Weird experience on Noblestown Road

GunLawyer001 · #61 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drew

... but I did notice you prefaced this response with "In the current legal climate"... In the current legal climate, I see absolutely no compelling reason to call the police in the OP's situation. He was driving away (relative safety), hadn't witnessed a crime, and even if a crime was intended, the probability that the police would find this group and prevent a crime is astronomically small. Therefore no compelling reason to call 911.

Here's a summary of why I'd not report/intervene in such an incident.

1. I witnessed no crime.
2. I am not a police officer.
3. I am not in immediate danger of life or limb.
4. I have no duty to society at large that allows me to infringe on these "gangmembers" rights.
5. 911 is incompetant
6. The police routinely take a long time to arrive, and by that time the "gang" will have moved on or dispursed.

Like I've said before, the police are really only crime historians... they are there to clean up the mess after a crime has been committed and to charge who was responsible.

"The current legal climate" is one where you may not take the law into your own hands. You can't track down the people who robbed you, you can't approach people while carrying a gun and "escalate" the danger, you cannot investigate suspicious persons on your own. The current legal climate requires you to involve the police, or leave it alone. That's what I mean by "current legal climate."

It's clear that you and I disagree on the morality of ignoring danger to anyone other than ourselves. I believe that I have a moral duty to get involved when I see an elevated chance of some danger to innocent third parties, you take a "wait & see" attitude and see if someone gets murdered. You say that you will be a witness later, but I suspect that your own Rules 2, 3 & 4 would keep you from becoming involved in a trial, especially since the perps will know the identity and home address of every witness against them. Since your own safety appears to trump all other concerns, why would you voluntarily contact the police and offer to be a witness?

There's nothing wrong with protecting your own ass, but you are wrong if you think that the morally superior practice is to allow suspicious persons to accomplish their goals without interference from law enforcement. Just because someone owns a gun, you and I have no obligation to treat them as brothers when they do something stupid.

I think most of us here believe that it's very important morally to safeguard innocent lives, and that this is more important than the right of strangers to handle guns carelessly in public. The original poster observed the totality of the circumstances, found it suspicious, and notified the only people who could investigate. You are free to disagree with that call, but your game plan seems more likely to allow the innocent to die.

jkp1187 · #62 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drew

If there is a board with nails in it in the road, I'll pick it up... A board is not a citizen who has the right to do all that is legal who just happens to be eccentric or odd or stupid, which many people equate to "suspicious".

There is a difference between being a good samaritan, and being a tattle tale... As far as I'm concerned the police had no business being informed of this "slide rack", And I find this behavior no different than if someone calls the police because I may be open carrying. GUN does not equal BAD and we should know better.

Maybe my choice of words was poor, but I did notice you prefaced this response with "In the current legal climate"... In the current legal climate, I see absolutely no compelling reason to call the police in the OP's situation. He was driving away (relative safety), hadn't witnessed a crime, and even if a crime was intended, the probability that the police would find this group and prevent a crime is astronomically small. Therefore no compelling reason to call 911.

Here's a summary of why I'd not report/intervene in such an incident.

1. I witnessed no crime.
2. I am not a police officer.
3. I am not in immediate danger of life or limb.
4. I have no duty to society at large that allows me to infringe on these "gangmembers" rights.
5. 911 is incompetant
6. The police routinely take a long time to arrive, and by that time the "gang" will have moved on or dispursed.

Like I've said before, the police are really only crime historians... they are there to clean up the mess after a crime has been committed and to charge who was responsible.

Wow -- I'm kind of surprised that this is still going on. (Not impressed, just surprised.)

First of all, my name isn't "OP". You can call me "JKP1187" or "JKP" or even "John". Thanks. I know it's nice to try to de-humanize debating opponents, but I like to think we're a nice little community here.

Second, if you'd read my posts, you will see that I saw a group of teenagers, one of whom was carrying a concealed pistol. In the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, one is not permitted to carry a concealed pistol unless one has a License to Carry Firearms. One of the qualifications to have such a License is that one must be twenty-one (21) years of age or older. Again, none of the kids in this gang looked, to me, like they were twenty-one. If you're going to gas on about this, at least have these gassings be somewhat consistent with the fact pattern as presented. You can call into question my own ability to judge such things, or you can assert based on your own independent observations what age you thought they were going to be, but since you were neither there, nor know me, you cannot reasonably do either. (At most a polite skepticism is called for here.)

Third, the idea that it is official harassment for a police officer to suggest to someone that they be responsible with firearms handling is fatuous.

I could go on, but this thread is getting a little boring for me. It doesn't have the pure gonzo hilarity as the "How come everyone is trying to sell .40 caliber" thread started by Omnibus. You clearly feel very strongly about this, almost as though a telephone call to report suspicious activity is over the top because a "crime" hasn't been completed yet. Sorry -- does this mean that everyone is required to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the criminal code prior to calling 911? Should they identify the specific statute? Whether or not they think the alleged perp has the requisite mens rea? Is a single reasonable doubt enough to stay your mighty hand from reaching from the cell phone?

"Hmm. That guy looks like he might be forcibly attempting rape on that girl in the trees over there, what with the way he's holding a knife to her throat. Oh, but then again, some people are into that sort of 'game'. Better not take a chance. Put away the phone."

Oh well. In all of my travels, I have seen many strange and wonderful things. But then some things I've seen were just -- strange.

TRB · #63 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drew

I believe that there are other possibilities. First, the OP doesn't know that he was chambering a round, he saw what appeared to be a firearm and the slide of said firearm being racked. I said prior that he may have been stupidly showing off his piece to one of the others of the group and had been making sure the chamber was empty.

Another posibility is that it wasn't a firearm at all, that it was either a replica, or one of many air powered "toys" that have actions very similar to semi automatic firearms. This also may explain how the group looked so young...

In any case, we have all agreed that the "punk" didn't do anything illegal per se. But was "suspicious" as per the judgement of the OP. The OP felt the need to call 911 and was frustrated at their inability to find his location. 911/The police should've told the OP that since no crime had been witnessed, that they'll take his name for questioning should a real crime be reported in the area...

If a cop stops these "gangmembers" and finds that there is nothing illegal, then proceeds to lecture them on the proper etiquette, I believe that is bordering on official opression.

I don't believe there is any civic duty in this case, because the OP has no PROOF that a crime was committed nor did he witness a crime in progress.

I'm sorry if it offends people on this board that I believe that we are all innocent until PROVEN guilty... That mantra is really on it's death bed nowadays and it saddens me.

I also find great humor in those of you who don't want a neighbor who'll mind his own business...

It does not matter whether or not a round was chambered. If one points an unloaded gun at another person it is assault. It is the act itself that is a breach of etiquette. It should be addressed. Since firearms are involved it is best that, rather than an individual citizen, a leo or other person of authority perform this service.

It does not matter whether or not it was a firearm, an Airsoft gun, or a toy. The appearance is the only thing that matters. If one points an Airsoft gun or a toy at another person and the other person believes it to be a weapon it is assault.

It is not the job of a dispatcher to make investigations or rule on law. It is the job of the police, the prosecuters, the judge, and/or a jury. It is the job of the dispatcher to relay communications and send LE to investigate whether or not a crime has been committed. And while in this case one might equate the action of a police inquiry with official oppression it is the duty of the police to perform this function.

The OP saw what he saw and interpreted it as such. It was a tough call on his part. However, he did have proof of stupidity on the roadway. This is much the same as reporting a car that is swerving in traffic. Is the driver drunk? There is no proof, per se. However, the activity is dangerous and stupid. That warrants the phone call.

Innocent until proven guilty is an assumption that does not preclude investigation of suspicious or stupid acts. In fact, it assumes a proper investigation prior to anything going further.

No one anywhere finds a nosy neighbor desirable. Nor does anyone wish to have a neighbor who, upon witnessing suspicious behavior, promptly waits to have proof of a crime before reporting it.

NineseveN · #64 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRB

It does not matter whether or not a round was chambered. If one points an unloaded gun at another person it is assault.

Assault requires intent.

TonyF · #65 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drew

I believe that there are other possibilities. First, the OP doesn't know that he was chambering a round, he saw what appeared to be a firearm and the slide of said firearm being racked. I said prior that he may have been stupidly showing off his piece to one of the others of the group and had been making sure the chamber was empty.

Another posibility is that it wasn't a firearm at all, that it was either a replica, or one of many air powered "toys" that have actions very similar to semi automatic firearms. This also may explain how the group looked so young...

Possible .................. but IMHO not probable.

The Drew · #66 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2007

Quote: