After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

[jpak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

<more>

[baldguy]

1. If they want to act like gangsters by carrying a big gun, they should be treated like gangsters.

[petronius]

2. Or perhaps police should scrupulously obey the law and treat all citizens with respect,

no matter what those persons are doing or look like...

[jpak]

4. Open carry is stupid and they deserve the "inconvenience"

yup

[petronius]

7. Do you support the police threatening to "inconvenience" peaceful and

legally-acting citizens doing things that you think are stupid as a general principle, or is it only in the context of firearms?

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club

is false progress . This has been, and will always be true. If you will note , there's plenty of folks that don't really care one way or the other as long as it's someone else getting thumped .

Ah ! But listen to them wail when it finally gets around to being their turn .

[eqfan592]

15. Exactly..

...I wonder how jpak or baldguy would react if it were flag burners that were getting slammed to the ground by police.

Mind you, I think flag burning is stupid and counter productive, but I also think it is a protected right and would argue against any law that tried to diminish it.

[jpak]

18. IMHO - anyone openly carrying a gun is not "peaceful" - it's intimidation

an the police are right to treat inconvenience them

yup

[rrneck]

20. If thats your opinion and you feel threatened fine.

But you can't use the cops to enforce your feelings. You're confusing the Bill of Rights with the food bar at Denny's.

[jpak]

28. If I see someone outside of hunting season carrying a gun, then I will call the cops

too bad for the carry dude

yup

[eqfan592]

34. Until they start charging people who do such things..

....with abuse of the 911 system.

yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup

[jpak]

43. Open carry dudes will have to get a clue - the majority of Americans do not think they are cool

and that includes the police

yup

[TPaine7]

55. Cool isn't the point, legal or illegal is.

Depending on who you talk to, wearing an anti George W. Bush t-shirt isn't cool. It was considered so uncool that those who did it were forced by thugs with badges to move off Bush's route.

Idiots who don't understand (or don't respect) the Constitution condone police inconveniencing their political or philosophical adversaries. People like that are either too stupid or too unprincipled to be considered progressives.

[YllwFvr]

128. in philly maybe, but you should probably stop telling us

what the police dont like, im sure they know better than you, and knowing several dozen I dont know any that think it should be banned, and many of them support it

[eqfan592]

135. It's not uncommon...

..for rank and file officers to have very different opinions from their superiors when it comes to issues like this.

[YllwFvr]

149. and thats what it seems to be

a few superior officers who are unhappy with it, but the guys on the street dont seem to mind. Odd isnt it?

[rrneck]

39. Bullshit.

(For all non trolls out there) Calling the cops to report people doing stuff that is perfectly legal will get you in trouble with the cops and may even get you sued.

[jpak]

44. An armed stranger is a danger - and calling the cops is my right

too bad

yup

[rrneck]

47. I hope you call them all you want. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Make sure you answer truthfully when they ask if the person is doing anything illegal.

[rl6214]

95. You're asking an aweful lot.

[YllwFvr]

129. where im from needlessly calling the police is a crime

jus sayin

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Go to Arizona and try out your plan when you see someone OC.

You won't be happy with the results.

[jpak]

53. Why would anyone want to go to Arizona?

:D

[GreenStormCloud]

58. I have been there many times. Beautiful state. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

173. As they say in Italy

L'Italia é bella, ma gli italiani fanno schifo!

[gejohnston]

61. OK try it in Vermont or Wyoming

same result

[PavePusher]

77. Ah, more bigotry from you.

What a surprise...

[YllwFvr]

126. outside of philly the way things seem to get handled

is the cop asks them a few questions, then goes and tells the person who called the police to stop wasting there time

[petronius]

24. You are certainly welcome to an opinion, but yours doesn't square with the law

or common language usage in this case.

I don't object to the police approaching an OCing person, so long as the inconvenience consists of "Good day, may I see your permit? ... Thank you, have a good one." But that's not really what this is about, is it? The article in the OP describes the police essentially making up their own rules, ignoring the law, to intimidate people out of a legal behavior the police don't like. Is that what you're OK with?

[jpak]

30. Cops are not going to risk their lives for your interpretation of the law

They can inconvenience open carry fools lawfully

If they don't like that

don't open carry

yup

[petronius]

42. You continue to evade the real question - do you approve of police violating the law

to intimidate people you don't like?

As I said, police are able to ask to see permits in a polite and minimally-intrusive way, but that's not what this is about...

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. The advocates of police exercise of extrajudicial powers won't explicitly admit it

It's a shame to see such attitudes on display at Democratic Underground.

[petronius]

52. It is disturbing, but not uncommon. Too many people will sacrifice principle

to fear and bias when the questions get tough...

[Starboard Tack]

124. How is a cop checking to see if you are legally carrying different

than checking to see if you are legally driving?

[petronius]

125. Have you read the thread? As I've said a few time (including in the post you responded to),

a minimally intrusive permit check ("May I see your permit?... Thank you!" - 30 seconds and no hard feelings) is not a problem, and as far as I can tell the law provides for that.

But that isn't what this thread is about, it's not what the police are threatening in the OP, and it's not what several anti-rights DUers are advocating here.

As far as driver's licenses, in CA it's illegal for an officer to stop a vehicle merely to check if the driver is licensed. Your state may be different, of course...

[Starboard Tack]

156. So, are you suggesting that the police in Phillie should ignore anyone

openly carrying a weapon until they use it illegally?

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. Reading comprehension is your friend:

His first lines were-

"Have you read the thread? As I've said a few time (including in the post you responded to),
a minimally intrusive permit check ("May I see your permit?... Thank you!" - 30 seconds and no hard feelings) is not a problem, and as far as I can tell the law provides for that."

[petronius]

158. I'm suggesting that the police should not hassle, harrass, or inconvenience law-abiding persons

without a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot or imminent. Notice that I've made a general statement which doesn't rely on the presence or absence of firearms to be true...

(Although, to stay on topic, I'll point out that the mere presence of a gun does not provide that suspicion. And, has been said, the law appears to provide for a brief and non-intrusive permit check.)

[Starboard Tack]

159. OK, so let's say you are a cop and you see 6 guys wearing hoodies

all bearing arms, walking into a bank. You're telling me you're going to approach them, without backup and politely ask if they wouldn't mind submitting to a "brief, non-intrusive permit check"?

[PavePusher]

160. There will almost certainly be more data available than that....

upon which to make a decision.

And there had better be, in many states, before you start checking I.D.'s.

[Starboard Tack]

162. So you'd just walk on by, right?

[PavePusher]

163. No, it's not a binary solution set.

The phrase "observe and report" fits in there somewhere.

[Starboard Tack]

164. OK, you've observed. Now what and to whom do you report?

Do you wait to see if they emerge from the bank? Do you follow them in? Do you consider requesting backup? Or do you continue to ponder on the possible infringement of the toters' civil rights?

[rrneck]

166. Send in Cleavon Little with a candygram for Mongo. nt

[PavePusher]

167. Sigh. Obtuse, much? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

171. I'm usually good at puzzles, but you got me there. A verb might help.

I gather you're not a cop in Philadelphia. I spent last weekend in West Phillie, somewhere I'd never ventured previously, and I must confess it's about the closest I ever came to considering a weapon, especially when I had to walk 15 blocks at 1.00am in a rainstorm. Even forgot my umbrella.

[petronius]

161. Is a hoodie a sign of suspicious character in your world?

In that situation, once I get over the incredible surprise of finding myself turned into a police officer, I'm going to ask myself whether I've actually observed anything illegal, or whether I truly have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If the answer is yes, I take steps. If the answer is no, I don't harass or willfully inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

As for checking permits on six guys simultaneously: I'm sure actual police officers can weigh in here, but I suspect I have backup around whenever I'm checking into large groups, for whatever reason. And since my backup is as civilized as I am, s/he also behaves politely and non-intrusively...

[YllwFvr]

131. in pa, mere possession of a weapon does not indicate a crime

without more than the gun suggesting a crime is afoot. They can initiate a mere encounter, and question the person casually. They can ask for a permit and ID, but the carrier can lawfully refuse. comm vs hawkins

they can talk to them, but inconvenience? no

[rl6214]

66. And they will continue to be sued

Eventually the city will go bankrupt

[YllwFvr]

130. you are incorrect

bask in your ignorance

[PavePusher]

76. Only if you can prove it to the Supreme Court.

Good luck with that....

[ileus]

87. Why do you oppose the intimidation of criminals?

[YllwFvr]

127. like the police when they carry nt

[EC]

22. How does one know who is law abiding and who is not

unless the cops check them out?


That's the thing...how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys?

[rrneck]

25. Pay attention to those around you.

Instead of demanding the state do it for you.

[EC]

29. Well, in that case

there would be a lot more dead people around, if I shot everyone I THOUGHT OR PERCEIVED was a danger to me or mine.

The law is objective, I would be subjective. That's why we have the rule of law, rather than judge, jury and sentence by the individual.

[rrneck]

35. If you shoot someone

the law will have to determine if you were tight to shoot. If you carry, I suggest you get it right. The law can be unforgiving. Of course if you pay attention yould could avoid a dangerous situation altogether. Some call it situational awareness.

[YllwFvr]

132. it works the same for the LEO

if you stop someone carrying I suggest you get it right, the law can be unforgiving.

in philly they can stop and demand a permit, but no where else in the state. But this went well beyond a mere stop and check. To do more requires reasonably articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. I dont see this stop rising to the level of RAS

[eqfan592]

36. Stating you should be more aware of your surroundings...

....does not equate to shooting everybody you think is a threat.

[PavePusher]

78. He said "PAY ATTENTION", not "SHOOT THE FUCKERS".

Can you fucking hear me now?

[TPaine7]

33. Without probable cause, the police have no legitimate power to detain anyone.

Exercising constitutional rights is not probable cause. Nor is it an excuse to harass people.

[petronius]

41. How do police know that anyone in public is law-abiding? Given that OC is legal,

it should not - absent other indicators - factor into that assessment. That said, it seems that the law provides for, and I'm OK with, a minimal intrusion: "May I see your permit? ... Thank you, have a good day."

[rl6214]

67. Do you really think criminals OC?

And even if police need to check a license, they can do it without 'putting the person on the ground'.

[EC]

72. If everyone else is

why wouldn't they?

[rl6214]

96. Yeah, that happens in the other states that allow OC, right?

[EC]

99. Who knows?

It likely does. If everyone is allowed OC, why would the bad guy not OC?

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Because a simple Terry Stop would nail them with a felony charge.

Then again, my old warrant buddy always used to say "we don't get 'em because they're smart".

Edit: By the way, we have Open Carry in WA. It's not a problem.

[Euromutt]

108. Because OCing requires a holster, and criminals don't like holsters

There's a number of reasons why they don't.

First, criminals tend to dispose of firearms after they've used them, at which point the holster (made to fit a particular model of handgun) ceases to be useful, and is therefore a waste of money.

Second, while it's relatively easy to discard or hand off a firearm while fleeing the scene of the crime or being pursued, getting rid of the holster (which is attached to your belt) is another matter. If you're subsequently apprehended, you're going to have a hard time explaining why you're wearing an empty holster.

Third, and I'm only being partly facetious, a holster requires a sturdy belt, and belts aren't exactly fashionable with the petty criminal element these days. The whole jeans-sagging-down-to-mid-thigh look comes from prisoners being denied belts, and then maintaining that look after release, which was subsequently adopted by individuals without a criminal record seeking street cred.

[EC]

109. I'm almost sure the bad guys wouldn't even think that far

ahead. Or if they did, aren't there some sort of snap on holsters that snap off the waist easily?


I still don't believe one can tell a good guy from a bad guy just because the one carrying openingly is considered to be law abiding. If I were a bad guy and hadn't been caught yet (had no record), I'd get the permit and carry openingly. How's anyone to know I'm a bad guy?

[rrneck]

110. When you do something bad.

Rules of evidence, probable cause, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

We don't adjudicate bad people, we adjudicate bad acts.

[one-eyed fat man]

140. Stuffed in a waistband.

Back in the old days it was called "Mexican carry." Now, most people think of Plaxico Burris. Two pounds of pistol stuffed into a waistband isn't exactly secure, or safe as Mr. Burris demonstrated rather spectacularly.

What is interesting is the side issue. Why would a millionaire football player find it expedient to adopt the "thug persona" when going out clubbing? The man has a college degree, yet feels the need to project the image of a street criminal to draw the attention of the ladies?

Rich and ripped ain't enough?

[Katya Mullethov]

150. Caint tell no jokes

One needs neither money nor hair if your can make em laugh .

[ileus]

88. The good guy is the one with nothing to fear with a gun on his hip.

[EC]

103. That should translate to the bad guy too,

since he is carrying the gun to feel he has nothing to fear also.

[Euromutt]

92. We're not complaining about cops checking permits

We're complaining about the bullshit excuses to stop and "prone out" at gunpoint private citizens not apparently engaged in any illegal activity. It's excessive use of force for a situation where you could just politely ask to see the person's carry permit.

[EC]

102. I'm sure that'll go over real well

with the bad guys. Yep, a cop asks for the permit and what do you think a bad guy would do? I don't know what the police procedure is for safety if there is a gun present. They may be instructed to secure the person carrying before anything else. So I can see them asking for the person to so called take the position while they check them out.

[PavePusher]

120. Then surely they should do that for ANY interaction with Citizens, yes? n/t

[rrneck]

121. The police

exercise situational awareness too.

The police aren't there to keep you safe or enhance your personal well being. They're there to enforce the law. If no law is broken they can't do anything.

[YllwFvr]

133. in pa the courts have rulled mere possession of a weapon isnt

an indicator of a crime. Therefore stopping them and proning them out for having a gun is not good
commonwealth vs hawkins

[Euromutt]

148. Okay, let's put ourselves in the mind of a "felon in possession"

In order to carry a firearm, you could either:

• carry openly, and if stopped try to commit aggravated first-degree murder by killing a police officer: or
• carry concealed, or have a female companion carry the gun for you, and thus try to avoid being stopped and searched in the first place.

Now, if I were a felon in possession, and knowing that cops tend to react badly when one of their own is murdered, which would I choose?

[Oneka]

101. Unless they break the law

In sight of an officer, the cops have an obligation to leave them alone. We don't allow police to pull drivers over just to "check" out whether they have a valid drivers lisence. Why would we allow them to detain us when open carrying, which is, in and of itself, not unlawful.

[rl6214]

65. And all those protesters in WI should have been inconvinienced

Right?

YUP

YUP

YUP

[PavePusher]

75. So you advocate violating people's Civil Rights?

Duly noted and alerted.

Appalling.

[baldguy]

5. Carrying a gun isn't a license to act like an asshole.

And too often, that's the only reason someone has to carry a gun.

[petronius]

6. The police are threatening to "inconvenience" people who engage in a legal

and peaceable action that the police don't approve of - surely that's not OK with you?

(If you're unable to honestly consider the question because of your stereotypes about those that open-carry and their reasons, try it as a general proposition instead...)

[baldguy]

8. The display of a weapon is not a "peaceable action" - it's an explicit threat.

The police acted properly for their own safety & the safety of the general public.

[eqfan592]

10. What a load of crap.

A firearm in its holster does not in any way constitute an "explicit threat." At least not to anybody who is remotely sane. Now a brandished firearm is a different story, but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

[baldguy]

14. By carrying a gun you're saying "If you don't behave in a manner I approve I can kill you."

Of course it's an explicit threat. And that's how the police should view it if they want to survive such incidents.

If a person doesn't recognize & understand the issues involved in carrying a gun, and isn't ready to deal with them in a mature and intelligent manner, then they shouldn't carry a gun.

[eqfan592]

16. Again, what a load of crap...

...that may be how YOU perceive it, baldguy, but that isn't the message being sent. I see a person with a gun strapped to their side and I see somebody saying "I can defend myself if need be."

I can see why this message would be distorted for you. It has to make it through your filter of fear and distrust of guns and gun owners.

[EC]

26. Looks like you're projecting...

your fear and mistrust of society...isn't that why one carries a gun in the open...

Why would a person have to portray the image of "don't mess with me"? What bothers me is that people seem so frightened that they have to resort to carrying a gun all the time...Why? Are we in a civilized society or not?

[baldguy]

27. Are we a civilized society? Advocates of open carry would like it not to be.

And do everything they can to make it not be - like carrying deadly weapons.

[rrneck]

32. I can

explain Cubism or the development of the groined vault in midevel architecture AND put seven rounds of. 45ACP in your chest under three seconds.

Explain how a person carrying a gun is unable to behave in a civilized manner. Here's a tip: "Civilized" doesn't mean "Make me feel good about myself."

[oneshooter]

46. So you advocate for concealed carry? n/t

[PavePusher]

81. Are you volunteering to help provide security for those you would disarm?

Since there obviously aren't enough police...

[eqfan592]

38. Not in the least.

Is keeping a fire extinguisher openly in my garage projecting my fear of a fire, or is it just being prepared to deal with an eventuality that I have a fire in my home? The same goes with carrying a firearm, either openly or concealed. I don't have any exaggerated fear or mistrust of society. There is nothing uncivilized about the idea of being capable of defending oneself effectively should the need arise.

[PavePusher]

80. Oh, and you aren't, here in this thread? n/t

[EC]

112. Nope.

I'm just asking, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys. It's not the movies or TV, they don't wear white hats and black hats. So how do we know?

[rrneck]

113. See post 110 (when they do something bad) nt

[PavePusher]

119. Observation, my dear Watson.

The guy with a cup of coffee in one hand, browsing a bookshelf probably ain't a threat. The lady in line at Walmart with a box of diapers, package of socks and bottle of shampoo, she's probably not there to rob the place. The man pushing a stroller and carrying another kid under his arm into the doctors office most likely has Tylenol and immunizations in mind, not mass murder. Even if each of them has a sidearm, in a holster, on their belt.

Or you could simply default to the knee-jerk reaction of assuming that every armed person intends malicious harm. But it's bound to take up a lot of your free time to no productive purpose, and make you look like a jerk in the process. The choice, of course, is entirely yours.

[rrneck]

17. Your attitude is neither intelligent nor mature. nt

[ileus]

90. You don't actually believe that sillines do you?

[krispos42]

107. How about bad attitudes?

Nonverbal communication without props can easily communicate the same thing. How about a big muscular guy glaring at you 'cuz your liberal placard is at odds with his tea-party one?

[petronius]

12. Not according to law and common use of the language

You're avoiding the question - do you approve of the police essentially making up their own rules, threatening to "inconvenience" legally-behaving citizens that they disapprove of?

Note also that in the case cited in the OP, even the police acknowledge that they were wrong...

[YllwFvr]

134. the courts disagree with you

care to try again?

[sharesunited]

19. If someone was walking around carrying a machete, I would expect them to be confronted about it.

[petronius]

21. Are you picturing someone running through Macy's waving a naked blade,

or a person crossing the Home Depot parking lot with a common gardening tool? Because OC is vastly more analogous to the latter than to the former...

[rrneck]

23. You expect a lot of people to be confronted about a lot of things.

Most of them involving your personal opinion. And you seem to want to hire it done by the state.

sharesunited Inc. : Bringing our vision of a better world straight up your ass.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. First thing

They will have to do is put the machetes and axes and hammers and shovels and picks and AAAAAAALL the stick lumber behind the counter at the hardware store . Maybe just lock the doors and build a drive through .

[rrneck]

40. Or duct tape everybody's hands together.

Might make ass wiping a problem though.

[Katya Mullethov]

57. There's an underrepresented profession

I know a couple of that could use the work . And this is yet another excellent example of the type of innovative thinking ....that is driving ......our national ......economic ......recovery . Pure genius .

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

115. I wouldn't it it were sheathed and no other threatening behavior was occurring.

[rrneck]

9. Yeah, that's what the cops are for.

Attitude adjustment. Based on your personal evaluation.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[TPaine7]

45. It's certainly the reason many rights opponents post here. n/t

[shadowrider]

48. Realizing I can get into exceptional trouble when I carry, if I'm not careful

I find myself extraordinarily polite to everyone.

The only, ONLY time they'd have to worry is if they presented a direct physical threat to me or mine.

I'm far, far, FAR from an asshole when I carry.

[rl6214]

69. "Carrying a gun isn't a license to act like an asshole."

You are talking about the cops here, right? They are the ones acting like assholes.

[Euromutt]

83. From what I gather, Fiorino was scrupulously polite throughout the stop

Evidently, in some people's books, addressing police officers as "sir" and "gentlemen" constitutes "acting like an asshole." Like the author of the article cited in this thread, who considered Fiorino's politeness to be indicative of a prior agenda (of course, if Fiorino had behaved in a different manner, Bykofski would have interpreted that to be evidence of the same thing, because that's how cognitive bias works).

[PavePusher]

79. "too often"? How "often" is that? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. Gangsters???

Having broken no laws nor giving probable cause for detainment, you favor having folks harassed???

Gangsters are pursued for probable cause and/or due to an open warrant.

I believe three states have no laws regarding either open or concealed carry. Why is something a crime in Philly but not in Phoenix?
Actually it's not a crime in Philly. Philly is just burdening the police with harassing people and not respecting their rights.
Our tax dollars at work.

[Euromutt]

68. You ARE referring to the Philadelphia PD, I take it?

Because it's pretty obvious this is pure vindictiveness on the department's part. They took a major black eye with the mishandling of the Fiorino stop, and now they want to in effect carry out reprisals in an attempt to shore up their self-image. Threatening--yes, threatening--to prone OCers out unnecessarily is reminiscent of the TSA's methods of handling people who have the temerity to try to opt out of full-body scans. As Deirdre Walker, former Asst. Police Chief of Montgomery County, MD wrote on the Homeland Security Watch blog,

I am also forced to conclude that the purpose of the “pat-down” was not to actually interdict contraband. In my case, I believe I was subjected to a haphazard response in order to effectively punish me for refusing secondary screening and to encourage a different decision in the future.

What the Philadelphia PD is threatening to do is no different: it's disproportionate punitive action for inconveniencing them. That's the real gangster behavior here.

[PavePusher]

74. Well, except that legally exercising a Constitutional Civil Right....

is not "act(ing) like gangsters".

But your bigoted stereotyping is noted.

Appalling.

[aikoaiko]

114. Your hatred for civil liberties is noted.

[rrneck]

3. I'm ordinarily

not that big a fan of "group open carry demonstrations " but that might be a good place for one.

[Logical]

71. I 100% agree with you. I am not a fan of OC at all but also not a fan of police stupidity! n-t

[rl6214]

97. So you agree that OC might be an option in this case?

[eqfan592]

13. Lets see just how long this goes...

...before the department gets the shit sued out of it. The police in some areas tried a similar stunt in Wisconsin, and got smacked down by the states AG for it. I imagine something similar will happen here.

Police cannot go around harassing people that are conducting themselves in a legal manner. That people on this board support such conduct on the part of the police in any way just demonstrates how deep the depravity really runs in certain elements of the progressive movement. In fact, I don't see how people can still call themselves progressives and support such behavior on the part of the police.

You don't like open carry? Fine. Then get a law passed to make it illegal. But don't support this kind of crap, because you're leaving yourself open for a legal activity that you DO support to be treated in a similar manner down the road.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Maybe they should form an 'Unarmed Citizens' Council'

Using law enforcement agencies to harass and intimidate your political opponents has some historical precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Citizens_Council

That way, they can persecute those uppity open carriers while keeping their hands clean...

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Sorry, corrected link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Citizens_Council

[spin]

31. This might cost Philadelphia a lot of money in the future....

I'm sure the city has better uses for their money than to waste money on unnecessary trials and law suits.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. The cops will be setting themselves up for some big lawsuits over this.

Other police departments in other OC states and cities have learned how to handle it with no problems.

[DWC]

60. The Philadelphia trial lawyers are celebrating over this one !! n/t

[Taitertots]

62. Why do you think the police should harass people for following the law?

Why do you want the police to violate the human rights of Philadelphia residents?

[rl6214]

64. That's right, because so many criminals OC

That position will put them further into the poor house. Money talks, we'll see how long that lasts. I wonder how many law suits the city can take.

[Logical]

70. Hey, Idiotic Philly Police.........

Most criminals do not Open Carry. How stupid are police sometimes?

[Abq_Sarah]

73. That's kind of my thought

Most criminals who are carrying don't properly holster pistols in plain view.

[rl6214]

98. they would be the ones that would, as hoyt claims

stuff it down their pants.

[PavePusher]

82. I love it when police publicly announce their intention...

to violate the Civil Rights of Citizens.

It makes the lawsuits so easy...

[PavePusher]

84. And what is really baffling is why the entire remainder of the state has this figured out...

but the Philly cops can't understand it.

Are they stupid or brain damaged? Or are their car exhausts routed into the cabin...

:shrug:

[YllwFvr]

136. there are still incidents all over the state

but philly is willfully ignorant

[ileus]

85. I'm sure a lot of those officers were killed by OC persons. Sad to see my nation come to this...

[PavePusher]

104. Presumably you intended this:

:sarcasm: ?

[gravity556]

153. re:I'm sure a lot of those officers were killed by OC persons. Sad to see my nation come to this...

Have you got any proof to bolster such confidence? Because the folks that I know who open carry (my wife and myself included-sometimes open, sometimes concealed)tend toward the very law abiding end of the bell curve.

I think what you meant to say was that criminals who had firearms even though they were likely prohibited posessors were likely responsible for the majority of officers killed in the line of duty. And why would an individual intent on doing bad things want to chance some soccer mom freaking out because she saw his openly carried pistol and then worry about the cops being called.

Or you could continue to attempt to argue emotion rather than logic. *shrug*

[ileus]

86. dup

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. Look into treatment for...

...Hoplophobia.

[ileus]

91. Wonder what it is about a citizen exercising a right that's so scary?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. When...

...the government is afraid of the people you have liberty.

:)

...the people are afraid of the government you have slavery.

:(

...the people are afraid other people you have psychiatry.

:banghead:

[sylvi]

100. Amazing

That is, that some people in this thread would call themselves liberals while openly advocating for the use of extra-judicial punishment/harrassment by police for a legal act, simply because they don't like that act.

Isn't that the very definition of "police state"? Police just making it up as they go along?

[PavePusher]

105. Bingo. It is quite disgusting. Should be a bannable offense. n/t

[Hoyt]

111. Perfectly reasonable. If a person chooses to carry, police have a duty to check em out.

Citizens need to help as well.

[gejohnston]

117. I take it you did not read the article closely

or you were one of those law and order types that were OK with cops clubbing hippies because of their hair. The view was, if they wear funny clothes they need to be checked out. If they oppose the war, they deserve to be beaten.

[Hoyt]

118. We are not talking hair, clothes, ethnicity, or anything like that. We're talking potential Loughner

Sorry you don't see the difference.

The small percentage of people who insist on polluting our public spaces with guns should be held accountable. The police should make sure everything is legal when you parade in public with a gun.

Don't think anyone has been beaten over their gun, although some like the guy from Philadelphia was definitely out to cause a confrontation. Then, he refused to follow orders. Fools shouldn't carry, and the 96%+ who don't should demand that we ensure safety.

[gejohnston]

122. Bull

The young man was being polite and proper. The cops could have asked to see the permit, which would have been the right thing to do, just like a traffic stop. The cops cause the confrontation and the officials are pissed off when the video got own showing police misconduct.
When an innocent person is arrested or hassled needlessly by the cops, they tend to get pissed off and mouthy. Investigation and interrogation 401, the advanced course.

Like I said, camping while groovy/driving while black.

[YllwFvr]

138. commonwealth vs hawkins

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to
stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has
a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,4 it is
difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the
Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray
schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go
undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such
invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not --
such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.
Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of
conflict where none need exist.
Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full
measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them
by Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and this court's relevant
caselaw.

art 1 sect 21
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. "...the guy from Philadelphia was definitely out to cause a confrontation." We've heard this before:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/17/976876/-They-were-just-lookin-for-trouble-?via=spotlight

"They were just lookin' for trouble"


....It was the constant refrain of whites who attacked, beat, and intimidated Freedom Riders. They slashed the tires of the buses, set the buses on fire, arrested the Riders on false charges, or---in the case of officials and police officers----stood aside, turned their backs, and either let it happen, or actively colluded with the attackers.

"They came here lookin' for trouble."

Yet the Freedom Riders did nothing but peacefully buy their tickets, sit politely next to other people, and not fight back. In short, all the violent events were committed by racist whites. Yet it's not just racists who use this accusation. It's a popular accusation with any number of bullies, and it's time to dissect this....

You've certainly got history on your side, Hoyt...

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

142. Oh what the fuck ever.

So a struggle for civil liberties is only important if in involves something that is biological? Seriously? THAT is your fucking argument? I'm sorry, but THAT is what is truly disgusting and pathetic.

[Hoyt]

143. Your gun carrying has nothing to do with human rights, equality, respect, etc. Think!

[eqfan592]

144. Actually, I think it has to do with human rights, at least.

How can a right to be able to effectively defend yourself, even outside of the home, NOT be a human right? A firearm gives people the ability to defend themselves, even those who have physical ailments, are older or are otherwise unable to do so using only physical strength and/or dexterity alone.

"Think" indeed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. I suspect self-defense is not considered a human right by certain posters here.

Rather, you are supposed to be defended by agents of the state, and if you should have the temerity to defend yourself with

lethal results for your attacker you have taken it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

[LibertyFox]

155. "God created man, but Col. Colt made them equal."

"Fear no man no matter his size, just call on me and I will equalize."

[AndyTiedye]

169. Was That An Old Colt Advertisement?

A gun is no "equalizer", despite what the ads say.

It just means that reflexes become the determining factor rather than size or strength.

[PavePusher]

172. Actually, it's not solely down to any one factor.

But it does do a lot to make size/strength much less of an issue.

We call this "civilisation".

[oneshooter]

170. This was engraved on a Colt Model P revolver..........

"Be not afraid of any man
No matter what his size
If ever in fear, just call on me
And I will equalize"

The Model P is also known as a Single Action Army revolver, aka "cowboy gun".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. "You(r) gun toting buddy was looking for trouble with a gun and recorder."

Once again, you make the DailyKos' writers point for them:

....The victims are sometimes understood to be manipulative, to be 'pretending' to be victims so that the attacker can then be forced into attacking them. The victim thus becomes the provocateur, the attacker the helpless victim, goaded beyond endurance...

....And analysis is key. In every case, the supposed provocateur is doing nothing that is threatening, dangerous, or harmful to the attacker. That is the thing to focus on when arguing against this type of reasoning. This is nothing but a bully's lament, because just attacking someone is not enough for them. They must wave the bloody shirt of victimization, even if it was they that did the victimizing---and it's the blood of their own victim staining the shirt. They were provoked! They cry. That person came looking for trouble! They say.

[gejohnston]

147. Correction

Several of the freedom riders were armed. Don't assume history you don't know.

[PavePusher]

151. Hoyt assumes lots of things he doesn't know, and doesn't limit himself to history... n/t

[Hoyt]

152. Not many (if any), and the bigots that were after them were real.

[aikoaiko]

116. It might take a nice lawsuit to get them to see the error of their ways.

[spin]

123. I'm sure one will happen, maybe even a dozen or two...

eventually they will learn that their job is to enforce existing law and not harass those who are not violating the law.

The police in Philadelphia appear to want the city to be a police state run by officers who make up laws on the spot.


From top left, the Philadelphia skyline, a statue of Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia City Hall, and Independence Hall
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia

The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves considering that the Bill of Rights was created by the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.

[virginia mountainman]

137. So let me get this straight....

Philly police reserve the right to hold citizens at gun point and charge them with crimes if they continue to obey the law?!

LOL!!! I hear $$$$$$$$ from the lawsuits..

[ileus]

165. antis will gladly pay for the lawsuits, if they get to intimidate Open Carriers

[Katya Mullethov]

154. DON'T FIREBOMB ME BRO !!

I'll uh ..." MOVE " ... promise !

[era veteran]

168. Move for a shotgun or 2 and a pistol

Burn down a couple of blocks, well, they were a lot different. Like WACO this could have been solved easily if the police used Sheriff Andy tactics, rather than the flashy big budget SWAT crap, a pity.