Found this on the officer.com forums

[Evolution]

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90751

Don't know if this was posted before or not. Many of the officers tend to lean to our side on the Dickson city incident. See there are reasonable Leo's out there.

No pun intended Steve.

[rmarkob]

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90751

Don't know if this was posted before or not. Many of the officers tend to lean to our side on the Dickson city incident. See there are reasonable Leo's out there.

No pun intended Steve.

I like those guys - most of them think like Steve

[Statkowski]

Wow, a much more intelligent and civil discussion than the other Philadelphia site. And those on board that didn't know the law were promptly educated by other fellow officers.

[GunLawyer001]

On average, a reasonable group of officers, the only exception being the person who was the most certain that he was right while being the most wrong.

As for the repeated question of why one would carry a firearm openly when it's likely to offend some, I'll pose this thought experiment: You're a Christian, and you wear a crucifix around your neck every day. A group of militant Muslims move into a house on your block, and you become aware that they become agitated when non-Muslims display the accouterments of their infidel faith.

Do you hide your crucifix when you walk your dog past their house? Since they consider dogs unclean, do you even walk your dog there?

Flip it around: Should Muslims be permitted to wear their hijabs and walk among us like sock puppets, even if it alarms and offends some folks?

[fingers80002]

nuthead
LE Cheetah




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 172 Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in PA
As explained in case law (Commonwealth v. Hawkins), open carry as well as concealed carry are legal acts in PA. Lacking any further cause to believe there was criminal activity going on, the courts have declared that the mere fact that the person is carrying is no enought to approach the person.

Since I don't know how the call was dispatched, the DCPD very well might have had further cause to believe there WAS criminal activity going on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Just what does "securing" mean? Disarm the persons carrying? Based on what? Terry v. Ohio cays you have to articulate the reason for doing a pat down, in that case, searching for weapons. If the person is carrying openly, what are you searching for then? Are you going to argue that the mere fact they are carrying (a legal act) poses a threat to you?

Securing means making the situation safe for me and my fellow officers. It would depend on a lot of things, for example, the number of officers with me when I arrive. An officer would be an idiot to walk past a bunch of people carrying guns to talk to the manager to find out if there was criminal activity, when they've received a 911 call at that location. It again depends on what information was originally given. Again, I'm definitely NOT against OC, I wish we had it here, but as an officer, I'm not going to risk my safety or my fellow officers' safety so someone won't feel like they've been violated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Running the serial numbers of the guns (For what reason and for what purpose?). Illegally seizing a handgun because it was not in a data base. By the way, the gun has since been returned with the owner NOT having to provide proof of ownership as first required by DCPD.

I'm glad to hear he got his gun back. I don't know enough about PA to know what they're standard procedure is or what they laws say about the "gun database".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Yes, the DCPD should have informed the original caller that OC was legal and since the managers of Old Country Buffet did not have a problem with this, they were leaving.

There are several ways that this incident can taken, since we're only getting one side of the story. Maybe DCPD could articulate their reasons, maybe not. In my opinion, in a case like this, you have two sides both trying to do the "right" thing. The OC people are exercising their rights to OC, which is perfectly legitimate and understandable. The police are trying to do their job, by investigating complaints. Again, in my opinion, if someone openly carries, they should be respectful to the police who might show up to answer a call from an ignorant third party, and be mindful that the responding officers don't know the goats from the sheep when they arrive and also realize that because people lie to the police all the time, they're probably not just going to take your word that nothing is wrong. Not knowing what's going on, the officers should be mindful of their own safety by securing the open weapons UNTIL they find out what's going on. If it were me, as soon as I found out what the deal was, I'd apologize for the delay and thank the OC people for their cooperation and try to find the complainant and explain to them the situation. It's a bad situation, but when handled properly by both parties, shouldn't lead to the animosity seen in this instance.

I hope this nut job stays in SC!!!!!!

[fingers80002]

On average, a reasonable group of officers, the only exception being the person who was the most certain that he was right while being the most wrong.

As for the repeated question of why one would carry a firearm openly when it's likely to offend some, I'll pose this thought experiment: You're a Christian, and you wear a crucifix around your neck every day. A group of militant Muslims move into a house on your block, and you become aware that they become agitated when non-Muslims display the accouterments of their infidel faith.

Do you hide your crucifix when you walk your dog past their house? Since they consider dogs unclean, do you even walk your dog there?

Flip it around: Should Muslims be permitted to wear their hijabs and walk among us like sock puppets, even if it alarms and offends some folks?

+1 rep on the way!!!!
DAMN! got spread some around!

[Ithaca1937]

<snip>
You're a Christian, and you wear a crucifix around your neck every day. A group of militant Muslims move into a house on your block, and you become aware that they become agitated when non-Muslims display the accouterments of their infidel faith.

Do you hide your crucifix when you walk your dog past their house?
<snip>

You would be told no. That wearing a crucifix is a right. That telling them to do otherwise is trampling on their rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet we are told that guns should be covered your as not to offend. Others say "go ahead and open carry, just don't meet as a group for dinner". I guess with that line of reasoning we give up part of the first amendment, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to exercise the second.

[P-11 shooter]

Very cool!

For the most part the most intelegent conversation I've heard from a group of cops.

I cannot tell you how glad I am to have Steve in Pa here

[larrymeyer]

nuthead
LE Cheetah




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 172 Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in PA
As explained in case law (Commonwealth v. Hawkins), open carry as well as concealed carry are legal acts in PA. Lacking any further cause to believe there was criminal activity going on, the courts have declared that the mere fact that the person is carrying is no enought to approach the person.

Since I don't know how the call was dispatched, the DCPD very well might have had further cause to believe there WAS criminal activity going on.

I do they ignored two previous calls as they knew the law

Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Just what does "securing" mean? Disarm the persons carrying? Based on what? Terry v. Ohio cays you have to articulate the reason for doing a pat down, in that case, searching for weapons. If the person is carrying openly, what are you searching for then? Are you going to argue that the mere fact they are carrying (a legal act) poses a threat to you?

Securing means making the situation safe for me and my fellow officers. It would depend on a lot of things, for example, the number of officers with me when I arrive. An officer would be an idiot to walk past a bunch of people carrying guns to talk to the manager to find out if there was criminal activity, when they've received a 911 call at that location. It again depends on what information was originally given. Again, I'm definitely NOT against OC, I wish we had it here, but as an officer, I'm not going to risk my safety or my fellow officers' safety so someone won't feel like they've been violated.

He didn't have to walk past the manager he talked to him at the door before he came to the back to talk to us

Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Running the serial numbers of the guns (For what reason and for what purpose?). Illegally seizing a handgun because it was not in a data base. By the way, the gun has since been returned with the owner NOT having to provide proof of ownership as first required by DCPD.

I'm glad to hear he got his gun back. I don't know enough about PA to know what they're standard procedure is or what they laws say about the "gun database".

Illegal in PA there is none check with the PSP

Originally Posted by Steve in PA
Yes, the DCPD should have informed the original caller that OC was legal and since the managers of Old Country Buffet did not have a problem with this, they were leaving.

There are several ways that this incident can taken, since we're only getting one side of the story. Maybe DCPD could articulate their reasons, maybe not. In my opinion, in a case like this, you have two sides both trying to do the "right" thing. The OC people are exercising their rights to OC, which is perfectly legitimate and understandable. The police are trying to do their job, by investigating complaints. Again, in my opinion, if someone openly carries, they should be respectful to the police who might show up to answer a call from an ignorant third party, and be mindful that the responding officers don't know the goats from the sheep when they arrive and also realize that because people lie to the police all the time, they're probably not just going to take your word that nothing is wrong. Not knowing what's going on, the officers should be mindful of their own safety by securing the open weapons UNTIL they find out what's going on. If it were me, as soon as I found out what the deal was, I'd apologize for the delay and thank the OC people for their cooperation and try to find the complainant and explain to them the situation. It's a bad situation, but when handled properly by both parties, shouldn't lead to the animosity seen in this instance.

They only took two weapons not 22 wapons as some of us had a bug. As for open carrying how do you carry I carry under my jacket and when I remove it I guess I'm open carrying. The asswipe who called the police stood outside the OCB taking pictures. But they stopped Rich's wife from video taping.

[Jailkeeper]

On average, a reasonable group of officers, the only exception being the person who was the most certain that he was right while being the most wrong.

As for the repeated question of why one would carry a firearm openly when it's likely to offend some, I'll pose this thought experiment: You're a Christian, and you wear a crucifix around your neck every day. A group of militant Muslims move into a house on your block, and you become aware that they become agitated when non-Muslims display the accouterments of their infidel faith.

Do you hide your crucifix when you walk your dog past their house? Since they consider dogs unclean, do you even walk your dog there?

Flip it around: Should Muslims be permitted to wear their hijabs and walk among us like sock puppets, even if it alarms and offends some folks?

Reps to ya'!