Philly PD assault OCer at gunpoint-Chapter IV- Arrest Warrant out for Viper [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Philly PD assault OCer at gunpoint-Chapter IV- Arrest Warrant out for Viper


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

chivvalry
04-20-2011, 13:18
Evidently a warrant has been issued for Viper's arrest. No idea what the charges are at this point but it appears that a 5 man warrant squad appeared at his work place to attempt to arrest him. He was not at work and, to the best of my knowledge, not yet in custody.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-102.html#post1570257

Sam Spade
04-20-2011, 14:23
Evidently a warrant has been issued for Viper's arrest. No idea what the charges are at this point but it appears that a 5 man warrant squad appeared at his work place to attempt to arrest him. He was not at work and, to the best of my knowledge, not yet in custody.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-102.html#post1570257

Since he knows that he has a warrant, it would be a really, really good idea to turn himself in. His lawyer can arrange it. It would be a really, really bad idea to engage in another attempt to lecture the officers grabbing him up.

RussP
04-20-2011, 14:30
According to posts on another forum, an arrest warrant has been issued for ViperGTS19801. The nature of the charges are not known.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-26.html#post1570257Re: Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry
Mark just called me and informed me that a warrant for unknown charges has been issued for his arrest by the Philadelphia Police Department. 5 officers showed up at his place of work looking for him.

That is all I can share at this point.http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-27.html#post1570558Re: Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry
Just to update what I can...Mark does have a defense attorney now and this is all going to be taken care of in short order.http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-27.html#post1570644Re: Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry
I talked to Mark and he said that he spoke with a detective who said it was an arrest warrant and he needed to come turn himself in. Just not sure why it wouldn't be in the system or if we are being lied to(not by Mark).

chivvalry
04-20-2011, 14:46
Since he knows that he has a warrant, it would be a really, really good idea to turn himself in. His lawyer can arrange it. It would be a really, really bad idea to engage in another attempt to lecture the officers grabbing him up.

To the best of my knowledge I believe this is underway... establishing contact with his defense attorney, confirming there actually is a warrant, contacting the detective to understand where to surrender, ensuring someone is available to secure his weapon prior to going there, etc.

A couple people have been searching to try and find out if the warrant is real or not and what it might be for. So far they have not had any success. I thought it would have been fairly easy to call any PD station and query for a warrant? Is that not how it works?

Sam Spade
04-20-2011, 15:13
A couple people have been searching to try and find out if the warrant is real or not and what it might be for. So far they have not had any success. I thought it would have been fairly easy to call any PD station and query for a warrant? Is that not how it works?

There's always a lag between the issuing of a warrant and the warrant's entry into the computer system. The warrant squad could quite possibly have a paper copy of the warrant before Joe the Desk Sergeant could find it in the data base. I wouldn't presume to guess what the delay is in Philly, but it's there.

Sam Spade
04-20-2011, 15:23
Since he knows that he has a warrant, it would be a really, really good idea to turn himself in. His lawyer can arrange it. It would be a really, really bad idea to engage in another attempt to lecture the officers grabbing him up.

To the best of my knowledge I believe this is underway... establishing contact with his defense attorney, confirming there actually is a warrant, contacting the detective to understand where to surrender, ensuring someone is available to secure his weapon prior to going there, etc.

A couple people have been searching to try and find out if the warrant is real or not and what it might be for. So far they have not had any success. I thought it would have been fairly easy to call any PD station and query for a warrant? Is that not how it works?

There's always a lag between the issuing of a warrant and the warrant's entry into the computer system. The warrant squad could quite possibly have a paper copy of the warrant before Joe the Desk Sergeant could find it in the data base. I wouldn't presume to guess what the delay is in Philly, but it's there.

In case you want things moved from the other thread.

mrsurfboard
04-20-2011, 15:32
Good! Other OC Zealots take note, when you encounter LE, do as you are told and stop trying to be a curbside lawyer.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-20-2011, 15:52
Holy crap! Is this debacle not over yet?

Dragoon44
04-20-2011, 15:54
Holy crap! Is this debacle not over yet?

Apparently Philly PD has entered their own solution on how to solve the problem.

IndyGunFreak
04-20-2011, 16:03
Well, if he wanted to be a test case, he is now.

Hope he knows the laws as well as he thinks he does... and I mean that. I hate the idea of someone being harassed over a legal activity, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

IGF

Dragoon44
04-20-2011, 16:11
if in fact this warrant is for something in the incident he had then he will now have standing to challenge Philly's laws\standing orders.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-20-2011, 16:17
Well, if he wanted to be a test case, he is now.

Hope he knows the laws as well as he thinks he does... and I mean that. I hate the idea of someone being harassed over a legal activity, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

IGF

Indeed. 100% agree with Indy's post.

<-----Strongly supports open carry and understands that open carry and discretion aren't mutally exclusive and in fact should go hand in hand. Its a shame that so many can't seem to grasp the idea that there is a time and place for both open and concealed carry, and a persons discretion will dictate that.

TBO
04-20-2011, 16:21
Keep in mind, by his own words he has a criminal record (has been arrested in the past), so there is the possibility it's unrelated to the Open Carry incident that has been the subject of the threads in this forum.

BritStudent
04-20-2011, 16:28
Keep in mind, by his own words he has a criminal record (has been arrested in the past)...

Only arrested? That wouldn't be a criminal record if he's never been convicted. People get arrested all the time.

Perhaps you meant arrested and convicted, I don't know.

chivvalry
04-20-2011, 17:01
He has a valid LTCF and so is not a prohibited person. Still no word on what the charges may be. Could be totally unrelated to the incident discussed so extensively... or it could be the Philly PD retaliating against him. Just don't know at this point.

chivvalry
04-20-2011, 17:03
There's always a lag between the issuing of a warrant and the warrant's entry into the computer system. The warrant squad could quite possibly have a paper copy of the warrant before Joe the Desk Sergeant could find it in the data base. I wouldn't presume to guess what the delay is in Philly, but it's there.

That makes sense. Thanks.

TBO
04-20-2011, 17:19
Only arrested? That wouldn't be a criminal record if he's never been convicted. People get arrested all the time.

Perhaps you meant arrested and convicted, I don't know.
IIRC he admits on another board to having several convictions on his record.

RussP
04-20-2011, 18:18
IIRC he admits on another board to having several convictions on his record. He plead guilty.

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-28&docketNumber=NT-0000501-09

mrsurfboard
04-20-2011, 18:35
He has a valid LTCF and so is not a prohibited person. Still no word on what the charges may be. Could be totally unrelated to the incident discussed so extensively... or it could be the Philly PD retaliating against him. Just don't know at this point.

Yeah, that must be it :rollingeyes:

IndyGunFreak
04-20-2011, 19:10
He plead guilty.

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-28&docketNumber=NT-0000501-09

Did I read that correctly... He's appealing a guilty plea?

IGF

AggiePhil
04-20-2011, 19:11
A couple people have been searching to try and find out if the warrant is real or not and what it might be for. So far they have not had any success. I thought it would have been fairly easy to call any PD station and query for a warrant? Is that not how it works?
No, that is not how it works. You can't just call up the PD and say, "Does so-and-so have a warrant?" and get an answer. We'll run you if you come in in person but not over the phone.

ETA: That having been said, some agencies post warrant lists online but I believe those are usually either municipal traffic warrants or the high-profile "Most Wanted" type warrants. For the most part, we don't give that information out over the phone.

chivvalry
04-20-2011, 19:12
Did I read that correctly... He's appealing a guilty plea?

igf

That was for a charge in 2009... settled case that he has admitted to and not related to the current events.

Latest I have is that he intends to surrender in the morning but I still don't know what the warrant is for.

AggiePhil
04-20-2011, 19:29
I wish him the best of luck. I found Philly to be full of overreactive gun grabbing cops when I was there. Hell, they even took MY gun and I'm a licensed cop! :steamed:

IndyGunFreak
04-20-2011, 19:34
That was for a charge in 2009... settled case that he has admitted to and not related to the current events.

Latest I have is that he intends to surrender in the morning but I still don't know what the warrant is for.

I'm not disputing when the charge was, or how it came about... It just shows there's an appeal in progress.... That struck me as odd.

IGF

Dukeboy01
04-20-2011, 21:19
:popcorn:

JuneyBooney
04-20-2011, 21:33
There's always a lag between the issuing of a warrant and the warrant's entry into the computer system. The warrant squad could quite possibly have a paper copy of the warrant before Joe the Desk Sergeant could find it in the data base. I wouldn't presume to guess what the delay is in Philly, but it's there.

They can also hide the warrant for weeks and try to sneak up on him. Even if the cops are wrong they can really screw with someone when they want. He had better gte his lawyer to go public. Now if he could wait for three years and not get picked up the time limits would run out and thye would rop the charges anyway. :whistling: Happens all the time in large cities.

JuneyBooney
04-20-2011, 21:34
if in fact this warrant is for something in the incident he had then he will now have standing to challenge Philly's laws\standing orders.

That is very true.

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 06:27
I cannot properly express how grateful I am to this entire community for the support you guys have shown during these shenanigans.

Secondly, I'm fine. Long story made quite short, Philadelphia has issued a warrant for my arrest. Five officers from the loal PD came to my office this morning to arrest me, but I was not there due to an onsite visit. I do not know what the charge(s) are and the detective won't tell me til I am in custody. I have legal representation and will be "turning myself in" first thing in the morning.

I cannot give any additional details at this time. Everyone stay safe, and I will update whenever I can.

Viper

Not too much information there and nothing we didn't already know.

Gallium
04-21-2011, 06:53
Open carry would have uh, nevermind.

Gallium
04-21-2011, 06:56
On a serious note, I bet his demeanor going in on a warrant is going to be very different than from that street side encounter.

The truth is, public sector coffers are deeper than most of the average citizen's. There are a myriad of ways in which public sector agents can create tension in your life. Of all the public sector agents in these neck of the woods, the police and city clerk are probably the two groups you really want to garner their attention, especially "negative" attention. The next few months of his life could get chewed up with this thing, leaving him jobless, etc.

'Drew

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 07:00
Open carry would have uh, nevermind.

:rofl:

...wait... not sure that was actually funny...



Okay, yeah it was funny... :supergrin:

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 07:01
On a serious note, I bet his demeanor going in on a warrant is going to be very different than from that street side encounter.

The truth is, public sector coffers are deeper than most of the average citizen's. There are a myriad of ways in which public sector agents can create tension in your life. Of all the public sector agents in these neck of the woods, the police and city clerk are probably the two groups you really want to garner their attention, especially "negative" attention. The next few months of his life could get chewed up with this thing, leaving him jobless, etc.

'Drew

Yeah... official oppression sucks, huh?

RussP
04-21-2011, 07:03
An aside while we wait for more details, could someone in LE comment on this.

When an individual's behavior gets the attention of law enforcement, in general, is it common or uncommon for law enforcement to delve deeper into that individual's current and prior behavior?

JuneyBooney
04-21-2011, 07:04
If his attorney was a "named" attorney and part of the "old boy network" they would recall and quash the warrant and fix this situation. I still don't understand why he was taping his event anyway. Was he perhaps looking for a confrontation?

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 07:09
If his attorney was a "named" attorney and part of the "old boy network" they would recall and quash the warrant and fix this situation. I still don't understand why he was taping his event anyway. Was he perhaps looking for a confrontation?

Oh dear. He has had previous encounters with Philly PD while open carrying that have led him to decide it was in his best interest to ALWAYS have a recorder running while he is in public and open carrying in Philadelphia.

For more information please read the back threads on this.

Gallium
04-21-2011, 07:49
An aside while we wait for more details, could someone in LE comment on this.

When an individual's behavior gets the attention of law enforcement, in general, is it common or uncommon for law enforcement to delve deeper into that individual's current and prior behavior?

It is human nature Russ. Maybe not "delve deeper", but once someone pops up on the radar, all kinds of old **** gets remembered.

ETA: I am posting from INSIDE a police agency. :tbo:

'Drew

RussP
04-21-2011, 07:52
If his attorney was a "named" attorney and part of the "old boy network" they would recall and quash the warrant and fix this situation. I still don't understand why he was taping his event anyway. Was he perhaps looking for a confrontation?He was prepared for a confrontation.

"Looking for a confrontation" covers a broad spectrum. On one end is an open carrier whose lifestyle includes open carrying and whose stated purpose is to educate others if asked about their method of carry. They invite contact, but do not go to great efforts to generate that contact.

On the other end is the "kwikrnu" type who engineers dramatic events to provoke negative encounters with law enforcement.

And it must be said that different people look at this same spectrum and see very different colors based on their personal opinions and bias.

RussP
04-21-2011, 07:53
It is human nature Russ. Maybe not "delve deeper", but once someone pops up on the radar, all kinds of old **** gets remembered.

ETA: I am posting from INSIDE a police agency. :tbo:

'DrewAre you there voluntarily???? :rofl: Must be if you're posting...sorry, friend, had to!!

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 07:57
As he enters the morlock's cavern... (okay, that was a little cheesy I admit it)

Thanks again to all for the support. This is my last update between now and going in. Another member of this forum will be meeting me at the agreed upon location and I'm not expecting any problems.

Stay safe.

GenoTac Ind.
04-21-2011, 08:11
Well, it's seems his goal is to change some laws about open carry in his place of residence. To me, taking a "vigilante" stand against the police was the option he took. Why not do it via law/bill makers instead? Take it to the state representatives instead of having a public display of knuckle headedness against people that are sworn to protect...:whistling: Some good that will do, especially by someone with a "record".

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 08:15
Well, it's seems his goal is to change some laws about open carry in his place of residence. To me, taking a "vigilante" stand against the police was the option he took. Why not do it via law/bill makers instead? Take it to the state representatives instead of having a public display of knuckle headedness against people that are sworn to protect...:whistling: Some good that will do, especially by someone with a "record".

Actually, he was following the law and was assaulted by a LEO that didn't know the law. Please read the back threads so we don't have to go 'round the mulberry bush again.

RussP
04-21-2011, 09:26
Well, it's seems his goal is to change some laws about open carry in his place of residence. To me, taking a "vigilante" stand against the police was the option he took. Why not do it via law/bill makers instead? Take it to the state representatives instead of having a public display of knuckle headedness against people that are sworn to protect...:whistling: Some good that will do, especially by someone with a "record".Actually, he was following the law and was assaulted by a LEO that didn't know the law. Please read the back threads so we don't have to go 'round the mulberry bush again.A brief synopsis for you, g30another600r.

Viper is a veteran of several encounters with Philly PD as well as his local PD in the past year. His personal focus is to get the Philly PD to change their procedures for dealing with persons open carrying in Philadelphia. There are others running on parallel tracks looking at long term legislative solutions.

RussP
04-21-2011, 09:59
Just posted on pafoa.orgI was with Marc an hour ago when turned himself in to Detective Boyd. We went to the Northeast Detective Division at 2831 Levick Street. It is also the headquarters for the 2nd & 15th districts.

As far as the charges go at least two misdemeanors. Disorderly Conduct and Reckless Endangerment. One is an M2 and one is an M3 according to the detective. I asked him if he was the one who filed the charges or was it the officers from the incident.

He said someone from the DA's office reviewed the incident and filed the charges. He also mentioned something about a judge either approving or signing off on it. Marc will be held at the aforementioned location and have a video arraignment sometime today. Detective Boyd was pretty sure bail would be small, possibly ROR. I gave Marc $300 in case he needs bail money, if not he is putting it towards his fundraiser. He promised to call me when he is released. I will update when I have more information.http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-30.html#post1571585

Beware Owner
04-21-2011, 10:37
Tagged for bull.

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 10:39
Just posted on pafoa.orghttp://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-30.html#post1571585

A post on page 120 has someone claiming to be a Lawyer who seems to think that advocating or at least threatening police officers with murder is ok.

Apparently the big brain he is doesn't quite fathom that his examples essentially equate OC activists with terrorist groups like the old black panther party from the 60's and 70's.

And not a single protest at the comparison.

:rofl::rofl:

BleedNOrange
04-21-2011, 11:01
An aside while we wait for more details, could someone in LE comment on this.

When an individual's behavior gets the attention of law enforcement, in general, is it common or uncommon for law enforcement to delve deeper into that individual's current and prior behavior?
Let's just say that there is a certain OC'er here in TN that gets mentioned quite a bit. Especially at public events where it would be easy to make a spectacle. Just about every officer is aware of him, his description and his actions.

Glock!9
04-21-2011, 11:26
Wow...
I am in favor of OC but choose not to do it for many reason. One of them is the hassle involved. I have a business, family and money i do not want to risk parting with over this issue.

While i think they have the right and and i think someone should push the issue to some degree, I am very curious where he broke the law?

is there someone here in LE that can shed some light on this? Some of my posts in the past are a bit negative toward how LE treat Civs, other than a few speeding tickets over the last 20 years have had little to no contact with LE and never been arrested. It just seems youtube is full of these OC situations where the officers are just out right disregardful of Civs rights, not just in OC but also the general way they are treated? anyone LEOs able to shed some light?

IndyGunFreak
04-21-2011, 11:45
Wow...
I am in favor of OC but choose not to do it for many reason. One of them is the hassle involved. I have a business, family and money i do not want to risk parting with over this issue.

While i think they have the right and and i think someone should push the issue to some degree, I am very curious where he broke the law?

is there someone here in LE that can shed some light on this? Some of my posts in the past are a bit negative toward how LE treat Civs, other than a few speeding tickets over the last 20 years have had little to no contact with LE and never been arrested. It just seems youtube is full of these OC situations where the officers are just out right disregardful of Civs rights, not just in OC but also the general way they are treated? anyone LEOs able to shed some light?

If he actually broke the law or not, will be for a court to decide. Thats how it works, police allege he broke the law, individual is charged, judge/jury decide if he actually did.

It's gray at best.

IGF

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 11:52
I am very curious where he broke the law?

The cops did not file charges on him the DA reviewing the incident did. Not an uncommon occurrence.

NMGlocker
04-21-2011, 11:53
Yeah... official oppression sucks, huh?
Preventing official oppression is exactly why the founding father's placed the 2nd amendment in the constitution.

RussP
04-21-2011, 11:54
Let's just say that there is a certain OC'er here in TN that gets mentioned quite a bit. Especially at public events where it would be easy to make a spectacle. Just about every officer is aware of him, his description and his actions.Yeah, but he gave up his LTCH when he withdrew his appeal of the temporary suspension making it permanent. He appears to be Georgia's problem now.

sigchaser723
04-21-2011, 12:07
So would these charges if he is found guilty be enough to revoke his permit? I was just thinking about it and right or wrong at least it would be the last of his recordings.

talon
04-21-2011, 12:35
Is disorderly conduct a "catchall" for when a LEO(or DA) wants to charge you but doesnt have a better charge ?

Glock!9
04-21-2011, 12:49
Is disorderly conduct a "catchall" for when a LEO(or DA) wants to charge you but doesnt have a better charge ?

It seems to be a theme i have seen in many threads that if LE does not like your actions they can call it DO or Disturbing the peace. I do not know how the laws read exactly to know but i am guessing they are pretty general,

IndyGunFreak
04-21-2011, 13:07
Yeah, but he gave up his LTCH when he withdrew his appeal of the temporary suspension making it permanent. He appears to be Georgia's problem now.

Did he move to Georgia? I had not heard that.

IGF

IndyGunFreak
04-21-2011, 13:07
Is disorderly conduct a "catchall" for when a LEO(or DA) wants to charge you but doesnt have a better charge ?

No, disorderly conduct is a charge that is alleged when they believe your conduct is disorderly.

IGF

dgg9
04-21-2011, 13:17
No, disorderly conduct is a charge that is alleged when they believe your conduct is disorderly.

Sometimes...and sometimes it's a charge that is alleged when they want leverage to pre-empt a civil suit and a means to drain his available money by a frivolous court case.

NecoDude
04-21-2011, 13:56
Sometimes...and sometimes it's a charge that is alleged when they want leverage to pre-empt a civil suit and a means to drain his available money by a frivolous court case.

That statement should scare the crap outta everyone. But you're probably correct dgg.

Beware Owner
04-21-2011, 14:08
They did mentioned feeling set up.

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 14:32
Sometimes...and sometimes it's a charge that is alleged when they want leverage to pre-empt a civil suit and a means to drain his available money by a frivolous court case.

That is a bingo right there. Official oppression by the philly PD backed up by their DA to attempt to derail the pending civil suit. Seems clear to me.

IIRC calling lawfully open carrying a weapon disorderly conduct is a common tactic that has not been successful in some previous incidents in PA. I do not believe that it has been tried in a case where an officer had the victim at gunpoint though. Perhaps that is where the reckless endangerment charge stems from... though I would think that charge should have been leveled against the officer IMHO.

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 14:42
That is a bingo right there. Official oppression by the philly PD backed up by their DA to attempt to derail the pending civil suit. Seems clear to me.

Seems clear to me that is just BS. I seriously doubt that philly PD was the least bit concerned with his suit.

He already had one Civil rights specialist tell him he did not have a case worth pursuing, so now he has found one that will file the claim and it's pretty clear to me from how he has responded to questions about what he intends to accomplish that their sole strategy is to accept a settlement offer when it is made.

And some folks are dumb enough to finance that for him.

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 14:43
*snip*... or it could be the Philly PD retaliating against him. Just don't know at this point.

Yeah, that must be it :rollingeyes:


Sure sounds like it to me... you disagree still? :whistling:

talon
04-21-2011, 15:15
The scary part to me is what an anti-gun jury might do for any gun related charge.

RussP
04-21-2011, 15:24
Did he move to Georgia? I had not heard that.

IGFIn 2012 after he gets his nursing degree.

RussP
04-21-2011, 15:25
That is a bingo right there. Official oppression by the philly PD backed up by their DA to attempt to derail the pending civil suit. Seems clear to me...Seems clear based on what facts, chivvalry?

RussP
04-21-2011, 15:33
Sure sounds like it to me... you disagree still? :whistling:Based what facts, chivvalry? What have you heard from people within PPD that confirms that? What makes that a true statement on your part?

RussP
04-21-2011, 15:36
Seems clear to me that is just BS. I seriously doubt that philly PD was the least bit concerned with his suit...Are you basing that statement on hearsay or actual personal experiences while a police officer?

dorkweed
04-21-2011, 15:45
They did mentioned feeling set up.



I don't remember if it was the first cop that contacted Viper, or the second (aka, officer potty-mouth)........but this exclamation by whichever one it was.............. "He set us up!".............. implies to me that they knew they were in the wrong or doing wrong!!!

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 15:47
Are you basing that statement on hearsay or actual personal experiences while a police officer?

I am basing that on the statements of the first Civil rights attorney he contacted that declined to take the case and told him flat out he would be surprised if a law suit filed even made it to court.

And on the statements he has made so far about what he and his current liar for hire hope to accomplish with their lawsuit. And how evasive he was when questioned about whether or not they were going to accept a settlement. And the fact that when pinned down on the matter he clearly stated if he settles he will not return money to people that donated.

IF he actually had a case that might worry Philly PD and their legal counsel you can bet the first attorney would have jumped on it to represent him.

BritStudent
04-21-2011, 16:01
If these charges are related to the recorded incident then it sounds to me like trumped up catch-all charges to get back at or put a stop to someone they (Philly PD) consider a nuisance, and people should be very worried if he is convicted. He was a model of order during the encounter, not disorder!

Of course, they might be unrelated.

pipedreams
04-21-2011, 16:05
"As far as the charges go at least two misdemeanors. Disorderly Conduct and Reckless Endangerment. One is an M2 and one is an M3 according to the detective. I asked him if he was the one who filed the charges or was it the officers from the incident.

He said someone from the DA's office reviewed the incident and filed the charges. He also mentioned something about a judge either approving or signing off on it. Marc will be held at the aforementioned location and have a video arraignment sometime today. Detective Boyd was pretty sure bail would be small, possibly ROR. I gave Marc $300 in case he needs bail money, if not he is putting it towards his fundraiser. He promised to call me when he is released. I will update when I have more information. "

Two misdemeanors, Disorderly Conduct and Reckless Endangerment and five officers were sent to serve the warrant immediately upon receiving it. Most departments don't have the budget or man power to go after people for misdemeanors they simply wait for them to get stopped for a traffic ticket and then grab them. Something seems a bit fishy.

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 16:08
Two misdemeanors, Disorderly Conduct and Reckless Endangerment and five officers were sent to serve the warrant immediately upon receiving it. Most departments don't have the budget or man power to go after people for misdemeanors they simply wait for them to get stopped for a traffic ticket and then grab them. Something seems a bit fishy.

Most misdemeanor arrest warrants are not issued for people known to be armed and belligerent.

Those two factors explain why they didn't "wait for him to be picked up some other time and why more than one officer was sent.

RussP
04-21-2011, 16:15
I am basing that on the statements of the first Civil rights attorney he contacted that declined to take the case and told him flat out he would be surprised if a law suit filed even made it to court.

And on the statements he has made so far about what he and his current liar for hire hope to accomplish with their lawsuit. And how evasive he was when questioned about whether or not they were going to accept a settlement. And the fact that when pinned down on the matter he clearly stated if he settles he will not return money to people that donated.

IF he actually had a case that might worry Philly PD and their legal counsel you can bet the first attorney would have jumped on it to represent him.Thanks for explaining. I remember now that he did say a settlement based on changing PPD's policy would be acceptable.

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 16:20
Thanks for explaining. I remember now that he did say a settlement based on changing PPD's policy would be acceptable.

And when he does not get "That settlement" it will justify his accepting the city's monetary settlement offer. which will be the typical low ball nuisance suit settlement figure.

Dukeboy01
04-21-2011, 16:28
An aside while we wait for more details, could someone in LE comment on this.

When an individual's behavior gets the attention of law enforcement, in general, is it common or uncommon for law enforcement to delve deeper into that individual's current and prior behavior?

Your question is kinda broad. I'll give you a kinda broad answer: It depends.

Here's a fairly innocous example of enhanced police attention. Tailgating my unmarked silver Crown Vic with the extra antenna on its butt and the blue Kojak light on the dash while I'm on my way in to the office gets my attention (and provokes my wrath, to be honest). Unlike my old undercover Nissan, the Ford can't possibly be anything other than a police car. Yet I had it happen to me twice in a week earlier this month.

The first one was a woman in scrubs in a Jeep. When I made contact with her, she told me that she was rushing to the University of KY hospital for a trauma case that had just come in. When I assured her that there were certainly other nurses who could handle it she implied, but did not directly state, that she was a physician.

When I returned to her car with her citation, she had her cellphone to her ear and was loudly assuring the person on the other end that she was on her way. I was 99 and 44/100% sure that she was faking the call. I was also certain she wasn't a doctor, so when I got to the office I got online and went to the UK Medical Center Staff Directory. It's a public page. Low and behold her job title was given as Staff Assistant II, which means "receptionist/ paper shuffler" as far as I can tell. Oh, yeah. In the College of Dentistry. Must have been a heck of an awful braces mishap. :upeyes:

The second one was a younger woman who got so close I couldn't see the front emblem on her Chevy. Whenever I sped up and pulled a little bit ahead, she would immediately close the gap and throw up her hands in frustration when she caught me again. When I pulled her over, she didn't make any kind of goofy excuses or give me any weird vibes. Consequently, my curiousity wasn't piqued and I barely remember what she looked like.

That's kinda how it goes. Two people commit the exact same violation. One says or does something to further draw my attention and gets some extra scrutiny. Cops make the same decision to dig deeper or not thousands of times a day across the country.

Now,if you go out of your way to purposefully draw the attention of the police, as many OC enthusiasts admittedly do, than, yeah, you're going to get a few more investigative resources thrown your way. It's not normal to want to draw the attention of the cops. Are you some kind of a nut? A publicity whore? Some sort of anti- government loon testing the perimeter to figure out where to place your pipe bombs? To be honest, you pay me to figure that kind of crap out.

pipedreams
04-21-2011, 16:30
Just posted on pafoa.orghttp://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry-page-30.html#post1571585

Most misdemeanor arrest warrants are not issued for people known to be armed and belligerent.

Those two factors explain why they didn't "wait for him to be picked up some other time and why more than one officer was sent.

Good point, but is two misdemeanor the best the DA could come up with if he is that much of a threat to society? I don't agree with what the man did or his demeanor but surly PPD has more pressing issues after looking at the city crime rate.

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 17:03
Good point, but is two misdemeanor the best the DA could come up with if he is that much of a threat to society? I don't agree with what the man did or his demeanor but surly PPD has more pressing issues after looking at the city crime rate.

I am not defending the arrest warrants simply pointing out why they didn't wait and why more than one officer was sent.

On the surface the charges sound like BS to me, But I only have Vipers side of the story to go on and have no clue what the other side has to say about the incident.

talon
04-21-2011, 17:12
I wonder if they discussed sending swat(or its equivalent) to arrest him.

RussP
04-21-2011, 17:14
Your question is kinda broad. I'll give you a kinda broad answer: It depends.

[snip]It's not normal to want to draw the attention of the cops. Are you some kind of a nut? A publicity whore? Some sort of anti- government loon testing the perimeter to figure out where to place your pipe bombs? To be honest, you pay me to figure that kind of crap out.Thank you, that was the exact point of my question.

IndyGunFreak
04-21-2011, 17:15
In 2012 after he gets his nursing degree.

Oh my, I wonder if he'll perform his nursing duties while carrying his pistol in his hand...

IGF

Dragoon44
04-21-2011, 17:21
I wonder if they discussed sending swat(or its equivalent) to arrest him.

Serving Warrants on A******* Team?

:rofl::rofl:

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 17:55
Seems clear based on what facts, chivvalry?

No facts at all... completely pulled right out of the air.

Of course the good police officers and the DA have only the best of intentions in this case even though Viper's recording makes the Philladelphia police department look like it houses inept foul mouthed thugs. I'm sure that his previous encounters with them had absolutely nothing to do with it either. Naturally the Philadelphia PD has absolutely no ulterior motive by harrassing and assaulting law abiding citizens exercising their 2A rights. I mean if they did that would be just... well... criminal wouldn't it? :dunno:

:upeyes:

OldCurlyWolf
04-21-2011, 18:04
Your question is kinda broad. I'll give you a kinda broad answer: It depends.

Here's a fairly innocous example of enhanced police attention. Tailgating my unmarked silver Crown Vic with the extra antenna on its butt and the blue Kojak light on the dash while I'm on my way in to the office gets my attention (and provokes my wrath, to be honest). Unlike my old undercover Nissan, the Ford can't possibly be anything other than a police car. Yet I had it happen to me twice in a week earlier this month.

The first one was a woman in scrubs in a Jeep. When I made contact with her, she told me that she was rushing to the University of KY hospital for a trauma case that had just come in. When I assured her that there were certainly other nurses who could handle it she implied, but did not directly state, that she was a physician.

When I returned to her car with her citation, she had her cellphone to her ear and was loudly assuring the person on the other end that she was on her way. I was 99 and 44/100% sure that she was faking the call. I was also certain she wasn't a doctor, so when I got to the office I got online and went to the UK Medical Center Staff Directory. It's a public page. Low and behold her job title was given as Staff Assistant II, which means "receptionist/ paper shuffler" as far as I can tell. Oh, yeah. In the College of Dentistry. Must have been a heck of an awful braces mishap. :upeyes:

The second one was a younger woman who got so close I couldn't see the front emblem on her Chevy. Whenever I sped up and pulled a little bit ahead, she would immediately close the gap and throw up her hands in frustration when she caught me again. When I pulled her over, she didn't make any kind of goofy excuses or give me any weird vibes. Consequently, my curiousity wasn't piqued and I barely remember what she looked like.

That's kinda how it goes. Two people commit the exact same violation. One says or does something to further draw my attention and gets some extra scrutiny. Cops make the same decision to dig deeper or not thousands of times a day across the country.

Now,if you go out of your way to purposefully draw the attention of the police, as many OC enthusiasts admittedly do, than, yeah, you're going to get a few more investigative resources thrown your way. It's not normal to want to draw the attention of the cops. Are you some kind of a nut? A publicity whore? Some sort of anti- government loon testing the perimeter to figure out where to place your pipe bombs? To be honest, you pay me to figure that kind of crap out.

I personally am glad you nailed the tailgaters. One of my pet peeves.

It really irritates me.:steamed:

Jud325
04-21-2011, 18:10
No facts at all... completely pulled right out of the air.

Of course the good police officers and the DA have only the best of intentions in this case even though Viper's recording makes the Philladelphia police department look like it houses inept foul mouthed thugs. I'm sure that his previous encounters with them had absolutely nothing to do with it either. Naturally the Philadelphia PD has absolutely no ulterior motive by harrassing and assaulting law abiding citizens exercising their 2A rights. I mean if they did that would be just... well... criminal wouldn't it? :dunno:

:upeyes:

Remember Domelights.com?

Mister_Beefy
04-21-2011, 18:52
lots of videos on youtube of bad behavior from police toward OCers.

I really believe police are trained to hate guns, and are trying prosecute and pester open carry out of existence.

it's a shame.

Glock!9
04-21-2011, 19:01
Your question is kinda broad. I'll give you a kinda broad answer: It depends.

Here's a fairly innocous example of enhanced police attention. Tailgating my unmarked silver Crown Vic with the extra antenna on its butt and the blue Kojak light on the dash while I'm on my way in to the office gets my attention (and provokes my wrath, to be honest). Unlike my old undercover Nissan, the Ford can't possibly be anything other than a police car. Yet I had it happen to me twice in a week earlier this month.

The first one was a woman in scrubs in a Jeep. When I made contact with her, she told me that she was rushing to the University of KY hospital for a trauma case that had just come in. When I assured her that there were certainly other nurses who could handle it she implied, but did not directly state, that she was a physician.

When I returned to her car with her citation, she had her cellphone to her ear and was loudly assuring the person on the other end that she was on her way. I was 99 and 44/100% sure that she was faking the call. I was also certain she wasn't a doctor, so when I got to the office I got online and went to the UK Medical Center Staff Directory. It's a public page. Low and behold her job title was given as Staff Assistant II, which means "receptionist/ paper shuffler" as far as I can tell. Oh, yeah. In the College of Dentistry. Must have been a heck of an awful braces mishap. :upeyes:

The second one was a younger woman who got so close I couldn't see the front emblem on her Chevy. Whenever I sped up and pulled a little bit ahead, she would immediately close the gap and throw up her hands in frustration when she caught me again. When I pulled her over, she didn't make any kind of goofy excuses or give me any weird vibes. Consequently, my curiousity wasn't piqued and I barely remember what she looked like.

That's kinda how it goes. Two people commit the exact same violation. One says or does something to further draw my attention and gets some extra scrutiny. Cops make the same decision to dig deeper or not thousands of times a day across the country.

Now,if you go out of your way to purposefully draw the attention of the police, as many OC enthusiasts admittedly do, than, yeah, you're going to get a few more investigative resources thrown your way. It's not normal to want to draw the attention of the cops. Are you some kind of a nut? A publicity whore? Some sort of anti- government loon testing the perimeter to figure out where to place your pipe bombs? To be honest, you pay me to figure that kind of crap out.
You are human and I expect it to annoy you, even piss you off. Actually it pisses me off when I am tail gated while doing the speed limit or 5 above as well. I would also expect you or any other LEO to be respectful, professional and courteous despite their lying, or rude behavior to you. I assume you did not treat either of them poorly. I also hope they both got a ticket and learn to not tail gate people.

RussP
04-21-2011, 19:07
Interesting memo on DC in Philly.

http://www.phila.gov/pac/pdfs/8_-_Disorderly_Condu.pdf

chivvalry
04-21-2011, 19:16
I guess it's okay to punish someone for exercising their 2A right since it is only the 1A that appears protected by that memo.

RussP
04-21-2011, 19:44
I guess it's okay to punish someone for exercising their 2A right since it is only the 1A that appears protected by that memo.Where does the memo address the 2nd Amendment?

Gallium
04-21-2011, 19:45
Interesting memo on disorderly conduct in Philly.

http://www.phila.gov/pac/pdfs/8_-_Disorderly_Condu.pdf



... :) For those of us who work night shifts + day shifts back to back. :supergrin:

Gallium
04-21-2011, 19:47
Where does the memo address the 2nd Amendment?


His point (clear to me) was that this memo carves out specific protections and exclusions to the 1st, but you, I and anyone else with cardiovascular activity and Ax02 can see where someone with a gun (2nd A) could get tagged in a really quick heartbeat.


'Drew

Glock!9
04-21-2011, 20:10
Interesting memo on DC in Philly.

http://www.phila.gov/pac/pdfs/8_-_Disorderly_Condu.pdf

interesting, but who decides the definitions? Shouldn't they be more clear?
For instance...Can I be arrested for saying S**t? how about a**? who decides the definitions? The Cops decide then a judge. The LEOs in that audio were very rude, disrespectful, and profain. Can charges be brought up against them for disorderly conduct or are they exempt?

Gallium
04-21-2011, 20:13
...The LEOs in that audio were very rude, disrespectful, and profain. Can charges be brought up against them for disorderly conduct or are they exempt?


:)

:supergrin:

ferretray
04-21-2011, 20:32
Your question is kinda broad. I'll give you a kinda broad answer: It depends.

Here's a fairly innocous example of enhanced police attention. Tailgating my unmarked silver Crown Vic with the extra antenna on its butt and the blue Kojak light on the dash while I'm on my way in to the office gets my attention (and provokes my wrath, to be honest). Unlike my old undercover Nissan, the Ford can't possibly be anything other than a police car. Yet I had it happen to me twice in a week earlier this month.

The first one was a woman in scrubs in a Jeep. When I made contact with her, she told me that she was rushing to the University of KY hospital for a trauma case that had just come in. When I assured her that there were certainly other nurses who could handle it she implied, but did not directly state, that she was a physician.

When I returned to her car with her citation, she had her cellphone to her ear and was loudly assuring the person on the other end that she was on her way. I was 99 and 44/100% sure that she was faking the call. I was also certain she wasn't a doctor, so when I got to the office I got online and went to the UK Medical Center Staff Directory. It's a public page. Low and behold her job title was given as Staff Assistant II, which means "receptionist/ paper shuffler" as far as I can tell. Oh, yeah. In the College of Dentistry. Must have been a heck of an awful braces mishap. :upeyes:

The second one was a younger woman who got so close I couldn't see the front emblem on her Chevy. Whenever I sped up and pulled a little bit ahead, she would immediately close the gap and throw up her hands in frustration when she caught me again. When I pulled her over, she didn't make any kind of goofy excuses or give me any weird vibes. Consequently, my curiousity wasn't piqued and I barely remember what she looked like.

That's kinda how it goes. Two people commit the exact same violation. One says or does something to further draw my attention and gets some extra scrutiny. Cops make the same decision to dig deeper or not thousands of times a day across the country.

Now,if you go out of your way to purposefully draw the attention of the police, as many OC enthusiasts admittedly do, than, yeah, you're going to get a few more investigative resources thrown your way. It's not normal to want to draw the attention of the cops. Are you some kind of a nut? A publicity whore? Some sort of anti- government loon testing the perimeter to figure out where to place your pipe bombs? To be honest, you pay me to figure that kind of crap out.

Are you implying that the subject of this thread is some kind of "Nut/loon" for lawfully going about his business?
Seems to me its a matter of the Philly PD exerting their will over the citizens and violating the laws they are sworn to uphold.

steveksux
04-21-2011, 21:54
Only arrested? That wouldn't be a criminal record if he's never been convicted. People get arrested all the time.

Perhaps you meant arrested and convicted, I don't know.Convicted or not, the arrest is in the system, so he has a criminal record with the PD.

Randy

Dukeboy01
04-22-2011, 05:52
Are you implying that the subject of this thread is some kind of "Nut/loon" for lawfully going about his business?
Seems to me its a matter of the Philly PD exerting their will over the citizens and violating the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The subject of whether or not Viper was a nut or a loon was beat to death in the first three threads about this specific situation. It was not my intent for my "nut or loon" comment in my response to RussP to specifically apply to this situation as he was asking a general type of question. I regret any misunderstanding.

In general, half of being a good police officer is being able to pick out what is wrong with a given situation or person. The other half is figuring out why the situation or person is wrong. RussP's question as I understood it was, in general, are people who either intentionally or constantly draw the attention of the police subject to more scrutiny or follow- up investigation into their background than "normal" citizens contacted by police? My answer was "it depends."

I then provided a personal example of a very minor pair of offenses that resulted in a little extra background investigation for one of the violators than for the other based upon her behavior upon contact. In the grand scheme of things does it matter if somebody I pull over on a traffic stop wants to pretend that they are a doctor in the hopes of beating a ticket? Not really. Did she pique my curiousity enough for me to spend ten minutes on the Internet to prove that she wasn't? Absolutely.

I'm not planning to do anything with that information. I didn't call her work or anything to try to embarrass her or get her into trouble. If she decides to fight the ticket I'm pretty sure the magistrate and the county prosecutor will think that it's funny when I testify on the witness stand about how I busted her stupid story.

The story boils down to this: If you say or do something to make the cops curious, the good ones will follow up, no matter how small the stakes. It's what we are paid to do.

That maxim definitely applys to people who engage in behavior that they know or should know will attract the attention of the police. Whether or not the behavior is ultimately legal isn't reason enough in and of itself to preclude some investigation. There are plenty of legal actions that can lead to illegal actions at a moments notice.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 06:27
The subject of whether or not Viper was a nut or a loon was beat to death in the first three threads about this specific situation. It was not my intent for my "nut or loon" comment in my response to RussP to.....snip .....
The story boils down to this: If you say or do something to make the cops curious, the good ones will follow up, no matter how small the stakes. It's what we are paid to do.

That maxim definitely applys to people who engage in behavior that they know or should know will attract the attention of the police. Whether or not the behavior is ultimately legal isn't reason enough in and of itself to preclude some investigation. There are plenty of legal actions that can lead to illegal actions at a moments notice.

Bolding mine... I fully understood what you were saying in your first post (which I thought was well written, well phrased, etc.) and I think your rephrasing makes things even clearer. I bolded the section above because it sums it up pretty well...

I will add however that it is also almost certainly true that the BAD ones will follow up as well... not because it is what they are paid to do though. They will "follow up" and even fabricate charges if necessary because they desire to bring their vengeance upon anyone who made them look bad, embarrassed them, got them into trouble, or simply didn't show them the respect they felt was their due.

I do most deeply believe that Viper's current incarceration is done purely out of vengeance and in an attempt to intimidate and oppress. I've already sent money to Viper (not much at this point) and fully intend to contribute additional monies to his lawyer based on that belief. The DA that reviewed the tape and decided to move forward with pressing charges is, IMHO, even more guilty of collusion and official oppression than the ignorant LEO that first stopped Viper.

I am offended and appalled at this reprehensible behavior from those that I have traditionally held in high respect.

RussP
04-22-2011, 06:28
about five hours ago...Keeping this brief (because I am ****ing tired and my wisdom tooth has decided it hates me) - I am home now and I have a court date for next Friday.

Thanks to all - I will be talking to my lawyer first thing in the morning and will figure out what to do from there.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 06:48
about five hours ago...

Thanks Russ... still catching up on what occurred overnight.

Gallium
04-22-2011, 07:04
The subject of whether or not Viper was a nut or a loon was beat to death in the first three threads about this specific situation. It was not my intent for my "nut or loon" comment in my response to RussP to specifically apply to this situation as he was asking a general type of question. I regret any misunderstanding.

In general, half of being a good police officer is being able to pick out what is wrong with a given situation or person. The other half is figuring out why the situation or person is wrong. RussP's question as I understood it was, in general, are people who either intentionally or constantly draw the attention of the police subject to more scrutiny or follow- up investigation into their background than "normal" citizens contacted by police? My answer was "it depends."

I then provided a personal example of a very minor pair of offenses that resulted in a little extra background investigation for one of the violators than for the other based upon her behavior upon contact. In the grand scheme of things does it matter if somebody I pull over on a traffic stop wants to pretend that they are a doctor in the hopes of beating a ticket? Not really. Did she pique my curiousity enough for me to spend ten minutes on the Internet to prove that she wasn't? Absolutely.

I'm not planning to do anything with that information. I didn't call her work or anything to try to embarrass her or get her into trouble. If she decides to fight the ticket I'm pretty sure the magistrate and the county prosecutor will think that it's funny when I testify on the witness stand about how I busted her stupid story.

The story boils down to this: If you say or do something to make the cops curious, the good ones will follow up, no matter how small the stakes. It's what we are paid to do.

That maxim definitely applys to people who engage in behavior that they know or should know will attract the attention of the police. Whether or not the behavior is ultimately legal isn't reason enough in and of itself to preclude some investigation. There are plenty of legal actions that can lead to illegal actions at a moments notice.

Have you had any experience with officers behaving like the one in Viper's video?

Thanks.
'Drew

RussP
04-22-2011, 07:18
interesting, but who decides the definitions? Shouldn't they be more clear?When you begin legislating definitions, there will always be someone who wants a further definition, then someone who wants a further definition, so on and so on. It isn't always what is uttered, it involves who, when, where, and how, as well as the resulting effects of that utterance.For instance...Can I be arrested for saying S**t? how about a**? who decides the definitions? The Cops decide then a judge.Exactly, with a few more steps between the police and the courtroom. The broad interpretation of the utterance, considering the totality of the circumstances will be made by the on scene officers. Then the process starts with the DA, a grand jury if necessary, then trial. The LEOs in that audio were very rude, disrespectful, and profain. Can charges be brought up against them for disorderly conduct or are they exempt?Have you ever heard some of the language directed at cops that they put up with on the street? Not the stuff on TV or in the movies, but the real world stuff? It is much, much worse. Now, before someone chimes in with, "Well, if they can't take the abuse, they should get another job," there, I said it for you.

In hindsight, yeah, that was pretty rough.

Was it inappropriate at that moment considering the facts known in those first few seconds? No.

Was it inappropriate to continue using that language after Viper was under control and restrained? Yes, but that's just my opinion. I wasn't there.

"Well, you heard the tape, didn't you? Viper wasn't yelling, or cussing."

Yes, I heard the tape. But, that's all audio, no video. We do not have the benefit of seeing his body language, his facial expressions, his eyes.

There are people who can talk to you in a calm sounding voice, a rational manner, but when you look, you can tell by their body language and their eyes that given the reason and opportunity, that they'll mess you over real bad.

This is a fact unknown to any of us not there. What unspoken message was Viper possibly sending out that may have triggered SGT. Dougherty's reaction?

It's been discussed here and elsewhere that some people exude an air of confidence that bad guys sense and know this person will not be an easy target, so they move on. That's the good example of what I said above.

Cops and those of us here who've confronted bad guys have seen that same confident look, that unspoken attitude. That's the other side.

This element of the encounter must be considered. The evaluation of the incident isn't complete without it.

Dukeboy01
04-22-2011, 07:34
Have you had any experience with officers behaving like the one in Viper's video?

Thanks.
'Drew

I take your question to be about the rudeness and unprofessional conduct, not some larger comentary on the constitutionality of detaining OCers in Philly. The honest answer is "Yep. Sure have."

The super honest answer is that I have been known, especially in my younger days, to be that guy. Well, probably not as bad as the sergeant on the tape, but I've dropped an F bomb or two on the street. I'm not going to claim that it was "right." It happens. I'm older and wiser and it doesn't happen as often as it used to. It embarrasses me more when others do it than it used to.*

Anyway, that's what internal affairs is for. And I've taken my lumps from them.

* Blood pressure medication really helps too. :whistling:

RussP
04-22-2011, 07:50
Court Docket

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?docketNumber=MC-51-CR-0017077-2011

Beware Owner
04-22-2011, 07:59
Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi Off???? :wow: :dunno:

Can't say I'm surprised.

RussP
04-22-2011, 08:01
I will add however that it is also almost certainly true that the BAD ones will follow up as well... not because it is what they are paid to do though. They will "follow up" and even fabricate charges if necessary because they desire to bring their vengeance upon anyone who made them look bad, embarrassed them, got them into trouble, or simply didn't show them the respect they felt was their due.And, and this just begs to be asked, based on your personal knowledge of relevant facts, how many "BAD ones" are there? How often do the "BAD ones" do their "follow up"?I do most deeply believe that Viper's current incarceration is done purely out of vengeance and in an attempt to intimidate and oppress. I've already sent money to Viper (not much at this point) and fully intend to contribute additional monies to his lawyer based on that belief.Hopefully your financial contribution will be enough to help Viper prove/disprove your allegations.The DA that reviewed the tape and decided to move forward with pressing charges is, IMHO, even more guilty of collusion and official oppression than the ignorant LEO that first stopped Viper.Again, hopefully your financial contribution will be enough to help Viper prove/disprove your allegations.I am offended and appalled at this reprehensible behavior from those that I have traditionally held in high respect.Have you written letters, emails and sent them to the offending parties? How about to those that oversee their performance?

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 08:04
Court Docket

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?docketNumber=MC-51-CR-0017077-2011

You rock... just cross posted that to PAFOA.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 08:12
And, and this just begs to be asked, based on your personal knowledge of relevant facts, how many "BAD ones" are there? How often do the "BAD ones" do their "follow up"?Hopefully your financial contribution will be enough to help Viper prove/disprove your allegations.Again, hopefully your financial contribution will be enough to help Viper prove/disprove your allegations.Have you written letters, emails and sent them to the offending parties? How about to those that oversee their performance?

My personal knowledge? I have not personally run into ANY "bad cops". All my experiences, other than anecdotal or second/third hand stories, have been very positive. However, I certainly have seen the evidence presented by several reputable media sources that bad cops most definitely do exist. I do not have a clear understanding of the percentage of good vs. bad and it's certainly not a black and white distinction anyway.

I have not written any letters or sent any emails to the "offending parties" nor to those that oversee their performance as I have not personally run into any bad cops... Doesn't mean I haven't run into a rude cop or one that was a little cocksure and full of himself... but that's not even a normal experience. My experiences with LEOs have always begun and ended with great respect, politeness, and decorum... from both sides.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of of the LEOs in our country are inherently good people trying very hard to do a good job... I also believe that the position of authority and power they are put into has a tendency to corrupt and that those inherently good people have to be constantly on guard against that. I also feel that the rest of the law abiding population has a right and duty to police the police.

IMNSHO, any person in a position of power and authority over others must be held to a very high standard and also must suffer grave consequences when they abuse that power.

RussP
04-22-2011, 08:17
Have you written letters, emails and sent them to the offending parties? How about to those that oversee their performance?If I understand correctly, Mayor Nutter and his administration may be a/the source of continuing problems in various government departments.

Shouldn't someone get him talking about this?

Volunteers?

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 08:21
Okay, now that he's had his initial appearance and is out:

Everyone has assumed that the charges stem from the incident on tape. Do they? The docket doesn't say and no case info has been made public. With charges filed, that can all be revealed.

So what act, specifically, is alleged? When? Where?

gommer
04-22-2011, 08:34
Awesome conspiracy theories aside.. may I offer a more simple, perhaps practical, thought on the situation?

Now, from Viper's audio - we were clearly able to determine the officer on the scene was probably not the most professional. The second officer that arrived on the scene was possibly even less so.

Would it be too far a stretch to think that either one of those gentlemen would have been the one responsible for writing the report on the incident - and that their report may have *favored* their actions a little more than the audio?

Perhaps what the DA is looking at is substantially different from the Audio we heard. I suspect strongly that it does and I sincerely doubt that the assistant that filed the case bothered themselves to get on the net and google up Viper's audio - they most likely have no idea such a thing exists.


That said - it's also possible, although I think much less likely, that Viper's audio leaves more unknowns then we all have thought - and perhaps he really did do something that you couldn't hear but could see. (I truly doubt this is the case, but it's possible, nontheless.)


Really, I think the former is the case. I think an assistant DA reviewed an incident report where a cop gave a significantly different perspective of the events and the charges filed are a result of that interpretation.

I imagine, in all honesty, there is going to be one REALLY embarrassed, and extremely angry DA when this goes to court.

Dragoon44
04-22-2011, 08:38
If I understand correctly, Mayor Nutter and his administration may be a/the source of continuing problems in various government departments.

+1 on this, just from what little I have read about this guy he is most appropriately named. NUTTER.

Drew Furst
04-22-2011, 08:49
Tagged.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 09:07
Okay, now that he's had his initial appearance and is out:

Everyone has assumed that the charges stem from the incident on tape. Do they? The docket doesn't say and no case info has been made public. With charges filed, that can all be revealed.

So what act, specifically, is alleged? When? Where?


To the best of my knowledge this is directly related to the incident on tape... however, I have no definitive proof of that and it is certainly a bit of an assumption at this point.

EDIT: The offense date in the docket is 2/13/2011 which certainly seems to indicate it is directly related.

Awesome conspiracy theories aside.. may I offer a more simple, perhaps practical, thought on the situation?

Now, from Viper's audio - we were clearly able to determine the officer on the scene was probably not the most professional. The second officer that arrived on the scene was possibly even less so.

Would it be too far a stretch to think that either one of those gentlemen would have been the one responsible for writing the report on the incident - and that their report may have *favored* their actions a little more than the audio?

Perhaps what the DA is looking at is substantially different from the Audio we heard. I suspect strongly that it does and I sincerely doubt that the assistant that filed the case bothered themselves to get on the net and google up Viper's audio - they most likely have no idea such a thing exists.


That said - it's also possible, although I think much less likely, that Viper's audio leaves more unknowns then we all have thought - and perhaps he really did do something that you couldn't hear but could see. (I truly doubt this is the case, but it's possible, nontheless.)


Really, I think the former is the case. I think an assistant DA reviewed an incident report where a cop gave a significantly different perspective of the events and the charges filed are a result of that interpretation.

I imagine, in all honesty, there is going to be one REALLY embarrassed, and extremely angry DA when this goes to court.

This is most certainly a possibility... and I dearly hope this is so. I would much prefer we have a couple of bad cops trying to cover their butts vs. that PLUS a DA with an agenda. I will even acknowledge that the former is more likely the case than the latter. I hope it is so.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-22-2011, 09:15
Sending money to help him fight his cause? I guess PT Barnum was right afterall.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 09:23
Sending money to help him fight his cause? I guess PT Barnum was right afterall.

There have been at least four different people who are highly respected on the PAFOA forum who have personally met and talked with Mark and vouched for him being a decent human being. It is also obvious that the charges are real and the incidents are real.

Good enough for me to shell out a few sheckles. If you do not wish to contribute that's your choice. I do however object to you calling me or anyone else that desires to contribute funds to his legal defense suckers... however obliquely you attempt to do so.

TBO
04-22-2011, 09:36
Looks like he was arraigned and released, without having to post any bail.

Gallium
04-22-2011, 09:42
+1 on this, just from what little I have read about this guy he is most appropriately named. NUTTER.


I think you are dead right with that one...

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 09:44
EDIT: The offense date in the docket is 2/13/2011 which certainly seems to indicate it is directly related.

Thanks, I missed that. Police reports are filed and disclosed/disclosable, so it'd be nice to see those.

gommer
04-22-2011, 09:45
To the best of my knowledge this is directly related to the incident on tape... however, I have no definitive proof of that and it is certainly a bit of an assumption at this point.

EDIT: The offense date in the docket is 2/13/2011 which certainly seems to indicate it is directly related.



This is most certainly a possibility... and I dearly hope this is so. I would much prefer we have a couple of bad cops trying to cover their butts vs. that PLUS a DA with an agenda. I will even acknowledge that the former is more likely the case than the latter. I hope it is so.

Well, to be clear - I'm not saying they're bad cops. We all have bad days and it could have just been a bad day for the cop that initiated the stop.

Unprofessional in this instance, yes - it seems that way given what little we know of the circumstances.

I just meants the officers perspective could be completely different from Viper's and/or the audio and what each of us took from the audio --- as clearly even with the same set of facts in the audio there were MANY varying opinions on it from just this forum.

I doubt the officer tried to 'cover his rear', but given how upset they clearly were, I have no doubt their take on how the situation went down differs from that which I took from the audio.

Given a report saying Viper was verbally abusive etc taken to court and posed against that audio - I think it would be emberrassing for the DA.

In the audio - you hear one of the Officers say Viper said something that we don't hear in the audio - and Viper denies saying it. (I forget what it was but I recall thinking it was extremely suspicious for an Officer to say something like that - kinda a CMA thing)

If the Officer put false statements in the report, though - that could be a real problem.

Really, I hope it's two very different takes on how the situation happened and a really dumb DA that gets called out in court.

I'd like to see the Officer educated on the law, which obviously he is now - and maybe see legislative change - but realistically, even though the Officer was angry he was trying to do his job. If you went out and fired every cop that made a mistake you'd have a hard time finding anyone to be a cop.

Anyway. I'm hoping for the best for the People of PA - Viper AND the Officer(s) included. We all live in this country!

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 09:49
Well, to be clear - I'm not saying they're bad cops. We all have bad days and it could have just been a bad day for the cop that initiated the stop.

Unprofessional in this instance, yes - it seems that way given what little we know of the circumstances.

I just meants the officers perspective could be completely different from Viper's and/or the audio and what each of us took from the audio --- as clearly even with the same set of facts in the audio there were MANY varying opinions on it from just this forum.

I doubt the officer tried to 'cover his rear', but given how upset they clearly were, I have no doubt their take on how the situation went down differs from that which I took from the audio.

Given a report saying Viper was verbally abusive etc taken to court and posed against that audio - I think it would be emberrassing for the DA.

In the audio - you hear one of the Officers say Viper said something that we don't hear in the audio - and Viper denies saying it. (I forget what it was but I recall thinking it was extremely suspicious for an Officer to say something like that - kinda a CMA thing)

If the Officer put false statements in the report, though - that could be a real problem.

Really, I hope it's two very different takes on how the situation happened and a really dumb DA that gets called out in court.

I'd like to see the Officer educated on the law, which obviously he is now - and maybe see legislative change - but realistically, even though the Officer was angry he was trying to do his job. If you went out and fired every cop that made a mistake you'd have a hard time finding anyone to be a cop.

Anyway. I'm hoping for the best for the People of PA - Viper AND the Officer(s) included. We all live in this country!

Can't disagree with anything in this post and if I could "rep" you I would.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 09:52
Thanks, I missed that. Police reports are filed and disclosed/disclosable, so it'd be nice to see those.

The previous request for that information was denied.

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 10:02
The previous request for that information was denied.

Then isn't now. With charges filed, the accused is absolutely entitled to every piece of evidence the prosecutor has, including the reports. That's true in every state in the Union.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 10:07
Then isn't now. With charges filed, the accused is absolutely entitled to every piece of evidence the prosecutor has, including the reports. That's true in every state in the Union.

Thank you for that... I will pass that on and see if there is someone that can tackle it.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-22-2011, 10:11
There have been at least four different people who are highly respected on the PAFOA forum who have personally met and talked with Mark and vouched for him being a decent human being. It is also obvious that the charges are real and the incidents are real.

Good enough for me to shell out a few sheckles. If you do not wish to contribute that's your choice. I do however object to you calling me or anyone else that desires to contribute funds to his legal defense suckers... however obliquely you attempt to do so.

I don't know this Mark/Viper fellow, he may be a good person caught up in a bad situation, then again, he could be a kwirknu jr.:dunno: The whole mess seems a bit fishy and after listening to the recording again, the word "staged" does come to mind. The cops, who clearly could have handled things better, said they felt like they had been setup. The fact he was carrying an audio recording device makes me tend to think that falls in the realm of possibility. No facts to support my assumption, but then again without being there at the time, its impossible for any of us to know the real story behind the incident.

If it is an attention getting/settlement ploy, I hope he gets nothing and loses his carry privileges. Yes you read that correctly.

If it isn't and he truly was assaulted by the PPD for minding his own business with no intentions of causing a scene or baiting the cops into a confrontation, then I hope the cops involved are dealt with accordingly by whatever PA law dictates is a reasonable disciplinary action.

Either way, there is a definite need for a change in legislation about how the police can confront people carrying.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 10:21
I don't know this Mark/Viper fellow, he may be a good person caught up in a bad situation, then again, he could be a kwirknu jr.:dunno: The whole mess seems a bit fishy and after listening to the recording again, the word "staged" does come to mind. The cops, who clearly could have handled things better, said they felt like they had been setup. The fact he was carrying an audio recording device makes me tend to think that falls in the realm of possibility. No facts to support my assumption, but then again without being there at the time, its impossible for any of us to know the real story behind the incident.

If it is an attention getting/settlement ploy, I hope he gets nothing and loses his carry privileges. Yes you read that correctly.

If it isn't and he truly was assaulted by the PPD for minding his own business with no intentions of causing a scene or baiting the cops into a confrontation, then I hope the cops involved are dealt with accordingly by whatever PA law dictates is a reasonable disciplinary action.

Either way, there is a definite need for a change in legislation about how the police can confront people carrying.

I can certainly understand your point of view now that you have expanded on your thoughts. I am convinced that the this is not a black and white situation where you can select between the two scenarios you described. I am also convinced that this is much closer to the latter scenario of him having been truly assaulted by the PPD for minding his own business.

I do not think there is any legislation about how the police can confront people carrying and I'm not sure there should be... However, the current legislation that makes the city of Philadelphia "special" as a "city of the first class" does likely need changing as does the training and procedures within the Philadelphia police department regarding open carry and confronting those citizens that do open carry.

Dragoon44
04-22-2011, 10:32
There have been at least four different people who are highly respected on the PAFOA forum who have personally met and talked with Mark and vouched for him being a decent human being

And yet PAFOA as an organization declined to take up the case. IIRC the public statement to that effect was it was not the kind of case that PAFOA wanted to get into.

Have they changed their position on that since the arrest?

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 10:39
And yet PAFOA as an organization declined to take up the case. IIRC the public statement to that effect was it was not the kind of case that PAFOA wanted to get into.

Yes, for reasons they articulated and I agreed with. If you desire to search the forum you can find those reasons.

Their focus and resources are very limited for the type of support this would require. They have certainly been extremely supportive in the use of the forum for communications and coordination as well as the mods having personally contributed funds to Mark's defense.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-22-2011, 11:28
I can certainly understand your point of view now that you have expanded on your thoughts. I am convinced that the this is not a black and white situation where you can select between the two scenarios you described. I am also convinced that this is much closer to the latter scenario of him having been truly assaulted by the PPD for minding his own business.

I do not think there is any legislation about how the police can confront people carrying and I'm not sure there should be... However, the current legislation that makes the city of Philadelphia "special" as a "city of the first class" does likely need changing as does the training and procedures within the Philadelphia police department regarding open carry and confronting those citizens that do open carry.

I believe "somewhere in between" Vipers account and the police account of the situation is where the truth lies. I believe its not so much one sided as to where the blame can be placed, but rather a case in which all parties involved have a share of the blame.

As far as legislation, the "city of first class" mumbo jumbo was in part what I was referring to. I also believe that if such mumbo jumbo is removed, and people who open carry can't be held at gun point just because they are carrying a weapon, it will go to great lengths to help avoid these types of situations. Also, people who open carry simply complying with officers requests/demands will aide in the avoidance of such encounters, and THEN after the situation is over, decide if the officers actions were warranted and take it up with the dept if they feel like they have been wronged or their rights infringed upon without cause.

RussP
04-22-2011, 11:42
...However, the current legislation that makes the city of Philadelphia "special" as a "city of the first class" does likely need changing as does the training and procedures within the Philadelphia police department regarding open carry and confronting those citizens that do open carry.Wouldn't it be easier to legislate out exemption from firearm law preemption from the City of the First Class status than eliminate the entire status? Find several legislators sympathetic to eliminating Philly's special status who are not afraid of the "machine".

PPD's policy and procedures is another issue which should be addressed on a different front. Again, find sympathetic ears. That will take some finesse, so choose your representative carefully.

RussP
04-22-2011, 12:55
I believe "somewhere in between" Vipers account and the police account of the situation is where the truth lies. I believe its not so much one sided as to where the blame can be placed, but rather a case in which all parties involved have a share of the blame.

As far as legislation, the "city of first class" mumbo jumbo was in part what I was referring to. I also believe that if such mumbo jumbo is removed, and people who open carry can't be held at gun point just because they are carrying a weapon, it will go to great lengths to help avoid these types of situations. Also, people who open carry simply complying with officers requests/demands will aide in the avoidance of such encounters, and THEN after the situation is over, decide if the officers actions were warranted and take it up with the dept if they feel like they have been wronged or their rights infringed upon without cause.Well said.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 13:36
I believe "somewhere in between" Vipers account and the police account of the situation is where the truth lies. I believe its not so much one sided as to where the blame can be placed, but rather a case in which all parties involved have a share of the blame.

As far as legislation, the "city of first class" mumbo jumbo was in part what I was referring to. I also believe that if such mumbo jumbo is removed, and people who open carry can't be held at gun point just because they are carrying a weapon, it will go to great lengths to help avoid these types of situations. Also, people who open carry simply complying with officers requests/demands will aide in the avoidance of such encounters, and THEN after the situation is over, decide if the officers actions were warranted and take it up with the dept if they feel like they have been wronged or their rights infringed upon without cause.

Agree completely.

chivvalry
04-22-2011, 13:38
Wouldn't it be easier to legislate out exemption from firearm law preemption from the City of the First Class status than eliminate the entire status? Find several legislators sympathetic to eliminating Philly's special status who are not afraid of the "machine".

PPD's policy and procedures is another issue which should be addressed on a different front. Again, find sympathetic ears. That will take some finesse, so choose your representative carefully.

Finding someone in a position of power that is not afraid of the "machine" means finding someone willing to fall on their political sword for us... I would wager those sorts are very few and far between.

Subaruwrx12
04-22-2011, 14:11
Having the recorder with him is alittle fishy and does look like he baited them. But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.

If he did bait him maybe its payback since the police bait people all the time.

kensteele
04-22-2011, 14:34
I believe "somewhere in between" Vipers account and the police account of the situation is where the truth lies. I believe its not so much one sided as to where the blame can be placed, but rather a case in which all parties involved have a share of the blame.

As far as legislation, the "city of first class" mumbo jumbo was in part what I was referring to. I also believe that if such mumbo jumbo is removed, and people who open carry can't be held at gun point just because they are carrying a weapon, it will go to great lengths to help avoid these types of situations. Also, people who open carry simply complying with officers requests/demands will aide in the avoidance of such encounters, and THEN after the situation is over, decide if the officers actions were warranted and take it up with the dept if they feel like they have been wronged or their rights infringed upon without cause.

Agree, maybe it's fair the sanctions shall be "somewhere in between" as well. A warrant for you, a warrant for me. Some time in jail for me, some time in jail for you, lawyer fees for me, lawyer fees for you.....

James Dean
04-22-2011, 14:34
Having the recorder with him is alittle fishy and does look like he baited them. But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.

If he did bait him maybe its payback since the police bait people all the time.
Without that recorder it would have been his word against the police office, and other officers. He was smart to have it. If you open carry in Philly you better have one. Had mark had a partner in a window with a video camera I would agree its a set up, but an audio recorder NO. The police use Video and audio all the time. I think the police is lucky there is no video from a third party. IMO the complete lack of professionalism and language makes the police look bad here. When I took my CCW class the instructor was a police officer. He went over and over the procedure on how to deal with the police. Just comply, and don't say anything. Just your name and ID. ASK FOR A LAWYER. The next day if you feel you were treated wrong go file a complaint. Mark would have looked a lot better here if he just complied, and the next day filed a complaint and let the court sort it out.

IndyGunFreak
04-22-2011, 14:39
Having the recorder with him is alittle fishy and does look like he baited them. But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.

If he did bait him maybe its payback since the police bait people all the time.

If he baited them (and he probably did) it still doesn't matter. Officers have to be aware of this sort of thing. I'm amazed in this day and age, they are not more cognizant of the fact that everything they say or do, is being recorded by someone...

Google Brett Darrow.

I don't like what the guy did, but the police have to be the professionals. If you YT search many of kwikrnu's videos and his interactions w/ Belle Meade (I think thats the PD), they have always been quite professional with him.... Probably one reason why his lawsuits and whining and crying, have never went anywhere... and frankly, it's probably gonna be why Viper is probably going to win a civil suit.

IGF

NecoDude
04-22-2011, 14:44
Having the recorder with him is alittle fishy and does look like he baited them. But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.

If he did bait him maybe its payback since the police bait people all the time.

BOLD is Mine: From everything I've read regarding OC'rs in unfriendly locales, that's one of the first things they are conditioned to do, carry a recording device to record any encounter with LE. I don't OC and probably never will, but right/wrong/indifferent Viper (assumption to follow) possibly was just doing what he learned would save his bacon if he was ever in an encounter with LE.

I wish him all the best as at face value with just one side of the story available, he's getting run roughshod by the PPD.

CBennett
04-22-2011, 14:48
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me when its over

CBennett
04-22-2011, 14:50
I believe "somewhere in between" Vipers account and the police account of the situation is where the truth lies. I believe its not so much one sided as to where the blame can be placed, but rather a case in which all parties involved have a share of the blame.

As far as legislation, the "city of first class" mumbo jumbo was in part what I was referring to. I also believe that if such mumbo jumbo is removed, and people who open carry can't be held at gun point just because they are carrying a weapon, it will go to great lengths to help avoid these types of situations. Also, people who open carry simply complying with officers requests/demands will aide in the avoidance of such encounters, and THEN after the situation is over, decide if the officers actions were warranted and take it up with the dept if they feel like they have been wronged or their rights infringed upon without cause.


Agreed 100%

Dragoon44
04-22-2011, 14:59
But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.

This reflects the usual "Outcome based judgment" made when facts are known that were not known at the time of the encounter.

Whether or not the cop was justified in taking this guy at gunpoint or not, IF I am holding you at gunpoint and issuing instructions you are not going to show me a damn thing. First because to an officer it smacks of an attempt at distraction, second I am NOT going to allow yo to retrieve anything form your wallet. Doing so means your hands are moving towards your waist where the gun is. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

This guy may indeed have been treated badly but listening to the audio the biggest dumb ass I hear on it is not the cops it is this guy being held at gun point and refusing to comply with the officers instruction acting like he thinks he is at the counter at burger king and is entitled to have it his way.

pipedreams
04-22-2011, 15:05
Without that recorder it would have been his word against the police office, and other officers. He was smart to have it. If you open carry in Philly you better have one. Had mark had a partner in a window with a video camera I would agree its a set up, but an audio recorder NO. The police use Video and audio all the time. I think the police is lucky there is no video from a third party. IMO the complete lack of professionalism and language makes the police look bad here. snip


Right on the mark. Where would he be today if he had not recorded. If I recall correctly the one officer was a Sergent, in his position he should have know better than to behave in that manner. If they were baited they certainly went for it showing a lack of professionalism.

steveksux
04-22-2011, 15:45
I don't have a problem with his recorder, IMO no different than dashcams. You want an accurate record of what happens to avoid any chance of spinning, misinterpretations, etc. Nothing wrong with a solid record, witnesses accounts often differ, perspectives matter, etc.

I have a problem with arguing with the cops while at gunpoint. I'd rather argue in court where the cops aren't allowed to point guns at you. Being a dick and trying to goad them into a reaction is liable to get a different reaction than they anticipate. Let them arrest you, you've got the basis for educating them when its checked out and they have to kick you loose. When you're trying to escalate, you're looking for lawsuit lottery.

Randy

Dragoon44
04-22-2011, 15:48
Right on the mark. Where would he be today if he had not recorded.

in my opinion he would be better off. No defense attorney is going to want a Jury to listen to his client behaving the way he did. refusing to comply with the officers instruction and running his mouth instead of doing what the officer was telling him to do.

THAT is not going to set well with a jury.

And I doubt the language used by the cops in a highly tense and dangerous situation is going to shock the jury as much as it apparently does some here. The language used AFTER he was disarmed and under control would be the only instances that might raise a few eyebrows.

pipedreams
04-22-2011, 16:09
in my opinion he would be better off. No defense attorney is going to want a Jury to listen to his client behaving the way he did. refusing to comply with the officers instruction and running his mouth instead of doing what the officer was telling him to do.

THAT is not going to set well with a jury.

And I doubt the language used by the cops in a highly tense and dangerous situation is going to shock the jury as much as it apparently does some here. The language used AFTER he was disarmed and under control would be the only instances that might raise a few eyebrows.

I doubt this ever gets as far as a jury. He was already released without posting any bail according to prior posts.

RussP
04-22-2011, 16:31
Finding someone in a position of power that is not afraid of the "machine" means finding someone willing to fall on their political sword for us... I would wager those sorts are very few and far between.Are there any likely names for your list?

RussP
04-22-2011, 16:43
Having the recorder with him is alittle fishy and does look like he baited them.BOLD is Mine: From everything I've read regarding OC'rs in unfriendly locales, that's one of the first things they are conditioned to do, carry a recording device to record any encounter with LE.NecoDude is correct.But he also got a really good encounter where the police treated someone who was not a threat and tried to show his permit.Don't know what that means.If he did bait him maybe its payback since the police bait people all the time.You mean things like prostitution stings, drug stings, outstanding warrants stings, pedophile stings? So it's okay to bait cops because they use stings to take criminals, often violent criminals off the street. Okaaaay.

AggiePhil
04-22-2011, 17:10
Then isn't now. With charges filed, the accused is absolutely entitled to every piece of evidence the prosecutor has, including the reports. That's true in every state in the Union.

Not everywhere. In my county, only the front page of the offense report is public record and available to the defense. It contains little to no useful information. The probable cause statement is public record though, and usually contains some good details. But the entire officer's report is not (unless the state enters it into evidence, which they rarely, if ever, do). Most counties are not like this though.

BritStudent
04-22-2011, 17:33
I keep a a shortcut to a recording app on the home screen on my phone. Partly in case I ever find myself a witness to a crime, accident etc. But I'd also turn it on if I ever had an encounter with a police officer. Am I baiting the police or planning on getting stopped? No, I'd go well out of my way to avoid a police encounter. But if I do have one, I'll feel a whole lot better knowing I've got proof of what happened if, god forbid, I should need it.

Viper says he has had run ins with the police before because of his open carrying, so it makes even more sense for him to have a device capable of recording with him. I don't hold that against him one bit.

Dragoon44
04-22-2011, 17:38
Not everywhere. In my county, only the front page of the offense report is public record and available to the defense. It contains little to no useful information. The probable cause statement is public record though, and usually contains some good details. But the entire officer's report is not (unless the state enters it into evidence, which they rarely, if ever, do). Most counties are not like this though.

So Texas does not have any state laws mandating full discovery to the defense?

GIockGuy24
04-22-2011, 18:02
Did I read that correctly... He's appealing a guilty plea?

IGF

In some places the sentence can be appealed even with a guilty plea and / or a conviction. It may not be the conviction or plea that is being appealed but the sentence.

Mayhem like Me
04-22-2011, 18:10
Not everywhere. In my county, only the front page of the offense report is public record and available to the defense. It contains little to no useful information. The probable cause statement is public record though, and usually contains some good details. But the entire officer's report is not (unless the state enters it into evidence, which they rarely, if ever, do). Most counties are not like this though.

not correct once an accusation is filed discovery applies...even in texas, unless it is still under investigation

AggiePhil
04-22-2011, 18:24
So Texas does not have any state laws mandating full discovery to the defense?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I just know that I've testified in a couple trials where, for whatever reason, the defense attorney had not seen and did not have my offense report. Comments were made about "your county being different than just about every other county in the state". Perhaps those defense attorneys just didn't know what they were doing. :dunno:

TBO
04-22-2011, 19:13
Not everywhere. In my county, only the front page of the offense report is public record and available to the defense. It contains little to no useful information. The probable cause statement is public record though, and usually contains some good details. But the entire officer's report is not (unless the state enters it into evidence, which they rarely, if ever, do). Most counties are not like this though.
Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, gives you the right to access government records.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/agency/customer/pia.html

http://www.foift.org/pialetter.html

RussP
04-22-2011, 19:21
Folks, never mind...:wavey:

Thanks

TBO
04-22-2011, 19:29
I doubt this ever gets as far as a jury. He was already released without posting any bail according to prior posts.
ROR-

Being Released On your own Recognizance is pretty common for small Misdemeanor offenses. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 06:45
In some places the sentence can be appealed even with a guilty plea and / or a conviction. It may not be the conviction or plea that is being appealed but the sentence.

In that case, its not an appeal, its a motion for sentence modification (at least here.. I've watched inmates file them gazillions of times). An appeal, and a motion to modify a sentence, are very different.

IGF

RussP
04-23-2011, 06:48
Question: Will Viper's audio recording of the encounter help or hurt his defense in the criminal charges and his complaint in the civil case?

Be specific.

To keep things civil, let me get get a few things out of the way.

All cops are JBT *******s.
All open carriers are law abiding citizens who just want to be left alone and do not intentionally seek attention from anyone at any time.

Okay, that should save some bandwidth.

debbert
04-23-2011, 06:58
It's unfortunate, and I believe that the LEO's/Prosecutor are going out on a limb by filing charges after the fact, and only because they absolutely know that they handled this situation in the wrong fashion.

I have been following this story, and I look forward to a fair outcome for Viper.

RussP
04-23-2011, 07:04
Welcome to GT, debbert!It's unfortunate, and I believe that the LEO's/Prosecutor are going out on a limb by filing charges after the fact, and only because they absolutely know that they handled this situation in the wrong fashion.

I have been following this story, and I look forward to a fair outcome for Viper.What do you believe that outcome should be?

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 07:45
It's unfortunate, and I believe that the LEO's/Prosecutor are going out on a limb by filing charges after the fact, and only because they absolutely know that they handled this situation in the wrong fashion.

I have been following this story, and I look forward to a fair outcome for Viper.


The only thing is... If they handled it wrong, why file charges and not just let it go away? By filing charges, they know the audio is going to be brought into court, they know they are pretty much gonna be ran through the mud, etc... I think it's gonna come down not to the audio, but what the Officers testify as to what Viper's actual actions were... which the audio can't prove or disprove.

Just seems to me, if they really wanted this to go away, this would have resulted in No charges, and thats the end of it. Let his YT audio stand and deal w/ the officers internally for their conduct.

Like someone else said earlier in this thread... There's Viper's story and the Police's story.. the truth is likely somewhere between the two.

IGF

pipedreams
04-23-2011, 08:17
ROR-

Being Released On your own Recognizance is pretty common for small Misdemeanor offenses. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.


I know what it means but a jury trial for " small Misdemeanor offenses"? Isn't this likely to get settled out of court long before a trial?

Sam Spade
04-23-2011, 08:26
I know what it means but a jury trial for " small Misdemeanor offenses"? Isn't this likely to get settled out of court long before a trial?

I'm sure that PA will offer a plea, and I'm sure that Viper will refuse to take it.

Btw, no guarantee that there will be a jury trial. If the state isn't seeking jail time, he may not be entitled to one. Don't know the specifics here, but minor misdemeanors usually get a bench trial.

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 08:54
I'm sure that PA will offer a plea, and I'm sure that Viper will refuse to take it.

Btw, no guarantee that there will be a jury trial. If the state isn't seeking jail time, he may not be entitled to one. Don't know the specifics here, but minor misdemeanors usually get a bench trial.

if i'm not mistaken he has the right to a trial by jury. I requested one for a speeding ticket. I requested it at the first court appearance and before we went to court they dropped the speeding ticket..

mrjinglesusa
04-23-2011, 08:54
This reflects the usual "Outcome based judgment" made when facts are known that were not known at the time of the encounter.

Whether or not the cop was justified in taking this guy at gunpoint or not, IF I am holding you at gunpoint and issuing instructions you are not going to show me a damn thing. First because to an officer it smacks of an attempt at distraction, second I am NOT going to allow yo to retrieve anything form your wallet. Doing so means your hands are moving towards your waist where the gun is. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

This guy may indeed have been treated badly but listening to the audio the biggest dumb ass I hear on it is not the cops it is this guy being held at gun point and refusing to comply with the officers instruction acting like he thinks he is at the counter at burger king and is entitled to have it his way.

I don't have a problem with his recorder, IMO no different than dashcams. You want an accurate record of what happens to avoid any chance of spinning, misinterpretations, etc. Nothing wrong with a solid record, witnesses accounts often differ, perspectives matter, etc.

I have a problem with arguing with the cops while at gunpoint. I'd rather argue in court where the cops aren't allowed to point guns at you. Being a dick and trying to goad them into a reaction is liable to get a different reaction than they anticipate. Let them arrest you, you've got the basis for educating them when its checked out and they have to kick you loose. When you're trying to escalate, you're looking for lawsuit lottery.

Randy

Pretty much sums it up. Don't feel the least bit sorry for this guy. He comes across on the audio as a arrogant punk kid being a smart ass to the cops.

Bottom line: if you are open carrying and a cop stops you and tells you to get on the ground, you better damn well comply. You have no right to ignore the instructions of a police officer giving a lawful order just because it is legal for you to open carry. The cop is right: he doesn't know who this guy is and until he finds that out, he needs to secure the gun for his safety and the safety of the public.

Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun.

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 09:04
Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun.

Whens the last time anyone has seen a badguy open carrying in a holster? They dont they keep their guns hiding. The cop should of known the laws. You cant enforce the law if you dont know what the laws are...:upeyes:

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 09:05
The cop is right: he doesn't know who this guy is and until he finds that out, he needs to secure the gun for his safety and the safety of the public.

Just playing devils advocate (and I'm simply going off the story as reported by Viper):

So the cop drawing his gun on a guy who is walking down the street w/ a holstered firearm, is not endangering the public? *IF* the guy is just walking down the street, w/ an openly carried firearm (which seems to be legal in PA) then why is there a safety/safety of the public issue. The Officer said several times on the audio, that his firearm is required to be concealed... I'm not familiar w/ PA law, but most on PAFOA forum say that is just not accurate.

To me, what you're suggesting is it would be logical for a cop driving code to write a parking ticket, on the off chance the owner of the vehicle might have a warrant.

Before I get accused of being anti-cop, I don't totally fault the cop in this matter. I also am not giving a free pass to Viper... I think there's equal blame on both parties in this one.

IGF

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 09:10
If the cop was up to date on the gun laws in PA. do you think this would of ever happened? I have to stay up to date on all the laws why dont they?

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 09:20
Question: Will Viper's audio recording of the encounter help or hurt his defense in the criminal charges and his complaint in the civil case?

Be specific.

.

In the criminal case, HURT. The jury is not going to b made up of OC activist who will wring their hands and gnash their teeth because the cops used "Bad" language. His refusing to comply with what he was being told and running his mouth are going to weigh against him with an average Jury.

In the Civil case, as One PA civil rights attorney already told viper, a Philly jury is going to be a problem.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 09:23
If the cop was up to date on the gun laws in PA. do you think this would of ever happened? I have to stay up to date on all the laws why dont they?

Yeah it would have happened most likely since Philly PD MADATES stop and disarming open carriers.

So all the squawking and wringing of hands by the OC crowd about how the officer said "You can't open carry". and acting like that is a critical part of the incident is in fact meaningless.

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 09:27
Yeah it would have happened most likely since Philly PD MADATES stop and disarming open carriers.

So all the squawking and wringing of hands by the OC crowd about how the officer said "You can't open carry". and acting like that is a critical part of the incident is in fact meaningless.

Didn't know this. But I do agree the guy should of did what the cop said and fight it out in court. I dont care if its a badguy or a cop, if they have a gun drawing on me I will do what they say and not say a word. :supergrin:

pipedreams
04-23-2011, 09:28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjinglesusa http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17256306#post17256306)
Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun.

Whens the last time anyone has seen a badguy open carrying in a holster? They dont they keep their guns hiding. The cop should of known the laws. You cant enforce the law if you dont know what the laws are...:upeyes: Today 09:54

Exactly............... if I'm walking down the street with a spear gun or a baseball bat minding my own business should I be pulled over? Maybe because I'm out to do no good but doubt it will happen.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 09:31
Didn't know this. But I do agree the guy should of did what the cop said and fight it out in court. I dont care if its a badguy or a cop, if they have a gun drawing on me I will do what they say and not say a word. :supergrin:


The MAJOR problem is Philly is the By State statute a "city of the first class" and gets to make it's own rules and not follow what the rest of the state has to do.

Which is absolutely absurd and the "City of the first class" nonsense needs to be done away with. That done, Philly's mandatory stop and disarm cannot stand.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 09:35
Quote:

Whens the last time anyone has seen a badguy open carrying in a holster? They dont they keep their guns hiding. The cop should of known the laws. You cant enforce the law if you dont know what the laws are...:upeyes: Today 09:54

Exactly...............

Other than the fact that what the other poster is correct in that cops have learned not to assume things. The fact remains that Philly PD mandates a stop and disarm of anyone OC'ing so whatever a cop may think about someone OC'ing in a holster is largely irrelevant.

Sam Spade
04-23-2011, 09:45
if i'm not mistaken he has the right to a trial by jury. I requested one for a speeding ticket. I requested it at the first court appearance and before we went to court they dropped the speeding ticket..

Google tells me that PA does not recognize a right to a jury trial when the maximum possible sentence is less than 6 months jail. Is that the case here?

Under both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, you have the absolute right to a jury trial … most of the time.* There are circumstances under which you might be charged with a crime and are not entitled to a jury trial (first time DUI in Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh, Possession of Marijuana, summary offenses, etc.).* The law only requires that you be afforded a jury trial where the maximum punishment for the crime charged is more than 6 months.* Therefore, if the maximum sentence you are facing is 6 months or less, you have no right to a jury trial. http://www.mvwlaw.com/Criminal-Defense/Pennsylvania-Criminal-Trial-Process.shtml

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 09:49
Nevermind... I just read Dragoons comment about Philly being a "city of first class" and thus immune from the states preemption law..... never heard of that... very strange.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 09:59
Nevermind... I just read Dragoons comment about Philly being a "city of first class" and thus immune from the states preemption law..... never heard of that... very strange.

It is more than strange it is just BS.

debbert
04-23-2011, 10:04
Welcome to GT, debbert!What do you believe that outcome should be?

Thank you for the welcome, Russ. I'm enjoying reading the different viewpoints about just about every topic known to man, here. Thanks for the opportunity.

With regard to your question: This should have been a non-issue. From what I understand, Viper wasn't brandishing, he wasn't inciting, or anything else.

While I respect the job that law enforcement does, and the BS that they have to go through everyday, It is my opinion that they are the ones who escalated this situation.

These things are absolute:

1 - Viper was legally carrying a firearm.
2 - The police department doesn't know the laws of their state (given audio on the recording)
3 - While I understand that "cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun," They also don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone carrying a gun is a bad guy.
4 - There was no law broken here. The only thing that Viper can be accused of is making a bad choice in where he chose to exercise his rights.

Viper should be set free, and all charges should be dropped. In addition, Philadelphia police should undergo further training and instruction on the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

With that being said, I respect police in general but if I had several that were in my face and being as snarky as they were, to me, you bet I would be snarky back, especially when I know that I am well within my rights.

kensteele
04-23-2011, 10:17
Bottom line: if you are open carrying and a cop stops you and tells you to get on the ground, you better damn well comply. You have no right to ignore the instructions of a police officer giving a lawful order just because it is legal for you to open carry. The cop is right: he doesn't know who this guy is and until he finds that out, he needs to secure the gun for his safety and the safety of the public.

Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun.

Just playing devil's advocate, just trying to understand if this is your feelings about open carry only....or does it apply to concealed carry as well. True or false:


Bottom line: if you are concealed carrying and a cop stops you and tells you to get on the ground, you better damn well comply. You have no right to ignore the instructions of a police officer giving a lawful order just because it is legal for you to concealed carry. The cop is right: he doesn't know who this guy is and until he finds that out, he needs to secure the gun for his safety and the safety of the public.

Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone concealed carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun.

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 10:17
OK.. I just listened to the video again.. I can't hear whats being said about 4:30.. but it sounds like he is being searched and I hear the officer say "That's another f'n strike a-hole".. Unfortunately prior to that, it's pretty muffled and I can't hear what the officer said.

Anybody know what prompted that comment?

pipedreams
04-23-2011, 10:33
These things are absolute:

1 - Viper was legally carrying a firearm.
2 - The police department doesn't know the laws of their state (given audio on the recording)
3 - While I understand that "cops don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone open carrying are lawfully doing so, i.e., are legally permitted to own a gun," They also don't have the luxury of assuming that everyone carrying a gun is a bad guy.
4 - There was no law broken here. The only thing that Viper can be accused of is making a bad choice in where he chose to exercise his rights.

Viper should be set free, and all charges should be dropped. In addition, Philadelphia police should undergo further training and instruction on the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

.


You need to read Dragoons above comments about Philly being a "city of first class" and thus immune from the states preemption law.....This is a case where state legislators created a mess by the way they wrote the law. That said the officer could of used some discretion in this case and simply informed Viper he was in violation of the "city of first class" clause and ask him conceal the weapon or take it home. If Viper did not agree then I could see the need for further action.

mrjinglesusa
04-23-2011, 10:53
Just playing devil's advocate, just trying to understand if this is your feelings about open carry only....or does it apply to concealed carry as well. True or false:

It applies to ANYONE who is given an order from a law enforcement officer carrying out his/her duties, whether carrying openly, concealed, or not carrying at all.

If a PO tells you to get on the ground, he's giving you a lawful order. If you choose not to comply, you're asking for trouble.

dvrdwn72
04-23-2011, 11:10
Bottom line is just comply with a lawfull order given to you by a leo. Inticeing leo's is not the smartest way to go about something, they follow the orders handed down to them from the higher up's. Granted, the philly leo could have said conceil your weapon, and viper could have just followed the order's, then after dealing with the encounter, went about doing something. Not going out looking for a confrontation, if that is what he was looking to do. Just my opinion, but hopefully some facts will come out of this. Mabye viper was within his right to do what he did, I dont know.

maestro pistolero
04-23-2011, 11:18
What happens if a court finds this prosecution to be retaliatory because of the public posting of the audio and because of the impending civil case? Sure seems vindictive to me.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 11:19
You need to read Dragoons above comments about Philly being a "city of first class" and thus immune from the states preemption law.....This is a case where state legislators created a mess by the way they wrote the law. That said the officer could of used some discretion in this case and simply informed Viper he was in violation of the "city of first class" clause and ask him conceal the weapon or take it home. If Viper did not agree then I could see the need for further action.

Just to be clear here. everywhere in PA EXCEPT philly OC is legal without a LTCH permit. In philly OC is illegal unless the individual has a LTCH permit.

Philly has taken the stance that sine OC is illegal without the LTCH they have the right to stop detain, disarm, and check for an LTCH.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 11:22
What happens if a court finds this prosecution to be retaliatory because of the public posting of the audio and because of the impending civil case? Sure seems vindictive to me.

And what leads you to the conclusion that the prosecution is retaliatory?

debbert
04-23-2011, 11:34
Just to be clear here. everywhere in PA EXCEPT philly OC is legal without a LTCH permit. In philly OC is illegal unless the individual has a LTCH permit.

Philly has taken the stance that sine OC is illegal without the LTCH they have the right to stop detain, disarm, and check for an LTCH.

I may be wrong but I thought I read that Viper met the requirement of having the LTCH and, therefore, was legal to OC.

I also understand that the warrant wasn't issued due to any gun laws.

RussP
04-23-2011, 11:36
Some background reading material.

§ 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..HTMPatrick 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=994145This 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
04-23-2011, 11:39
OK.. I just listened to the video again.. I can't hear whats being said about 4:30.. but it sounds like he is being searched and I hear the officer say "That's another f'n strike a-hole".. Unfortunately prior to that, it's pretty muffled and I can't hear what the officer said.

Anybody know what prompted that comment?Prior arrests and guilty pleas.

Or, it could have referenced his prior encounters with PPD.

RussP
04-23-2011, 11:43
I may be wrong but I thought I read that Viper met the requirement of having the LTCH and, therefore, was legal to OC.Yes, but he was the only one who knew that when Sgt Dougherty began the stop.I also understand that the warrant wasn't issued due to any gun laws.Would the presence of a weapon contribute to the circumstances leading to the charges?

RussP
04-23-2011, 11:47
...That said the officer could of used some discretion in this case and simply informed Viper he was in violation of the "city of first class" clause and ask him conceal the weapon or take it home. If Viper did not agree then I could see the need for further action.Ahhhh, why would further action be warranted if his permit was verified confirming the legality of his action - open carrying?

debbert
04-23-2011, 11:53
Yes, but he was the only one who knew that when Sgt Dougherty began the stop. Would the presence of a weapon contribute to the circumstances leading to the charges?

Yes, and as soon as Viper let Sgt. Dougherty know that he was licensed, Sgt. Dougherty should have backed off and done his job by running his info through dispatch. At this time, Viper was already detained, disarmed, and handcuffed. He posed no threat and he certainly did not warrant Sgt. Dougherty's or the other cops' verbal abuse an insensitivity. That is why I believe that they (the cops) are the ones who escalated this. Viper knew that he was right all along and Sgt. Dougherty had to play the know-it-all-tough guy.

I do not believe the presence of a holstered weapon warrants the charges that he's being accused of, especially since he was within his legal right.

Again, perhaps not the best of choices on his part.

JimBianchi
04-23-2011, 11:59
tag for further info.

ICARRY2
04-23-2011, 12:12
Viper broke the golden rule: Never talk to the police. :tongueout:


Seriously though, a good rule of thumb is to never argue with a leo while he is pointing a gun at you. No matter who is right and who is wrong.

Request a supervisor, file a complaint, or whatever, just don't act like a punk.

I heard Viper's tape and he sounded like a beligerent ash.

I don't agree with Philly's policy, but trying to get it changed this way isn't going to work. The state legislature needs to do it. Just my .02 cents.

kensteele
04-23-2011, 12:15
Just playing devil's advocate, just trying to understand if this is your feelings about open carry only....or does it apply to concealed carry as well. True or false:

It applies to ANYONE who is given an order from a law enforcement officer carrying out his/her duties, whether carrying openly, concealed, or not carrying at all.

If a PO tells you to get on the ground, he's giving you a lawful order. If you choose not to comply, you're asking for trouble.

Bottom line is just comply with a lawfull order given to you by a leo. Inticeing leo's is not the smartest way to go about something, they follow the orders handed down to them from the higher up's. Granted, the philly leo could have said conceil your weapon, and viper could have just followed the order's, then after dealing with the encounter, went about doing something. Not going out looking for a confrontation, if that is what he was looking to do. Just my opinion, but hopefully some facts will come out of this. Mabye viper was within his right to do what he did, I dont know.

Wait, you guys are moving too fast for me. Did I miss that, was he charged with disobeying a lawful order or "inciting law enforcement"? Or are you saying it's just simply a good idea to obey and not incite. I agree with the latter and I understand at present, his actions are illegal in Philly until he produces a valid permit.

RussP
04-23-2011, 12:52
Yes, and as soon as Viper let Sgt. Dougherty know that he was licensed, Sgt. Dougherty should have backed off By the time Viper said he had a license, other dynamics were in play, principally his repeated refusal to follow Sgt. Dougherty instructions.and done his job by running his info through dispatch.This was preempted by Viper's refusal to comply with instructions.At this time, Viper was already detained, disarmed, and handcuffed."At this time," at what time?He posed no threat and he certainly did not warrant Sgt. Dougherty's or the other cops' verbal abuse an insensitivity.No one is disagreeing that after he was secured, things could have and should have been done differently.That is why I believe that they (the cops) are the ones who escalated this.How did they escalate the situation prior to placing him in handcuffs?Viper knew that he was right all along and Sgt. Dougherty had to play the know-it-all-tough guy.Again, Viper was the only one who knew that until they verified his LTCH.I do not believe the presence of a holstered weapon warrants the charges that he's being accused of, especially since he was within his legal right.What was the "Yes" responding to at the beginning of your post? The question was, "Would the presence of a weapon contribute to the circumstances leading to the charges?"Again, perhaps not the best of choices on his part.True.

pipedreams
04-23-2011, 13:11
Ahhhh, why would further action be warranted if his permit was verified confirming the legality of his action - open carrying?


Your correct.

Slick371
04-23-2011, 13:22
I've been lurking around Glock Talk for a while and only recently joined. I held my 1st Glock in 1987 and bought my 1st (G22) in 1991. Being a former LEO I carried one both on and off duty. Never doubted they would go bang if I ever needed it to.

I'm either getting old or bored since it ain't college football season because I can't believe that I just spent part of a beautiful Saturday reading all 8 pages of this thread. This same subject is on just about every forum that I visit and I've read 99% of all of them. Some very good posts and lots of information. I will say that this thread has remained the most civil. For that I'm glad!

On the situation in Philly- I'll admit I didn't listen to the recording. It just gave me a big headache. From what I did hear and from what I've read about the subject I've come to the following conclusion:

1. I fully support the 2nd Amendment and I give to the NRA to help them fight for our right to do so.

2. I fully support state's rights and think each should be able to enact laws that are aimed at maintaining order and lawfulness

3. I believe the Philly officers were unprofessional in their demeanor toward Viper but I also back them 1000% on their use of duty weapon to cover a person who was armed and being belligerent. All this did was cause the officer's internal "Oh sh** alarm" to go off. I know several officers that were killed in the line of duty and going to their funeral was never fun for me.

4. Viper is a ******. I understand that he runs a recorder everytime he OC in Philly because of his prior run ins with their police. From my experience as a parent & LEO I know one thing for sure. If you keep finding yourself in trouble you have to step back and look at why you keep finding yourself in trouble.

5. A former SGT of mine had a bumper sticker on the cage in his patrol car. It was right there where every arrestee could read it. It read "If You're Gonna Be Stupid You Had Better Be Tough". I tell my 3 daughters this all time in hopes they will learn to make smart decisions in their life.

Thanks for your time!:cool:

debbert
04-23-2011, 13:34
What was the "Yes" responding to at the beginning of your post?

My response of "Yes" was an affirmation that at the time, Viper was the only person that knew that he was legally carrying.

Given your answers, Viper should have been placed under arrest, immediately for resisting arrest or failure to obey. Neither were charged against him at the time (or any time). He was charged with BS misdemeanors days after the incident.

As I am getting information from multiple sources, I will refrain from further comment here until all the facts are laid on the table.

I still maintain that the police could have been a lot more professional, regardless of whatever the outcome is.

RussP
04-23-2011, 14:02
I've been lurking around Glock Talk for a while and only recently joined. I held my 1st Glock in 1987 and bought my 1st (G22) in 1991. Being a former LEO I carried one both on and off duty. Never doubted they would go bang if I ever needed it to.

I'm either getting old or bored since it ain't college football season because I can't believe that I just spent part of a beautiful Saturday reading all 8 pages of this thread. This same subject is on just about every forum that I visit and I've read 99% of all of them. Some very good posts and lots of information. I will say that this thread has remained the most civil. For that I'm glad!Welcome to GT! Glad to have you aboard.

RussP
04-23-2011, 14:11
My response of "Yes" was an affirmation that at the time, Viper was the only person that knew that he was legally carrying.

Given your answers, Viper should have been placed under arrest, immediately for resisting arrest or failure to obey. Neither were charged against him at the time (or any time). He was charged with BS misdemeanors days after the incident.So you are saying they had cause to arrest him at the time of the incident, but did not.As I am getting information from multiple sources, I will refrain from further comment here until all the facts are laid on the table.If you come across something not here, please contribute that information. Thanks.I still maintain that the police could have been a lot more professional, regardless of whatever the outcome is.Have you ever confronted a non-compliant, armed individual you do not know?

debbert
04-23-2011, 14:51
So you are saying they had cause to arrest him at the time of the incident, but did not.

If, in fact, he was as non-compliant as people around here seem to think he was, yes but he wasn't.

If you come across something not here, please contribute that information. Thanks. Have you ever confronted a non-compliant, armed individual you do not know?

I have never confronted a non-compliant, armed individual that I do not know.

Given the fact that more people are taking advantage of their 2nd amendment rights, these days, would it be fair to assume that police should draw on every law-abiding citizens first, and then start talking later? After all, how many bad guys are open-carrying with holsters? Now, if a rash of bad guys caught onto all of this and began open carrying with holsters and what not, I would expect to be treated in a bad manner but from what I understand, that is not yet the case.

Should it be fair practice for the police to automatically draw on carrying citizens whom are strolling along, causing no problems, and making no attempts to draw their own weapon?

Should carrying citizens assume that, because of their right to carry, they have automatically given up any possibility of talking with police in a non-confrontational manner while the police figure out "who you are?"

kensteele
04-23-2011, 15:23
If, in fact, he was as non-compliant as people around here seem to think he was, yes but he wasn't.



I have never confronted a non-compliant, armed individual that I do not know.

Given the fact that more people are taking advantage of their 2nd amendment rights, these days, would it be fair to assume that police should draw on every law-abiding citizens first, and then start talking later? After all, how many bad guys are open-carrying with holsters? Now, if a rash of bad guys caught onto all of this and began open carrying with holsters and what not, I would expect to be treated in a bad manner but from what I understand, that is not yet the case.

Should it be fair practice for the police to automatically draw on carrying citizens whom are strolling along, causing no problems, and making no attempts to draw their own weapon?

Should carrying citizens assume that, because of their right to carry, they have automatically given up any possibility of talking with police in a non-confrontational manner while the police figure out "who you are?"

You are absolutely correct but in this case, you are going to get a response back that Viper was breaking the law by OCing in Philly and the officer has every right to confront him with weapon drawn until such time as Viper "unbreaks" the law.

Just like if you are breaking a traffic law and the officer sees it, if he feels unsafe approaching you, he may confront you with his weapon drawn and when he gives orders, they are lawful and you should obey them regardless if you know what's wrong or not. And if it's your grandmother behind the wheel and she resists, talks back, or fails to respond in any way, her initial behaviour is no better than Viper's. Charges don't always follow but they could.

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 15:37
Just to clear a point up... Phildelphia is NOT immune to state preemption for firearm laws. The requiring of a LTCF to open carry in a "city of the first class" is in the state firearm laws. Philadelphia is the only city in PA that is a "city of the first class".

Also... Viper was NOT breaking the law by open carrying in Philadelphia as he is a valid LTCF holder. No more than you are breaking the law by driving your car as long as you are licensed.

kensteele
04-23-2011, 15:47
Just to clear a point up... Phildelphia is NOT immune to state preemption for firearm laws. The requiring of a LTCF to open carry in a "city of the first class" is in the state firearm laws. Philadelphia is the only city in PA that is a "city of the first class".

Also... Viper was NOT breaking the law by open carrying in Philadelphia as he is a valid LTCF holder. No more than you are breaking the law by driving your car as long as you are licensed.

From all the reading and posts, in short this is how I understand it:

In Philly, you can drive your car on the street and you are not breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you do not have a valid driver's license, among other things.

In Philly, you can open carry your firearm within the city limits and you are breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you have a valid carry permit.

Chivvalry, do you disagree?

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 15:52
Given your answers, Viper should have been placed under arrest, immediately for resisting arrest or failure to obey. Neither were charged against him at the time (or any time). He was charged with BS misdemeanors days after the incident.

This is a common fallacy among people with no LE experience. The idea that if the cops CAN charge you with something they will.

Any cop knows that is not true. and more often than not unless is is a clear and gross violation of the law the cops will send a report of the incident to the state attorney's office and let them decide whether to file charges or not.

If, in fact, he was as non-compliant as people around here seem to think he was, yes but he wasn't.


If you are being held at gunpoint and an officer is telling you to get on your knees and you do not responding instead, "I will be happy to stand here." you are being non compliant. add that you are visibly armed and you are an ARMED non compliant individual.

Should it be fair practice for the police to automatically draw on carrying citizens whom are strolling along, causing no problems, and making no attempts to draw their own weapon?

I think it is a very big assumption to claim he was doing nothing to arouse the suspicions of the officer. and while that may ultimately be the case after reading Vipers statements in his own words I tend to doubt it.

I already covered what I think and why in the other threads so I won't belabor it again here.

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 15:57
From all the reading and posts, in short this is how I understand it:

In Philly, you can drive your car on the street and you are not breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you do not have a valid driver's license, among other things.

In Philly, you can open carry your firearm within the city limits and you are breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you have a valid carry permit.

Chivvalry, do you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree with that stance. The presence of an openly carried gun in Philadelphia MAY be checked by a police officer according to their training.

If an officer can develop reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, by a
person engaged in open carry, then the temporary seizure of the person and
confiscation of the firearm would be justified, because the person is known to be
armed and dangerous based on the suspected criminal activity and visible
possession of a firearm. A further frisk would also be warranted to ensure the
person was not in possession of any other weapons. If the officer’s investigatory
detention leads to probable cause, then the person may be placed under arrest for
the crime that has been committed. However, if the officer’s suspicion is allayed
then any seized firearms must be returned to the citizen and the citizen must be
released from the investigatory detention. A firearm may be seized from a person
who the officer knows to be prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or
Federal law.

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

RussP
04-23-2011, 15:57
Just to clear a point up... Phildelphia is NOT immune to state preemption for firearm laws. The requiring of a LTCF to open carry in a "city of the first class" is in the state firearm laws. Philadelphia is the only city in PA that is a "city of the first class".Yes, they are not IMMUNE. Requiring a LTCF to open carry is an EXCEPTION granted cities of the first class.Also... Viper was NOT breaking the law by open carrying in Philadelphia as he is a valid LTCF holder. No more than you are breaking the law by driving your car as long as you are licensed.Correct.

RussP
04-23-2011, 16:02
Yes, I do disagree with that stance. The presence of an openly carried gun in Philadelphia MAY be checked by a police officer according to their training.

If an officer can develop reasonable suspicionWhy did you bold that?

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 16:03
.......................

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 16:05
Why did you bold that?

IMHO there was no RAS to conduct a felony or high risk stop on Viper... the officer would have been perfectly correct to stop him and ask to see his license... just not at gunpoint.

RussP
04-23-2011, 16:07
From all the reading and posts, in short this is how I understand it:

In Philly, you can open carry your firearm within the city limits and you are breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you have a valid carry permit.You do not understand correctly.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 16:12
IMHO there was no RAS to conduct a felony or high risk stop on Viper... the officer would have been perfectly correct to stop him and ask to see his license... just not at gunpoint.

First, you do not know for a fact that the officer cannot articulate RAS that is an assumption and while it may ultimately prove to be a valid one it is until then an assumption.

Second, That part deals with OC in areas OTHER than Philly. It states quite clearly that merely Oc'inig in philly can indeed result in a stop and detention.

kensteele
04-23-2011, 16:29
Just to be clear here. everywhere in PA EXCEPT philly OC is legal without a LTCH permit. In philly OC is illegal unless the individual has a LTCH permit.

Philly has taken the stance that sine OC is illegal without the LTCH they have the right to stop detain, disarm, and check for an LTCH.

From all the reading and posts, in short this is how I understand it:

In Philly, you can drive your car on the street and you are not breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you do not have a valid driver's license, among other things.

In Philly, you can open carry your firearm within the city limits and you are breaking the law until such time as the authorities determine you have a valid carry permit.


You do not understand correctly.

I stand corrected then.

I took from reading dragoons post, since an officer does not know if you have a permit or not, everyone he sees OC could be illegal and thus stop and detain to investigate is warranted/lawful/encouraged/required/etc. Unlike driving where you cannot stop and detain simply because you see someone driving a car even if you don't know if they have a valid DL or not. You need something else like a traffic violation or they look underage or you knew their license was suspended last month or something reasonable. With OC in Philly, you need pretty much...nothing. And apparently even after seeing a valid license and thus OC is legal for you, that might not be enough.

Or something like that...gosh I can see how it's not easy for everyone to understand, confuses me. I'll go back to keep watching....

Slick371
04-23-2011, 16:40
IMHO there was no RAS to conduct a felony or high risk stop on Viper... the officer would have been perfectly correct to stop him and ask to see his license... just not at gunpoint.

From this post it seems you have never been shot at...... Had you been I'd imagine your response would be a little different...

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 16:41
First, you do not know for a fact that the officer cannot articulate RAS that is an assumption and while it may ultimately prove to be a valid one it is until then an assumption.

Second, That part deals with OC in areas OTHER than Philly. It states quite clearly that merely Oc'inig in philly can indeed result in a stop and detention.

First, did you not see the "IMHO" prelude to that statement... ?

Second, I agree and stated so. However, I do not feel that a felony or high risk stop is appropriate for someone just walking down the street while open carrying. IMHO that is a huge over reaction and stems from the officer being ignorant of the law.

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 16:43
From this post it seems you have never been shot at...... Had you been I'd imagine your response would be a little different...

What does me being shot at have to do with this? How do you think that would change my reaction to someone who is, though armed, presenting no immediate threat and simply walking down the street?

Are you suggesting that the LEO in this incident suffers from PTSD or something?

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 16:47
Or something like that...gosh I can see how it's not easy for everyone to understand, confuses me. I'll go back to keep watching....

...hence the hundreds of posts over four "chapters" going round and round the mayberry pole hashing and rehashing every slight detail which it seems not all who are just now being exposed to these threads have read...

Not being sarcastic... it is a complex situation with lots of unknown variables, oddly written laws, conflicting training and directives, and a bunch of knee jerk emotional responses thrown in. Gets confusing quick.

Slick371
04-23-2011, 16:59
What does me being shot at have to do with this? How do you think that would change my reaction to someone who is, though armed, presenting no immediate threat and simply walking down the street?

Are you suggesting that the LEO in this incident suffers from PTSD or something?

Nope, never said anything about PTSD. I can't think of another civilian profession where members die at the hands of another. Not accountants, not OB/GYN, not pro athletes, not mail carriers. Often times these officers are murdered by someone that wasn't presenting a "immediate threat". I went to an officer's funeral that was shot during a traffic stop. The officer gave the driver a verbal warning and handed him his DL back. the driver put a pistol out his window and shot the officer in the neck. The officer made it back to his patrol car and died sitting in the driver seat. He basically drowned in his own blood.

My point is this- the Philly officers were dealing with a man that had a gun. This armed man was NOT complying with their commands. Police officers don't have the luxury of assuming that armed man won't shoot at them.

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 17:00
Second, I agree and stated so. However, I do not feel that a felony or high risk stop is appropriate for someone just walking down the street while open carrying. IMHO that is a huge over reaction and stems from the officer being ignorant of the law.

I have already stated that unless the officer can articulate some behavior, body language, etc from viper that justified the stop at gunpoint I certainly would consider his actions over the top.

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 17:06
Nope, never said anything about PTSD. I can't think of another civilian profession where members die at the hands of another. Not accountants, not OB/GYN, not pro athletes, not mail carriers. Often times these officers are murdered by someone that wasn't presenting a "immediate threat". I went to an officer's funeral that was shot during a traffic stop. The officer gave the driver a verbal warning and handed him his DL back. the driver put a pistol out his window and shot the officer in the neck. The officer made it back to his patrol car and died sitting in the driver seat. He basically drowned in his own blood.

My point is this- the Philly officers were dealing with a man that had a gun. This armed man was NOT complying with their commands. Police officers don't have the luxury of assuming that armed man won't shoot at them.

Law enforcement is a hazardous profession but not THE most hazardous... and the most common cause of a LEO death is a traffic accident.

You do realize the LEO had his gun drawn and pointed at Viper before he even yelled out "Hey JUNIOR!" and Viper turned around?

Are you saying that every encounter with a "civilian" should begin at gunpoint for the officer's safety?

RussP
04-23-2011, 17:26
You do realize the LEO had his gun drawn and pointed at Viper before he even yelled out "Hey JUNIOR!" and Viper turned around?No, I do not know that. How do you know that? Find where that was said and quote it.

kensteele
04-23-2011, 17:31
...hence the hundreds of posts over four "chapters" going round and round the mayberry pole hashing and rehashing every slight detail which it seems not all who are just now being exposed to these threads have read...

Not being sarcastic... it is a complex situation with lots of unknown variables, oddly written laws, conflicting training and directives, and a bunch of knee jerk emotional responses thrown in. Gets confusing quick.

You're right.

10,000 posts and 500 pages and we don't even know if the officer had his firearm drawn and pointed at Viper before anything was even said?

What are we even arguing about if we don't even have the basics? :dunno:

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 17:45
From this post it seems you have never been shot at...... Had you been I'd imagine your response would be a little different...

I just dont believe this. If this was the case then cops would have their guns pointed at you at every traffic stop. I know guys around here that have had cops walk up to them while they were open carrying and nicely ask if they have a carry permit for their gun. I was approached by a cop in Alt. GA. at a hotel, I had my gun on and my shirt was not covering the gun and holster. He calmly walked up and said if you dont mind can you cover your gun. I said yes and sorry its usually concealed, he said no problem and walked off without even touching his gun.

RussP
04-23-2011, 17:45
Law enforcement is a hazardous profession but not THE most hazardous... and the most common cause of a LEO death is a traffic accident.Really? Compare apples to apples, LEO deaths at the hands of another.

Using what you were comparing, gunfire to traffic accidents, here are the numbers.

Since 2003 through today, 370 LEOs died in traffic accidents, 449 died from hostile gunfire.

Where did you get your information? What do you include in "Traffic Accident"?

RussP
04-23-2011, 17:48
I just dont believe this. If this was the case then cops would have their guns pointed at you at every traffic stop. I know guys around here that have had cops walk up to them while they were open carrying and nicely ask if they have a carry permit for their gun. I was approached by a cop in Alt. GA. at a hotel, I had my gun on and my shirt was not covering the gun and holster. He calmly walked up and said if you dont mind can you cover your gun. I said yes and sorry its usually concealed, he said no problem and walked off without even touching his gun.Tennessee and Georgia are very, very different from Philadelphia.

RussP
04-23-2011, 17:49
Are you saying that every encounter with a "civilian" should begin at gunpoint for the officer's safety?Depends on the circumstances, chivvalry, totally depends on the circumstances.

tonyparson
04-23-2011, 17:50
Tennessee and Georgia are very, very different from Philadelphia.

Ya your right, wasn't think about that. :supergrin:

RussP
04-23-2011, 17:52
I have already stated that unless the officer can articulate some behavior, body language, etc from viper that justified the stop at gunpoint I certainly would consider his actions over the top.I just want to emphasize this so everyone understands this is the position some of us hold.

RussP
04-23-2011, 18:02
What does me being shot at have to do with this?A whole hell of a lot. How do you think that would change my reaction to someone who is, though armed, presenting no immediate threat and simply walking down the street?You will do whatever necessary to prevent another person from shooting at you ever again.Are you suggesting that the LEO in this incident suffers from PTSD or something?Where did you get that idea?

Now, have you ever been shot at?

sigpro357
04-23-2011, 18:28
After reading through this thread I'm perplexed. It seem like this Viper guy had a legal right to open carry in Philadelphia. He might have been a smart ass as is stated a couple of times in the thread. He might have been inviting trouble. But I don't understand how a cop can contend someone is breaking the law by open carry. If someone isn't engaged in a known crime and there is no probable cause then how could he even be stopped. Police don't just pull you over at random on the highway to ensure you have a drivers license. What's the difference here.

What I gather though is most of the police entity on this board is rather smitten and accepting of the actions of Philadelphia police. That makes bold statements in itself.

Slick371
04-23-2011, 18:39
Law enforcement is a hazardous profession but not THE most hazardous... and the most common cause of a LEO death is a traffic accident.

You do realize the LEO had his gun drawn and pointed at Viper before he even yelled out "Hey JUNIOR!" and Viper turned around?

Are you saying that every encounter with a "civilian" should begin at gunpoint for the officer's safety?

What's the most hazardous? Please don't say Crab Fishermen on the Bering Sea....

I never said every encounter needs to start at gunpoint...

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 18:40
Really? Compare apples to apples, LEO deaths at the hands of another.

Using what you were comparing, gunfire to traffic accidents, here are the numbers.

Since 2003 through today, 370 LEOs died in traffic accidents, 449 died from hostile gunfire.

Where did you get your information? What do you include in "Traffic Accident"?

Sorry, can't find the link where I read about traffic accidents being the most common cause of LEO death. IIRC it was based off an annual rate so might not have included multi year statistics.

Here is one I did find that puts LE as the #12 most hazardous job.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/the-20-most-dangerous-jobs/#

Why is it only appropriate to compare LEO deaths at the hands of another? Are we to discount all other hazards of the job?

gommer
04-23-2011, 18:42
From this post it seems you have never been shot at...... Had you been I'd imagine your response would be a little different...

I've been shot at. I'd wager you'll find thousands of non-Leo vets on this board who have been shot at, shot, or otherwise.

You've pushed out there that you're le, now you insinuate you've been shot at. I just don't understand what this has to do with this thread. Are you saying your position as le that's been shot at gives you a unique perspective on this topic?

I guess I am struggling to understand what you are trying to communicate. I blame it on the iPhone, darn tiny screen!

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 18:44
No, I do not know that. How do you know that? Find where that was said and quote it.

OK... Just playing devils advocate.. (narrative of the first :15 of the audio)

:00-:05 -- No audio
:06 Officer: "Hey Junior (muffled.. but I think he said what are you doing)"
:08 Viper: "Junior?"
:10 Officer: "Come on, lemme see your hands"
:11 Viper: "Excuse me, why are you pointing your gun at me Officer" (repeats couple times)
:14 Officer: (radios for backup)

and we know the rest. I'm not 100% sure, but if he didn't have his gun drawn on Viper before confronting him, he had it drawn VERY early in the confrontation... So either before the Officer confronted Viper, or within 4-5sec of the confrontation beginning.. the Officer had his gun drawn on Viper.

IGF

chivvalry
04-23-2011, 18:46
A whole hell of a lot. You will do whatever necessary to prevent another person from shooting at you ever again.Where did you get that idea?

Now, have you ever been shot at?

If your mental state is that you "will do whatever is necessary" then you should hang up your shield and go home. "Whatever is necessary" is likely to include abuse of power and violation of civil rights.

No, I have not been shot at. And I'm betting that neither have the majority of LEOs. Do you have statistics that show the percentage of LEOs that in their career have actually been shot at?

debbert
04-23-2011, 18:52
Really? Compare apples to apples, LEO deaths at the hands of another.

Using what you were comparing, gunfire to traffic accidents, here are the numbers.

Since 2003 through today, 370 LEOs died in traffic accidents, 449 died from hostile gunfire.

Where did you get your information? What do you include in "Traffic Accident"?

Russ,

If you don't mind my asking, how many of those 449 hostile gunfire incidents were performed by a permit holder?

Dragoon44
04-23-2011, 18:52
What I gather though is most of the police entity on this board is rather smitten and accepting of the actions of Philadelphia police. That makes bold statements in itself.

That statement says more about your reading comprehension or lack thereof than it does about what the LEO's on this board have actually said.

Recognizing that Philly's status as a "City of the first class" under state statute does not indicate approval of same.

Recognizing the FACT that Philly using it's status as a "city of the first class" where OC is ILLEGAL without a LTCH (Unlike the rest of PA where OC is perfectly legal without a LTCH) and mandated that officers will stop, detain, disarm, ALL OC'ers until it is determined whether or not they are violating the law by OC'ing without a LTCH. Again does not indicate approval of Philly's stance or PPD's standing orders.

RussP
04-23-2011, 18:56
Here is one I did find that puts LE as the #12 most hazardous job.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/the-20-most-dangerous-jobs/#No disrespect to jobs 1-11, but when you're engaged in doing the job, you want to minimize the risk of being killed no matter whether you're #1 or #100.Why is it only appropriate to compare LEO deaths at the hands of another? Are we to discount all other hazards of the job?Simple, the thread is about an encounter with a person armed with a firearm and the actions taken by an officer while engaging that armed individual.

RussP
04-23-2011, 19:01
OK... Just playing devils advocate.. (narrative of the first :15 of the audio)

:00-:05 -- No audio
:06 Officer: "Hey Junior (muffled.. but I think he said what are you doing)"
:08 Viper: "Junior?"
:10 Officer: "Come on, lemme see your hands"
:11 Viper: "Excuse me, why are you pointing your gun at me Officer" (repeats couple times)
:14 Officer: (radios for backup)

and we know the rest. I'm not 100% sure, but if he didn't have his gun drawn on Viper before confronting him, he had it drawn VERY early in the confrontation... So either before the Officer confronted Viper, or within 4-5sec of the confrontation beginning.. the Officer had his gun drawn on Viper.

IGFIn one of the previous threads it was asked whether Sgt. Dougherty was initially holding his pistol at low ready or off angle when he addressed Viper. It's just anotehr fact not known.

RussP
04-23-2011, 19:03
Russ,

If you don't mind my asking, how many of those 449 hostile gunfire incidents were performed by a permit holder?None that I remember. Why do you ask?

RussP
04-23-2011, 19:14
If your mental state is that you "will do whatever is necessary" then you should hang up your shield and go home. "Whatever is necessary" is likely to include abuse of power and violation of civil rights.Why do you say it "is likely to include abuse of power and violation of civil rights"? You did not disappointment me with your response. See, I deliberately left out "and allowed by law."No, I have not been shot at. And I'm betting that neither have the majority of LEOs. Do you have statistics that show the percentage of LEOs that in their career have actually been shot at?It isn't just being personally shot at, chivvalry. It's...You know, no matter what I say to explain it to you, it'll not change your mindset. Get to know some cops really well. Spend lots of time talking with them. Maybe, if they let you in, they might explain it to you.

Slick371
04-23-2011, 19:19
I'm certainly not "smitten" with the police in Philly. Now, Sara Evans is a different story :whistling:.

I'm not saying the Philly police were correct in their handling of this situation. I wasn't there and the tape recording doesn't provide any details into what happened 5 minutes before the encounter. The point I'm trying to make is:

1. I understand why they may have drawn their weapons on Viper
2. Don't come on here and post "Cops should have done this or that" when you have never been in that situation before.
3. Don't compare being a LEO (where people shoot at you) to being a Crab Fisherman where you fall over board or have your fishing boat sink on you. One of these is HOMICIDE and the other is a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.

I live in TN now but I'm originally from FL and was a LEO there. I started as a Deputy in the Panhandle and then went on to be an Inv with the state. My experience in law enforcement is different than an officer in NYC or Philly. The worlds are far different. That doesn't make my experience mean moreor less than theirs.

As a LEO in the South I bet I'm more use to encountering people with guns than an officer in Philly. I may have not gotten as excited as they did but I'm not going to judge them either...

debbert
04-23-2011, 19:20
None that I remember. Why do you ask?

Just trying to validate the fact that permit holders are not the bad guys.

It seems that some Philly police are jumpy about legally-armed citizens with holstered weapons, whom aren't displaying any outward intent to harm others.

This citizen made it clear that he was a permit holder within the first 30 seconds of the detainment.

Aside from the fact that he was legally within his rights (due to his LTCF, which he agreed to produce), and the fact that he was not waving his firearm about or threatening anybody with it, even when he had a weapon pointed at him, shows that the actions by the police were a bit over the top and unwarranted.

I listened to the audio again, just now, and while not cooperative initially, Viper was extremely polite given what he was up against at the time.

RussP
04-23-2011, 19:26
What I gather though is most of the police entity on this board is rather smitten and accepting of the actions of Philadelphia police. That makes bold statements in itself.I guess you missed this...I have already stated that unless the officer can articulate some behavior, body language, etc from viper that justified the stop at gunpoint I certainly would consider his actions over the top.I just want to emphasize this so everyone understands this is the position some of us hold.I the over 2,000 posts about this in four threads, I do not recall any that would indicate someone is smitten and accepting of how PPD handled this.

What is being said is that we have only heard Viper's side through the audio recording and his commentary. There has been nothing from Sgt. Dougherty. There is no video. If not before, the "Rest of the Story" will be told in depositions and at trial.

debbert
04-23-2011, 19:31
I guess you missed this...I the over 2,000 posts about this in four threads, I do not recall any that would indicate someone is smitten and accepting of how PPD handled this.

What is being said is that we have only heard Viper's side through the audio recording and his commentary. There has been nothing from Sgt. Dougherty. There is no video. If not before, the "Rest of the Story" will be told in depositions and at trial.

Apologies. I did see those posts but apparently I misread them.

Carry on.

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2011, 19:32
In one of the previous threads it was asked whether Sgt. Dougherty was initially holding his pistol at low ready or off angle when he addressed Viper. It's just anotehr fact not known.

To me.. that would seem appropriate.

Also, something I kinda picked up on while listening to the video again, was Vipers tone (apparently not very pleased) with being called Junior. He sounded pretty ticked off about it... So now you've got a guy who's open carrying, being confronted by a police officer.. (with his gun either pointed at him, or at low ready).. who's clearly agitated at being called "Junior"... Yeah, not the most respectful term the Officer could have used, but he certainly could have called him a whole lot worse.

Plenty of blame all the way around in this incident.. Also, why did PAFOA decline to help Viper? I know someone said earlier it was mentioned why, but I can't find their reasoning.

IGF

Bruce M
04-23-2011, 19:33
Tennessee and Georgia are very, very different from Philadelphia.


Thanks. I know this is a bit of topic, but open carry is more accepted some places than others. Driving a combine down the road raises concern some places, but not others, and may elicit a very different police response some places than others. As does open carry.

Patchman
04-23-2011, 19:37
How many CCWers have ever had to face a guy carrying a rifle? And the CCW couldn't say "feet do your thing" and scaddadle away?

RussP
04-23-2011, 19:37
Just trying to validate the fact that permit holders are not the bad guys.Ahhh, that's not 100% correct, but we are not going to get into that in this thread. It seems that some Philly police are jumpy about legally-armed citizens with holstered weapons, whom aren't displaying any outward intent to harm others.What leads you to say "police are jumpy?This citizen made it clear that he was a permit holder within the first 30 seconds of the detainment.As to Viper's offer to show Sgt Dougherty his LTCF, here is one of Dragoon's post on the subject....Whether or not the cop was justified in taking this guy at gunpoint or not, IF I am holding you at gunpoint and issuing instructions you are not going to show me a damn thing. First because to an officer it smacks of an attempt at distraction, second I am NOT going to allow yo to retrieve anything form your wallet. Doing so means your hands are moving towards your waist where the gun is. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN....Aside from the fact that he was legally within his rights (due to his LTCF, which he agreed to produce), and the fact that he was not waving his firearm about or threatening anybody with it, even when he had a weapon pointed at him, shows that the actions by the police were a bit over the top and unwarranted.

I listened to the audio again, just now, and while not cooperative initially, Viper was extremely polite given what he was up against at the time.Viper's initial response set the tone for the encounter. The "extremely polite" came a little late.

Slick371
04-23-2011, 19:40
Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit
holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the
suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three
law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf