This guy seems like he knows what's up. He was calm, rational, he explained his rights and his awareness of the law. By all accounts he was behaving in a peaceful manner.
It's interesting to me that as soon as the officer in the recording realized he was wrong and going to get in trouble, he changed his story to "he wasn't cooperating", rather than he was carrying a weapon.
All of the recording in mind, Philly is a dangerous city to be a cop. They were well in their rights to stop him and question him as to why he was carrying a gun.
THAT in mind the cops had no right to:
-threaten him with deadly force
-threaten him with non-deadly force
-force him on the ground
-force hand cuffs on him
-Remove, and from the sound of it, attempt to destroy his recording device.
That last one offends me the most, no matter what he was doing removing his possessions as well as his independent means of verifying his side of the story was
WRONG to the point of being downright evil.
At my count the Philadelphia police violated three of his basic rights as an American citizen
1:
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.
2:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
bob1052 said:
I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it at least be concealed?
NO! All too often carrying a concealed weapon gets you in deeper trouble. He had the permit, he knew the law allowed him to carry his weapon openly, he was following the law.
Gxas said:
He had a carry license? Or a concealed carry license? Makes a huge difference. I don't know PA laws or anything, but if he's not allowed to carry it in view, then he's not allowed to carry it in view.
PA gun laws are notoriously complicated, but if he has a legal permit then the police are in the wrong.
fenrizz said:
Yeah...
I am not surprised by this, and I reckon the cops in question will get off scott free.
As they always seem to do over there.
The police in the US seem like they are above the law, and can nearly do as they damn well please with little to no punishment.
It's disgusting to see in a modern, secular state.
WHAT?! Have you lived in a city before? it's a dangerous place, the cops have every right to be paranoid.
Sober Thal said:
omega 616 said:
He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.
It's still assault. IF he had his hands clearly visible and was answering in a calm, collected manner, then the cops had no rights in "detaining" him.