TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stoss ... rrying-gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James

MOD NOTE: Links contain subsituted profanity, and audio clip contains actual profanity

Cop was totally wrong, but so was the guy carrying. Don't question, just follow directives, then deal with the legalities of it later in your 1983 civil liberties suit.

At this point, he DID fail to follow the orders of the officer (right or wrong) and so he is now charged with a crime.

Forum rules prevent me from commenting.

If I was certain the LEO was legit (as in this case), I'd rather comply than be "dead right".
Deal with being wronged later, still breathing... YMMV

It's old news - but it was still a stupid move on his part (IMHO). He was looking for this to happen - carrying openly on Philadelphia streets, and carrying an already recording tape recorder indicates he wanted a confrontation (got one - and it could have turned out really bad for him). Then starts spouting legal statutes! I just think this was first order stupid. If folks want to open carry like they are John Wayne or whatever view of the old west they have, then fine, no comment or acknowledgement from me - just don't care (beyond the continuing diffence of opinion regarding how many 30.06 signs will appear overnight). But to go about it this way is just asking for the wrong kind of reaction. I like John Stossel - but I think he is wrong on this one.

Thanks for posting this, I will pray for the young man and hope that it turns out well for him.

couzin wrote:carrying an already recording tape recorder indicates he wanted a confrontation

Does that mean cops with dash cans want a confrontation? What about banks with security cameras?

When a police officer tells you to get on your knees, you get on your knees.

In Las Vegas this guy would have been dead already and the recorder would have been missing.

So does this guy walk around with a sound recorder on all the time?. Seems odd or was he expecting or wanting trouble.

tbrown wrote:

couzin wrote:carrying an already recording tape recorder indicates he wanted a confrontation

Does that mean cops with dash cans want a confrontation? What about banks with security cameras?

No, but they end up with confrontations they don't want way more often than John Q. Public, and those help show that they were right or wrong. I agree this guy was looking for someone to challenge him. He got it, but he is lucky he wasn't legally dead by not following orders, even though really unwarranted. IMO, this guy's recording will be incriminating to him as well, so he will end up on the short end of the stick in court.

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.

And still people will tell you that merely telling a LEO that an anti-gun posting (not compliant with 30.06) is invalid under the law will convince him.

My cell phone has a voice record feature, these days I use it a lot, usually on visits to doctor's office, like the one in December that told me he had never heard of stainless steel with nickle in it. We were discussing how I knew I was sensitive to nickle, which would be a component of the knee implant he intended to use on me. I fired him.

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

In cases like this, that's normal.

Keith B wrote:

tbrown wrote:

couzin wrote:carrying an already recording tape recorder indicates he wanted a confrontation

Does that mean cops with dash cans want a confrontation? What about banks with security cameras?

No, but they end up with confrontations they don't want way more often than John Q. Public, and those help show that they were right or wrong. I agree this guy was looking for someone to challenge him. He got it, but he is lucky he wasn't legally dead by not following orders, even though really unwarranted. IMO, this guy's recording will be incriminating to him as well, so he will end up on the short end of the stick in court.

It sounds like you're all discussing if this was a case of entrapment in reverse!

I've edited a blurb from the wikipedia page on entrapment to replace "government agent" with "man with a gun" and vice-versa the person accused of the crime is the police officer.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the man with the gun and not from the police officer.
Man with the gun then persuaded or talked the police officer into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The police officer was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the man with the gun.

Based on that, I'd say the officer was not entrapped. While we might not be thrilled with the man's actions or think they were the wisest, the argument that his walking around with gun and tape recorder means he was looking for trouble doesn't rise to the level of providing defense for the officer. I didn't listen to the tape, but find it interesting that in the article account, the officer says both to get on his knees and to not move otherwise he'll be shot. I'd be pretty scare to move a hair at that point. They might get livid, but they aren't likely to shoot if you are frozen stiff. Obeying orders to move might get you shot, though.

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.

fickman wrote: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 bow to oppression and freely abandon them.

and that's all I will say on the subject....

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?