Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry

[MDJschool]

Because the powers that be have set us up with this advesarial relationship.
How dare people reject the relationship the policing class and ruling class have forced on us.
Until cops and politicians stop demanding to be treated differently than the rest of us the advesarial relationship will continue.
It is entirely reasonable for the people that pay the bills demand that they are not treated like willful children.

It would be quite the mistake for the government to treat us Pennsylvanians as children, for they could quickly find that the contract between the government and the people may be easily and unilaterally voided...

[priell3]

It would be quite the mistake for the government to treat us Pennsylvanians as children, for they could quickly find that the contract between the government and the people may be easily and unilaterally voided...

Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Time we start altering as we think proper.

[legendarylorot]

LOL, I am most certainly not trying to turn this in to a Red/Blue, Big Govt/Small Govt conversation, mostly because their truely isn't a Right answer. It may have been different 200+ years ago when the BofR was written, but it in no way understood what we are dealing with today. I still feel it is the greatest document ever written. But there has to be a middle ground. While we can't go Questioning EVERYONE, we also can go checking NOBODY.

To start, I really want to applaud you on reading through the entire thread, considering all viewpoints, and writing a coherent and well-reasoned statement.

That said, there's one flaw in this last one. The situation isn't all-or-nothing, everyone-or-nobody. In reality, there's other factors. There's the demeanor of the person, a person's other actions, etc. Is it reasonable to stop someone who is clearly intoxicated, or otherwise not in his right mind with a firearm? Certainly, but the firearm is not a factor; these stops would be reasonable anyway.

Courts have ruled that a firearm is not enough of a reason to stop someone. However, there are plenty of other factors. Stopping someone who shows other signs is not a middle ground! It is not a concession of firearm rights, and it is most certainly not a compromise of civil rights. It is completely possible to act on suspicious behavior without including protected behaviors in the definition of suspicious.

Mark, by every account, exhibited no suspicious behaviors. Thus, the police acted wrongly, because they believed the protected behavior of carrying a firearm was suspicious.

In the aforementioned scenario where the OCer is really a criminal, I would fault the police for not watching for other suspicious behaviors. If it's true that none were present, then I could not fault the police at all.

[kimbershooter]

anyone have the link for the show marc is on?

[unloved]

anyone have the link for the show marc is on?

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/sho...erconish-show/

[trex88]

Next radio show: Michael Smerconish @ 3:00 - first will be a recorded interview with Commissioner Charles Ramsey, then I will be calling in to talk to Michael.

Awesome, I'm actually home and online in time to listen to this one live! Holy commercials...

[kimbershooter]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/sho...erconish-show/

thank you

[priell3]

To start, I really want to applaud you on reading through the entire thread, considering all viewpoints, and writing a coherent and well-reasoned statement.

That said, there's one flaw in this last one. The situation isn't all-or-nothing, everyone-or-nobody. In reality, there's other factors. There's the demeanor of the person, a person's other actions, etc. Is it reasonable to stop someone who is clearly intoxicated, or otherwise not in his right mind with a firearm? Certainly, but the firearm is not a factor; these stops would be reasonable anyway.

Courts have ruled that a firearm is not enough of a reason to stop someone. However, there are plenty of other factors. Stopping someone who shows other signs is not a middle ground! It is not a concession of firearm rights, and it is most certainly not a compromise of civil rights. It is completely possible to act on suspicious behavior without including protected behaviors in the definition of suspicious.

Mark, by every account, exhibited no suspicious behaviors. Thus, the police acted wrongly, because they believed the protected behavior of carrying a firearm was suspicious.

In the aforementioned scenario where the OCer is really a criminal, I would fault the police for not watching for other suspicious behaviors. If it's true that none were present, then I could not fault the police at all.

In support of Mark's case, just a few bits from the PA's Constitution:

Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Security From Searches and Seizures
Section 8.
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed by the affiant.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

I think that is pretty clear. Mark's rights were violated in a very unprofessional and humiliating fashion.

[sandcast69]

How would we all feel if it was all flipped? If an actual criminal was OCing with the intention of committing a crime, posing as a law abiding citizen, and was able to walk unchecked into the store and kills someone. Wouldn't we then be questioning the roles of the police officer that walked by him?

I have seen this particular "What if" brought up quite a bit in the last week but I've yet to see anyone cite any actual cases of it happening. I would prefer that people show actual evidence of an ongoing and serious problem before they start telling me I should just accept "guilty until proven innocent".

Should we just give the police free reign to stop & frisk anyone, for anything, at anytime, with no RAS because "what if" he's (add illegal activity of your choice here).

As far as chastising the officer, If the officer observed no RAS of criminal activity with regards to the talented impersonator, then I would not fault him.

[GunLawyer001]

Philadelphia police are not authorized by the UFA to stop every person carrying a gun openly and demand his LTCF, any more than they have the right to stop every person and check him for concealed weapons. Carrying a gun is not RAS for any crime at all, not even a VUFA.

Philly needs a smarter Commissioner.