Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying

[suthdj]

Think about it this way, what this man did was legal, police had no reason to say anything to him anymore then they do to a person wearing an ugly shirt. The police were wrong from the beginning it is their job to know the the laws. just like we have to know our job if we fail in that regard we get written up, fired etc... I understand police can not know every law out there but this is not a minor or trivial law to be easily forgotten or over looked.

[M2K]

The Officer had absolutely no business stopping the citizen in the first place. What is this: Germany 1943? Ignorance of the law by the officer is not an excuse. I believe that statement is used quite frequently in courtrooms across the nation except it is usually directed towards the citizens.

The story does not state why he carrying the recorder but I suspect it was self preservation. That the gentleman was looking for trouble by the police is just so much nonsense. Hmmmm… Unless, he had been hassled before. He should have complied with the officer’s commands but should sue the heck out of them. I wonder if the ACLU will take a gun case. Never mind I just slapped myself awake.

I don’t know if the stop was unlawful but was certainly unwarranted.

[gigag04]

Yeah not complying was stupid.

The lack of reason for detention was even stupider. These guys deserve the fallout they good. It seems like the officers escalated the situation when it did not need to be.

I would bet the charges get dropped as I suspect they would be "fruits of the poisonous tree." This guy will most likely beat the rap, but it seems like he went looking for a ride and found it.

As an aside, if any of you are arrested and you subsequently clam up, just know that at a minimum you have to give the officer your name, address, and DOB, if you are arrested or detained. To refuse is a class C misdemeanor (fail to ID). If you give a false name, address, or DOB, it is enhanced to a class B misdemeanor.

[speedsix]

...I'll freeze, I'll lace my hands behind my head...I'll lean on a wall or a car...but I'm not getting down on my knees to any man unless he breaks the legs out from under me...but then, I'm not dressed like, nor do I act like a street thug...and I don't have a problem with his discussing it with the officer...hands high in the air and not in an agitated manner...
...I prefer concealed carry also, but the officers were totally wrong in the way they handled him...and he should do all he can to get them disciplined...he was well within the law and not causing any problem to anyone...whether he planned on them "catching" him or not...he was within his rights...INCLUDING taping for his protection...and that's the bottom line...he was excercising his legal rights...they didn't like it...I'd like to see the officers explain why they acted so aggressively when he posed them no danger...his hands were empty and the officer drew down on him...for a LEGAL act...sorry, Blue...you screwed up...

[Winchster]

Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

[chasfm11]

Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

I suspect that if a tape from the Costco Las Vegas shooting ever saw the light of day that there were similar conflicting orders given by the LEOs in that case, too. It that situation, I'm not going to move anything until a clear order is repeated and nothing else is said which would imply other actions. I figure that my chance of getting shot by holding perfectly still is a lot less than my attempting to do one of multiple actions.

I lived in the area and worked in downtown Center City Philly. I got to know a lot of the officers in the area who were great guys. There was and may still be a feeling of being above the law by some of the officers and it flowed directly from the chief of police (at that time Frank Rizzo who went on to be mayor later). Frank's boys pushed the envelope, especially in South Philly. Frankfort Ave, referenced in this situation, is further out.

I worked 3rd shift, shagging repair calls all over Philly for more than a year. I would have loved to have had a Glock strapped to my hip then (my company would never have allowed it) because I got to visit a lot of really rough neighborhoods. That is not a fun thing to do, especially in a hot, muggy Summer night. It is a wonder that I survived the experience.

[Rikk101]

Now I don't know all the facts, but, I think it's pretty clear that the Philly police acted stupidly. (maybe they should have a "beer summit")

[terryg]

I think all parties involved are culpable. I have seldom heard a tone as condescending as the one used by the citizen as he was talking to the police. The whole thing reeks, IMHO. But the police seem to let their egos get the best of them and played right into his hands ... or should I say his recorder.

[Jumping Frog]

I am not sure carrying a .40 Glock holstered, openly, and legally is all that edgy or confrontational/wild west. Now, if he had an AR15 strapped to a horse, on his way to saloon...

What is normal is different for everyone. For instance, every week folks exercise their freedom of speech in Sundance Square to preach and call out those who may be drinking or women who may be dressed provocatively. To my standards, this is not normal, but the constitution (and the law in Philly) doesn't have an asterisk that says exercising your rights must be "normal."

That being said, both the cops and the victim set pretty poor examples in this case.

I agree that he was simply exercising his rights and was wrongly treated. Open carry is illegal in Texas, so the audience here may not be aware of just how firmly correct this man was being able to legally open carry. Absolutely everything in the officer's interaction was illegal, starting with the initial detention. There is no right to detain someone for performing a legal activity.

And I have seen it make a huge difference in Ohio, especially in the last 5 to 7 years. After a Concealed Carry Law was passed in Ohio in 2004, the Ohio Constitution also added language about all citizens having the right to have firearms, including carrying them openly. As a result, along with the general open carry movement that is sweeping many places in our nation, I've seen the tide turn in Ohio.

It used to be that someone open carrying would would be charged with inducing panic or disturbing the peace. After a half dozen well publicized incidents pursuant to arrests around the state, the gun rights groups held open carry marches in support of the arrested person. It was really interesting to see a small town police force perform an unlawful arrest like the incident in Philadelphia, and then 50-100 people show up from all over the state to have an open carry march. In each case, prior to the march, there was written notice given to the local city law director and the chief of police of the upcoming march, and all the marches were entirely peaceful with never any arrests.

As a result, there have now been opinion letters from the Ohio Attorney General's office reminding law enforcement that open carry is a legal activity and such people, absent any other probable cause, cannot be legally detained or required to produce ID. These opinion letters have also been written by the law directors in other cities like Akron and Columbus. Also, as a result of people standing like the person outlined in the original post, there have been volunteer efforts through the Ohioans For Concealed Carry organization where every single police force in the state has received a detailed multi-page letter outlining Open Carry rights, the relevant statutes, and the various legal opinion letters.

Next on the legislative agenda is to add required training regarding legal open and concealed carry to the Ohio Law Enforcement training programs.

As a result of these efforts, I personally open carried frequently when I lived in Columbus, including open carrying on the state house lawn in downtown Columbus. I personally never had any negative interactions with law enforcement, although in the last 3 or 4 years I have been open carrying with law enforcement around dozens and dozens of times.

As far as voice recording goes, it is simply being prudent. You know and I know that if it comes to a court case, the LEO is virtually always believed. An ordinary citizen's version of events is meaningless without proof. I am personally aware of enough unwarranted arrests by overbearing LEO's that carrying a voice recorder is as routine to me as carrying my handgun.

So I salute the people who care enough about their gun rights to exercise them, even at the point of arrest. I see it as being no different in principle than Rosa Parks deciding she is tired of sitting in the back of the bus.

Finally, it is really amazing to me how a relatively small group of people can have such a profound influence on gun rights.

[Bullwhip]

Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

And from this case, "Get on your knees!"; "Officer, I'm perfectly willing to stand here..."; "If you f*****g move I'll shoot you!"

so what, comply and don't get shot, comply and get shot, what?

The guy in Las Vegas should have froze with his arms straight up and out, probably would have got face planted but hed' stil be alive. Can't obey orders to freeze and get on the ground and drop the gun and don't touch the gun aall at once.

[Purplehood]

In a sense, I think the guy is a better man than I would be.

[speedsix]

...too much TV has gotten a lot of LEOs to the point where for little or no provocation, they want people on their knees or on their faces in the dirty slimy street...I may have proned out two felons in 8 years...most arrests were made from standing or leaning...hands behind head or on wall...if there's no reason to do it(i.e. violence, flight, resisting, intoxication)...it's demeaning to the citizen...I wonder how that cop'd have felt if his father had been handled that same way...or if his mother'd been watching him...I'm prolly the most pro-LEO on this board...but this was wrong...

[Keith B]

He knew that following the law would be controversial and bring negative attention to him, yet he peacefully did it anyway. . . even potentially incurring personal legal fees? GOOD FOR HIM! Too many citizens in the past were unwilling to stand up and exercise their rights, and those are the very rights we're now fighting to recover.

When you get down to it, this guy essentially performed a peaceful civil rights demonstration and was willing to be arrested for the cause. . . only he wasn't seeking to CHANGE a law but to merely exercise his freedoms afforded by the CURRENT law.

The fact that a governing body doesn't LIKE or UNDERSTAND our rights doesn't mean we should cow to oppression and freely abandon them.

I would be all for this IF he had not challenged the officers orders. Even though the officer was in the wrong, he should have complied 100% with the orders, and then he would not be facing the charges he now has against him. It would have played out a lot better for the DA to not prosecute, then the guy could file a 1983 Civil Rights violation against the department. As it is now, he has to battle the other charges AND try to prove he wasn't doing everything he could to entice the officer to arrest him.

[Keith B]

Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

You follow the orders. As long as they are not directing you to do something that will further endanger you or cause you or someone else harm, you best listen. Otherwise, your family could be the ones fighting your wrongful death suit against the city if for some reason the officer panics or misinterprets a move you make. It happened in Las Vegas.

[speedsix]

...Keith B, he stopped, was not resisting nor had he done ANYTHING that resembled a crime...why did the officer need to have him on his knees...and why did he change his mind...and tell him not to move...I believe from what we read that the officer was all flustered and angry...NOT in any kind of fear for his safety...the officer was violating law and his department policy without any reason to believe this man was a threat...their following conversation showed not that they felt that he'd committed or was about to commit a crime, but that he was doing something they thought he shouldn't...I hope he sues the department and the officers...if the facts are as they were written in the linked account, the officer handled it all wrong and so did his backup...even if the guy's a jerk and intended to make a test of this...their initial stop/conversation were handled all wrong...I'd have argued, too...why should I ruin my knees and suffer humiliation just because of an ignorant, bigoted cop?...Many officers across the country have handled open carry folks MUCH more professionally than this...it wasn't necessary...and if the officer'd shot him for not following his orders...it'd have been murder...according to the account, he didn't make one motion or say one thing to justify being shot...at least I taught my rookies not to kill a man with empty hands...

§ 542.501. OBEDIENCE[0] REQUIRED TO POLICE OFFICERS AND TO
SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS. A person may not wilfully fail or refuse
to comply with a lawful order or direction of:
(1) a police officer; or
(2) a school crossing guard who:
(A) is performing crossing guard duties in a
school crosswalk to stop and yield to a pedestrian; or
(B) has been trained under Section 600.004 and is
directing traffic in a school crossing zone.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 724, § 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999

I guess our disagreement hangs on whether the officer's orders were lawful, in this situation, or were they totally uncalled for and actually official oppression, since there was no cause for him to do what he did...