And if the cop was the trained professional, why is it the only people I heard cursing and being disrespectful were cops. Why is it the cops are the ones that didn’t know the law?
How can yall argue they get latitude for being professional when they carry themselves entirely unprofessionally and don’t even know the damn law?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[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.
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.[/quote]
You have again moved the goal post. However, finally you have gotten somewhere where you might actually have a valid point, as opposed to the other stuff you posted. What we have is a recording. That’s all. As you have written it, it doesn’t sound reasonable. As it actually occurred, I don’t know. I know at one point, the officer was telling the asshole to move his hands away from his pockets. This alone is provocative. You shouldn’t be reaching for stuff in your pockets when confronted by LEO. For crying out loud, you cannot even stand in front of a judge with your hands in your pockets.
Would you be making the same arguments if someone were stopped by one of your cop buddies and as the cop is approaching the car the driver started fishing around in his car? Guess what, cop draws his weapon. The point is, we don’t have video. The fact is though, we DO KNOW the asshole was being purposefully provocative.
We can argue all day, but one thing is clear; this officer was sufficiently concerned that he called for back-up, and they fucking raced to the scene. So let me ask you…do you think the gun owner was as innocent as you’re imagining?
I concede your valid point (see how that works) but we weren’t there for this case. I know the fucker was doing a lot of talking instead of complying. When you get your permit, try it and see how that works out for you. Guns are serious business…especially around here.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if the cop was the trained professional, why is it the only people I heard cursing and being disrespectful were cops. Why is it the cops are the ones that didn’t know the law?
How can yall argue they get latitude for being professional when they carry themselves entirely unprofessionally and don’t even know the damn law?[/quote]
The “right” to open carry is not expressly provided for in PA law. It’s more an “exception”. The kid referenced a “directive” that may clarify this in the City. It’s just not common knowledge and it’s NOT common practice in the City.
I agree they were being unprofessional. But that’s reality. I’m betting it goes much different if he complied. Period. You just had cops racing to the scene of a man with a gun that was not being compliant. You’re a “first responder” - imagine being in their shoes for a moment.
Fact is, I can empathize from just my time in nightclub security. If I ask or even tell you to do something reasonable, and you do not comply, I’m going to lose any handle on the King’s English that I previously enjoyed.
Now, are you serious though? You’re now reduced to talking about their professionalism? You’re a long way from some of your earlier postings.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[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.
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.[/quote]
You have again moved the goal post. However, finally you have gotten somewhere where you might actually have a valid point, as opposed to the other stuff you posted. What we have is a recording. That’s all. As you have written it, it doesn’t sound reasonable. As it actually occurred, I don’t know. I know at one point, the officer was telling the asshole to move his hands away from his pockets. This alone is provocative. You shouldn’t be reaching for stuff in your pockets when confronted by LEO. For crying out loud, you cannot even stand in front of a judge with your hands in your pockets.
Would you be making the same arguments if someone were stopped by one of your cop buddies and as the cop is approaching the car the driver started fishing around in his car? Guess what, cop draws his weapon. The point is, we don’t have video. The fact is though, we DO KNOW the asshole was being purposefully provocative.
We can argue all day, but one thing is clear; this officer was sufficiently concerned that he called for back-up, and they fucking raced to the scene. So let me ask you…do you think the gun owner was as innocent as you’re imagining?
I concede your valid point (see how that works) but we weren’t there for this case. I know the fucker was doing a lot of talking instead of complying. When you get your permit, try it and see how that works out for you. Guns are serious business…especially around here. [/quote]
It definitely sounded like he was being provocative. I already said, I bet he’s a dick. I also wouldn’t recommend doing what he did. It’s also obvious the guy didn’t do much or he would have been arrested. It also from what was being discussed be the officers and what we have of the incident, sounds like the first thing the cop did was pull his weapon when he saw someone carrying.
That is the beginning of the confrontation and the actions of the officer are entirely unreasonable. The complaints that he didn’t obey or reached for his pockets est, all occurred AFTER the officer had already threatened deadly force by drawing a bead on the guy.
Because it started that way, I don’t consider any command the officer gave to be reasonable.
I’d also say that under the stress of starring down a gun barrel, obeying commands isn’t as simple as it sounds. Stress like that tends to cloud judgment. Although the guy seemed calm and collected, the officer was the one that seemed irrational and ignorant.
The officer has the right to ask for the permit, he doesn’t have the right to preemptively threaten death.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if the cop was the trained professional, why is it the only people I heard cursing and being disrespectful were cops. Why is it the cops are the ones that didn’t know the law?
How can yall argue they get latitude for being professional when they carry themselves entirely unprofessionally and don’t even know the damn law?[/quote]
The “right” to open carry is not expressly provided for in PA law. It’s more an “exception”. The kid referenced a “directive” that may clarify this in the City. It’s just not common knowledge and it’s NOT common practice in the City.
I agree they were being unprofessional. But that’s reality. I’m betting it goes much different if he complied. Period. You just had cops racing to the scene of a man with a gun that was not being compliant. You’re a “first responder” - imagine being in their shoes for a moment.
Fact is, I can empathize from just my time in nightclub security. If I ask or even tell you to do something reasonable, and you do not comply, I’m going to lose any handle on the King’s English that I previously enjoyed.
Now, are you serious though? You’re now reduced to talking about their professionalism? You’re a long way from some of your earlier postings. [/quote]
No, the guy did nothing wrong I hold to that. I’m just addressing all contrary arguments I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I’ve changed my stance.
1st Philly is one of the largest cities in the country (5th or 6th largest in the US if you include its surrounding area), you can’t compare it to small cities like Buffalo NY or Nashville TN ect… NYC, LA, Miami would be much better of a comparison.
2nd. There are a lot of anti-gun politicians and judges in Philadelphia, in fact the NRA has fought several legal battles against the city. Philadelphia has tried to ban handguns, and ban conceal carry permits even tho they are issued by the state. I was told by many people that even having your permit and your weapon concealed if anyone gets a glimpse of it, be prepared to have to deal with the Police.
3rd This guy is a complete idiot… Open carry can make you a target as well as the 1st victim. If i was a criminal I wouldn’t worry about holding a person up with an open gun id just shoot the guy dead first steal his gun. This guy gives the bad guy an edge in choosing a victim, sure he might pass over the guy but as i mentioned prior he could be the first victim. Concealing your weapon can give you an advantage.
4th The Philadelphia Police have a lot more issues to deal with then just underage drinking and speeding. Heck To get a DUI in the cit you need to crash your car into something. I would say the cop needed to handle the situation a bit better no doubt but that guy was also looking for trouble.
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
…I’d also say that under the stress of starring down a gun barrel, obeying commands isn’t as simple as it sounds. Stress like that tends to cloud judgment…
Although the guy seemed calm and collected, the officer was the one that seemed irrational and ignorant.
The officer has the right to ask for the permit, he doesn’t have the right to preemptively threaten death.[/quote]
You do realize the above is contradictory. He was calm. He was willfully disobedient. Now, I’m asking you to think this thru rationally; do you think a cop in the environment of Philadelphia can be excused for being amped up when you have an armed person not complying with lawful instructions? The instructions were lawful. And by the way, the cop didn’t walk up to the guy and command him to get on his knees. There was an exchange first I believe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if the cop was the trained professional, why is it the only people I heard cursing and being disrespectful were cops. Why is it the cops are the ones that didn’t know the law?
How can yall argue they get latitude for being professional when they carry themselves entirely unprofessionally and don’t even know the damn law?[/quote]
The “right” to open carry is not expressly provided for in PA law. It’s more an “exception”. The kid referenced a “directive” that may clarify this in the City. It’s just not common knowledge and it’s NOT common practice in the City.
I agree they were being unprofessional. But that’s reality. I’m betting it goes much different if he complied. Period. You just had cops racing to the scene of a man with a gun that was not being compliant. You’re a “first responder” - imagine being in their shoes for a moment.
Fact is, I can empathize from just my time in nightclub security. If I ask or even tell you to do something reasonable, and you do not comply, I’m going to lose any handle on the King’s English that I previously enjoyed.
Now, are you serious though? You’re now reduced to talking about their professionalism? You’re a long way from some of your earlier postings. [/quote]
No, the guy did nothing wrong I hold to that. I’m just addressing all contrary arguments I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I’ve changed my stance.[/quote]
Well, then you’re wrong - not in my opinion, but under the law. You better educate yourself before you get your own carry permit.
[quote]late2thegame wrote:
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186321[/quote]
It’s nonsensical. They go on to argue that the police that went in without a warrant because they “thought” they smelled marijuana, only to find someone actually in there smoking marijuana? Fucking logic fail. Matters not that they didn’t find their suspect - they discovered someone else breaking the fucking law and had reasonable cause to go in. That they didn’t find their suspect does not obviate the fact that marijuana was being smoked inside and that the law was being violated.
I gotta get out of this thread. Anytime I of all people start defending LEO, something is really fucking amiss.
I swear some of you live in the woods or a cave when you’re defending some idiot challenging a cop in a City with some of the highest gun crime in the nation. As I said before, he’s quite lucky he didn’t end up dead - literally. And he’s extremely lucky he didn’t get his ass kicked. Is it right? No. Do I condone it? No. But it’s fucking reality in the big City and anyone that lives around here knows that simple fucking fact. I have no sympathy for this gaping asshole…because he THINKS he’s championing the rights of gun owners, when in fact he’s bringing attention to an issue the opposition would love to strip us of.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]late2thegame wrote:
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186321[/quote]
…
…because he THINKS he’s championing the rights of gun owners, when in fact he’s bringing attention to an issue the opposition would love to strip us of. [/quote]
Well, actually in a way he IS championing the rights of gun owners.
If he stirs shit up - even if it is on the PD level - I bet the next time a cop from that PD sees someone walking down the street OC-ing, he’ll think twice before reacting the same way.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]late2thegame wrote:
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186321[/quote]
…
…because he THINKS he’s championing the rights of gun owners, when in fact he’s bringing attention to an issue the opposition would love to strip us of. [/quote]
Well, actually in a way he IS championing the rights of gun owners.
If he stirs shit up - even if it is on the PD level - I bet the next time a cop from that PD sees someone walking down the street OC-ing, he’ll think twice before reacting the same way.[/quote]
Well, he educated local LEO - fair enough. But I’m sure he also stirred up the local government, which already wants to ban or restrict carry permits in the City, and I’m sure they are considering closing this “loophole” that allows open carry. \
FYI, the following is the Philadelphia “directive” that the dickhead was referring to. It expressly states that those that “open carry” should “AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.”
Continuing…“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.”
GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20
TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA
DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED â??FIREARMSâ?? 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.
ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN â??OPEN CARRY STATEâ?? WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
â??OPEN CARRYâ?? REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONEâ??S PERSON.
â??OPEN CARRY STATEâ?? REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONEâ??S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.
â??CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSEâ?? REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.
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.
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 â??POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATIONâ??
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
â?? EVIDENCEâ??. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.
[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]
OMG This made my day 1 billion internets you, holy shit god thanks for the laugh.
[quote]Frizzle wrote:
3rd This guy is a complete idiot… Open carry can make you a target as well as the 1st victim. If i was a criminal I wouldn’t worry about holding a person up with an open gun id just shoot the guy dead first steal his gun. This guy gives the bad guy an edge in choosing a victim, sure he might pass over the guy but as i mentioned prior he could be the first victim. Concealing your weapon can give you an advantage.
[/quote]
You have no idea how a criminal mind works if you think thats what a criminal would do LOL. Seriously knowing a person has a firearm is a big deterrent in being robbed.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
…I’d also say that under the stress of starring down a gun barrel, obeying commands isn’t as simple as it sounds. Stress like that tends to cloud judgment…
Although the guy seemed calm and collected, the officer was the one that seemed irrational and ignorant.
The officer has the right to ask for the permit, he doesn’t have the right to preemptively threaten death.[/quote]
You do realize the above is contradictory. He was calm. He was willfully disobedient. Now, I’m asking you to think this thru rationally; do you think a cop in the environment of Philadelphia can be excused for being amped up when you have an armed person not complying with lawful instructions? The instructions were lawful. And by the way, the cop didn’t walk up to the guy and command him to get on his knees. There was an exchange first I believe.
[/quote]
I know they are, but like you said, all we have is some audio, we don’t know what is going through either persons mind.
The beginning of the exchange is, the guy asking the cop not to point the gun at him. Way way before any commands are given. at which time the guy begs the cop to let him offer profe what he is doing is completely legal. The officer refuses and considers the guy to be a criminal the entire time (hence the drawn gun) because he is wholey ignorant of the law.
I will admit once again, it would have been smarter to completely obey the unreasonable ignorant cop threatening to kill him for being a law abiding citizen, but I do not think it his duty at that point.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]late2thegame wrote:
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186321[/quote]
It’s nonsensical. They go on to argue that the police that went in without a warrant because they “thought” they smelled marijuana, only to find someone actually in there smoking marijuana? Fucking logic fail. Matters not that they didn’t find their suspect - they discovered someone else breaking the fucking law and had reasonable cause to go in. That they didn’t find their suspect does not obviate the fact that marijuana was being smoked inside and that the law was being violated.
I gotta get out of this thread. Anytime I of all people start defending LEO, something is really fucking amiss.
I swear some of you live in the woods or a cave when you’re defending some idiot challenging a cop in a City with some of the highest gun crime in the nation. As I said before, he’s quite lucky he didn’t end up dead - literally. And he’s extremely lucky he didn’t get his ass kicked. Is it right? No. Do I condone it? No. But it’s fucking reality in the big City and anyone that lives around here knows that simple fucking fact. I have no sympathy for this gaping asshole…because he THINKS he’s championing the rights of gun owners, when in fact he’s bringing attention to an issue the opposition would love to strip us of. [/quote]
Is it legal to kick in a door without a warrant based on the smell of mary-jane?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if the cop was the trained professional, why is it the only people I heard cursing and being disrespectful were cops. Why is it the cops are the ones that didn’t know the law?
How can yall argue they get latitude for being professional when they carry themselves entirely unprofessionally and don’t even know the damn law?[/quote]
The “right” to open carry is not expressly provided for in PA law. It’s more an “exception”. The kid referenced a “directive” that may clarify this in the City. It’s just not common knowledge and it’s NOT common practice in the City.
I agree they were being unprofessional. But that’s reality. I’m betting it goes much different if he complied. Period. You just had cops racing to the scene of a man with a gun that was not being compliant. You’re a “first responder” - imagine being in their shoes for a moment.
Fact is, I can empathize from just my time in nightclub security. If I ask or even tell you to do something reasonable, and you do not comply, I’m going to lose any handle on the King’s English that I previously enjoyed.
Now, are you serious though? You’re now reduced to talking about their professionalism? You’re a long way from some of your earlier postings. [/quote]
No, the guy did nothing wrong I hold to that. I’m just addressing all contrary arguments I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I’ve changed my stance.[/quote]
Well, then you’re wrong - not in my opinion, but under the law. You better educate yourself before you get your own carry permit. [/quote]
Wrong and illegal are not interchangeable words.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]late2thegame wrote:
I thought this was a great perspective on this story:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186321[/quote]
…
…because he THINKS he’s championing the rights of gun owners, when in fact he’s bringing attention to an issue the opposition would love to strip us of. [/quote]
Well, actually in a way he IS championing the rights of gun owners.
If he stirs shit up - even if it is on the PD level - I bet the next time a cop from that PD sees someone walking down the street OC-ing, he’ll think twice before reacting the same way.[/quote]
Well, he educated local LEO - fair enough. But I’m sure he also stirred up the local government, which already wants to ban or restrict carry permits in the City, and I’m sure they are considering closing this “loophole” that allows open carry. \
FYI, the following is the Philadelphia “directive” that the dickhead was referring to. It expressly states that those that “open carry” should “AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.”
Continuing…“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.”
GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20
TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA
DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED â??FIREARMSâ?? 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.
ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN â??OPEN CARRY STATEâ?? WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
â??OPEN CARRYâ?? REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONEâ??S PERSON.
â??OPEN CARRY STATEâ?? REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONEâ??S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.
â??CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSEâ?? REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.
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.
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 â??POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATIONâ??
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
â?? EVIDENCEâ??. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.[/quote]
Don’t see anything in there about preemptively drawing your weapon on the guy.
And it doesn’t really matter what this says, because it is blatantly obvious the cop had no idea what the policy and law were. The cop wasn’t operating under this directive, he was operating under the directive: “OMG, GUN ILLEGAL MUST TAKE DOWN CRIMINAL!!!”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s nonsensical.
I gotta get out of this thread. Anytime I of all people start defending LEO, something is really fucking amiss.
[/quote]
I never said I agreed, only that I found it to be an interesting perspective…
If open carry is so bad and dangerous, why do cops do it?