Update on the Philly OC case - radio interview with the chief

[Wildalaska]

The Philadelphia Police Department has a long and checkered past concerning abuse of citizens.

Having personally been on the receiving end in the late 70s, all I can say is word, homey.

Some Philadelphia OC needs to show some cojones and file in Federal Court.


WildgettingthstickAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

Some Philadelphia OC needs to show some cojones and file in Federal Court.

Yep.

Deprivation of civil rights under color of law would be a good starting point.

[youngunz4life]

No the police do not have an unrestricted right to ask for a permit, they have to have a valid reason to do so. The simple fact of openly carrying a gun in public (in a state or city that allows open carry) is not a reason. The state could pass a law giving the police permission to ask, like the California laws that allow them to check to see if an open carried weapon is loaded or not, but I do not believe PA has such a law.

yes, and one possible reason Could be that an officer has a reasonable fear for himself or others. I am not saying this is the case here, but philly Can be a dangerous place. Someone walking down the street there OC is a fairly rare occurence. SGT Daugherty should and will be punished also(in some form or another). The guy was obviously clueless on the law; that doesn't mean the rest of the department is.

[bigbaby]

If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different. IMO some of you all are pretty hard on the cops and that is coming from a black man who has been harrassed by many a cop for no other reason then they(the cops) are suspicious of black men. Around my neighborhood they should be LOL> They are doing what they have to do; I am doing what I have to do, I understand, they understand but WOW it seems some people got it made not to have to figure it right! In Baltimore the Machine works the way it works so everybody gets to go home, well almost everybody. The way some of you guys would have it, simply would not work in any major US city.

[hogdogs]

If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different.

In the "service" you were never deployed AGAINST the citizens of the USA. And in most combat situations... The COTUS is not in play. Also... mistakes our fighting men make that results in the loss of life of non combatants is simply kills placed in the "collateral damage" column!

There really is no similarity in the military service and the domestic law enforcement agencies... MUCH TO THE DISMAY OF OFFICERS NATIONWIDE!!!

Just look at the BDU's LEO's are wearing!!!

The truth is in a name.... BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM/UTILITY...

Cops are not at war with the citizenry!

Brent

[Aguila Blanca]

Cops are not supposed to be at war with the citizenry!

I took the liberty of fixing that for you.

[hogdogs]

Thanks AB... I suffered an attack of "idealistic fantasy"...

Brent

[Glenn Dee]

HOT DOG!!!

I think you have it correct. There is, and never should be any similarity between any military organization, and the civilian police.

I also agree that this current militerization of federal, and local police departments is an abomination. This militerization of the police has led to the current tactics, and atitudes were discussing today. Also the reference to police organizations as LEO or law enforcement officers, or organizations. As I have posted in the past, law enforcement (other than traffic, and local ordinances) occupies only about 10% of the average cops time. This LEO attitude and tactics only serves to cause , and maintain conflict between the police and the citizens they serve. This case is a perfect example.

I have to laugh with bigbaby... Yep this plan to stop open carriers using stated tactics is pretty much the same as racial profiling. I wonder if the Philly P/D would be so quick to defend for racial profiling as they are for O/C profiling. When in fact it's really the same thing.

Having said that, and to agree with bigbaby... sometimes we need to profile. Racial or otherwise. I've had CCW licenses in two jurisdictions. One condition on both permits was that I must show it to any police officer who requests. I wonder if that codicil is included in the Penn. CCW. I'd bet it is... or something similar. I have to maintain that the police have every right, and duty to inquire about a person carrying openly if they choose to, and can articulate their reason for stopping the O/C'r. Even if the reason is the mere possesion of the weapon. Sometimes black guys get stopped just because they are black... But that dont mean the police are wrong for doing it. I'd hope the Philly P/D would have enough intelligence to remember two things... One being THE POLICE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE... All the people. even those who are black, and even those who choose to O/C. Two is... for safety's sake please stop with all the amature swat tactics, yelling and screaming, making unreasonable demands, and assuming that everyone you encounter is a charles manson wannabe.

I hope this post dont hurt anyone's feelings but I see the racial profiling, and O/C profiling as kindred violations of a persons rights when they are abused.


Glenn D!

[HoraceHogsnort]

bigbaby wrote: "To the dude who asked about a weapon drawn during a traffic stop LOLOLOLOLOL I have never been pulled over any other way at night in Baltimore; maybe it's because I'm big and black, but I doubt it."

Sounds to me like a clear cut case of a DWB violation!!

[Glenn Dee]

THis is a great forum. We discuss subjects, and situations that would be taboo or have folks at each others throats in another forum. And we do it with respect, and humor. You guys n gals are the best.

Glenn D!

[HoraceHogsnort]

bigbaby wrote: "If we took the time to think when I was in the service everytime we had to use force; none of us would have come home; being a cop can't be so different."

That statement is patently absurd on the face of it.

[HoraceHogsnort]

hotdogs wrote: "Cops are not at war with the citizenry!"

Uh...............it goes without saying that at least a few of them are!

[hogdogs]

Uh...............it goes without saying that at least a few of them are!

And it is these rogue "broken arrows" that need stopped... It is also these same UN-cops that are influencing the thinking of an otherwise proper young new officer.

This is what I feel needs corrected the most.

Brent

[Jim March]

In this case it's the CHIEF, the top guy, openly supporting criminal assault by his officers, on a radio interview.

I've literally never heard of anything quite like that.

And in that case, that whole department is disgraced. Not one of 'em wearing that badge can or should be trusted. They're no longer police, they're a publicly-declared criminal gang.

[hermannr]

The COP takes his que from the city council. It is time for every law abiding citizen in Philly to remove those on the city council that support this COP, then have the city council fire this goon for what he said.

If I am not correct that the problem actually resides with the city council, why does this COP still have a job? After all, his job is an "at will' position.

[armoredman]

You are probably correct, Hermann, but that is a long term solution.
I occupy the niche between cops and Joe Sixpack, working in corrections, and I side firmly with the Six Packers of the world - not stopping for a non-crime. If what I am doing is legal, then leave me alone.
I have had to use force in my job, thought was required before I got into it, but TRAINING kicks in when it's right there in your face, and TRAINING is what keeps staff/officers out of trouble during those times of reacting/no concious thought. What you have here is training to over-react, training to ride roughshod over civil liberties. If the training is conducted with an eye towards freedom and liberty, and followed up with direct supervision and immediate action to correct by self-same supervisors, then this will cease. Since the big dog at the top feels what's going on is quite all right, that will not occur.
There are two type of people who may be legally discriminated in most parts of the country - gun owners and smokers.

[bigbaby]

Hogdog; tell that to the scared, unarmed civilians who were all around us. I bet they would hope the Cotus is still on. You see in the military we use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secured. The police must use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secure. The only difference is the situation, for the police, is rarely the same situation as it is for the military. The police must do what is needed to secure the situation and then worry about the legalities. What I find absurd is the notion that a policemen, who believes he needs to draw a weapon; however wrong he may be, must then worry about assualt charges. Guess what folks THEY DON'T. Back to the point that started this thread, the dude exercising his rights to open carry is absolutely right; he has the right to OC in Philly. The Police Chief in Philly, is clearly wrong in his application of the law. That said; it should be obvious to him(the OC dude) now that, although he has the right to OC, it may not be the best choice in Philly. There is legal and there is practical, they are not always the same. Now he can insist on exercising his rights, but untill the police in Philly learn to live with it, the OCing dude may not be able to live with it. Sure the cop that shoots him, when he was just OC legally and not cooperating 100% with the intervening officer will be wrong and maybe even charged, though I doubt it, but the OCer will be shot. Legal NO, but I ain't getting shot just to prove a point! Untill the Philly cops get real, it seems CC is in order in Philly.

We all have different tolerence levels for how much crap we will take before we say 'enough is enough, it isn't worth this, just to keep the peace'. So I can see why almost everyone disagrees with me here lol

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dee

Sometimes black guys get stopped just because they are black... But that dont mean the police are wrong for doing it.

It doesn't?

Please inform us under exactly what circumstances racial profiling is right, or legally acceptable.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by bigbaby

You see in the military we use whatever force is needed untill the situation is secured.

Whose military were you in? When I served in the U.S. Army during Vietnam, we had "Rules of Engagement." We were expected to follow them, and there were consequences if we did not do so.

Ask Lt. William Calley about that, if you can find him. Ask the guys who were recently tried for executing a house full of civilians, and faking evidence to make it appear the victims were terrorists.

[bigbaby]

The force required is always the minimal force, if such a thing exist. What the hell is that got to do with executing an unarmed civilian or prisoner?

[Aguila Blanca]

I previously posted a link to the Terry decision, with a suggestion that those who think Sgt. Dougherty had a right to stop the open carrier in Philadelphia should read it. It would appear that some of you have not done so. That said, the SCOTUS dicta from Terry were reinforced and clarified in Hiibel. It's another case where the petitioner actually lost his appeal, but the decision of the court provides us (and the police) with some valuable guidelines.

Here's the link to the decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

And here's a key portion thereof:

Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975). To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and … reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979).

Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) (“[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice”); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985) (“[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”);

So, again, the SCOTUS allows police to make "investigatory stops" when there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense.

So I ask you Dougherty apologists yet again: Given that open carry is LEGAL in Philadelphia, what articulable facts did Sgt. Dougherty have to support a "reasonable suspicion" that the young man had committed or was committing a criminal act?

Facts ... not hunches. The SCOTUS specifically and strongly stated that hunches are NOT sufficient grounds to violate an individual's 4th Amendment rights. What FACTS did Dougherty have? What FACTS could he possibly have had?

Further, Dougherty was not interested in determining "if" a crime had been committed. The young man volunteered that he had a permit, and offered to show it to Sgt. Dougherty. Sgt. Dougherty refused to look at it. Consider also that the SCOTUS in Hiibel stated that a Terry stop "cannot ... resemble a traditional arrest," Doesn't stopping the guy at gunpoint "resemble a traditional arrest"? It certainly does to me.

[Crazy88Fingers]

I can understand an officer's desire to protect himself. But doesn't he also have an obligation to protect the rights and safety of the citizens in his jurisdiction? I'm sure that's exactly what he's paid to do. And, while my memory may be hazy, I'm also pretty sure he took an oath to do just that upon accepting the job. For some reason, something about upholding the law comes to mind as well.

If an officer can't feel safe during the course of his duties without terrorizing innocent people at gunpoint, it's time for a career change.

[jgcoastie]

If an officer can't feel safe during the course of his duties without terrorizing innocent people at gunpoint, it's time for a career change.

Spoken like someone who has never worn a LEO hat before. And someone who does not understand a little thing called the Use of Force Continuum.

Here's a hint: Drawn weapons are still Level 1, Officer presence. Unless the officer shoots you (Deadly Force, Level 6), he/she is still acting under Level 1. Get over it.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, and a uniformed officer of the law approaches you with a drawn weapon, whether at low-ready or aimed at your head, best course of action is to comply. That's the way you're least likely to incur extra holes.

Now, as far as whether it's legal for them to inquire about your license status, that's another matter entirely. The only point I'm addressing here is weapon drawn.

And to be quite honest, when I'm wearing my LEO hat, if I see a weapon, or have reasonable suspicion of a person's immediate access to a weapon, my gun will be drawn.

Period.

I have a wife and two young children to go home to; and I will do everything within my power to do exactly that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jgcoastie

And to be quite honest, when I'm wearing my LEO hat, if I see a weapon, or have reasonable suspicion of a person's immediate access to a weapon, my gun will be drawn.

Period.

I have a wife and two young children to go home to; and I will do everything within my power to do exactly that.

And for either of those two statements, you are a disgrace to the uniform you wear. I have a friend who is a retired Coast Guard officer. You aren't fit to shine his boots. What about that oath you swore when you joined the Coast Guard? Remember? The one about "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Yeah, that oath.

[hogdogs]

So it is scared cops?

Sorry JG, but until a citizen articulates in one form or other that they deserve to have their civil rights stripped from them... I expect every officer to honor them!!!

IS THIS REALLY SO MUCH TO ASK???

Brent