Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun owners

[ChumpDumper]

What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by cons ution? Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"

There are probably court cases further defining what "papers" are, counselor. I wouldn't be surprised if a government issued permit is not included. Ever go fishing where a permit is required?

Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?

Wearing a gun on one's hip is not clearly legal in Philadelphia, counselor.

Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"

Why do you work so hard building straw men when you are too lazy to look up a court case or two, counselor?

[LnGrrrR]

Doesn't a legal stop still require a legal violation or probable cause?

Hmm... You might be right. Although in practice, they could probably make something up in either case.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, if you are fishing and a game warden asks to see your fishing permit, are your cons utional rights being violated?

Yes or no.

[Wild Cobra]

There are probably court cases further defining what "papers" are, counselor. I wouldn't be surprised if a government issued permit is not included. Ever go fishing where a permit is required?

What amendment is the right to fish in?

Wearing a gun on one's hip is not clearly legal in Philadelphia, counselor.

Then where else should someone "bear arms?"

Why do you work so hard building straw men when you are too lazy to look up a court case or two, counselor?

What about the DC case where DC lost?

As for searching a case that has both arguments presented... There is already too much information out there in cyberspace. I would be reading forever looking for the points made.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to show a case a court held up such a questionable search and arrest?

My God...

The police's own lawyers made them release the guy!

[ChumpDumper]

What amendment is the right to fish in?

It's a paper. By your definition it is cons utionally protected from search without cause, including, you know, fishing. Do you now see your definition is flawed?

Then where else should someone "bear arms?"

Then why is the law allowed to exist in Philadelphia and over 40 states, counselor?

What about the DC case where DC lost?

You mean the one you didn't look up and just started whining about now with no content whatsoever?

As for searching a case that has both arguments presented... There is already too much information out there in cyberspace. I would be reading forever looking for the points made.

You are lazy. I get it. Just don't claim your ignorance to be fact next time. You don't know what you are talking about and you are too lazy to cure your ignorance on these matters.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to show a case a court held up such a questionable search and arrest?

You are the one who made the assertion, you idiot. You have the burden of proof.

My God...

The police's own lawyers made them release the guy!

And they say they will be asking for permits. You say that is uncons utional because, well, because you say so. That isn't good enough, counselor.

[TheProfessor]

What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by cons ution?
Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"

You're conflating two concepts. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. Separately, warrants shall not issue but upon probable cause. The Fourth Amendment does not apply when you lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. The person is carrying a firearm. Even with the statute, do entation is required. The officer was well within his rights to ask for it, and I doubt the Court would see society as recognizing a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a permit when you are carrying openly. Otherwise, the officers would have to let everyone carry openly regardless of permit, contrary to the statute's requirements.

Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?

That's the point - it's not clearly legal. Just because someone carries openly does not mean it is legal without proper do entation. Besides which, the balance between the statute and the safety the officer would likely lean towards the latter. Police don't even need PC to do a limited frisk for dangerous weapons when they believe criminal activity is afoot, just reasonable su ion. Here, a dangerous weapon is on display.

Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"

I don't. The officer was an idiot. But I also think there is a critical balance between individual rights and officer safety.

[Wild Cobra]

The Fourth Amendment does not apply when you lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. The person is carrying a firearm. Even with the statute, do entation is required. The officer was well within his rights to ask for it, and I doubt the Court would see society as recognizing a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a permit when you are carrying openly. Otherwise, the officers would have to let everyone carry openly regardless of permit, contrary to the statute's requirements.

Now this, I do find acceptable for an explanation.

Still, he did offer to show it to the officer.

Did you listen to the YouTube? When such a combination of events occur, I doubt the officer cared if he had a permit.

[ElNono]

[ChumpDumper]

Now this, I do find acceptable for an explanation.

Cool, because that's exactly what I said.

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you probably still can't figure out you did.

Still, he did offer to show it to the officer.

Did you listen to the YouTube? When such a combination of events occur, I doubt the officer cared if he had a permit.

Yes, when a strange man with a gun is uncooperative, the veracity of his claims about the permit law loses importance.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, these ignorant ing cops who can't be bothered to learn the ing law. What assholes.

[Wild Cobra]

Cool, because that's exactly what I said.

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you probably still can't figure out you did.

It's not my fault that you placed yourself in the light of having no integrity. I often dismiss everything you say.

[Wild Cobra]

Man, these ignorant ing cops who can't be bothered to learn the ing law. What assholes.

Probably not in the union contract.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not my fault that you placed yourself in the light of having no integrity. I often dismiss everything you say.

I'm sorry I proved you aren't as smart as you think you are. I can understand why that would be upsetting to you.

Probably not in the union contract.

Is integrity in yours?

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, forgot the blue. Will edit.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think anyone is arguing the cops shouldn't know about that gun law.

Dirty Harry was looking for a confrontation, though. that guy.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think anyone is arguing the cops shouldn't know about that gun law.

Dirty Harry was looking for a confrontation, though. that guy.

How was he looking for a confrontation? If the cop just asks him for his permit, and it checks out, this incident never happens.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, when a strange man with a gun is uncooperative, the veracity of his claims about the permit law loses importance.

How was he uncooperative?

[ChumpDumper]

How was he uncooperative?

If I heard the recording correctly, he refused to get on his knees and was generally being a . Dude was looking for a confrontation with a cop; I really have no sympathy for him. If you don't want trouble, just do what the cop says (while he has a gun on you, no less) and then you can be a know-it-all after he finds out about the permits.

[LnGrrrR]

If I heard the recording correctly, he refused to get on his knees and was generally being a . Dude was looking for a confrontation with a cop; I really have no sympathy for him. If you don't want trouble, just do what the cop says (while he has a gun on you, no less) and then you can be a know-it-all after he finds out about the permits.

That's not quite "looking for a confrontation". When he was asked to go to his knees, the confrontation had already begun. And if this is the third time he'd been hassled in the last 6 months or so, I could understand why he'd be annoyed. The man was more well-versed in the law than the cop was, and the cop could've just checked with the precinct.

And while it's usually a smart thing to do what a cop asks when he has a gun on you, I don't see why should expect more professionalism from a citizen than the cop harassing him. Should we hold cops to such low standards?

[ChumpDumper]

That's not quite "looking for a confrontation". When he was asked to go to his knees, the confrontation had already begun.

A confrontation he was prepared for and wanted to perform in. him.

And if this is the third time he'd been hassled in the last 6 months or so, I could understand why he'd be annoyed. The man was more well-versed in the law than the cop was, and the cop could've just checked with the precinct.

The cop was going into this blind. All he knows is some with a gun is being uncooperative. him.

And while it's usually a smart thing to do what a cop asks when he has a gun on you, I don't see why should expect more professionalism from a citizen than the cop harassing him. Should we hold cops to such low standards?

When guns are involved, I don't around.

This guy was ing around to get on YouTube.

him.

[LnGrrrR]

Chump, if that's how you feel, I can't change that. Cops know that their job is stressful, and I sympathize for then because any random stop could be life threatening.

That said, cops should a) know the law and b) remain professional. To me, I don't care if the guy wants to be on YouTube. If the cop follows procedure correctly, there's no incident to put on YouTube.

Police have a unique position of power and trust, civilians do not. This position of power means that police must realize that any violation is more noticeable. To me, the cop was ignorant and rude: a bad combo.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, if that's how you feel, I can't change that. Cops know that their job is stressful, and I sympathize for then because any random stop could be life threatening.

Everyone knows their job is stressful, why make it moreso just to reinforce your douchiness?

That said, cops should a) know the law and b) remain professional. To me, I don't care if the guy wants to be on YouTube. If the cop follows procedure correctly, there's no incident to put on YouTube.

We'll see if he followed procedure correctly. I didn't hear the entire recording, but I'm not convinced he didn't.

Police have a unique position of power and trust, civilians do not. This position of power means that police must realize that any violation is more noticeable. To me, the cop was ignorant and rude: a bad combo.

So why make it worse when you know better?

that guy.

[LnGrrrR]

Everyone knows their job is stressful, why make it moreso just to reinforce your douchiness?

Probably because it was the third time he had been stopped. After a certain number, I suppose human nature would kick in and he might be aggravated by how many cops weren't familiar with the law.

Also, having a gun pointed on you is very stressful, especially when you are in the right. That stress could have some effect on his reactions.

We'll see if he followed procedure correctly. I didn't hear the entire recording, but I'm not convinced he didn't.

I think there's a very good chance he will be disciopined. He didn't know the job, and he was unprofessional.

So why make it worse when you know better?

Because he can? Frankly, if he's dealing with a cop who is swearing and being rude to him, why should we hold the man to higher standards than the cop?

that guy.

Who was in the wrong? The man acting like a jerk, or the cop acting like a jerk, who also didn't know the law?

[MannyIsGod]

Because he shouldn't be harassed at all. How can one go looking for a confrontation when the confrontation requires the police to do their job incorrectly? If I go driving in a white neighborhood and I get pulled over for no reason am I looking for a confrontation too?

[ChumpDumper]

Because he shouldn't be harassed at all. How can one go looking for a confrontation when the confrontation requires the police to do their job incorrectly? If I go driving in a white neighborhood and I get pulled over for no reason am I looking for a confrontation too?

If you plan on being uncooperative and have your recorder and script ready for just such an occasion to post it on YouTube, yes.

I am fully aware the cop was ignorant of the law and should not have been.

Philly cops don't see open carriers much, this bag's story proves it. There was no reason for him to escalate a very dangerous situation. him.