Disckson City, PA steal gun and violate 2nd amendment as well as other laws! - Page 8

kpw · May 13th, 2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

That is exactly my point. However, the awareness they raised in the instance was completely negative. Contrast that with the open holster protest on college campuses throughout the nation. Positive and effective awareness and good publicity that opened the debate.

I disagree. The awareness of the legality of OC among LEO and citizens of PA should help to reduce the negative interactions among OCers and LEO/citizens in the future.

Quote:

Police showed up because they were informed there was a potential problem. From what I read, the problems began when the patrons refused to identify themselves. Why do you think they did that?

Because they had NO legal responsibility to do so. Again, it doesn't really matter what you or I think they should have done. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime being commited by the police. In PA, carrying a gun openly is NOT reasonable suspicion and it is not reason enough to stop, ID, frisk or seize property. There are PA Supreme Court cases that clearly say so.

Quote:

It is not unlawful to ask for indentification. He stood his ground and received the consequences of acting out. Why did he not identify himself? Exactly what was he trying to accomplish? I submit he accomplished exactly what he wanted.

No, it's not illegal to ask. It is illegal to demand and then detain/arrest someone when there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In PA, it's called official oppression and it's a crime. He verbally identified himself. Legally, that's all he had to do. As for getting what he wanted, I can't read his mind. Maybe he did or will in the future.

Quote:

Identity papers? What papers. A driver's license? A gun permit? A passport? Do you have something to hide? It doesn't matter whether you are comfortable with it. In order to participate in our society you must conform to the established conduct. You cannot do as you please when you interact with others.

Yes sir, those are identity papers. Hide? It's called privacy. I enjoy it but I also give it up when I legally have to and fight like hell to keep it when I don't. As far as conforming, only as far as the law mandates. Other than that, I can be as non-conformist as I like and do as I please.

Quote:

This incident is extraordinarily negative to gun owners. It is good that this situation is confined to gun forums where many can pat themselves on the back as they stand up for their 'rights.' The alternative is to show a bunch of fanatics, not complying with LEO, and threatening legal action because they were inconvenienced. I prefer to show gun owners in a positive light as most of us do in our every day lives, informing others and providing arguments for our cause.

I see it more as a negative incident that can have some postitive outcomes. Btw, you should stay more current. It's not just on gun forums anymore. Being a fanatic about something isn't always a bad thing. This country was founded by freedom loving fanatics. The document you have as an avatar was written by fanatics. Thank God for fanatics for where would we be without them?

Quote:

The actions of everyone involved caused the problem, not just the LEO.

Again, I disagree. It could have been avoided at the outset if the responding officers had acted professionally and respectfully.

SelfDefense · May 13th, 2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalCompact

To be honest, it sounds like a bit of chest beating by the Police to me.

Absolutely. And it was chest beating by the patrons. Which side was right? Both. Neither.

Quote:

For the police to harrass them while eating in an attempt to discourage them from exercising their legal rights is deplorable. Should the harrassed citizens kneel down to the Police?

Harrassed is another emotional word. I don't know the facts. I wasn't there. If the police asked them to step outside to resolve the issue so as not to disturb other customers that is hardly harrassment.

Typically, police are respectful. I would be surprised if this situation did not begin that way.

kpw · May 13th, 2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

Absolutely. And it was chest beating by the patrons. Which side was right? Both. Neither.

Harrassed is another emotional word. I don't know the facts. I wasn't there. If the police asked them to step outside to resolve the issue so as not to disturb other customers that is hardly harrassment.

Typically, police are respectful. I would be surprised if this situation did not begin that way.

I wasn't there either. From what I understand, most of the officers were respectfull and did understand that OC was legal. The issue seems to be mainly with 2 officers and the local DA that was also mis-informed.

TacticalCompact · May 14th, 2008, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

Absolutely. And it was chest beating by the patrons. Which side was right? Both. Neither.

It is exactly this catch-22 that has our world in constant turmoil. I know I've argued this, but my personal belief is that to avoid heated confrontation is generally the best way to deal with the situation.

Like you, I wasn't there. You make a good point, and one I strongly agree with: The guy could have provided ID, keeping him on the good side of a hot-headed cop. After all was said and done, he could have filed a complaint with the seargent or whatever. Could just be that both the individual in question and the responding officer had blood sugar issues at the moment and weren't in as much control of their temper as they could have been.

Like you say, both sides were right AND wrong. Too much chest-beating.

DPro.40 · May 14th, 2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalCompact

I will not argue this further, as I agree with you on many points, and much of the argument is semantics. I don't, however, believe that LEO is always "of the people." I do not wish to engage in cop bashing, as I am aware that it is a dangerous, thankless job that many excellent people take on. However, not all are of this type and I don't think anyone can argue that.

I did not elect a government that allows illegal search and seizure. It is possible that had everyone happily provided ID, this would have ended peacefully. Then again, that is only a guess and we don't really know. To be honest, it sounds like a bit of chest beating by the Police to me. If a group of law-abiding citizens wants to make it known that open-carry is legal, that is their right.

For the police to harass them while eating in an attempt to discourage them from exercising their legal rights is deplorable. Should the harassed citizens kneel down to the Police? Or should they take a stand and make an issue of it? That is purely their choice. I commend them, personally.

We can agree that you would not do the same, which is also your right.

Very well put. In one post it was mentioned by SelfDefence that open carry was optional in this case. What difference does that make. It was legal according to the written law. At best, the police could have verified the report to see it was a peaceable gathering and walked away. Where does the bank robbery come in SelfDefence ? Where is your source of information or is your argument made out of conjecture. Again, as I posted before, I would not open carry but, I also do not see justification from the LEO's to violate the civil rights of these citizens with in their legal rights to open carry. This is not an open carry vs CCW carry issue SelfDefence. It is a civil rights issue that involves open carry with in the written laws of PA. What don't you get. Not meaning to attack in any way but I have a question for you SelfDefence. Do you find illegal search, seizure and arrest acceptable if it has no direct effect on you ? I commend these men for having the courage to exercise their legal rights.

steveHK · May 14th, 2008, 08:33 AM

Does it matter if the OCer's were disrespectful or not, which I am sure they were respectful to a point. Since, I read all of their posts on the other board and PA is a very level headed guy...

Where does it say I have to be respectful to a cop to protect my rights! Where does it say I have to be respectful in order to keep my personal property from being taken away from me!

Arisin Wind · May 14th, 2008, 08:47 AM

"Police showed up because they were informed there was a potential problem. From what I read, the problems began when the patrons refused to identify themselves."

I disagree. The problem started when the police failed to recognize there was no problem with people legally carrying and pursued a course of action that was not warranted.

dgg9 · May 14th, 2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

Here is where the problem begins. Even from the one sided report we find that at least one of the gentlemen refused to comply with an innocuous request for identification.

Except there was no legal basis for this demand to produce ID. You seem to think the police can demand ID at any time, and this is "reasonable."

Quote:

What we do know is that refusing a simple request gives LEO reasonable suspicion.

100% false. Not acceding to a request with no legal basis can NEVER give RAS of anything.

The bottom line is that the police were ignorant of state carry law, and used that ignorance to bootstrap the rest of it.

Quote:

I simply can't imagine not providing my identification if requested by a law enforcement officer.

That's a subservient police state mentality which is fortunately not shared by everyone.

Quote:

The bottom line is that this type of behavior is detrimental to out rights as gun owners.

No actually, reflexive subservience to illegal and pushy police requests is what's detrimental to our rights as Americans.

dgg9 · May 14th, 2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

Frankly, I think it was not the guns but the failure to present identification that was the catalyst for the escalation.

No, it was the LEO's ignorance of carry law that was the catalyst.

The bottom line is that you think that if any part of the public are uncomfortable with OC, it is the gun owner's duty to not OC....and that exercising this right is somehow "provoking" LE. Sometimes, to secure a right, you have to eventually refuse to sit in the back of the bus. Many people were saying the same thing you are about MLK.

dang.45 · May 14th, 2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

I refuse to be included in that 'we' statement. I have never voted for an extra benefit for myself. I have never voted for a raise for myself. I have never voted for an additional gov't program. I have never voted for a restriction of my rights.

I had always wondered what would happen when the people who actually work for a living and take responsibility for their own actions are no longer part of the collective 'we'.

I guess I am finding out.

Maybe Kerbouchard is John Galt...?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 14th, 2008, 08:33 AM	#76
steveHK Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Chester County, PA Posts: 59	Does it matter if the OCer's were disrespectful or not, which I am sure they were respectful to a point. Since, I read all of their posts on the other board and PA is a very level headed guy... Where does it say I have to be respectful to a cop to protect my rights! Where does it say I have to be respectful in order to keep my personal property from being taken away from me!

May 14th, 2008, 08:47 AM	#77
Arisin Wind Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 208	"Police showed up because they were informed there was a potential problem. From what I read, the problems began when the patrons refused to identify themselves." I disagree. The problem started when the police failed to recognize there was no problem with people legally carrying and pursued a course of action that was not warranted.