Philly OC'er held at gunpoint, charged
- Thread starter tyrajam
- Start date
- Status
Uncle Buck
New member
I want to clarify what I posted earlier.
If this guy did this for the publicity, he was wrong. You do not confront an armed police officer the way he did. It could have ended very tragically for both of them.
What I meant when I said he should have a public carry rally was that by involving the media (Pro or Con) he could have gotten the word out to the general public in a much better way.
I am in no way bashing the cop, because even though he was wrong, he seemed to have thought he was acting with-in the confines of the law. I still think he needs to be fired for the language he used, but maybe a review of his police force record would change my mind.
(How many of us remember everything we where trained on? How many times did you just sign off on the training roster and think "I'll read the stuff later."?)
The man who was stopped, if this was done to provoke a reaction, should have had someone with a camera filming the incident as well as having another person with him to be able to provide two additional witnesses.
The man should have done what he was told, then let the lawyers figure it out later.
If this guy did this for the publicity, he was wrong. You do not confront an armed police officer the way he did. It could have ended very tragically for both of them.
What I meant when I said he should have a public carry rally was that by involving the media (Pro or Con) he could have gotten the word out to the general public in a much better way.
I am in no way bashing the cop, because even though he was wrong, he seemed to have thought he was acting with-in the confines of the law. I still think he needs to be fired for the language he used, but maybe a review of his police force record would change my mind.
(How many of us remember everything we where trained on? How many times did you just sign off on the training roster and think "I'll read the stuff later."?)
The man who was stopped, if this was done to provoke a reaction, should have had someone with a camera filming the incident as well as having another person with him to be able to provide two additional witnesses.
The man should have done what he was told, then let the lawyers figure it out later.
Well... I am 100% positive that if my training was forgotten and I was caught not abiding by company training and protocol, I would, at minimum, be reprimanded and have a written form inserted into my file... At worst, dismissal, for failing to do my job... AS TRAINED...
No soft spot for this coppa who broke so many rules and violated the trust of those he is charged with protecting and serving...
Brent
NJgunowner
New member
I'm only going to make one comment here. If a cop has his gun drawn on you, do what he says NOW, then take it up with the department or a lawyer later. Standing up for you rights is all well and good until your brains are on the sidewalk, at which point it doesn't really matter anymore. This could have been straightened out with a lot less BS.
Yes, I do. Now the ring
oops wrong event....I would get down on the ground if a cop has a gun on me and tells me to do so, but I am not a young man with almost no sense of reason.
The permit allows for concealed carry, this is how I do it, never let em know you got it. Cops are afraid of folks got guns, back in teh past seems some of them got shot by guys carrying guns........ some may over react just like the guy did argueing with a cop had a gun on him.
Doesn't really matter to me what unfounded fears a person has about me...
In their state, they get a permit to carry a firearm. It is up to the permit holder to decide how he wishes to legally tote his gun.
In your thinkin'... the officers have as much or more reason to fear a concealed pistol carrier. For, with your reasoning, the vast majority of cops who get shot are shot by individuals who only minutes before had their firearm concealed.
So what connection does a man with a publicly displayed legally carried firearm have in common with a criminal with ill intentions regarding the well being of an officer? How is this different from a person legally carrying a concealed firearm?
Brent
Aguila Blanca
Staff
FTFY
Unfortunately, all too typical in anti-gun Philadelphia, where the mayor and city council all KNOW they can't enforce gun laws that are stricter than the state statutes, yet they enact them anyway, and tell the police to enforce them.
If the potential consequences weren't so tragic it would be comical.
But that's precisely the point. Based on the SCOTUS criteria set forth in Terry the officer had NO LEGAL BASIS for drawing on the guy. In fact, the officer had no legal basis to even approach him. The criteria established by Terry are that the officer must have "a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed."divil said:
So where are the clearly articulable facts IN THIS CASE to suggest a crime? Carrying a gun? But Pennsylvania issues carry permits, and open carry is legal in Philadelphia if you have a carry permit. So the mere fact of seeing a gun being worn does NOT provide any facts to suggest that a crime is being committed. It doesn't matter if the cop personally believed a crime was being committed -- legally, his personal belief could not be supported by any clearly articulable facts, and thus the entire interaction was bogus.
"But only with a license," you say. True. And in Pennsylvania, like in every state, you need a license to drive on public streets. So would you argue that a police officer should be able to stop every car he sees on the assumption that it is being operated illegally, just because he doesn't know in advance that the operator has a driver's license? Of course not.
The cop here clearly exceeded his authority, and then escalated the situation by assuming an attitude and then calling for backup when all that was required was a simple "You got a permit?" (Except, as previously noted, technically he didn't even have a right to ask if the guy had a permit.)
Last edited:
Reasonable suspicion....while it may come out after the fact that the cop was in the wrong, because this fellow is merely, peacefully, exercising his rights, open carry of a weapon is not a common occurence in ouor metro areas, and a call reporting "man with a gun" means most cops would approach the situation with suspicion that a crime was being committed.
The whole thing may turn out to be "bogus", but based on what the cop(s) believed at the time, they would have reasonable suspicion.
True, the cops were not nice and polite to the armed man. And when he failed to obey instructions, they got even more rude. That's how it works today, I'm afraid. The majority of the people the cops interact with day in, day out are not nice polite people. They don't take cops seriously until things get rude, or worse.
Presumption of innocence is something for the courts, not the streets. Cops (particularly in large metro/urban areas) are taught by street experience, if not in training that nice and polite puts them in danger in situations where a gun is involved. That's not our fault, we are just exercising our rights under the law. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the armed people the cops meet on the street are not obeying the law, and we have to suffer what those people have taught the cops to do. Whether or not they are actually at risk, the perception of the police is that an armed man on the street is a danger to themselves, and the public. And so they react, until it is made clear to them that there is no danger.
The gentleman carrying could have, and should have handled it better. So could the police involved. But, even though guns were pointed and rough words were used, the matter was resolved without gunfire, when it could have easily gone differently.
Now, as to the guy being charged, only after he released the recording, that, strikes me as petty and vindictive.
The whole thing may turn out to be "bogus", but based on what the cop(s) believed at the time, they would have reasonable suspicion.
True, the cops were not nice and polite to the armed man. And when he failed to obey instructions, they got even more rude. That's how it works today, I'm afraid. The majority of the people the cops interact with day in, day out are not nice polite people. They don't take cops seriously until things get rude, or worse.
Presumption of innocence is something for the courts, not the streets. Cops (particularly in large metro/urban areas) are taught by street experience, if not in training that nice and polite puts them in danger in situations where a gun is involved. That's not our fault, we are just exercising our rights under the law. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the armed people the cops meet on the street are not obeying the law, and we have to suffer what those people have taught the cops to do. Whether or not they are actually at risk, the perception of the police is that an armed man on the street is a danger to themselves, and the public. And so they react, until it is made clear to them that there is no danger.
The gentleman carrying could have, and should have handled it better. So could the police involved. But, even though guns were pointed and rough words were used, the matter was resolved without gunfire, when it could have easily gone differently.
Now, as to the guy being charged, only after he released the recording, that, strikes me as petty and vindictive.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Nope. I understand what you're saying, but under the clear parameters laid down by the SCOTUS in Terry it won't fly. Since open carry in Philadelphia can be LEGAL, the mere sight of a person carrying openly simply CANNOT satisfy the two-pronged test of a "reasonable" suspicion, based on "clearly articulable facts." I don't dispute that the officer had a suspicion. The key point is that, under the law of the land, that suspicion was NOT "reasonable" because there were no "clearly articulable" facts to support it. There was, in fact, nothing to even indicate that a crime was being committed. It was an UNreasonable suspicion, and that won't fly in court.44 AMP said:
If you have not read the Terry decision, I suggest you Google it and read it.
I keep reading stuff like this and I really shake my head.
Someone please enlighten me.
Criminals conceal their firearms because ... erm, they don't want anyone to know they have them? Gangbangers (or whatever) conceal, even if they aren't wanted, ... why? Because the local cops know who they are and they will be hassled (if not jailed on felony possession) if they appear to be armed.
Has any case ever been observed that crooks don't conceal? That is, does anyone know if Joe, the local knee-breaker, carries openly, because the cops won't bother with him, being such an upstanding citizen and all....
As far as I know, the only people who carry openly, are law abiding citizens. Caveat: In jurisdictions where it's not against the law. Crooks just don't do that. They don't want the cops to know they are armed and they don't want you to know they are armed.
It comes down to the idea that there is no rational reason for the police to be afraid of anyone carrying openly in any jurisdiction where open carry is not against the law.
It is simply unreasoned fear.
It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you, you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Someone please enlighten me.
Criminals conceal their firearms because ... erm, they don't want anyone to know they have them? Gangbangers (or whatever) conceal, even if they aren't wanted, ... why? Because the local cops know who they are and they will be hassled (if not jailed on felony possession) if they appear to be armed.
Has any case ever been observed that crooks don't conceal? That is, does anyone know if Joe, the local knee-breaker, carries openly, because the cops won't bother with him, being such an upstanding citizen and all....
As far as I know, the only people who carry openly, are law abiding citizens. Caveat: In jurisdictions where it's not against the law. Crooks just don't do that. They don't want the cops to know they are armed and they don't want you to know they are armed.
It comes down to the idea that there is no rational reason for the police to be afraid of anyone carrying openly in any jurisdiction where open carry is not against the law.
It is simply unreasoned fear.
It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you, you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
I was talking about this with a friend over coffee, and we kind of agreed that both sides over reacted, I mentioned that just because its "legal" doesn't make it "smart". He asked me what I meant and I told him this.
In open waters a ship or boat operated by sail always has the right of way versus a ship or boat operated by a motor. If I'm in a skipjack that means I have the "legal" right of way against a supertanker. It doesn't mean I'm going to play chicken with it though.......
On the water its called the "Law of Gross Tonnage" , on the Street its called "common sense".
In open waters a ship or boat operated by sail always has the right of way versus a ship or boat operated by a motor. If I'm in a skipjack that means I have the "legal" right of way against a supertanker. It doesn't mean I'm going to play chicken with it though.......
On the water its called the "Law of Gross Tonnage" , on the Street its called "common sense".
youngunz4life
New member
true, but if I am sitting in my vehicle waiting for my wife and an old lady is suspicious for whatever reason(only an example) & decides to call the cops...
they or someone will show up and ask for my license. Point being, they are going to want to ID someone when they come to a scene to make sure the person is indeed a regular joe and not a wanted criminal.
that being said, I think it is ridiculous the cop pulled a weapon from behind immediately upon seeing the person, but I guess he decided not to take any chances. You never know these days...but I'm guesing. It seemed an over reaction.
This sentiment is dangerous. Do you consider it to be acceptable that cops can demand papers for any citizen brazen enough to exercise his/her rights to open carry?
44 AMP said:
I don't buy that at all. It sets the stage for an environment where the State can at any time demand papers from anyone exercising the right to open carry. Should police be detaining people at gunpoint if those people (suspects) have tattoos and bling?
This was not a situation where some hoplophobe caller called in about a person with a gun being threatening. In those cases the dispatcher should make sure the caller is clear about what's happening, but if that's the story being told, cops can't do much other than to treat the situation as dangerous and go after the person who reported it if the report turns out to be a lie or exaggeration.
No, this was a case of a cop acting on his own to harass someone for perfectly legal behavior when nobody had complained. The cop is in the wrong 100%. I have no idea where you see any reasonable suspicion in those circumstances.
Al Norris said:
Brilliant and wise. However, it is funny and depressing to see the depths to which the establishment will sink, throwing BS charges at someone who, at risk to him/herself, stands up against the more equal pigs among us.
article said:
IOW: Citizens! Please submit to requests for papers at our whim! We can't tell the difference between an extremely dangerous situation involving guns and someone walking down the street with a legally holstered gun. As a result, we may need to hold you at gunpoint and demand papers if you're walking down the street, so don't get uppity! It hurts our feelings and we may shoot you (or miss, and shoot innocent bystanders), or other cops rushing to aid in defense of your uppity-ness may drive unsafely and get hurt or killed in a TA. Nobody wants that! Just submit to our authority and everything will be okay.
I think Ms. Jamerson needs to go back to grade school and learn what belligerent means, because calmly, verbally resisting harassment by a LEO does not qualify under any reasonable definition.
I don't get it; if he had a CC permit then why not keep the weapon out of sight? That said; the cop only felt like he was in danger, because he drew down, from behind, on a dude who was just minding his own business. I guess some cops only feel comfortable doing their jobs if they are the only ones carrying. If I was the cop, I would be looking for a new line of work.
The DA filing charges at this time is just a pure case of retaliation because someone got caught making a mistake and had it plastered all over the national news.
The person had the right to open carry. Its up to citizens to know the law as ignorance is no excuse to the police or the court. Seems to me that shoe needs to fit on the law enforcement side of the house as well.
There are plenty of states with open carry where the Police do not freak out at the sight of an armed citizen.
The DA and the police would do themselves more credit if they admitted they made a mistake said they had taken actions to educate the officers in the Dept on carry laws. Instead they chose to retaliate against the citizen at a later date.
The person had the right to open carry. Its up to citizens to know the law as ignorance is no excuse to the police or the court. Seems to me that shoe needs to fit on the law enforcement side of the house as well.
There are plenty of states with open carry where the Police do not freak out at the sight of an armed citizen.
The DA and the police would do themselves more credit if they admitted they made a mistake said they had taken actions to educate the officers in the Dept on carry laws. Instead they chose to retaliate against the citizen at a later date.
- Status