armstrong? Swat?)...reading something at roll call three consecutive days means squat. I know four cops from one 70+ agency who are still employed by their agency, and have been out for three WEEKS (car accident, surgery, car accident, health related). Three days of roll call is slightly less meaningful than a fake reach-around.

I'm not a big open carry guy, but I HAVE open carried :) when the situation dictated as such (handgun or shotgun or rifle). I am not an open carry fan. I am a big supporter of the right to bear arms, and I cheer folks who take pains to obey the law - even if their actions are seen as pushing the envelope. Would I do what this fellow has done? Not damn likely.

Based on what he has said in this thread, I don't think he's a loon. I also don't think he's all here - who the hell open carries in PHILLY voluntarily?

'Drew out. :)

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 15:34
That is not in dispute.

Then why the line of discussion, it is totally irrelevant to the situation. The officer stated multiple times, that it was illegal to OC in Philly.

Either the officer was an ignorant maniac or a malicious one.

Given all the evidence of training, I, of course, lean to the latter.

WCrawford
03-31-2011, 15:37
I have not seen the video,

I would encourage you to listen to the audio. You might change some of your opinions.

jetdefiant
03-31-2011, 15:38
What sticks with me is that it is clear as crystal that open carry is legal so long as you have a permit in this situation, so the responsibility needs to be put somewhere.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for us sheep so it shouldnt be for them as well.

Either this officer knew open carry was ok and felt like depriving viper of his rights (officer's fault and should be disciplined, unlikely given the audio)

OR

The officer really believed that OC was illegal due to training he took (department that offered the training's fault)

OR

Training was offered but he did not take it (His fault and should be disciplined)

What ever the case, I understand that we should let things play out and let the courts settle any issues the suspect or officer may have had.

Trying to be as objective as I can. if I were the cop and in my mind I thought OC was illegal, I would have acted the same way. And if I deprived the person of any rights and ended up being wrong, I should be responsible for my actions, because as I said, ignorance of the law should not be an excuse for anyone.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 15:49
I believe I said earlier that we need to limit discussion here to topics and subjects directly linked to or immediately relevant to this incident.

This is still way too broad and not similar to what we're discussing.

I am trying to understand what the appropriate criteria are for an officer to conduct a felony stop... such as was conducted in this incident. I would also like to understand if the officer followed the correct methodology for a felony stop. How is that not directly linked to or immediately relevant to this incident?

dosei
03-31-2011, 15:50
Then why the line of discussion, it is totally irrelevant to the situation. The officer stated multiple times, that it was illegal to OC in Philly.

Either the officer was an ignorant maniac or a malicious one.


If the officer was ignorant of the current status of the laws for open carry in Philly, then he was by no means a maniac. Being ignorant, he would be under the understanding that open carry in Philly is illegal and thus conducted the stop correctly (per his understanding of the law at the time).

David summed it up quite well:
By all means, stand up for your rights. Go to court, files complaints, etc. But arguing with an officer who feels you are a threat, rightly or wrongly, and refusing to follow orders is a pretty good recipe for not having to worry about your rights any more. Again, that is what the courts are for. The officer gets to respond at the time based on what he thinks the situation is, not on what you think he should know the situation is. Being told to go to your knees is dehumanizing? Boo, hoo, hoo. Getting shot is a lot more dehumanizing. Why is that so hard for folks to understand? Few here are saying the officer was right. What is being said is that right or wrong there is a right and wrong way to respond to the officer. Some ways make the situation worse, some make it better. At the time and the location, the basic idea should be to make it better.

Kith
03-31-2011, 16:23
one min...

RussP
03-31-2011, 16:27
Then why the line of discussion, it is totally irrelevant to the situation. The officer stated multiple times, that it was illegal to OC in Philly.

Either the officer was an ignorant maniac or a malicious one.

Given all the evidence of training, I, of course, lean to the latter.Well, the officer, as several in Chapter I have said, was wrong when he made those several statements. There is no dispute about what he said.

I doubt anyone here knows the SGT's state of mind before and at the instance the encounter began. We know what he said and we heard how he said it. I'd like to know more about his actual state of mind as he describes it.

RussP
03-31-2011, 16:30
I am trying to understand what the appropriate criteria are for an officer to conduct a felony stop... such as was conducted in this incident. I would also like to understand if the officer followed the correct methodology for a felony stop. How is that not directly linked to or immediately relevant to this incident?Now you have narrowed it down to this incident. Now your question is relevant and focused on this event.

We got there.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 16:42
Now you have narrowed it down to this incident. Now your question is relevant and focused on this event.

We got there.

Well, I kind of thought we started there... I asked if a LEO could articulate the appropriate use of a felony stop for us in conjunction with a question from you about training received on how to approach someone open carrying.

So can we get an answer?

SIGShooter
03-31-2011, 16:45
LTCF

License To Carry A Firearm

A LTCF is required when:

You carry a weapon concealed

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

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

Philadelphia is a city of the first class.

Mark was openly carrying a firearm in said city.

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

By the directive of the PPD:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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


The responding police officer did what the directive states.

Was he professional about it? Hell no!

Was Mark professional about it? Hell no!

Did the officer follow the directive? Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is to blame for all of this?

I'll leave that for you to answer.

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

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

The most important thing of all:

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

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

Take it for what it is.

TBO
03-31-2011, 16:58
Well, I kind of thought we started there... I asked if a LEO could articulate the appropriate use of a felony stop for us in conjunction with a question from you about training received on how to approach someone open carrying.

So can we get an answer?
There are 2 types of stops
#1. Unknown Risk Stops
#2. Known Risk Stops

A subset of #2 is High Risk Stops. I believe this is what you are referencing when you speak of a "Felony Stop".

There is an old adage here that applies: "You don't know what you don't know".

The point being the topic is much more complex than your "simple question" line of inquiry.

Grammy
03-31-2011, 16:59
Originally Posted by Snowman92D http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17131454#post17131454)
Seems like a high price to pay in a contrived scenario deliberately set-up to provoke a confrontation with police. Fantasizing about shooting cops appears to be fairly common among OC activist loons. Surely there are less extreme methods of drawing "positive" attention to your OC right to scare women and children in public places.

Please post all your evidence showing he set up and definitively contrived the confrontation.

Also please post your evidence where they (OCer's) fantasize about shooting cops.

You know this thread was about a guy who posted an incident he was in. Right wrong, indifferent I am astounded by the comments from LEO and MODERATORS, hence the loons comment.

The law is the law, indifferent to everyone, or it should be, not so here.

And Russ some of the comments you have made, and comments you have admonished people for are no different or even worse coming from a position of authority here.

And no I will not dance your dance you can re-read this thread for yourself or just stay unaware.

I have seen so much criticisom from the LEO/MOD side, it is almost scarey that you would not come out and say that this guy (LEO) was wrong and completely out of control and absolutely clueless to the laws he was enforceing.

Regardless of what you you think of the OC'er, was he within the law?

I don't know, do I think he was smart, I think not, the law does not take in to account intelegence, just the law...

I would never OC, I would not let other people know what is on my belt, but this is a free country (in case you have forgotten, it is even free for dumb people), seems many people have a different view on this issue, seems some people think they can dictate how others have to comply.





Russ, as many posts you are replying to/asking questions of people in this thread, I think you might have missed my last question to you.... please see above.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 17:04
There are 2 types of stops
#1. Unknown Risk Stops
#2. Known Risk Stops

A subset of #2 is High Risk Stops. I believe this is what you are referencing when you speak of a "Felony Stop".

There is an old adage here that applies: "You don't know what you don't know".

The point being the topic is much more complex than your "simple question" line of inquiry.


I didnt say it was a simple question so I'm not sure who you are quoting there. Based on the circumstances as we know them was a felony stop or high risk stop with gun drawn and pointed at the chest of the suspect a reasonable approach to an individual casually walking down the sidewalk with a holstered gun?

Kith
03-31-2011, 17:15
Based on the audio, can we reasonably infer that that sole premise of the stop was the openly carried firearm?

ETA:

Scratch that, based on what we know, can we reasonably infer that the sole premise of the stop was the openly carried firearm?

RussP
03-31-2011, 17:23
Russ, as many posts you are replying to/asking questions of people in this thread, I think you might have missed my last question to you.... please see above.I don't see a question about the topic addressed to me. Why don't you PM me with your question.

Grammy
03-31-2011, 17:27
I don't see a question about the topic addressed to me. Why don't you PM me with your question.

Sorry statement (as referenced above) was the right word, not question, no need for the PM we can keep everything in the open if you don't mind...

shaffer
03-31-2011, 17:31
Based on the audio, can we reasonably infer that that sole premise of the stop was the openly carried firearm?

ETA:

Scratch that, based on what we know, can we reasonably infer that the sole premise of the stop was the openly carried firearm?

Yes! Sorry, for nothing more than a +1, but this thought was on the tip of my fingers and then I saw your post. This is very relevant when attempting to decipher the officer's state of mind and intentions and ultimately what laws apply.

RussP
03-31-2011, 17:32
I didnt say it was a simple question so I'm not sure who you are quoting there. Based on the circumstances as we know them was a felony stop or high risk stop with gun drawn and pointed at the chest of the suspect a reasonable approach to an individual casually walking down the sidewalk with a holstered gun?chivvalry, what you are missing is that "Circumstances as we know them" may not be ALL the circumstances surrounding the incident. Basing an opinion on only part of the facts, is that what you do?

Besides, several people have said that it appears the SGT acted inappropriately.

If you want to discuss high risk stops in general and get information about the topic, go to Cop Talk and start a thread there.

shaffer
03-31-2011, 17:46
chivvalry, what you are missing is that "Circumstances as we know them" may not be ALL the circumstances surrounding the incident.

chivvary might not be "missing" this point choosing to embrace it for the sake of relevant discussion. Might it be possible to move forward with a general disclaimer that should any new facts emerge then the opinions expressed are subject to change?

Basing an opinion on only part of the facts, is that what you do?

Is it a fact that there are more facts or is this an assumption based on the "Curcumstances as we know them"?

=)

Kith
03-31-2011, 17:53
Yes! Sorry, for nothing more than a +1, but this thought was on the tip of my fingers and then I saw your post. This is very relevant when attempting to decipher the officer's state of mind and intentions and ultimately what laws apply.

Good, I was trying to go somewhere with this but i've been awake for far too long and i'll be going to bed soon.

So let me throw this out for you guys to think about.

IF we can assume the sole basis of the stop was about the open carry of the firearm, in other words, someone legally exercising their right, is the stop valid?

Is the directive to verify a LTCF based solely on open carrying a firearm in fact a legal directive?

Does this violate the 'shall not be questioned' provision in the PA constitution?

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...1.021.000..HTM (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.021.000..HTM)


Is this descrimination against someone exercising their right, as prohibited in the PA constitution?

§ 26. No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision
thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil
right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of
any civil right.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.026.000..HTM

Is there case law to support the fact that openly carrying a firearm in and of itself is not justification to perform a stop?

This question really needs to be settled before anything else can be worked out.

There are more parts to this question to determine it's legality, but until I get some sleep I won't articulate myself well.

Chew on this one for a bit guys.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 17:54
Not sure who chivvary is but I think it is reasonable to infer that the sole premise of the stop was the openly carried firearm. I am not "missing the point" that we do not KNOW all circumstances. I am making a reasoned inference of the circumstances and asking that you do as well.

Given the circumstances as we currently know them; a LEO who is ignorant of the legality of open carrying a firearm, and obviously under the perception that it is illegal, spotting an individual walking down the street open carrying a firearm is it reasonable for him to think that he is about to confront someone who is guilty of a felony and could be considered armed and dangerous?

edit: the above is not in response to Kith... he's going a different direction which I acknowledge as quite a valid direction.

Gallium
03-31-2011, 17:59
I would encourage you to listen to the audio. You might change some of your opinions.


Based on the chagrin of some posters here, and the muted tone of others, I believe my assumption as to the conduct of the officer probably mirrors what most others believe.

WCrawford,

Let me tell you something - something few in LE here will tell you: Privately, when cops screw up, they (cops) will speak amongst themselves about how so and so screwed up, or they will have frank discourse about what happened /etc

In a public space, interacting with non-cops, the tenor of conversation is markedly different. The officer who might agree with what you are saying if the words were coming from another brother, is likely not going to share that level of frankness here, or out in public spaces.

No, I don't know 1,000 cops or even 500, but I've interacted with enough police personnel in various official and casual capacities to arrive at what I consider to be a sound conclusion.

It is for that reason I no longer venture into Coptalk. Except for 1 doz or so of the more mature cops I've interacted with, it's hard to have an open minded conversation with many here - for that reason cited above, especially if you're not a cop.

I'm not calling anyone names. I simply realize the futility and uselessness of attempting to have discussions with folks who profess to be police, or profess to be "pro police".

I'm not going to tell you that you are wasting your time. Also, for clarification's purposes I don't agree with all, or most of what you've posted (clarification, of what I've read), so it's not a case of where I'm on "your" side, or someone else's side.

As always, respectfully,

'Drew

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 18:03
is the stop valid?

Based on the current directives and the training, yes.


Is the directive to verify a LTCF based solely on open carrying a firearm in fact a legal directive?

Legal? Probably yes as it has not been determined to be illegal in a court of law.



Does this violate the 'shall not be questioned' provision in the PA constitution?

Absolutely, no question about that to me. Again, though, this is a matter for a court to determine.


Is this descrimination against someone exercising their right, as prohibited in the PA constitution?

Absolutely. The directive is intended to harass and intimidate law abiding citizens.



Is there case law to support the fact that openly carrying a firearm in and of itself is not justification to perform a stop?

Yes. This has been demonstrated in court many times in PA but I am not aware of current case law in Philadelphia.

RussP
03-31-2011, 18:06
chivvary might not be "missing" this point choosing to embrace it for the sake of relevant discussion. Might it be possible to move forward with a general disclaimer that should any new facts emerge then the opinions expressed are subject to change?That sounds very reasonable.Is it a fact that there are more facts or is this an assumption based on the "Curcumstances as we know them"?

=)It is based on not having information from any of the officers involved and open questions put to Viper.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 18:29
Hmm... interesting....

http://paopencarry.org/pa-open-carry-training-memos


Unless there is an actual possibility of threat against an officer or others (something besides the open carrying), taking someone's firearm and handling it should be taken only under dire circumstances. Due to unfamiliarity with the differing forms of actions on firearms, there is a possibility of accidental discharge.

Unless there is a direct danger or threat, the appropriate reaction to open carry in vehicles, in a declared emergency, or in a city of First Class is to ask for a carry license. Any form of felony stop procedure for open carry by itself is unwarranted. - http://************/346wwr (http://************/346wwr) Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997)


Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. The significance of this is borne in §5301.

Dragoon44
03-31-2011, 18:49
Hmm... interesting....

http://paopencarry.org/pa-open-carry-training-memos

What is the source of those memos? they do not read like police training memos. were they made up by the organization they are hosted on?

dorkweed
03-31-2011, 18:53
Based on the chagrin of some posters here, and the muted tone of others, I believe my assumption as to the conduct of the officer probably mirrors what most others believe.

WCrawford,

Let me tell you something - something few in LE here will tell you: Privately, when cops screw up, they (cops) will speak amongst themselves about how so and so screwed up, or they will have frank discourse about what happened /etc

In a public space, interacting with non-cops, the tenor of conversation is markedly different. The officer who might agree with what you are saying if the words were coming from another brother, is likely not going to share that level of frankness here, or out in public spaces.

No, I don't know 1,000 cops or even 500, but I've interacted with enough police personnel in various official and casual capacities to arrive at what I consider to be a sound conclusion.

It is for that reason I no longer venture into Coptalk. Except for 1 doz or so of the more mature cops I've interacted with, it's hard to have an open minded conversation with many here - for that reason cited above, especially if you're not a cop.

I'm not calling anyone names. I simply realize the futility and uselessness of attempting to have discussions with folks who profess to be police, or profess to be "pro police".

I'm not going to tell you that you are wasting your time. Also, for clarification's purposes I don't agree with all, or most of what you've posted (clarification, of what I've read), so it's not a case of where I'm on "your" side, or someone else's side.

As always, respectfully,

'Drew



Great post........and if I may include also, a moderator or three. And I don't say that to be, like will be alleged, anti-cop.

If they, "the moderators" weren't moderators here, and they objectively read the original thread and all the posts...........including part II here, I don't see how one could come with another conclusion unless one had a specific bias. Unless.........$$$$$$$ talk. Not arguing, just saying.:crying:

Sam Spade
03-31-2011, 18:56
Well, I kind of thought we started there... I asked if a LEO could articulate the appropriate use of a felony stop for us in conjunction with a question from you about training received on how to approach someone open carrying.

So can we get an answer?

Whenever LE has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force. Without question, this applies to seizures short of arrest. It doesn't matter what gets found out later. The ONLY factors properly considered are what the officer knew at the time, to include his training and prior experience.

Please get these points straight. Unless you understand and accept them, there is no way to discuss the issue any further.









Okay, if you acknowledge that, I can make a very strong argument, probably beyond any reasonable doubt, that the only proper way to seize a person armed with a firearm is at gunpoint. Multiple officers, superior weapons and adequate cover are better, but having your gun in hand and pointed in at some version of the contact ready is the bare minimum. The details of it get into OODA, reaction time to visual stimulus, split time on shots and the realities of engaging a target that is free to move in any direction. Probably a few more factors as well. I can also point to issues of distraction, multi-tasking and the danger of presumed compliance to argue why someone talking back as we heard in the tape is more dangerous, not less so.

Broad subject, but more detailed questions will probably get you more detailed answers.

JuneyBooney
03-31-2011, 18:57
What I heard was how leo actually talk during an incident. This tv nonsense of "sir..please do this" etc is not the normal dialogue in reality. I agree that the Sgt should have known the laws but after the lunatic went maniac in Arizona the cops don't treat short haired people like they are good guys.

Dukeboy01
03-31-2011, 18:58
What is the source of those memos? they do not read like police training memos. were they made up by the organization they are hosted on?

Oh wow, that's a big pile of EPIC FAIL, chivvalry. Those are examples of what the OC activists think police departments should be teaching their officers, not training memos put out by any governmental agency. It says so right on the website:

Pa Open Carry Training Memos
This memo is for mailing to your local police dept. It is intended to provide guidance in calls for services that involve a person who is open carrying a pistol in a holster.

Seriously, don't take the statements in those memos as anyone's official guidelines.

shaffer
03-31-2011, 19:02
Whenever LE has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force.
...
Please get these points straight. Unless you understand and accept them, there is no way to discuss the issue any further.
...
Okay, if you acknowledge that, I can make a very strong argument, probably beyond any reasonable doubt, that the only proper way to seize a person armed with a firearm is at gunpoint.

Before jumping to the second half of your argument, lets focus on the precondition. Did the officer in this situation have the "authority to do something"?

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:03
Whenever LE has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force. Without question, this applies to seizures short of arrest. It doesn't matter what gets found out later. The ONLY factors properly considered are what the officer knew at the time, to include his training and prior experience.

Please get these points straight. Unless you understand and accept them, there is no way to discuss the issue any further.

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

Okay, if you acknowledge that, I can make a very strong argument, probably beyond any reasonable doubt, that the only proper way to seize a person armed with a firearm is at gunpoint. Multiple officers, superior weapons and adequate cover are better, but having your gun in hand and pointed in at some version of the contact ready is the bare minimum. The details of it get into OODA, reaction time to visual stimulus, split time on shots and the realities of engaging a target that is free to move in any direction. Probably a few more factors as well. I can also point to issues of distraction, multi-tasking and the danger of presumed compliance to argue why someone talking back as we heard in the tape is more dangerous, not less so.

Broad subject, but more detailed questions will probably get you more detailed answers.


I agree completely with the latter part of your statement, and not much with the earlier paragraph.

In this part of the country, it certainly does matter what gets found out later. Maybe if you you could clarify / expound on your statement please. Do you mean it doesn't matter what was found out specific to the person contact is made with?

Dragoon44
03-31-2011, 19:04
Oh wow, that's a big pile of EPIC FAIL, chivvalry. Those are examples of what the OC activists think police departments should be teaching their officers, not training memos put out by any governmental agency. It says so right on the website:

That is pretty much what I took them to be. And if I were a chief and those yahoos brought me something like that trying to dictate what officers should and should not do based on their opinions I would excuse myself take the papers to the bath room wipe my ass with them. Then return them and tell them to get the hell out of my office.

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:04
Before jumping to the second half of your argument, lets focus on the precondition. Did the officer in this situation have the "authority to do something"?


_Yes_

shaffer
03-31-2011, 19:21
_Yes_

Citation?

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:26
Citation?

Common sense and daily observation?

shaffer
03-31-2011, 19:28
Common sense and daily observation?

"Common sense and daily observation" of NYC Drew does not grant authority to law enforcement.

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:30
Before jumping to the second half of your argument, lets focus on the precondition. Did the officer in this situation have the "authority to do something"?

Citation?

Refer back to Sam Spade's post. If you need a citation why are you attempting to have a discussion in the thread? That's like asking for a proof of 2+2 when we are talking about integration or trig.

'Drew

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 19:34
I agree completely with the latter part of your statement, and not much with the earlier paragraph.

In this part of the country, it certainly does matter what gets found out later. Maybe if you you could clarify / expound on your statement please. Do you mean it doesn't matter what was found out specific to the person contact is made with?

No it actually does not, Use of force is judged on what is known "at the time the force was used" not what was found out later when the fast developing situation is over..It is the basis on all use of force case law..

The use of a High risk takedown was a use of force.

shaffer
03-31-2011, 19:34
Refer back to Sam Spade's post. If you need a citation why are you attempting to have a discussion in the thread? That's like asking for a proof of 2+2 when we are talking about integration or trig.

'Drew

You claimed the officer had the "authority to do something" granted by your "Common sense and daily observation". This is not true.

So back to the original question...

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:35
"Common sense and daily observation" of NYC Drew does not grant authority to law enforcement.


My apologies. I just looked at your post count, and saw that you are a relatively new participant here. Post count matters to me in that it is one of a few indicators as to the intellectual capacity of the person I attempt to engage in dialogue.

Maybe when you've produced enough of a body of responses, or if your posts are keen and insightful enough I may consider allocating a few units of my most precious resource to banter with you.


Have a good evening.

'Drew

shaffer
03-31-2011, 19:41
My apologies. I just looked at your post count, and saw that you are a relatively new participant here. Post count matters to me in that it is one of a few indicators as to the intellectual capacity of the person I attempt to engage in dialogue.

ok. And would you look at that my post count just went up by what... 100%? I can already feel my intellectual capacity exploding!


Maybe when you've produced enough of a body of responses, or if your posts are keen and insightful enough I may consider allocating a few units of my most precious resource to banter with you.


Sounds good, let me know! You sure did tease me by responding initially though... not nice. :)


Have a good evening.

'Drew

Thanks... you too man.

Dukeboy01
03-31-2011, 19:42
"Common sense and daily observation" of NYC Drew does not grant authority to law enforcement.

Refer back to Sam Spade's post. If you need a citation why are you attempting to have a discussion in the thread? That's like asking for a proof of 2+2 when we are talking about integration or trig.

'Drew

Oh good grief. First page of this thread, post #8 by Russ P, here is the Philly PD memo from 09/22/2010. Speaking as a cop, I would treat such a directive as "authority" until I received another memo giving me a different order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's the citation. Now, LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUMMMBLE!!
NYC Drew and Shaffer, touch gloves and come out swinging!

:popcorn:

Dragoon44
03-31-2011, 19:43
No it actually does not, Use of force is judged on what is known "at the time the force was used" not what was found out later when the fast developing situation is over..It is the basis on all use of force case law..

The use of a High risk takedown was a use of force.

I think he is referring to the fact that it matters because of what happens after all the special interests groups hold press conferences starring tearful family members appear on camera sobbing about what a good boy the deceased was and how he was turning his life around.

:rofl::rofl:

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:43
No it actually does not, Use of force is judged on what is known "at the time the force was used" not what was found out later when the fast developing situation is over..It is the basis on all use of force case law..

The use of a High risk takedown was a use of force.


Ok. I get it now. Sam (and this is based on what you have clarified) is talking specifically about use of force. The fellow Sam responded to (and whom he quoted) talked about felony stops AND training as it applied to approaching someone open carrying.

As usual, my dyslexic brain took me somewhere else.

----------

To ask another question: There has never been a case where use of force was judged based on the officer's bias entering the incident?

'Drew

RussP
03-31-2011, 19:44
Oh good grief. First page of this thread, post #8 by Russ P, here is the Philly PD memo from 09/22/2010. Speaking as a cop, I would treat such a directive as "authority" until I received another memo giving me a different order:



There's the citation. Now, LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUMMMBLE!!
NYC Drew and Shaffer, touch gloves and come out swinging!

:popcorn:Please, please, please...no RUUUUUUUMMMBLE!!
:wavey:

Gallium
03-31-2011, 19:45
I think he is referring to the fact that it matters because of what happens after all the special interests groups hold press conferences starring tearful family members appear on camera sobbing about what a good boy the deceased was and how he was turning his life around.

:rofl::rofl:


No Dragoon44.

Maybe you have me confused with someone who actually gives a **** (warm or cold large mass of fecal matter) about degenerates who cash a life-check.

:tongueout:

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 19:46
Ok. I get it now. Sam (and this is based on what you have clarified) is talking specifically about use of force. The fellow Sam responded to (and whom he quoted) talked about felony stops AND training as it applied to approaching someone open carrying.

As usual, my dyslexic brain took me somewhere else.

----------

To ask another question: There has never been a case where use of force was judged based on the officer's bias entering the incident?

'Drew
many it's called dollar signs at the end of the lawsuit... we are after all human

Dukeboy01
03-31-2011, 19:49
Please, please, please...no RUUUUUUUMMMBLE!!
:wavey:

But what ever shall I do with all this popcorn?

Sam Spade
03-31-2011, 19:59
I agree completely with the latter part of your statement, and not much with the earlier paragraph.

In this part of the country, it certainly does matter what gets found out later. Maybe if you you could clarify / expound on your statement please. Do you mean it doesn't matter what was found out specific to the person contact is made with?

Let me use shootings as examples, since they're likely to be more understood here. A good shoot doesn't become bad when it turns out later that the shootee was a saint with a toy gun. A bad shoot doesn't become good if I find out that I shot Charles Manson in his sleep. What matters is what I knew or reasonably concluded when I decided to pull the trigger.

Here, if the police find out after the stop that the detained guy has a permit, or is another cop, or is a wanted felon and prohibited possessor----that doesn't justify or condemn what they did. If they knew or reasonably believed that the object of their attention was wanted, sure, that's a factor to consider if and only if it was known ahead of time.

The level of force used by the cops in a seizure is judged on what a reasonable officer would do in that exact situation.

shaffer
03-31-2011, 20:00
Speaking as a cop, I would treat such a directive as "authority" until I received another memo giving me a different order:

Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!

Gallium
03-31-2011, 20:03
Let me use shootings as examples, since they're likely to be more understood here. A good shoot doesn't become bad when it turns out later that the shootee was a saint with a toy gun. A bad shoot doesn't become good if I find out that I shot Charles Manson in his sleep. What matters is what I knew or reasonably concluded when I decided to pull the trigger.

Here, if the police find out after the stop that the detained guy has a permit, or is another cop, or is a wanted felon and prohibited possessor----that doesn't justify or condemn what they did. If they knew or reasonably believed that the object of their attention was wanted, sure, that's a factor to consider if and only if it was known ahead of time.

The level of force used by the cops in a seizure is judged on what a reasonable officer would do in that exact situation.


I got it. I thought you were onto something else, given the scope of what you quoted.


'Drew

Gallium
03-31-2011, 20:05
Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!


Dragoon, Swatbana, Sam, et al.

If any of you ever tell anyone I was ever like this I'll get on a stool and kick you in the nards.

:)

'Drew

Sam Spade
03-31-2011, 20:08
Before jumping to the second half of your argument, lets focus on the precondition. Did the officer in this situation have the "authority to do something"?

I am not going to make an argument about that. I have stated facts as they pertain to the question of the rightness of a "felony stop" when seizing a man armed with a firearm. Is there something that you'd like me to clarify about the tactic's reasonableness under our laws?

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 20:08
Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!

Happens every day, I was a working Cop Undercover and was taken down by another jurisdiction NYPD, I had the correct Color AND knew the challenge code, but I was smart enough not to argue my point when two uniforms had Sigs pointed at me..

I was working with a task force and with 2 NYPD detectives so I guess I should have sot it out with them since I was in the right and all.....

RussP
03-31-2011, 20:09
Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!Are you familiar with Pennsylvania law regarding carrying a firearm and the exception for Philadelphia as a City of the First Class? The appropriate links are at the beginning of the thread. There you will find the authority under which PPD operates.

Mayhem like Me
03-31-2011, 20:11
Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!

Do you know if the directive in question has been challenged in PA courts, and what the outcome was..please enlighten us

RussP
03-31-2011, 20:11
Dragoon, Swatbana, Sam, et al.

If any of you ever tell anyone I was ever like this I'll get on a stool and kick you in the nards.

:)

'DrewI am so quoting this for posterity!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl::tongueout::rofl:

RussP
03-31-2011, 20:13
But what ever shall I do with all this popcorn?Rent lots of movies??? :tongueout:

dgg9
03-31-2011, 20:15
Are you familiar with Pennsylvania law regarding carrying a firearm and the exception for Philadelphia as a City of the First Class? The appropriate links are at the beginning of the thread. There you will find the authority under which PPD operates.

And here I was, hoping to avoid this thread. but....

The question is: even if OC requires a LTCF in Philadelphia, does that provide RAS to detain -- not "ask" but detain -- someone seen openly carrying? This assumes that PA does not have a law which says a citizen must provide ID when asked, even when there is no RAS. I believe PA does not, but won't swear to it at this moment.

If the act of open carrying itself does not provide RAS to detain, then the PPD directive, which carries no legal weight (other than, perhaps, shift the responsibility from the patrolman to the brass), does not bootstrap RAS into existence.

dgg9
03-31-2011, 20:17
Do you know if the directive in question has been challenged in PA courts, and what the outcome was..please enlighten us

It's new enough that I'm fairly sure it hasn't.

Sam Spade
03-31-2011, 20:20
Does a directive/memo from law enforcement to law enforcement grant law enforcement "authority"?

If so, to follow the logic... the memo grants authority to detain based on the fact that the officer "does not know" if the individual has a permit. Therefore, the officer has the authority to use "reasonable force" for the seizure which in this case means ordering an individual to the ground under thread of deadly force. An individual who has broken no law.

I say if this logic ever sees the light of a court room it's going down!

*tilt*

Where do you think I'm pulling this stuff from? The rules are there because of what the courts have already said, including the Nine Wise Men in Black. Go read my thread up in the stickies. The most important case to grok is Graham v Connor, which I'm trying to explain here. I'll give you the fortune cookie version: The cops don't have to be right, they just have to be reasonable.

Really---until you acknowledge what I started out with, there can be no discussion.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 20:28
Whenever LE has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force. Without question, this applies to seizures short of arrest. It doesn't matter what gets found out later. The ONLY factors properly considered are what the officer knew at the time, to include his training and prior experience.

Please get these points straight. Unless you understand and accept them, there is no way to discuss the issue any further.









Okay, if you acknowledge that, I can make a very strong argument, probably beyond any reasonable doubt, that the only proper way to seize a person armed with a firearm is at gunpoint. Multiple officers, superior weapons and adequate cover are better, but having your gun in hand and pointed in at some version of the contact ready is the bare minimum. The details of it get into OODA, reaction time to visual stimulus, split time on shots and the realities of engaging a target that is free to move in any direction. Probably a few more factors as well. I can also point to issues of distraction, multi-tasking and the danger of presumed compliance to argue why someone talking back as we heard in the tape is more dangerous, not less so.

Broad subject, but more detailed questions will probably get you more detailed answers.


I have those points straight... Completely. Hence the line of questioning... also why I feel that the directive to stop and demand papers from anyone open carrying a weapon in Philly is idiotic to the extreme.

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 20:29
Oh wow, that's a big pile of EPIC FAIL, chivvalry. Those are examples of what the OC activists think police departments should be teaching their officers, not training memos put out by any governmental agency. It says so right on the website:



Seriously, don't take the statements in those memos as anyone's official guidelines.

Where did I say those were anyone's official guidelines? I said... Hmm... interesting.

shaffer
03-31-2011, 20:29
but I was smart enough not to argue my point when two uniforms had Sigs pointed at me..


That's probably a smart move. Although I won't begrudge someone who is up for that adventure. So... did you ever happen to find a good time where you were "smart enough" to argue your point?

Dragoon44
03-31-2011, 20:32
also why I feel that the directive to stop and demand papers from anyone open carrying a weapon in Philly is idiotic to the extreme.

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

chivvalry
03-31-2011, 20:34
Because it is, but I have less of a problem with the idiocy of it than I do with the fact that it is obviously politically motivated handed down by the left wing political masters (Philly Govt.) of the PD.

Agreed.

RussP
03-31-2011, 20:38
And here I was, hoping to avoid this thread. but....

The question is: even if OC requires a LTCF in Philadelphia, does that provide RAS to detain -- not "ask" but detain -- someone seen openly carrying? This assumes that PA does not have a law which says a citizen must provide ID when asked, even when there is no RAS. I believe PA does not, but won't swear to it at this moment.

If the act of open carrying itself does not provide RAS to detain, then the PPD directive, which carries no legal weight (other than, perhaps, shift the responsibility from the patrolman to the brass), does not bootstrap RAS into existence.Here is the answer.Question and answer #3 in the MPOTEC_OC training states that: Question #3- What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in open carry?

Answer #3- In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter.

Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: ... carrying in Philadelphia §6108, ..., the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified.

Dukeboy01
03-31-2011, 20:39
Where did I say those were anyone's official guidelines? I said... Hmm... interesting.

Oh please. You started off with credible arguments and documentation on the first page of this thread. Your statements were respectful and reasonable. Then folks started challenging you. You know why you posted those memos late in the game in the manner you did. :upeyes:

You've been called on it. Either man up or dig in and lose more credibility. Your choice.

RussP
03-31-2011, 20:42
I have those points straight... Completely. Hence the line of questioning... also why I feel that the directive to stop and demand papers from anyone open carrying a weapon in Philly is idiotic to the extreme.And that can be changed through the legislative process, which will take time, or through the judicial process, which will take money and time.

dgg9
03-31-2011, 20:44
Here is the answer.

Not really an answer. It's training material, not statute. I don't know that the "carrying in a restricted area" = RAS formulation holds legal water. Since I CAN in fact carry in a restricted area with a LTCF, what is the articulable suspicion that a crime is occurring? I go back to the "you need a DL to drive so is driving itself RAS" analogy, an analogy I haven't heard rebutted yet. MANY things are not universally legal, but are legal with restrictions, and in no other case I can think of is that fact itself RAS for detention.

Sam Spade
03-31-2011, 20:56
It took decades and a SCOTUS decision to prohibit stops of drivers merely to check their licenses. Are you advocating that process here? If you're not willing to give the analogy full play, why make it?

dgg9
03-31-2011, 21:02
It took decades and a SCOTUS decision to prohibit stops of drivers merely to check their licenses. Are you advocating that process here? If you're not willing to give the analogy full play, why make it?

But the SCOTUS did make that decision. So why is it an invalid analogy for RAS in other cases where there's no evidence of a crime?

Are there other cases where the default position is that detention is ok without RAS? What precedent makes OC the exception to the RAS rule?

Or, from a different angle, if the training material concedes that outside Philly, there's no basis to detain, what legal theory makes detention allowed IN Philly?

countsk
03-31-2011, 21:15
Viper.....Kudos and sorry for what you had to go through. Any knowledge if this guy has been fired/suspended? As a minimum he needs some retraining before he hurts himself or someone else. I do agree with some of the comments that you probably shouldn't have tried to discuss the situation with the guy. He didn't sound very professional or reasonable on the audio, to put it mildly. On the flip side, I'm not trying to second guess police officers. I've got over 23 years in the military and two combat tours. You do what you have to do but I hope most Philadelphia police officers are professional enough to understand that what this cop did was out of line and unnecessary. I just hope as a department they do some internal adjustments before an innocent civilian gets killed.

RussP
03-31-2011, 21:21
Not really an answer. It's training material, not statute. I don't know that the "carrying in a restricted area" = RAS formulation holds legal water. Since I CAN in fact carry in a restricted area with a LTCF, what is the articulable suspicion that a crime is occurring? I go back to the "you need a DL to drive so is driving itself RAS" analogy, an analogy I haven't heard rebutted yet. MANY things are not universally legal, but are legal with restrictions, and in no other case I can think of is that fact itself RAS for detention.And what do you believe was the underlying documentation used to write what was posted?

dgg9
03-31-2011, 21:25
And what do you believe was the underlying documentation used to write what was posted?

The equation is:

underlying documentation + interpretation = training material

Obviously, SOME of the underlying documentation is statute, since they cited some of it. It's the interpretation I question, namely what legal theory leads from "requirement for license, but no evidence of a crime" to "ok to detain?"

RussP
03-31-2011, 21:46
The equation is:

underlying documentation + interpretation = training material

Obviously, SOME of the underlying documentation is statute, since they cited some of it. It's the interpretation I question, namely what legal theory leads from "requirement for license, but no evidence of a crime" to "ok to detain?"Who says there is any interpretation in the training material? Here, here is the training document: http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/MPOTEC_LEGAL_UPDATE_2009-201.pdf

You read all about the course, the authors, the purpose, the goals.

By the way, it is illegal to carry a firearm in the City of Philadelphia. A person carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is committing a crime. The defense against that crime is possession of a valid LTCF. An officer in Philadelphia, a City of the First Class, seeing the person carrying the firearm in violation of the law, may stop the person carrying for verification that the person has an LTCF. But, hey, you know that, don't you.

dgg9
03-31-2011, 21:50
Who says there is any interpretation in the training material?

Is there some PA statute that declares you can be detained for OCing in Philadelphia? Or some PA statute that declares OC in Philadelphia to be excluded from the customary theory of RAS?

No? Then it's an interpretation that an OCer can walk away from a police encounter outside Philadelphia, but can be detained in Philadelphia.

By the way, it is illegal to carry a firearm in the City of Philadelphia. A person carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is committing a crime. The defense against that crime is possession of a valid LTCF.

I thought we went through this already. It's not illegal, and a LTCF is not some kind of affirmative defense. It's legal with conditions.

Dukeboy01
03-31-2011, 21:54
But the SCOTUS did make that decision. So why is it an invalid analogy for RAS in other cases where there's no evidence of a crime?

Are there other cases where the default position is that detention is ok without RAS? What precedent makes OC the exception to the RAS rule?

Or, from a different angle, if the training material concedes that outside Philly, there's no basis to detain, what legal theory makes detention allowed IN Philly?

Well, you have a specific part of the law that sets Philly apart from the rest of PA.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106 of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

If a special case has been made for Philly, how else should cops in that jurisdiction investigate whether or not the law is being violated except through investigative detention? That is what they are being trained to do.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf

A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption.

If you strip everything away, the legal authority for enhanced scrutiny of OC in Philly boils down to "Philly is different because the state legislature has declared it to be different in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108." If the police see you walking around with your roscoe hanging out in Pittsburgh they are not allowed to stop you and require you to present a permit or prove another exemption, but if the cops see you doing it in Philly, they can.

Seems to me that the difference creates more problems than it solves and I don't necessarily agree with it, but it hasn't been successfully challenged in court yet. Since at this time Philly requires you to have a LTCF to carry OC, being observed carrying OC creates RAS that you might be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 and investigative detention is allowed long enough to prove that you are not.

RussP
03-31-2011, 22:04
Is there some PA statute ...Why don't you present the statue that overrides the exemption for Cities of the First Class.

RussP
03-31-2011, 22:05
Well, you have a specific part of the law that sets Philly apart from the rest of PA.

If a special case has been made for Philly, how else should cops in that jurisdiction investigate whether or not the law is being violated except through investigative detention? That is what they are being trained to do.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf

If you strip everything away, the legal authority for enhanced scrutiny of OC in Philly boils down to "Philly is different because the state legislature has declared it to be different in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108." If the police see you walking around with your roscoe hanging out in Pittsburgh they are not allowed to stop you and require you to present a permit or prove another exemption, but if the cops see you doing it in Philly, they can.

Seems to me that the difference creates more problems than it solves and I don't necessarily agree with it, but it hasn't been successfully challenged in court yet. Since at this time Philly requires you to have a LTCF to carry OC, being observed carrying OC creates RAS that you might be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 and investigative detention is allowed long enough to prove that you are not.This pretty much explains it.

dgg9
03-31-2011, 22:07
Well, you have a specific part of the law that sets Philly apart from the rest of PA.

Sure, but how does that difference in itself justify a detention? Just because OC-Philly requires a LTCF doesn't all by itself justify detention. As I said before, MANY activities are "legal with license" or "legal with conditions." Can you show me where those activities are excluded from the basic rules of RAS?

If a special case has been made for Philly, how else should cops in that jurisdiction investigate whether or not the law is being violated except through investigative detention?

Their desire to investigate is understandable, but not a justification, all by itself. There are countless activities the police would like to investigate, but require RAS to reach the status of detention.

If you strip everything away, the legal authority for enhanced scrutiny of OC in Philly boils down to "Philly is different because the state legislature has declared it to be different in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108."

The state legislature has not declared it to be different with respect to RAS. Where do you see that? The "OC in Philly requires LTCF" formulation is like all the other statutes where you have "legal but with restriction X." RAS isn't waived for those, so why here?

IANAL, so this is not a rhetorical question.

Since at this time Philly requires you to have a LTCF to carry OC, being observed carrying OC creates RAS that you might be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108

But here you're just repeating the argument as if repeating it were defense of the argument. I understand that this position is what you and the training material CLAIM, but where's the legal theory that supports it? Can you show any other similar scenarios where the mere exercise of a "legal but with restrictions" act is itself RAS?

dgg9
03-31-2011, 22:08
Why don't you present the statue that overrides the exemption for Cities of the First Class.

I have literally no idea what you want here.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 04:15
That's probably a smart move. Although I won't begrudge someone who is up for that adventure. So... did you ever happen to find a good time where you were "smart enough" to argue your point?

well since I diod not behave like a pissed off 13 year old I recieved an apology on scene from the officers and their Lt. The problem was the briefing photo they had of me was in black and white(photocopied) so they did not put it togeeehr when they saw me in person red hair red beard....just did not look the same.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 05:40
Oh please. You started off with credible arguments and documentation on the first page of this thread. Your statements were respectful and reasonable. Then folks started challenging you. You know why you posted those memos late in the game in the manner you did. :upeyes:

You've been called on it. Either man up or dig in and lose more credibility. Your choice.

Oh please. Do you really think I would have claimed something so obviously not MPOETC training or a police directive to be one? I think the document is well written and thought it interesting. You can think what you like about my credibility.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 05:43
That is pretty much what I took them to be. And if I were a chief and those yahoos brought me something like that trying to dictate what officers should and should not do based on their opinions I would excuse myself take the papers to the bath room wipe my ass with them. Then return them and tell them to get the hell out of my office.

Is this really the right level of disdain and contempt someone should display to a law abiding citizen they are sworn to protect and serve who has a serious concern about police professionalism?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 05:45
Well, you have a specific part of the law that sets Philly apart from the rest of PA.


If a special case has been made for Philly, how else should cops in that jurisdiction investigate whether or not the law is being violated except through investigative detention? That is what they are being trained to do.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf



If you strip everything away, the legal authority for enhanced scrutiny of OC in Philly boils down to "Philly is different because the state legislature has declared it to be different in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108." If the police see you walking around with your roscoe hanging out in Pittsburgh they are not allowed to stop you and require you to present a permit or prove another exemption, but if the cops see you doing it in Philly, they can.

Seems to me that the difference creates more problems than it solves and I don't necessarily agree with it, but it hasn't been successfully challenged in court yet. Since at this time Philly requires you to have a LTCF to carry OC, being observed carrying OC creates RAS that you might be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 and investigative detention is allowed long enough to prove that you are not.

I agree. I think you nailed it pretty well.

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

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 07:20
By the way, it is illegal to carry a firearm in the City of Philadelphia. A person carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is committing a crime. The defense against that crime is possession of a valid LTCF. An officer in Philadelphia, a City of the First Class, seeing the person carrying the firearm in violation of the law, may stop the person carrying for verification that the person has an LTCF. But, hey, you know that, don't you.

It's not legally correct to say that. The law (18 PaCS 6108) says "no person shall carry [..] unless licensed". If licensed, a person can't violate that law.

That's different than an affirmative defense like self-defense.

[Yes, I'm a PA licensed lawyer.]

The police procedure that's repeatedly quoted here is probably enough to create reasonable belief that stopping an OCer is permitted, but we'll have to wait and see if the PA Supremes agree that it's constiutionally permitted to stop OCers on that basis someday. I suspect it won't be Viper's case - it's much more likely to be an exclusionary rule case than one for damages.

dosei
04-01-2011, 07:24
Is this really the right level of disdain and contempt someone should display to a law abiding citizen they are sworn to protect and serve who has a serious concern about police professionalism?

I would call it the expected and logical level of disregard one would expect to see out of anyone when someone else that doesn't know jack squat about the other person's job tries to dictate how that person's job should be done.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:26
It's not legally correct to say that. The law (18 PaCS 6108) says "no person shall carry [..] unless licensed". If licensed, a person can't violate that law.

That's different than an affirmative defense like self-defense.

[Yes, I'm a PA licensed lawyer.]

The police procedure that's repeatedly quoted here is probably enough to create reasonable belief that stopping an OCer is permitted, but we'll have to wait and see if the PA Supremes agree that it's constiutionally permitted to stop OCers on that basis someday. I suspect it won't be Viper's case - it's much more likely to be an exclusionary rule case than one for damages.

That's interesting... so the most likely way this will get changed is by police stopping someone who DOESN'T have a LTCF but is open carrying in philly, gets charged, and then has a really good lawyer use a constitutional rights defense to exclude the evidence of the gun?

Just trying to make sure I understand what an exclusionary rule case is...

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 07:29
Is this really the right level of disdain and contempt someone should display to a law abiding citizen they are sworn to protect and serve who has a serious concern about police professionalism?

You don't know they are law abiding.. that's an assumption.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 07:30
That's interesting... so the most likely way this will get changed is by police stopping someone who DOESN'T have a LTCF but is open carrying in philly, gets charged, and then has a really good lawyer use a constitutional rights defense to exclude the evidence of the gun?

Just trying to make sure I understand what an exclusionary rule case is...

yes you have it the fruit of the posionous tree.. if the encounter or stop is invalid , anything resulting from that is fruit of the posionous tree and also invalid...

As a side note I grew up in Westmoreland county (PA) and while I used to bring my hunting rifle to school in my IH Scout in a rack, I never saw an OC'er in that area of PA from the late 70's till I moved away...

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 07:32
I would call it the expected and logical level of disregard one would expect to see out of anyone when someone else that doesn't know jack squat about the other person's job tries to dictate how that person's job should be done.

Winner winner chickem dinner.....
And to be fair he excused himself to wipe his ass with it....

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:32
I would call it the expected and logical level of disregard one would expect to see out of anyone when someone else that doesn't know jack squat about the other person's job tries to dictate how that person's job should be done.


So... as a law abiding citizen expressing concern about police interactions with the public I should expect to receive contempt and unprofessional behavior? That is arrogance bordering on hubris.

Perhaps a reasoned discussion acknowledging the citizen's concerns and going over the applicable official training provided to the police force to ensure the citizen understands how officers are trained to respond would be more appropriate to alleviating that citizen's fears and establishing a trust relationship with law enforcement?

RussP
04-01-2011, 07:33
I agree. I think you nailed it pretty well.

So it is now simply the methodology of conducting the stop we should be discussing? Along with perhaps how do we change the law making philly "special"...There's no "perhaps" in it. That should be an absolute priority - change the frigging law that gives Philly exemption from the law that governs the remainder of the Commonwealth.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:36
You don't know they are law abiding.. that's an assumption.

An assumption that you are supposed to make until proven otherwise. You do recall the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", yes?

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 07:37
That's interesting... so the most likely way this will get changed is by police stopping someone who DOESN'T have a LTCF but is open carrying in philly, gets charged, and then has a really good lawyer use a constitutional rights defense to exclude the evidence of the gun?

Just trying to make sure I understand what an exclusionary rule case is...

An unlicensed OC seems unlikely, but possible (maybe an expired LTCF holder), but my guess would be that a licensed OCer (or licensed CCer whose weapon is exposed leading to the stop) gets detained by PPD and they find contraband. Evidence of the contraband could be suppressed under the exclusionary rule if the initial detention is unconstitutional.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:39
There's no "perhaps" in it. That should be an absolute priority - change the frigging law that gives Philly exemption from the law that governs the remainder of the Commonwealth.

I concur. Especially as with the law, training, and directives as written for police safety the most appropriate response to anyone open carrying in Philadelphia is currently a full on "high risk" stop preferably with an armored SWAT team.

Seems a bit of an excessive response to someone exercising their 2A rights.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 07:40
An assumption that you are supposed to make until proven otherwise. You do recall the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", yes?

you made the assumption not me!
I presume innocence not assume it!
I treat all fairly and professionally that is all I owe them.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:42
An unlicensed OC seems unlikely, but possible (maybe an expired LTCF holder), but my guess would be that a licensed OCer (or licensed CCer whose weapon is exposed leading to the stop) gets detained by PPD and they find contraband. Evidence of the contraband could be suppressed under the exclusionary rule if the initial detention is unconstitutional.

Would that ruling of the initial detention being unconstitutional be sufficient, in your opinion, to force a change of the current law requiring a LTCF to carry within Philadelphia or do you think it would simply change SOP for the Philly PD?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 07:44
you made the assumption not me!
I presume innocence not assume it!
I treat all fairly and professionally that is all I owe them.

You're right... you should presume not assume.

How is advocating wiping your backside with papers presented to you by a concerned law abiding citizen who wishes to discuss police interactions with the public treating them fairly and professionally?

RussP
04-01-2011, 07:52
It's not legally correct to say that. The law (18 PaCS 6108) says "no person shall carry [..] unless licensed". If licensed, a person can't violate that law.

That's different than an affirmative defense like self-defense.

[Yes, I'm a PA licensed lawyer.]

The police procedure that's repeatedly quoted here is probably enough to create reasonable belief that stopping an OCer is permitted, but we'll have to wait and see if the PA Supremes agree that it's constiutionally permitted to stop OCers on that basis someday. I suspect it won't be Viper's case - it's much more likely to be an exclusionary rule case than one for damages.Thanks, Counselor, and welcome to Glock Talk.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 07:55
But the SCOTUS did make that decision. So why is it an invalid analogy for RAS in other cases where there's no evidence of a crime?

Are there other cases where the default position is that detention is ok without RAS? What precedent makes OC the exception to the RAS rule?

Or, from a different angle, if the training material concedes that outside Philly, there's no basis to detain, what legal theory makes detention allowed IN Philly?

It (carrying) is a licensed activity. Agree? Without a license, you're a criminal there. Agree? Does the state get to check the validity of licenses? PAPD thinks they do, you think they don't because guns are so fundamental.

But freedom to assemble is fundamental. And yet LE can check for your permit when you gather in the park, the gathering being all the reason they need. Business is pretty near fundamental. Still, LE gets to check health and business licenses when they see you pushing a hot dog cart down the street. Don't need to wait for a complaint. Driving *isn't* a fundamental right, and the state *could* stop and check on you--until the courts intervened and carved out new protection. (Remember that, the next time you get down on judges for "activism". Sometimes that's a good thing.)

So if the PA courts want to set guns apart from assembly and business, they can do that. I don't see where they have. Until they do, your driving analogy doesn't fit, if only because you don't run it far enough.

And before anyone launches on me, please remember that this post comes to you from the World of Is, not the Land of Should Be.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 07:57
Sorry for the late reply - sex comes before vBulletin forums. :D I know these questions have already been answered but I felt it only polite to answer them myself as they were directed at me.

In Philadelphia, does an officer need evidence of suspicious activity to stop a citizen openly carrying a firearm to determine if that person does possess a LTCF?

PA State Law makes it clear that a License to Carry Firearms is required to carry a sidearm within the municipal limits of cities of the first class, of which there is only one in the Commonwealth - Philadelphia. The MPOETC released an update in 2009 stating that
"In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: [snip] carrying in Philadelphia §6108) the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified."
This appears to imply that a "stop and frisk" would in fact be justified by a Philadelphia police officer observing a person openly carrying in the city of Philadelphia. Logically, the circumstances of the carrier themselves and their behavior don't change because of their geographical location, so it's my opinion that a seizure of property would be unjustified based on current law, although by the same token I see the reasoning behind officers being told to validate the license of the carrier.

In the documents posted and or linked to at the beginning of this thread, which one describes the training received in how to approach someone open carrying?

Post #7 in this thread, link number three, as posted by chivvalry.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaOCMemo.pdf

This update was a direct result of myself (apologies if this sounds conceited) having been stopped on South Street for the practice of open carry, having my weapon confiscated, the ammunition destroyed, and filing complaints with Internal Affairs to address the fact that officers are unaware of the laws which they attempt to enforce.

This update provides internal blanket permission from the brass for PPD officers to stop, detain, and seize and clear the property of anyone who is openly carrying a firearm and not providing any other evidence of suspicious activity. I have a problem with this - I don't mind providing my LTCF for validation when stopped, but I do have a problem with having my 4th Amendment rights violated in the name of "officer safety" - racking the slide of a Glock on a crowded city sidewalk with cards and pedestrians going by in both directions is a great way to cause a negligent discharge, especially with the shaky hands and horribly erratic demeanor of officers like Sgt. Dougherty.

Again, my apologies that these have already been addressed. I didn't want to seem like a jerk and like I was ignoring you guys.

RussP
04-01-2011, 08:03
...How is advocating wiping your backside with papers presented to you by a concerned law abiding citizen who wishes to discuss police interactions with the public treating them fairly and professionally?chivvalry, this is the internet. It is not the front counter at the local precinct, main headquarters of a law enforcement agency.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 08:03
You're right... you should presume not assume.

How is advocating wiping your backside with papers presented to you by a concerned law abiding citizen who wishes to discuss police interactions with the public treating them fairly and professionally?

I believe he was stating that in jest because I know his posting history of course he woudl be professional.
What do you do for a living so I can give you a proper analogy.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 08:06
Sorry for the late reply - sex comes before vBulletin forums. :D I know these questions have already been answered but I felt it only polite to answer them myself as they were directed at me.



PA State Law makes it clear that a License to Carry Firearms is required to carry a sidearm within the municipal limits of cities of the first class, of which there is only one in the Commonwealth - Philadelphia. The MPOETC released an update in 2009 stating that

This appears to imply that a "stop and frisk" would in fact be justified by a Philadelphia police officer observing a person openly carrying in the city of Philadelphia. Logically, the circumstances of the carrier themselves and their behavior don't change because of their geographical location, so it's my opinion that a seizure of property would be unjustified based on current law, although by the same token I see the reasoning behind officers being told to validate the license of the carrier.



Post #7 in this thread, link number three, as posted by chivvalry.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaOCMemo.pdf

This update was a direct result of myself (apologies if this sounds conceited) having been stopped on South Street for the practice of open carry, having my weapon confiscated, the ammunition destroyed, and filing complaints with Internal Affairs to address the fact that officers are unaware of the laws which they attempt to enforce.

This update provides internal blanket permission from the brass for PPD officers to stop, detain, and seize and clear the property of anyone who is openly carrying a firearm and not providing any other evidence of suspicious activity. I have a problem with this - I don't mind providing my LTCF for validation when stopped, but I do have a problem with having my 4th Amendment rights violated in the name of "officer safety" - racking the slide of a Glock on a crowded city sidewalk with cards and pedestrians going by in both directions is a great way to cause a negligent discharge, especially with the shaky hands and horribly erratic demeanor of officers like Sgt. Dougherty.

Again, my apologies that these have already been addressed. I didn't want to seem like a jerk and like I was ignoring you guys.

Booty call trumps this dead horse that's sho'nuff

TBO
04-01-2011, 08:08
Booty call trumps this dead horse that's sho'nuffhttp://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/shonuff1mt.jpg

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 08:11
So... as a law abiding citizen expressing concern about police interactions with the public I should expect to receive contempt and unprofessional behavior? That is arrogance bordering on hubris.

Perhaps a reasoned discussion acknowledging the citizen's concerns and going over the applicable official training provided to the police force to ensure the citizen understands how officers are trained to respond would be more appropriate to alleviating that citizen's fears and establishing a trust relationship with law enforcement?

How you say it matters. Plenty of groups have advocated for LE change and got it--MADD, advocates for the physically disabled, the mentally disabled and the mentally ill among them. None of them have taken the approach that the OC extremists have. Groups that have ranted like the OC world is ranting--ActUp! comes to mind-- get pushed to the margins just like Dragoon wants to do with frothing carry guys.

Maybe the people in the OC camp should find a successful model, copy that, and leave fools that want gunpoint debates by the wayside.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:12
chivvalry, this is the internet. It is not the front counter at the local precinct, main headquarters of a law enforcement agency.

Yes, of course I understand that the social graces tend to be stripped away in the digital world. However, when you strip away those social graces occasionally you see the real opinions surface.

I believe he was stating that in jest because I know his posting history of course he woudl be professional.
What do you do for a living so I can give you a proper analogy.

I'm the CISO of a $4B company, ex-Capt in the USAF. He didn't sound like he was jesting to me. Sounded like he was expressing his real opinion, backed up by several others, of how he would react to any civilian who was presumptuous enough to speak up about a concern.

Kith
04-01-2011, 08:13
And before anyone launches on me, please remember that this post comes to you from the World of Is, not the Land of Should Be.

Thank you for making this statement.

My approach on this issue it trying to figure out what should be.

Most of the people debating this issue are from around the country, but I live in Philly.

I'd like to take what's learned here and maybe do something about it through the proper channels.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 08:14
And before anyone launches on me, please remember that this post comes to you from the World of Is, not the Land of Should Be.

Ok, thanks for the rationale. I guess the bottom line is: either there's on-point case law, or there isn't. If the latter, the police get to make any plausible-sounding policy/directive, until such times as there is case law (or change to statute).

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 08:18
Is this really the right level of disdain and contempt someone should display to a law abiding citizen they are sworn to protect and serve who has a serious concern about police professionalism?

It would be an honest response. What would yo prefer the usual PC correct response where the Chief smiles say, "thank you for bringing me this" and then walks into his office and throws it in the trash can?

I have no doubt that your version of "professionalism" and mine are quire different. Mine does not include giving the time of day to some miniscule fringe group coming in and trying to tell me how my officers should do their jobs when they don't know the first thing about it in the first place.

Mayhem like Me
04-01-2011, 08:18
Yes, of course I understand that the social graces tend to be stripped away in the digital world. However, when you strip away those social graces occasionally you see the real opinions surface.



I'm the CISO of a $4B company, ex-Capt in the USAF. He didn't sound like he was jesting to me. Sounded like he was expressing his real opinion, backed up by several others, of how he would react to any civilian who was presumptuous enough to speak up about a concern.

Well trust me on this you're new here.




It would be like a mailroom employee telling you how you should invest the profits of your business.

I'm sure you would give him his time, but he has NO IDEA, the time and staffing that went into the decisions, the legal departments research and the directions from the city council and mayors office....it's not a one man show.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 08:23
Ok, thanks for the rationale. I guess the bottom line is: either there's on-point case law, or there isn't. If the latter, the police get to make any plausible-sounding policy/directive, until such times as there is case law (or change to statute)...

...or direction from Mayor and Council.

I think it's pretty clear that changing PPD by carrying guns in front of cops is nonproductive. Interacting like this, repeatedly, with street cops is life-threatening and foolish. Time for a change, and since OCers control their own actions, that's where to focus.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 08:23
You're right... you should presume not assume.

How is advocating wiping your backside with papers presented to you by a concerned law abiding citizen who wishes to discuss police interactions with the public treating them fairly and professionally?

A concerned citizen that wants to discuss police procedures is fine by me. we can talk all day long and I will be receptive.

Someone coming in a plopping down some crap like those "Training memos" trying to dictate how my officers respond isn't someone trying to "discuss" issues it is someone trying to dictate them.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 08:26
I think it's pretty clear that changing PPD by carrying guns in front of cops is nonproductive.

I'm not sure I agree. In PA, what progress in OC that has been made has come from "carrying guns in front of cops" and from nothing else. The fear of lawsuits has effected what progress in LE training and legality awareness that there's been, limited as it is.

Of course it's possible that the next set of gains are best achieved in some other way.

TBO
04-01-2011, 08:32
Did OC activity have anything to do with Philly passing a ban on it?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:34
It would be like a mailroom employee telling you how you should invest the profits of your business.

I'm sure you would give him his time, but he has NO IDEA, the time and staffing that went into the decisions, the legal departments research and the directions from the city council and mayors office....it's not a one man show.

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

A concerned citizen that wants to discuss police procedures is fine by me. we can talk all day long and I will be receptive.

Someone coming in a plopping down some crap like those "Training memos" trying to dictate how my officers respond isn't someone trying to "discuss" issues it is someone trying to dictate them.

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

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

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

dgg9
04-01-2011, 08:35
Did OC activity have anything to do with Philly passing a ban on it?

There is no ban.

dosei
04-01-2011, 08:35
Perhaps a reasoned discussion acknowledging the citizen's concerns and going over the applicable official training provided to the police force to ensure the citizen understands how officers are trained to respond would be more appropriate to alleviating that citizen's fears and establishing a trust relationship with law enforcement?

Now your getting it. And learning the reasons why certain things are done a certain way, and how certain actions may be critical for the officers safety as well as the safety of others in certain situations. Walking in as joe nobody off the street and dictating to someone (anyone) how to do their job (any job) is arrogance bordering on hubris. You want to improve the system...try using an approach you would want used on you. You don't like a heavy handed approach...don't use one in return!

The best way to change a man's direction, is to walk beside them for a while first.

TBO
04-01-2011, 08:39
There is no ban.
Is not OC w/o CCW permit banned in Philly?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:40
Now your getting it. And learning the reasons why certain things are done a certain way, and how certain actions may be critical for the officers safety as well as the safety of others in certain situations. Walking in as joe nobody off the street and dictating to someone (anyone) how to do their job (any job) is arrogance bordering on hubris. You want to improve the system...try using an approach you would want used on you. You don't like a heavy handed approach...don't use one in return!

The best way to change a man's direction, is to walk beside them for a while first.

Where have I advocated or taken a heavy handed approach?

You know, I could easily flip around the "now you're getting it" comment... :whistling:

dgg9
04-01-2011, 08:43
Is not OC w/o CCW permit banned in Philly?

The word "ban" doesn't fit. In many Shall Issue states, you can't carry concealed without a permit. Would it be accurate or misleading to say those are "CCW ban" states?

OC is permitted in Philly with LTCF. There is a license requirement, not a ban.

The license requirement has been in place for a long time -- at a minimum, as far back as the UFA (1995 IIRC). Maybe it predates that; not sure.

What the recent spate of OC lawsuits has done is change PA LE training material so that the legality of OC in Philadelphia is now explicit.

RussP
04-01-2011, 08:44
...I'm the CISO of a $4B company, ex-Capt in the USAF. What was your job in the AF?

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 08:44
Where have I advocated or taken a heavy handed approach?

You know, I could easily flip around the "now you're getting it" comment... :whistling:

I'm guessing you have some different definitions. Me, I think putting street cops in the position where they're almost, but not quite, in fear for their lives fits. Telling the staff how street cops should be trained and conditioned To handle such things and punished if they don't handle the potential deadly encounters your way counts, too.

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:44
Is not OC w/o CCW permit banned in Philly?

No, w/o an LTCF it is banned. :innocent: *edit dang dyslexia... "it is" not "is it"

I am not aware of the circumstances around the passage of the law requiring the LTCF to carry openly in Philly. I do know that the Philadelphia area is EXTREMELY left wing in many aspects, especially gun control. Lots of NJ transplants in the city.

They have a history of violating state preemption as well as assigning a "special" class to Philly.

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 08:46
It would be like a mailroom employee telling you how you should invest the profits of your business.

I'm sure you would give him his time, but he has NO IDEA, the time and staffing that went into the decisions, the legal departments research and the directions from the city council and mayors office....it's not a one man show.
Swatbwana - thanks for your input in this thread.

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

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:48
What was your job in the AF?

Had a few... from ICBM maintenance (carried a weapon to protect launch codes), running a base network control center, and working on the B2 bomber.

RussP
04-01-2011, 08:50
I'm not sure I agree. In PA, what progress in OC that has been made has come from "carrying guns in front of cops" and from nothing else. The fear of lawsuits has effected what progress in LE training and legality awareness that there's been, limited as it is.

Of course it's possible that the next set of gains are best achieved in some other way.Is it time to try those other ways, or would you advocate more confrontations with PPD?

chivvalry
04-01-2011, 08:56
I'm guessing you have some different definitions. Me, I think putting street cops in the position where they're almost, but not quite, in fear for their lives fits. Telling the staff how street cops should be trained and conditioned To handle such things and punished if they don't handle the potential deadly encounters your way counts, too.

Where have I advocated putting street cops in that position? I don't even open carry let along open carry in philly. As far as dictating how they should be trained and conditioned to handle things I wouldn't presume to dictate anything of the sort... I am not a trained tactical operator nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Good golly man I'm a complete novice in how to approach a suspect on the street! You saw me asking the definition of a felony stop and when it is appropriate, right? That wasn't a trick line of questioning.

What I am advocating, not dictating, is professionalism and respect. What I'm trying to learn is how to approach my local PD and open a discussion with them about open carrying and what their response would be if I decided to exercise that right. The number of LEOs on this board that are at least willing to banter if not engage in a full serious dialogue is extremely valuable. Some of the attitudes are disheartening... but not too shocking... and some are quite reasonable and understandable.

dgg9
04-01-2011, 08:59
Is it time to try those other ways, or would you advocate more confrontations with PPD?

We disagree on the word "confrontation." Are you really implying that it's best to let PPD actions preclude OC in Philadelphia?

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

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

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

David Armstrong
04-01-2011, 09:00
I can accept unproven claims or hyperbole (this is your and others opinion), I can not accept you claiming I'm lying without calling you out on that. Where exactly am I lying?
I didn't say lying, I said blatant falsehoods. In the post quoted, there are at least two claims of fact you have made that have no proven (or perhaps even proveable) validity, thus are falsehoods.
1. an out of control police officer.
2. this near homicidal police officer
Neither of those claims seem to have any factual validity beyond your admittedly biased opinion.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 09:03
Swatbwana - thanks for your input in this thread.

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

And, just for the record, who would that be?

Kith
04-01-2011, 09:04
I'd like to take a moment to clarify the idea that the "Uniform Firearms Act" is not, in fact, uniform.

Philadelphia is not "special" (much as it would like to think it is) in requiring a license to openly carry.

It is simply the only city in the state with a large enough population to enact a particular section of firearms laws that no other municipality in the state can.

Are you familiar with Pennsylvania law regarding carrying a firearm and the exception for Philadelphia as a City of the First Class? The appropriate links are at the beginning of the thread. There you will find the authority under which PPD operates.

Here it is again:

§ 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

In case you missed Dukeboy01 clearing this up in post #178, let me say it again:

The requirement to possess a license to openly carry in the city of Philadelphia is legal according to STATE LEGISLATURE.


To me, this is what the debate is about:

And here I was, hoping to avoid this thread. but....

The question is: even if OC requires a LTCF in Philadelphia, does that provide RAS to detain -- not "ask" but detain -- someone seen openly carrying? This assumes that PA does not have a law which says a citizen must provide ID when asked, even when there is no RAS. I believe PA does not, but won't swear to it at this moment.

If the act of open carrying itself does not provide RAS to detain, then the PPD directive, which carries no legal weight (other than, perhaps, shift the responsibility from the patrolman to the brass), does not bootstrap RAS into existence.

Does open carrying, in and of itself, provide the legal basis for a stop, or is some other criminal activity necessary for the stop to take place.

I think what we are looking at here is the balance between:

From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

§ 8. Security from searches and seizures.
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no
warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things
shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor
without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
subscribed to by the affiant.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.008.000..HTM

And:

From Title 18:

§ 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;

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



The idea of comparing the act of performing a stop to check a LTCF to making a stop just to check a driver's license seems like a spot on comparison to me.

It (carrying) is a licensed activity. Agree? Without a license, you're a criminal there. Agree? Does the state get to check the validity of licenses? PAPD thinks they do, you think they don't because guns are so fundamental.

Driving *isn't* a fundamental right, and the state *could* stop and check on you--until the courts intervened and carved out new protection.


Bolded part is what we are leading up to, except that it could be articulated that that protection already exists: *emphasis mine

From the PA Constitution

§ 1. Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have
certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those
of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of
pursuing their own happiness.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.001.000..HTM

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.021.000..HTM


§ 26. No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision
thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil
right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of
any civil right.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.026.000..HTM

And this isn't the complete argument for that standing, but wheras the courts had to make a special provision in regards to the driver's license, in this case that provision already exists and needs to be enforced.

Furthormore, this posting:

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

Reminds us why this is such an important issue.

Philadelphia has a history of trying to enact it's own firearms legislation, curtailing the rights of it's citizens to bear arms in defense of their person protected by the PA State Constitution.

If Philly wasn't always trying put political policy in place to trample the rights of it's citizens, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

Dragoon44
04-01-2011, 09:05
What I'm trying to learn is how to approach my local PD and open a discussion with them about open carrying and what their response would be if I decided to exercise that right. The number of LEOs on this board that are at least willing to banter if not engage in a full serious dialogue is extremely valuable. Some of the attitudes are disheartening... but not too shocking... and some are quite reasonable and understandable.

The answers to that is simple. Just approach them and DISCUSS your concerns.

The wrong way would be to plop some document like those "training memos" on their desk. Which try to dictate how officers are trained and how they respond. including language like, "Under no circumstances should an officer...."

Those "training memos" are not couched in the language of information or the expression of a concern they are worded like directives.

johnnysquire
04-01-2011, 09:06
And, just for the record, who would that be?

We the people, naturally.

gunslinger3
04-01-2011, 09:16
The best way to change a man's direction, is to walk beside them for a while first.

Best thing I have read for the past 10 pages!!:goodpost:

Kith
04-01-2011, 09:20
If a person doesn't have a driver's license, yet they are operating an automobile, then they are breaking the law.

If a person doesn't have a license to carry firearms,yet they are openly carrying a firearm, then (in Philadelphia) they are breaking the law.

The courts have decided that it is unlawful for a stop to be made just to check a driver's license, so how is a stop just to check a LTCF and different?

Please educate me if this thought it wrong.

RussP
04-01-2011, 09:20
...The best way to change a man's direction, is to walk beside them for a while first.More people who carry should participate in their PD's ride-along program. Philly has one.

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 09:24
See, here's what's bugging me in alot of this:

On one side (and make no mistake, there are sides) we have people pushing for the right to display a firearm in public, or for social change so that their display becomes accepted. On the other side are people who are dealing with deadly threats. That covers both cops and armed citizens.

The OC activists are not concerned about ownership or the right to carry--they already have that. Means of protecting themselves? Got that already, too. Training, or anything else related to stopping a deadly threat isn't their gig. They arent even trying to decriminalize inadvertent exposure, like some are in TX for instance. They just want their display to be accepted. At the root of it, I can't help but see these guys as only a hair removed from people who treat their guns as magic talismans.

In spite of our history where open carry was socially unacceptable or even criminalized in civilized places, the OC zealots try to invoke that past. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting, you know. They're right, of course, but they conveniently skip the presumed qualities of a citizen that allowed the 2A to be written.

Sorry, guys. I can't take the movement seriously next to people who are preparing for a fight for their lives. Neither can I support the people whose main tactic is to seek out cops and demand that they make a deadly force decision right now and for real. Honestly, when I run into people who are serious and do advocate such work (putting the burden on the cop to get everything right, from law to philosophy to tactics) I can't help but think that they don't really get the whole fiream/weapon/deadly force thing.

Just my opinion here, but it counts no less than yours.

TBO
04-01-2011, 09:25
If a person doesn't have a driver's license, yet they are operating an automobile, then they are breaking the law.

If a person doesn't have a license to carry firearms,yet they are openly carrying a firearm, then (in Philadelphia) they are breaking the law.

The courts have decided that it is unlawful for a stop to be made just to check a driver's license, so how is a stop just to check a LTCF and different?

Please educate me if this thought it wrong.
Several posts up:It (carrying) is a licensed activity. Agree? Without a license, you're a criminal there. Agree? Does the state get to check the validity of licenses? PAPD thinks they do, you think they don't because guns are so fundamental.

But freedom to assemble is fundamental. And yet LE can check for your permit when you gather in the park, the gathering being all the reason they need. Business is pretty near fundamental. Still, LE gets to check health and business licenses when they see you pushing a hot dog cart down the street. Don't need to wait for a complaint. Driving *isn't* a fundamental right, and the state *could* stop and check on you--until the courts intervened and carved out new protection. (Remember that, the next time you get down on judges for "activism". Sometimes that's a good thing.)

So if the PA courts want to set guns apart from assembly and business, they can do that. I don't see where they have. Until they do, your driving analogy doesn't fit, if only because you don't run it far enough.

And before anyone launches on me, please remember that this post comes to you from the World of Is, not the Land of Should Be.

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 09:27
We the people, naturally.

Glad to hear that, some people have a problem understanding that We, The People, are boss.

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

Beware Owner
04-01-2011, 09:33
See, here's what's bugging me in alot of this:

On one side (and make no mistake, there are sides) we have people pushing for the right to display a firearm in public, or for social change so that their display becomes accepted. On the other side are people who are dealing with deadly threats. That covers both cops and armed citizens.

The OC activists are not concerned about ownership or the right to carry--they already have that. Means of protecting themselves? Got that already, too. Training, or anything else related to stopping a deadly threat isn't their gig. They arent even trying to decriminalize inadvertent exposure, like some are in TX for instance. They just want their display to be accepted. At the root of it, I can't help but see these guys as only a hair removed from people who treat their guns as magic talismans.

In spite of our history where open carry was socially unacceptable or even criminalized in civilized places, the OC zealots try to invoke that past. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting, you know. They're right, of course, but they conveniently skip the presumed qualities of a citizen that allowed the 2A to be written.

Sorry, guys. I can't take the movement seriously next to people who are preparing for a fight for their lives. Neither can I support the people whose main tactic is to seek out cops and demand that they make a deadly force decision right now and for real. Honestly, when I run into people who are serious and do advocate such work (putting the burden on the cop to get everything right, from law to philosophy to tactics) I can't help but think that they don't really get the whole fiream/weapon/deadly force thing.

Just my opinion here, but it counts no less than yours.

Sam, I regard you as a wise person who views things objectively and makes well thought out decisions, my respect to you. Your posts always make sense and you always manage to get your point across without acting like a rectal orifice, no prepotence, no prejudice that those with opposing views are cop haters, my hat off to you.

However, let me ask you, how else would you propose the OC activists to enact the change they seek?

RussP
04-01-2011, 09:34
If a person doesn't have a driver's license, yet they are operating an automobile, then they are breaking the law.

If a person doesn't have a license to carry firearms,yet they are openly carrying a firearm, then (in Philadelphia) they are breaking the law.

The courts have decided that it is unlawful for a stop to be made just to check a driver's license, so how is a stop (in Philadelphia) just to check a LTCF and different?

Please educate me if this thought it wrong.It is important to keep the focus, for the purpose of this thread, on the fact that this is a unique law enforceable in Philadelphia only. It is the law that needs changing to conform to the law applicable to the remainder of the state.

Now, there are some who if they lived in Philly would say that the Philly exception law in unconstitutional and therefore void and not enforceable on them. Any of y'all lurking here? Feel free to join the discussion.

Kith
04-01-2011, 09:34
Honestly, when I run into people who are serious and do advocate such work (putting the burden on the cop to get everything right, from law to philosophy to tactics)

As far as this specific incident is concerned, based on the audio file it seems clear to me that the officer (and at least one other) thought open carry was illegal, and given that in this specific instance, the basis for the stop was valid.

I am not trying to debate here the 'was it a good stop' idea dealing with viper's case, i'm trying to debate on the whole if such an act is legal. (which I don't think it is)

And just so others are clear, I do have a LTCF, and I don't open carry.

But living here, if I sit this one out, it's the beginning of a larger erosion of my rights. As a smoker, i'm living every day with the knowledge of what happens when I do nothing.

ViperGTS19801
04-01-2011, 09:35
More people who carry should participate in their PD's ride-along program. Philly has one.

I would love to, actually. I doubt they'll let me carry in their cruisers, though. :rofl:

Kith
04-01-2011, 09:38
It is important to keep the focus, for the purpose of this thread, on the fact that this is a unique law enforceable in Philadelphia only. It is the law that needs changing to conform to the law applicable to the remainder of the state.

Now, there are some who if they lived in Philly would say that the Philly exception law in unconstitutional and therefore void and not enforceable on them. Any of y'all lurking here? Feel free to join the discussion.

Sorry RussP, I need to short circuit that line of thinking, because it's not entirely accurate.

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

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

Philadelphia just happens to be the only city that can claim 'first class' status.

Gallium
04-01-2011, 09:42
So if Philly's population drops by say, 500,000 this issue is moot?

:)

Or do they consider the greater Philly area as well?


'Drew

Sam Spade
04-01-2011, 09:44
Where have I advocated putting street cops in that position? I don't even open carry let along open carry in philly. As far as dictating how they should be trained and conditioned to handle things I wouldn't presume to dictate anything of the sort...

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

If you want to discuss things, great, and I mean that. Start by asking your local agency what the concern is with armed men in a crowded city. Ask what the concern is if they confront, or fail to confront, the guy. I see plenty of push for the PD to understand what the OCers think their rights are. I see no interest, and often the outright dismissal ("Maybe he should find a new job"), of the concerns of guys saddled with responsibility for public safety in Philly.

RussP
04-01-2011, 09:56
What do you think motivates a felony stop and pointed guns? It's precisely a fear of death and the reasonable need to be instantly ready to use deadly force to stave that off. A good friend PM'ed me yesterday to tell of a discussion he was having with a cop-hating professor about this incident.

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

He said it was amazing how well that toned things down.