how do you know she didn't say anything more then, "there's a man with a gun pumping gas"
calling 911 and saying that is not illegal. why do you advocate op to sue her? sue the police to change their procedures and leave the sheep alone.
Printable View
The War on Drugs was the departure point. Prohibition created the largest black market in the history of man. Black markets are completely unregulated, there are no lawyers to settle business disputes, black marketeers cannot call the cops to resolve market conflicts. Their business tool of choice is the firearm.
That image of drugs and associated gun violence was glorified in the media until everyone with a gun either looks like a cop, or a potential criminal, to the general public.
And lets face it, random stops were ruled illegal. Cops are going to use any avenue of RAS that they can, and they will fight to maintain it. Seeing a man with a gun allows them justification to perform a search. And for many, a license to pan for gold.
The bottom line is that prior to the war on drugs cops had to have a reason to hold someone at gunpoint, there had to be a victim to allege that a crime had occurred. IF the general public saw the cops lumping someone up, they generally hailed them as heroes because it was a robber, murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, or some other violent criminal.
Now it's all based upon suspicion of what MIGHT be. Everyone is a potential criminal to be proned and held at gunpoint while everything you own is searched. For non violent acts, entire families are being proned at gunpoint.
Protect and serve my ass.
Putting aside for the moment my previously-expressed objections to the inaccurate acronym "RAS," how does a call such as this in any way provide an officer (or a department) any justification for a stop and involuntary detention? The criteria laid out in Terry v. Ohio are that the officer must have "a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed."
So they get a call that a man has a gun. What's the crime? What are the "clearly articulable facts" by which they can formulate a "reasonable suspicion" that the man has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime? If the dispatchers don't ask the types of questions suggested by Cakeshooter, they have nothing. They have NO facts, let alone "clearly articulable facts," to support a reasonable suspicion of a crime. If someone chose to pursue it, they are leaving themselves WIDE open to a lawsuit.
This is 100% correct. Sounds like an ignorant person called the police with a concern. The police have a broad policy of responding to all "gun" related calls. This, probably for liability/political reasons. Now, as for a civil suit against the department, that could go in your favor with the right judge. An anti-gun judge will however consider the police actions reasonable. The most disconcerting thing to me, are how the words "shall not be questioned" are blatantly and flagrantly violated. Dear god we need constitutional carry. Also, I sure wish that U.S. or PA supreme courts would somehow rule that the police cannot disarm citizens for "officer safety" since citizens have a right to self-defense, and they are not "under arrest". As for the definition of arrest, that's a rant for another day.... excuse my rambling.
Best part is, now I am getting shit from my parents. Apparently I brought this upon myself and was looking for a confrontation. Cool, thanks Philly.
You know, a LOT of cops are carrying 'MUVI' cameras just so they don't get incriminated along with their JBT buddies. I'm pretty sure though, that by the time you could get a Court Order together, the PPD would hold a 'mass erase' meeting in a Briefing Room.
To the OP, When you had cops standing in front of you, pointing loaded guns at your head, did you think of mashing the throttle to the floor and squishing one or two of them? It has crossed my mind a couple of times. Cops that do that sort of thing are probably counting on the fact that most of us have reasons to go on living( wives, children, parents). If I were a single man, and they pulled that crap, given how horrible the future of this nation looks under these idiots, I'd give serious consideration to making an example out of one or two of them.
What's that line from the old CDB song? I couldn't resist the urge to chase 'em all just once around the parking lot!
Sadly, stopping people is legal according to the (illegal) law. Remember, this is Philly. You cannot O.C. in philly without a license. Therefore, a person with a gun, is breaking the law without a license. So, there is their suspicion. That such an action is illegal, barring proof of licensure. It's unconstitutional, but legal, (although illegal due to unconstitutionality).
P.S. Of course, they can't just pull you over to prove that you have a "drivers license" which is a priviledge, yet they seem to think they can stop you for O.C.ing which is a RIGHT. funny how that works isn't it? That is why there's room for a civil suit.
It goes without saying. Sue their asses so hard they can't sit for a week. Looks like they didn't learn anything.