Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
anyone who has a legal license to conceal carry should have a badge that can be physically witnessed by law enforcement if you choose to open carry , just as they have a badge so there will be absolutely no mistakes...all the cop would have had to do was then ask you to show him your badge...problem solved




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I believe in the right to privacy.

Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy — a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it's a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.

That's wrong. Police work for the public, they're paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it's a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?

Watch the Watchmen

Great article,and to the point.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Actually the only state left that prosecutes for recording the police is Illinois, and that case is heading to Federal circuit to overturn the Illinois supreme court ruling that upheld the prosecutions.

We are wired from head to toe as well as our patrol vehicles. Our Tasers have audio and video recording on them and some agencies out west are testing out cameras on their duty weapons. For the most part officers could care less if we are being recorded, provided the person doing the recording is a 3rd party and does not interfere with what we are doing as well as not creating a hazard / danger to anyone else (by standing in the road etc etc etc).

As far as your list goes about the police state I ask this. How is it a police state when you pointed out that the officers were charged and punished for their actions, If it were a police state wouldnt they be protected, or lined up against a wall and shot for their crimes?

I dont mind people having issues with the police. As with all professions, we have our fair share of idiots, and those are the ones who usually make the news as well as case law. However, not all cops are evil and I have seen many people complain that law enforcement stereotypes. That is a 2 way road, as is innocent until proven guilty.

One of the issues present in the officers actions is the conflict between state law and the city of Philladelphia. It is possible for one entity to pass a law that will be in conflict with state law. Once that law is passed and signed off on, its enforcable.

What needs to occur to change the law is for the legislature to make changes, or a person needs to be charged with the flawed law in order to have standing to challenge it. The other thing to keep in mind is its possible for a law to be passed at the state level and for the Prosecuting Attorrnys at the county level to give their opinion on ho that law is enforced.

As an example in my state a person who knowingly harbors a fugitive can be charged for aiding a felon as well as hindering prosecution.. The Prosecuting Attorney for the county it occured in declined those. He instead prosecuted for interference of service (IE refusing to make a person available for an arrest warrant).

As for the video the officers were acting in good faith that the City law was valid and in effect. The other thing to keep in mind is we dont know how many 911 calls were placed, nor do we know what was reported by those callers. Its entirely possible some of those 911 calls were exagerated by people calling in (and thats not a slam on those people, but it does happen). Its posible it might be one of the reasons for their actions.

So this is clear, I am NOT defending their actions. I am pointing out other possibilities for their response.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


First,thank you for posting,and not blasting me as someone that HATES the Police.
Second, I believe our country is heading into a Police State for those same reasons you say need fixing. The Indiana Police Entry Law ,as an example. Your profession is the Hardest one around,next to the Military. I have family that serve,so I do get into the discussion frequently about where this country is heading. The problem with the Police force,is they really protect their own,MHO. Like Stossel said,"The potential for abuse is great." "They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us." This is why I think the Police,or anyone that serves the public,should be held to a higher standard. I dont want to see the LEO's of America,as the criminals,but unfortunately,especially of late,I see many crimes being committed by them. Alarmingly infringing on the rights of the citizens they are supposed to protect,and using the LAW and their shield to protect themselves.


"As far as your list goes about the police state I ask this. How is it a police state when you pointed out that the officers were charged and punished for their actions, If it were a police state wouldnt they be protected, or lined up against a wall and shot for their crimes? "


Some Officers HAVE been caught. They are protected throughout due process though.In fact,they usually get paid while waiting for due process. I could show you crime after crime,for the ones that DO get caught. Totalitarian rule comes after we give up our rights. I think with some of the Laws being enacted,A police State,where ones rights are trampled on,will be a reality.
edit on 17-5-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


No worries man.. I dont think you are a cop hater, but a person who is concerned with police actions. One of the issues I see is people dont seem to understand how some laws work, or how their constitutional rights work.

I see people invoking the 4th amendment a lot, yet people dont seem to understand the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, but the government. There are exceptions to the 4th amendment where officers can take action without a warrant (exigent - pursuit of a criminal into a residence, life or death issue, consent, plain view contraband).

In addition to LEO's being subject to 42 USC 1983 (civilians are not subject to it) we do not have the ability to invoke our 5th amendment rights.

Civilians are read their Miranda warnings, which allows the option of not answering questions. For law enforcement, in addition to being read our Miranda rights, we are also read whats calleed garrity rights. Since police departments utilize a chain of command, we can be ordered to answer questions, including incriminating ones.

We have laws and court rulings that only apply to the Police. For instance the use of force in the OP. The standard estbalished by the Supreme Court is what did the officer perceive the moment force was used. A 20/20 hindsight argument is not valid.

If the people dont care for a particular law, then they should stand up and be heard - take part in the process and hold our elected officals accountible. The people have the authority to fire their representatives in government. Times change, and laws must change as well.

As a side note, the Indiana Court ruling irritates me to no end. From the info I have seen to date it looks like they have guaranteed officers a Federal civill rights violation by following the state court ruling.Also there have been quite a few Supreme Court rulings that have added more protections to citizens, while restricting law enforcement actions

As an example Arizona V. Gant resulted in a supreme court ruling that further defined the 4th amendment when it comes to a vehicle search. Officers are no longer able to search a vehicle incident to an arrest unless there is contraband in plain site, or if its a DWI case.

Another Supreme Court ruling (stemmed from an incident in Arkansas, and im drawing a blank on the party name) further restricted an officers ability to identify people during a traffic stop. The ruling still allows officers to ask all the occupants in a vehicle, however the only person required to submit is the driver. Passengers can refuse the request (there are exceptions) to hand over their identifications.

Do some cops abuse their positions - absolutely.
Do all of them abuse their positions - nope

Incidents involving officers and questionable use of force make the news. The things we do right rarely if ever make the news. Constant negative reminders can influence peoples opinions and views.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
As a Southern VA officer I love it when people open carry especially business owners, it is a wonderful deterrent. From experience I can tell you I haven't ran across any gang member/drug dealers open carrying.

Secure



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 




Well,given your reply's,you OBVIOUSLY find those in Law Enforcement above the Law,and believe they can do NO wrong.


Which one of us is collecting a database on police activity?



I suppose they shouldn't be held accountable for the criminal activity that some have caused? The Links Ive posted show that the system is HORRIBLY broken,and that a Police State exists,and is growing.


The police state exists in your mind. You have no idea what a police state is.


Instead of saying your playing "devils advocate" admit,your an "advocate" for this behavior?


Don't talk stupid. I just have more common sense than to say that the fact that a policeman commits incest makes the US a police state.

Tell me, are you in high school?


I gave you examples of Criminals,that wear the badge,that have been caught. The other examples,are why this country is becoming a police state. You can cherry pick,and make excuses as you deem fit. Carry on.


You gave me nothing to support your claim. You gave me crap like this:



A Mesa AZ police officer is the subject of a lawsuit by the family of an 81-year-old woman who was killed in a crash involving that officer when he was speeding to a theft call without his lights or siren activated. [0] http://(link tracking not allowed)/jYvifo


...and called it police state. I repeat: you obviously hate cops.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
NH is an open carry state and every once in a while some Masshole will freak and call the cops upon seeing a resident openly carrying.

I don't think it's ever been more than a "excuse me sir, we got a call about an armed individual walking around, how are you today?"

Followed by typical smalltalk and then everybody goes about there day.

I can think of one instance in Manchester where that actually held a guy up for like an hour with police bull until a supervisor came down and informed his underlings that they were overstepping there authority and there was no crime.

That last one actually made the news. Not because a man had a gun but because the whole department had to take classes on peoples rights so this wouldn't happen again.

Cops can't just assume something they don't like is a crime yet they do all the time. And people get hurt.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Lol Lay down kinda guy with 8 confirmed kills in the army? I think not. You don't live in philadelphia. People come from out of state all the time and open carry in this city. When you have a gun permit you're suppose to know all the rules and regulations and where you can and can not carry your weapon. If you think I was a lay down kinda guy would I walk into a bank three times a week with a concealed weapon? People on this site like to go looking for trouble. If you wanna open carry and be mistakenly shot go for it. I have loved ones and like my life.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
For those of you who have never been deployed You obviously have no clue what a police state is. Do you see the military everywhere? Just because some cops are bad not all are. It happens with every job..you get some good and you get some bad.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 




As for inciting public panic, if something that is legal to do, makes people panic, the people who are panicing, should move out of the open carry state....


Washington isn't an open carry state. It's just not defined, depending upon interpretation, that it is illegal to open carry. Though I agree, but it is a very Liberal state, and many Liberals fear guns.



LoL...... what police get away with these days is so laughably hilarious that I dunno how it ever got this bad....


I agree. The protesters that open carry just to get arrested, they then sue what ever department that arrest them.



Oh wait, yeah I do.... Police officers aren't even required to graduate highschool, all they need is a G.E.D. and 16 weeks of police academy.....




My thoughts exactly.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Just because you have an open carry permit does not mean every cop in the United States KNOWS you have it. Here's a really simple concept, when approached by an Officer do what you are asked to do, YES comply! NO I"m not joking!!! Once the scene is secure then you can calmly stat you have an open carry permit and when the Office ASKS to see it then produce it. I'm sorry getting a big bad " I have an open carry permit, you can't bug me " attitude won't really help your case. The video sounds like the Office was trying to secure the scene, mind you we don't know what happened BEFORE the recording started and if the man was not complying or continued to walk because he thinks HE is above the law because of his open carry permit well then the Officer has every right to use HIS power to investigate. Just because you have a permit does not mean you are above the law.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Jubes
 


Secure the scene from what? Was the guy waving the gun around? Was he yelling and threatening?

If we were to follow your logic every single car on the road would be getting pulled over every 5 miles.

How else are we going to know if the person operating that car has a valid license to do so?

There's too much "pre-crime" nonsense in this country. Why are we all guilty until some "authority" decides we arent?
edit on 17-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arcade425
 


I can't believe you just posted that. I held you in high regard until then.

deny Ignorance

Carry openly make people aware of their rights.

IMO concealed carry should be legal and free without a permit. Then maybe this wouldn't have happened.
edit on 17-5-2011 by emaildogs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
I hope he is shot in the face by his next traffic stop!


Too bad there isn't a "negative star" function on ATS.

Dude, WTF are you thinking? I agree that this officer overstepped his bounds, treating a licensed individual like a criminal when the only "crime" being committed was the fact that the officer - and the backup officers - didn't know their own laws (Directive 137.)

But seriously, hoping that the man lose his life because he was an ***hole? You really need to step back and look at that post again. Please tell me you were just venting and don't really believe that.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I was looking for news reports on this incident on YT, but couldn't find any. Anyone wanna hook a brother up?

I did find this interesting piece:



"More guns in more public places protect people."

Truer words...

Think what might have happened during infamous mass shootings like Virginia Tech, the massacre at Luby's in Texas, or other high profile crimes where many were injured or killed if there had been ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity. For that matter, what about everyday armed robberies that could be nipped in the bud?

Of course I'm not advocating that everyone should carry a weapon; some just aren't up to it, have a history of mental illness, or have forfeited that right by committing a felony; however, the police aren't always going to be at the scene when some nut - who more than likely does not have and can not get a license - goes berserk and decides to shoot a place up.

What I AM advocating, is that anyone who passes a background check and undergoes a firearm training course be allowed, and even encouraged, to carry their weapon with them wherever they go - openly. Just seeing a dozen armed citizens would probably deter these types of attacks, not to mention armed robberies of McDonalds and convenience stores. If the criminal weren't deterred, then he would be cut down by the armed citizens around him before he had a chance to take a dozen lives.

The average police response time is 7 minutes: how many lives would be saved if responsible gun owners took care of the threat themselves instead of being forced to wait for the police?
edit on 5/17/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/17/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I am neither in support nor against people having weapons having said that. If there is a law that states one can open carry a firearm in public after carrying a license, therefore it is legal.

The way I see it, this guy did nothing wrong.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Just more reasons to mistrust cops and their ignorance. I just hope this guy some how gets the cussing fools fired for their ignorant actions. Shooting them wouldn't have been to bad either. One less piece of trash on the street.

There are two things I look out for when I go into the city. One is criminals, the other is cops. I fear both of them for the same reasons.
edit on 17-5-2011 by KJV1611 because: i can



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I dont understand what all that stuff is about "Class 1" city.









 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join