Posted on 07/11/2008 3:00:00 PM PDT by marktwain
“It was a criminal investigation”
” Survival of the fittest.”
“failure to produce identification is cause for detention until identification is established.”
You have been watching way to many westerns. There were a lot less actual face to face shoot outs then the movies would have you belive. Most felons did not last long when they did.
So your wife/husband just says you are a abuser you lose your rights there are many classifications of people who are not felons who can’t not carry.
You can tell the bad guys form the good guys the bad guys shoot at you the good guys don’t.
Once a felon, most all the time a felon so do you relly think the law stops them from carring now. Way to many felons are arrested each year to know that isn’t true.
Crimnals break the law that is why they are crimnals.
Sounds like, "Show us your papers" kind of thing. I believe Germany back in the late 30's and early 40's had such a policy.
I wonder if the police at the scene made any attempt to establish who made the actual complaint? After all, you need a witness, right? A voice on the phone to a 911 operator that somebody “brandished” a weapon would not seem to be sufficient evidence if when I walk in the door I observe everybody peacefully eating.
Given the training-level of some 911 operators, I’d take any report passed thru them with a huge grain of salt.
That said, I’d have produced the ID if the officer had asked for it — just out of courtesy. But it all depends on how the officer behaved. I mean I might not have if I was abruptly being ordered around.
Sorry, you are wrong. They can --always-- tell who is calling, or can find out.
“I wonder if the police at the scene made any attempt to establish who made the actual complaint? After all, you need a witness, right? A voice on the phone to a 911 operator that somebody “brandished” a weapon would not seem to be sufficient evidence if when I walk in the door I observe everybody peacefully eating.”
“All 911 lines have caller ID but if the caller blocks it they can not tell who is calling”
ikka replied:
“Sorry, you are wrong. They can —always— tell who is calling, or can find out.”
These officers were way out of bounds. Without any probable cause of a crime being committed there was NO justification for any investigation and no basis for demanding ID. These guys obviously slept though their last Act 120 (PA State
Municipal Police Certification) updates during the section about needing probable cause to detain someone, and the citizen was entirely within their rights to tell you to piss off and not ID themselves if you didn’t have PC to suspect a crime was being committed.
There is NO APPLICABLE SECTION in PA Title 18 (PA Crimes Code) to charge for open carry. Here’s a tip to the Chief ..............IF IT AIN’T IN THE CRIMES CODE IT AIN”T A FRIGGIN CRIME YOU MORON
I remember reading the initial report in the local paper about this. The man that got cuffed & searched also had a conceal handgun. I believe that it was this handgun that was confiscated when it didn’t show up in the “police registry” — whatever that was.
I’m not excusing what the police did, necessarily. Just trying to provide some information so that others can make a little more sense of the situation.
For cell phones, they can block the phone from receiving other calls and you have to enter a code to unlock it.
My 911 call went to the duty station where I got the number {but not the phone} (long way away), I requested my local 911 exchange by proper name, got the operator, and explained the problem.
And they have the number, plus the blocked phone if they decide to check phones.
Fortunately, it was just a property crime. No criminals, children, animals or liberals were harmed.
/johnny
If you are locally in the area, your reports are all the more valuable!
That's like saying" "I believe a person has a right to free speech, but before exercising it, they should have government permission and approval by means of a government issued permit that they must show to any police officer or the owner of an establishment if applicable."
This person has a long running beef with the local LEO’s in this town and the restaurant was picked to force a confrontation.
This person stated on a PA firearms web site that he removed his I.D prior to going to diner.
This person is a FFL in PA and knows the laws.
This person runs an Open Carry web site.
This person's Wife just happen to have a camcorder to record the whole event.
My opinion;
Tactics like this will not further our cause. A better method would have been to sit down with the local LEO’s and bring them up to speed on the OC laws in PA.
This will not end well. A retention holster was not used. Meaning a felon could snatch said firearm and use it in a family restaurant.
This was a setup from the word go.
This is not responsible firearm.
Me;
I've had first hand knowledge and dealings with the person in question.
I resent the fact that I now have to pay for a suit that could have been avoided in the first place.
I am an 16 year NRA member.
I am a GOA member.
I am a pain in the in the rear for any anti-firearm cause.
Concealed Carry permit holder in PA for over 15 years.
I now await the feed back and personal attacks.
Bookmark this to hopefully see reports on how the lawsuits turn out.
Story is in PA.
You should study the racial civil rights movement. You will see that much unjustified police action was recorded and broadcast as a result of purposefully seeking confrontations.
Do you think Rosa Parks didn't further the cause of equal treatment on public transportation?
If you are in the right, the public will tire very quickly of seeing the police ignoring your rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.