SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint

[ktlight]

For your information:


Listen as a citizen exercising his 2nd amendment right to legally bear arms was violently assaulted by Philadelphia Police with no cause.

In Pennsylvania carrying a gun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime and not justification for a stop and search or a detainment.

Open Carry is legal in Philadelphia with a valid license to carry firearms; openly carrying on foot is legal without a license everywhere else in Pennsylvania.

"On a Sunday afternoon, a Pennsylvania resident was walking up Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia, bound for an auto parts store, and happened to be legally openly carrying a Glock pistol on his hip, under PA state law.

A passing Philadelphia Police officer saw his walking up the road, pulled over his squad car in the middle of the busy street, and drew his weapon on the man, threatening to kill him multiple times if he moved.

The man was arrested, stripped of his possessions, and thrown in the paddywagon, while several Philadelphia Police officers made multiple phones calls to try and find out what law they think he broke.

In the end, they discovered that he was in violation of no laws, and was sent on his way, after having been illegally arrested for 45 minutes and his 4th Amendment rights blatantly violated."

FILE COMPLAINT HERE:
http://www.phillypolice.com/forms/official-complaint-form/

PART 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igt-vp7VF0E

PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFDBkHJZgi8

PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIu1_ieuzS0

[Tony]

Power corrupts!

Our main problem are the sweet talkers!!!!

pie'n'eal

[ghostrider]

police think they are the only ones who can carry firearms, what about our constitution? can we not speak our mind? can we not bear arms? if everyone carried firearms on their person all the time there would be less crime, the bad guys would always be out gunned. the people of that city should all carry pistols just to prove a point to the ptb. sadly this story will get put under the rug and people will forget it even took place. this socialism agenda is really started to get on my nerves. thanks for the post

[Dorok]

police think they are the only ones who can carry firearms, what about our constitution? can we not speak our mind? can we not bear arms? if everyone carried firearms on their person all the time there would be less crime, the bad guys would always be out gunned. the people of that city should all carry pistols just to prove a point to the ptb. sadly this story will get put under the rug and people will forget it even took place. this socialism agenda is really started to get on my nerves. thanks for the post

My apologies in advance ghostrider, but I'm going to have to pick apart what you just wrote. I hope to do in the spirit of presenting an alternative point of view. please do not consider this a personal attack. I know many people who have said those exact ideas, and I have said these right back to them.

can we not speak our mind? can we not bear arms? -> YES! Within proscribed limits as determined by lawfully elected local, state, and federal legislatures and balanced by challenges to the judiciary.

if everyone carried firearms on their person all the time there would be less crime, the bad guys would always be out gunned. -> Outgunned does not mean less crime. You may try to show examples of communities who have tried this, but I will still argue that correlation is not causation. Also, there will be more accidents involving innocent people. Substitute driver for gun carrier, how do you feel about other drivers on the road when they are careless? Still wish they were armed?

this socialism agenda is really started to get on my nerves. -> I appreciate the sentiment, but I beg you to consider speaking more accurately. Socialism primarily describes a method of economic structure where the ownership of the means of production is shared by the workers. This term has been popularly demonized to describe laws that have an aim of protecting individuals in various contexts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

In summary, the argument of a fully armed society reducing crime is a canard since it will never happen (you can't make me carry a gun!). Let's stick to the Bill of Rights as they were written, they are (IMO) sufficient. And the cops in the above article were in violation, that's enough right?

'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." - The Supreme Court has expanded this sufficiently to break the tie connected armed citizenry from a militia or defense of the (at the time new) country to include all other traditionally lawful practices. This includes walking down the street as the victim in the article was doing. This includes showing up armed to a speech from the POTUS, as was popularized in the media a few years ago.

The laws and the means to protect and enforce them are there, let's not throw out what's good because some knuckleheads don't know any better. :)

[Second Son]

' "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." - The Supreme Court has expanded this sufficiently to break the tie connected armed citizenry from a militia or defense of the (at the time new) country to include all other traditionally lawful practices. This includes walking down the street as the victim in the article was doing. This includes showing up armed to a speech from the POTUS, as was popularized in the media a few years ago.'

The aforementioned quote is quite obviously one which clearly mentions BOTH the STATE and the PEOPLE, as in "We The People". I certainly does NOT state that, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which is EXACTLY how it would have been written had the framers of the Constitution felt that a well regulated GOVERNMENT militia was the find of safety mechanism to keep our government honest. An interpretation like that would be ludicrous. Remember that we already had a well regulated state militia at the time of the Revolution, and that militia was the strong arm of the British Monarchy the very TOOL OF OPPRESSION used to violate our rights. SUPREME COURT RULINGS NOTWITHSTANDING to interpret the 2nd Ammendment any other way than one in which our states' sovereigns have the right to carry weapons for their own protection is crazy (with all due respect to those who disagree).

Victimless crimes were completely unenforceable until the entire legal/governmental system in this country was highjacked by international banksters, and a corporate system whereby statues and codes are foisted upon us as if they were laws, and until the masses wake up to this FACT our rights will be systematically removed one at a time.

Just look around, what do YOU see?

[Dorok]

Just a quick clarification...the 2nd amendment quote that I posted is the one that the STATES themselves ratified, which is slightly different from the FEDERAL version passed by Congress.

State:
"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."

Congress:
"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."

Personal rant:
The difference is in the capitalization which (IMO only!) I choose to interpret as critical in terms of point of view. Militia/State in the Fed version I take to represent an organized Federal Militia (there was no standing Army) defending the State (read: Nation). This interpretation leads me to believe that the Federal government was in fact telling the individual states that they could not interfere with the defense of the nation as a whole, i.e. by prohibiting men, by prohibiting taxes, by prohibiting arms from the general cause. The State version which capitalizes State and People seems to me to show that State refers to the individual state, not the nation, and People being capitalized when militia is not puts the emphasis on the individual right rather than the right of national defense.

The Supreme Court has historically ruled in a pro-State's Rights bias in this debate (even though State's rights are only guaranteed by the 10th Amendment which essentially says 'for everything else' and clearly does not apply since the 2nd Amendment is NOT everything else) which is why I personally disagree with the current state of the debate in this country.

A consequence as things stand today, is that gun manufactures have literally flooded the market with guns, more than could ever be needed to arm every man, woman and child with 3 handguns, 2 rifles, and 2 shotguns each. Where do the rest go??? The current debate nearly forbids anyone from asking that (IMO again) VERY responsible question as it 'violates' many verboten concepts in the USA such as capitalism and the freedom to blast anyone/anything that steps foot in your yard.

The rest of the guns go to....CRIMINALS!! which is why the police are soooo paranoid about a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon that they actually forget (if they ever knew) what the actual laws of the land are and react emotionally. IMO, the guns rights activists with their all or nothing approach have really shot themselves in the foot ( :) ) and bear a lot of responsibility for the current situation of gun paranoia by not allowing FAIR regulation of their court appointed individual mandate.

Rant off.

[Second Son]

"The rest of the guns go to....CRIMINALS which is why the police are soooo paranoid about a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon that they actually forget (if they ever knew) what the actual laws of the land are and react emotionally. IMO, the guns rights activists with their all or nothing approach have really shot themselves in the foot ( ) and bear a lot of responsibility for the current situation of gun paranoia by not allowing a FAIR regulation of their court appointed individual mandate."

RANT ON ;)

Your logic has many holes in it. Gun rights advocates remember what gun laws WERE They have watched as these laws have been systematically changed to conform to the long-term goals of the PTB. You show me just ONE incidence, Dorok of a person legally carrying (like the gentleman in this audio) who accidentally (or on purpose) shoots someone while excercising their right to carry. I can show you MANY videos of cops shooting unarmed and even sometimes innocent people. Sometimmes they just beat them to death... but this thread is about guns afterall, so I digress.

Ther are COUNTLESS innocent people dead from overzealous cops, or ones who are frankly just plain A-holes. The murders (almost all of which go unprosecuted) that we hear about are ONLY the ones where the victim is clearly innocent (the kid brandishing a squirtgun, for instance), BUT as it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that almost all cops carry an unmarked "boot gun" for just such an inconvenience, we need ask ourselves: "How many innocent victims DON'T even get airtime because they APPEARED to be armed???

I live in the little state of Vermont, Dorok, where I can open carry without a permit, BUT I have Massachusetts to my south and New York to my west, so in effect we Vermonters are "landlocked" by states with draconian gun laws. Take a wild guess which of the three states mentioned has the lowest PER CAPITA crime rate.

Come on, use your head... we know that cops peddle as many drugs as the dealers they bust. We know the CIA brings ALL the narcotics into this country... so where do you think a large percentage of conviscated guns go, and how do they get there? Here's a thought... the guns end up on the street SOLD by the cops after they have been conviscated by them.


Just research the crime statistics and the gun laws by state. The results certainly wouldn't shock a gun activist, but they may shock you.

I would recommend watching "Guns and Weed" an very funny, entertaining, and fact filled documentary.

[Lord Sidious]

Excuse me Dorok, but you are wrong.
The right to bear arms is NOT about defending America, that is why there was a continental army.
The whole point was to back up the right to petition government for a redress of grievances.
It was the ''founding fathers'' that said if the government ignores you, you are OBLIGATED to remove them by force of arms.

[Dorok]

"The rest of the guns go to....CRIMINALS which is why the police are soooo paranoid about a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon that they actually forget (if they ever knew) what the actual laws of the land are and react emotionally. IMO, the guns rights activists with their all or nothing approach have really shot themselves in the foot ( ) and bear a lot of responsibility for the current situation of gun paranoia by not allowing a FAIR regulation of their court appointed individual mandate."

RANT ON ;)

Your logic has many holes in it. Gun rights advocates remember what gun laws WERE They have watched as these laws have been systematically changed to conform to the long-term goals of the PTB. You show me just ONE incidence, Dorok of a person legally carrying (like the gentleman in this audio) who accidentally (or on purpose) shoots someone while excercising their right to carry. I can show you MANY videos of cops shooting unarmed and even sometimes innocent people. Sometimmes they just beat them to death... but this thread is about guns afterall, so I digress.

Ther are COUNTLESS innocent people dead from overzealous cops, or ones who are frankly just plain A-holes. The murders (almost all of which go unprosecuted) that we hear about are ONLY the ones where the victim is clearly innocent (the kid brandishing a squirtgun, for instance), BUT as it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that almost all cops carry an unmarked "boot gun" for just such an inconvenience, we need ask ourselves: "How many innocent victims DON'T even get airtime because they APPEARED to be armed???

I live in the little state of Vermont, Dorok, where I can open carry without a permit, BUT I have Massachusetts to my soputh and New York to my west, so in effect we Vermonters are "landlocked" by states with draconian gun laws. Take a wild guess which of the three states mentioned has the lowest PER CAPITA crime rate.

Come on, use your head... we know that cops peddle as many drugs as the dealers they bust. We know the CIA brings ALL the narcotics into this country... so where do you think a large percentage of conviscated guns go, and how do they get there? Here's a thought... the guns end up on the street SOLD by the cops after they have been conviscated by them.


Just research the crime statistics and the gun laws by state. The results certainly wouldn't shock a gun activist, but they may shock you.

I would recommend watching "Guns and Weed" an very funny, entertaining, and fact filled documentary.

2nd son - I fear you mistake me for defending the cops. That is absolutely not my stance! As for your example about accidents with armed citizens, I respect that those who do actually carry legally are not prone to accidents; HOWEVER, if you mandate idea that everyone carried guns, my response is there will be accidents.


Excuse me Dorok, but you are wrong.
The right to bear arms is NOT about defending America, that is why there was a continental army.
The whole point was to back up the right to petition government for a redress of grievances.
It was the ''founding fathers'' that said if the government ignores you, you are OBLIGATED to remove them by force of arms.

Lord Sid, everyone purports to know what was in the founding fathers' minds when they wrote the 2nd amendment (among other things); however, I am merely commenting on the amendment as it is written as that is (IMO) obviously what was intended, please note the opening clause as it belies the intent. The continental army was not a standing army at all times; armies were created and dissolved as needed then.

I appreciate that you believe that the 2nd amendment follows the 1st as a means to uphold it, it seems a convenient bit of logic; however, if that was what was intended, it would have been written that way. Yours is an interpretation, not a fact.

And finally, yes Thomas Jefferson expressed his opinions about the revitalization that comes from revolution; however, it is not and never was incorporated in the laws of the land. There are many models that it could have been used to express that. In my state of Ohio, there is a mandate to review the state's constitution every 20 years. If Jefferson had the support of his convictions in Congress, something like that could have been established. It was not.

The individual writings of the founding fathers have (IMO) no bearing on the actual collective writings that became our Constitution as many different viewpoints had to come to agreement. If you think I'm being pedantic about these things, try reading the writing styles of the founding fathers again. They were very eloquent and exact about expressing themselves in writing which is why I give their literal words the respect I believe they deserve.

[Lord Sidious]

The thing with law Dorok is that it is never intended to be read alone.
If you want to figure out what X means, you go to other sources, court cases, debates in the legislature, writings of those who framed the law and others too.
This is common practice.

[Second Son]

To suggest that AFTER engaging in an ARMED rebellion to establish, protect, and defend their and their posteritys' rights, the framers would want to abridge or limit the right of their progenitors TO DO THE SAME THING IN THE FUTURE is patently absurd.

ALSO, you said yourself that most persons who carry guns legally are not prone to accidents. Since we KNOW that cops MURDER all the time, and that so do criminals, where does that LOGICALLY bring us???

[Dorok]

The thing with law Dorok is that it is never intended to be read alone.
If you want to figure out what X means, you go to other sources, court cases, debates in the legislature, writings of those who framed the law and others too.
This is common practice.

That's a good point; however, those other sources in this case are extra-legal, i.e. not precedent. The Constitution is a PRIMARY source.


To suggest that AFTER engaging in an ARMED rebellion to establish, protect, and defend their and their posteritys' rights, the framers would want to abridge or limit the right of their progenitors TO DO THE SAME THING IN THE FUTURE is patently absurd.

ALSO, you said yourself that most persons who carry guns legally are not prone to accidents. Since we KNOW that cops MURDER all the time, and that so do criminals, where does that LOGICALLY bring us???

SecondSon, you've obviously got a hard-on against the cops. Please go bark up THEIR tree and not at me. Trying to turn around my reasonable statement that lawfully armed citizens are not prone to accidents into your claims of murder by cops is ridiculous. Are you next going to say that ONLY the non-criminal citizens should be armed not the police?

And I never suggested the that Framers didn't privately intend that their newly established government could not be overthrown by armed resistance; however, it's just as ABSURD to begin a new government constitution with that premise without being more explicit about it.

[Lord Sidious]

I think you are misusing the word precedent in this discussion.
Go and google Stari Decisis

[Dorok]

US precedent is what was intended in my writing.

[Lord Sidious]

Read the results you get from my hint.

[Dorok]

Same what you mean, I will not debate myself.

[Lord Sidious]

In that case, I have no idea what you mean then.
I know what the doctrine of stari decisis is, but I don't know what you think precedent means.

[Dorok]

Please make your rebuttal then.

[Lord Sidious]

You claim that those sources are precedent.
How do you know they are not?

[Second Son]

"And I never suggested the that Framers didn't privately intend that their newly established government could not be overthrown by armed resistance; however, it's just as ABSURD to begin a new government constitution with that premise without being more explicit about it."

They were explicit about it, hence the 2nd amendment.

By the way, I have a hard on for my rights, not for the cops. If gung-ho cops, armed to the teeth, with bad attitudes is what you have a hard-on for, boy are you gonna be in heaven when mealy mouthed sheeple let our law makers effectively rip up the constitution.

Tell you what my friend... why don't we have a little race. YOU go online to find vids of legally armed civilians killing "accidentally" as well as some statistics showing that states with strict gun laws (like New York for example) have reduced incidence of violent crime, or any crime.... AND I will go online and find vids of innocent people murdered by cops, I'll also find that hilarious video of the cop at an elementary school giving a firearm "safety" demonstration who shoots himself in the leg, as well as incidences of people protecting themselves from crime using their own guns. I'll meet you back here in an hour... what do you say?

Tell you what Dorok... I'll let you off the hook, because I can see that your beliefs are just that... beliefs, and as such are not based on hard facts or data. It is in vogue lately in certain circles to err on the side of uber liberalism, because that seems to be the direction the political winds are blowing. Just because Michael Moore or Obama says something doesn't make it so.

How many children per year die from handgun accidents??? How many die from aoutomobile accidents, even while wearing seatbelts? I bring up the seatbelts because to me it illustrates the fact that even with reasonable precautions, this big, bright, beautiful world of ours can be a dangerous place, and that is PRESICELY why it is such an exhilarating intoxicating ride, Dorok.

[Dorok]

SecondSon, I'm sorry to say, but you have made the 1st addition to my ignore list for being not able to keep a debate without offending me and creating strawman arguments. So, you may say whatever you like, but do not expect me to see or or respond.

LS, I said "That's a good point; however, those other sources in this case are extra-legal, i.e. not precedent. The Constitution is a PRIMARY source." Now, I can see the confusion between 'extra-legal' and 'not precedent'. I apologize for writing too fast. What I meant is that the other sources are not legislative or judicial AND that there was no precedent (b/c the nation was new).

[Fred Steeves]

'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." - The Supreme Court has expanded this sufficiently to break the tie connected armed citizenry from a militia or defense of the (at the time new) country to include all other traditionally lawful practices. This includes walking down the street as the victim in the article was doing. This includes showing up armed to a speech from the POTUS, as was popularized in the media a few years ago.



Hi Dorok, I think you make an outstanding and expansive argument through several posts for tighter gun restrictions. I'll stick just to this quote for comment though if possible. From my understanding the founders were understandibly leary of standing armies. They knew from both history and personal experience that government would inedibly use the army for their own control lust. This is where the militia comes in, and by "well regulated" they meant to run smoothly, regular,

not control; this is the same excuse used to control(regulate) interstate commerce.

Armies would be raised and then broken down as need be with individual state militias, avoiding the temptations of using an army that is all dressed up and nowhere to go. Any man worthy of the description owned a firearm and this is what he brought with him to the militia. This killed two birds with one stone. An army for defense if need be, and a means for the people to dissolve a corrupt government if need be.

The cops are paranoid because they are trained to be, it didn't used to be that way. If they weren't so brainwashed to that they would see people like me who lawfully carry a firearm as an ally, not a threat. But, this is a whole other can of worms.

Cheers,
Fred S.

[Fred Steeves]

The right to bear arms is NOT about defending America, that is why there was a continental army.
The whole point was to back up the right to petition government for a redress of grievances.
It was the ''founding fathers'' that said if the government ignores you, you are OBLIGATED to remove them by force of arms.


Pretty close Rob, here's the nuts and bolts straight from the horse's mouth.BTW, I added the capitalization, it wasn't written that way.


Cheers,
Fred S.

unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/w.gifhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Second Son]

It does not surprise me, Dorok, that you have given up trying to prove your beliefs using facts, data, and statistics. By their very nature beliefs CANNOT be validated in that way. Whether discussing religion, politics, or any other hot topic, a fact is a fact is a fact. Facts exist outside of judgment, they just ARE All statistical evidence proves that legally armed citizens do not kill in numbers high enough to make even the most thin skinned (ring a bell?) sqeemish.

BUT well armed governmental forces (be they police, secret service, or military) have murdered countless MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen while POLICING in the name of their corporate puppet masters.

You keep your beliefs and I'll keep my facts, thank you very much.

Oh, hey, and peace out ;)

[Fred Steeves]

Second Son, that was a 5-star example of a rude and tasteless post. Try showing a little class next time, huh?

Fred

[Second Son]

I would have to disagree Fred. I don't recall ever addressing you on this thread except to thank you for a post of yours.
So it is my belief that your post was rude and tasteless. Try minding your own business perhaps, or better yet, point out the parts that are rude, tasteless or both. Seems you didn't notice that the first colorfull use of language on this thread was the word "hard-on' and was not used by me.

Funny, really. I have noticed many posts which I have deemed to be inappropriate, but figure (since they are not to or about me) that it's none of my damned business, so I keep my mouth shut and hope that others will learn from my example. Peace to you too.

[Second Son]

Really Fred... show me some profanity, or a verbal attack on my part. Poking holes in someone's logic (or lack thereof) is not rude or tasteless. It is what TRUTH forums are all about. Distilling down the BS to get to a more universal truth (if such is possible). A little heated debate, and even a polite argument it not the enemy here, Fred, it is intolerance.

When dialog stops, when dissent is squelched, THAT is presisely when the real wars begin.

Here's to everyones inalienable RIGHT to be offended at any transgression great, small, or imagined.

[ThePythonicCow]

Sometimes I wish there was an easy to moderate spitting contests between members, without the ugly task of digging down into the past posts to see who said what to whom and who apparently started it all :cow:

[Lord Sidious]

Come on guys, don't make me whip the carrots out again.
We can disagree without a bunfight, surely?

[Second Son]

It'll be lightsabers at high noon!!!

[Second Son]

Don't thank me Lord... when I am done with your young apprentice, I am coming after you.:plane::laser:

[Lord Sidious]

Don't thank me Lord... when I am done with your young apprentice, I am coming after you.:plane::laser:

Gimme some notice so I know when to put my boots on.
So I can shake in em, that is. :p

[meeradas]

[...] a fact is a fact is a fact. Facts exist outside of judgment, they just ARE[...]


"Facts are stupid things"

R e m e m b e r ?