Jump to content
axeman_g

Open Carry Phily Incident Charges Filed

Recommended Posts

Someone compared being checked for carry permit while walking around to being checked for a license while driving.. Theoretically you could be checked 100 times a day for a license by police conducting random plate checks.. As stated the driver may not be the registered owner however the majority of the time the driver is the owner.. Just throwing it out there...

 

Yes we still ask for license, reg, and insurance.. You have to have all 3 documents on you at all times as required by law.. You might be licenses and you might be registered and insured but without them you will get issued.. And without the insurance card your vehicle could be impounded.. On a random plate check it will only say if male or female.. And as I already stated the driver might not be the owner.. But if there is a hit we can run full disclosure and get a picture of the owner depending if MV updated system..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a FYI but for those talking about how you don't have you license checked when you pull out your driveway, when making a turn, etc.. You would probably never know if your license is being checked.. Police can do what's called a random plate check.. So when you make that turn I can put your plate in through dispatch or a computer and see if any "hits" come back such as expired license, suspended license, warrants, etc... Just thought I would throw that out there..

 

Didn't someone go over this already... that driving is a privilege not a right. You are not violating, harassing, hindering or impeding on anyone's constitutional or human rights by running a plate check.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone go over this already... that driving is a privilege not a right. You are not violating, harassing, hindering or impeding on anyone's constitutional or human rights by running a plate check.

 

I am not applying this to anything other then 1 comment that was made in comparing a d.l. check to a carry permit check..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not applying this to anything other then 1 comment that was made in comparing a d.l. check to a carry permit check..

 

OK, because comparing a license to drive with exercising 2A rights are completely off-base. I wish people would stop using the two as comparisons in these discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, because comparing a license to drive with exercising 2A rights are completely off-base. I wish people would stop using the two as comparisons in these discussions.

 

I understand why they compare it but you are right.. They are not the same.. Well at least not with most the guys on this board.. There are some out there that feel that driving is a basic human right but that's for another day lol..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer, not a cop, but fairly familier with law an procedure. If im not mistaken random stops BY LAW have to be exactly that. It has to be applied evenly. So that is to say if you are having a dui check, you need to either check every car coming through, or every 3rd car etc etc. You can not simply pick out those you wish to check. So I would imagine this goes for random plate check as well. Without PC to trigger a lookup, your checks would need to be pre determined at x random interval. So in the case of open carry, I dont think you can legally single them out. You would have to in fact enact a publicly random pre determined check. Other wise you would be harrassing an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also not sure if you read about the Vegas incident.. But its people like that make people uncomfortable with open carry.. Just as a quick background on the story.. A female was out in her neighborhood and saw 2 cops writing a summons to another person.. The female was open carrying and decided to stand and point a camera at the cops within like 20 feet or something like that.. The cops were not having a problem whatsoever with the person they were citing and everything was going fine.. They noticed that the female was taping and were fine and then they noticed a gun.. I understand that she was exercising her right.. But why can't you just let a cop do his job.. Why add more problems then solutions.. So now this cop has to worry about a second person standing there with a gun.. I know we will get back into the whole right to carry.. But aside from that a cop has 2 potential threats now.. The person they are citing and the person standing a few feet away with a gun.. Sure she may be a law abiding citizen or she may be a crazed woman who is waiting for the right opportunity to shoot a cop while he is looking down issuing a summons.. How am I supposed to know?? On top of that let me give you another "what if".. Same scenario only the person getting the citation catches female off guard and is now armed with a gun.. If she wants to open carry fine.. But why can you not just go about your business..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer, not a cop, but fairly familier with law an procedure. If im not mistaken random stops BY LAW have to be exactly that. It has to be applied evenly. So that is to say if you are having a dui check, you need to either check every car coming through, or every 3rd car etc etc. You can not simply pick out those you wish to check. So I would imagine this goes for random plate check as well. Without PC to trigger a lookup, your checks would need to be pre determined at x random interval. So in the case of open carry, I dont think you can legally single them out. You would have to in fact enact a publicly random pre determined check. Other wise you would be harrassing an individual.

 

Random is random.. There is no set numbers involved.. If I am driving I can run 1 car here.. 1 car there.. all 4 cars in my surrounding while stopped at a light.. 8 cars here.. 2 cars there.. I dont sit there and say ok well i cant run that car its the 3rd one.. have to wait for the next.. And would be kind of pointless as how could I possibly have a steady way of counting?? for example I could be driving north and see 4 cars go south.. do they count in my "random number count" if i can't see their plate long enough to enter it?? Another FYI.. There is not 1 car or 1 driver that is out on the road that cant be stopped for something.. There is ALWAYS a violation taking place.. before getting on the job I had no idea just how many offenses there are.. if you let someone get out of your car without coming to a full stopat a curb you are in violation.. if you swerve within your own lane you are in violation... there are violations that I still dont even know about.. this damn book they give us is like 400pgs long describing violations..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTI, my thoughts would be this, if the person standing there with a weapon is a crazed gunmen, what difference would the law make? They are going to do whatever they are going to do no matter what. To add to that I think we can always find an exception case to just about every scenario. For this specific case it certainly raises the question as to why she was taping? Is there a history of police "issues" in that area? Of course the counter example would be the incident where the officer was down, shot by the BG and a carry permit holder came to the officers aid and in fact shot the BG, likely saving the officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also not sure if you read about the Vegas incident.. But its people like that make people uncomfortable with open carry.. Just as a quick background on the story.. A female was out in her neighborhood and saw 2 cops writing a summons to another person.. The female was open carrying and decided to stand and point a camera at the cops within like 20 feet or something like that.. The cops were not having a problem whatsoever with the person they were citing and everything was going fine.. They noticed that the female was taping and were fine and then they noticed a gun.. I understand that she was exercising her right.. But why can't you just let a cop do his job.. Why add more problems then solutions.. So now this cop has to worry about a second person standing there with a gun.. I know we will get back into the whole right to carry.. But aside from that a cop has 2 potential threats now.. The person they are citing and the person standing a few feet away with a gun.. Sure she may be a law abiding citizen or she may be a crazed woman who is waiting for the right opportunity to shoot a cop while he is looking down issuing a summons.. How am I supposed to know?? On top of that let me give you another "what if".. Same scenario only the person getting the citation catches female off guard and is now armed with a gun.. If she wants to open carry fine.. But why can you not just go about your business..

 

I would say the fact that she is pointing a video camera at you and not her holstered gun is a real good indication. :icon_rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that a concerned citizen may wish to be there in case something should happen.. But with 2 officer on scene and 1 person being issued you (as the open carrier) put yourself in harms way.. And being that close to the encounter only raises questions.. She should have either gone about her day seeing that the situation was under control or stayed a substantial distance away..

 

On a side note i believe she is known to press the issues with open carry.. Videotaping police reactions to her carrying a gun.. and videotaping other people's reactions to carrying.. They walk the strip in vegas with their guns out and try to get peoples reactions to them carrying.. Great to express your right.. But certain situations just don't call for it.. No need to walk up on a cop doing a traffic stop and stand there.. That would make anyone feel uncomfortable.. Cops have enough going through their minds during a stop to now have to run 1,000 more "what if" scenarios adding in a possible second shooter from the open carrying, law abiding citizen that just could be having a bad day or had something traumatic happen and not in the right state of mind..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would be willing to bet that if you made a stop in the manner you describe that turned into something else, and you had no violation for making the stop or lookup(and were honest about that fact), your methodology would come into question putting your post stop evidence at risk. Cases lost on the lack of pre determined randomness and methodology is exacly why those policies where changed many years ago for DUI checks for example. It HAS to be applied evenly to the population. You can not legally single people out without cause. I bet that even applies to tag checks. Most cases its a ticket, bud find a trunk hooker and if you are absolutly honest on the stand, you may very well have a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTI, are we talking about concern or reality? Does the posetion of a firearm have some sort of direct connection to the cerebral cortex to somehow influence a law abiding citizen to turn into a crazed gunman? Frankly, if I was LE and had a side show loon to deal with, Id rather have the heads up that they are carrying! Furthermore, do we have a chicken or the egg situation here? Lets theorise a moment. IF LE never reacted to people open carrying, would anyone be trying to push the issue? I suspect that bad reactions are what has driven some individuals to press it the way they are. That is not to say there isnt some people out there that I wish didnt represent my interests but by the same token, I can tell you these two eyes have seen LE do some totally off the chart stuff too. Which gets into the entire higher standard debate which I dont want to get into. But back to my main point, the law is going to make NO difference if a criminal is going to open up on you. In fact I would think, your more likely to not see it coming from someone with those intentions because they are going to ambush you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: FearThisInc...

 

r7vj15.jpg

 

Thanks.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Thank you, thank you, Pizza Bob. Perfect.

 

And to FearThis I say in closing:

Nemo enim ipsam kielbasa voluptatem, quia taco bell voluptas sit, aspernatur wermacht aut odit aut fugit, sed spanikopita quia consequuntur honda magni arbeit macht frei dolores eos, qui mit bier und brat ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. LOL.

Enough already.

Wiedersehen und Adios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone go over this already... that driving is a privilege not a right. You are not violating, harassing, hindering or impeding on anyone's constitutional or human rights by running a plate check.

 

No no no. Correction. Driving is a privilege, and carry a firearm is suppose to be a right. But obviously in NJ, that is not the case.

 

OK, because comparing a license to drive with exercising 2A rights are completely off-base. I wish people would stop using the two as comparisons in these discussions.

 

They are compared for good reason, and the comparison does have merit. Since you have to be licensed to drive, and in NJ and other states, you have to be licensed to carry, they might as well be on the same parallels. Should they be? That is an entirely different story. So you will probably continue to see this as a comparison.

 

I do hear what you are saying, but where does it start and where will it end?? What would I need to wear and show others to practice my 1st amendment rights??

 

Harry

 

You are asking the wrong person! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the one that make the carry license to driver's license comparison. Another poster put forth the proposition that since you needed a special license to carry in Philly, the police could legally use a Terry stop to check for this license. I disagreed and stated that driving requires a special license. My implication was that the police cannot Terry stop a driver just to check their documents. The assumption is that people driving cars are doing so legally and either random stops and probable cause must be present in order to stop a driver and ask for their driver's license. Same thing with those open carrying. The assumption should be that people are doing so legally. The simple act of driving a car does not permit the police to stop you and ask for your license and the same should apply to a carry permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer, not a cop, but fairly familier with law an procedure. If im not mistaken random stops BY LAW have to be exactly that. It has to be applied evenly. So that is to say if you are having a dui check, you need to either check every car coming through, or every 3rd car etc etc. You can not simply pick out those you wish to check. So I would imagine this goes for random plate check as well. Without PC to trigger a lookup, your checks would need to be pre determined at x random interval. So in the case of open carry, I dont think you can legally single them out. You would have to in fact enact a publicly random pre determined check. Other wise you would be harrassing an individual.

Not to keep the tangent theme going, but Special Ed wasnt talking about random STOPS Shane, he was talking about random lookups. I dont know about his equipment but our MDT's have a special "random" setting on the lookup screen, i can put in any plate I see and all it will tell me is whether or not the plate is valid. If there's a problem, then it gives an alert. IU can run one plate, i can run 100 plates..doesnt make a difference. if i run it as a full (PC) lookup, not a "Random" then there should be some other circumstance, such as a MV stop, or if i recognize a driver or if I see a vheicle thatmathces a description from an alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to keep the tangent theme going, but Special Ed wasnt talking about random STOPS Shane, he was talking about random lookups. I dont know about his equipment but our MDT's have a special "random" setting on the lookup screen, i can put in any plate I see and all it will tell me is whether or not the plate is valid. If there's a problem, then it gives an alert. IU can run one plate, i can run 100 plates..doesnt make a difference. if i run it as a full (PC) lookup, not a "Random" then there should be some other circumstance, such as a MV stop, or if i recognize a driver or if I see a vheicle thatmathces a description from an alert.

I've started seeing some departments with the automated plate scanners mounted on the patrol cars. I would imagine it's scanning every plate that goes by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started seeing some departments with the automated plate scanners mounted on the patrol cars. I would imagine it's scanning every plate that goes by.

 

I would also imagine that it's my "stimulus" money that put that camera on that car...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started seeing some departments with the automated plate scanners mounted on the patrol cars. I would imagine it's scanning every plate that goes by.

That's the way i've been told those work..i doubt ill see them before I retire, and even if we DID get the grant money for one, "I" wouldnt be using it.. "MY" car doesnt even have an MDT mount in it, i use one of the oldest cars in our fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started seeing some departments with the automated plate scanners mounted on the patrol cars. I would imagine it's scanning every plate that goes by.

 

Nothing like using our tax dollars to buy tools to incriminate us.. :sarcastichand: dam goverment... :sarcastichand:

 

And i blame every one of you for paying your taxes including myself. :sarcastichand::sarcastichand:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almiz111, are you going to leave us hanging or will you translate what you typed? My daughter and I know a little German, and very little Spanish, but not enough. I have an employee that is fluent in both so I will ask him to translate that for me manana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almiz111, are you going to leave us hanging or will you translate what you typed? My daughter and I know a little German, and very little Spanish, but not enough. I have an employee that is fluent in both so I will ask him to translate that for me manana

 

It's a nonsense filler called 'lorem ipsum' = gibberish and I inserted some other words to make it even worse. Some of my serious posts have fallen into this category. LOL.

 

After sooooo many pages I saw that FearThis was an expert in this "language?". I just wanted to respond in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nonsense filler called 'lorem ipsum' = gibberish and I inserted some other words to make it even worse. Some of my serious posts have fallen into this category. LOL.

 

After sooooo many pages I saw that FearThis was an expert in this "language?". I just wanted to respond in kind.

 

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the bubble dies, a necromancer rejoices. Indeed, a bodice ripper near a taxidermist non-chalantly hosts a coward living with a gonad. A niggardly pocket secretly admires a trombone, because a ruffian can be kind to a mastadon for an espadrille. The menagé à trois about some cigar eagerly gives a pink slip to a maestro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...