LEO's and Open Carry

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

I understand what your saying, but picture it from my point of view, In my vehicle i monitor city, county and fed radios, if i here a call for "man with gun" on any of those and I am close, I'm responding. In the City, a "man with gun" call can easily get 10 units.

I guess I am not familiar with a city environment. We are a small town, close to a small city, that has problem.
We do not see the problems Pittsburg, or Philly see, yet...........

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

Because your asking would i KNOWINGLY make a bad arrest, to which the answer is no.

Not entirely accurate.

I did not ask you if you would "knowingly make a bad arrest".

Let's back up.

Upon your statement(s) that you would cite, having no "reason to believe" the ordinance was not valid, I asked you a question.

The question was "The person in this incident cited the state law, by number, that makes the local ord illegal.
Would you not consider that reason to believe?"
(http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...tml#post345761)

At least enough to seek clarification? You didn't answer.


It was brought up several more times in the thread.

Being that you seem apprehensive to consider some OC'ers specific citation of relevant PA law begs the question that I did ask.

Are you OK with the consequences of not doing that simple little check, under the circumstances (specific citation of law)?

Originally Posted by sgt7546

As for this incident did the Officer know the ordinance was bad, i doubt it or he would not of cited.

Probably not. But his attitude upon being told where to look was one of indifference. A persons reputation and freedom, etc is on the line when an officer starts writing citations. Is it too much to ask for them to treat a citizen with enough courtesy to check a specific citation of law before writing a citation? They are here to serve the citizens, when they encounter a incident in which no one is being harmed, how hard is it to make sure they are proceeding appropriately to ensure that trust they need to be effective at their job? This is not some corporation as you compared to, that has no obligation to the person questioning them. These are peace officers and as such they need to use discretion in situations like this and not treat everyone like a criminal because they were doing something they disagreed with, which I think will be hard to argue that these officers didn't do.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

No probable cause means something on the street. In this case the Officer had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed (the ordinance) and cited due to that.

If the Officer knew the ordinance was bad, I doubt he would of cited. If anyone on the scene understood that OC was legal, I doubt he would of been cited. Pittsburgh has an ordinance forbidding it and the Officer, with supervisor present, cited per city policy. The good that comes out of this (HOPEFULLY) is that the ordinance is removed.

Your again ignoring the fact that the officers were given a specific citation of state law that they refused to check.

I think that's the only issue I have with them based on the way the incident was reported (other than their crappy attitude).

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Not entirely accurate.

I did not ask you if you would "knowingly make a bad arrest".

Let's back up.

Upon your statement(s) that you would cite, having no "reason to believe" the ordinance was not valid, I asked you a question.

The question was "The person in this incident cited the state law, by number, that makes the local ord illegal.
Would you not consider that reason to believe?"
(http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...tml#post345761)

At least enough to seek clarification? You didn't answer.Do LEO's think they know all laws?
I will be the first to admit I don't know everthing about my job, but if I make a mistake, people could die, then it ison ME, not my employer.
All I have to do is make a phone call. That will get the answer I need. What is different?


It was brought up several more times in the thread.

Being that you seem apprehensive to consider some OC'ers specific citation of relevant PA law begs the question that I did ask.

Are you OK with the consequences of not doing that simple little check, under the circumstances (specific citation of law)?




Probably not. But his attitude upon being told where to look was one of indifference. A persons reputation and freedom, etc is on the line when an officer starts writing citations. Is it too much to ask for them to treat a citizen with enough courtesy to check a specific citation of law before writing a citation? They are here to serve the citizens, when they encounter a incident in which no one is being harmed, how hard is it to make sure they are proceeding appropriately to ensure that trust they need to be effective at their job? This is not some corporation as you compared to, that has no obligation to the person questioning them. These are peace officers and as such they need to use discretion in situations like this and not treat everyone like a criminal because they were doing something they disagreed with, which I think will be hard to argue that these officers didn't do.

I agree, there did not seem to be any resistance, suspect was polite, why could the LEO not do the same?

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

No probable cause means something on the street. In this case the Officer had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed (the ordinance) and cited due to that.

But he DIDN'T have P.C. to believe a crime was being committed... Otherwise, it wouldn't have taken multiple officers and a supervisor 30 minutes to find it in a 3 year old code book.

This is purely a case of an officer on a power trip who didn't like what this man was doing (peaceably eating a hamburger with his side-arm on) and had to go LOOKING for something to charge him with.

A very similar thing happened to me six months ago - two LEOs who didn't like that I was OCing hassled me for about an hour, even with my copy of the statues in hand. They were digging HARD trying to find something to charge me with, and in the end, when they were unable to, they told me to leave with the threat of an arrest for D.C. if I were to return.

And in THIS case, there was even a Pitt officer on scene who KNEW that OC was legal... yet the O.P. was still cited. So what you've said holds no water.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

I agree, there did not seem to be any resistance, suspect was polite, why could the LEO not do the same?

Yeah, good point. If an officer takes offense to being corrected, appropriately and with citation, IMO they are in need of an attitude review.

Corrections are part of life.

When the consequences of a citation or arrest are involved they are obligated to make sure it's appropriate. An exact citation of law, again IMO, is plenty enough reason to check. Not checking smacks of arrogance, or at least indifference.

[gf45acp]

I am not trying to bash anyone here, but this shows why our country is in the state it's in, people who KNOWLINGLY do the wrong thing.

BTW, can someone please tell me why a "man with a gun" call should get ANY response if there is no report that the man is doing something wrong, as possession of a gun is NOT illegal in Pa? Why is this different that an "man with a cat" call?

[TonyF]

Gentlemen,

Many of you are presuming that cops should reason with someone they are about to arrest. The street isn't the forum or venue for debating what is or isn't in the state statutes.

And neither does the issue of reasonable doubt apply (on the street). It's a term used in a court of law.

I don't care how polite the detainee was, cops have heard every excuse imaginable a gazillion times, just like every convicted felon in prison "didn't do it".

It's one thing to debate these kinds of issues on a message forum. It's quite another to think that it's practical to conduct police operations in like manner on the street.

I wish it weren't so but it is and I do understand where you're coming from. It's not a perfect world.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by gf45acp

I am not trying to bash anyone here, but this shows why our country is in the state it's in, people who KNOWLINGLY do the wrong thing.

BTW, can someone please tell me why a "man with a gun" call should get ANY response if there is no report that the man is doing something wrong, as possession of a gun is NOT illegal in Pa? Why is this differnt that an "man with a cat" call?

The negative stigma of "the gun" is due to many reasons and has a very powerful effect on the view of the common citizen.

Compounding the stigma problem is that for many years we gun owners have treated gun ownership and carrying as a sort of "were getting away with something" privilage. We happily hid our guns and out ownership of same. Gun owners were reluctant to admit they were gun owners. (I'm guilty too).
That made things worse.

Making guns as normal, again, as cats is going to be a long hard road.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

The negative stigma of "the gun" is due to many reasons and has a very powerful effect on the view of the common citizen.

That's very true. You don't even see pick up trucks with gun racks anymore.