SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint

[muzzled dogg]

 

[pcosmar]

That man needs to be fired and prosecuted.

 

[madengr]

Sounds like mob thugs.

 

[BuddyRey]

The city of Big Brotherly love.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

Dumbass cop. If that citizen had wanted to shoot him, he could have done so the moment they came into contact with each other. More than a few genuine criminals have done exactly that. And what person who's up to no good carries his gun around openly in a holster, anyway?

Also, I'm sure this would have played out the same way in 99.9% of cities in America, so Philadelphia isn't unique in this regard.

Sounds like mob thugs.

That's basically what the police are nowadays in the US: a state-sponsored organized crime outfit running a protection racket.

 

[AtomiC]

This what totally uncalled for.

If someone pointed a gun at me in a threatening manner and I had a gun on me, there would most definitely be shots fired from my direction in self-defense.

This pig deserves to be fined, prosecuted, jailed, and whatever else they can do to him.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

If someone pointed a gun at me in a threatening manner and I had a gun on me, there would most definitely be shots fired from my direction in self-defense.

I wish more people had that outlook. No one can be free unless he's willing to personally risk or give his own life to stand up for his rights. Any other conception of freedom is false.

Of course, this puts people with families at a big disadvantage. They're in a situation where they have to worry about lives other than their own. In a sense, they're held hostage.

This pig deserves to be fined, prosecuted, jailed, and whatever else they can do to him.

He does deserve it, but there's almost no chance anything will happen to him. The government protects its goons from accountability as far as it possibly can in the event that the "Blue Wall of Silence" fails to protect a cop from being charged in the first place. Even some of the most egregious violent felonies committed by the pork (like this one in Chicago) result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[rmodel65]

Dumbass cop. If that citizen had wanted to shoot him, he could have done so the moment they came into contact with each other. More than a few genuine criminals have done exactly that. And what person who's up to no good carries his gun around openly in a holster, anyway?

Also, I'm sure this would have played out the same way in 99.9% of cities in America, so Philadelphia isn't unique in this regard.

That's basically what the police are nowadays in the US: a state-sponsored organized crime outfit running a protection racket.

this is how they do it in Glynn County Georgia officers are Shane Nolen(drivers side) and Keith Mason(passengers side) Mason is now in Utah in Cedar City wonder if he is a cop there?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1rMA-K5WU

 

[ivflight]

Anyone know of a good audio recording device for such situations?

 

[AFPVet]

Criminals do not carry openly in holsters... most of them don't even use holsters! *edit* Some criminals with badges do however

"An armed society is a polite society."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's basically what the police are nowadays in the US: a state-sponsored organized crime outfit running a protection racket.

Yep, the biggest street gang in America (perhaps the world). This is why it baffles me that sheeple trust the police so much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Anyone know of a good audio recording device for such situations?

This looks like it may be suitable. I've never tried it, though. Caveat emptor.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL Guerilla, HB, that's what the police always were. The question is, is it a protection racket for everyone? And if not, who gets left out?

Some cops do still take this seriously, just as some always have, and some act like gang members, just as some always have. The question of whether the department heads encourage the former atmosphere and try to weed the latter out, or encourage the latter 'departmental culture' and weed the pesky whistleblowers out, is another story. These things seem to be cyclical, and I think the federal government and such as the SPLC are pushing that pendulum the wrong direction.

 

[AFPVet]

LOL Guerilla, HB, that's what the police always were. The question is, is it a protection racket for everyone? And if not, who gets left out?

Some cops do still take this seriously, just as some always have, and some act like gang members, just as some always have. The question of whether the department heads encourage the former atmosphere and try to weed the latter out, or encourage the latter 'departmental culture' and weed the pesky whistleblowers out, is another story. These things seem to be cyclical, and I think the federal government and such as the SPLC are pushing that pendulum the wrong direction.

Every department has the "in crowd". I learned as a reserve police officer that in departments, there are clubs within clubs. The more I learned about law enforcement both in the military and civilian, the sicker I became about it all. Politics trump everything! It's not about The People... it's about the government. Worse than this, many departments have corruption.

Professional courtesy? Only if you are in their "in crowd". This means keep your mouth shut and go along with whatever they want....

 

[TomtheTinker]

I will gladly send this guy $100 to help fund a law suit?

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

Yep, the biggest street gang in America (perhaps the world). This is why it baffles me that sheeple trust the police so much.

I suspect that there's a kind of psychological defense mechanism at work among many of the sheeple. Deep down I think a lot of them realize that today's cops are the enemies of every citizen's freedom and dignity, but these citizens refuse to admit it to themselves. If they did, it would imply cowardice on their part for failing to resist when resistance is clearly called for. By telling himself that "I should always obey the law, even if it makes no sense or is clearly tyrannical" and "the cops are the good guys," a person provides himself with an excuse for his weakness and his willingness to be dominated. He can then obey every law with dog-like submissiveness and grovel before every cop with whom he has any contact, all the while remaining convinced that his manhood is still intact.

I think people are beginning to wake up, though. Plentiful videos on YouTube and a lot of highly-publicized cases of extreme brutality and misconduct (and associated cover-up attempts) are starting to make even the densest people realize that police abuses are epidemic. Those that get publicity are necessarily only the tip of the iceberg. Just like with crime in general, for every single police brutality or misconduct incident caught on video, maybe ten thousand are not. Not all cops engage in such behaviors, but even the ones who don't almost never speak out against those who do. The "Blue Wall of Silence" is very real. Just ask Frank Serpico.

When I was a kid, I thought of cops as the good guys. Those days are long gone. Now I think of them as an occupying army with no more respect for the rights of Americans than a Chinese army would have if it were occupying the US.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

so from a lawsuit standpoint, is it legal to open carry in Philadelphia?


--------------EDIT-----------------

Looks like you can open carry in Pennsylvania with the exception of Philadelphia.
http://paopencarry.org/open-carry-questions-answers#1

Is open carry legal in PA?
Answer: Yes, with some restrictions.
Anyone whom can legally own a firearm in the commonwealth can openly carry, on foot, with the exception of court facilities, federal buildings, motor vehicles and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)
Those person possessing a valid License to Carry Firearms are also permitted to carry openly (or concealed) while in a vehicle and in cities of the first class.

However...

Can I be charged with "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" if I open carry in PA?
Short answer: Yes, you could be charged with a number of violations by an unknowing LEO. BUT, the charges would not be applicable, per the statutes, for merely open carrying. Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 clearly states that open carry, in and of itself, lacking any actual threatening or illegal behavior on the part of the person open carrying, is not grounds for a "stop and ID" by police. As such, open carry can not be anything warranting a "stop and ID" or greater reaction such as detainment or arrest.
Long answer: There is no "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" law in PA. The most often threatened charges against someone open carrying is "disorderly conduct", and "terroristic threats".
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
Offense defined. -- A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
makes unreasonable noise;
uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Though this section does not deal with firearms, due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed per §6109 or exempted by §6106(b) MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition. There are also two cases that that specifically state that a person may carry a firearm openly: Commonwealth v. Ortiz and Commonwealth v. Hawkins.
In summary, with case law to support, OC is legal and does "serve a legitimate purpose of the actor". Therefore OC can not be Disorderly Conduct per the letter of the code itself.
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another; cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
Definition. -- As used in this section, the term "communicates" means conveys in person or by written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex and similar transmissions.
As with disorderly conduct, this code section has been used to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. “Convey” means to communicate, either orally or by written or electronic means. Because the open carry of firearms is not a communication as defined by this section, it cannot be terroristic threatening.
Also, again, Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 clearly states that open carry, in and of itself, lacking any actual threatening or illegal behavior on the part of the person open carrying is not grounds for even a "stop and ID" by police. As such, open carry can not be anything warranting a "stop and ID" or greater reaction such as detainment or arrest.

--------------------EDIT2-------------------------
http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#subchaptera

The actual statute that relates to Philadelphia....

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:
such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

the way I read this, the cops did not understand the law. Anyone can open carry in PA, but to open carry in Philly you need a license, which the guy had.

LAWSUIT!

 

[Standing Like A Rock]

Here is part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igt-vp7VF0E

Here is Directive 137, as referenced by the man being assaulted.

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS WILL ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONNEL UNDER THEIR COMMAND ARE MADE
AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE BY
HAVING THE OFFICER SIGN THEIR TRAINING MATERIAL RECEIPT/RECORD. (75-578)

TO BE READ AT ROLL CALL FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

 

[Mach]

If he wasn't recording, he would have went to jail, that's how it goes, unless you can show irrefutable physical truth, then they make up whatever they want, lying is part of their job.

He's lucky, that second cop sounded like he couldn't wait to shoot someone.

 

[Matt Collins]