Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philadelphia PD won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    Yes, we certainly want police officers to spend their time learning about the sensibilities of people who openly carry firearms and bait the police, rather than on suppressing crime, arresting criminals, or training that mighthelp them in doing their core job.
    Yep. This is exactly what I don't get: "Being a reasonable person with at least some intelligence, I know that if I openly carry a firearm on the streets of Philly there is a high likelihood that the Police will be called, but it's my right to do so and so I shall, oh and I'll have a tape recorder with me that is already recording in case the Police do show up. Then, I will make it a point to not follow their directions, but rather offer my own interpretation of the actions I should take, which include reaching down toward my pants with my hand."

    Yeah, DEFINITELY not a person looking for a confrontation. Why are all of you scumbag cops screaming that he was looking for a confrontation? Get bent and realize that WE PAY YOUR SALARY - YOU WILL DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO!

    -V

    Comment


    • #62
      Here's the deal:

      In Pennsylvania you need a permit to do one of two things; to carry concealed anywhere in the state except a Class 1 city (Philadelphia), or to carry openly in a Class 1 city. You cannot carry concealed in a Class 1 city. But, the State Supreme Court ruled in 96 that Philadelphia couldn't just ignore the permits and prevent people from carrying at all. So, with the permit, residents can carry in Philadelphia but it must be open carry.

      § 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license. (a) Offense defined.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree. (2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.


      § 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia. No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license


      As far as your other statements;

      Are you in need of refresher training? Thanks for letting me know that PC and reasonable suspicion are not the same. I was aware of that already, but thanks anyway. So, if reasonable suspicion does not allude to suspicion that a person is committing a crime, to what does it allude? Does it mean that reasonable suspicion that a person likes chocolate cake is good enough to justify a stop or detention? When was the last time you reviewed Terry versus Ohio?

      Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)





      Originally posted by DAL View Post
      Not so. This guy had a CCW permit, according to reports.



      Also incorrect. Reasonable suspicion does not require a belief that the person has done, is doing or is about to do something illegal. Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause.
      Chuck

      Comment


      • #63
        Baiting only works when you fall for the bait. Smart fish get big for a reason.
        Chuck

        Comment


        • #64
          Based on those statutes, it's not really clear if the law intends to prohibit concealed carry in Philly. However, it is very clear that a person can carry openly in Philly with the permit. Here's why: It is legal to carry openly in PA without a permit. A permit is required to carry concealed in PA. It is illegal to carry in Philly at all without a permit. So, where does that leave us? You can only carry openly in Philly.

          Either way, the kid was baiting. Don't take the bait. Not illegal is not illegal. Being a tool still isn't illegal. Don't give the ***hats and the media a reason to stir the pot.
          Chuck

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
            Are you in need of refresher training? Thanks for letting me know that PC and reasonable suspicion are not the same. I was aware of that already, but thanks anyway. So, if reasonable suspicion does not allude to suspicion that a person is committing a crime, to what does it allude? Does it mean that reasonable suspicion that a person likes chocolate cake is good enough to justify a stop or detention? When was the last time you reviewed Terry versus Ohio?

            Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
            Apparently you need training in writing and in reading comprehension.

            You said "We have to actually believe that their actions are illegal."

            Now that I pointed out that the statement was incorrect, you are retreating from it and are accusing me of not understanding the law. As you now concede, in order to make a Terry stop, a law-enforcement officer does not "have to actually believe that the [person's] actions are illegal." Yet you have not pointed out anything I said that allegedly was incorrect. That is because reasonable suspicion does not require an actual belief that the suspect has done, is doing, or is about to do something illegal -- only a reasonable suspicion.

            As far as your assertions about concealed carry being illegal in Philadelphia, your explanation seems to be a misreading of the stilted news article. The statute permitting concealed carry with a firearms license is clear and does not except Philadelphia. Furthermore, the numerous comments at PAFOA.org are all to the effect that the license to carry concealed in valid in Philadelphia.

            Given the tenor of you comments, especially a desire to bait law-enforcement officers and your use of "RAS," which is the term favored by the open-carry bunch, whereas courts and law enforcement officers, including federal, use "reasonable suspicion," I seriously doubt that you are in fact an ICE agent, as you claim to be.
            Last edited by DAL; 05-24-2011, 04:47 PM.
            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by DAL View Post
              Apparently you need training in writing and in reading comprehension.

              You said "We have to actually believe that their actions are illegal."

              Now that I pointed out that the statement was incorrect, you are retreating from it and are accusing me of not understanding the law. As you now concede, in order to make a Terry stop, a law-enforcement officer does not "have to actually believe that the [person's] actions are illegal." Yet you have not pointed out anything I said that allegedly was incorrect. That is because reasonable suspicion does not require an actual belief that the suspect has done, is doing, or is about to do something illegal -- only a reasonable suspicion.

              As far as your assertions about concealed carry being illegal in Philadelphia, your explanation seems to be a misreading of the stilted news article. The statute permitting concealed carry with a firearms license is clear and does not except Philadelphia. Furthermore, the numerous comments at PAFOA.org are all to the effect that the license to carry concealed in valid in Philadelphia.

              Given the tenor of you comments, especially a desire to bait law-enforcement officers and your use of "RAS," which is the term favored by the open-carry bunch, whereas courts and law enforcement officers, including federal, use "reasonable suspicion," I seriously doubt that you are in fact an ICE agent, as you claim to be.
              Ok. Let's play smartass games. You have to actually SUSPECT that the actions are illegal. The key word here is ILLEGAL, not suspect. You can play semantics with "suspect" and "believe" if it makes you feel better.

              You must suspect that the actions are ILLEGAL. I said that you can't stop a man just because you don't like his actions, but that you must believe that his actions are illegal. OK. I was wrong. You must SUSPECT that his actions are illegal. Great. Let's get past that. You implied that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the gun toting idiot. I said that he did not. Now you can show me how you SUSPECT that his actions were illegal. I still don't see how the officer could have SUSPECTED that the OC guy was committing a crime, had commited a crime, or was about to commit a crime. Enlighten me as to how I'm wrong.

              Do you care to show me where I've ever baited law enforcement on this forum? Surely you can back up such an accusation. Did you mean to say that I'm an LEO that voices my true opinion, and that I don't always side with LE if I think that LE might have made a mistake? That sounds more accurate. We do make mistakes, you know. Why pretend otherwise?

              I'd never heard "RAS" until I came to this board. Throughout my career, I've simply heard Reasonable Suspicion. But, I just assumed that RAS was a common term among some of the various local agencies, because it's used so widely on here. But, if you take that as evidence to conclude that I'm not an LEO, I hope that you aren't planning on moving over to the investigations side.
              Chuck

              Comment


              • #67
                If you make insults, you are not going to like the responses.

                Post #66 endorses baiting law-enforcement officers and maligns them as being stupid.

                And, you don't have to suspect that the actions are illegal. You may suspect that he already did something illegal, or may be planning to do something illegal. You also can stop people who you suspect are a danger to themselves or others, or if there is some emergency that justifies contacting them. Saying that the police can only stop someone if he has committed a crime is an assertion frequently made by OC'ers.
                Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by DAL View Post
                  If you make insults, you are not going to like the responses.

                  Post #66 endorses baiting law-enforcement officers and maligns them as being stupid.

                  And, you don't have to suspect that the actions are illegal. You may suspect that he already did something illegal, or may be planning to do something illegal. You also can stop people who you suspect are a danger to themselves or others, or if there is some emergency that justifies contacting them. Saying that the police can only stop someone if he has committed a crime is an assertion frequently made by OC'ers.
                  Underlined: That's why I said; Reasonable suspicion to suspect that he HAD COMMITTED A CRIME, WAS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME, OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME. Read it again.

                  Bold: Post number 66 accuses this particular officer of being stupid for taking the ***hat's bait. It surely wasn't an indictment against all LE. That wouldn't make much sense.

                  Now, you implied that I frequently bait law enforcement. Show me how. One post that you don't like is not sufficient.
                  Chuck

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    There were some half-dozen police officers involved. What you said was: "Baiting only works when you fall for the bait. Smart fish get big for a reason." It was not simply calling one officer stupid, and sounds like an endorsement of the tactics.

                    As for what happened, here's a simple explanation.

                    In Pennsylvania as a whole, concealed carry is legal only with a permit. Concealed carry without a permit is legal everywhere in Pennsylvania, except Philadelphia, where the same license that authorizes carrying a concealed firearm authorizes openly carrying the firearm.

                    Accordingly, openly carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is presumptively illegal; having a permit is an affirmative defense. Not surprisingly, few people who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon carry one openly, especially in winter.

                    For these reasons, it was reasonable for the Philadelphia police to suspect that the suspect was committing a crime. Whether their tactics were appropriate is another issue, but you should expect the police to be especially cautious when a firearm is involved. I don't see anything wrong with holding the suspect at gunpoint until the situation is clarified, especially when he is argumentative.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      CharlieBrown, A person who is ABOUT to engage in criminal activity, may not yet have commited any illegal act. Yet he can be stopped legally. You are way out of your league trying to outdo DAL.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Sigh.....

                        Here's the thing. People like this guy are ruining the chances of shall issue becoming more common in other states. They need to hold themselves to a higher standard.

                        I've had CCW holders a couple times on traffic stops, and off duty LEO's from a host of different agency's as well. There is a proper way to go about exercising your rights: it's called being professional. All of them, CCW holders and LEO's, have quickly identified themselves in a non-threatening way. It normally goes something like this:
                        Me: introduction
                        Them: "Sir, I'm a concealed carry permit holder. I have a firearm and it's located in XX location."
                        Me: "That's fine, can you please show me your permit without reaching near the firearm?"
                        Them: "No problem. My permit is located in XX location and I'll reach for it with my right hand only. That okay?"
                        Me: "That's fine. Please keep your hands in plain view throughout this stop. If you need to reach for anything let me know before hand and please don't make movements in the area of your firearm."

                        See how easy that is? I had one OC'er one time who was a retired LEO working a security gig. I gave him a funny look and he immediately showed me his hands and said a few things only cops would recognize. He simply showed me his ID and was on his way.

                        Respect is a two way street. Having only dealt with handfull of CCWers they've all been polite and professional. I showed them respect, and they respected my desire to maintain safety. I've also had several openly offer to allow me to run serial numbers if I chose. I declined as they had a valid permit. So, how should open carriers respond? Respect and comply, sort it out later. So lets say I'm not up on CCW laws as a I should be. I'm on patrol and I see someone bee-lining for a store with a gun openly displayed on his hip. I confront:

                        Me: "Stop right there show me your hands!"
                        Them: "Yes sir. (show hands.)"
                        Me: (issue commands based on situation. Prone out, hands on car, keep hands up while talking, ect.)
                        Them: "Sir I'm not fighting or arguing but I have a permit/am legally allowed to carry."
                        Me: "Okay. Relax and we'll sort it out. DO NOT MAKE ANY MOVES TOWARD YOUR GUN."
                        Them: "Yes sir, no problem."

                        Now based on the above we can talk. Now seeing someone walking with a quality looking firearm in a holster in broad daylight will probably get a lower level of response from me then seeing someone in gang colors with the gun stuck in their dip. Do I disregard basic safety? No, of course not, but if I am doing my job and can read the totality of the situation I can respond appropriately. Now he is the flip side to the above scenario. All things are the same at the start:
                        Me: "Stop! Show me your hands."
                        Them: "Ef you!"
                        Me: (verbally challenged by an armed person.) Person will be placed at gunpoint. "Get on the ground now. Do it!" Back up will be called, person will be cuffed, less lethal may be deployed.

                        See the difference? CCW'ers and OC'ers represent their community as a whole whether they want to or not. If I meet a half dozen OCers and everyone of them are diks or cause problems, you think my opinion of the movement will be a positive one?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Edited to the above to ward off the inevitable:

                          CCW in my state is not under a legal obligation to inform me that they are a permit holder or are carrying. Most of the ones I've talked to CHOOSE to inform me to prevent a tragic situation, such as them reaching for their wallet and their firearm coming into view. They don't want to get shot, and I sure as shi# don't want to shoot a good guy. There are some that tell me "ef the police" and that they won't say anything if stopped. Again, this is a two way street. Just like a professional encounter with LEO's helps form peoples opinion of cops in general, the actions of CCWers and OCers works the same way. One can make all look bad.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Ok.

                            Let's knock off the Blue vs. Blue that is going on here.

                            EVERYONE take a step back (and I do mean EVERYONE).

                            Let's look at the facts:

                            - Certain factions (US Citizens) want to be able to possess firearms

                            - A faction within that faction wants the ability to menace others (and thereby gain a feeling of power) through the open-carry of a firearm, knowing fullwell that the majority of Citizens in the areas they specifically target are not comfortable with the open display of firearms (outside of those in a position which is recognized to do so - my God, I can't believe I have to put this little disclaimer in, but otherwise someone will jump in and complain that uniformed Police Officers do so all the time...)

                            - This lesser faction claims over and over again that their sole purpose is the defense of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution; that they believe it is in danger, and that the only way to defend it is to utilize it.

                            - This lesser faction also claims that the ONLY way to properly utilize and subsequently defend such right is to open-carry firearms in areas where it is viewed as abnormal by the population.

                            - This faction claims that it DOES NOT in ANY WAY seek confrontation with Law Enforcement.

                            - Time and time again, this faction engages in open-carry events which they tailor to cause the Citizenry to contact Law Enforcement out of a state of alarm. They have recorders at the ready. They have the media and lawyers on speed-dial. When approached by Law Enforcement due to alarming concern by the Citizenry, they purposely do not comply with LE instructions which involve Officer Safety.

                            - When they are successful in "tricking" (or as some have mentioned, "owning") said Law Enforcement Officers, they plaster it all over the news and make claims that the big bad Cops were terribly wrong, and thereby, their agenda of being allowed to open-carry throughout the entire US is somehow validated.

                            --------------------------------------------------

                            I'm fairly certain that I have everything right so far.

                            Now, I ask you Charlie Brown, but I ask all other Cops, and all other Citizens of this Country: Is this what our Country has become?

                            That a small faction (and no, I'm not talking about rural folk who go about their business everyday with firearms in places where it's viewed by the Citizenry as normal; remember, we're talking about openly carrying firearms in the streets of a major crime-ridden city) can impose its will upon the rest of the Citizenry, even when that Citizenry does not want it?

                            For myself, I will update myself on the PA Statutes before I speak again about the legal aspects (Charlie Brown has given me enough pause to take a solid look at the laws involved before I talk again about the legal ramafications), but come on. We are now (LEO's) fighting each other over this ridiculous nonsense. We don't make or change law, we enforce it, and protect the Citizens of this Country.

                            In all of this crap, we have somehow lost sight of a very important point:

                            WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

                            WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

                            WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

                            And, we do that, not only when there is criminal activity afoot, we do that PERIOD. Criminal act. Motor-vehicle accident. Natural disaster. It doesn't matter; we protect the Citizens.

                            That's what the OC lobby should consider the next time they set out to "own" one of us.

                            -V
                            Last edited by vincelli; 05-24-2011, 11:13 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I am not at all sure that those who claim to be law-enforcement officers on this forum really are.
                              Last edited by DAL; 05-24-2011, 11:49 PM.
                              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                With my above post in mind, let me say this.

                                I DO NOT consider Mr. Mark Fiorino to be of less than average intelligence. I believe, from what I know of this incident, that he is most likely above average intelligence. However, I also believe he has a personal agenda, and is willing to go to great lengths to promote it.

                                NO ONE will convince me that he did not realize that his actions would cause alarm to the Citizens involved.

                                NO ONE will convince me that he did not realize that said actions would end-up with alarmed Citizens calling 911 out of fear.

                                When that call comes in, when we are dispatched, we have no option but to respond. Otherwise, we as Public Servants would be guilty of Dereliction of Duty/Official Misconduct.

                                Mr. Fiorino knew exactly what he was putting into play that February day.

                                As I stated, I need to check into PA law before commenting further.

                                However, under these circumstances which were clearly designed to alarm the general public, I can say that had this occurred in my jurisdiction I would have locked him up for Disorderly Conduct, OGA, and quite possibly resisting arrest (if his idiocy continued after he was informed he was under arrest).

                                I wasn't there, but if his actions were such that he caused the general public to flee, seek shelter, etc. I'd have locked him up for Reckless Endangerment for placing Citizens in danger during their escape from the area (although, like I said, that would depend upon the actual reaction caused - rural area, probably nothing; congested city-street, it's possible for Mothers to be rolling baby-strollers over to get out).

                                -V

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3510 users online. 254 members and 3256 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X