[4everfsu]

What do you think?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stoss ... latestnews

[NJLibertyboy]

This is more troubling news out of Philadelphia, who passed a law this year that allows cops to just search anyone if they feel like they have probable cause. Supposedly they have arrested a ton of people (and by a ton I mean 6-8% of people stopped), primarily for small time drug offenses that waste jail space for real criminals By the time it was all said and done, 1 in 6 people in the city of Philadelphia had been randomly frisked by police officers on the street.

I understand Philadelphia isn't a very safe place in certain neighborhoods. My mother grew up in some of those bad neighborhoods, my grandparents still live in Philadelphia in Northeast Philly, so I actually know where this incident went down. It's like 2 miles from my grandparents house. I also grew up right across the river, so I know the town. But, our founding fathers made civil procedure such an important aspect of our Constitution for a reason. Once you throw away people's right to basic rights when it comes to civil procedure, this is what happens next. They start ignoring all of them.

To make things worse, this guy is still being harrassed by law enforcement, simply for executing his first amendment right. Our legal system is a joke, it's not about getting it right anymore, it's about saving face and backing up your boys. Also, how can police officers defend the law if they don't know it? Just sayin'.

There are plenty of police officers out there that do a good job, I've met them. But, there are also, like in any profession, plenty of bad ones who don't know the law. I understand police officers have to use caution, especially in places like Philadelphia. But, their tone and demeanor with a guy who seemed reasonable and stated his case was cursed at and threatened before they could even find out about the law that was on the books.

[jbock13]

It's unrelated to the story, but I knew a substitute teacher who used to be a former cop in NJ and it was crazy how anti-gun he was... being above the fray whenever we discussed the issue I stayed away with the cliches but basically the way he put it was that only police have guns.

It's interesting, I even gave him the evidence that crime is more rampant in cities in which guns are heavily regulated and restricted, but it didn't matter, no proof would change his mind. Typical liberal.

Of course, he wrote me up and got mad when I was supposedly talking and got smart with him. Gotta love high school

The police are just like truck drivers. 95% of them do an excellent job, and then there's the 5% who give the entire profession a black eye.

[ALUmnus]

Supposedly they have arrested a ton of people (and by a ton I mean 6-8% of people stopped), primarily for small time drug offenses that waste jail space for real criminals

What!??!!

What a tragedy, cops doing their jobs. When will this end?

[jbock13]

I have that same gripe but cops don't make the laws. Politicians do.

Having said that, it's sad we throw someone's life away when they want to smoke their dope and just leave others alone.

Yeah, that's over simplified, but either you agree with me or you dont.

[PAmedic]

sigh...

ok- I'll deal with Jersey boy's mistatements first:

1. I dont need "probable cause" to "frisk" you or any of the other 2 million people around here- in fact, all six outta six people in your example can be "frisked"

Terry v. Ohio

2. if you are openly wearing a gun I'm going to stop you and take it from you until I determine who and what you are. Sorry. thats the way it is. If you dont comply with my directives, you run the risk of being shot. If you are legit and have no warrants, etc, you get the gun back and go on your way. BOTTOM LINE: comply with directives.

3. If you are in Philly (1st class city) you MAY open carry, but you still need a license. See above re: how we verify your status.

http://paopencarry.org/

4. Schools, bars, federal/state/local courts, as well as any private establishment that forbids carrying a firearm = OFF LIMITS.

5. Carrying in a vehicle = CONCEALED.

***EDITORIAL: many open-carry types IN THIS AREA are doing to get a reaction. trust me, you will. I actually support your right to do so, but feel a more sensible option is to carry concealed. ***

PS: the issue with "smoking dope" is that it DOES affect others. Example: I make nearly as many arrests for DUI: drugs as I do for DUI: alcohol.


******************YOU ARE ALL PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINIONS AND I WILL STILL WATCH FOOTBALL WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU********************

[RubberMallet]

i think the precint lawyer basically said, that none of the cops were even aware of the law which is pretty sad. and regardless of whether this guy doing this for a purpose, it totally worked, these officers look like total idiotic buffons and give those who respectfully serve and protect a terrible name.

[jbock13]

PA: Of course drug dealers are likely to engage in other crimes, that I don't have a problem with. I'm not sure if it's different in PA, but in the south you have more people who simply use the drugs than you do drug dealers, but in the south it's more likely that the "recreational user" will be thrown in jail than in northern and west coast states.

Anyways PA, thank you for your service. Not all police are bad

[ATrain]

Its not the cops fault for arresting drug dealers/users, that's their job, that's what they get paid to do. I point the finger at the people using/dealing for knowing the law and choosing to break it anyway. I don't necessarily agree with the entire spectrum of our country's drug restrictions, just like I don't agree that you need to be 21 to drink (and I can proudly state I waited till 21 to take my first sip of alcohol), but the law is the law.

[NJLibertyboy]

PA: With all due respect, I'm sure you deal with just as many DUI for drugs as you DUI for alcohol... so why are drugs illegal and alcohol not illegal. Just saying, I think it is a huge double-standard. I don't condone the use of drugs or alcohol, don't do either. Just making a philosophical argument.

Terry v. Ohio actually stated that reasonable suspicion constituted "that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." That doesn't mean cops have open season on frisking anyone they want. Unless all 6 out of 6, which is literally impossible, fit one of those traits, you can't just go around frisking anyone. If they do frisk someone, it has to be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch."

Just so I don't get accused of anything, my cousin is an attorney and I had her look over the above statement.

I also don't think anyone is questioning the other facts you mention, such as guns not being allowed in schools and private establishments, that is sensible and in a city like Philadelphia it is also reasonable to ask a guy to show his license. I get that.

I'm also sure this guy was looking to get attention. But, the guy was not violating the law and is now being charged with a bogus charge simply because he made them look bad. My main beef is that I feel like it's not about getting it right anymore. That's primarily where my rant before was going. The guy commits no crime and he gets charged with one anyway. That is my biggest beef.

Just to make it clear, as this can happen in message boards or via typed communication, nothing about my post is intended to be disrespectful. I'm just passionate about making sure people are treated fairly based on constitutional standards and when people get bent over, that really bothers me. These police officers not only didn't know a very important law, they handled themselves completely unprofessional. That's a problem.

I appreciate the service of good police officers and understand that it's alot easier for me to sit here and argue it in my comfortable surroundings rather than on the streets. But, our founding fathers made such an emphasis on civil procedure because it forced everyone to do their jobs, from the cops to the judges to the attorneys and the defendants.

[PAmedic]

PA: With all due respect, I'm sure you deal with just as many DUI for drugs as you DUI for alcohol... so why are drugs illegal and alcohol not illegal.

DUI Alcohol IS illegal. Thats my point. Both affect others, both are illegal.

Terry v. Ohio actually stated that reasonable suspicion constituted "that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." That doesn't mean cops have open season on frisking anyone they want.

Yes we can

Unless all 6 out of 6, which is literally impossible, fit one of those traits, you can't just go around frisking anyone.

See above

If they do frisk someone, it has to be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch."

uh. nope. Hunches are just fine. I get paid to have hunches. And believe me, I can articulate them. If I don't know you- I'm gonna pat you down. I guaran-freakin'-tee it. That has been upheld time and time and time again.

Just so I don't get accused of anything, my cousin is an attorney and I had her look over the above statement.

everybody's "cousins" are attorneys. Esp in Jersey the rest of them are criminal justice majors.

But, the guy was not violating the law and is now being charged with a bogus charge simply because he made them look bad.

when he didn't comply with a direct command, he was violating the law. Thats the part most people don't like/choose to overlook.

[PAmedic]

PS: finally a good argument around here

[blwall1416]

If I don't know you- I'm gonna pat you down.

HAHA!!

[Schfourteenteen]

If I don't know you- I'm gonna pat you down.

HAHA!!

Just wait till you find out what he does to his "friends"

[jbock13]

My new favorite cliche line from the click it or ticket morons...

"Cops write tickets to save lives."

Should they? I mean if you're going 15 mph over the speed limit, sure, you may be endangering the lives of others. But if you choose not to wear your seat belt, who are you harming? Nobody. If you get in a wreck and die, its your fault, you didn't harm anybody else.

For the record, its stupid not to wear your seatbelt. And I also know most cops don't really care, and that federal money is why they are forced to do these things. But all our liberties are slowly being taken away...

[NG33]

But if you choose not to wear your seat belt, who are you harming? Nobody. If you get in a wreck and die, its your fault, you didn't harm anybody else.

I think they include "saving yourself" when they mean saving lives haha

But all our liberties are slowly being taken away...

I think there are probably bigger issues of liberties being taken away then them telling us to wear seat belts. Honestly it's just a seat belt. They are a safety precaution. It's not even that big of a hassle lol I never understood the big fight over that. Is it just because you don't like being told what to do?

[Kolzilla41]

Exactly. Let's say you partake in your civil right to not wear a seat belt. You get into an accident and get put on life support. You have no health insurance. Should the hospital pull the plug because you are infringing on my personal liberties because my health insurance or taxes go up? Where is your concern then? The fact is the benefit of seat belts far outweigh the negatives.

[jbock13]

Exactly. Let's say you partake in your civil right to not wear a seat belt. You get into an accident and get put on life support. You have no health insurance. Should the hospital pull the plug because you are infringing on my personal liberties because my health insurance or taxes go up? Where is your concern then? The fact is the benefit of seat belts far outweigh the negatives.

1. If you don't have health insurance, then who's fault is that?
2. You should be required to pay over certain amounts of time. Of course, our wonderful government will already pay your bill if this scenario were to happen.

FlamerBob, I'm not advocating that anybody shouldn't wear their seat belts. I've driven for 4 years now, and never once not worn my seat belt. But why should police officers, who have other things to do such as fighting crime, waste their resources on seat belt "violations"?

NG33, it's the matter that the government is mandating a certain law on my private property. A perfect example is what I gave above... driving 50 in a 25 is a clear public nuisance, but not wearing your seat belt is not. It's all about revenue enhancement. And that's why it's more annoying. I'm not for banning texting while driving, but you could at least claim it's a public nuisance.

[4everfsu]

More about this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... un-owners/

[NG33]

NG33, it's the matter that the government is mandating a certain law on my private property. A perfect example is what I gave above... driving 50 in a 25 is a clear public nuisance, but not wearing your seat belt is not. It's all about revenue enhancement. And that's why it's more annoying. I'm not for banning texting while driving, but you could at least claim it's a public nuisance.

Alright I see where you're coming from