The Glade 4.0

In other words, you're just trying to find a reason that it's his fault. Your assumption that he received his proper training was all fine and dandy until you decided to make the assumption he decided to pick a confrontation for no apparent reason. Unless there's something showing this particular cop has a history of starting altercations with citizens for the hell of it, the more reasonable assumption is that he wasn't properly trained, at the least, on the open carry aspect of the law.

He didn't "escalate" the situation at all; the situation never, evidently, went beyond a verbal exchange, so no one escalated it.

As for starting off an interaction with "hey junior", that's rude regardless of who the two individuals are unless they're friends and its a term of fondness or something. Directing it towards an armed individual shouldn't be any more of a problem than a non-armed individual; there's nothing about "Hey junior" that should make you do anything at all with your weapon.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't have to find a reason DE, the cop was wrong. We have proof the cop is wrong. Now the question is why the cop was wrong. Did I mention the cop was wrong? I'm playing devils advocate here since there seems to be a bit of play in the media that this guy was just looking for a payday.

I guess the cop pointing his pistol at the guy wasn't escalating the situation past a verbal encounter? Seeing an obvioiusly armed individual that you seem intent on making contact with "because you don't know who they are"- starting off the interaction in such a way to instantly shut down lines of communication with the individual is the wrong way to do it.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Oh and yet another "disorderly conduct" charge to demonstrate it's the go to charge when the cop needs to cover their asses

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Was the officer aware he was being recorded? In PA, I think both parties have to know.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

No consent needed in public. They would have gone after him with that charge instead of a catch-all, if that weren't the case.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No one said otherwise. In fact, even the cop evidently thought he was wrong since he didn't arrest the guy. I said a reason it's his fault. Whose responsibility is it to train police officers and to ensure that training imparted the necessary knowledge to them? If this officer was trained, tested, and the training did in fact address open carry at least in a cursory fashion, its his fault, and in that case he still did the right thing by not arresting the guy. If on the other hand, any one of those 3 things did not occur, it is the fault of the department.



I don't see that you're playing devil's advocate at all, since your theory requires that the cop know perfectly well that he is wrong, go harrass the guy anyhow, then turn around and not actually do anything to him, while totally ignoring the later actions of the DA and the spokesperson.



Not really, no. In fact, that is not necessarily the wrong way to do it, and it certainly does not shut off lines of communication. In fact, now that guy has a very powerful incentive to communicate with you because you already have your weapon out and pointed with surprise. It was a very effective way of keeping the interaction verbal - 40 minutes of verbal, which ended in no arrest.

I don't buy that the gun owner was looking for a payday, although he may have been looking to make a political statement, and is now trying to salvage that statement by complaining that he was approached at all, rather than being able to complain that he was arrested and his gun confiscated. Then again, maybe he is only complaining because of the actions of the DA after the fact.

The officer's actions are not consistent with someone looking for an altercation; they are consistent with someone who thinks they are doing the right thing, but who listens to what the supposed violator has to say and realizes that they maybe ought not to make an arrest.

What is also consistent with my interpretation is the action of the DA and the police spokesperson. They are consistent with the city trying to cover its *** for not educating the officer on open carry, and not being able to cover it by disciplining the officer becuase if they try the union will have them over a barrel for failure to train.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Then based on that, what other mandatory training is this and other officers missing? What other mandatory training is not clear to the department?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

That's an excellent question. Since you're a PHiladelphia resident, perhaps you should make it your business to find out.

I'm not talking about onsies and twosies of Patrolman Schmukateli hasn't had Suicide Prevention training (meaning, his own and his workmates, not how to deal with suicidal subjects) this year, I'm talking serious things like "we skipped the TASER portion of intermediate force training because we couldn't take the manpower off the streets that long." Usually, when important training is missed, it's not because they just decided to skip if fer no reason; it's because there was a resource, scheduling, or other problem. Eventually the training will most likely get done. The problem arises when "eventually" isn't in time to prevent an incident like this on.

You're far less likely to find this problem with state and Federal agencies than with city or county ones becuase there is a lot more legislative oversight.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Chief Ramsey already has publicly said the officer was wrong, handled the situation wrong, and needlessly escalated the situation by his choice of language.

As to me "finding out for myself" even with my inroads to the police community they won't let his training records out for liability issues.

The mandatory training was back in 2009. I'm sorry they didn't get around to it, and if this guy got shot over their oversight, I'd be even happpier that I've just moved to Delaware.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Mandatory training in 2009 and then the directive which should have been read to them at least once earlier this year.

That would be like me not knowing how to go into Active Directory and find a user.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

My mom is a lot happier since she moved to Delaware.

It's very easy for the Chief to say "the officer was wrong" when he was wrong. That doesn't address why he was wrong.

As for the chief claiming he "needlesly escalated", the Chief has been off the street too long and evidently does not rememeber what "escalated" means. The article indicates the situation never escalated at all. Or, maybe he does remember and is trying to focus blame somewhere other than on the department.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No guns pointed at anyone to pointing guns at people = escalating.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's not escalating. That's the initial situation - essentially a "man with a gun" situation. From there (unknown, but potentially deadly level of force), the situation de-escalated, not escalated. In fact, it went all the way down to verbal commands without stopping at any of the intervening force levels, and ended with no arrest made.



You don't see display of a firearm on there because while it is a threat of force, it is not an actual use of force. The point of aiming a gun at someone without actually shooting at them is, generally to avoid any actual shooting by demonstrating that you can shoot them. The de-escalation in this case was really more of a prevention of escalation in the first place.

An escalation is not "any level of force other than zero"; the existance of a situation in the first place is not considered an "escalation" from their not being a situation because that is so obviously true as to both go without saying, and tell us nothing useful whatsoever. If the officer is escalating the situation by taking the precaution of having his gun out while he finds out what's going on with the guy with the gun, then the guy with the gun is escalating it by alarming the public carrying a gun openly.

Since the man with the gun is not escalating by creating his half of the situation, the officer is not escalting by creating his half either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So I can aim a firearm at a police officer without it being considered an escalation?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Only because you'd be dead....

There are concievably extreme circumstances where this would be the case, but generally, no. You do not have law enforcement power, nor a responsibility to make an arrest. You're on the other side of the force continuum; you pointing a gun is "subject behavior."

You could, on the other hand, point a gun at someone robbing a gas station and it would not be an escalation. In this case, you have the right (although not the responsibility) to protect life, and in the process to make a citizen's arrest (if your state allows), and then the force continuum applies, although in a different way. You are expected to use reasonable force, but because you are not formally trained in law enforcement or on law enforement force continuum and probably don't have all the intermediate options an officer does, your use of force would be judged from the perspective of a a reasonable citizen rather than a reasonable police officer.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So it's a good idea, and not something to be reprimanded, when a police officer trains a gun on a witness while his partner takes a statement?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

So, cop trains gun on guy, and this action de-escalates the situation.

But, in only the rarest of circumstances would a civilian drawing their gun not escalate the situation ...

_________________

Well duh Khross., read the chart.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yes so the fact that a situation got escalated is only dependent on the officer's perception of the situation.

And officers wonder why citizens don't respect their thuggish behavior.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Oh and DE - the initial situation was a guy walking down the street going to get some car parts to repair his mom's car.

Level of threat of injury...zip.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Why would he do that? In this case, he drew his gun specifically because the person he was dealing with was armed, and he beleived at the time, was committing a crime. He drew his gun in order to prevent escalation.

If there was no such escalation to prevent, why would it be a good idea to do that? I said it wasn't an escalation based on the specific facts of this situation. Why are you trying to generalize it to other dissimilar situations?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As a matter of fact, yes. If that perception is wrong, and the officer overreacts and uses too much force, he will face severe consequences. Escalation and de-escalation refers to subject behavior and officer perception and response, as indicated on the diagram I posted.



There is no thuggish behavior in question here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So? No one said he was ever doing anything else. The thing the officer thought he was doing was illegally carrying a weapon in the open. The officer turned out to be mistaken about that. Whether he was on his way to get car parts or rob a bank is immaterial; neither has anything to do with whether it is legal to carry a weapon openly or not. Even if he was on his way to rob a bank and the officer knew that, that still wouldn't make the weapons violation a matter of open carry, but of using a weapon while committing a felony.



False. There is never zero risk. The officer did not know beforehand what level of risk this guy might pose. You cannot use hindsight, or knowledge the officer did not posess, to assess level of threat.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In this situation, yes. The outcome of the situation indicates that it went down to, and remained at, verbal interaction until it ended with no arrest, so how you think it did anything other than de-escalate is a mystery.



That isn't what I said. There are lots of situations where a civilian drawing their gun would de-escalate a situation. Drawing their gun on a police officer, however, cannot help except in very rare circumstances.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."