Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry

[Don]

@Don

Listen to the recording. Mark was calm throughout the entire encounter. How that is ego-infused activism is beyond me. Activism, sure, but ego-infused?

Here's a simple rule for cops to follow to avoid horrible encounters like this in the future. Only enforce laws you know to exist, not ones you think exist. How about observing from a distance and calling in and asking before assuming the OC is a criminal? Pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not breaking any law is unacceptable, whether you agree with the legal activity or not.

Oh, don't mistake me, i'm not claiming the OC guy is absolutely activist motivated by ego, I'm saying that after reading about a hundred pages of this and listening to the tapes and such, I simply can't completely exclude it.

I don't mean to offend him or those that know him personally and may know better than me. I'm just looking at what I have to look at.

[God's Country]

The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED. Except for officer safety....silly

[Don]

"[T]he greatest [abuse] that could be committed would be a base betrayal of trust in refusing to interpose to prevent injustice whether arising from a wilful, deliberate and wicked invasion of the Constitution, or from what we believe to have been a mistaken construction of legislative authority. As the people, who are the fountain of all power, have in their wisdom distributed the functions of government into their co-ordinate branches--the legislative power, the executive power, and the judicial power--it is necessary that each should respect the just rights of the others, and abstain, as far as practicable, from the exercise of all doubtful authority. . . . To prevent the evils which would inevitably result from the overthrow of the government, the equilibrium established by the Constitution must be preserved, and this can only be done by meeting on the threshold the first attempt at encroachment, whether arising from design, inattention or mistake, come from what branch of the government it may." Commonwealth ex rel. Hepburn v. Mann, 5 Watts & Serg. 403, 420-421 (Pa. 1843).

How many cops would keep their jobs if they stood up and declared their refusal to undertake any ordered act to violate their oaths to the constitutions? I posit that that in this current environment, it would be rare, if even possible, for officers to keep their jobs without violating the constitutions to appease their superiors, even if it contradicts their individual oaths. How many good cops from that group can you select?

There's an easy heuristic for this: "If the suspect isn't harming anyone and I don't know the law, I won't act to oppress." And yet the courts occasionally (and unfortunately rarely) say it better: "It is the officer's responsibility to know what he is arresting for, and why[.]" U.S. v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948).

"“Officer Safety” alone will not justify a frisk." fletc.gov (fedgov's verson of PA's MPOETC, I suppose) TERRY FRISK UPDATE.
Also, see the 4A and Pa. Const. art. I, § 8.
If officers can use 'training and experience' to put away 'bad guys', why can't they have training and experience that helps them not fuck up searches and seizures of property in light of 'human feelings of security'?

We aren't lawyers either, but we generally take on the attitude of reading the law before we act. After all, "ignorance of the law is no excuse"! Police, DAs, legislators, judges, and even your fellow posters pound this into your mind. Why is that good for the layperson by ignorable by the officer?

What excuse does he need? Why would he have to 'hide his shame'? Police are not some untamed animals whose responses we can predict based on the nature and long history of such creatures, animals whose response shall be confined to basic genetics. Police, as they come from the People, ought to have some thinking power in the face of OCers. My opinion is that the foremost purpose of OCing is to show that We the People are armed, and, for example, should an enemy foreign or domestic seize our homes, we are still armed on our person, and we shall be the final arbiters of our government. Obviously the large lack of OCers correlates to how our government tramples over us on a regular basis; they do not respect us as the source of the 'fountain of all power'. There are a multitude of reasons to OC, and not one of them cries for the violent response of the state.

Don, tl;dr? The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED. Does an officer need to know much more?

I am admittedly not making arguments against OC or anything based in social theory or legal theory or constitutional theory or any other form of idealized model of the practical world. Again, I really wasn't trying to start a shitstorm or offend anyone's principles.

[gbrown221]

My boss spoke to VIPER today after another forum member reached out to us on his behalf. VIPER has been referred to and speaking with a criminal defense attorney who in my opinion is a very competent attorney for a well known law firm in Center City Philadelphia. His attorney has helped some of my closest friends with incdents involving the tyranical City of Philadlephia. I wish him well in this fiasco created by PPD.

[BimmerJon]

Wow

A lot of "people" sure are watching this thread.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

When are we all meeting in Philly?

[zackattack784]

I am admittedly not making arguments against OC or anything based in social theory or legal theory or constitutional theory or any other form of idealized model of the practical world. Again, I really wasn't trying to start a shitstorm or offend anyone's principles.

I completely believe you on this. You were just offering an opposing (albeit unpopular) viewpoint.

Let's go easy on the new guy, guys! I think he offered a nicely written post free of personal attacks and trolling on his reasons and we gave him ours. I think we covered everything .

Stating this:
"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" is complete and utter bullshit and will not help you win ANY argument. There are thousands of restrictions on our right to bear arms from the federal government all the way down to (illegal) local ordinances. Spouting the words of the PA constitution as if they actually hold some authority in this instance is just a waste of time.

[son of the revolution]

unless police departments are truly riddled with rampant corruption and maliciousness against gun owners, which at this time I do not feel is likely.

snip................. They ARE, Federal, State and Local to a level that you would probably find very hard to believe. Good thing there is plenty of documentation to prove it is in fact systemic across the Country. You have to understand that the Govt will predictably and ALWAYS try to increase their level of power and control at the expense of the citizens liberty.

For just one example of a very famous case, look at what happend to Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge at the hands of Fed, State and Local LEO's

[jhbenson4]

Now is not the time to bicker amongst ourselves. This act was meant to intimidate and get Mark to back down. He needs our solidarity and our support. This is bigger than one man's fight against a corrupt system, it is a fight for the rights of all free people not just gun owners or those who carry firearms.

We must send a message that we will not allow one of us or any American to be subject to tyrannical fear of an oppressive police state. It does not matter your personal opinion of Mark, the fact remains that there is absolutely no excuse for a free individual to be treated in this manner.

How quickly we forget that once upon a time if an agent of the state dared to assert himself as these officers have done they would have been drug into the street, coated in tar, doused in feathers, and ridden through town on the back of a quarter horse.

Remember what freedom is....remember who you are. Take a stand together and don't back down. Ever.

^^^SPOT ON^^^

Why do you think they showed up with the warrant task force at his place of employment? They are making a statement and a very loud one. They are purposefully trying to intimidate him through loss of freedom by arresting him and through loss of income by intimidating him and his employer at work. Make no mistake about it, the bullies with badges in Philly are going to make their point, they are hedging their bets that this will all go away and get dismissed.

Why isn't the US Attorney's office having this investigated for criminal civil rights violations? They've gone beyond just a stop on a street to actually abusing their power and putting someone in jail with some type of trumped up charges.

[MDJschool]

My boss spoke to VIPER today after another forum member reached out to us on his behalf. VIPER has been referred to and speaking with a criminal defense attorney who in my opinion is a very competent attorney for a well known law firm in Philadelphia. His attorney has helped some of my closest friends with incdents involving the tyranical City of Philadlephia. I wish him well in this fiasco created by PPD.

It's not that guy who shits on OC while being a gun rights lawyer, is it? (Mirowitz?)

Stating this:
"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" is complete and utter bullshit and will not help you win ANY argument. There are thousands of restrictions on our right to bear arms from the federal government all the way down to (illegal) local ordinances. Spouting the words of the PA constitution as if they actually hold some authority in this instance is just a waste of time.

If those two simple and easy to remember provisions, representing the supreme law of the land, are not a good place to start for those who have not read the constitutions, and our public officials including police officers who take oaths to the constitutions, then we might as well quit posting on PAFOA and throw down our arms. Or maybe it's that we should take up arms. Something.

[MostlyHarmless]

I totally agree with you too except on two details. First, I maintain that what the cop did WAS understandable and even reasonable given his ignorance of a law which is uncommon for him to encounter

No, it is neither understandable nor reasonable and the ignorance of that law is not excusable.

The gun in question was carried securely holstered and ALL Pennsylvania police officers have received the information, that carrying a firearm in that manner is perfectly legal, in their update training in 2009. There was no immediate threat. There was no illegal activity. The police officer demonstrated through his ignorance that he is mentally unfit for the job, because he either doesn't take training serious enough or has significant memory loss issues.


Jan