Pa. Patriot ARRESTED at the OC dinner @ The Old Country Buffet in Dickson City 5/9

[bdevil73]

I'm not a LEO and I won't pretend to know their proper procedures, but wouldn't the the proper thing to do have been to talk to the restaurant manager first. Rather than talking to him and confirming that there were no unreasonable actions by your group, they instead hassled a bunch of fine law abiding citizens guilty of nothing more than enjoying good food and good company, not to mention terrorizing the children present. I hope all the children are doing fine. While it never should have happened, the silver lining is that it further reinforces the idea that mommy and daddy, not the police, are the ones responsible for their safety, at least to the older ones.

[Ramtuff]

I'm just in shock and awe over this. The police need to learn that they can't break the law and get away with it. They are "law ENFORCEMENT officers", not "law making officers" or "personal opinion enforcement officers." Each and every one of those jack booted thugs should have their badges stripped from them. Good luck to Rich and everyone else who was involved in getting this cleared up and in any future litigation against the officers and the police department.

[Bmaninmifco]

I don't know about you guys, but the lyrics
"Mamma take this badge from me I can't use it anymore"
Keeps running through my head

[Wild Bill Klinton]

PA Pat,
I heard form 1st and 2nd hand witnesses, the answers are poor ___ ________
on DCPD's part.

Now sit down....The CARD their going to Try and Play is GENDER CARD.
That's right Virginia GENDER. Get ready. I told you they play DIRTY.

This is approved by Wild Bill Klinton and only Wild Bill Klinton
Exercising my 1st and 2nd amendment rights!

[schr8er2000]

Just wondering if anyone sent Officer Gallagher ( apparently the female LEO ) a MOTHERS day card... since that MOTHER SHOULD get one...lol

[Bmaninmifco]

Here's the card they should play.
Hang head in shame.

[Wild Bill Klinton]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

Question, Could a case be made for a violation of 5301 for each individual that got braced?

how many counts? how many civil suits?

added:
forget the nails. I want to get gutter spikes to nail their hides with while they are still in them. If you name the ADA that said it's ok to take the gun would that cause the DA to turn the persecution over to another agency? the AG perhaps?

rwilson452,
We're talking Lackawanna county...The treasurer's office found $12,000,000.00 after the election. That's right Virginia 12 MILLION. and the DA said,"there's nothing to investigate".
Please HAVE NO FAITH IN THE DA TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

The DA's "DRINKING BUDDY WAS THE TREASURER".

this message was approved by Wild Bill Klinton,
Any unthruths or defammation is subject to LIABIAL ACTIONS OF COURT
EXERCISING 1ST AND 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
(If I yell Fire in a theather, it's not a lie if it's true.)

[Statkowski]

I'm assuming a Stolen Gun Report was filed with the state police?

Or, since the owner was an FFL, with the BATFE?

[Petalpusher]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

If it can be seen in plain sight there is no reason to "search"for it.

As for seizing it, commonwealth v. Hawkins squashes that idea.

I agree. However that is why I put the blurb about "Articulable" in the post.


The existing law with respect to searches such as the one conducted in
this case is based on Terry v. Ohio, supra, which held that police are
authorized under the Fourth Amendment to stop and temporarily detain citizens
short of an arrest when they can point to "specific and articulable facts"
causing them to have a reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity may be
afoot." 392 U.S. at 21, 30, 88 S.Ct. at ___, ___, 20 L.Ed.2d at 905-06, 911;
Commonwealth v. Melendez, ___ Pa. ___, 676 A.2d 226, 228 (1996); Commonwealth
v. Hicks, 434 Pa. 153, 160, ___ A.2d ___, ___ (1969). If police reasonably
believe that they may be in danger, they may conduct a limited pat-down search
of the suspect's outer garments for weapons. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85,
92-93, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238, 246 (1979); accord, Commonwealth v.
Melendez, supra. Thus, before police may briefly detain a person, there must
be reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and before police may pat down for
weapons, there must be a reasonable belief that the suspect is presently armed
and dangerous.2 The initial question with which any analysis of this case
must begin, therefore, is whether the police officer had grounds for reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.


A police officer can articulate that someone is up to no good because they have a weapon in plain sight.

It's a devils advocate game. Though the police know that they cannot do what they did, they, however, did it anyway. Case in point, they disarmed the people at OCB. They cannot do that, however, they did.

[CQB]

Sorry about that. The above post is mine. I didn't realize the wife was still logged in.