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

[Uber_Olafsun]

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."

Quote from that site

The investigators discovered that she was recording them and she was arrested and charged with two counts of eavesdropping, Mr. Johnson said. But he added that the law contains a crucial exception. If citizens have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is about to be committed against them, they may obtain evidence by recording it.


Who is cherry picking?

 

[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.

Actually, you have NOT supplied verifiable links to citations of any PA court cases that uphold your interpretation of the PA Wiretapping law--only a lot of baseless assertions and subtle ad hominem attacks...

In fact, anyone with even a moderate amount of Goggle-Fu can find that your assertions about PA courts (and other "2-party consent" states) with regards to the legality of citizens taping police interactions are patently false. The courts generally are ruling in favor of the citizen, and have in fact upheld their right to legally record public interactions with LEOs.

There are a few rare exceptions--most of them just happen to be in the most corrupt cities in the nation--Chicago, Baltimore, and Boston...

In fact, Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed very astutely stated the position of the Courts in PA on this matter:

"When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges," Freed said yesterday. "I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again."

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/197281-wiretap_charge_dropped_in_poli.html


And we have the recent Glik case in Boston MA, where his arrest was tossed by the MA courts and is now being pursued as a Federal 1983 suit:
http://www.aclum.org/news_2.1.10

In Connecticut, the Legislature is jumping on the recording bandwagon, and has a bill in session that would give citizens the right to sue police who try to stop them recording police interactions:
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/bill-allows-lawsuits-over-videotaping-arrest

The Atlanta GA police department has adopted the OFFICIAL policy that it will not tolerate LEOs who attempt to hinder citizens taping LEO encounters:
http://m.ajc.com/news/atlanta/apd-wont-hinder-citizens-834521.html

And we cant forget the Anthony Graber case in MD--where the retaliatory charges of "wiretapping" against Graber were sumarily tossed by the Circuit Court Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr.:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones


You lie.

Please stop.

Apo Pantos Kakodaimonos!

 

[jag06]

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.

Except for the fact that Law Enforcement do not have an expectation to privacy in performance of their duties and therefore the wiretapping laws do not apply. That came from a judge in Maryland.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html

And why are you bringing up wiretapping issues when that is not what the cop stopped him for and that is not what he is being charged with? Nice try with the red herring though.

Could you please point out what the OC'er did that was immature, going off half cocked, escalating tension, and not staying cool that you keep saying he did? Was it the asking why the officer yelled junior at him, or asking why he was pointing a gun at him, or asking why he was being asked to lay on the ground? Was it offering to show him his carry permit and his id or giving him the law code that provides for what he was doing was legal?

Funny that the only person I hear yelling and not staying cool and cussing is the cop? The OC'er never yelled, at least from memory as I have not listened to it in several weeks, offer to show his permit, asked why he had a gun pointed at me, and remained calm from what I have heard. Also saying that because its just a audio recording means that he altered it to make the cop look guilty is crazy. If thats true then why has the Philly pd not made those allocations and released their video and audio to prove it? Your allowed to have your opinion on whether you think we should just show our papers when asked and not question why we are being stopped, but that does not give you the ability to make up and twist facts around to discredit the oc'er and make him look like a criminal when he has broken no law.

Give us your opinion and your views, don't twist around and make up facts.

 

[Rattrapper]

j4l, You can not and will not answer the base question. There fore you are a person who is not capable of a educated discussion. I expected as much from you. With that I consider you to be a TROLL.

 

[c45man]

I am from a suburb of Philadelphia and familiar with their court system.. The charges against this open carrier will go away. There will be, more than likely, a meeting with the one of the assistant district attorneys with the defense attorney and there will be "an understanding" and thus the charges will be dropped. The city wants this story to go away, especially considering the fact that the incident led to disciplinary action against the arresting officer, as such, the drama of a trial is about as welcome as opencarriers themselves. One could sue the city, but getting a settlement outside of go away money will be a timely process, considering the number of civil suits that are presently waiting for litigation.
I believe there will be a city wide directive to law enforcement officers in future dealings with opencarriers, such policy will not include having the "suspect" lie on the ground. Sticky situation for all involved. The open carry practioners are following the letter of the law which has been on the books for years, but it is only recently that people have been practicing what has been allowable and the police are slow to respond accordingly.

I am certain that those who opencarry will be very aware of their surrounding for the cops may not the only ones to be wary of. Thugs, hoodlums, and stick-up men will look upon you as a walking gun store and use any sneaky tactic possible to relieve you of your weapon.

 

[Dreamer]

Thugs, hoodlums, and stick-up men will look upon you as a walking gun store and use any sneaky tactic possible to relieve you of your weapon.

According to the US DOJ, the FBI, and the Federal Department of Corrections--all of which have published studies on the attitudes of violent felons toward armed LAC's, this statement has no basis in fact, and is actually 180 degrees from the way criminals REALLY think and operate.

Please cite a SINGLE incident in Philadelphia (or in ANY major city in the US) where an OCer was "relieved of his weapon" by a criminal.

(and the incidents where the criminals were wearing badges don't count...)

This "Bad Guys will steal your gun" argument against OC is a scare tactic used by the anti's, and has no basis in fact, practice, or the fundamental psychology of most violent criminals. Please stop repeating this myth, unless you can provide a verifiable event where such a thing occurred.

This isn't to say that OCers need to have finely-tuned Situational Awareness--we do. But this is a classic fallacious argument made by the "antis", and we should refrain from perpetuating it.

 

[MKEgal]

the cops may not the only ones to be wary of. Thugs, hoodlums, and stick-up men will look upon you as a walking gun store and use any sneaky tactic possible to relieve you of your weapon.

Your claim is one the anti's & 2a-supporters-in-name-only have flogged to death, and it's not true.

I know of exactly ONE instance where this happened - an OCer was robbed (at gunpoint) of his pistol.
I've read of one instance where a big box greeter tried to sneak up behind an OCer & steal his pistol, & ended up needing surgery.
I've read of one instance where a feral teen behind a man in line at a store tried to steal his pistol. Failed.

Given the tens of thousands of people across the country who OC daily (not including LEOs), if criminals taking an OCers pistol was a problem, we'd hear lots more about it.

 

[JohnH]

As to the 2 minutes of silence at the beginning of the tape and j4l's assertion that Mike is hiding something there by deleting it;

LAC's are not the only people with recorders, cops record everything they do too. For the same reasons that LAC's do, people lie. Knowing that the cops have recordings of what happened, is it not logical that if the man provoked the encounter and did something to raise the level of the encounter to an entrapment of some kind the cops would produce this evidence? It would be a simple matter to do and could be used to somewhat justify the actions of the officers. But such has not been produced because they don't have it.

I say this knowing from reading this thread that arguing with j4l is like wrestling pigs, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

 

[c45man]

According to the US DOJ, the FBI, and the Federal Department of Corrections--all of which have published studies on the attitudes of violent felons toward armed LAC's, this statement has no basis in fact, and is actually 180 degrees from the way criminals REALLY think and operate.

Please cite a SINGLE incident in Philadelphia (or in ANY major city in the US) where an OCer was "relieved of his weapon" by a criminal.

(and the incidents where the criminals were wearing badges don't count...)

This "Bad Guys will steal your gun" argument against OC is a scare tactic used by the anti's, and has no basis in fact, practice, or the fundamental psychology of most violent criminals. Please stop repeating this myth, unless you can provide a verifiable event where such a thing occurred.

This isn't to say that OCers need to have finely-tuned Situational Awareness--we do. But this is a classic fallacious argument made by the "antis", and we should refrain from perpetuating it.

I am not perpetuating anything, just stating the possibility of a bad situation. One could quote stats. until blue in the face and the possibilities still exist irrespective of what you perceive as fundamental psychology of criminals. The reason why that ocers have not been victimized is their attention to their surroundings which I acknowleged.
No scare tactics, no agenda, no "fallacious" arguments against oc..... just a statement which has no hidden intentions of spreading myths, which the antis cling to at any rate.

 

[Aknazer]

I am not perpetuating anything, just stating the possibility of a bad situation. One could quote stats. until blue in the face and the possibilities still exist irrespective of what you perceive as fundamental psychology of criminals. The reason why that ocers have not been victimized is their attention to their surroundings which I acknowleged.
No scare tactics, no agenda, no "fallacious" arguments against oc..... just a statement which has no hidden intentions of spreading myths, which the antis cling to at any rate.

It "could" happen, sure. But a lot of things "can" happen. For example people randomly develop allergies to things like peanuts and then die because they ate a peanut w/o knowing they had become allergic to it. But just as how the peanut thing is statistically improbable and people generally don't base what they eat off of that improbability, the same goes for the comment about an OCer being potentially mugged for their weapon. Sure it "can" happen, but statistically speaking it is HIGHLY unlikely.

So when people bring it up as a detractor to OCing it typically sounds like either fear mongering, ignorance of the truth, or unreasonable concern.

 

[ixtow]

Did he think I wouldn't find him here?

Mwuahahahahahaha!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Did he think I wouldn't find him here?

Mwuahahahahahaha!

I was going to say Ixtow...this is what you gotta deal with in Florida?

 

[eye95]

I am from a suburb of Philadelphia and familiar with their court system.. The charges against this open carrier will go away. There will be, more than likely, a meeting with the one of the assistant district attorneys with the defense attorney and there will be "an understanding" and thus the charges will be dropped. The city wants this story to go away, especially considering the fact that the incident led to disciplinary action against the arresting officer, as such, the drama of a trial is about as welcome as opencarriers themselves. One could sue the city, but getting a settlement outside of go away money will be a timely process, considering the number of civil suits that are presently waiting for litigation.
I believe there will be a city wide directive to law enforcement officers in future dealings with opencarriers, such policy will not include having the "suspect" lie on the ground. Sticky situation for all involved. The open carry practioners are following the letter of the law which has been on the books for years, but it is only recently that people have been practicing what has been allowable and the police are slow to respond accordingly.

I am certain that those who opencarry will be very aware of their surrounding for the cops may not the only ones to be wary of. Thugs, hoodlums, and stick-up men will look upon you as a walking gun store and use any sneaky tactic possible to relieve you of your weapon.

"Go away money" in this case should be in the hundreds of thousands. I think it would have been tens of thousands had the city not tried a prosecution CYA project. Anyway, this now has national attention. It ain't "going away" very easily. If it goes to trial, the city will be risking millions. That would be worth waiting for, but I suspect the city will offer to settle for hundreds of thousands. There are probably lawyers lining up to take the civil suit on contingency.

Oh, and the gun-grabs of which you warn just don't happen. Have you read much of this site? The lack of gun-grabs is pointed out regularly to newbies with far fewer posts than you have.

 

[c45man]

OK....Eye 95 and aknazrt, you win....Pardon me. I just should of posted that being from Philadelphia it is a fact that one could just carry a gun totally oblivious to the surrondings. Quite simply, Philadelphia is populated by such polite people that the statistics and the reality clearly indicate that there is no chance of getting your gun snatched. After all, it never happens. I have had enough posts on open carry to realize the obvious. This subject I will now forever drop.

As far as the impending court case, time will only tell, but in my opinion, this case will not continue to have legs. National stories come and go and this is no exception.

 

[Deanimator]

"Go away money" in this case should be in the hundreds of thousands. I think it would have been tens of thousands had the city not tried a prosecution CYA project. Anyway, this now has national attention. It ain't "going away" very easily. If it goes to trial, the city will be risking millions. That would be worth waiting for, but I suspect the city will offer to settle for hundreds of thousands. There are probably lawyers lining up to take the civil suit on contingency.

Oh, and the gun-grabs of which you warn just don't happen. Have you read much of this site? The lack of gun-grabs is pointed out regularly to newbies with far fewer posts than you have.

As I recall, the victim already had a lawyer and was planning to file suit. The facts that:

1. Viper was not charged until AFTER the audio was posted and there was talk of a suit.
2. Nobody was similarly stopped or charged after a mass open carry walk

conclusively demonstrate that this was illegal retaliation via malicious prosecution.

The Philly PD won't quit digging themselves a hole until they hit magma.

 

[kadar]

Chief Supervising Special Assistant District Attorney for the Gun Violence Task Force, Bryan Lentz won't quit digging himself a hole until he hits magma.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Deanimator]

Fixed it for ya.

I wonder, if he gets bent over the desk in a federal civil rights suit, will that call into question the propriety of ALL of his other prosecutions?

 

[mrjam2jab]

Because as far as I'm aware they are able to lawfully stop someone there to make sure they have papers. As in, there is a law that specifically says they can. Now I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it was unlawful unless you want to make the claim that the law which allows them to do so is unconstitutional.

In regards to checking drivers licenses, as there is no law to allow the government to do so, it is unlawful. As laws define what the government can do, and what the citizens can't.

There is a law that states a person must have a carry license to carry in Philly OC or CC. There is a law that states a person must have a drivers license to operate an automobile. There is no law in either case that says an LEO can stop a person to just confirm the presents of a license.

 

[Aknazer]

There is a law that states a person must have a carry license to carry in Philly OC or CC. There is a law that states a person must have a drivers license to operate an automobile. There is no law in either case that says an LEO can stop a person to just confirm the presents of a license.

Ahh. With the way ive seen some people talk about this it sounded like the cops could lawfully stop someone for ocing in philly.

 

[Mjodr]

I say this knowing from reading this thread that arguing with j4l is like wrestling pigs, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Florida is full of wild hogs, I have two that live in my yard.

The carrier did nothing he shouldn't have. The cop came in with an attitude, pointed his weapon illegally at the kid, and refused to accept the kid's licenses.

What more could the kid do? He didn't talk back to the officer. By offering his licenses he did far more than he legally needed to, in order to calm the idiot LEO down.

Would have I done anything different? Sure.. the minute he screamed junior; lawsuit would have been one of the first words out of my mouth, along with badge, superior officer and lawyer.