Philadelphia Police Threaten To Kill Open Carrier

[djg0770 481]

I thinks it a stupid thing to do in Philly, open carry......It comes across as arrogance when someone says 'I don't have to show you my i.d."and is taping the whole encounter.

 

Funny - when I listened to the encounter, the guy clearly mentioned that he would show the cop his permit. The cop didn't want to see it.

[djg0770 481]

I thinks it a stupid thing to do in Philly, open carry......

 

I think it's a stupid thing to do in Philly, to use your 1st amendment rights... How many people would even think to make a statement like that? Or how about "I think it's a stupid thing to do in Philly, to use your right not to incriminate yourself (5th amendment)"

 

Why, all of a sudden, is it ok just because an otherwise law abiding person is carrying a gun? I wonder, do they stop a guy in stirrup pants with a bat bag and ask him "Hey Junior, where you goin?"

 

And what's with "junior"? Sounds like a replacement for "BOY"...

[Anselmo 87]

Funny - when I listened to the encounter, the guy clearly mentioned that he would show the cop his permit.

 

This same guy OC'd last year and also got stopped and questioned by the police. He said he told the police he didn't have to show them his permit last year.

 

Seems this guy OC's and get questioned more than once.

[Spartiati 63]

I thinks it a stupid thing to do in Philly, open carry......It comes across as arrogance when someone says 'I don't have to show you my i.d."and is taping the whole encounter. I see this all the time and I think it makes a huge rift between LEO's and CCW holders....just show them the ID!! I don't agree the way the officer handled it as far as his language, etc. but he knows that criminals being intent on doing harm can seem very 'polite' and I'm sure he wants to feel certain he's going home to his family...Myself, when in Philly, I ALWAYS carry concealed!! NO reason to OC. Tell him to get a Crossbreed Supertuck.

I listened to the recording, and no only was he willing to show his credentials, which btw the LEO didn't ask for, he volonteered it. Just because yo don't feel it prudent to OC in Phily doesn't meab the rest o the world needs to agree. Rights are rights and when you don't use them they are removed.

[djg0770 481]

This same guy OC'd last year and also got stopped and questioned by the police. He said he told the police he didn't have to show them his permit last year.

 

Seems this guy OC's and get questioned more than once.

 

 

Apparently he educated himself about the law in the last year then.

[Maksim 1,504]

This same guy OC'd last year and also got stopped and questioned by the police. He said he told the police he didn't have to show them his permit last year.

 

Seems this guy OC's and get questioned more than once.

 

Not including his numerous arrests for public drunk state.

 

I get that OC is legal... but so was Slavery. How about running around the street naked?

 

Your rights end where my nose begins. If he is on his property, he can do whatever the hell pleases him. What if you are walking across the street, this OC is stopped by the cops or someone else, like say a thug from behind who wants to knock it out cold and steal his gun... and the OC feels threatened and draws and starts firing.... him OC brought on more attention than what is needed. To take it one step further, I firmly believe in a conceal carry education requirement. I do not want some idiot with no formal training to start drawing and firing in public.

 

Perfect example... On Sat, I helped RO a USPSA intro class, half the folks could not properly draw and holster a firearm, and most folks who had a safety on their firearm, did not seem to efficiently use it. How many CCW actually practice dry firing double action and drawing from a holster weekly?

 

Much like I do not want blind people driving cars, I do not want untrained people carrying... especially if open carrying.

 

If you are on your own property, where your actions do not infringe upon, or affect other people, do as you please... walk around the house naked, with a strapped gun, blowing your cat.... who cares. But if you are out in public where your actions can easily impact others.... ? Yes, I realize that many will believe it is infringing on the 2a, but you choose where you live. If you choose to live in America, you choose to pay taxes, get a drivers license.

 

Once again, the LEO were strongly out of line with the tone and their language. The OP is a righteous idiot/martyr for what he did, and was stupid to keep escalating the situation by not complying and arguing with the cops. Aren't we always told to just shut up? Arguing with LEO is a case of he said, she said.... that is what the courts are for.

 

Remember the scene from Die Hard with a Vengeance... when the Terrorist orders John McLane to go to Harlem with a sign on him saying "I hate Ni***ers" ? Lets say he did it. Yes, he has the right to do it, to exercise his freedom of speech.... but who thinks it is the right thing to do?

[Scottcba1 8]

+1 Maks

 

After seeing the thread about his run in in Lansdale and the way he escalates these interactions on purpose makes him out to be a dick. If he followed the orders and helped the LEO's understand the laws a bit better in a polite and orderly fashion I feel he would get his point across and stand up for his rights better then causing confrontations everytime.

 

He thinks he won with the Philly police officer after sitting on the sidewalk & in a patty wagon for 30min but imagine the impact he would have had if he followed the orders from the disrespectful, out of line SARGENT that first incountered him then proceeded to advise the SARGENT of the laws and how he wasnt breaking them. It would have been just the two of them and he could have explained the whole thing and calmed the situation down very quickly and easilly. You never know, that Sargent may have gone back to roll call the next day and explained the situation to the shift and how to handle things like this so it doesnt escalate.

 

Just my 2cents.

 

-Scott

[JackDaWack 2,895]

No offense, but if the guy did not argue with the LEO, he would have probably ended up in jail and booked for illegal possession of a firearm, and then would have had the pleasure of dealing with the legal system. So i dont understand the notion of just shut up when your in the right. If you were in the wrong, then yes just shut up. We shouldnt have to put up with the kinda ****, this is like a cop pulling you over and guns drawn and telling you to get out of the car, arrests you, says hey man i dont know who you are! i dont know u have a license to drive a car! Pathetic man, how can you uphold laws you dont know exist......

[Maksim 1,504]

Could you open carry a long gun? Even if your not hunting.

 

As per NJ laws... you can carry an unloaded long rifle.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

+1 Maks

 

After seeing the thread about his run in in Lansdale and the way he escalates these interactions on purpose makes him out to be a dick. If he followed the orders and helped the LEO's understand the laws a bit better in a polite and orderly fashion I feel he would get his point across and stand up for his rights better then causing confrontations everytime.

 

He thinks he won with the Philly police officer after sitting on the sidewalk & in a patty wagon for 30min but imagine the impact he would have had if he followed the orders from the disrespectful, out of line SARGENT that first incountered him then proceeded to advise the SARGENT of the laws and how he wasnt breaking them. It would have been just the two of them and he could have explained the whole thing and calmed the situation down very quickly and easilly. You never know, that Sargent may have gone back to roll call the next day and explained the situation to the shift and how to handle things like this so it doesnt escalate.

 

Just my 2cents.

 

-Scott

 

This doesnt make sense, he said in plain English very politely, i have a permit to carry firearms open or concealed, it was the officer who choose to insult him and ignore him. If he knew the law he would have said let me see the permit, and the guy w Would have been on his merry way. Let me ask this, why should citizens have to put up with this kinda crap to begin with? LEO should know the law, we shouldnt have to explain it to them for this exact reason. I mean what the hell do these guys learn at the academy? What kind of system is this where they have to learn the law through experience, how do u know this is even a real cop? and not some guy dressed like one looking to take your gun.. I would have serious doubts have a gun pointed at me buy some guy who claims to be a cop but doesnt know the laws.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I get that OC is legal... but so was Slavery. How about running around the street naked?

 

 

What the heck does that mean????? The point of the whole story is that a person was legally exercising his rights. The police stopped him for no reason, and through their own ignorance of the law, escalated the situation to dangerous levels. Should he have complied - yes, but the point is he shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

 

As for a training component - although totally irrelevant to this scenario - how about if we gave you a literacy test before we allowed you freedom of speech? How about a theology quiz before you are allowed to worship in the religion of your choice? Why is the right to bear arms the target of unreasonable restrictions? You use the example of a USPSA familiarization class - allow me the example of Pennsylvania. Over 650,000 LTCF's issued with no training component required - how often do you read of an LTCF holder injuring an innocent? Please don't misconstrue - I believe that if you are responsible enough to carry a weapon, chances are you will learn to use it - but it shouldn't be mandated or a condition of exercising that right.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Maksim 1,504]

No offense, but if the guy did not argue with the LEO, he would have probably ended up in jail and booked for illegal possession of a firearm, and then would have had the pleasure of dealing with the legal system. So i dont understand the notion of just shut up when your in the right. If you were in the wrong, then yes just shut up. We shouldnt have to put up with the kinda ****, this is like a cop pulling you over and guns drawn and telling you to get out of the car, arrests you, says hey man i dont know who you are! i dont know u have a license to drive a car! Pathetic man, how can you uphold laws you dont know exist......

 

He would of been arrested, sure. Would of make his lawsuit even better. (btw, if you read the PA forum, this is what he was fully expecting, and is looking to sue for violation of his rights. I bet 250k shuts him up?)

 

right or wrong, the cop can arrest you, because he thinks he is right. You are arguing because you think you are right. Once again, you are arguing trying to prove the cop wrong, so that he lets you go. The only institution that determines whether you are guilty or innocent is the court.

 

Much like shooting someone in a defensive situation... expect to go to the police department. It will be in court where it gets resolved.

 

 

Once again, OC in Philly is like Open Carrying an unloaded rifle in Newark. You can do it... but not expecting to get trouble is just ludicrous.

 

Now lets say you are an LEO... you are driving your car, you see someone with a gun strapped on their hip, are you not going to get suspicious? You stop the person, he does not initially comply, then you find a tape recorder on him. Ie, the guy is out to get you.

 

Now lets look at it in NJ, I am looking outside and there is someone walking around with an AR 15 on their shoulder. Unless they are wearing a uniform, or there is a squad car close by... bet my ass I am calling the dispatcher to report it. (Is it legal? Yes. If this was in the woods, I would not blink an eye, if this was at the range, or close by, no problem. In a residential area? the radar goes off.)

 

Oonce again though, I am not talking about what is legal and what is not. I am talking about what is effective.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Yeah it is legal. However I am not argueing that. You said gays making out is "stupid". I am argueing that point. It's no more or less stupid than a straight couple making out. For the most part they make out because they are into the other person and not because they are trying to prove a point. (Unless it was for a photo op) Just playing er... devils advocate here.

 

For unenlightened people, two gays making out is a sign of the apocalypse... just like for some of us, looking at OCers is "stupid" not because they're carrying a gun, but it's a poor tactical choice. For an anti-gunner, it's a cue to freak the hell out. They need to be acclimated.

[Maksim 1,504]

What the heck does that mean????? The point of the whole story is that a person was legally exercising his rights. The police stopped him for no reason, and through their own ignorance of the law, escalated the situation to dangerous levels. Should he have complied - yes, but the point is he shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

 

As for a training component - although totally irrelevant to this scenario - how about if we gave you a literacy test before we allowed you freedom of speech? How about a theology quiz before you are allowed to worship in the religion of your choice? Why is the right to bear arms the target of unreasonable restrictions? You use the example of a USPSA familiarization class - allow me the example of Pennsylvania. Over 650,000 LTCF's issued with no training component required - how often do you read of an LTCF holder injuring an innocent? Please don't misconstrue - I believe that if you are responsible enough to carry a weapon, chances are you will learn to use it - but it shouldn't be mandated or a condition of exercising that right.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

Slavery was perfectly legal. Having a CCW with no education requirement is perfectly legal. (but it does not mean I am a fan of it). In an environment like this, where the average gun owner is at the range once a year, and 500 rounds year, I don't believe it is effective enough. Plain and simple. Much to the same degree why drivers licenses are required, and vision tests are done. Have a Free required CCW class before getting a license.

[Babaganoosh 192]

As much as I usually agree with PB I do feel that anyone who is to become licensed to carry a gun either concealed or open should have at least a little training. Same reason you have training to drive a car. They are both instruments that can kill if used incorrectly. Words however will not kill you if used incorrectly. They might offend or upset you but not kill you. Lest we all forget... Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!

 

A 1 hour class wouldn't hurt anyone.

[Maksim 1,504]

Btw, this is a fantastic thread and a great discussion. =) Keep it up.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Not including his numerous arrests for public drunk state.

 

I get that OC is legal... but so was Slavery. How about running around the street naked?

 

Your rights end where my nose begins. If he is on his property, he can do whatever the hell pleases him. What if you are walking across the street, this OC is stopped by the cops or someone else, like say a thug from behind who wants to knock it out cold and steal his gun... and the OC feels threatened and draws and starts firing.... him OC brought on more attention than what is needed. To take it one step further, I firmly believe in a conceal carry education requirement. I do not want some idiot with no formal training to start drawing and firing in public.

 

Perfect example... On Sat, I helped RO a USPSA intro class, half the folks could not properly draw and holster a firearm, and most folks who had a safety on their firearm, did not seem to efficiently use it. How many CCW actually practice dry firing double action and drawing from a holster weekly?

 

Much like I do not want blind people driving cars, I do not want untrained people carrying... especially if open carrying.

 

If you are on your own property, where your actions do not infringe upon, or affect other people, do as you please... walk around the house naked, with a strapped gun, blowing your cat.... who cares. But if you are out in public where your actions can easily impact others.... ? Yes, I realize that many will believe it is infringing on the 2a, but you choose where you live. If you choose to live in America, you choose to pay taxes, get a drivers license.

 

Once again, the LEO were strongly out of line with the tone and their language. The OP is a righteous idiot/martyr for what he did, and was stupid to keep escalating the situation by not complying and arguing with the cops. Aren't we always told to just shut up? Arguing with LEO is a case of he said, she said.... that is what the courts are for.

 

Remember the scene from Die Hard with a Vengeance... when the Terrorist orders John McLane to go to Harlem with a sign on him saying "I hate Ni***ers" ? Lets say he did it. Yes, he has the right to do it, to exercise his freedom of speech.... but who thinks it is the right thing to do?

 

So what? It's his damned right to exercise. The whole point about Open Carry isn't because it's some sound tactical choice, it's to get people to become acclimated to seeing guns around.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

He would of been arrested, sure. Would of make his lawsuit even better. (btw, if you read the PA forum, this is what he was fully expecting, and is looking to sue for violation of his rights. I bet 250k shuts him up?)

 

right or wrong, the cop can arrest you, because he thinks he is right. You are arguing because you think you are right. Once again, you are arguing trying to prove the cop wrong, so that he lets you go. The only institution that determines whether you are guilty or innocent is the court.

 

Much like shooting someone in a defensive situation... expect to go to the police department. It will be in court where it gets resolved.

 

 

Once again, OC in Philly is like Open Carrying an unloaded rifle in Newark. You can do it... but not expecting to get trouble is just ludicrous.

 

Now lets say you are an LEO... you are driving your car, you see someone with a gun strapped on their hip, are you not going to get suspicious? You stop the person, he does not initially comply, then you find a tape recorder on him. Ie, the guy is out to get you.

 

Now lets look at it in NJ, I am looking outside and there is someone walking around with an AR 15 on their shoulder. Unless they are wearing a uniform, or there is a squad car close by... bet my a** I am calling the dispatcher to report it. (Is it legal? Yes. If this was in the woods, I would not blink an eye, if this was at the range, or close by, no problem. In a residential area? the radar goes off.)

 

Oonce again though, I am not talking about what is legal and what is not. I am talking about what is effective.

I was under the impression it was the duty of the officer to uphold the law and arrest those who break it, if you do not know the law how can you perform your duties in a proficient manner? I'm not arguing the officer investigating the situation, i would hope that they investigate suspicious activity, but i would also expect them to be professional, know the law, and make reasonable arrests. In this country you have the right to challenge the system, especially when this **** happens. So now if NJ ever accepts a shall issue we will all get this treatment when some concerned citizen sees one of us carrying?

[Scottcba1 8]

This doesnt make sense, he said in plain English very politely, i have a permit to carry firearms open or concealed, it was the officer who choose to insult him and ignore him. If he knew the law he would have said let me see the permit, and the guy w Would have been on his merry way. Let me ask this, why should citizens have to put up with this kinda crap to begin with? LEO should know the law, we shouldnt have to explain it to them for this exact reason. I mean what the hell do these guys learn at the academy? What kind of system is this where they have to learn the law through experience, how do u know this is even a real cop? and not some guy dressed like one looking to take your gun.. I would have serious doubts have a gun pointed at me buy some guy who claims to be a cop but doesnt know the laws.

 

 

I agree that the police should've known the law before hand and that the first officers on scene did a terrible job communicating and understanding the situation. Your absolutely right, the civilian did offer his license and drivers license to verify it was him but the officer was too busy being a hot head. I also do a terrible job in trying to make my point in my first post.

 

we dont know what would have happened but if it was me I would have followed the directions, did what the officer told me to do. He probably would have taken the firearm from me and his hostile attitude and behavior(i would hope) would have dropped down a level or two. At this point I would have given him my creditials and began to explain why I was OC and how I am not breaking any laws.

 

Thats just me, I love to kill people with kindness. I feel it gets the point across much better then being argumentitive. I personally feel this sargent would have felt dumb for pointing his weapon at the civilian and would have walked away with more knowledge then he is now and the whole thing would have been 5 minutes.

 

-Scott

[Maksim 1,504]

oh, I am not defending these LEO in any way. they are completely out of line, and I would of probably reacted the same way. But I would of not put myself in that position to look for trouble in the first place.

 

But you cannot expect the LEO to know every law. Once again, that is what the courts are for. They make mistakes. I make mistakes. I do not know 100% of my job. Anyone that says they know everything is an ignorant liar. Lawyers dont know everything, Cops dont know everything, accountants do not know everything. Having the expectation of Law Enforcement to know every law is irrational. It is perhaps great to think that they should know it all, but they do not. They are people like you and me.

[SpecialK 193]

What the heck does that mean????? The point of the whole story is that a person was legally exercising his rights. The police stopped him for no reason, and through their own ignorance of the law, escalated the situation to dangerous levels. Should he have complied - yes, but the point is he shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

 

As for a training component - although totally irrelevant to this scenario - how about if we gave you a literacy test before we allowed you freedom of speech? How about a theology quiz before you are allowed to worship in the religion of your choice? Why is the right to bear arms the target of unreasonable restrictions? You use the example of a USPSA familiarization class - allow me the example of Pennsylvania. Over 650,000 LTCF's issued with no training component required - how often do you read of an LTCF holder injuring an innocent? Please don't misconstrue - I believe that if you are responsible enough to carry a weapon, chances are you will learn to use it - but it shouldn't be mandated or a condition of exercising that right.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Well said!

[Maksim 1,504]

Why only unloaded? Would they check it?

 

IIRC, there are laws about transporting a loaded long arm, but nothing about an unloaded long arm.

 

(See, I dont know everything). =) that is what reference material is for.

[djg0770 481]

Words however will not kill you if used incorrectly. They might offend or upset you but not kill you.

 

 

Really??? Let's see how bad this particular incident could have gone if the OC-er would have used the wrong words...

 

I think you get the point.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Slavery was perfectly legal. Having a CCW with no education requirement is perfectly legal. (but it does not mean I am a fan of it). In an environment like this, where the average gun owner is at the range once a year, and 500 rounds year, I don't believe it is effective enough. Plain and simple. Much to the same degree why drivers licenses are required, and vision tests are done. Have a Free required CCW class before getting a license.

 

Social issues always change with time especially in this country. At some point in time we looked at women as if they were lesser then a black male and it was legal to beat them in your own home.. So it goes both ways.

 

The whole driving a car license thing is mute. they basically hand those things out if you can put the car in park and drive. Thats like giving some one a gun and having them load and cock it to pass the test.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Really??? Let's see how bad this particular incident could have gone if the OC-er would have used the wrong words...

 

I think you get the point.

 

Maybe ill word it differently so you cant skirt around my point. A gun can kill directly. Words can kill indirectly. However it would be the gun directly killing the guy with the words.

 

My opinion is that people who are allowed to carry should have a little instruction/class. I think a 1 hour class should do it. It won't hurt, it will only help

[JimmyAGR 54]

No offense, but if the guy did not argue with the LEO, he would have probably ended up in jail and booked for illegal possession of a firearm, and then would have had the pleasure of dealing with the legal system. So i dont understand the notion of just shut up when your in the right. If you were in the wrong, then yes just shut up. We shouldnt have to put up with the kinda ****, this is like a cop pulling you over and guns drawn and telling you to get out of the car, arrests you, says hey man i dont know who you are! i dont know u have a license to drive a car! Pathetic man, how can you uphold laws you dont know exist......

 

Agree, he did not do anything wrong. Asking why he was being singled out is not being wrong. Exercise of your rights is a right in itself. If someone doesn't like what you are saying they don't have to listen. If someone wants to OC that is there right if the law permits, stating that it may cause instances of confrontation is not a reason to stop doing something legal. Putting qualifications on rights, is just another way of regulating a right. Do you need an english degree to use your first amendment right? No reason to have a regulation on the 2nd amendment either.

[SpecialK 193]

Maybe ill word it differently so you cant skirt around my point. A gun can kill directly. Words can kill indirectly. However it would be the gun directly killing the guy with the words.

 

My opinion is that people who are allowed to carry should have a little instruction/class. I think a 1 hour class should do it. It won't hurt, it will only help

 

and soon as the Constitution is Amended to include this required instruction all of us that are arguing on the side of our Rights as Americans will agree with your opinion.

[Maksim 1,504]

Social issues always change with time especially in this country. At some point in time we looked at women as if they were lesser then a black male and it was legal to beat them in your own home.. So it goes both ways.

 

The whole driving a car license thing is mute. they basically hand those things out if you can put the car in park and drive. Thats like giving some one a gun and having them load and cock it to pass the test.

 

 

Plenty of people fail it. =)

 

Honestly, I would be happy with something easy like that. If you CCW, you should at least be able to quickly draw and fire. How many folks who do any match just freeze when they hear the buzzer.

 

The fact is, people don't practice.

 

Open and honest question to the FL CCW holders here. When was the last time you dry fired and practice drawing from a concealment holster?

 

One instance... there was a fellow who took the class, and on 4 out of 5 stages, after being repeatedly told not to go down and pick up mags with gun until it is in your holster.... would every time, hold a gun in his hand, bend over, and sweep everyone down the line. Furthermore, on 5 out of 5 stages, he would turn the gun sideways, breaking the 180, with finger in the trigger guard as he reloaded the firearm. I do not feel comfortable with that shooter. On the last stage he improved, but bet your butt, I am on defcon 1 when that person has a live firearm in their hand.

[Maksim 1,504]

Agree, he did not do anything wrong. Asking why he was being singled out is not being wrong. Exercise of your rights is a right in itself. If someone doesn't like what you are saying they don't have to listen. If someone wants to OC that is there right if the law permits, stating that it may cause instances of confrontation is not a reason to stop doing something legal. Putting qualifications on rights, is just another way of regulating a right. Do you need an english degree to use your first amendment right? No reason to have a regulation on the 2nd amendment either.

 

 

So Libel and Slander should be ok too? How about kiddie porn? First Amendment. You have to take every issue to the very absurd. Because that is what the anti gun people do.

[Babaganoosh 192]

and soon as the Constitution is Amended to include this required instruction all of us that are arguing on the side of our Rights as Americans will agree with your opinion.

 

Speak for yourself junior. There are plenty of people who argue for the rights as Americans who think people who carry guns should have a little instruction.