-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
OC folks, check out this police encounter....
- Thread starter MMatt30
- Start date
Should cops know the laws they are sworn to enforce?
I understand that cops are people, and as such are as fallible as the rest of us. However, due to the authority they have and the ability they have to completely ruin peoples lives, I don't think it's unfair to hold them to a higher standard. If you're about to make a move that could potentially destroy someones life, you should be damn sure you know what you're talking about. I know it's a tough job and I admit I wouldn't want to do it.
Having said that, being an asshole to a cop is hardly the answer. First of all, whether the cop is right or wrong, he can seriously ruin your day. Second, if your goal is to educate, there are far more effective methods.
Let me add that I havent seen the video yet, so some or all of my comments may not necessarily apply. When I get off work, I'll take a look and make additional comments as necessary.
I understand that cops are people, and as such are as fallible as the rest of us. However, due to the authority they have and the ability they have to completely ruin peoples lives, I don't think it's unfair to hold them to a higher standard. If you're about to make a move that could potentially destroy someones life, you should be damn sure you know what you're talking about. I know it's a tough job and I admit I wouldn't want to do it.
Having said that, being an asshole to a cop is hardly the answer. First of all, whether the cop is right or wrong, he can seriously ruin your day. Second, if your goal is to educate, there are far more effective methods.
Let me add that I havent seen the video yet, so some or all of my comments may not necessarily apply. When I get off work, I'll take a look and make additional comments as necessary.
What the hell were those people doing in the first place? I don't understand the context. Does anyone know why the cop was there or who the smart ass with the camera was? They're also talking about some kind of protest at the end . . . . ? It seems to me like they were looking for confrontation.
^^^^ Thats a bingo!
I know I might get slammed for this, but I think we shouldn't be quite so critical of those "looking for confrontation". Yes, I know they're douche bags and can make us look bad...but they also get results. When stuff like this happens, more often than not, the result is that local government is forced to abide by the laws. Which, of course, is a good thing.
It's hard to actually endorse this behavior, but it's also hard to argue with the results.
The officer was there to investigate trespassing, As it was there was an abortion clinic (I Think) with protestor disrupting their business. Enter LEO investigating that scene. It appeared to me that the LEO had determined that there was no law broken and was about to leave, when Dumb A.. walks into the scene. (dumb idea the officers right to control a scene has been upheld by SCUS since... um... forever) Ever hear of shootings at abortion clinics? Like every other month right? Now I believe the officer has every right to question the now "Suspect" as to his motives. Then the DA gets all uncooperative with the Officer, that would be at least obstruction. And I believe that is a public political rally and CC/OC would be illegal probably is illegal in Philly. (I don't know that part for sure I and only using Georgia laws as reference. I do know that Philly's laws are much more stringent.
Officer acted like he had never been on camera and panicked, maybe a better officer, and the situation might not have been so pretty. Except for the bracelets they are SOOO pretty. LOL
Then again I could be completely wrong then I apologize. But like I said before there is ALWAYS more to the story.
Here is a copy of Phills SOP for this porpose:
ENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20
TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA
1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.
2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.
“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.
“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.
3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.
4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.
B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”
D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.
E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.
ENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20
TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA
1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.
2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.
“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.
“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.
3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.
4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.
B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”
D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.
E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.
By that logic, shouldn't they pull over every single car on the road to make sure the driver has a drivers license?
Why stop at open carriers? If the assumption is that they don't have the permit, shouldn't they also assume that concealed carriers don't have theirs either? Maybe they should do checkpoints on all entrances to the city and do weapon and permit checks.
Why stop at open carriers? If the assumption is that they don't have the permit, shouldn't they also assume that concealed carriers don't have theirs either? Maybe they should do checkpoints on all entrances to the city and do weapon and permit checks.
I don't depend on the police FOR ANYTHING.
Which is Bravo Sierra!!! How can a local ordinance overule a state law??? The answer is, it can't. The "City of Brotherly Love" is denying civil rights to law abiding citizens. Cleveland, Ohio tried this BS and it was recently overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court. Somebody should sue Philly.
Last edited:
Local law can override State Law if there is a clause in the state law that expressly gives localities an "Opt Out" ability. Tennessee has such in their state firearms laws. That's why Chattanooga can make it illegal to carry in some of their parks. Etc. Etc... (so in a manner of speaking... if the state law is iron clad, they can't)
