LEO's and Open Carry

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

I think that, again, Tony has successfully identified part of the "why".

I don't think it's a legitimate excuse. But the LEO's do.

Something to think about

PA Patriot, my interpreter. Maybe I need classes on how to articulate my point through the written word cuz I seem to be having problems with it the last few days.

Thank you again.

I am just trying to proffer "why" some of this goes on, not excusing or condoning it.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

I don't think it unreasonable to make a phone call pertaining to a statute #.
It is alot easier to ask about a specific staute than someone saying" It's my right"

Originally Posted by lildobe

The thing is, from the description in the original post is seemed like the officer DIDN'T know the ordinance, and he and several other officers had to look for 30 minutes and dig out a book dated 2005 to find something to charge him with. And the Sgt. called the O.P. a "know it all" and walked away in the middle of him quoting state law.

At that point, I think, rather then insulting a citizen, it would be more prudent to give him the benefit of the doubt and make a quick phone call to verify what he was quoting, rather then diging around looking for something (ANYTHING) to charge him with.

Originally Posted by lildobe

But you are saying you won't even spend 10 minutes to find out if the person MIGHT be right after they have quoted you the state law...

Does the term "Reasonable Doubt" mean anything to an officer on the street?

from the op in the pittsburg thread: "After that, all but 3 officers went outside (the three surrounding me so I wouldn't go anywhere) and I was still being detained, not allowed to even make a phone call. When I flipped my cell phone open to check the time a female city officer told me to hang it up. Almost 30 minutes later the Sgt. come back and produced a city ordinance book from 2005 that stated open carry is against city code."

The guy was cited for an illegal law that is on the cities books. Aside from the way he was treated the cops did what they were trained to do. Even if they took the guys word that the law was illegal and called some one. That person would also be looking at the same illegal law in the cities books.

I don't agree with the way the story came about but that is the way I see it. It seems that the police would have had to call someone from outside of the cities control to find the city ordinance was in fact an illegal law.

[PropCop]

Ive seen this happen before. A single officer may have been willing to listen and look up the statute, or give the benefit of the doubt. Once you get a group, including a supervisor, no one would be willing to back down in front of his peers. Once it starts down the wrong road, there is no stopping it. Sad, but true.

Addressing the police training is one important issue. Another avenue would be the police dispatcher. He/she gets a call about a man with a gun. Dispatcher asks, what is he doing with it? Caller says, sitting at a table eating a hamburger. If dispatcher is aware of the law, they put out a call for see the man(complaintant) instead of "man with a gun" (which Will draw a crowd).

In this case I don't see officer safety compromised, and the outcome could have been very different for all concerned.

But there I go again, common sense and all that c**p.

[markheck1]

I can see that happening for sure, no one wants to be shown they are wrong, especially in front of their friends. So they are all going to stick up for each other. I can't say that I would be any different....

My problem stems from the fact that they DID call someone.....they DID dig up a law 30 minutes later......after being told the exact PA statute, they could have easily asked about that statute, while they were digging up something to charge him with.....

But all in all it's very easy to armchair quarterback all of this, I wasn't presented with someone with a gun, and remember 99% of the time their man with a gun call is some punk bangers killing or robbing each other.

[PropCop]

It's called tunnel vision. They have a man with a gun, they believe it's illegal, and by GOD, he is going to be charged with SOMETHING.

The real issue is, with more citizens OC'ing, that 99.9% is going to go down. The response to the action will accordingly drop as more people OC. I believe that will be one of the benefits that comes from the OCB fiasco. A better understanding of the law, and the ramifications of ignoring it.

[paul]

I would have just popped two rounds in the perps melon....Wait, I thought this was Domelights.com... Sorry, carry on, nothing to see here.

[Jailkeeper]

Originally Posted by PropCop

It's called tunnel vision. They have a man with a gun, they believe it's illegal, and by GOD, he is going to be charged with SOMETHING.

The real issue is, with more citizens OC'ing, that 99.9% is going to go down. The response to the action will accordingly drop as more people OC. I believe that will be one of the benefits that comes from the OCB fiasco. A better understanding of the law, and the ramifications of ignoring it.

+1! Hell, +2! No wait, I can't do that.