Philadelphia Open Carry

If open carry is permissible and then guy carrying was not doing anything else unlawful, how is the officer’s request reasonable? Under what circumstances would a request not be reasonable?

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

So you are saying it is legally right to assume guilt of a crime when there is no evidence of one?

It doesn’t matter what the officer thinks. The officer can think whatever he wants, he can’t disobey the law and take away a person’s rights.

It isn’t against the law to be a duchebag.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

After he failed to comply with an order from LEO. If you believe an order from LEO is unlawful, your time to fight that is in Court - not in public. In some neighborhoods, he might have been shot. The NRA would have been great help then. Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

And when that trouble maker Rosa Parks was told by that nice bus driver and later the police to give up her seat to white riders she should have just listened to them and later gone down to the court house to complain, cause that works really well? Without being arrested he does not have damages to bring a complaint. Yes, his tone is arguementative and he sounds like a dick but LE needs to be better than those they are supposed to protect, and this officer was clearly not treating the accused with the same respect. How often do you use the f word at your place of work, when dealing with the public.

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

He drew on him because the guy was obviously armed. I’m not an expert on force continuums but I’m fairly certain that a “suspect” with a gun (holstered or not) warrants drawing your weapon.

The kid should have complied. It would have been over in 5 min. But he obviously wanted a mess and got one for his efforts.

I’m with BG. I don’t like cops at all, but the kid is the asshole here.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

So you are saying it is legally right to assume guilt of a crime when there is no evidence of one?

It doesn’t matter what the officer thinks. The officer can think whatever he wants, he can’t disobey the law and take away a person’s rights.

It isn’t against the law to be a duchebag.[/quote]

So how are cops supposed to deal with armed people they are suspicious of when the officer is alone? I don’t live in a place where we can open carry or conceal carry(if that’s a thing), and really have no idea what the law is as far as this is concerned. It seems like a dangerous situation for a cop to approach an armed person.

[quote]Dijon wrote:
If open carry is permissible and then guy carrying was not doing anything else unlawful, how is the officer’s request reasonable? Under what circumstances would a request not be reasonable?[/quote]

It’s reasonable bc open carry in Philadelphia is NOT the norm. It just isn’t, and there is no arguing it. Fuck, I’ve lived around here all my life, am pretty familiar with the gun laws and their anti-gun position in the City and I had no fucking clue you could open carry - none. It’s just not common.

That the officer’s request was “reasonable” or not is not really the point. The time to argue the reasonableness or lawfulness of a LEO order is later in court. The officer will simply testify here that he was concerned for his safety (he was, you can hear it when he’s talking) and that this toolbox adamantly refused to comply until fucking back up arrived. Stupid stupid stupid. This armed dickhead was trying to bait the police. It’s no more complicated than that.

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

So how are cops supposed to deal with armed people they are suspicious of when the officer is alone? I don’t live in a place where we can open carry or conceal carry(if that’s a thing), and really have no idea what the law is as far as this is concerned. It seems like a dangerous situation for a cop to approach an armed person.
[/quote]

Like the law abiding citizens with clean records that they are?

How am I supposed to deal with a guy with a badge a gun and a power trip when I’m alone?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

So you are saying it is legally right to assume guilt of a crime when there is no evidence of one?

It doesn’t matter what the officer thinks. The officer can think whatever he wants, he can’t disobey the law and take away a person’s rights.

It isn’t against the law to be a duchebag.[/quote]

I think you’re wrong. He didn’t take away his rights and the officer is perfectly within his legal bounds to make sure this guy is legal. Do you think they need a reason to pull you over while you’re driving? Because they don’t. They can pull you over simply to check your registration. By requesting his permit, he’s not taking away his rights. By giving him an order that ensures the officer’s safety (AND HIS BY THE WAY), he’s not taking away any rights.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

So how are cops supposed to deal with armed people they are suspicious of when the officer is alone? I don’t live in a place where we can open carry or conceal carry(if that’s a thing), and really have no idea what the law is as far as this is concerned. It seems like a dangerous situation for a cop to approach an armed person.
[/quote]

Like the law abiding citizens with clean records that they are?

How am I supposed to deal with a guy with a badge a gun and a power trip when I’m alone?[/quote]

Um okay, thanks for not answering my question.lol

[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

After he failed to comply with an order from LEO. If you believe an order from LEO is unlawful, your time to fight that is in Court - not in public. In some neighborhoods, he might have been shot. The NRA would have been great help then. Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

And when that trouble maker Rosa Parks was told by that nice bus driver and later the police to give up her seat to white riders she should have just listened to them and later gone down to the court house to complain, cause that works really well? Without being arrested he does not have damages to bring a complaint. Yes, his tone is arguementative and he sounds like a dick but LE needs to be better than those they are supposed to protect, and this officer was clearly not treating the accused with the same respect. How often do you use the f word at your place of work, when dealing with the public.[/quote]

So he’s a modern day Rosa Parks eh? These forums are priceless. That’s not only fallacious, it’s hyperbolic. Damages? He wasn’t arrested. He was detained. He has minimal damages and now he’s been charged himself. If he complied, he’s on his way with minimal interference. Should he have been interfered with at all? I don’t think you can reasonable answer that question unless you live around the gun violence in Philadelphia.

We can argue the merits of his being detained all day long. But one thing is clear, once he was given an order, he was a fucking stupid ass for his non-compliance and it could have ended very badly.

Were the cops unprofessional? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. But those cops are also working in a City with epic gun violence where it’s not uncommon for criminals to fire upon the police. They were clearly alarmed. Do you think when Navy Seal Team 6 stormed Bin Laden’s complex that they were barking orders in the King’s English? See what I did there Rosa?

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

So how are cops supposed to deal with armed people they are suspicious of when the officer is alone? I don’t live in a place where we can open carry or conceal carry(if that’s a thing), and really have no idea what the law is as far as this is concerned. It seems like a dangerous situation for a cop to approach an armed person.
[/quote]

Like the law abiding citizens with clean records that they are?

How am I supposed to deal with a guy with a badge a gun and a power trip when I’m alone?[/quote]

Um okay, thanks for not answering my question.lol[/quote]

I did answer it.

The question is more, why are they suspicious. If they have no indication any sort of crime has been committed, they can’t do shit (or shouldn’t be able to).

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

So how are cops supposed to deal with armed people they are suspicious of when the officer is alone? I don’t live in a place where we can open carry or conceal carry(if that’s a thing), and really have no idea what the law is as far as this is concerned. It seems like a dangerous situation for a cop to approach an armed person.
[/quote]

Like the law abiding citizens with clean records that they are?

How am I supposed to deal with a guy with a badge a gun and a power trip when I’m alone?[/quote]

Um okay, thanks for not answering my question.lol[/quote]

I did answer it.

The question is more, why are they suspicious. If they have no indication any sort of crime has been committed, they can’t do shit (or shouldn’t be able to).[/quote]

Well here’s the part that doesn’t translate from Philadelphia to Tennessee. It IS SUSPICIOUS for someone to be casually walking about that area, in Philadelphia (actually anywhere within the City), with an open holstered gun. And the only person on the power trip was the guy trying to bait the cop. We can criticize the cop for not knowing the law. Fair enough. We can criticize his language. I’m not in the habit of defending LEO. But what you can’t criticize is that the cop was genuinely concerned for his safety as evidenced by his calling back-up. Trust me, if he wasn’t concerned, he’d have commenced whipping his ass right after he called for back-up.

Now let me answer your rhetorical question. How do you deal with a cop on a power trip when you’re alone? You shut the fuck up and omply and exercise your legal rights and remedies thereafter. Does this mean I support abuse of power? Fuck no. But it’s reality. You do not have the right to resist even an illegal or unlawful arrest. Don’t believe me? Look it up.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

After he failed to comply with an order from LEO. If you believe an order from LEO is unlawful, your time to fight that is in Court - not in public. In some neighborhoods, he might have been shot. The NRA would have been great help then. Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

I agree he broke the law by not complying, but the officer was way over the line. I do believe he was looking for trouble also.

Legally carrying a weapon is not a crime and thats what drew the suspicion.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tyrant wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I got 5 minutes into this thing and let me start by saying I generally fucking hate LEO. However, this guy was looking for trouble and he found it. He knows good and fucking well you don’t fuck with City police and he’s carrying a gun openly which is somewhat unusual. Most carry concealed in the City. All this toolbox needed to do was to comply and the whole thing goes very differently. He might have ultimately been in the right from a technical legal perspective, but when you’re given a LEGAL order by LEO, you fucking comply. Yes, I said LEGAL. His right to carry notwithstanding, the cop was reasonable to check out his permits and such. And the cop obviously felt safer if the guy was prone. He’s immediately being non-compliant and giving the cop a hard time which only escalates the situation. The dude is a fucking tool box.

And Philly ignores carry permits all the time and confiscates firearms. This I don’t agree with obviously, but they get sued and pay the price…in thousands of dollars at a time. This guy aint becoming a millionaire.

He’s lucky they didn’t whip his ass. Not saying it’s right, but a toolbox like this looking for trouble? I wouldn’t feel sorry for him.[/quote]

lol, this isn’t the first time it’s happened to him, and it appears as though he’s filing criminal and civil charges on all three accounts. Furthermore, the police in Philly have been instructed that they aren’t supposed to detain or even check to see if someone has a permit to carry unless there is reasonable suspicion that the OC’r has committed a crime.

All this comes down to is some stupid fuck cops not knowing the laws in their district, not a single one of them should be employed by the PPD or free, as in, they SHOULD be in jail.

That wasn’t a LEGAL order, it was a dumbass cop and the rest of the blue mafia illegally detaining and illegally imprisoning someone exercising their rights, LEGALLY.
[/quote]

Most people in PA carry concealed. It’s RARE to see someone that isn’t LEO open carry and it’s rarer still to see it in the City. I don’t care what directive you referenced, once the cop decides to check, you’re wise to comply. Again, he’s lucky this didn’t end in disaster. And frankly, he sounds like the last dickhead in the world that needs to be walking around with a gun. There is no doubt in my mind that he carries openly to be provocative. I think the order given to him was legal. He has now been charged. Let’s say we follow the disposition of the charges against him.

I can’t believe I’m defending LEO.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that his open carry is provocative but its the way in which the officer decided to check that bothers me. Get down in the dirt scumbag (paraphrasing).

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

After he failed to comply with an order from LEO. If you believe an order from LEO is unlawful, your time to fight that is in Court - not in public. In some neighborhoods, he might have been shot. The NRA would have been great help then. Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

And when that trouble maker Rosa Parks was told by that nice bus driver and later the police to give up her seat to white riders she should have just listened to them and later gone down to the court house to complain, cause that works really well? Without being arrested he does not have damages to bring a complaint. Yes, his tone is arguementative and he sounds like a dick but LE needs to be better than those they are supposed to protect, and this officer was clearly not treating the accused with the same respect. How often do you use the f word at your place of work, when dealing with the public.[/quote]

So he’s a modern day Rosa Parks eh? These forums are priceless. That’s not only fallacious, it’s hyperbolic. Damages? He wasn’t arrested. He was detained. He has minimal damages and now he’s been charged himself. If he complied, he’s on his way with minimal interference. Should he have been interfered with at all? I don’t think you can reasonable answer that question unless you live around the gun violence in Philadelphia.

We can argue the merits of his being detained all day long. But one thing is clear, once he was given an order, he was a fucking stupid ass for his non-compliance and it could have ended very badly.

Were the cops unprofessional? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. But those cops are also working in a City with epic gun violence where it’s not uncommon for criminals to fire upon the police. They were clearly alarmed. Do you think when Navy Seal Team 6 stormed Bin Laden’s complex that they were barking orders in the King’s English? See what I did there Rosa?[/quote]

I think you are missing the point… this guy was looking for a legal fight, which he got. And I hope he wins, over and over again, until those dumb-fuck, trigger happy, juvenile cunts are permanently out of work.

Also, cops aren’t military as much as they want to be. You wouldn’t send Seals if you want to arrest a guy because he would end up dead.

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

I wonder how many guns you own?

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

He should assume that the guy is a law abiding citizen because its not against the law to carry openly. I have no problem with the officer confirming his legality, its the delivery that I have a problem with as should we all. This could easily BE YOU.

Many of you may not fit the profile but on a Saturday Afternoon in my jeans and hoody, I’m always the guy that just robbed that house down the road. And I conceal carry. Not a good outcome if both the officer and I are having bad days???

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

After he failed to comply with an order from LEO. If you believe an order from LEO is unlawful, your time to fight that is in Court - not in public. In some neighborhoods, he might have been shot. The NRA would have been great help then. Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

And when that trouble maker Rosa Parks was told by that nice bus driver and later the police to give up her seat to white riders she should have just listened to them and later gone down to the court house to complain, cause that works really well? Without being arrested he does not have damages to bring a complaint. Yes, his tone is arguementative and he sounds like a dick but LE needs to be better than those they are supposed to protect, and this officer was clearly not treating the accused with the same respect. How often do you use the f word at your place of work, when dealing with the public.[/quote]

So he’s a modern day Rosa Parks eh? These forums are priceless. That’s not only fallacious, it’s hyperbolic. Damages? He wasn’t arrested. He was detained. He has minimal damages and now he’s been charged himself. If he complied, he’s on his way with minimal interference. Should he have been interfered with at all? I don’t think you can reasonable answer that question unless you live around the gun violence in Philadelphia.

We can argue the merits of his being detained all day long. But one thing is clear, once he was given an order, he was a fucking stupid ass for his non-compliance and it could have ended very badly.

Were the cops unprofessional? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. But those cops are also working in a City with epic gun violence where it’s not uncommon for criminals to fire upon the police. They were clearly alarmed. Do you think when Navy Seal Team 6 stormed Bin Laden’s complex that they were barking orders in the King’s English? See what I did there Rosa?[/quote]

In a way yes, He stood up to an authority that was unjustly restricting his rights. If uneducated police are allowed to detain you for false crimes, order you to your knees and handcuff you, do you not see a similarity. So following your logic Seal Team 6=Stupid Philly Police? Seal Team 6’s job is to hunt and kill our enemy, Police’s job is to protect and serve the public. I see a bigger hyperbole in your arguement than mine.

That’s power abuse, someone needs to pay.

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:
Story:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Audio:

While I can understand setting up the police to expose corruption, this does not sound like the cop was being unreasonable. I don’t think this will help in exposing anything. [/quote]

He aimed his weapon at a law abiding citizen. How is that reasonable?[/quote]

How did he know he was a law abiding citizen? Should he just assume? If he was pulling a gun on some guy walking down the street who was not carrying a weapon, then yeah that could be seen as unreasonable, but the guy was carrying a gun. If you wouldn’t walk around with your gun exposed why would a cop not think a guy who does is trouble or crazy?
[/quote]

I wonder how many guns you own? [/quote]

Check the rest of the thread.
Also where do I live?
<-------------------