another phily story on OC they are going to check you papers

[Rattrapper]

j4l, Nothing that was done in this incident by The Law Abiding Citizen seems to meet with your approval.

Why is that?

If things were according to YOUR STANDARDS, we would never achieve any positive results, In regards to our rights.

When things are done to appease the oppressor(The Thug Cop) there results in more of the same and empowering the oppressor.

The ONLY way government agencies get the message, Is when the persons and the governing body is required to pay huge sums of money in penalties.

For you to suggest otherwise clearly calls to question, Where you really stand on the issue of The Right to Keep and Bear Arms..... The way you preach we would still be saying "God save the Queen.

 

[j4l]

And once again- totally mis-reading,or selectively reading into it.
Not saying surrender-simply saying keep yer silly heads cool in these situations, and try to reduce the tension. There are ways to maturely deal with the officers in such encounters. Try em,before going off all half-cocked.
There are also ways to deal with it after the fact-the idiot cop on the street isnt going to change due to anything YOU OR I do on the street at that time.
His superiors will wring that out, if approached properly. Going off on him at the tme, and performing for that little recorder is just going to backfire for most.

Yes, lawsuits would help-if followed through with, and not settled out of court -like most seem to be. But...rarely happens, does it? Thus rendering the whole mess pointless.

And do you realy want to know my true stance on the 2a issue? Try this one on, since most of you misread maturity and level-heads for softness: I think it should be mandatory-that all males over the age of 18 in the US should carry or be in close access to a firearm AT ALL TIMES. That every household should be required to have a long-arm or sidearm at the very least-within the means of the occupant.

Yes, that would mean legislating that folks do so, or be able to do so-and yes many would object to being told to do so. And yes,it is a far-fetched concept that wont happen. But there it is.

 

[Rattrapper]

You talk out both sides of your mouth!!!!!!

or is that why you are walking backwards on your hands?

 

[j4l]

Have always been 100% straight-shooting on you. What you folks cherry-pick or choose to ignore is all on you. Like I said, you get a little too hung up on yourselves, and neglect to actually read what's being said, rather than how it's being said.

 

[Rattrapper]

I have dealt with people who will second guess some who makes a lawful stand, Instead of supporting them, All the years that was a cop. I did not tolerate it then and I will not tolerate it, now that I am retired. You can stand behind him and support him or ****. It is one way or the other.

Guys like you will throw some else under the bus for your own gain, I have seen it over and over.

The Days of Political Correctness are OVER!!!!!

To All The Politically Correct A**HOLES, Stand By, To Be Offended!!!

 

[j4l]

Again with the assumptions. Im sure as an officer,you took suspect's "word" either in denial of a wrongdoing, or in claim of doing right,without all the facts?
Didnt think so either.
The "standard" is we dont know all the facts on this one way or the other. Objectively speaking,all we have is the word and claims of one guy who's story is posted online.
And personally-in that particular story- I think both sides were acting like complete idiots. That's just my take on it-lacking any further detail or evidence to support either way.
Emotions here run waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high sometimes. And being what this forum is, yes there's going to be a natural bias -an emotional response to the shock value of the clip-in which most are going to jump right on the bandwagon on the side of the "victim" here.Without stopping for one second to consider whether or not both sides had some blame.

But when you throw this in on top of post after post after post of such incidents-including more than a few where folks have deliberately gone out looking to provoke responses (and of course crying about the responses they got, afterwards)It becomes a little difficult to sort out the legitimate claims of abuses from the provoked/lights,camera,action types. So yes, Im going to be skeptical in the extreme,
especially when these episodes are back-firing, and being used by lobbyists in my State as ammo AGAINST us-not FOR us.

 

[Rattrapper]

You don't get it!! DO YOU!!! Doing something that is LAWFULL TO DO, IS NOT GOING OUT TO PROVOKE ANYONE.

So what you want is good little sheep and say may I please.

Sorry, ain't going to happen.

Oh! and Junior, As a cop, I never asked a question that I already didn't know the answer to.

So once again you are full of fresh grass fertilizer.

 

[j4l]

Already knew an answer to eh? How,exactly did you arrive at such answers,without having access to all the information?

My sympathies-belated- to any "victims" you may have served.


And again, the assumption of anything lawful taking place, without that information in full. Im sure the BG's appreciated that fully.

 

[Rattrapper]

Already knew an answer to eh? How,exactly did you arrive at such answers,without having access to all the information?

My sympathies-belated- to any "victims" you may have served.


And again, the assumption of anything lawful taking place, without that information in full. Im sure the BG's appreciated that fully.

Once again JUNIOR!! You run you keyboard with out any knowledge of they way the world works.

Let's go back to the topic at hand. Which for people like you who have no substance, except to second guess a persons lawfull action, that becomes some what of a task.

Now I will ask you,This next question, a yes or no answer is all that you get to respond with.
Was the person that open carried in Phila. that is subject of this discussion Breaking any law? Yes or No

We will go from there.

 

[j4l]

Yes, absolutely. Shall we cite?

Penn. Statute 5703
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=pac-1000

By all means show me any point of the recording-regardless of anything else he may or may not have done or been doing at any time- where he asked for, and received the consent of- anyone else to be recording them?

No? I didnt hear it either. IF not-

"Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. "


End of story.

Like I said WHERE legal, and NOT where it is NOT legal.

 

[j4l]

And to clarify,lest everyone get all weepy on me: It doesnt mean I agree with the law, it means what I disagree with is breaking one law to protest or gain some favor of another law.
How can we present a front of "law-abiding" gun-owners without being hypocrites when we do so?
Is it insane to suggest making our points and performing our protests in a legal way, so that when we do present our cases-whatever they may be- we do so clear of any such criticisms to be used against us?
In this case,no carrying the gun was not the crime, the covert recording of the other party was the crime.Whether they sought to charge him with it or not.

 

[Aknazer]

Yes, absolutely. Shall we cite?

Penn. Statute 5703
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=pac-1000

By all means show me any point of the recording-regardless of anything else he may or may not have done or been doing at any time- where he asked for, and received the consent of- anyone else to be recording them?

No? I didnt hear it either. IF not-

"Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. "


End of story.

Like I said WHERE legal, and NOT where it is NOT legal.

The law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter A, and then the specific provision). Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place without consent. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you is private.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-recording-law

As the cops were in a public place they had no expectation to privacy and thus it would be legal to record. Next time you go spouting things off be sure to have your facts straight.

 

[j4l]

Possibly. But that gets decided by a court, not the individual.
And, that defense is being attempted as we speak in an un-related but same case here in Florida, another 2-party CONSENT state.
It is thus,far looking to be doomed to failure.

 

[Aknazer]

Possibly. But that gets decided by a court, not the individual.
And, that defense is being attempted as we speak in an un-related but same case here in Florida, another 2-party CONSENT state.
It is thus,far looking to be doomed to failure.

If your talking about the one I think you are, she recorded the person in his private office which is different than recording on the side of the road. Also note how the DA didn't tack on the recording charge in the PA case. Given all the other after-the-fact charges you better believe he would have charged him with it if he could.

 

[j4l]

If your talking about the one I think you are, she recorded the person in his private office which is different than recording on the side of the road. Also note how the DA didn't tack on the recording charge in the PA case. Given all the other after-the-fact charges you better believe he would have charged him with it if he could.

Possibly. But Im not so sure. Many states where this has happened havent bothered, or just havent seemed to realize that they can. They are too focused on the hype surrounding the recordings.
But, that;s my other concern with this. As more and more of these pop up, the more closely States with consent laws are going to start looking hard at doing so.

Perfect example is Illinois. There were so many such cases, that LE and DA's pressured their legislature to change the law to make it illegal to record police/public officials AT ALL. And stipulated some hefty penalties for doing so.

http://www.heartland.org/full/29892/In_Illinois_Its_a_Felony_to_Film_Police.html

And this was challenged and upheld.

Now, as a result of THAT, some of the other consent states are looking into doing so also.
Now, if we continue advising people to do this, and these laws start happening where they are, like this case, and someone on here heeds such advise-and pays a hefty penalty for doing so.....? Then who's the jerk on this topic?

It backfires on us in more ways than one. Blindly doing so just because one feels justified in doing so,only harms our cause, harms us, and makes it harder for those of us in states who are trying to even get OC at all, that much more difficult.
And THERE's my issue with it all.

 

[j4l]

http://endtheilluminaticonspiracy.w...llinois-citizen-charged-for-recording-police/


"Another Chicago, Illinois Citizen Charged For Recording Police
The New York Times reports on the Illinois eavesdropping law, which allows for a felony charge and up to 15 years of prison for people who record police officers on the job. In addition to artist Christopher Drew—whom I’ve written about before and who goes to trial in April—the article finds another person currently being charged under the law. Tiawanda Moore, 20, goes to trial next month. She too could face 15 years in prison, in her case for using her Blackberry to record her conversation with internal affairs officers at Chicago PD about an alleged sexual assault by a police officer. Moore recorded her interview after feeling her initial attempt to report the incident wasn’t taken seriously."

 

[Aknazer]

Possibly. But Im not so sure. Many states where this has happened havent bothered, or just havent seemed to realize that they can. They are too focused on the hype surrounding the recordings.
But, that;s my other concern with this. As more and more of these pop up, the more closely States with consent laws are going to start looking hard at doing so.

Perfect example is Illinois. There were so many such cases, that LE and DA's pressured their legislature to change the law to make it illegal to record police/public officials AT ALL. And stipulated some hefty penalties for doing so.

http://www.heartland.org/full/29892/In_Illinois_Its_a_Felony_to_Film_Police.html

And this was challenged and upheld.

Now, as a result of THAT, some of the other consent states are looking into doing so also.
Now, if we continue advising people to do this, and these laws start happening where they are, like this case, and someone on here heeds such advise-and pays a hefty penalty for doing so.....? Then who's the jerk on this topic?

It backfires on us in more ways than one. Blindly doing so just because one feels justified in doing so,only harms our cause, harms us, and makes it harder for those of us in states who are trying to even get OC at all, that much more difficult.
And THERE's my issue with it all.

By this same argument people shouldn't OC because it can lead to things like how California is trying to ban OC due to the attention of people doing it. And if people are too scared to exercise their legal rights, then they have already lost the right regardless of what the law says. Instead people should apply pressure to their reps when they try to pull the bs like trying to ban the recording of public officials.

And doing things like this is often what it takes to help protect ones rights and prevent future issues.

 

[Dreamer]

In this case,no carrying the gun was not the crime, the covert recording of the other party was the crime.Whether they sought to charge him with it or not.

Again with the disinformation...

Under PA CS 18 §5702, it is clearly laid out that oral communications are exempt from "all part consent" if the conversation has no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Various State and Federal courts have upheld this interpretation. Interactions with LEOs in public--on public streets, highways and sidewalks--have no "reasonable expectation of privacy", and are NOT "privileged communication".

We are growing weary of your disinformation.

Please take your little dog and pony show somewhere where people will believe it, and aren't resourceful or knowledgeable enough to so easily disprove your lies.

Your kind is not welcome here...

 

[j4l]

By this same argument people shouldn't OC because it can lead to things like how California is trying to ban OC due to the attention of people doing it. And if people are too scared to exercise their legal rights, then they have already lost the right regardless of what the law says. Instead people should apply pressure to their reps when they try to pull the bs like trying to ban the recording of public officials.

And doing things like this is often what it takes to help protect ones rights and prevent future issues.

Actuallly its not the same thing or the same argument at all. The difference being, where it's not legal to do so, you arent doing something that's legal. (the recordings,that is) This mess is having a backlash that is effecting, and in some cases out-right damaging the chances of other states to even get OC.
Nice attitude that would be- we got ours, screw the rest?

And again,with the flawed concept of "protecting" anything by doing this. The effect has been the opposite- hence, Illinois and 11 other States facing the chances of becoming like Illinois.That's a step backwards,no?


And ,touching on that representative thing again. Why should we contintue to beg and grovel before the same law-makers with whom many of us are failing? How about instead of relying on the short-term angle of begging law-makers to see things our way, we make an effort towards replacing them with our own folks for the long-term?

Somehow that ends up being a crazier idea in here than "hey let's go break laws to "protect" our other laws"....
Think about it a sec- you want to "draw public attention to the cause?" How much less attention do you think news coverage of 2012 election races in which incumbents face pro-2a/OC opponents would get?
Even if only half the candidates-nation wide or state wide- in a given race manage to get elected, you still have the public awareness of our issues raised by the fact that disgruntled gun-owning citizens are rising up and taking to the ballots-as candidates,rather than just as voters?

 

[j4l]

Again with the disinformation...

Under PA CS 18 §5702, it is clearly laid out that oral communications are exempt from "all part consent" if the conversation has no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Various State and Federal courts have upheld this interpretation. Interactions with LEOs in public--on public streets, highways and sidewalks--have no "reasonable expectation of privacy", and are NOT "privileged communication".

We are growing weary of your disinformation.

Please take your little dog and pony show somewhere where people will believe it, and aren't resourceful or knowledgeable enough to so easily disprove your lies.

Your kind is not welcome here...

Wait,,,let me get my tin-foil out.Ok,
Not even going to waste time on cherry-picked,selective reading of posts replied to,I already pointed out the cases in states with 2-party requirements where that "privacy" nonsense is being laughed out of the courtroom.
Not liking a fact, does not make that fact "mis-information".