Philadelphia Police Threaten To Kill Open Carrier

[Sam02S2K 3]

Again, not going to discuss the original story, I've never even met that dude, just thought you ladies and gentlemen would appreciate some context. I spent well over 30 years in NJ. I carried in several states growing up. Despite that, growing up in NJ left me with no understanding about how America works.

 

All police in PA (not sure about state police, but otherwise) were trained on this in 2009:

 

paopencarry,org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc,pdf

 

Not everything in there is 100% accurate, but it did a pretty damn good job of reminding all police that they cannot perform a stop of somebody because they are open carrying, cannot search them because they are open carrying, cannot seize their weapon or property, and cannot demand ID. Cops could decide to talk to you and size you up. If you are willing. And until you decide to walk away. It's just like anybody else on the street that walked up to talk to you. Except a cop might seem authoritative even though he has no authority in these matters.

 

Now, some of you will read that entire training document, including the minor errors, and somehow look for the conclusion that police in PA can hassle you over OC. That is not the case. Please understand, PA is not NJ. Also, we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in our Commonwealth Constitution. NJ is one of the few states that does not. Finally, there is Supreme Court (and other) case law in PA where criminals that were carrying had their cases thrown out because the police used carrying (or possession?) as their RAS for a search.

 

Could Philly cops mess with you? Any cop can mess with you. That's why they are cops, so they can screw you over or plant drugs on you or whatever they do. All I can tell you is I have met dozens of cops all over the eastern half of the Commonwealth, including Philly, and most seem to be afraid to talk to me because I am carrying. They have been taught they will be sued if they approach me in a way that would suggest detainment. On the one hand, I think that's pretty crappy. Going to the other hand (foot in this case), they can't F with you. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, the Law, and the Case law, and, last but not least, the results of lawsuits.

 

Of course, none of this will stop a cop that wants to stick his penis in your rectum, or otherwise screw with you on a less consequential basis that results in a trumped-up charge. Philly is indeed a place where you might meet such cops, so plan accordingly.

 

Thanks for the information. I'll probably check that website out better at a later time,

[djg0770 481]

If a officer tells you to get on teh ground you do it. Be cooperative first and then ask questions later. If teh guy would have just put teh officer at ease by doing what he was told I'm sure things would have went much differently.

 

Let me rephrase your (pejorative) statement above:

 

If an officer tells you to pull your pants down - do it. Be cooperative first and then ask questions later. If teh guy would have just put teh officer at ease by doing what he was told I'm sure things would have went much differently.

 

WHERE do you draw teh line?????? I draw it simply at "probable cause". Open Carry is NOT probable cause.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Are we forgetting that teh officer didn't know who this individual was with teh gun? teh officers job is to protect teh citizens around teh community as well as himself. teh officer sees a guy open carry, you expect him NOT to approach teh person regardless if he knows teh laws or not about carrying a firearm?

 

 

I can't believe that you read teh entire thread and still make a statement like, "...you expect him NOT to approach...etc." YES, that is exactly what I expect. teh LEO had no RAS, therefore he had no reason to stop and detain this guy, let alone do it at gunpoint. This was a terry stop plain & simple.

 

You have been drinking teh NJ kool-aid too long.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Babaganoosh 192]

 

If a officer tells you to get on teh ground you do it. Be cooperative first and then ask questions later. If teh guy would have just put teh officer at ease by doing what he was told I'm sure things would have went much differently.

 

If teh officer told you to suck his dick would you do that too? Or my parents favorite; If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

[EngineerJet 191]

For those defending teh officer please get all teh facts.

 

OC in Philly is NOT reason enough to be stopped and questioned. PERIOD!

 

Even IF, teh law stated that OC is justifiable reason to question, this cop did not do that, he drew first and asked questions later.

 

Should teh citizen have cooperated more and resolved this in teh courts instead of teh streets? Possibly, but it seems from teh audio teh cop already painted him as teh bad guy and would have still been met with teh same hostility and unprofessionalism from this particular cop. Speculation sure but that's how I call it from teh audio.

 

Bottom line is teh blame must be put somewhere. Either...

 

1) teh cop knew OC was legal and just wanted to deprive a citizen of his rights (not teh case in this audio)

2) teh cop really believed OC was illegal

a) teh cop was trained to believe this. (Departments fault)

b) Training to educate teh cop on OC procedures was provided but teh cop did not take it. (Cop's fault)

 

See where I'm going with this? Fact of teh matter is, it is clear as crystal that OC is ok with a permit and it took these cops 45 minutes to clear that up. Ignorance of teh law is no excuse for citizens so it DAMN WELL not be ok for those tasked to follow teh law. In this case ignorance of teh law by teh law enforcer almost deprived a citizen of life. Someone has to pay and we should not wait till a citizen is killed by accident for this type of ignorance to be taken seriously.

 

BTW... nice april fools joke... i thought i was going crazy...

[mipafox 438]

 

BTW... nice april fools joke... i thought i was going crazy...

 

Why did you think you were going crazy? There's plenty enough of the craziness when dealing with the Philly PD out there

[Sam02S2K 3]

Let me rephrase your (pejorative) statement above:

 

If an officer tells you to pull your pants down - do it. Be cooperative first and then ask questions later. If teh guy would have just put teh officer at ease by doing what he was told I'm sure things would have went much differently.

 

WHERE do you draw teh line?????? I draw it simply at "probable cause". Open Carry is NOT probable cause.

 

What kind of a ridiculous analogy or parellel is that to my statement? Seriously?

[Sam02S2K 3]

I can't believe that you read teh entire thread and still make a statement like, "...you expect him NOT to approach...etc." YES, that is exactly what I expect. teh LEO had no RAS, therefore he had no reason to stop and detain this guy, let alone do it at gunpoint. This was a terry stop plain & simple.

 

You have been drinking teh NJ kool-aid too long.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

So what seperates this guy from a criminal? Your telling me if a "criminal" is walking down the street open carry the officer should not detain this individual to get his information?

[kenw 293]

So what seperates this guy from a criminal? Your telling me if a "criminal" is walking down the street open carry the officer should not detain this individual to get his information?

Unless he's wearing a big sign that says "Im a criminal" or is dripping in blood, or is actually commiting a crime, yes, that's exactly what we're saying. Even if wey don't like it, just walking down the street doing something legal isn't cause enough for the cops to roll up on you.

[Sam02S2K 3]

For those defending teh officer please get all teh facts.

 

OC in Philly is NOT reason enough to be stopped and questioned. PERIOD!

 

Even IF, teh law stated that OC is justifiable reason to question, this cop did not do that, he drew first and asked questions later.

 

Should teh citizen have cooperated more and resolved this in teh courts instead of teh streets? Possibly, but it seems from teh audio teh cop already painted him as teh bad guy and would have still been met with teh same hostility and unprofessionalism from this particular cop. Speculation sure but that's how I call it from teh audio.

 

Bottom line is teh blame must be put somewhere. Either...

 

1) teh cop knew OC was legal and just wanted to deprive a citizen of his rights (not teh case in this audio)

2) teh cop really believed OC was illegal

a) teh cop was trained to believe this. (Departments fault)

b) Training to educate teh cop on OC procedures was provided but teh cop did not take it. (Cop's fault)

 

See where I'm going with this? Fact of teh matter is, it is clear as crystal that OC is ok with a permit and it took these cops 45 minutes to clear that up. Ignorance of teh law is no excuse for citizens so it DAMN WELL not be ok for those tasked to follow teh law. In this case ignorance of teh law by teh law enforcer almost deprived a citizen of life. Someone has to pay and we should not wait till a citizen is killed by accident for this type of ignorance to be taken seriously.

 

BTW... nice april fools joke... i thought i was going crazy...

 

So if you were an officer and you saw an individual with a gun you had to approach you mean to tell me you wouldn't be cautious and have your gun unholstered?

[kenw 293]

As an officer, why would I have to approach someone who wasn't acting suspiciously, doing noting illegal. wey're's no indication that the guy was doing anything to warrant the attention of LE. Nothing. Zip. Zero. wey're was no reason for any interaction at all.

 

This isn't Hitler's Germany, where we're required to acquiesce to any official demand to "see our papers" (yet). We are free to come and go, as long as we're doing so in a peaceful and legal manner. Anything less than that is Fascism.

[EngineerJet 191]

Are we forgetting that the officer didn't know who this individual was with the gun? The officers job is to protect the citizens around the community as well as himself. The officer sees a guy open carry, you expect him NOT to approach the person regardless if he knows the laws or not about carrying a firearm?

 

If a officer tells you to get on the ground you do it. Be cooperative first and then ask questions later. If the guy would have just put the officer at ease by doing what he was told I'm sure things would have went much differently.

 

What kind of a ridiculous analogy or parellel is that to my statement? Seriously?

 

The analogy is as follows,

 

You stated that you do whatever the officer tells you to do, then worry about who is right or wrong later.

 

For obvious reasons some people have a problem with this philosophy as it gives police absolute power during the time of the stop.

 

Therefore the analogy is that you suggest a cop can do whatever he wants to you even if you know it is wrong and you have to obey.

 

The idea of a police officer with no legal justification (other then paranoia) imposing their will on you because we ,the sheep who know the law ,must give leeway to the cop who does not, is ridiculous.

 

To answer your question, I expect cops NOT to question people who open carry in philly because the LAW states wey cant. Now if wey did something wrong and in the process of routine questioning, ask for a permit, that is different. I also expect cops to know the law. In this case no one got hurt, but can you imagine the uproar if he was killed and the law stated OC was ok with a permit and the cop had zero cause for shooting other then "I saw a gun and I didn't know that's not illegal".

 

Now as silly and extreme the bendover analogy was, in principle it was pretty accurate.

[mipafox 438]

So if you were an officer and you saw an individual with a gun you had to approach you mean to tell me you wouldn't be cautious and have your gun unholstered?

 

Absolutely not. Are you crazy?

 

If I was that concerned, I'd have backup for one thing.

[Sam02S2K 3]

Unless he's wearing a big sign that says "Im a criminal" or is dripping in blood, or is actually commiting a crime, yes, that's exactly what we're saying. Even if wey don't like it, just walking down the street doing something legal isn't cause enough for the cops to roll up on you.

 

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. Whats the point of having law enforcement then? Its their job to investigate someone that is open carrying a gun. Its not normal. Its not like 90 percent of people are walking around with firearms.

[mipafox 438]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. Whats the point of having law enforcement then? Its their job to investigate someone that is open carrying a gun. Its not normal. Its not like 90 percent of people are walking around with firearms.

 

Stay in NJ.

 

Not only is it not their job, it's illegal.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

So if you were an officer and you saw an individual with a gun you had to approach you mean to tell me you wouldn't be cautious and have your gun unholstered?

 

 

Cautious? Yes. But if I were a LEO, I'd be cautious in any interaction with another person. Gun drawn? absolutely not. How many times do we have to say it. wey're is nothing illegal about walking down the street with a gun. A LEO has no idea who you are in a traffic stop either - do you want him to approach you with his gun drawn to issue you a speeding ticket?

 

Look-up Terry Stop on Wikipedia and you will see that a LEO must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the actor is either doing something criminal or about to do something criminal. Walking down the street with a holstered gun does not fit that criteria under the laws of PA.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[EngineerJet 191]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. Whats the point of having law enforcement then? Its their job to investigate someone that is open carrying a gun. Its not normal. Its not like 90 percent of people are walking around with firearms.

 

I'm sorry but if you take some time to really evaluate your values, you may find that it is thinking like this that got us this police state mentality.

 

It is without a shadow of a doubt, NOT their job to investigate someone what is open carrying a gun. This is not up for debate. It is the LAW in PA. The sooner you get it through your head the better.

[kenw 293]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. Whats the point of having law enforcement then? Its their job to investigate someone that is open carrying a gun. Its not normal. Its not like 90 percent of people are walking around with firearms.

You may disagree, but any time someone is assaulted by LE while legally and peacefully going about their business isn't representative of the freedoms generations of Americans have fought and died for. We do not live in a police state.

 

The Constitution (capital C) guarantees that we are innocent of anything until the State (capital S) proves us guilty. We are never required to prove our innocence in any matter, the State is required to prove us guilty. Assuming that someone legally exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is guilty of a crime is an abrogation of our rights, and if you agree with such activities, you want to live in controlling nanny state where you must beg permission for even the smallest freedom, and be prepared to defend it (show you papers) on the mere demand of authority.

[Sam02S2K 3]

"You stated that you do whatever the officer tells you to do, then worry about who is right or wrong later.

 

For obvious reasons some people have a problem with this philosophy as it gives police absolute power during the time of the stop.

 

Therefore the analogy is that you suggest a cop can do whatever he wants to you even if you know it is wrong and you have to obey."

 

If people have a problem with that then I guess its their problem. If we want to make things more difficult for themselves. You mean to tell me if the guy complied and shut his mouth things would have went the same way? I'm only suggesting the officer can tell you what to do in THIS situation.

 

 

"The idea of a police officer with no legal justification (other then paranoia) imposing their will on you because we ,the sheep who know the law ,must give leeway to the cop who does not, is ridiculous."

 

Yes we do have to give "leeway" to officers. Thats the reality of the situation. Are you going to fight every officer that tries to stop you?

 

"To answer your question, I expect cops NOT to question people who open carry in philly because the LAW states wey cant. Now if wey did something wrong and in the process of routine questioning, ask for a permit, that is different. I also expect cops to know the law. In this case no one got hurt, but can you imagine the uproar if he was killed and the law stated OC was ok with a permit and the cop had zero cause for shooting other then "I saw a gun and I didn't know that's not illegal"."

 

Hey I agree with you that the officers should know the law. However that is not the case.

[Sam02S2K 3]

I'm sorry but if you take some time to really evaluate your values, you may find that it is thinking like this that got us this police state mentality.

 

It is without a shadow of a doubt, NOT their job to investigate someone what is open carrying a gun. This is not up for debate. It is the LAW in PA. The sooner you get it through your head the better.

 

Well then its not a good law. Meaning its not clear enough for citizens and officers to know the fine line.

[Sam02S2K 3]

Cautious? Yes. But if I were a LEO, I'd be cautious in any interaction with another person. Gun drawn? absolutely not. How many times do we have to say it. wey're is nothing illegal about walking down the street with a gun. A LEO has no idea who you are in a traffic stop either - do you want him to approach you with his gun drawn to issue you a speeding ticket?

 

Look-up Terry Stop on Wikipedia and you will see that a LEO must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the actor is either doing something criminal or about to do something criminal. Walking down the street with a holstered gun does not fit that criteria under the laws of PA.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Theres a big difference between seeing a gun in plain view and stopping someone on a traffic stop.

[EngineerJet 191]

"You stated that you do whatever the officer tells you to do, then worry about who is right or wrong later.

 

For obvious reasons some people have a problem with this philosophy as it gives police absolute power during the time of the stop.

 

Therefore the analogy is that you suggest a cop can do whatever he wants to you even if you know it is wrong and you have to obey."

 

If people have a problem with that then I guess its their problem. If wey want to make things more difficult for themselves. You mean to tell me if the guy complied and shut his mouth things would have went the same way? I'm only suggesting the officer can tell you what to do in THIS situation.

 

 

"The idea of a police officer with no legal justification (other then paranoia) imposing their will on you because we ,the sheep who know the law ,must give leeway to the cop who does not, is ridiculous."

 

Yes we do have to give "leeway" to officers. Thats the reality of the situation. Are you going to fight every officer that tries to stop you?

 

"To answer your question, I expect cops NOT to question people who open carry in philly because the LAW states wey cant. Now if wey did something wrong and in the process of routine questioning, ask for a permit, that is different. I also expect cops to know the law. In this case no one got hurt, but can you imagine the uproar if he was killed and the law stated OC was ok with a permit and the cop had zero cause for shooting other then "I saw a gun and I didn't know that's not illegal"."

 

Hey I agree with you that the officers should know the law. However that is not the case.

 

I did not say we should fight the cops on everything, that is simply what you are inferring because I do not agree with you. What I am saying is that your philosophy tends to be, wey're is not much we can do, it is what it is. Is a dangerous attitude to have, especially on a forum that promotes freedom and liberty.

 

And just because "...officers should know the law. However that is not the case." to which I agree. We can simply accept that or actively try to change things. This citizen, last I heard is taking them to court which he has the right to do. We should all try to correct officers if we see wey're is a need for correcting in an appropriate manner. If we all had the "it is what it is" attitude nothing would ever change.

 

I am curious that given the facts and the stated laws, you still feel it was this cop's responsibility to stop someone who was OC'ing. Or have you seen the light?

[mipafox 438]

Well then its not a good law. Meaning its not clear enough for citizens and officers to know the fine line.

 

There is no fine line. A police officer cannot detain you or require ID because he saw you riding a bicycle. He cannot detain you because he saw you carrying a gun. Are tey the same? No. It's FAR WORSE if he did it because you were carrying a gun, because riding a bicycle is not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Commonwealth Consitution.

 

This is the way it is in the majority of America. If you don't like it, stay in NJ. Scratch that, stay in NJ anyway.

 

I knew it was a bad idea for me to get involved in this discussion with anti-gun NJ gun forum people. I tried to just provide my experiences and some information for context. But I always get sucked in somehow. I'm just glad so many people here actually get it. I can't say I would have understood five years ago, having lived so many decades in that shithole, even I was brainwashed.

[EngineerJet 191]

Well then its not a good law. Meaning its not clear enough for citizens and officers to know the fine line.

 

It seems pretty clear to me. This citizen knew the law. Heck I googled the law in 10 seconds and knew that OC was legal with a permit and the sight of a gun itself is not justifiable reason for a stop. If I can do it, I do not see the fine line in which you speak of. The line is clear, if the law enforcers cannot follow this obvious line, wey have no business in law enforcement. If I'm a cop and i break the law (even unknowingly) it is my fault and I should be disciplined.

 

I'm startin to smell a troll. lol

[mipafox 438]

Theres a big difference between seeing a gun in plain view and stopping someone on a traffic stop.

 

There is. A cop has justification for a traffic stop.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

You mean to tell me if the guy complied and shut his mouth things would have went the same way?

 

It would have gone worse. He would have ended up in jail with his gun confiscated. His protestations caused enough doubt in some of the officers' minds that wey were afraid to arrest him and take him into custody. wey kicked him loose.

 

"The idea of a police officer with no legal justification (other then paranoia) imposing their will on you because we ,the sheep who know the law ,must give leeway to the cop who does not, is ridiculous."

 

Yes we do have to give "leeway" to officers. Thats the reality of the situation. Are you going to fight every officer that tries to stop you?

 

If wey are trying to enforce an law that does not exist and are grossly violating my rights, you're damn right I'm going to make it known to them that wey are in the wrong.

 

Hey I agree with you that the officers should know the law. However that is not the case.

 

 

So because the enforcers of the law are ignorant of the law, we should succumb to their orders - the other posters are correct, you would be more comfortable living in a police state.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Malsua 1,422]

+1 Bob.

 

We've got a "OMG ONOEZ!" guy if he sees a gun.

 

If he grew up in my town in Ohio, he'd have been Catatonic. Everyone had a gun. You may not have always seen it, but they were there.

[Soju 153]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. Whats the point of having law enforcement then? Its their job to investigate someone that is open carrying a gun. Its not normal. Its not like 90 percent of people are walking around with firearms.

 

The point is to enforce current laws, not to enforce your own made up laws or impose your positional power on people with something that you personally don't like or agree with. Just because it is normal that everybody speeds doesn't make it right. So why does the fact that not everyone carries make it illegal or wrong or anything else? What you are doing is confusing your personal opinion with legal rights and wrongs, which is pretty much what the officer did. What does that mean? It means you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Yes we do have to give "leeway" to officers. Thats the reality of the situation. Are you going to fight every officer that tries to stop you?

 

So we have to give "leeway" to officers just because they are put in a position of authority, regardless of whether or not they are following the laws, just because? Okay Mr. Communism.

 

 

 

Well then its not a good law. Meaning its not clear enough for citizens and officers to know the fine line.

 

I like this one the best.

 

First, good law or not, like it or not, agree with it or not, it is the LAW. It is everyones responsibility to comply. So it "not being a good law" isn't an excuse.

Second, because you think it "isn't a good law", doesn't mean there is a fine law, or any disparity in it's interpretation. There isn't. Open carry is LEGAL in Philly WITH a permit. Black and white. Because the officer was ignorant means only that he was ignorant AND wrong, not that there is a fine line.

 

Theres a big difference between seeing a gun in plain view and stopping someone on a traffic stop.

 

This you got right. A traffic stop means you are in violation of traffic/driving laws. So the police have the ability to enforce those laws and regulations. Seeing a gun doesn't mean someone is in violation of anything. So the police have NO right to enforce made up laws. Big difference indeed. One is legal the other is not.

 

When it comes down to it, you have every right to argue whether or not you agree with laws. But claiming something is or isn't right based off of this opinion contrary to laws is not only illogical, but there is also a right and wrong answer that isn't debatable. Something is right, and something is wrong.

[djg0770 481]

So if you were an officer and you saw an individual with a gun you had to approach you mean to tell me you wouldn't be cautious and have your gun unholstered?

 

OK - in the future, anyone wearing a Pot leaf t shirt, or a Bob Marley t shirt should be stopped and frisked, they may be carrying pot. Anyone wearing a Che Guevera t shirt should be stopped and frisked, they may be trying to be a revolutionary. Anyone carrying a mexican flag should be stopped - wait, I think they SHOULD be stopped...

[djg0770 481]

Sam,

 

Please let me know exactly which constitutional rights you are willing to give up, I will be willing to take an extra measure of yours.