Philadelphia Open Carry

Off Topic
161

A little perspective. The following post is from a LEO responding to a forum post wondering how often LEO draw their weapon in the line of duty:

Varies greatly depending on the call or assignment. : (some examples)

* clearing a unsecured business at night
* clearing an unsecured residence during day (alarm call)
* hold up alarm
* felony traffic stop
* some domestics
* shots fired call
* person with weapon call
* assist officer in distress call
* warrant service (varies by circumstances)

All the above could be several times a shift or weeks/months/years between these occuring.
These are just few that come to mind. Key indicators are officer safety, safety of another, what is known about the scene, what is not known, area of town, time of occurence, what is the perceived threat, are you alone or with backup. My experience is that night shift patrol was my highest frequency of drawing a weapon.

In today’s world hearing an officer say he never draws his weapon is not good practice if talking about a patrol officer that is exposed to the above type calls. Some of the above examples dictate the primary officer drawing his handgun and secondary officers covering with either shotgun or patrol rifle. It is standard training that with certain types of calls, your weapon should be in your hand. If it is not, then training is needed to correct the problem.

I began my career in the mid eighties in a large metropolitan area and on night shift patrol. There were nights that the frequency was 6 or more. Now I am in a rural area as an administrator and can go a year or more without reaching that per shift number or even half of it. The concern is to stay sharp with training when the day to day job doesn’t expose you to the frequency of the dangers once faced.

PERSONS WITH A WEAPON CALL.

ANY QUESTIONS?

162

I don’t think some of you realize how absolutely fucking idiotic this guy was to continue to not comply with LEO once he has drawn his weapon. LEO does not draw a weapon to “threaten”. They are drawing a weapon to be ready to USE it. This guy is a dumb motherfucker to be from this area. Not even a tourist is this stupid.

163

And DD, believe it or not, the fact that you are so startled by a LEO drawing his weapon on an armed person surely is a reflection of where you live. To wit, a LEO can draw his service weapon whenever they feel threatened or when conducting a felony stop. If you lived here, you’d understand that a person casually walking about with a gun in open view is alarming and a potential threat. Where you live, it is absolutely not cause for alarm. Here, in the City, it absolutely IS. This, and your understanding of the law, is where your opinion falters.

The officer was within policy to draw his weapon. It’s his call. It will never be seriously questioned given he’s confronting an armed person. You begin and end your argument with a fallacy, based only on opinion, and not the law.

I despise most LEO and I am not the least bit alarmed that LEO in Philadelphia drew their service weapon on a guy walking casually about the City streets. This aint TN. We don’t walk around here with guns on our hips, legal or not.

167

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…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…

[/quote]

Before I go point out the alleged language in the 2nd Amendment where it mentions “your home.”[/quote]

Enjoy the weather.

I didn’t say it did. But haven’t the Courts wrangled with this issue? When you get a chance, now refer back to my earlier questions.

We share the same ideals. I don’t see things changing though, except on the precipice of disaster - that’s human nature my friend. Until we stand on the edge of the cliff with the ground crumbling beneath us, we do not change or take action.

The fact is, the average person does not care about the right to bear arms and, is a “constitutional” retard, not to mention an economic retard as well. We are largely a society of sheep, with the vast majority of our population blindly commuting to a cubicle until death, while struggling or attempting to keep up with the Joneses. There is no revolution on the near horizon, barring the collapse of our economy.

And the guy at issue here is not the champion of the cause. His actions were ultimately irresponsible and dangerous. Imagine please… arguing with LEO while he has his gun trained on you. Can you imagine doing that? In Philadelphia? While you yourself are armed? I can’t.

168

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

This is an actual case from 20+ years ago . It was a dive bar . His actions made him look like he was looking for trouble .

There are two courts . Criminal and civil . One is 100%. The other is 51%. If you are guilty in a criminal trial they must show you’re 100% guilty . In civil court it’s 51%. A big difference .

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]greggio wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]greggio wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If open carry is so bad and dangerous, why do cops do it?[/quote]

There is no point to cops carrying concealed. If you see a cop you know he has a gun, concealing it won’t fool anybody.[/quote]

not nonuniform or off duty cops.[/quote]

I see what you mean. However, all of the nonuniform cops I know do not open carry, granted it is only a couple. I do know quite a few uniform guys who all carry concealed when the are off duty though, for the same reasons I mentioned in my other post.[/quote]

In Philadelphia, I’ve only seen detectives and plainsclothes LEO open carry. I’ve seen business owners “open carry” but only within and around the premises of the building. I’ve been here all my life and open carry is not the custom. That is the point…not whether it is “bad”.

It just occurred to me, that I’m arguing with a guy from TN holding a fish with the woods in the background. Now, the foregoing is not intended as an ad hominem in the hopes of undermining DD’s position, but it does perhaps illustrate he is as far removed from the customs and laws in Philadelphia as I am about that fish in his arms - which by the way, I can only assume it was a good fish, because I have no fucking idea what kind of fish it is and he thought enough of it to take a picture![/quote]

I work in a decent sized city and I grew up and went to school in a large city. Not philly, but I do have more experience than I’m getting credit for.

My line of inquiry on open carry is on honest question. I know several off duty cops that open carry. It just doesn’t seem like they would if it were inherently more dangerous. Maybe partially because it is much more common and accepted here (there are several guys that you’ll see with holsters on at work, though they don’t carry in the building)

And it’s a catfish. Not huge (big ones can get up in the 50+ pound range), but the picture was more a way of rubbing it in to my brother who didn’t catch a thing.

My wife and I like to take our dogs out hiking the farm. That as of now, is the only time I carry. And that’s mainly because of coyotes, lol. And yes, I agree that is a far removed reason from carrying in the big fancy city. Garsh.[/quote]

Look, I love TN - it wasn’t a put-down. I told you before, my best friend lives in Crossville and I’d seriously consider buying land down there and having a 2nd home. But it aint Philly. No one stated open carry is more dangerous - it’s just unusual there. Our respective cultures are different. My buddy’s son grew up from age 12 going onto his own land to shoot squirrels with a rifle. LOL I never touched a gun until I was older and I certainly didn’t own my own gun @ 12. Much different cultures my friend. And remember, the State bordering Philly (NJ) you can’t get a carry permit unless Jesus himself ordains it. I’m not sure about our other neighboring State, DE.[/quote]

If it gets you into this kind of trouble, it seems more dangerous.

And I didn’t get my first gun till 13 thank you very much.

And no offense taken. I lived in downtown Atlanta for a number of years, I chose to get out of that kind of environment.

I prefer a town with no traffic light, to one with a 4 hour rush hour and a 12 lane interstate. And neither of those statements is exaggeration.[/quote]

I prefer the same; in fact, I live 30 minutes outside philly in a very small town and I live outside town to boot. I purchased the most privacy and acreage I could afford and sacrificed house size to do it. I see a housing development, and my sphincter tightens at the thought of living that close to someone…it just ain’t natural!

However, what got this guy in the cross-hairs is simply doing something outside the custom. AND HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING! HE WAS USING A LITTLE USED EXCEPTION TO THE LAW TO THUMB HIS NOSE AT AND BAIT THE POLICE!

You really need to understand the environment in the City to understand that someone other than LEO walking around open carry is VERY unusual. Yes, it’s legal apparently, but that doesn’t make it the norm. It’s so far out of the norm, that the cop’s reaction is just as validly evidence of the foregoing as it is his ignorance of the law.

This is also a City struggling with gun violence and illegal gun ownership. Moreover, it’s a City where lots of people that wouldn’t get licensed in PA are using the Florida loophole to get a CCP. When you understand how dangerous our neighborhoods are, and the culture of illegal guns here, and the “custom” of this City, you understand perfectly well that the reaction by the police is to be EXPECTED and I full believe this guy expected it and welcomed it as well.

It does not excuse their abusive behavior, but let’s be realistic. They just responded to a arm guy that was non-compliant to lawful orders. We can argue all day if those orders were “reasonable”, but guess what? They were lawful and they were in the discretion of the officer that has to evaluate his and the public’s safety in a split second.

As someone said before, they both appear to share some fault. However, and this is important, I bet given another chance, the cop might have handled it differently. Sadly, the guy carrying would not. He knew what he was doing and he was trying to get a reaction. The time to argue his case is when the cop is comfortable that he is not a threat, not when he’s standing there, still armed, still standing, arguing with the cop! It’s just inexcusable. And it’s fallacious to compare his conduct with the cop’s - they are two separate issues, one not excusing the other.

And seriously, let’s not pretend LEO is generally fully-versed in all the technicalities of the law - they are not. Even lawyers and judges frequently have to avail themselves to legal research. [/quote]

This is all true. Knowing the real rules of behavior and the real rules of an area is a good way to avoid problems.

I wouldn’t go into a biker bar frequented by an outlaw motorcycle club. I wouldn’t go into a bar frequented by predominantly black guys in the bad part of town.

It’s not racism or some snobby attitude against the bikers, it’s common sense. years ago I read In the Gravest Extreme by Masaad Ayoob. It’s a great book about laws in relation to self defense shootings. Laws will vary, but there are many truths in the book.

One story in the book laid out how a guy shot and killed one fellow in bar and wounded the other. The second guy was paralyzed. It was ruled self defense and the shooting was jsutified.

He lost in civil court however because he was in this bar two previous Fridays. He was beaten up twice and told not to come back by these two. His attitude was I have aright to be here.

So he came back the next Friday with a gun. the fellows started in on him and the assault quickly turned potentially deadly. He drew his gun and shot both, killing one and wounding the other as I stated previously. And he of course could have had a beer at home.

He could Have gone somewhere else. He could have seen a movie. But since he was stubborn he lost everything in a civil suit . thinking beats I have my rights every time.[/quote]

He should sue for damages too. Why is it he is expected to act reasonably and the criminals aren’t?[/quote]

169

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

…I’d like to see the guy win of course, but why take the hard road to prove a point? [/quote]

Tom, ya know I love ya like a brother but the answer to your questions is…cuz somebody’s gotta do it.[/quote]

True. But I live in Pa. I have a gun permit. I’d carry it concealed if I had to. I think this guy was trying to prove a point . In a way that could have been very dangerous to him .

As a concealed carry guy I’d rather not have anyone know I have a gun until I want them to know .

170

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

This is an actual case from 20+ years ago . It was a dive bar . His actions made him look like he was looking for trouble .

There are two courts . Criminal and civil . One is 100%. The other is 51%. If you are guilty in a criminal trial they must show you’re 100% guilty . In civil court it’s 51%. A big difference .

[/quote]

The above is not entirely accurate.

In criminal court, the standard is not a percentage finding of guilt. It’s a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard and there are jury instructions that inform a juror exactly what “reasonable doubt” is. To say it’s “100%” is not true, because you do not have to find “beyond all doubt” to find guilty, just beyond a “reasonable doubt”. And, I believe some States do not require a unanimous verdict for a criminal conviction if a 12 person jury is empaneled v. a 6 person jury which does require a unanimous verdict. The point is, to say a criminal conviction requires “100%” is misleading and incorrect.

In a civil negligence matter, fault of the parties is apportioned according to percentage. However, each State is different regarding it’s “comparative negligence” doctrine. In some States, a finding of 51% or greater negligence against the plaintiff bars their claim. In a minority of States, any finding of comparative negligence (contributory) bars the claim. Yet still, some States are “pure comparative” with no finding of comparative negligence a bar to the claim where you can literally be 90% at fault and still recover 10% of your damages. There is also joint and several liability, where a plaintiff can collect the entire award against any defendant found negligent, even if that party was less negligent that its co-defendant(s).

The foregoing is not an exhaustive analysis or intended to be and is just an illustration to clarify a common misunderstanding.

172

I agree with your philosophy push . I just think this guy decided to push it and put himself at risk .

And Philly is different than the rest of pa . While TBG disagrees with me , I do think Philly thinks they are above Pa., more important etc and they can do what they want . I strongly disagree with this .

Two years ago my son and I were traveling to a gun range . I got pulled over for speeding . He gave me a warning after I politely explained I just wasn’t watching my speed and was sorry.

There’s no way he could have missed the ammo and five gun cases in the back seat. And he didn’t blink an eye .

In Philadelphia it would be very different . And the cops would be wrong . But deliberately antagonizing or hoping to engineer a confrontation isn’t a good idea IMO. I just see the potential for bad to come my way.

Even the the citizen has the right. And I mean right , not permission .

173

Thanks gor the clarification there. This is how it was explained to me . I guess it was overly simplistic . But it does hold true you could be not guilty but liable for damages .

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

This is an actual case from 20+ years ago . It was a dive bar . His actions made him look like he was looking for trouble .

There are two courts . Criminal and civil . One is 100%. The other is 51%. If you are guilty in a criminal trial they must show you’re 100% guilty . In civil court it’s 51%. A big difference .

[/quote]

The above is not entirely accurate.

In criminal court, the standard is not a percentage finding of guilt. It’s a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard and there are jury instructions that inform a juror exactly what “reasonable doubt” is. To say it’s “100%” is not true, because you do not have to find “beyond all doubt” to find guilty, just beyond a “reasonable doubt”. And, I believe some States do not require a unanimous verdict for a criminal conviction if a 12 person jury is empaneled v. a 6 person jury which does require a unanimous verdict. The point is, to say a criminal conviction requires “100%” is misleading and incorrect.

In a civil negligence matter, fault of the parties is apportioned according to percentage. However, each State is different regarding it’s “comparative negligence” doctrine. In some States, a finding of 51% or greater negligence against the plaintiff bars their claim. In a minority of States, any finding of comparative negligence (contributory) bars the claim. Yet still, some States are “pure comparative” with no finding of comparative negligence a bar to the claim where you can literally be 90% at fault and still recover 10% of your damages. There is also joint and several liability, where a plaintiff can collect the entire award against any defendant found negligent, even if that party was less negligent that its co-defendant(s).

The foregoing is not an exhaustive analysis or intended to be and is just an illustration to clarify a common misunderstanding. [/quote]

174

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Thanks gor the clarification there. This is how it was explained to me . I guess it was overly simplistic . But it does hold true you could be not guilty but liable for damages .

[/quote]

Absolutely, because they are two different standards. Just because you are found not guilty in a criminal matter does not mean you can escape civil liability (see OJ Simpson). The standard for a finding against a defendant in a civil case is considered lower than that of a criminal (“preponderance of the evidence” v. “beyond a reasonable doubt”). I believe the only way to keep a criminal guilty plea from being admissible against you later in a civil matter is to plead no contest - which requires no admission of the specific offense. This happens in traffic court all the time where there has been an accident.

175

Push, I have now reviewed the 2nd Amendment and the two Supreme Court cases interpreting it. First, it is unclear (and doubtful to me) that the 2nd Amendment is a broad, unfettered individual right, absent your membership in a militia, to “bear arms” - including the right to walk around in polite society carrying a sidearm.

The Supreme Court in 2008 stated that it is an individual right, but did say that the ruling should not cast doubt on restrictions concerning felons and the mentally ill, along with bans on unusual or especially dangerous weapons would most likely be upheld. Interestingly, the case was about the Washington DC ban on individuals possessing hand guns in their homes.

I see a very clear line here. A clear (by the courts; I don’t think the Amendment itself is that clear) individual right to own arms, but no such express right to bear them in public, unless you’re part of a Militia. Since the “militia” is our present day military, we do not have such “militias” any longer.

Given the Courts very clear inclination (and isn’t the Court “due process”?) that felons and mentally ill shall not bear arms, and it’s refusal to restrict the bearing of arms within your home, I think it’s very clear that to bear arms in public (CCP and OCP alike) IS a privilege. If it were not a privilege, there would be NO procedural hurdles to bearing arms in public. Simply buy your weapon of choice, and begin to bear arms.

Is that what you are arguing for? For every wingnut to be able to purchase and bear arms? If not, and I assume any reasonable person would not want to live in that world, the moment you put any regulatory hurdle in the way of gun ownership, you have created a “privilege” that is regulated. There is no way around it. Before you answer my first question, please consider that everyone does not reside in Montana. If you say you’d want your loved ones to live in one of our major cities with its citizens having absolutely unfettered access to firearms, you’ve gone mad.

In addition to the above, you still didn’t address my questions about felon and mentally ill gun ownership. And while we’re at it, what about age restrictions?

176

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Push, I have now reviewed the 2nd Amendment and the two Supreme Court cases interpreting it. First, it is unclear (and doubtful to me) that the 2nd Amendment is a broad, unfettered individual right, absent your membership in a militia, to “bear arms” - including the right to walk around in polite society carrying a sidearm.

The Supreme Court in 2008 stated that it is an individual right, but did say that the ruling should not cast doubt on restrictions concerning felons and the mentally ill, along with bans on unusual or especially dangerous weapons would most likely be upheld. Interestingly, the case was about the Washington DC ban on individuals possessing hand guns in their homes.

I see a very clear line here. A clear (by the courts; I don’t think the Amendment itself is that clear) individual right to own arms, but no such express right to bear them in public, unless you’re part of a Militia. Since the “militia” is our present day military, we do not have such “militias” any longer.

Given the Courts very clear inclination (and isn’t the Court “due process”?) that felons and mentally ill shall not bear arms, and it’s refusal to restrict the bearing of arms within your home, I think it’s very clear that to bear arms in public (CCP and OCP alike) IS a privilege. If it were not a privilege, there would be NO procedural hurdles to bearing arms in public. Simply buy your weapon of choice, and begin to bear arms.

Is that what you are arguing for? For every wingnut to be able to purchase and bear arms? If not, and I assume any reasonable person would not want to live in that world, the moment you put any regulatory hurdle in the way of gun ownership, you have created a “privilege” that is regulated. There is no way around it. Before you answer my first question, please consider that everyone does not reside in Montana. If you say you’d want your loved ones to live in one of our major cities with its citizens having absolutely unfettered access to firearms, you’ve gone mad.

In addition to the above, you still didn’t address my questions about felon and mentally ill gun ownership. And while we’re at it, what about age restrictions?[/quote]

What is the right to bear arms if not in public?

I would also argue that the founders where protecting the ability and the right of the citizens to form a militia. Meaning ordinary people not in a militia need the right to keep and bear arms or the formation of a militia is impossible.

178

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

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

I see it more as advocating common sense to be honest.