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

[hogdogs]

PHEW.... That tornado passed real close... Now back to intellectually debating this civil rights issue...

I have a message in for a return phone call from the DA's office hoiping they call back some day so my opinion is heard.... And the Chamber of Commerce of Philly will hear how I can never plan a vacation to a locale known for not honoring the civil rights granted by the USA, Pennsylvania, or Philadelphia.

we will see who all calls me back and who calls me first!

 

[hogdogs]

NA NA NA NAAAA NA!!! Al got caught with a funny typo!!!!

And for posterity...

topic will be permanently off the rooster

Brent

 

[secret_agent_man]

It is what is often referred to as "chest thumping" and "bravado"

I must admit that I am writing from an armchair. One with very soft imitation leather upholstery. It looks like the real thing.

 

[jimpeel]

NJgunowner,

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[sic] later.

Said suit would be summarily dismissed with prejudice as the officer has immunity while in the performance of his duties. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a lawyer who would even entertain such a suit unless he was simply in the mood to lose the case and take your money.

 

[Jim March]

Apparently there are some here who think that the drawn gun on the cop's part is reasonable.

I would like to ask such folks two questions:

1) Is bearing arms lawfully a civil right? Hint: read the first sentence Justice Alito penned in McDonald.

2) Is there such a thing as a civil right, when the excercise of same requires one to have a loaded gun pointed at them every once in a while?

 

[hogdogs]

WOW!!! JUST W O W!!!

I spoke to a person who replied to my message left with a secretary...

I failed to get his name but the message was taken by the secretary who claimed to be the secretary for the HEAD as in TOP DA for philly...

While I had low expectations of how it would go, I am sad to say it was less favorable than even I would have expected!

His attitude sucked sno-cone so bad i am shocked he ain't had an aneurysm from brain freeze!

He used the term "Duly Noted", in regards to my opinion, in such an obviously intentional condescending tone that I think it ranks in the top 5 episodes of condescension I have ever witnessed and I follow politics a bit!!!

Basically blew me off and made me positive that the "OLD CITIES" of America are not safe for me to ever visit!

When I expressed concern that, while I wouldn't be carrying any firearm, I may face trumped up charges by his office to cover the lack of ability of a Philly officer, he didn't even try to defend!

And I was cordial, polite and full of yes sir, please and thank you!

I smell poo-poo on someone's gum shoe!

Anyone want to start an opinion giving phone campaign?

I ended the call by letting him know I felt his attitude was far less than stellar. I also let him know that his office and that of the PD is not far from their antics of the past!

Brent

 

[Wildalaska]

Is bearing arms lawfully a civil right?

We will know the answer to that when the Supreme Court rules.

Is there such a thing as a civil right, when the excercise of same requires one to have a loaded gun pointed at them every once in a while?

Yep. One has nothing to do with the other.

And thats without defending the chiefs remarks, or commenting on the behavior of the OC here

WildseparateissuesAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[Jim March]

No, actually, we don't have to wait. Here's the first sentence Justice Alito penned in the majority decision:

"Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home."

No "separate issue" about it.

 

[Musketeer]

S.A.M. Said:

I know you don't have any reasonable suspicion/probable cause under any circumstances because I do not break any laws. So when you stop me, I know in advance it is a prima facie illegal detention.

So consider this from your point of view. If I see you begin to draw level one, I'm drawing level six in the "force continuum" and you are going down. I'm betting you cannot beat me to the trigger pull if you are drawing not to fire.

Over the line S A M. You may know you have done nothing wrong but you do not know the call that the responding officer received. If he was responding to a call concerning some "nut waving around a handgun" it may have been an incorrect description of you but the officer would be justified in responding with weapon drawn.

I agree, the Philly PD is way out of line and some cop apologists make me ill. At the same time they need to deal with people who not only make inane assertions about gunning it out with them but with those who actually do.

Your statement fails on 2 counts.

1. It is irresponsible in the extreme with regards to the lawful gun carrying public an the LEOs out there. It only weakens the position of lawful carriers having to explain your retoric.

2. Drawing on an officer who is holding you at gunpoint is an excellent way to earn a Darwin Award.

Mods. Please do not close a good discussion do to such an inane statement.

 

[Jim March]

Over the line S A M. You may know you have done nothing wrong but you do not know the call that the responding officer received. If he was responding to a call concerning some "nut waving around a handgun" it may have been an incorrect description of you but the officer would be justified in responding with weapon drawn.

That excuse cannot fly in Philly any more. The chief is on record as supporting armed assault by his officers. That raises the odds that a cop drawing down on you is in fact committing armed assault.

Put another way: elsewhere, it might be reasonable to assume that the department thinks they're acting lawfully. The chief just tossed that presumption out the window after pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire, as far as his department is concerned.

Yes, it's possible that the chief himself didn't understand the law when he gave that radio interview. But by now, the town's attornies had to have heard about this ongoing fiasco. For that matter they had to have researched the heck out of this whole thing in preparation for their insane prosecution of the guy with the audio recorder.

They now are fully aware of what they're doing, legally and morally, but they also have not rescinded the support for armed assault that the chief publicly made. They are standing pat on the idea that they're going to attack people in public.

Is anybody reading this thread NOT alarmed by the implications?

 

[hogdogs]

I ain't alarmed... I don't go to communist countries nor American cities that do not honor the laws they MUST!!!!

Heck, I don't go to Palm Beach or Miami either!

Tomorrow, my calls will be to the CoC and city attorney. Might even call the chief and ask if he is always so oblivious to laws and rights...

Brent

 

[markj]

This is the first time I'm aware of a police chief advocating having his officers conduct felony assaults with no lawful provocation

Some do when a gun is involved, open carry in CB and you may meet an officer with a drawn gun.

If I pull a gun on somebody, that's assault with a deadly weapon, a felony

You sir are not a policeman. They have a little more power than a normal citizen, comes with the badge.

A smart man will conceal that hogleg to avoid any problems with teh local law.

Challenge a officer, you may end up in jail.

Conceal it and have no issuse or carry it open and expect issues in PA. Easy for me to decide if Ilived there..

 

[Wildalaska]

No, actually, we don't have to wait. Here's the first sentence Justice Alito penned in the majority decision:

"Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home."

No "separate issue" about it.

I suggest you read the Case more carefully, and tell me where the Court has ruled that OC is a "civil right".

WilddictanotcountingAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[secret_agent_man]

Musketeer,

the officer would be justified in responding with weapon drawn

Flip side, the John Bad Elk case is still good law. An innocent party may defend himself to the extent and by the means necessary.

Drawing on an officer who is holding you at gunpoint is an excellent way to earn a Darwin Award.

I believe it is well established that an accomplished handgunner can draw and shoot before your brain can send a message for your finger to pull the trigger on a gun you are holding on a suspect.

Mods. Please do not close a good discussion do to such an inane statement.

By all means, keep this thread open.

Let me add that had I been in Fiorino’s place, my first thought would have probably been that this man is not a cop, but an impersonator for whatever reason, most likely robbery. And in many armed robberies, you get shot.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Among so many great cops out there, there are a small number of bad apples whom we should legitimately fear if they are pointing a gun at us.

Officers often attempt justify what are in my opinion over-the top responses to non-combative, peaceful citizens (who just happen to have a holstered firearm) by saying "we don't know who you are". Notably, the treatment of these citizens doesn't often change for the better once they are in fact identified as licensed, law abiding folks.

I would add that as a citizen, we don't know who you are either. Your badge and uniform is of little assurance that you are one of the good ones if your behavior is presently betraying that notion.

In the absence of any indication of any threat or crime has been, or is about to be committed, pointing a firearm at a law-abiding person is egregious, dangerous, and unnecessary behavior that has to stop.

If there is any doubt, then at a minimum, the low-ready should provide sufficient cover until an ID can be made. If there is an actual furtive move, then there's plenty of time to act.

This over-reaction on the part of LE stems from the false notion, that is reinforced in countless hours of training, that mere possession of a holstered firearm alone is adequate cause for alarm that is sufficient to threaten someone's life.

It simply is not true, any more than having control of a vehicle is, alone, evidence of an intent to commit vehicular homicide.

This overreach of use of force raises the risk for both citizens and officers to alarming proportions. It is not done in AZ or AK or VT, or anywhere else that there has been a normalization of bearing arms. Why not? Because it wouldn't be tolerated, and it is patently unnecessary and dangerous.

At a time when the 2A rights are being massively expanded, it is time to re-visit the training at the national (P.O.S.T.) level. I hope it happens before some folks on both sides of the blue line get hurt or killed unnecessarily.

 

[hogdogs]

Maestro has a valid point...

I can go out and purchase "replacement" Walton County (identicle to many florida counties) Deputy uniforms. I can also buy "replacement" LEGIT badges of said county complete with badge numbers.

with an old issue of any number of LEA trade magazines, you can buy genuine tazers, light bars (both rooftop and clandestine), Heck you can even order retired agency or taxi company cars (For the Lower budget agency as the ads read) painted in any color combination you choose.

Some of these items require "qualifying" paperwork. That is so easy to fudge it ain't even funny...

Just sending in a formal commendation of an officer gets you a return letter from sheriff or chief... ON OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD just waiting to be scanned and remove the body of the letter!

NO ONE is guaranteed to be an officer until you are handed over from officer to jailer...

We MUST trust these individuals who are in the law enforcement employment field.

Brent

 

[langenc]

""Personally, I like more than 5lbs of force separating me from getting shot for nothing!"" copied from post #9

This AINT NOTHING!! It is your constitutional right!

 

[maestro pistolero]

It's not even just the possibility of an impersonator, Brent. There are occasional bad eggs, just like in society at large.

I generally assume an officer is squared-away, especially when they are acting professionally. But deploying lethal force JUST because of a holstered gun on a perfectly normal behaving individual doesn't strike me as reasonable, justifiable, or even professional, although I know the present training might dictate otherwise.

Since I know I am never going to behave in a way that would warrant having a 9mm screwed in my ear, my doubt level as to the integrity of the individual officer would go through the roof should it happen to me.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

... now you have called an LEO a disgrace for doing his job; ...

Correction -- not for "doing his job," but for openly espousing an approach to his job that is contrary to his oath of office and in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Unless there's something wrong with the versions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution that I've been reading. The version I know reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Does my version omit a phrase saying, "except when the police officer wants to go home at night"? I don't remember any such phrase from high school civics class, nor can I find any version of the 4th Amendment on the Internet with such language included.

If you take the time to read those two SCOTUS decisions to which I provided links (Terry and Hiibel), you'll see that a stop at gunpoint such as in the Philadelphia incident IS considered (by the SCOTUS, no less) as a "seizure." The 4th Amendment says that we are supposed to be secure against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. When a person is engaging in blatantly LEGAL activity, and evidencing no indications of ILlegal activity, a seizure at gunpoint is clearly unreasonable.

I am both astonished and disappointed that even ONE person on this forum would try to defend such an act by the police officer. To encounter multiple people who seek to defend him, in the face of the clearly defined rules set down by the Supreme Court, is profoundly and deeply disturbing. It is obvious that those who say we are living in a police state are correct.

 

[Musketeer]

Hand to face....

The Philly PD Chief makes an asinine statement which needs to be challenged in court so posters here think it valid to automatically assume a LEO in that jurisdiction who responds to OC with gun drawn is automatically doing so illegally... We have had posts for years here as well at the old Packing.org (RIP) where the LEOs were called with reports of a a man waving a gun who really simply had it OC or flashed accidentally. The general public can react unexpectedly to OC. Sorry some may not like it but if you want to scare the sheeple expect a response. I do expect the situation to be resolved professionally and quickly by the LEOs but a response with weapons drawn is not unexpected because none of us know the call they are responding to. Philly does need to start responding properly to a simple OC sighting where nobody called the screaming "crazy man with a gun!".

Then we still have S A M expecting to draw and shoot an LEO who has them at gunpoint because he goes to the range and reads magazines on shooting.

Damn, my head hurts.

Mods, again please do not close this thread because there is a worthwhile discussion here. Feel free though to drop the ban or ateast suspension hammer.