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

[Aguila Blanca]

Standing Wolf... Most probably no Licensed open carriers have been found out to be criminals. But the Police dont know that until they check. Right? And the police do have the right to check... dont they?

That's apparently what you don't understand yet.

NO -- they do NOT have the "right" to accost people engaging in lawful behavior unless there is (in the words of the SCOTUS) "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed."

Be realistic. Police Officers have every right, and responsibility to consider their own safety before anything else.

Also incorrect. Police officers are naturally concerned about their safety, but that does NOT grant them any "right" to violate any person's inherent civil rights.

Aguila Blanca... It seem's you've missed the tenor of my post. I'm not at all suggesting that open carry isnt legal in Philadelphia. Correct me if I'm wrong... but I believe one must posses a license to carry a firearm in order to open carry correct? How would a police officer know if an individual is properly licensed if he dont inquire? OK... when the officer inquires about the license the possibility exists that the open carrier dont have a license... right? But the officer wont know this until he checks... right?

See above.

I have not missed the the sense of your posts. But, with all due respect, your position is wrong, and is not supported by the Supreme Court. As I have mentioned previously, a license is also required to operate a motor vehicle, in every state in the U.S. Are you going to argue that a police officer has a "right" to stop any vehicle at random just to inquire if the driver has a license? The guidelines laid down by the SCOTUS, in Terry and reinforced by Hiibel, set out a "bright line" that the police can't (legally) cross. They may NOT conduct an investigatory stop based on a mere hunch. And where open carry is legal, even if it requires a license to be legal, there has to be something more than just seeing the gun before they have legal grounds to initiate contact. There must be some "clearly articulable facts" on which the officer can rely to form a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed.

Since you seem to be supporting Sgt. Dougherty on this one, please lay out for us exactly what "clearly articulable facts" existed to indicate that the open carrier was breaking the law (or was about to do so).

 

[secret_agent_man]

Driving this controversy in the background is a notion held by the public and law enforcement a man with a gun is trouble. In view of all the public shooting and gun related incidents of recent years, this is hardly unfounded.

Over time, open carry has become socially unacceptable in many public contexts. If a person chooses like Fiorino did to openly pack heat in a place like Philly, there may well be consequences, constitutional or not. A general aversion to guns is going to be a factor to deal with in many jurisdictions.

The irony is that when people carry concealed, the cops, public officials and interested citizens are left completely in the dark as to potential gun threats.

It continues to be an imperfect world, full of imperfections. You just hope that ball of whatever it is rolling down the nearest hill doesn't roll on you.

One way to do that in most environments today is to hide that gun.

 

[bigbaby]

Jim do you really want the cops to have to worry about assualt charges everytime they draw their weapon? That(drawing a weapon) is not the time to be thinking. It is a tough job, give the fellas a break, when you can and make them accountable when you have to. Police are not regular citizens; they just aren't and they do work with a different set of standards; they just do. The Machine won't work any other way.

 

[hogdogs]

I don't know about Jim but here is how I see it...

Jim do you really want the cops to have to worry about assualt charges everytime they draw their weapon?

No I do not! That is why I want them to KNOW EVERYTIME THEY DRAW that this is the only course of action while following their oath to up hold the rights of others... Not only are they pointing a lethal weapon at the "suspect" but at every person down range of that muzzle! They better make sure that is the best course of action!

That(drawing a weapon) is not the time to be thinking.

There is never a time when a cop better not be thinking! They carry lethal force and the responsibility to protect and serve me and my fellow citizens!

It is a tough job, give the fellas a break, when you can and make them accountable when you have to.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!! They can be held accountable later but for now, how about they refrain from violating the rights of the law abiding! How bout go into the hood and shake down folks walkin' down the street with their hands in their hoody pockets? Prone them out! More likely up to no good that a regular joe with a piece on his hip where he can more quickly gain access to avoid a muggin' in that city!

Police are not regular citizens; they just aren't and they do work with a different set of standards; they just do. The Machine won't work any other way.

Actually they are and they should be upheld to the same level of job performance as a burger flipper at Mickey D's!

Brent

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Jim do you really want the cops to have to worry about assualt charges everytime they draw their weapon? That(drawing a weapon) is not the time to be thinking. It is a tough job, give the fellas a break, when you can and make them accountable when you have to. Police are not regular citizens; they just aren't and they do work with a different set of standards; they just do. The Machine won't work any other way.

"Give the fellas a break," when their actions ARE in violation of the Constitution, and those violations of fundamental civil rights could esily result in innocent, law-abiding people being shot and killed? Give THOSE fells a break?

I'm sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Every police officer on the street swore an oath to enforce the law and to defend the Constitution. If they can't do that, they NEED to find another line of work.

Sgt. Dougherty had a responsibility to know the law he was supposed to be enforcing. His own department had an internal directive stating it. This was not a rookie cop, this was a sergeant, an experienced officer. He should have known that open carry is legal. There was NO excuse to approach with his gun drawn and engage the guy with an attitude. A simple, "Good afternoon, Sir, do you have a permit to carry that pistol?" is all it would have taken to keep everything calm and peaceful. And, by the way ... that's ALL the law allows him to do. The guy probably would have replied, "Yes, I do," and that should have been the end of it. In fact, however, the guy would legally have been within his rights to ignore such a question and walk away.

I'm sure you and Glenn Dee won't like that, but that is the case. I keep coming back to the "rule of law," since it has been clearly established by the SCOTUS. If the officer cannot "articulate" clear, precise, and specific factors that support an assumption that a crime is being committed ... the officer quite simply has no right whatsoever to approach or "initiate contact" with the subject. Where open carry IS legal, there would have to have been something more than just seeing a man wearing a gun before the officer was legally allowed to initiate contact.

So ... you want to talk about officer safety? The guy was minding his own business. If the cop hadn't approached him, how would the officer's safety have been endangered? Sgt. Dougherty put HIMSELF into a potentially dangerous situation by approaching an armed individual without any legal justification to do so.

That's the part you and Glenn don't seem to understand. Sgt. Dougherty had NO JUSTIFICATION to approach the guy ... none at all.

 

[Wildalaska]

The Philadelphia Police Department has a long and checkered past concerning abuse of citizens.

Having personally been on the receiving end in the late 70s, all I can say is word, homey.

Some Philadelphia OC needs to show some cojones and file in Federal Court.


WildgettingthstickAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Some Philadelphia OC needs to show some cojones and file in Federal Court.

Yep.

Deprivation of civil rights under color of law would be a good starting point.

 

[youngunz4life]

wally

No the police do not have an unrestricted right to ask for a permit, they have to have a valid reason to do so. The simple fact of openly carrying a gun in public (in a state or city that allows open carry) is not a reason. The state could pass a law giving the police permission to ask, like the California laws that allow them to check to see if an open carried weapon is loaded or not, but I do not believe PA has such a law.

yes, and one possible reason Could be that an officer has a reasonable fear for himself or others. I am not saying this is the case here, but philly Can be a dangerous place. Someone walking down the street there OC is a fairly rare occurence. SGT Daugherty should and will be punished also(in some form or another). The guy was obviously clueless on the law; that doesn't mean the rest of the department is.

 

[bigbaby]

If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different. IMO some of you all are pretty hard on the cops and that is coming from a black man who has been harrassed by many a cop for no other reason then they(the cops) are suspicious of black men. Around my neighborhood they should be LOL> They are doing what they have to do; I am doing what I have to do, I understand, they understand but WOW it seems some people got it made not to have to figure it right! In Baltimore the Machine works the way it works so everybody gets to go home, well almost everybody. The way some of you guys would have it, simply would not work in any major US city.

 

[hogdogs]

If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different.

In the "service" you were never deployed AGAINST the citizens of the USA. And in most combat situations... The COTUS is not in play. Also... mistakes our fighting men make that results in the loss of life of non combatants is simply kills placed in the "collateral damage" column!

There really is no similarity in the military service and the domestic law enforcement agencies... MUCH TO THE DISMAY OF OFFICERS NATIONWIDE!!!

Just look at the BDU's LEO's are wearing!!!

The truth is in a name.... BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM/UTILITY...

Cops are not at war with the citizenry!

Brent

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Cops are not supposed to be at war with the citizenry!

I took the liberty of fixing that for you.

 

[hogdogs]

Thanks AB... I suffered an attack of "idealistic fantasy"...

Brent

 

[Glenn Dee]

HOT DOG!!!

I think you have it correct. There is, and never should be any similarity between any military organization, and the civilian police.

I also agree that this current militerization of federal, and local police departments is an abomination. This militerization of the police has led to the current tactics, and atitudes were discussing today. Also the reference to police organizations as LEO or law enforcement officers, or organizations. As I have posted in the past, law enforcement (other than traffic, and local ordinances) occupies only about 10% of the average cops time. This LEO attitude and tactics only serves to cause , and maintain conflict between the police and the citizens they serve. This case is a perfect example.

I have to laugh with bigbaby... Yep this plan to stop open carriers using stated tactics is pretty much the same as racial profiling. I wonder if the Philly P/D would be so quick to defend for racial profiling as they are for O/C profiling. When in fact it's really the same thing.

Having said that, and to agree with bigbaby... sometimes we need to profile. Racial or otherwise. I've had CCW licenses in two jurisdictions. One condition on both permits was that I must show it to any police officer who requests. I wonder if that codicil is included in the Penn. CCW. I'd bet it is... or something similar. I have to maintain that the police have every right, and duty to inquire about a person carrying openly if they choose to, and can articulate their reason for stopping the O/C'r. Even if the reason is the mere possesion of the weapon. Sometimes black guys get stopped just because they are black... But that dont mean the police are wrong for doing it. I'd hope the Philly P/D would have enough intelligence to remember two things... One being THE POLICE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE... All the people. even those who are black, and even those who choose to O/C. Two is... for safety's sake please stop with all the amature swat tactics, yelling and screaming, making unreasonable demands, and assuming that everyone you encounter is a charles manson wannabe.

I hope this post dont hurt anyone's feelings but I see the racial profiling, and O/C profiling as kindred violations of a persons rights when they are abused.


Glenn D!

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

bigbaby wrote: "To the dude who asked about a weapon drawn during a traffic stop LOLOLOLOLOL I have never been pulled over any other way at night in Baltimore; maybe it's because I'm big and black, but I doubt it."

Sounds to me like a clear cut case of a DWB violation!!

 

[Glenn Dee]

THis is a great forum. We discuss subjects, and situations that would be taboo or have folks at each others throats in another forum. And we do it with respect, and humor. You guys n gals are the best.

Glenn D!

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

bigbaby wrote: "If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different."

That statement is patently absurd on the face of it.

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

hotdogs wrote: "Cops are not at war with the citizenry!"

Uh...............it goes without saying that at least a few of them are!

 

[hogdogs]

Uh...............it goes without saying that at least a few of them are!

And it is these rogue "broken arrows" that need stopped... It is also these same UN-cops that are influencing the thinking of an otherwise proper young new officer.

This is what I feel needs corrected the most.

Brent

 

[Jim March]

In this case it's the CHIEF, the top guy, openly supporting criminal assault by his officers, on a radio interview.

I've literally never heard of anything quite like that.

And in that case, that whole department is disgraced. Not one of 'em wearing that badge can or should be trusted. They're no longer police, they're a publicly-declared criminal gang.

 

[hermannr]

The COP takes his que from the city council. It is time for every law abiding citizen in Philly to remove those on the city council that support this COP, then have the city council fire this goon for what he said.

If I am not correct that the problem actually resides with the city council, why does this COP still have a job? After all, his job is an "at will' position.