It finally comes to an end - "Offer of Judgment" reached with Philadelphia

[kolonial72]

I think pyld should go get himself detained and/or arrested in PHL for a legal carry and then do a better job of sueing the department. Then we'd get a win.

In all seriouslness, I agree with him to a point. More would have been nice. A bigger punitive award, an official agreement to provide more of the right training to the PPD officers, an apology, etc. So I guess I'll thank Viper for the baby steps, because even baby steps can be very hard on a person.

Thanks Mark!

[pyld]

Which is equally shocking as it is not at all like PPD directive or what you've typed here. I'm betting a lot of people were basically hoping for the above and not much more except, maybe for some, to never actually be asked if you had an LTCF.

Have you read directive 137, or are you making this up as you go along? Let's compare them. I am quoting from directive 137 as posted by Viper himself and the "assist officer" memorandum more recently posted by Viper himself. I will refer to them as 137 and memo respectively.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR CONCEALED.

These sections are ostensibly identical between the two documents, almost to the letter.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

So, under 137 an officer should investigate for a UFA violation.

Since a seperate license is required in Philadelphia and it is impossible for an officer to know who does and who does not have a valid concealed carry firearms license, it is entirely reasonable for the officer to temporarily detain and investigate any individual carrying a firearm exposed to determine if the person is operating within the law

Under the memo, it's entirely reasonable. So the vast sum of energy expended went from "should investigate" to "it's entirely reasonable." Do you guys honestly think there is a shitting bit of difference when it comes to the PPD?

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE, BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED, OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID (I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS “ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

These sections are ostensibly identical.

The memo contains an FAQ page (many of which are not correct) but I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing.

Show me something, anything, in writing that indicates a tangible difference in the way the PPD intends to conduct itself with regard to open carry, and I'll be happy. As I said, you are probably less likely to be cursed at and/or referred to as "junior." Other than that, everything's anecdotal at this point.

I suspect the biggest thing to come from this is that your civil rights are now MANY times more likely to NOT be violated in anyway. Sure sounds like a win to me.

I don't count suspicions as a win. I also don't count a written policy of still shaking folks down, with the added "bonus" of not calling them a "motherfucker" to be the win a lot of us were hoping for. YMMV.

[whoshisface]

I'm talking about reality today and you keep avoiding it. You're still talking about an older piece of paper. At anytime feel free to come on out with us and make the change you want to see.

Have you read directive 137, or are you making this up as you go along? Let's compare them. I am quoting from directive 137 as posted by Viper himself and the "assist officer" memorandum more recently posted by Viper himself. I will refer to them as 137 and memo respectively.



These sections are ostensibly identical between the two documents, almost to the letter.



So, under 137 an officer should investigate for a UFA violation.



Under the memo, it's entirely reasonable. So the vast sum of energy expended went from "should investigate" to "it's entirely reasonable." Do you guys honestly think there is a shitting bit of difference when it comes to the PPD?



These sections are ostensibly identical.

The memo contains an FAQ page (many of which are not correct) but I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing.

Show me something, anything, in writing that indicates a tangible difference in the way the PPD intends to conduct itself with regard to open carry, and I'll be happy. As I said, you are probably less likely to be cursed at and/or referred to as "junior." Other than that, everything's anecdotal at this point.



I don't count suspicions as a win. I also don't count a written policy of still shaking folks down, with the added "bonus" of not calling them a "motherfucker" to be the win a lot of us were hoping for. YMMV.

[pyld]

I'm talking about reality today and you keep avoiding it. You're still talking about an older piece of paper. At anytime feel free to come on out with us and make the change you want to see.

Your reality is anecdotal.

The change I want to see is that the PPD is given negative reinforcement and/or incentive to change their directives regarding OC. It has not happened. I'm not talking about getting 50 people together to OC on city hall or applebees and announcing it it well in advance. I'm looking for a legal or financial solution to the problem (PPD policy) which, absent documentation for public consumption to indicate it, never changed.

[Glock9mm]

Your reality is anecdotal.

The change I want to see is that the PPD is given negative reinforcement and/or incentive to change their directives regarding OC. It has not happened. I'm not talking about getting 50 people together to OC on city hall or applebees and announcing it it well in advance. I'm looking for a legal or financial solution to the problem (PPD policy) which, absent documentation for public consumption to indicate it, never changed.

Its never going to happen in civil court I guess, and I wouldn't want to see what would happen to get it into criminal court. Small battles won are really all that we will see I think. I am only assuming, but I would think the monatary awards would go up, and only finally get to a point where someone in the administration would have to act. But, that really just an assumption as I have no idea how the monatary awards truly hurt any department like that. I am sure they are sued and lose/pay on a weekly basis for one thing or another.

The people holding the OC events are just helping bring awareness to the civil rights of the matter. And thankfully the leftist media will cover it to bring further awareness, no matter what light they cast on the events. Sadly protests/events without firearms pull at the heart strings of many more people than so called "gun nuts" will ever draw positive recognition from. But in the absence of good recognition, lawful events getting any media play are a decent start.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Philly PD sure as hell won't learn anything overnight.

[Valorius]

Pyld: Surely you can grasp the clear difference between an officer "should" (aka: SHALL) treat an OCer as if he is a VUFA violator and an officer has the option (MAY) to investigate OCers as if they are potential VUFA violators.

In case 1, the cop is required to give you the proned out treatment. In the new revised directive, the officer is simply given the option to investigate.

Given how many cops are completely lazy and disinterested, coupled with how many are actual 2nd amendment supporters, we just eliminated a huge swath of the PPD as potential aggressors toward OCers.

Shall....may. Makes all the difference in the world.

[heili]

In case 1, the cop is required to give you the proned out treatment. In the new revised directive, the officer is simply given the option to investigate.

So he gets to give you the 'proned out treatment' if he wants to. That's really all it says.

[whoshisface]

It all come down to a single simple line..

Get out there and do something then.

[pyld]

Pyld: Surely you can grasp the clear difference between an officer "should" (aka: SHALL) treat an OCer as if he is a VUFA violator and an officer has the option (MAY) to investigate OCers as if they are potential VUFA violators.

In case 1, the cop is required to give you the proned out treatment. In the new revised directive, the officer is simply given the option to investigate.

Given how many cops are completely lazy and disinterested, coupled with how many are actual 2nd amendment supporters, we just eliminated a huge swath of the PPD as potential aggressors toward OCers.

You are suggesting that allowing discretion on the part of the PPD is going to make a difference? Given how the gun permit unit abuses the character clause (eg, the only discretion in the UFA in terms of "shall issue" permit issuance), I must respectfully disagree with your assessment.

[Valorius]

Yes it makes a huge difference.

Forget the gun permit unit. It is now in the hands of individual cops. They are not REQUIRED to prone you and conduct a VUFA search as they were pre viper.

Now they have the option to use their judgement.

You know...common sense.

Will you still run into the occasional hard ass that may still prone you out? Certainly, that can happen in any department anywhere, including out in the sticks.

But that is a world of difference from a situation where EVERY cop is going to prone you out if he sees you OCing because his command has instructed him that he is to investigate all OCers as possible VUFA offenders.

Obviously.

This is where exceltoexcel points out that in practical purposes, Viper has made a tremendous difference via his efforts. Because he has.

Now it is in the hands of each individual cop. Since most philly cops are going to fall into one of these categories: pro-gun/disinterested/lazy/apathetic/racist the practical real world difference to the every day OCer is profound...especially if you're a clean cut white guy like mark.

NOW, the cop has the option to prone out and break balls if he sees some hip hopster gang bangers OCing in the hood, but he also has the option to totally ignore a clean cut white guy OCing as well.

Or he can still break your balls...but a cop will always have the option to break your balls, whether you're OCing or not.