Philadelphia Open Carry

Off Topic
141

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

The 2nd Amendment does not provide the authority whereupon mere “dicks” can be denied their right to keep and bear.

There are many on this very site who would eagerly declare YOU to be a dick…and me too for that matter. Does that mean you and I should not be permitted to carry a tool that fires a ballistic projectile (whether we do it for self defense or not is irrelevant as the 2nd A. does require a motive, it merely reaffirms an inalienable right)?

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote]

I think the above is patently fallacious, and I think you’re damn smart enough to know it. I also think those that would eagerly declare you or I “dicks” are not that damn intelligent, but I digress.

You’re comparing my off-handed comment about the guy to a legal standard and it wasn’t my point at all. The right to carry a firearm comes with certain responsibilities under the law, not the least of which is to cooperate with LEO. He did NOT cooperate - that much is clear. Say what you want about the officer, his professionalism, his ignorance of the technicality of law - but none of it excuses the actions of the guy. And the directive clearly makes it City policy to detain open carry citizens. [/quote]

He was threatened with being murdered before he was ever given any commands. How can you overlook that?

142

Additionally, The officer wasn’t following the directive. On top of that the detention is only until a permit is verified, which was offered at the beginning and refused by the officer. In this case the detention was AFTER the verification making it also outside of the directive.

143

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Push, you cannot be listened to. You don’t live in philly.[/quote]

You’re being ridiculous. You guys fancy yourselves intellectuals over in PWI and not one of you can debate without a fallacious crutch. No one said the above. The problem is, you weren’t making strong points in support of your “argument” and, you come from a different culture. Understanding the culture, and what is permissible and customary up here is important to understanding the nuances of this encounter. Thus far, you have shown a startling ignorance of the law in general, and our culture. [/quote]

Chill, it was just a joke. No one lives the same life as anyone else. I’m sure even one part of philly is completely different than others. No-one has the same experiences. BUT certain things are universal.

Maybe yall can stop electing federal politicians that don’t know our culture but still tell us how to run things. =0)

And I actually fancy myself pretty simplistic, certainly not an intellectual.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So nobody’s gonna touch this one, huh?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote][/quote]

Something about the 2nd amendment not allowing for permits to be necessary?

We would not tolerate permits for free speech or religion…?

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

The 2nd Amendment does not provide the authority whereupon mere “dicks” can be denied their right to keep and bear.

There are many on this very site who would eagerly declare YOU to be a dick…and me too for that matter. Does that mean you and I should not be permitted to carry a tool that fires a ballistic projectile (whether we do it for self defense or not is irrelevant as the 2nd A. does require a motive, it merely reaffirms an inalienable right)?

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote]

I think the above is patently fallacious, and I think you’re damn smart enough to know it. I also think those that would eagerly declare you or I “dicks” are not that damn intelligent, but I digress.

You’re comparing my off-handed comment about the guy to a legal standard and it wasn’t my point at all. The right to carry a firearm comes with certain responsibilities under the law, not the least of which is to cooperate with LEO. He did NOT cooperate - that much is clear. Say what you want about the officer, his professionalism, his ignorance of the technicality of law - but none of it excuses the actions of the guy. And the directive clearly makes it City policy to detain open carry citizens. [/quote]

He was threatened with being murdered before he was ever given any commands. How can you overlook that?[/quote]

Are you so utterly stubborn or ignorant or both that you don’t understand that when one is armed in an encounter with LEO and that LEO is ensuring and/or fearful of his safety, giving LAWFUL orders (yes, you continue to overlook that minor inconvenience to your “argument”) that you fucking follow commands? How does that escape you? I’m quite sure even the catfish you’re holding can grasp this simple reality. Tell me you’re trolling. Please.

He was not threatened with being murdered before he was given any commands. I believe he was told to remove his hands from his pockets and/or put them up and …he was not complying. Why don’t you type out the transcript?

149

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Additionally, The officer wasn’t following the directive. On top of that the detention is only until a permit is verified, which was offered at the beginning and refused by the officer. In this case the detention was AFTER the verification making it also outside of the directive.[/quote]

You’re twisting this to suit your argument…big surprise. You are either being disingenuous and trolling, or I have given you more credit that you apparently deserve.

The officer did follow the directive. The officer has a right to establish his safety prior to fully engaging the person. He issued commands that were not followed, and therefore the permit could not be exchanged until the BACK-UP arrived. If this isn’t evidence that the officer was legitimately concerned, I don’t know what is.

That the detention continued was regarding confusion over the law, which they verified. He’ll receive a whopping $2000 for his trouble, if he proves a civil rights violation at all. Even if he does, he’s not exactly a sympathetic plaintiff.

150

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So nobody’s gonna touch this one, huh?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote][/quote]

I’ll touch it; I don’t agree with it. But what’s the practical solution in modern society? Are you suggesting the framers of the Constitution had foresight to our modern society and the evils that plague us?

Are you suggesting felons be “permitted” to bear arms?
How about the mentally unstable? Should they be “permitted”?

What are you suggesting?

151

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

The 2nd Amendment does not provide the authority whereupon mere “dicks” can be denied their right to keep and bear.

There are many on this very site who would eagerly declare YOU to be a dick…and me too for that matter. Does that mean you and I should not be permitted to carry a tool that fires a ballistic projectile (whether we do it for self defense or not is irrelevant as the 2nd A. does require a motive, it merely reaffirms an inalienable right)?

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote]

I think the above is patently fallacious, and I think you’re damn smart enough to know it. I also think those that would eagerly declare you or I “dicks” are not that damn intelligent, but I digress.

You’re comparing my off-handed comment about the guy to a legal standard and it wasn’t my point at all. The right to carry a firearm comes with certain responsibilities under the law, not the least of which is to cooperate with LEO. He did NOT cooperate - that much is clear. Say what you want about the officer, his professionalism, his ignorance of the technicality of law - but none of it excuses the actions of the guy. And the directive clearly makes it City policy to detain open carry citizens. [/quote]

He was threatened with being murdered before he was ever given any commands. How can you overlook that?[/quote]

Are you so utterly stubborn or ignorant or both that you don’t understand that when one is armed in an encounter with LEO and that LEO is ensuring and/or fearful of his safety, giving LAWFUL orders (yes, you continue to overlook that minor inconvenience to your “argument”) that you fucking follow commands? How does that escape you? I’m quite sure even the catfish you’re holding can grasp this simple reality. Tell me you’re trolling. Please.

He was not threatened with being murdered before he was given any commands. I believe he was told to remove his hands from his pockets and/or put them up and …he was not complying. Why don’t you type out the transcript? [/quote]

The beginning of the confrontation is “why are you pointing your gun at me?”

When later on when the backup is there and all, the officer complains only that he wouldn’t get on his knees and such, which happened way later. He never complains of anything the guy did before the officer drew his weapon.

The officer immediately drew the gun for the sole reason that he saw someone carrying openly. Period.

After that I honestly don’t give a shit, because the officer is an ignorant piece of trash threatening to kill someone for absolutely no reason. He has lost all leeway and authority as an officer of the “law”.

What you aren’t getting is that it’s actually the officers job to prevent this from happening.

The officer is in the wrong. Period. Absolutely no question.

He isn’t obeying the law or their own directives. Period. Fact. You can not argue that.

The guy was dumb to do what he did, but not in any way was he in the wrong.

152

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Additionally, The officer wasn’t following the directive. On top of that the detention is only until a permit is verified, which was offered at the beginning and refused by the officer. In this case the detention was AFTER the verification making it also outside of the directive.[/quote]

You’re twisting this to suit your argument…big surprise. You are either being disingenuous and trolling, or I have given you more credit that you apparently deserve.

The officer did follow the directive. The officer has a right to establish his safety prior to fully engaging the person. He issued commands that were not followed, and therefore the permit could not be exchanged until the BACK-UP arrived. If this isn’t evidence that the officer was legitimately concerned, I don’t know what is.

That the detention continued was regarding confusion over the law, which they verified. He’ll receive a whopping $2000 for his trouble, if he proves a civil rights violation at all. Even if he does, he’s not exactly a sympathetic plaintiff. [/quote]

No, you are the one wanting to argue that what was done was legal. No where in any part of anything is it ever okay or legal for a cop the threaten deadly force to initiate contact for a 100% legal law abiding citizen. It is not the responsibility of a person carrying to subject himself to threats of death. Period. And that invalidates your whole argument. Period.

153

Keep your hands where I can see them…twice.
Get down on your knees…twice.
2 more references to his hands…
don’t move…repeatedly.
more orders regarding his hands…at least two…
get on the ground…now…multiple times…
lay down, more than once…

At least 6 references to the hands of an armed person. Most you of you are smart enough to keep your hands where they can be seen during a simple traffic stop. I know I do.

I listened to the first few minutes again and I’ll be absolutely honest…I’m AMAZED at their professionalism. Yes, they let a few F bombs go. So fucking what? If you think this was bad, you have no clue about big city encounters with LEO. He’s lucky he wasn’t tuned up, charged and his recorder missing. This tool box was non-compliant, repeatedly. For everyone arguing for this guy, do me a favor, and ignore LEO commands in your next encounter and tell me how that works for you.

Push, I appreciate your Constitutional leanings. By all means, continue. But anyone that defends this guy’s actions is fucking nonsensical. A little cooperation and this guy is on his merry way.

154

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Dude is a dick, looking for trouble. He’s exactly the kind of guy that should not have a permit, “in my opinion”.[/quote]

The 2nd Amendment does not provide the authority whereupon mere “dicks” can be denied their right to keep and bear.

There are many on this very site who would eagerly declare YOU to be a dick…and me too for that matter. Does that mean you and I should not be permitted to carry a tool that fires a ballistic projectile (whether we do it for self defense or not is irrelevant as the 2nd A. does require a motive, it merely reaffirms an inalienable right)?

  • I italicized “permitted” for a reason. Can someone tell me why?[/quote]

I think the above is patently fallacious, and I think you’re damn smart enough to know it. I also think those that would eagerly declare you or I “dicks” are not that damn intelligent, but I digress.

You’re comparing my off-handed comment about the guy to a legal standard and it wasn’t my point at all. The right to carry a firearm comes with certain responsibilities under the law, not the least of which is to cooperate with LEO. He did NOT cooperate - that much is clear. Say what you want about the officer, his professionalism, his ignorance of the technicality of law - but none of it excuses the actions of the guy. And the directive clearly makes it City policy to detain open carry citizens. [/quote]

He was threatened with being murdered before he was ever given any commands. How can you overlook that?[/quote]

Are you so utterly stubborn or ignorant or both that you don’t understand that when one is armed in an encounter with LEO and that LEO is ensuring and/or fearful of his safety, giving LAWFUL orders (yes, you continue to overlook that minor inconvenience to your “argument”) that you fucking follow commands? How does that escape you? I’m quite sure even the catfish you’re holding can grasp this simple reality. Tell me you’re trolling. Please.

He was not threatened with being murdered before he was given any commands. I believe he was told to remove his hands from his pockets and/or put them up and …he was not complying. Why don’t you type out the transcript? [/quote]

The beginning of the confrontation is “why are you pointing your gun at me?”

When later on when the backup is there and all, the officer complains only that he wouldn’t get on his knees and such, which happened way later. He never complains of anything the guy did before the officer drew his weapon.

The officer immediately drew the gun for the sole reason that he saw someone carrying openly. Period.

After that I honestly don’t give a shit, because the officer is an ignorant piece of trash threatening to kill someone for absolutely no reason. He has lost all leeway and authority as an officer of the “law”.

What you aren’t getting is that it’s actually the officers job to prevent this from happening.

The officer is in the wrong. Period. Absolutely no question.

He isn’t obeying the law or their own directives. Period. Fact. You can not argue that.

The guy was dumb to do what he did, but not in any way was he in the wrong.[/quote]

If the officer fears for his safety, I’m pretty sure it’s within his discretion to draw his weapon. Why don’t you ask your cop buddies at the fire squad?

He didn’t threaten to kill him. He told him he would end up shooting him if he didn’t keep his hands where he could see them. There were repeated references to his hands.

You have offered no proof that the order to the knees was unlawful under the circumstances.

The officer was remarkably polite, explaining to this dumb dickhead that he doesn’t know him, etc. Even told him his name.

Prevent what from happening? That’s a nonsensical point. Are you saying LEO should turn a blind eye to open carry in the city contrary to the clear directive not to?

The officer was not in the wrong. His orders were lawful. He wasn’t wrong until he insisted you can’t open carry. It doesn’t change the initial detention. How he detained him was within his discretion depending on the circumstances, location, etc.

You sound mad and irrational. Go talk to your cop buddies about it and get it off your chest.

155

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Additionally, The officer wasn’t following the directive. On top of that the detention is only until a permit is verified, which was offered at the beginning and refused by the officer. In this case the detention was AFTER the verification making it also outside of the directive.[/quote]

You’re twisting this to suit your argument…big surprise. You are either being disingenuous and trolling, or I have given you more credit that you apparently deserve.

The officer did follow the directive. The officer has a right to establish his safety prior to fully engaging the person. He issued commands that were not followed, and therefore the permit could not be exchanged until the BACK-UP arrived. If this isn’t evidence that the officer was legitimately concerned, I don’t know what is.

That the detention continued was regarding confusion over the law, which they verified. He’ll receive a whopping $2000 for his trouble, if he proves a civil rights violation at all. Even if he does, he’s not exactly a sympathetic plaintiff. [/quote]

No, you are the one wanting to argue that what was done was legal. No where in any part of anything is it ever okay or legal for a cop the threaten deadly force to initiate contact for a 100% legal law abiding citizen. It is not the responsibility of a person carrying to subject himself to threats of death. Period. And that invalidates your whole argument. Period.[/quote]

Well, there is one way to settle this since we’re both armchair experts. Under our present Police Commissioner, I don’t believe there have been as many cops disciplined, charged and/or fired in any other time under any other Commissioner. Let’s see if this cop is disciplined. I will be you he will not be disciplined for drawing his weapon and that it was lawful under the circumstances.

The officer will say he was concerned for his safety. Case closed.

At the end of the day, I find the officer to be wholly genuine (ignorance of a technicality of the firearm statute notwithstanding).

And, I find the “victim” wholly disingenuous and provocative.

“Victim” knew EXACTLY what he was doing…baiting the police. You don’t find it strange that his recorder was on before this became an encounter? LOL. And you find the officer out of line?

156

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Keep your hands where I can see them…twice.
Get down on your knees…twice.
2 more references to his hands…
don’t move…repeatedly.
more orders regarding his hands…at least two…
get on the ground…now…multiple times…
lay down, more than once…

At least 6 references to the hands of an armed person. Most you of you are smart enough to keep your hands where they can be seen during a simple traffic stop. I know I do.

[/quote]

All long after being wrongly threatened with death.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’ll touch it; I don’t agree with it. But what’s the practical solution in modern society?

[/quote]

The same one that was practical in the latter 18th century.

Yes, I am.

Was the guy in the video a felon? What about you? I’m not.

Define mentally unstable. Then apply that definition to the mentally unstable’s right to assemble, vote, be free from unreasonable searches, worship, etc.

All the above is great…in principle. A few questions:

Define “due process”. And are you using “arbitrary” to describe your opinion on such legislature restricting rights or, are you using “arbitrary” as a legal standard (and I believe that it is)? If the latter, please define it within the context of your argument, and convince me those that oppose you are not arbitrary in their opinion?

I’m personally embroiled in a legal matter now where arbitrary is a key legal test.

Next, you avoided the following: do you or do you not advocate allowing felons and mentally unstable to bear arms? Don’t raise red herrings like the guy in this situation. Answer the question and elaborate if necessary.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There is no hierarchy of rights in the Bill of Rights. The freedom to worship is no more inherently superior than the right to keep and bear arms. Do you need to get a permit from Washington, DC or Trenton, NJ in order to attend church? Do you need a permit in order to avoid a warrantless search? Do you need a permit in order to refuse the quartering of soldiers in your home?

[/quote]

And isn’t the above a wee bit fallacious? Hasn’t the phrase “right to bear and keep” been wrangled with in the Courts? Is there a State where you are forbidden or restricted (other than “assault weapons” and such) from keeping firearms in your home? I’m not aware of it. What I am aware of is that there are restrictions about the right to bear arms in public.

And do you honestly think the times of our framers were similar to those in major Cities? You think they foresaw a time where average citizens would walk about a City of MILLIONS while bearing arms?