Update on the Philly OC case - radio interview with the chief

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are probably correct, Hermann, but that is a long term solution.
I occupy the niche between cops and Joe Sixpack, working in corrections, and I side firmly with the Six Packers of the world - not stopping for a non-crime. If what I am doing is legal, then leave me alone.
I have had to use force in my job, thought was required before I got into it, but TRAINING kicks in when it's right there in your face, and TRAINING is what keeps staff/officers out of trouble during those times of reacting/no concious thought. What you have here is training to over-react, training to ride roughshod over civil liberties. If the training is conducted with an eye towards freedom and liberty, and followed up with direct supervision and immediate action to correct by self-same supervisors, then this will cease. Since the big dog at the top feels what's going on is quite all right, that will not occur.
There are two type of people who may be legally discriminated in most parts of the country - gun owners and smokers.
 
Hogdog; tell that to the scared, unarmed civilians who were all around us. I bet they would hope the Cotus is still on. You see in the military we use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secured. The police must use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secure. The only difference is the situation, for the police, is rarely the same situation as it is for the military. The police must do what is needed to secure the situation and then worry about the legalities. What I find absurd is the notion that a policemen, who believes he needs to draw a weapon; however wrong he may be, must then worry about assualt charges. Guess what folks THEY DON'T. Back to the point that started this thread, the dude exercising his rights to open carry is absolutely right; he has the right to OC in Philly. The Police Chief in Philly, is clearly wrong in his application of the law. That said; it should be obvious to him(the OC dude) now that, although he has the right to OC, it may not be the best choice in Philly. There is legal and there is practical, they are not always the same. Now he can insist on exercising his rights, but untill the police in Philly learn to live with it, the OCing dude may not be able to live with it. Sure the cop that shoots him, when he was just OC legally and not cooperating 100% with the intervening officer will be wrong and maybe even charged, though I doubt it, but the OCer will be shot. Legal NO, but I ain't getting shot just to prove a point! Untill the Philly cops get real, it seems CC is in order in Philly.

We all have different tolerence levels for how much crap we will take before we say 'enough is enough, it isn't worth this, just to keep the peace'. So I can see why almost everyone disagrees with me here lol
 
Last edited:
Glenn Dee said:
Sometimes black guys get stopped just because they are black... But that dont mean the police are wrong for doing it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't?

Please inform us under exactly what circumstances racial profiling is right, or legally acceptable.
 
bigbaby said:
You see in the military we use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secured.
Click to expand...
Whose military were you in? When I served in the U.S. Army during Vietnam, we had "Rules of Engagement." We were expected to follow them, and there were consequences if we did not do so.

Ask Lt. William Calley about that, if you can find him. Ask the guys who were recently tried for executing a house full of civilians, and faking evidence to make it appear the victims were terrorists.
 
The force required is always the minimal force, if such a thing exist. What the hell is that got to do with executing an unarmed civilian or prisoner?
 
I previously posted a link to the Terry decision, with a suggestion that those who think Sgt. Dougherty had a right to stop the open carrier in Philadelphia should read it. It would appear that some of you have not done so. That said, the SCOTUS dicta from Terry were reinforced and clarified in Hiibel. It's another case where the petitioner actually lost his appeal, but the decision of the court provides us (and the police) with some valuable guidelines.

Here's the link to the decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

And here's a key portion thereof:

Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975). To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and … reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979).

Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) (“[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice”); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985) (“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”);
Click to expand...

So, again, the SCOTUS allows police to make "investigatory stops" when there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense.

So I ask you Dougherty apologists yet again: Given that open carry is LEGAL in Philadelphia, what articulable facts did Sgt. Dougherty have to support a "reasonable suspicion" that the young man had committed or was committing a criminal act?

Facts ... not hunches. The SCOTUS specifically and strongly stated that hunches are NOT sufficient grounds to violate an individual's 4th Amendment rights. What FACTS did Dougherty have? What FACTS could he possibly have had?

Further, Dougherty was not interested in determining "if" a crime had been committed. The young man volunteered that he had a permit, and offered to show it to Sgt. Dougherty. Sgt. Dougherty refused to look at it. Consider also that the SCOTUS in Hiibel stated that a Terry stop "cannot ... resemble a traditional arrest," Doesn't stopping the guy at gunpoint "resemble a traditional arrest"? It certainly does to me.
 
Last edited:
I can understand an officer's desire to protect himself. But doesn't he also have an obligation to protect the rights and safety of the citizens in his jurisdiction? I'm sure that's exactly what he's paid to do. And, while my memory may be hazy, I'm also pretty sure he took an oath to do just that upon accepting the job. For some reason, something about upholding the law comes to mind as well.

If an officer can't feel safe during the course of his duties without terrorizing innocent people at gunpoint, it's time for a career change.
 
If an officer can't feel safe during the course of his duties without terrorizing innocent people at gunpoint, it's time for a career change.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who has never worn a LEO hat before. And someone who does not understand a little thing called the Use of Force Continuum.

Here's a hint: Drawn weapons are still Level 1, Officer presence. Unless the officer shoots you (Deadly Force, Level 6), he/she is still acting under Level 1. Get over it.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, and a uniformed officer of the law approaches you with a drawn weapon, whether at low-ready or aimed at your head, best course of action is to comply. That's the way you're least likely to incur extra holes.

Now, as far as whether it's legal for them to inquire about your license status, that's another matter entirely. The only point I'm addressing here is weapon drawn.

And to be quite honest, when I'm wearing my LEO hat, if I see a weapon, or have reasonable suspicion of a person's immediate access to a weapon, my gun will be drawn.

Period.

I have a wife and two young children to go home to; and I will do everything within my power to do exactly that.
 
jgcoastie said:
And to be quite honest, when I'm wearing my LEO hat, if I see a weapon, or have reasonable suspicion of a person's immediate access to a weapon, my gun will be drawn.

Period.

I have a wife and two young children to go home to; and I will do everything within my power to do exactly that.
Click to expand...
And for either of those two statements, you are a disgrace to the uniform you wear. I have a friend who is a retired Coast Guard officer. You aren't fit to shine his boots. What about that oath you swore when you joined the Coast Guard? Remember? The one about "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Yeah, that oath.
 
So it is scared cops?

Sorry JG, but until a citizen articulates in one form or other that they deserve to have their civil rights stripped from them... I expect every officer to honor them!!!

IS THIS REALLY SO MUCH TO ASK???

Brent
 
Here's a hint: Drawn weapons are still Level 1, Officer presence. Unless the officer shoots you (Deadly Force, Level 6), he/she is still acting under Level 1. Get over it.
Click to expand...
To us citizens.... Level one would be a calm contact. No weapons drawn and hands out of the pockets. Gun drawn, names being called cuss words thrown around while gun is aimed at center mass.... well I won't put a number on that level but it is only one digit under hot lead in the squishy torso of a citizen... in this case a law abiding citizen carrying a gun openly to avoid being accosted by armed thugs committing criminal acts against him in the city of brotherly love!!!

So what did he get for his efforts? He got accosted by an armed thug committing a very heinous crime!!!

Brent
 
Let me quantify my previous remark...

If any responsible, legal gun carrying (open or concealed) civilian citizen feels the need to draw... and draw and curse.... and draw, curse and maintain muzzle pointed to CoM... He has likely decided that not only is he in fear of death or at least "GBH" but he is within' his legal rights to use lethal force to mitigate this threat.

The only thing that should prevent him from lettin' a round go downrange would be the fact that the bad guy/s immediately cease and desist the behavior that threatens the citizen.

The responsible gun carrier would never pull a gun to scare someone! He would never pull the weapon to intimidate nor to impose his "POWER" over the bad guy.

So with the above... What did the civilian in the sworn officer employment position have done to him, by the legal self defense firearm carrier, to warrant this behavior?

And you know you have the right to make a citizen arrest! In many areas you can use any force up to and including lethal force to hold a "violent felon" at bay or to stop a "violent felony crime" from going further.

So should citizens start helpin' out the cops buy stopping armed citizens to make sure their "papers" are "in order"?

This officer... and the chief are no more sane or aware of proper protocol regarding legal acts or civil rights than that long hair hippy, TIMOTHY, who intends to mow down OC'ers with his vehicle...


Brent
 
One more issue to ponder.... Conservation officers!!!

I have had contact on numerous occasions afield. Each and everytime I was armed... Armed with no smaller than a .410 with 28 inch barrel. Several times I carried larger bore shotguns of 20 and 12 gauge. Rifles included .22lr, .30-30 and .30-06. Every time I can recollect I had this lethal wepon in my hands at time of contact. I also cannot remember one time it didn't have a full or near full capacity and I also cannot remember one time it didn't have a round chambered.

And of all these contacts... NEVER ONCE did the officer draw his .38/.357 revolver (dating myself a bit) or .40cal plastic pistol on me!

Does this mean that our uniformed beat cops are cowardly? Or does it mean the conservation officers had brass spheres?

Brent
 
Aguilla Blanca

OK... sir... dont you think you may have been a bit harsh on JGCoastie?

Most of the people here have never worked as a police officer, or sworn an oath as a police officer. Let me dispel any delusions about officer safety. No where in any oath of office for any police officer is there a rule, suggestion, requirement that he sacrifce himself. Keeping in mind that the police are also civilians, and are also protected by the same constitution as everyone else.

I think we all agree that profiling in and of itself is bad. Were asking some of us (the police) to live by the strictest letter of law as interpeted by us the individual citizen. Thats not realistic. And it's not going to happen. City attorney's department legal bureaus, trial lawyers, and judges interpet the law, and decisions. The police follow the interpetation of the lawyers responsible to their jurisdiction.

As JGCoasty said... at the end of the day I'm going home to my family. Now I can acomplish this in two ways. I can be a police officer who does nothing, maybe working in an office, or on patrol shirking work and not responding to calls, letting other officers do the heavy lifting.
Or I can make my personal safety my highest priority. How I do that in my opinion is the rub. Again it's about tactics. Anyone who read my prior posts should get that I dont condone, or accept the actions of the Philly police in this incedent. I personally believe the police created a much more dangerous and volitile situation than ever existed before their actions. The civilian in no way deserved to be treated with that level of violence, and suspicion.

There are concepts in police work the average citizen may not understand. One such concept is "PATROL". Patrol is not the police hanging around waiting for a call so they can do something. Patrol is the basis of all police work. Patrol can be thought of as preventive maintenance in society. The goal of police on patrol is to PREVENT crime. And to DETECT crime as it happens. If a police Officer see something out of place he may investigate it. A broken window that wasnt broken his last time around, an open door of a home that was never left open before, a man openly carrying a firearm where he never saw one before. None of these things in and of themselves are a crime... but all require some further investigation.

My concern is how this inquiery, investigation is conducted. Does the officer poke his head through the broken window and get decapitated by a falling piece of glass?.. or does he try the door of the business?... Does the Officer call in a swat team and dogs to search the home with an open door? or could he stop and observe that the homeowner is putting groceries away, and inadvertently left the door open. The same with the open carrier. The officer may well have made a friend and supporter if he had used reasonable tactics.

Glenn Dee
 
Aguilla Blanca

As far as racial profiling. Look at the absurdity conducted on a daily basis by TSA. Searching a 70 year old white lady from Nebraska, while ignoring a 29 year old in a full hajib, while trying to prevent a muslim extremist from hijacking or blowing up an airliner.

Stopping people based only on their race/religion/gender/sexual proclivity is and should be illegal. But couple that with one other factor, and an officer is doing his job. I'll illustrate with two examples... The first one While on patrol in Harlem NY, and away fo the tourist area of 125 st we sometimes would find white kids, and sometimes some older white folks who seem to be aimlessly driving around. I'd usually stop them. Did I stop them based on their race? You bet I did. During one of the blackouts I was detailed to a more gentile area thats 99% white yuppies. We spot a car with three black's and one hispanic seemingly driving around with no destination in the area. I stopped them. Was it based on their race?... yes it was.

My point is race can be the major factor in zeroing in on a person for a closer look, when there are others possibly minor factors.

If a description is broadcast of a 6'2" male black who just snatched a purse at the 176 st subway station... I'm not going to start stopping 5'3" white guys. However a swarthy, or well tanned 6'2" white guy might make me go hmmmm!
 
I'll sum this up real fast.

It's legal to open carry in PA, and therefore Philly.

Walking down the street or into a store is NOT suspicious activity.

Since open carry is legal, that is not suspicious activity.

Having ANYONE pull a gun on you for no reason IS illegal.

Any cop who breaks the law in such a manner should be prosecuted the same as any citizen. Wearing a badge does not or should not exempt you from the law.

Would I have complied with the officer, yes. But not because he was an officer, but because the MORON was pointing a gun at me! Then I'd have sued his butt of later.

Frankly if the officer had been shot and I ended up on the jury, I'd have sided with the defendant. He broke no law, he was doing nothing wrong, and having a gun pointed at you for no reason would constitute self defense cop or no cop. The idiot could have killed him with the twitch of a finger.

There can NOT be one law/rule for regular citizens and a completely different set for cops.
 
If you are a law-abiding citizen, and a uniformed officer of the law approaches you with a drawn weapon, whether at low-ready or aimed at your head, best course of action is to comply. That's the way you're least likely to incur extra holes.
Click to expand...


If I am a law-abiding citizen and constantly having this gun-pointing situation arise, there will come a time when I grow greatly concerned that your "uniformed officer" is gonna be like the one famous for demonstrating his prowess with safely carrying a Glock and ends up shooting himself or me! At that point, I am not sure how I would react to another "uniformed officer" wanting to point his Glock aimed at my head.

As a lawful CC licensed individual, I am not allowed to point my SIG everytime I feel that an individual on the street "might" be a threat to me, my license would be revoked and my butt would likely be seeing potential jail time. I expect the same rules to apply to uniformed officers.

If I were poor and lived in a neighborhood rampant with crackhouses, would that give the police the right to burst in my house (with no warrant or articulable reason) and point their guns at the head of every individual in my house - just because my house resembles all the other houses in my neighborhood???

Me-thinks Joseph Stalin would have been proud of Philadelphia's fine police department and how they interpret the law and the constitution.
 
Here's a hint: Drawn weapons are still Level 1, Officer presence. Unless the officer shoots you (Deadly Force, Level 6), he/she is still acting under Level 1. Get over it.
Click to expand...

The difference from level 1 to level 6 is less than an inch of finger travel and 10# of force on the trigger... Sorry, the levels need to be rewritten. Pointing a weapon at someone is the overt threat of deadly force. Those simple four rules of gun handling tell you NOT to point the weapon at anything you are not prepared to destroy. If you think level 1 justifies placing an innocent subject in grave physical danger then the levels are wrong and need to be rewritten. There are enough cases of idiots (both LEOs and not) having negligent discharges to cause me to disagree with the practice of drawing down on a suspect at level 1. My life is no less important than yours.

Now, racial profiling...

Justified when part of an overall description or profile.

Good: stopping a 30 something 5'7" hispanic male with a beard and bald head as related by the victim of a nearby robbery.

Bad: stopping a black man because he is driving in a white neighborhood.
 
Here's a hint: Drawn weapons are still Level 1, Officer presence. Unless the officer shoots you (Deadly Force, Level 6), he/she is still acting under Level 1. Get over it.
Click to expand...
You go around pointing your weapon at people for no reason other than to intimidate them, they are within their rights to kill you; you are just lucky that they don't have the inclination, nor (usually) the ability to do so because you have the drop on them. One of these days your luck will run out and it'll be your own damn fault.

You want to unsnap your holster and have you hand on your gun when you approach someone who is armed (but no reason to believe they are dangerous or up to no-good), I'll give you that for "officer presence" even though the same action would be illegal if a non-LEO did it.
 
Last edited:
Aguila: first you give me the choice of being called a liar or someone who would look the other way when an unarmed man is being murdered by my Marines, now you have called an LEO a disgrace for doing his job; making friends here I see LOL
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top