The Glade 4.0

Yes and Open Carry was determind by the appeal court to be clearly settled law.

The lack of RS in the instance was declared not RS nor contribution to RS by the Pa SC in two cases yet the arresting officer tried to cite it as RS for having the color of law under which he could give lawful demands. He had no such authority in this instance.

_________________
"...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

When people refer to poor policing, they are generally referring to abuses of power or lying. Sure people don't like being served for speeding or dealing with arrogant or rude people (be it police or otherwise) but that's not typically what people are using a barometer for poor police work. Now, there is a point to the idea that people dislike the police for enforcing a poorly thought out law. Man traffic laws, for instance, are largely enforced in a discriminatory manner and don't really result in an decrease in unsafe driving.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Isn't personal protection a form of combat? If I am forced to fight and cannot escape or negotiate my way out of a situation, I do want to be as heavily armed as possible so if I don't have a tactical advantage, I can maybe get some sort of advantage in sheer firepower. My argument would be one that echoes yours in fact; were I in a state that allowed CCW, I would carry a handgun. But if the law allowed, I would carry much more than that as a handgun is a last ditch resort weapon. My personal preference would be to avoid carrying that weapon because it's inconvenient but that doesn't mean some people wouldn't carry larger weapons with more firepower for self-defense. If people are afraid of a person carrying a large weapon for self-defense and this is a reasonable fear, then it is also reasonable for taboo to exist for a person carrying any sort of implement altogether for self-defense. That is because we're assuming a weapon's capabilities and inconvenience to carry it is somehow correlated to the person's intent to do harm.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

This is actually inventing a perfect world by creating a scenario in which a man who has no "business" being in a park is there and the people who are present know so. That's part of the taboo that exists with weapon carrying in the first place. As I pointed out, people are equally apprehensive about carrying a concealable handgun as they would someone carrying an M240SAW but they are simply unaware of a person carrying a concealed weapon. It is a self-perpetuated taboo because there is a mindset that can't exist when it's made painfully obvious that people might actually be responsible for their own personal safety. I wouldn't carry anything larger than a KT PF9 or a Glock 26 but that's just my personal preference. I have no reason to believe a person carrying a larger weapon is doing so for their own person protection anymore than they are doing so because they are about to commit a crime. What we're establishing is a standard where one's own personal level of preparedness and willingness to be inconvenienced is cause to call the police. Analogously, this scenario invents a standard where no man would ever play on a playground because men don't typically play on a playground now because society says men playing on a playground are almost assuredly molesters do because molesters might be found around playgrounds.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I've gone cross-eyed.

Which is not this conversation.

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

I'm positively astounded by your talent for meeting cops that engage in truly bizarre behavior. Really. I'm not being snarky. I don't think you're intentionally making things up, but I just find it very difficult to believe that this apparently endless supply of cop scenarios you have are really being related without any distortion on your part. That's some weird **** you're talking about right there.



It's not a "dumb answer" at all. You're asking a stupid question. In fact, you're asking a much stupider question by asking the clerk at the store why they want your name than by asking the cop. What the hell do you think they want it for? It;s not to send you a birthday card.

If you want to not answer, don't. Asking why is you getting pissy that they asked in the first place. It's some store clerk in a low-paying job. They're just doing what they get paid to do.



If you have, then you have a really strange supply of police where you live.



This has nothing to do with "having your best interests in mind". That isn't "the difference between you and me" either. I don't even really buy that your name is "personal information" except in the strict semantic sense.

I don't see what information you're really gaining by asking this. You talk about how he needs to give a reason to get your cooperation, but then you want to talk about how you don't assume he has your best interests at heart and how he might not really be on official business. So, his answer is going to determine that for you how exactly? You're going to know he's on official business how, exactly?

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

Except for the fact that traffic laws are generally not poorly thought out, nor enforced in a discriminatory manner. As for them resulting in a "decrease' in unsafe driving, that's a rather pointless thing to say since it's not as if there was a time with no traffic regulations, so there's nothing to "decrease" from. It is, however, safe to assume that based on the commonplace nature of careless driving that driving would be even more careless if people did not even have the threat of a ticket.

Second, again, we have people right in this thread complaining about poor police work that has nothing to do with illegal behavior or lying.

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

It is when you get to the point that you actually have to fight someone. You're almost never actually at that point however, and it's highly likely you will go through life and never get to that point. Therefore, it makes far more sense to carry a smaller, more convenient weapon. There's also the fact that most self-defense scenarios are at very close range, and very fast, and the unweildiness of a long arm and the inability to surprise an attacker with it could be great liabilities than its firepower is an asset.



A handgun is a last-ditch weapon on a battlefield. It isn't in the everyday world.



That's silly. This is a black-and-white fallacy, that just because we put a taboo on one person's preference we therefore need to put an equal taboo on any similar preference or risk being "inconsistent". In fact, we don't. Most people would also fear someone who carries around a 2x4" everywhere they go because that's a rather silly thing to do. It gets in your way all the time, just like the rifle.

Most people would have a hard time articulating it, but both the rifle and the 2x4" are impratical weapons for meshing the requirements of self-defense with comfort and convenience in other daily tasks. A person that puts that kind of irrational emphasis on self-defense over everything else creates a reasonable question as to whether or not they really understand the actual likelyhood or nature of a probable threat. Going back to what I said about the speed and range of self-defense scenarios as well, from a more professional standpoint, I personally would question whether or not they really understand what they're doing.

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

Appeals courts do not determine things like "open carry is clearly settled law." No doubt you're referring to either Commonwealth v. Hawkins. See that? I actually know the pertinent case, and can cite it, something you've singularly failed to do.

Hawkins settles that, in the state of Pennsylvania, the police may not stop and frisk someone just because an anonymous caller alledged the person had a gun, in the absence of any other reason. That leaves a great deal of open room for other reasons to stop and frisk someone who is openly carrying a firearm.

Or maybe you mean Commonwealth v. Ortiz? Yet another case I can cite and you couldn't be bothered to. That one just established that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh can't make their own gun laws in contravention of those passed by the General Assembly.

Neither one "vacated qualified immunity". To "vacate qualified immunity" would be to simply declare that qualified immunity could not be claimed in any open carry or even any firearms case at all, regardless of whether the question of law was clearly settled or not.



This is almost completely incomprehensible. A lack of reasonable suspicion was declared to not be reasonable suspicion, or contribute to reasonable suspicion? Duh. So what? A police officer tried to cite a lack of reasonable suspicion as a reason to give unspecified "demands"? Really?

In other words, the incident didn't really happen, or more precisely, your description of it bears no meaningful resemblance to what actually happened. Despite your allegation of several felonies and misdemeanors by this sergeant, I'm quite sure you didn't make any attempt to press charges. That's because he almost certainly didn't actually violate any laws other than the imaginary ones you like to insist everyone else follow, and his worst behavior was possibly being rude to you, probably because he was faced with an arrogant blowhard lecturing him on laws the blowhard in question doesn't really understand. Still, that doesn't excuse his rudeness. He should have just gone on his way so you could stew.

As for his reasonable suspicion.. he has to justify it to a court. Not to you. He didn't "cite" anything to you, and even if he did, you don't get to decide if it's reasonable suspicion or not, or whether it conforms or does not conform to what the courts have accepted as reasonable in that regard. You submit your argument to the courts, and they decide if the officer had reasonable suspicion or not. Evidently, however, you did not avail yourself of the opportunity to do so.

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

Hawkins was cited by the court as to why it is settled law. Neither of those cases was the case to which I was referring because neither one vacated qualified immunity. I don't know why you think I would be referring to either of those cases.

Yes the incident happened and my description is a summation of the conversation I had with the officer and to a lesser extent the others around us.

He told me his RS was that he got a call with a man with a gun in the park. This does not create RS, and the limits of police in this instance to those of a mere encounter are clearly defined by law thus removing the defense of qualified immunity.

Either ignorant or bad cops with ignorant or bad direction. Yes this happens. No I don't have to make anything up to have had an interaction with cops like this. Yes I follow Pa gun law and case law more closely than you do (ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for me).

Can't you see how biased you are that you have to declare unconditionally that my experience didn't happen just because you don't want it to have had?

In the end they said they were going to charge me for DC, never did because they couldn't (for two different reasons). At best it ignorance at worst it was ignoring the law in order to intimidate.

The only thing I agree with you on is that yes the officer's attempt to provide RS for his actions was almost completely incomprehensible due to either ignorance or less than stalwart character.

_________________
"...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

See, I don't think it is bizarre. It's normal to me. I must concede that I can't know this, and maybe I am just incredibly unlucky, but I find that hard to swallow. Furthermore, it's not just me that complains about this stuff.



Well, if his answer is "because I want to know your name and what you are doing here" then I know he's fishing for a reason to ruin my day. I'm not going to help him do that. If it's something legit, that is not directed at me, I'll answer to help him do his job.

Well, I find it really bizarre. First of all, I find the number of interactions you've had with the police to be way beyond what I expect for an obviously law-abiding citizen (not being sarcastic there; you obviously live a law-abiding life or you wouldn't have the sort of job you have) and the interactions you're describing, especially those last two are really weird. As if the cops in question had completely lost their grip on reality. I mean, why would you single out one guy taking a picture of a tree? "*******" doesn't really explain that.

Asfor you not being the only one to complain about it.. well, that doesn't mean too much to me. As it is, I really can't say to much about your personal examples becuase they're personal and I wasn't there. I ahve to take them with a large grain of salt because they aren't impartial and I don't have the other side of the story, and our examples tend to be short and incomplete. That's fine; it's the way the internet is. However, the fact that unspecified other people complain (presumably to you) about unspecified incidents that I have absolutely no information about means very little to me. Lots of people complain about the police; a lot of those people are either people like Elmo that just live in fantasyland, or they're criminals.



No you don't. You're assuming that. And what exactly does "fishing" mean, anyhow? He's hoping you'll admit to a crime? Well, if you do, so what? He shouldn't talk to people because they might admit something? No one is forcing them to admit to anything. He shouldn't ask you because you might get belligerent about him asking you in the first place? Easy. Don't get belligerent. You're afraid he'll conjure up an excuse to arrest you? That's illegal. Obviously he shouldn't do that. That isn't a reason he shouldn't ask you a question; it's a reason he shouldn't arrest you without probable cause. If you don't like the question, that means you don't like the question. It means exactly zero about his motivation.



You don't decide what's legit and what's not. You decide whether you want to talk to him or not. That's your right. The fact that his answer doesn't personally satisfy you doesn't mean it's not legit, or that they're fishing for an excuse to ruin your day. Anyone has a right to come up to you and question you in a public place any time they want, whether they're a cop or not. It's not in your purview to decide if they're doing it for "legit" reasons any more than it's in their purview to decide if you have a "legit" reason to want to talk to them or not.

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

DE, while I agree that people carrying weapons like that are odd for the practical reasons we seem to agree on, I still believe there is a substantial contribution to self-perpetuated paranoia. Hence the eye-crossing sentence I wrote. I would not carry such a weapon as I've personally pared down my wallet, phone and EDC knife etc. to be as comfortable as possible. Other people carrying weapons like that wouldn't bother me in the slightest as they are probably doing it just to project a certain image (airsoft commando) and wouldn't gain too much of a tactical advantage. But I also don't believe that if that were the norm or what the current norm is that a person carrying a weapon visibly is more likely in the act of committing a crime than isn't. As you pointed out, a criminal suffers from the same inconveniences and disadvantages as a law abiding citizen would.

My point being is that a great deal of the fear about situations like the one in the original video are founded in irrationality even though there may be other valid reasons to be suspicious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I didn't even read that one, because honestly the debate over the guy at the playground doesn't really interest me that much. However, you're somewhat begging the question by calling people paranoid.



Just becuase it wouldn't bother you does not mean its unreasonable or paranoid if it bothers anyone else. We're not talking about making it illegal, we're talking about the social acceptability of it. I doubt very much you've encountered anyone walking around in public with a rifle outside of situations where it's already commonly accepted. Similarly, when it's a situation like the people bringing rifles to the political rally to make a point, it would be silly to be afraid of them; they're making it obvious why they are doing it.

However, if someone



If it were already the norm, then people probably wouldn't be nervous about it. However, the fact is that it isn't the norm and therefore people are not paranoid when they worry about a person carrying a long arm around in public.



Just because some of the fear is founded in the irrationality perpetuated by media and other sources does not mean that all fear is unreasonable. I explained why. It's not the gun, in and of itself, it's the message about the person being sent by carrying a gun, or for that matter, any other large cumbersome object that is obviously being carried as a weapon, such as a baseball bat when baseball is going on, a 2x4" or even an object that's awkward to carry, like a broken bottle even if it's not all that big.

A knife is different because it's easy to carry ad is also a useful tool. A pistol is something that's easily carried as well. People instinctively grasp this. No one wants to carry something around that's cumbersome, and when someone is doing so it's naturally going to cause people to wonder what incentive they have. If the incentive is self defense, it's naturally going to make people wonder why this person puts such a massive emphasis on self-defense. For someone who is more tactically aware, it's also going to make me think this person really doesn't know all that much about self-defense and may not be as able to handle that weapon as they probably think they are.

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

Well, whatever. Yes, I've had tons of exposure to the police, and despite what you may think that indicates, the fact that I've never been arrested attests that I'm on the right side of things (or at least not the very wrong side of things - traffic violations, cursed at a cop for very nearly getting me, my wife, and my son killed, had beer confiscated when I was a teen).

As for the tree incident, he "claimed" I met the description of someone who broke into a store or something. I was wearing cammo shorts, t-shirt, hadn't shaved in about a month, carrying a framepack with bedroll, etc., and wearing a wide-brimmed, very unique hat. I did not meet anyone's description. As I spoke with him, he got comfortable and let it slip that he lived in a house adjacent to the park. So, my conclusion was that he saw some scruffy vagrant (I had been backpacking in the wilderness for about a month) taking pictures near his house, got upset, and made some **** up. This is FISHING. He's looking for a reason to send me packing, arrest me, or whatever.



Sure.



See above. Why give someone any information if you think they could be out to get you? I'm not saying it's illegal for him to do, I'm saying it's not, at all, in my best interest to discuss with him.



You're arguing around what I said, and not really disagreeing with me. See my tree example above. He did not have a "legit" reason for asking me my info. No, it's not illegal, but I need to say "why" so I can decide whether to cooperate. It's not rude for me to do so.

Like I said, I don't think you're some sort of criminal. Still, I have yet to meet anyone else who is generally law abiding who encounters the police as regularly as you seem to. Maybe you're just an outlier.



Uh, how do you exactly know that you didn't meet the same description as anyone else? No one else can look like that? Someone looking like that can't break into a store?



That's up to you. However, that doesn't make him somehow an ******* for not wanting to tell you "why" either.



Yes, actually it is. That's ok. You're a citizen. You have a right to be rude (up to a point). He's a cop. It;s his job not to be rude even though he has the same rights as you.

As for "see above" you're just making assumptions that you didn't meet anyone's description.

It's becoming clear to me why you have trouble with the cops. You make too many assumptions about their motivations and what they are doing.

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

Maybe ******* isn't the correct word. That said, if any public servant asks me a question but refuses to tell me why can **** right off.

No, you can **** right off, or you can answer the question. Those are your choices.

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

Come on, man, play the odds. He's looking for a criminal 20 feet from his home? Who happens to look like this other odd fellow? Besides, if I were a suspect in a robbery, I'd feel that in his manner and questions toward me. There was no robbery. AND none reported in the paper the next day.

But you're correct, I can't know for sure.



No, the "*******" comes into play when they start with the "because I asked you! why are you questioning me?" Like I said earlier.



See, this is the problem. To you, it's ok for a cop to walk up to me, ask all the questions he wants, without explanation, but it's "rude" for me to ask him questions. Why the difference? He's a cop and I'm a citizen.

Don't question the cops, folks - they hate that ****.



No - I generally make no assumptions. I ask them. Which, apparently, is rude somehow and pisses them off.

What gives a public servant the right to question me and not answer when questioned back?

Sorry Lenas, but that is a ridiculous question, and I'm pretty sure you know it...

Everyone has the right not to answer. My issue is when they get all bent over being asked. Don't question my authoritay!

He just makes it seem like it's perfectly okay for a cop to refuse to answer questions but we're somehow jerks for doing the same thing.

Well, if you think about what a "Cops" job is, asking questions is a pretty fundamental tool.