If a person can do something that is legal, and yet is getting stopped for it repeatedly, that says more to me about the police than the person.
And honestly, without this public incident, would anything ever get done? Do you think that his complaints would go anywhere? Complaints go slot further with evidence.
I want police to check the permits of open carriers if there is a law requiring a permit. People get checked for fishing permits; fishing is legal.
Still didn't have to escalate. him.And honestly, without this public incident, would anything ever get done? Do you think that his complaints would go anywhere? Complaints go slot further with evidence.
I'm cool with that too. However, this cop seemingly wasn't even aware of the open carry law, so I don't see how that would've made a difference in this case.
Yes, but it didn't have to occur in the first place either.
The guy went looking for trouble. It's obvious from the way he's narrating everything that happens for the audio. He's doing it to bring attention to how police are handling "open carry" laws in Philadelphia, which I don't have a problem with. But I can't blame an officer, even an ignorant one, for being su ious of a guy openly carrying that weapon who is intent on not doing exactly what he says. They're both responsible for the way this went down; if the guy is upset he's being charged or harassed, he should go ahead and file civil suit.
In summation, this is how I view this scene. If I were a law enforcement office what in the do you do when you see people walking up and down the street with pistols in thier holsters. Do you just assume that they are no gang bangers with illegal firearms? Of course you'll run across an idiot with an at ude like this guy who will give you grief for even stopping him...
You can't blame the officer for being su ious of a guy who's not breaking the law even if he's ignorant of the law? Just because something is uncommon it does not mean the officer or that department should get a pass.
A man breaking no law is harassed by multiple police officers who are ing ignorant of the law and the man shares in the blame? The point that its not against the law pretty much kills off any probable cause.
I don't think you guys understand that point. Doing something that is uncommon but completely legal is not grounds for probable cause.
I don't care if dude had an interview with Oprah all ready to go. This incident happens completely because of PPD being ignorant of their own laws. Thats unacceptable. That is their job!
I can only imagine where this blame the victim mentality can take us if we somehow attach blame based upon recording things.
Catch an employee stealing from your business because of a hidden camera? Obviously you were looking for the confrontation with the camera.
Catch an auto shop selling unnecessary repairs with a hidden camera? Obviously looking for an autoshop to things up.
Do ent being pulled over by cops in a white neighborhood as racial profiling with a hidden camera? Obviously looking for confrontation by driving.
Would you give a doctor a pass for being ignorant on anatomy? Would you give a lawyer a pass on being ignorant on the law? Would you give your mechanic a pass if he was ignorant on how to fix your vehicle? etc etc
I just don't understand the idea of faulting this guy for "looking for a confrontation" when that confrontation is predicated on the police force not knowing how to do their damn job properly. If anything, he just performed a public service by educating the officers on what they should have known to begin with.
No one is excusing the cop for being ignorant of the law.
I'm not going to excuse this bag for making the situation worse than it had to be, knowing the cop was ignorant of the law.
No.
He should have never had to get on his knees.
What if the ground was dirty or wet? Is that appropriate when there is nothing else other than holstering a weapon?
Back to Manny's point:
You're an idiot.
Would you please stop looking in the mirror.
lol floor wet...
You think the most important thing to do when a cop is pointing a gun at you is to keep your pants from getting dirty.
I agree he should have gotten on his knees. I'm not sure if he did or didn't according to the video but I can also understand his frustration at this being the 3rd ing time and the cop being ignorant as .
My problem is more along the lines of the cop creating an necessary situation to begin with. I think its pretty ed up to be charged with a crime directly because an ignorant police officer doesn't know what he should.
I can guaran-damn-tee you if a cop points a gun at me, my pants are gettin dirty one way or the other.
Like I said, there's probably going to be some officer education about this, which is a good thing. Ultimately I think the charges were filed to send the message to the Charles Bronsons out there that an open carry permit isn't a license to be an armed to a police officer.
Why the lack of education to begin with? This is a serious point. How can police enforce the law if they don't stay updated with the changes?
No one excused the officer's ignorance.
I don't know how many open carry permits have been issued in Philadelphia.
Yet you support the incorrect authoritarian actions of the cop.
Given his ignorance, I wouldn't expect much else.
I didn't excuse the ignorance.
You support a guy's getting killed to keep his pants dry.
You're an idiot.
And that, to me, explains why he prepared for the confrontation. Would filing a civil suit based on his say-so alone have done anything? Would it have fixed the police dept's ignorance of this law? I doubt it.
Is he filing a civil suit?
I don't know. Do you think a civil suit would've gone far without evidence?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think he really has much evidence for a successful civil suit as it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote