This is why there needs to be more open carry education

[copperhead]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

 

no cliffs, read it

[mjrsplat]

What a load of shit. I hope that guy gets his justice.

[TTQ B4U]

interesting......

[Not Brian]

cliffs?

[LJ]

cliffs?

 

: philly:

[Not Brian]

You'd think a cop would know whether it's legal or not for civilians to walk around with cannons hanging off their hip..

[JaSSon]

I have no doubt the charges against him will be dropped and the complaints against the police will be "investigated".

[TTQ B4U]

You'd think a cop would know whether it's legal or not for civilians to walk around with cannons hanging off their hip..

 

That is the most surprising part of it all. One would think a LEO would know the basics around something as serious at CCW and Open Carry laws.

I don't know what typical LEO Procedure on this would be, but my initial thoughts would be they'd confront him and ask for his ID and Permit. If all checks out, move on. No different than a Ranger asking for a fishing permit.

 

LEO's have a right to be curious and question him, especially if he's drawing attention to himself. We don't know the background. Did someone concerned call the cops?

LEO's owe it to all of us to play it safe.

Citizens have a responsibility to cooperate in situations like this

 

I do think the cops were a bit unprofessional in some areas. However, I that's typical given their daily encounters. I mean their not lawyers, they are just beat-cops.

 

I do think the carrier needs to re-think his daily routine of open carry. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. He's play the law vs perception of others and right or wrong, it's a choice he makes, so he has to deal with the flack like it or not. He doesn't live in the world alone. Walk around Cbus with an open carry and yes, you'll likely get questions. Deal with it; the world doesn't revolve around you.

 

I do think he was looking to cause a commotion. I didn't read his full history, but it appears to be colorful. Perhaps he should rethink his crusade on how to teach the city and those around him about laws like this. There's certainly a more intelligent way to make your point and that is what it seems like he's trying to do.

[Drewhop]

Listening to that makes me fucking sick. I seriously couldnt listen to all of it.

I hate that there are police officers who choose to treat someone like that. Especially when they are in the wrong.

 

 

Now just to stir the fire.

At what point is the civilian legally open carrying allowed to draw his firearm in self defense? Or is he ? He was obviously being threatened but was his life in danger?

[verse]

LEO's have a right to be curious and question him, especially if he's drawing attention to himself.

 

You also have the right to deny them identification. They have no legal reason to make a stop when you are doing nothing illegal. I'm sure Philly is different b/c OC isn't legal there unless you have a CHL. J/S

[99FLHRCI]

That is the most surprising part of it all. One would think a LEO would know the basics around something as serious at CCW and Open Carry laws.

I don't know what typical LEO Procedure on this would be, but my initial thoughts would be they'd confront him and ask for his ID and Permit. If all checks out, move on. No different than a Ranger asking for a fishing permit.

 

LEO's have a right to be curious and question him, especially if he's drawing attention to himself. We don't know the background. Did someone concerned call the cops?

LEO's owe it to all of us to play it safe.

Citizens have a responsibility to cooperate in situations like this

 

I do think the cops were a bit unprofessional in some areas. However, I that's typical given their daily encounters. I mean their not lawyers, they are just beat-cops.

 

I do think the carrier needs to re-think his daily routine of open carry. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. He's play the law vs perception of others and right or wrong, it's a choice he makes, so he has to deal with the flack like it or not. He doesn't live in the world alone. Walk around Cbus with an open carry and yes, you'll likely get questions. Deal with it; the world doesn't revolve around you.

 

I do think he was looking to cause a commotion. I didn't read his full history, but it appears to be colorful. Perhaps he should rethink his crusade on how to teach the city and those around him about laws like this. There's certainly a more intelligent way to make your point and that is what it seems like he's trying to do.

 

He didn't set out on a crusade to teach the city about their laws. He was walking to the parts store through a "rough" neighborhood. When he was confronted and told he could not open carry he stated the Internal Directive that allowed him to and he had his license with him. He was threatened to be shot and then forced to the ground. He was asked if he was looking for trouble. He stated that if he was under arrest he had nothing left to say. The officers told him to STFU. That is when they found his recorder. He stated in another article that he carried the recorder for multiple reasons, CYA in the event he had to use his weapon and because he had been harassed and had his weapon confiscated before. The cops got mad when they found the recorder and tossed him in a car. When they found out that he had not committed a crime they released him. At that point the officer decided he was not disorderly or causing reckless endangerment. (Event occurred Feb. 13th) Only after he released the audio tape was he charged. (Charged April 21st) I do not agree how he handled the situation by arguing with the officer but, I also do not agree with the way the officer approached the situation and lack of professionalism. However, once they realized they were in the wrong they did release him. The part that I feel makes this a big story is the fact that a month later after he released the audio, they decided it was a problem and they charged him. I would also be interested to know if someone filed a complaint or if the officer just happened to stumble across him. If no complaint was filed I really don't see how it was disorderly or causing endangerment.

 

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110516/NEWS/110516009/Philly-man-charged-after-posting-audio-gun-arrest?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

 

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Open-Carry-Experiment-Shows-Cops-Dont-Know-Their-Own-Gun-Laws-121989564.html

[Bam]

FTSP

[TTQ B4U]

You also have the right to deny them identification. They have no legal reason to make a stop when you are doing nothing illegal. I'm sure Philly is different b/c OC isn't legal there unless you have a CHL. J/S

 

Sure, and I'm not claiming to know the LEO position in this case, but am rather using common sense. If I'm open carrying and am only allowed to do so if I have a proper permit, I would expect it's within the law for an officer to ask me for proof of said permit. When doing so, I would also expect them to ask for my identification to show that the permit and me actually match.

 

How would you suggest both parties handle that reasonable expectation?

 

 

He didn't set out on a crusade to teach the city about their laws. He was walking to the parts store through a "rough" neighborhood. When he was confronted and told he could not open carry he stated the Internal Directive that allowed him to and he had his license with him.

 

Neither you nor I know the real and complete facts. We're both inferring based on the information provided. Again, I'm looking at it from the point of view that not everyone walks around with an open carry, a voice recorder and has the history that this guy supposedly has. Looking at it through my window, yeah, the guy may have been in the act of simply walking, but there's more to him and this story. I'm not for a minute going to believe there isn't.

 

He was threatened to be shot and then forced to the ground. He was asked if he was looking for trouble. He stated that if he was under arrest he had nothing left to say. The officers told him to STFU. That is when they found his recorder.

He was confronted by a cop who was doing his job. A cop that while maybe incorrect, was still nonetheless, confronting a citizen with a firearm in plain site. I don't fault the cop for telling him to get on the ground. I also don't fault him for telling the guy to STFU either. Most people ramble a bunch of horse shit out their pie hole anyway, thus best to STFU and go through the procedure manual as instructed.

 

He stated in another article that he carried the recorder for multiple reasons, CYA in the event he had to use his weapon and because he had been harassed and had his weapon confiscated before.

Like I said before, he was well aware of the shit he was likely going to encounter. I carry a CCW but I don't go around with a recording device. If you think it's normal, that's fine. Your call. I see the dude as a bit on the edge.

 

The cops got mad when they found the recorder and tossed him in a car. When they found out that he had not committed a crime they released him.

They go mad, but they didn't turn it off. I can see why they did get mad too. To them just like me, they see some dude walking around with a gun and recorder likely on a mission to cause a scene and capture it. They don't know his history at this point or why his actions are what they are. they just know that in their minds, he shouldn't be walking around with gun, again right or not on that point, they did what protocol tells them. I don't fault them for putting him on the ground, cuffing him and them detaining him. They are within the law to do so until they clarify the matter they are investigating. He wasn't disorderly, but it was clear he wasn't cooperating 100%.

 

So what you're saying is if you were the cop in this situation, you wouldn't secure a guy with a gun that's up for a debate? Your call, but my guess is you'd change that behavior after working as a beat-cop. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certainly going to play it safe. Better safe than sorry as they say.

 

I also do not agree with the way the officer approached the situation and lack of professionalism.

Agree there.

 

However, once they realized they were in the wrong they did release him. The part that I feel makes this a big story is the fact that a month later after he released the audio, they decided it was a problem and they charged him. I would also be interested to know if someone filed a complaint or if the officer just happened to stumble across him. If no complaint was filed I really don't see how it was disorderly or causing endangerment.

So once they clarified the situation they were investigating, they cut him loose. No big deal. I'm cool with that.

 

So now after all that, it will be interesting to see if the guy changes his behavior. I doubt it. He's likely going to stick to his I can and will open carry regardless of what the perception it creates is because he feels because he can legally, he will do what he wants. Not my style, but perhaps he likes drama. My guess is he has plenty of time to deal with it all. I don't. I also choose to be more in tune with my surroundings and those around me too. Again, drama not needed.

[Guest Spam]

I love hearing the BS that sergeant is spewing to the other cops. Disgusting filth.

[Guest Hal]

Sure, and I'm not claiming to know the LEO position in this case, but am rather using common sense. If I'm open carrying and am only allowed to do so if I have a proper permit, I would expect it's within the law for an officer to ask me for proof of said permit. When doing so, I would also expect them to ask for my identification to show that the permit and me actually match.

 

How would you suggest both parties handle that reasonable expectation?

 

 

 

 

Neither you nor I know the real and complete facts. We're both inferring based on the information provided. Again, I'm looking at it from the point of view that not everyone walks around with an open carry, a voice recorder and has the history that this guy supposedly has. Looking at it through my window, yeah, the guy may have been in the act of simply walking, but there's more to him and this story. I'm not for a minute going to believe there isn't.

 

He was confronted by a cop who was doing his job. A cop that while maybe incorrect, was still nonetheless, confronting a citizen with a firearm in plain site. I don't fault the cop for telling him to get on the ground. I also don't fault him for telling the guy to STFU either. Most people ramble a bunch of horse shit out their pie hole anyway, thus best to STFU and go through the procedure manual as instructed.

 

Like I said before, he was well aware of the shit he was likely going to encounter. I carry a CCW but I don't go around with a recording device. If you think it's normal, that's fine. Your call. I see the dude as a bit on the edge.

 

They go mad, but they didn't turn it off. I can see why they did get mad too. To them just like me, they see some dude walking around with a gun and recorder likely on a mission to cause a scene and capture it. They don't know his history at this point or why his actions are what they are. they just know that in their minds, he shouldn't be walking around with gun, again right or not on that point, they did what protocol tells them. I don't fault them for putting him on the ground, cuffing him and them detaining him. They are within the law to do so until they clarify the matter they are investigating. He wasn't disorderly, but it was clear he wasn't cooperating 100%.

 

So what you're saying is if you were the cop in this situation, you wouldn't secure a guy with a gun that's up for a debate? Your call, but my guess is you'd change that behavior after working as a beat-cop. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certainly going to play it safe. Better safe than sorry as they say.

 

Agree there.

 

So once they clarified the situation they were investigating, they cut him loose. No big deal. I'm cool with that.

 

So now after all that, it will be interesting to see if the guy changes his behavior. I doubt it. He's likely going to stick to his I can and will open carry regardless of what the perception it creates is because he feels because he can legally, he will do what he wants. Not my style, but perhaps he likes drama. My guess is he has plenty of time to deal with it all. I don't. I also choose to be more in tune with my surroundings and those around me too. Again, drama not needed.

 

Are you on the Indiana Supreme Court?

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

[TTQ B4U]

Are you on the Indiana Supreme Court?

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

 

 

How would you have reacted in the open carry situation above?

What would your interaction with the cop look like?

Do you feel that is the place to argue your point if the cop is indeed incorrect about open carry?

Wouldn't it make more sense to take him through legal proceedings vs argue on the street?

[Drewhop]

How would you have reacted in the open carry situation above?

What would your interaction with the cop look like?

Do you feel that is the place to argue your point if the cop is indeed incorrect about open carry?

Wouldn't it make more sense to take him through legal proceedings vs argue on the street?

 

I guess the problem I have with the situation is that. The officer should know the laws in regards to this before he even approached the legally armed citizen.

 

The guy handled the situation better then I would have. I dont like people yelling at me when I did nothing wrong.

[LJ]

Wouldn't it make more sense to take him through legal proceedings vs argue on the street?

 

Legal proceedings cost a lot of time and money. A cop's stupidity shouldn't cause a citizen to have to sacrifice those 2 things.

[Guest Hal]

How would you have reacted in the open carry situation above?

What would your interaction with the cop look like?

Do you feel that is the place to argue your point if the cop is indeed incorrect about open carry?

Wouldn't it make more sense to take him through legal proceedings vs argue on the street?

 

Personally I would be thinking about my future aspirations and would have gotten on the ground as commanded. Unfortunately, that runs counter to what I believe.

 

In this case, I see nothing wrong with arguing with the cop on the street. The cop handled the situation completely wrong. Had he done his job professionally and actually known the law, this wouldn't have even been an issue. I see no problem with the cop stopping this guy to check if he does indeed have the proper license to carry his weapon. That being said, stopping someone at gun point and demanding they get on the ground immediately is absolutely wrong.

 

Would it make more sense for the semi-tyrannical cop? Yes. Would it make more sense for citizens attempting to exercise their rights? No.

 

The entire reason we have the second and fourth amendments it to be protected from the government which would try to impose its views upon us. This cop, as an agent of the state, was forcing an illegal view on the citizen. That is wrong.

[TTQ B4U]

I guess the problem I have with the situation is that. The officer should know the laws in regards to this before he even approached the legally armed citizen. The guy handled the situation better then I would have. I dont like people yelling at me when I did nothing wrong.

 

Again, I agree. The cop should have known the law. No excuse for him not. I agree too that the guy handled it better than most would. I think he's been through the drill and had practice though.

 

Legal proceedings cost a lot of time and money. A cop's stupidity shouldn't cause a citizen to have to sacrifice those 2 things.

 

True, but it is due course. Don't take my positioning as making an excuse for the cops lack of knowledge on laws he's there to uphold. My point is there's a time and place for arguments and in this case, I don't think arguing on the street with a cop who has a weapon drawn at you while you are also armed is/was the best place. No one is right 100% of the time, even cops. In this case, use the legal system and recoup costs associated with the process and time lost. It's the system that we have to use in situations like this.

 

Personally I would be thinking about my future aspirations and would have gotten on the ground as commanded. Unfortunately, that runs counter to what I believe.

 

In this case, I see nothing wrong with arguing with the cop on the street. The cop handled the situation completely wrong. Had he done his job professionally and actually known the law, this wouldn't have even been an issue. I see no problem with the cop stopping this guy to check if he does indeed have the proper license to carry his weapon.

 

Agree.

 

That being said, stopping someone at gun point and demanding they get on the ground immediately is absolutely wrong.

That's where we don't know what really happened. Did someone call or did the cop just react to what he knew at the time to be true, that someone shouldn't be walking around open carrying. I mean if he truly was ignorant of the law, he probably could be accused of being unprofessional or over reacting a bit much. However, I was pulled over for a simple lane change without signal with my two kids in the car and the cop went off the deep end at first. He later calmed and explained that it's just part of his adrenaline rush and way of pulling over someone with tinted windows in a vehicle with multiple occupants. He calmed as he assessed the situation as near zero threat. Right or wrong, it is was it is.

 

The entire reason we have the second and fourth amendments it to be protected from the government which would try to impose its views upon us. This cop, as an agent of the state, was forcing an illegal view on the citizen. That is wrong.

The cop was enforcing what he believed the law to be so I can't say the cop knowingly and voluntarily violated any rights given to a US Citizen. Was he wrong? Yes. That said, take him to court and sue for any and all costs incurred or incomes lost. That's how the system works.

[3.1cutlass]

You also have the right to deny them identification. They have no legal reason to make a stop when you are doing nothing illegal. I'm sure Philly is different b/c OC isn't legal there unless you have a CHL. J/S

 

This is false.

 

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

 

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

 

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

 

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

 

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

 

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

 

© Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

 

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)© of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

 

© Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

 

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

 

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

[verse]

This is false.

 

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

 

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

 

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

 

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

 

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

 

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

 

© Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

 

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)© of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

 

© Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

 

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

 

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

 

 

Did you read any of what you posted? Okay if the officer has suspicion that I'm going to commit a crime, or has seen a crime. No where does it say abiding by the law and doing nothing illegal.

[Furloaf]

Not a question in my mind that the cop should be fired. He had no reason to pull his gun.

[99FLHRCI]

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

 

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

 

What is the point of this? If I give an officer my name and address he can get my DL information which will tell them my age.

[Guest Hal]

The cop was enforcing what he believed the law to be so I can't say the cop knowingly and voluntarily violated any rights given to a US Citizen. Was he wrong? Yes. That said, take him to court and sue for any and all costs incurred or incomes lost. That's how the system works.

 

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Sometimes that needs to be flipped on to the people tasked with enforcing the law. My argument isn't that he knowingly tried to violate any rights, just that he did indeed violate them.

 

One part that I haven't pointed out is that this cop was a Sgt., meaning he is a more senior member of the force. How is it that a senior officer cannot even understand the laws which he is supposed to enforce? There are problems way beyond this specific scenario.