^check my edit. that just seems like bad news bears to me. the edit eplains why. personally i dont give a fuck, but its in your best interest not to, even if youre allowed to. a FF with a gun, youll be laughed out of court if you use, seemingly good shot or not. were not cops let them do their job and well do ours. not trying to sound snide just couldnt think of another way to explain that.
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
^check my edit. that just seems like bad news bears to me. the edit eplains why. personally i dont give a fuck, but its in your best interest not to, even if youre allowed to. a FF with a gun, youll be laughed out of court if you use, seemingly good shot or not. were not cops let them do their job and well do ours. not trying to sound snide just couldnt think of another way to explain that. [/quote]
What if you are the only one to respond to an accedent call and you get there and some dude is beating the crap out of a woman who cut him off?
I’m not talking about enforcing the law, I’m only talking about protection. And I don’t know that I ever would, but I’d still like to have the permit.
Edit:
Just to be clear, this isn’t like a city where there are people around all the time and cops are a minute or 2 away.
There are a lot of dark country roads and a lot of farm land with sparse housing. And a lot of guys don’t get up for 3am calls unless it’s a fire. Hell, even then it can end up being just a couple of people.
Whats worse is that a lot of the time its some drunken red necks lighting hay bails on fire for fun.
There are a lot of situations where you can be essentially alone and in an unsafe situation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
^check my edit. that just seems like bad news bears to me. the edit eplains why. personally i dont give a fuck, but its in your best interest not to, even if youre allowed to. a FF with a gun, youll be laughed out of court if you use, seemingly good shot or not. were not cops let them do their job and well do ours. not trying to sound snide just couldnt think of another way to explain that. [/quote]
What if you are the only one to respond to an accedent call and you get there and some dude is beating the crap out of a woman who cut him off?
I’m not talking about enforcing the law, I’m only talking about protection. And I don’t know that I ever would, but I’d still like to have the permit.[/quote]
TBH in a case like that if the police arent there before you, theres a major problem with their response times and i would be worried about everyones safety in that case. also you show up with an ambo and an engine lets say, minimum of 5 people assuming you need at least 3 to put the engine up and obviously and ambo needs 2, that makes 5 on 1 feel free to jump the guy. otherwise you wait for cops and verbally distract him. thats how it should go down, now is that the real life actions no, but you still shouldnt be pulling a gun.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
[/quote]
Are cops the only people shot in Philly?
Isn’t the fact that its a violent area even more of a justification for the guy to have the right to carry?
Why do only cops get to be openly armed? They are both in the same apparently violent city, does the cop have more right to defend himself than a non-cop? If so, why?[/quote]
No, and that’s not what I said.
Yes, but, again, cops aren’t going to take any chances with anyone who is carrying, for reasons already stated.
The last part of your post has nothing to do with what I said.
This has a little bit of info on Philly’s crime rate.
http://www.phillycrime.org/category/crime-statistics/[/quote]
So, if there is an area with a lot of speeding, cops can start pulling over all the sports cars even when they are obeying the speed limit?
And what I posted has everything to do with what you were talking about. I’m saying that carrying is a right. If a gun can be arbitrarily taken and having it can get you detained, than it isn’t, by definition, a right. Either it is a right, and the officer violated that right and is in the wrong, or it isn’t a right at all. The 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Technically, no… but they can and have in Philly. They will bust your balls to keep people in line. You don’t fuck with Philly cops. It’s been like that since I can remember (70’s) when Frank Rizzo was mayor.
The way things SHOULD be, are different from the way they actually ARE.
Again, while I don’t condone with what the cops did, I can understand it to a certain degree.
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
^check my edit. that just seems like bad news bears to me. the edit eplains why. personally i dont give a fuck, but its in your best interest not to, even if youre allowed to. a FF with a gun, youll be laughed out of court if you use, seemingly good shot or not. were not cops let them do their job and well do ours. not trying to sound snide just couldnt think of another way to explain that. [/quote]
What if you are the only one to respond to an accedent call and you get there and some dude is beating the crap out of a woman who cut him off?
I’m not talking about enforcing the law, I’m only talking about protection. And I don’t know that I ever would, but I’d still like to have the permit.[/quote]
TBH in a case like that if the police arent there before you, theres a major problem with their response times and i would be worried about everyones safety in that case. also you show up with an ambo and an engine lets say, minimum of 5 people assuming you need at least 3 to put the engine up and obviously and ambo needs 2, that makes 5 on 1 feel free to jump the guy. otherwise you wait for cops and verbally distract him. thats how it should go down, now is that the real life actions no, but you still shouldnt be pulling a gun. [/quote]
Sorry, I did edit that post above.
And yes, police response sucks in the area, ours is better. I actually don’t even think I’ve seen a cop car in town (there is no local police department)
I just don’t feel safe going out in the middle of the night to some traffic free road where there is some sort of a situation and might be miles away from any houses or other people.
if theres no PD in the town i guess that changes the circumstances. they might as well send you guys to the police academy too just so everyones covered given certain situations. Im just saying make sure for a fact you can carry legally while responding as a FF. Even if you can carry legally as a civilian the work place may have different rules.
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
if theres no PD in the town i guess that changes the circumstances. they might as well send you guys to the police academy too just so everyones covered given certain situations. Im just saying make sure for a fact you can carry legally while responding as a FF. Even if you can carry legally as a civilian the work place may have different rules. [/quote]
I know one of the guys does, but yes, I would get everything checked out before I ever did it.
[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. I was being hyperbolic as a shot against your own ridiculous argument. Or did you miss “see what I did there Rosa”?
Anyway, he’s no more restricting his rights than the officer that pulls your over for a traffic stop is restricting your rights. He checks your license, registrations and insurance and you’re on your way assuming you haven’t violated the law. In this case, dickhead complies, shows his credentials and they straighten out the ignorance of the officer and he’s on his way.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
Even if the violation of your rights is a physical beating and threat of death? You don’t think that it ever right to physically resist the police ever?
You have the right to physically resist any person doing something illegal to you. Why would that change if the person attempting to violate your rights has a badge?
Is it suspicious to be a black guy in a white neighborhood? Cops simply do not have that right. They are there to uphold the law, they aren’t the law.
If a cop asked you to pull down your pants and bend over, you’d let him butt rape you, then pursue recourse later?
Squeal like a pig for me.[/quote]
I’m smart enough to know your style and I’m not getting dragged into this pissing contest with you, because you’ll just continue to move the goal post like you did above and it’s just going to be ridiculous. I’ve never seen you concede a point where you were wrong…only squirm “like a pig”.
The fact is it is generally illegal to resist even an unlawful arrest. Did you look it up? No. You just came back here with ridiculous rhetorical questions because…that’s what you do when you’re cornered.
Let me know when you fight the police big shot. Post the link and record it. Good luck with that. As for your other ridiculous argument about white in black neighborhood or whatever, Philadelphia has had something called “stop and frisk” for years now. Yeah, it’s been challenged, but it’s “legal” so far. You live in Tennessee. You’re hardly acquainted with life here. Carrying a gun is a right in PA, but it also comes with responsibility - including COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
GET A CLUE.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I don’t know how else you would treat a guy walking around like a gunslinger other than as dangerous. Are there other places in the US where it is legal and normal for a person to walk down the street open carrying?
[/quote]
You mean like cops?
And yes, I know 4 or 5 that do.
I’m getting my carry permit so I can carry on fire calls.[/quote]
4 or 5 places or people?
Fire calls, like fire fighting?
[/quote]
People and yes.[/quote]
Again, Tennessee is not Philly.[/quote]
But a right is a right.[/quote]
True. But, that’s not really the point.
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
Niether the cops or the guy carrying were 100% right in this case.
[/quote]
I wonder how many of these “ever so common Philadephia gun crimes” are committed by citizens walking around in open carry? I would bet not very many. In fact I would bet 99.9% of the time the gun is concealed.
[quote]Tyrant wrote:
Bodyguard, you really have no idea what you’re talking about here. By your logic, it’s a girl fault for being raped because she dressed like a slut.
Just because something isn’t the norm doesn’t mean it isn’t suspicious, had he noticed the cop, and immediately started walking away in a hurry or running, then it’s suspicious. Now, had the officer calmly asked to see his LTCF and unsnapped his holster with his hand on the gun and the man didn’t comply, drawing it would be a smart thing to do. But that isn’t what happened, he caught the guy off guard, and already had the weapon leveled at him.
Just because the city is a shithole doesn’t give officers the right to supersede the law, if they are that afraid of confrontation and losing their life, they shouldn’t be a cop, or shouldn’t be in philly. Hell, from your point of view, the cops would be “right” if they patted down everyone they ran across to check for a firearm, then detain them until they showed their LTCF. [/quote]
Wrong. That’s YOUR logic and it’s a fallacious exaggeration of my point.
He has an obligation to cooperate with LEO while armed. Period. He didn’t.
And…
"§ 6122. Proof of license and exception.
-
General rule. – When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.
-
Exception. – An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception. "
I assure you the officer’s demand was not unlawful. He may have been misinformed, but the toolbox did not comply with the officer’s orders, which are for BOTH their safety.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. I was being hyperbolic as a shot against your own ridiculous argument. Or did you miss “see what I did there Rosa”?
Anyway, he’s no more restricting his rights than the officer that pulls your over for a traffic stop is restricting your rights. He checks your license, registrations and insurance and you’re on your way assuming you haven’t violated the law. In this case, dickhead complies, shows his credentials and they straighten out the ignorance of the officer and he’s on his way.
[/quote]
“Assuming I haven’t broken the law” then why the traffic stop. Yes, this is definetly a violation of ones rights. Or is this another one of your intentionally incorrect metaphors?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
Even if the violation of your rights is a physical beating and threat of death? You don’t think that it ever right to physically resist the police ever?
You have the right to physically resist any person doing something illegal to you. Why would that change if the person attempting to violate your rights has a badge?
Is it suspicious to be a black guy in a white neighborhood? Cops simply do not have that right. They are there to uphold the law, they aren’t the law.
If a cop asked you to pull down your pants and bend over, you’d let him butt rape you, then pursue recourse later?
Squeal like a pig for me.[/quote]
I’m smart enough to know your style and I’m not getting dragged into this pissing contest with you, because you’ll just continue to move the goal post like you did above and it’s just going to be ridiculous. I’ve never seen you concede a point where you were wrong…only squirm “like a pig”.
The fact is it is generally illegal to resist even an unlawful arrest. Did you look it up? No. You just came back here with ridiculous rhetorical questions because…that’s what you do when you’re cornered.
Let me know when you fight the police big shot. Post the link and record it. Good luck with that. As for your other ridiculous argument about white in black neighborhood or whatever, Philadelphia has had something called “stop and frisk” for years now. Yeah, it’s been challenged, but it’s “legal” so far. You live in Tennessee. You’re hardly acquainted with life here. Carrying a gun is a right in PA, but it also comes with responsibility - including COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
GET A CLUE. [/quote]
If it can be arbitrarily taken away, it isn’t a right.
And no, you do not have the duty to obey any command give you by someone with a badge.
I also never said that I would fight or refuse to obey anything. I said it’s a natural god given right. It’s a right to burn the flag, and I’d say so, doesn’t mean I’d do it.
[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I don’t know how else you would treat a guy walking around like a gunslinger other than as dangerous. Are there other places in the US where it is legal and normal for a person to walk down the street open carrying?
[/quote]
You mean like cops?
And yes, I know 4 or 5 that do.
I’m getting my carry permit so I can carry on fire calls.[/quote]
4 or 5 places or people?
Fire calls, like fire fighting?
[/quote]
People and yes.[/quote]
Again, Tennessee is not Philly.[/quote]
But a right is a right.[/quote]
True. But, that’s not really the point.
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
Niether the cops or the guy carrying were 100% right in this case.
[/quote]
I wonder how many of these “ever so common Philadephia gun crimes” are committed by citizens walking around in open carry? I would bet not very many. In fact I would bet 99.9% of the time the gun is concealed.
[/quote]
Probably true.
I sure as shit wouldn’t have it in open view in Philly, even though I COULD by law.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
[/quote]
Are cops the only people shot in Philly?
Isn’t the fact that its a violent area even more of a justification for the guy to have the right to carry?
Why do only cops get to be openly armed? They are both in the same apparently violent city, does the cop have more right to defend himself than a non-cop? If so, why?[/quote]\
You’re being ridiculous as usual.
To answer your questions, we have had more cops killed in the line of duty in the last few years than you might expect coming from TN. But that’s not the point is it? PA is a carry State. The right is there, and it is practiced and in fact, ABUSED with the Florida licensing loop hole. Did you know that? It’s a problem in Philly. To continue, lawful or not, open carry is NOT the custom in Philadelphia. It’s absolutely provocative and suspicious.
Your second question is a non-starter. You have the right to carry in PA. It’s the way he carried that was at issue and caused suspicion. I dare say the good citizens of Philadelphia would WANT anyone openly carrying to be checked out.
Your third question is more of your nonsense. It IS legal to open carry. So cops do not “have more of a right”.
The bottom fucking line is that this dickhead had an obligation under the LAW to cooperate. Stopping him to check was NOT unlawful. They did NOT arrest him. They did NOT confiscate his gun. They detained him, in part, because of HIS non-compliance and because of the officer’s ignorance of the law. The officer’s ignorance of the law itself probably had little to do with the stop itself, because you are almost guaranteed to be questioned if you open carry in the City and this is lawful! And, the officer’s ignorance of the law does not exactly rise to the level of infringing on the dickhead’s rights, as you have alleged. Your arguments are specious and disingenuous. And you can’t possibly hate LEO more than me…I can’t believe you’re making me defend them, but this dickhead was wrong wrong wrong.
BG’s ninja posts are now showing up…
Edit: BG has this wrapped up … IH OUT!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
[/quote]
Are cops the only people shot in Philly?
Isn’t the fact that its a violent area even more of a justification for the guy to have the right to carry?
Why do only cops get to be openly armed? They are both in the same apparently violent city, does the cop have more right to defend himself than a non-cop? If so, why?[/quote]
No, and that’s not what I said.
Yes, but, again, cops aren’t going to take any chances with anyone who is carrying, for reasons already stated.
The last part of your post has nothing to do with what I said.
This has a little bit of info on Philly’s crime rate.
http://www.phillycrime.org/category/crime-statistics/[/quote]
So, if there is an area with a lot of speeding, cops can start pulling over all the sports cars even when they are obeying the speed limit?
And what I posted has everything to do with what you were talking about. I’m saying that carrying is a right. If a gun can be arbitrarily taken and having it can get you detained, than it isn’t, by definition, a right. Either it is a right, and the officer violated that right and is in the wrong, or it isn’t a right at all. The 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
More fallacious arguments from you.
Now, you’re comparing traffic law to gun law. Brilliant!
Your right to carry IS a right, but comes with obligations - like cooperation with LEO. Again…
http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6108
§ 6122. Proof of license and exception.
- General rule. – When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.
- Exception. – An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception.
The officer’s request was not unlawful. The dickhead’s gun was NOT taken.
To carry is a right subject to your compliance with the LAW.
[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Ivan Putski wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. I was being hyperbolic as a shot against your own ridiculous argument. Or did you miss “see what I did there Rosa”?
Anyway, he’s no more restricting his rights than the officer that pulls your over for a traffic stop is restricting your rights. He checks your license, registrations and insurance and you’re on your way assuming you haven’t violated the law. In this case, dickhead complies, shows his credentials and they straighten out the ignorance of the officer and he’s on his way.
[/quote]
“Assuming I haven’t broken the law” then why the traffic stop. Yes, this is definetly a violation of ones rights. Or is this another one of your intentionally incorrect metaphors?[/quote]
If you’re going to debate me, can you at least educate yourself as to the law? You DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to drive. It is a privilege and it can be taken away summarily. And, it wasn’t a METAPHOR, IT WAS AN ANALOGY. Yes, you can be pulled over for a traffic stop for no other reason other than to check your credentials. It’s the basis behind checkpoints, which have continually held up to legal challenge.
Are you actually arguing that it is unreasonable for LEO to ask someone for their carry permit if he notices a firearm being carried in public - particularly in an area where it isn’t the custom and where gun crime is high=? If you are, I do not want to be your fucking neighbor.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
Even if the violation of your rights is a physical beating and threat of death? You don’t think that it ever right to physically resist the police ever?
You have the right to physically resist any person doing something illegal to you. Why would that change if the person attempting to violate your rights has a badge?
Is it suspicious to be a black guy in a white neighborhood? Cops simply do not have that right. They are there to uphold the law, they aren’t the law.
If a cop asked you to pull down your pants and bend over, you’d let him butt rape you, then pursue recourse later?
Squeal like a pig for me.[/quote]
I’m smart enough to know your style and I’m not getting dragged into this pissing contest with you, because you’ll just continue to move the goal post like you did above and it’s just going to be ridiculous. I’ve never seen you concede a point where you were wrong…only squirm “like a pig”.
The fact is it is generally illegal to resist even an unlawful arrest. Did you look it up? No. You just came back here with ridiculous rhetorical questions because…that’s what you do when you’re cornered.
Let me know when you fight the police big shot. Post the link and record it. Good luck with that. As for your other ridiculous argument about white in black neighborhood or whatever, Philadelphia has had something called “stop and frisk” for years now. Yeah, it’s been challenged, but it’s “legal” so far. You live in Tennessee. You’re hardly acquainted with life here. Carrying a gun is a right in PA, but it also comes with responsibility - including COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
GET A CLUE. [/quote]
If it can be arbitrarily taken away, it isn’t a right.
And no, you do not have the duty to obey any command give you by someone with a badge.
I also never said that I would fight or refuse to obey anything. I said it’s a natural god given right. It’s a right to burn the flag, and I’d say so, doesn’t mean I’d do it.[/quote]
Again, and for the last time, it is generally against the law to even resist and unlawful arrest. I don’t care whether you like it or agree with it, I’m reciting the law for you. Go complain to City Hall if you don’t like it.
And I know you didn’t say you would fight the cops. You just come here and make up imaginary exaggerated examples rather than concede some very simple facts of the law. We are not discussing whether we like or agree with the law.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The fact that both people and cops are shot a little frequently, the cops are going to be a little more cautious with someone who is carrying. Not to mention, openly.
[/quote]
Are cops the only people shot in Philly?
Isn’t the fact that its a violent area even more of a justification for the guy to have the right to carry?
Why do only cops get to be openly armed? They are both in the same apparently violent city, does the cop have more right to defend himself than a non-cop? If so, why?[/quote]
No, and that’s not what I said.
Yes, but, again, cops aren’t going to take any chances with anyone who is carrying, for reasons already stated.
The last part of your post has nothing to do with what I said.
This has a little bit of info on Philly’s crime rate.
http://www.phillycrime.org/category/crime-statistics/[/quote]
So, if there is an area with a lot of speeding, cops can start pulling over all the sports cars even when they are obeying the speed limit?
And what I posted has everything to do with what you were talking about. I’m saying that carrying is a right. If a gun can be arbitrarily taken and having it can get you detained, than it isn’t, by definition, a right. Either it is a right, and the officer violated that right and is in the wrong, or it isn’t a right at all. The 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
More fallacious arguments from you.
Now, you’re comparing traffic law to gun law. Brilliant!
Your right to carry IS a right, but comes with obligations - like cooperation with LEO. Again…
http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6108
�§ 6122. Proof of license and exception.
- General rule. – When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.
- Exception. – An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception.
The officer’s request was not unlawful. The dickhead’s gun was NOT taken.
To carry is a right subject to your compliance with the LAW.
[/quote]
Did you miss the part where he offered a license? It was at the beginning, before one was ever even requested.
The cop pulled a gun on the guy for simply having a gun. Threatening to kill someone if they move is not in any way reasonable.
You are claiming that the appropriate response to seeing a person legally carrying is to pull your gun on them and demand they get on the ground and threaten to kill them if they move?
You can’t be serious. You can’t pull a gun on someone for doing something they have the right to do.