Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Would like to know your thoughts on this:

Z-vUYeJXSrA




I'm on the fence because I'm unsure of who was in the wrong here. If the guy had and was within his legal rights to carry, does he not have a legal right to refuse an unlawful order (ie getting on your knees)?

I will say it was a stupid move on his part to argue. I would've just done what I was told and brought it to a courtroom.

The officer was lacking a bit of knowledge, but the citizen was more wrong. He should have followed all police commands, especially when the officer had a bead on him. It would have been much easier to do what the officer said and calmly talked about open carry laws after rather than arguing with an officer who is ready to cap your *** for not following his direction and talking back to him

Would like to know your thoughts on this:

Z-vUYeJXSrA




I'm on the fence because I'm unsure of who was in the wrong here. If the guy had and was within his legal rights to carry, does he not have a legal right to refuse an unlawful order (ie getting on your knees)?

I will say it was a stupid move on his part to argue. I would've just done what I was told and brought it to a courtroom.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch the video. However, I would have to research the case but I read a piece of case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, where they issued an opinion stating that a citizen does not have the right to resist (physically or otherwise) commands/arrest from law enforcement, even if they are unlawful. It was further stated that one should comply, and then fight the detention or arrest in court at a later date, as that's the purpose of the court system.

The whole point behind the ruling was that what may seem "unlawful" to your regular joe maybe something that is completely lawful when viewed in hindsight by the court, given the circumstances. The courts do not want everybody fighting detentions/arrests "in the street". Best advice is to comply, and then take it up in court civily at a later date.

I only listened to the first 15 or 20 seconds, but I got the gist of it. Maybe someone from PA, mcsap or Greg can explain the laws to us.

I think it's stupid to open carry in a city like that unless you have a permit stapled to your forehead. I think the city of Portland has an ordinance against open carry even if you have a CCW permit, but I'm too lazy to research it. Stuff like that were one of the few things that we didn't have a much trouble with. It might make you feel tough to walk around like Gary Cooper, but it will always create a problem in an urban area like that.

Mcsap would know better than me as he is much closer to there than I am. I do believe Philly also has an ordinance against open carry but I could be wrong. Philly kind of has its own set of rules that it plays by.

I listened to about the first 2:00 or so, and from what I heard, I would say the guy was WRONG! Whether he was within his rights to carry openly or not should NOT have mattered at that moment, the thing that should have mattered was complying with lawful orders from a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. When I applied for my CCW I was told that I would be held to a higher standard to comply with the law, such as keeping myself OUT of situations where I could use my gun. I look at it this way, the best weapon I have is my brain, and that keeps me from getting into situations that I would need to pull my gun (when not on duty in uniform). Sometimes, however, the world sees things differently than I and pulls a fast one and I may have to be in that position of having to defend myself or others, and that's why I carry.

That being said, this guy should have KNOWN that if he decided to carry, especially openly, that he's held to a MUCH STRICTER standard than the regular person when coming into contact with anyone where the weapon is a problem. When this officer told him, again and again and again, that he didn't know what the situation was and only wanted to detain him for investigation, that is the officer practicing good officer safety skills, and the guy should have complied instead of arguing it. Argue it after I've disarmed you and I feel safe enough to put MY weapon away. Then I'll talk to you about the laws and who you are, or any other thing for that matter, but until that point, he should have obeyed quickly and without question.

I do believe Philly also has an ordinance against open carry but I could be wrong. Philly kind of has its own set of rules that it plays by.

And they probably should given the crime rate.

I'm a big believer in gun rights, I've continuously owned a firearm of some kind since I was 9 years old. But there is a point where common sense comes into play and this guy has none. He's playing some sort of game with the police because he thinks he's right. People like him can end up dead right.

It's everything to do with culture. Where I live, about an hour from Portland I wouldn't give a second thought to some guy with a gun on his hip working around his house or on his farm. But somebody walking down the street in Portland is a different story. Who knows if he's a legal gun owner or is he some dip that just got out of prison and is looking to settle a score with the police or someone else? An urban area like that is not a culture where people walk around like it's the old West and someone displaying a gun is almost always up to no good.

If someone like that thinks they're right and I'm wrong then comply and sue me later. Otherwise it very well might be their estate suing me instead.

I am all for gun owner's rights. I own 3 firearms, one of which is on me at all times...although you would never know it because I keep it concealed (that is both per department policy AND common sense). I just don't "get" these open carry nuts, they reek of "Look at me! I am an attention wh0re!" I think they do more harm than good. Think of it this way...as officers the bad guys know we have guns and they STILL attempt to disarm us. We have level 3 (most of us) holsters and are trained in weapon retention. The fact that I am an officer will not stop somebody hell bent on attempting to take my weapon, but at least I have some training to revert to should the worst happen. I have never seen a civilian open carry with a level 2 or 3 holster. Couple that with the fact they have never been trained in weapons retention. All this adds up to a disaster. If a wack-a-do wants to kill somebody he's more likely to disarm some meatball head open carrying than he is an officer. I just don't get it.

I listened to whole thing....YIKES..... the guy was in the wrong for arguing and trying to school the officer on open carry laws and I felt that he was being a nice nasty answering the questions/stating his case..you should always just comply and obey with what the law says...but I do not agree with the statement the officer said around 0:46 ? the guy was questioning the order of getting on his knees and the officer threatened to shoot him if he did not comply with those orders. i could understand if he could not see his hands the weapon etc...but just because he would'nt get on his knees? that just seems extreme to me ....if the guy stayed standing would he have been shot?? I also don't think all the cussing was really necessary but I suppose it happens when your dealing with dummies that won't listen...and plus he RECORDED the whole thing he really is a dummy asking for trouble... just my two cents..

PA has its share of these guys. A guy from the forums at the PAFOA forums was here a while ago and then started a thread over there complaining that he had been banned "for no reason."

In the interest of defending RP, I went over there and explained what actually happened. Those guys are militant in their views, and anyone reasonable gets shouted down and called names.

One of the more 'reasonable' people there, a lawyer, told me that his advice is to never talk to the police under any circumstances. No witness statements, no crime reports, not anything ever, no exceptions.

They are pro gun and see the police as the enemy, and by and large reject the idea that lawfully armed citizens and cops are on the same side. They feel that if it's legal to OC, then a cop asking for their ID after a call is an infringement of their rights. When I submitted that the choice to exercise their right not to ID themselves or answer any questions/cooperate should be made on a case by case basis, they rejected that idea as well, taking the side that any failure to ALWAYS exercise EVERY right was to completely abandon all liberty.

I'm not going to provide a link publicly, but anyone who wants to take a look can PM me and I'll provide it.

-Citicop.

Back in the mid 90's, when there weren't nearly as many forums around, I was on one that was more or less supposed to be for LE. Police were verified and all that, but the firearms section was frequented by some real nut cases from up state NY. Most never ventured out of the firearms area and their posts made the NRA look like the ACLU. Really scary people.

Back in the mid 90's, when there weren't nearly as many forums around, I was on one that was more or less supposed to be for LE. Police were verified and all that, but the firearms section was frequented by some real nut cases from up state NY. Most never ventured out of the firearms area and their posts made the NRA look like the ACLU. Really scary people.

This guy did this on purpose...why else would he discretely audio tape it? Even without knowing the local ordinances the jackass was wrong.

Mayhaps the cop should know the laws he is being paid to enforce, or maybe that is asking too much. BTW PA has statewide authority on gun laws so it does not matter one bit what the city of Philly thinks. They have lost that on in court before and the city is going to lose the lawsuit that I hope this guy brings.

We tried to pass OC law here but they amended the Bill so the OC part was removed. Personally I wouldn't open carry even if it was allowed in FL. There are to many idiots that would try to start trouble because you have a gun. Also, it removes the advantage that one would have carrying concealed.

I really don't buy the whole "I don't know if you are carrying legally" type thing. An officer doesn't really know what drivers are driving legally and you can't stop them just to find out if they are licensed. So, if the law allows for open carry people shouldn't be stopped only because they are carrying. If they do something stupid while carrying, just like when driving, then by all means question them.

This guy would have wound up with the same outcome, but with less drama and less chance of being shot, if he would have just complied with the officer's orders. My bet is that he saw the officer and wanted to have a confrontation from the get go, why else would he be recording the whole thing.

They are going to try to charge the guy for other things because of all this.
Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun - Stossel's Take Blog - FOXBusiness.com (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun?test=latestnews)

"A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police... He's scheduled for trial in July."

This guy did this on purpose...why else would he discretely audio tape it? Even without knowing the local ordinances the jackass was wrong.

THIS.

The whole point of looser gun control laws is to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Once they realize police and armed, law-abiding citizens are on the same team, these idiots should go away. I can understand carrying and getting caught and even educating the officers on the law. Once the officers realized it was okay and let him go, he should have shook their hands and went on his way knowing that he helped inform an entire squad (quite the wrong way, but decent outcome). Showing them up on "youtube" is the act of the enemy though, not an ally.

This guy did this on purpose...why else would he discretely audio tape it? Even without knowing the local ordinances the jackass was wrong.

No doubt the guy was looking for trouble b/c he kept arguing but * What if *? he was 100% sure about the laws and thought to himself I need to record this for my own evidence/protection of being charged...according to the above link if what it says is actual facts then he was in fact correct about the laws so technically he did'nt break that law had he of not been a smartalic about the situation he would of gotten off probably with an apology too...but I have to wonder why the officer was not familiar with the laws? during the video he continually stated that open carry was illegal.

As if dummies charges were not enough he posted it on youtube ??...what a genious...

I don't know PA law so I can only speak to Wisconsin.

As some of you may or may not know, you can ONLY open carry here. That being said there has been a lot of poo-slinging coming from both sides of the fence over it.

Here in WI, it is not grounds to detain someone simply because they are carrying a firearm. This was addressed by our state attorney general Van Hollen over a year ago as a result of the Brad Krause case. Google "Van Hollen Memo".

Furthermore, we are not required to provide ID simply on the basis of carrying a firearm.

Because of the harassment/arrests that have resulted of OC'ers, Wisconsin Open Carry Assoc recommends that all open carriers keep a recorder on them for their own defense. To date this has exonerated several OC'ers.

In light of that, I don't think that the guy in this situation was recording with the intent of causing trouble. From what I've read, legally he was in the right to carry as he was.

I don't know about refusing the orders. And as I said, I would have just complied and brought it before a judge. It wouldn't do me any good to have "I was right" chiseled on my tombstone.


***edit:

Also to expound upon what Norm said, Wisconsin has a "pre-emption law" as well regarding firearms. Hence it doesn't matter what the local ordinances are, the state supersedes all.

Mayhaps the cop should know the laws he is being paid to enforce, or maybe that is asking too much. BTW PA has statewide authority on gun laws so it does not matter one bit what the city of Philly thinks. They have lost that on in court before and the city is going to lose the lawsuit that I hope this guy brings.

If he lives that long. Going around baiting cops isn't the smartest thing to do. Playing tough guy because he has a gun might have its price. He can bring a lawsuit w/o being such a jerk.

Not to mention we don't know the rest of the circumstances. If he matched the description of someone who committed a crime, his CCW permit isn't part of the problem.

I don't know about refusing the orders. And as I said, I would have just complied and brought it before a judge. It wouldn't do me any good to have "I was right" chiseled on my tombstone.


The officer may not be approaching you just because you have a gun. As I posted, you might vaguely fit the description of someone who just did a crime nearby and the officer is under no obligation to explain it all to you at the time. There is a time and place to take action if you were done wrong. When the cop has his gun pointed at you is not the best time to jump up on a soapbox.

If he lives that long. Going around baiting cops isn't the smartest thing to do. Playing tough guy because he has a gun might have its price. He can bring a lawsuit w/o being such a jerk.

Not to mention we don't know the rest of the circumstances. If he matched the description of someone who committed a crime, his CCW permit isn't part of the problem.

How do you know he was baiting cops?

Not to mention we don't know the rest of the circumstances. If he matched the description of someone who committed a crime, his CCW permit isn't part of the problem.

Bingo. I didn't watch the whole video, only about the first minute. I turned it off for several reasons:
1. There is only audio
2. We have no idea what initiated the incident
3. I wasn't about to listen to 15 minutes of some guy wanting to prove he is right. As Darin said that recorder wasn't on by accident. It's yet another one of the many "traps" police get put into as the newest youtube fad.

If the guy wasn't doing anything wrong he would have likely been out of there in under 5 minutes. Instead it took at least 15 minutes.


Let's also not forget police get can be shot with legally owned/carried guns. I forgot though, I get paid 13 bucks an hour to be a punching bag/bullet sponge.

:( that's no where near enough considering what you guys do... If I was in the officers position I probably would have pulled my gun out to , here you are walking down the street and this random guy has gun strapped to his side... you can honestly never be to safe this day and age...I'm not sure if I think it was a setup or not only b/c he acted like to me he knew he was right so right that he would carry a gun in the open in front of the police without a moments hestitation, maybe it was a setup... he was awfully calm with his arguing and bold... BUT it is a crime that the clown was right about the law...being legal...that kind of stinks for the officer.

:( that's no where near enough considering what you guys do... If I was in the officers position I probably would have pulled my gun out to , here you are walking down the street and this random guy has gun strapped to his side... you can honestly never be to safe this day and age...I'm not sure if I think it was a setup or not only b/c he acted like to me he knew he was right so right that he would carry a gun in the open in front of the police without a moments hestitation, maybe it was a setup... he was awfully calm with his arguing and bold... BUT it is a crime that the clown was right about the law...being legal...that kind of stinks for the officer.

You would pull your gun on someone doing something perfectly legal under state law? I too am glad that you are not a police officer.

How do you know he was baiting cops?

I listened to enough the video. If he had complied, it would have been over in a matter of second and he could have been on his way, contacting an attorney or whatever. The fact he was recording it says that he was out to create an incident if possible.

Let's also not forget police get can be shot with legally owned/carried guns. I forgot though, I get paid 13 bucks an hour to be a punching bag/bullet sponge.

It's not worth it at $35 an hour either.

Fortunately, Oregon doesn't have a law that specifically says people can open carry. It's legal except where there are ordinances against it. Here, if you have a permit, then you carry it concealed.

You would pull your gun on someone doing something perfectly legal under state law? I too am glad that you are not a police officer.

If I felt threatened I would...which he obviously did b/c he kept stating " I don't know you".. which to me indicates " I'm not certain just what you are capable of... so yeah he felt threatened and I would also....esp if he was sure that he was correct about the laws..in the officers mind he might have been thinking " this guy has to be up to no good to be carrying a gun in plain view like this"... esp if he was under the impression that open carry was illegal to begin with....no I'm not saying shoot the guy lol all I'm saying is you can never be to cautious...:)

Let's also not forget police get can be shot with legally owned/carried guns. I forgot though, I get paid 13 bucks an hour to be a punching bag/bullet sponge.

Wow Greg... You must really love what you do. I can't think of any job I'd want to do for 13 bucks an hour, let alone one where I could take a bullet for my troubles.

I listened to enough the video. If he had complied, it would have been over in a matter of second and he could have been on his way, contacting an attorney or whatever. The fact he was recording it says that he was out to create an incident if possible.

I also agree with this, he was being sarcastic and that's why it escalated the way that it did...heck i was getting annoyed listening to him go on and on if he would have just stood there and waited for the officer to ask the questions THEN answered it would'nt have gone that far he was trying his hardest to out talk him/ out smart him

If I felt threatened I would...which he obviously did b/c he kept stating " I don't know you".. which to me indicates " I'm not certain just what you are capable of... so yeah he felt threatened and I would also....esp if he was sure that he was correct about the laws..in the officers mind he might have been thinking " this guy has to be up to no good to be carrying a gun in plain view like this"... esp if he was under the impression that open carry was illegal to begin with....no I'm not saying shoot the guy lol all I'm saying is you can never be to cautious...:)

I don't think the officer "felt threatened". The story as I read it was the guy was walking to auto zone when a cop noticed him and then drew down on him. The suspect was unaware the cop was even around until he addressed him.

Wow Greg... You must really love what you do. I can't think of any job I'd want to do for 13 bucks an hour, let alone one where I could take a bullet for my troubles.

It's not always about the pay...

I don't think the officer "felt threatened". The story as I read it was the guy was walking to auto zone when a cop noticed him and then drew down on him. The suspect was unaware the cop was even around until he addressed him.

maybe he thought he was going to rob the auto zone... you see a guy about to walk into a store with gun plastered on his hip hmmmm let me think about this....:) yeah i would have stopped him also

maybe he thought he was going to rob the auto zone... you see a guy about to walk into a store with gun plastered on his hip hmmmm let me think about this....:) yeah i would have stopped him also

I disagree. Granted there are some dumb criminals out there, but one with half a brain is not going to have a weapon visible on his march to rob someone/place and possibly attract unwanted attention. They want the element of surprise.

Because of the harassment/arrests that have resulted of OC'ers, Wisconsin Open Carry Assoc recommends that all open carriers keep a recorder on them for their own defense. To date this has exonerated several OC'ers.

In light of that, I don't think that the guy in this situation was recording with the intent of causing trouble. From what I've read, legally he was in the right to carry as he was.



I have less issue with what he did in terms of recording or carrying than I do about releasing it. If his intent was to avoid prosecution, record all the live-long day and bring it to trial.

If his intent was to bait and inflame, record and release it to YouTube.

A much better response for the tape would be to give it the department and thank them for obeying the law and let them use it as a teaching tool.

The goal is education, not humiliation. He was in the right, legally, and that should put him on the same side as LE.

I don't think the officer "felt threatened". The story as I read it was the guy was walking to auto zone when a cop noticed him and then drew down on him. The suspect was unaware the cop was even around until he addressed him.

I think he DID feel threatened. It's not presumptively reasonable to feel threatened, but I think he did. It comes from being in an area where there are generally only two kinds of people that carry guns: police and bad guys. That's the same presumption we have in war zones. I don't think philly is much different.

I disagree. Granted there are some dumb criminals out there, but one with half a brain is not going to have a weapon visible on his march to rob someone/place and possibly attract unwanted attention. They want the element of surprise.

yeah you do have a point...:) I was trying to think of every possible reason...lol why he would have his weapon pulled without feeling threatened that's all but I do think he felt threatened you could hear it in his voice..., benefit of the doubt...Mike you might just have a very valid point with the youtube thing....so what happens now do you think the officer will get in trouble for pulling his weapon on someone that intially was not breaking the law? either way right or wrong the guy acted like a jerk..IMO..

If I felt threatened I would...which he obviously did b/c he kept stating " I don't know you".. which to me indicates " I'm not certain just what you are capable of... so yeah he felt threatened and I would also....esp if he was sure that he was correct about the laws..in the officers mind he might have been thinking " this guy has to be up to no good to be carrying a gun in plain view like this"... esp if he was under the impression that open carry was illegal to begin with....no I'm not saying shoot the guy lol all I'm saying is you can never be to cautious...:)

Threatened by a HOLSTERED gun? He must crap his pants every time he goes to work.

Threatened by a HOLSTERED gun? He must crap his pants every time he goes to work.

lol I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think he felt threatened...for whatever reason...it's hard to say without actual footage..vs just listening..I would be curious to see the tape from the car.

Since we don't know all the circumstances surrounding this, it is really hard to say what was going through the officer's mind and the guy carrying. For me, it boils down to...if a cop tells you to do something...ya better do it. Who knows maybe a cop just got shot in Philly recently or almost shot under similar circumstances and the cop was overly cautious, I know ya can't be too careful but I think you know what I mean. If I were a cop I would rather a case be thrown out because I either did not know a law or perhaps chose to "not know that law" to make damm sure I went home that night in one piece. ...probably why I'm not a cop....

It's not worth it at $35 an hour either.


Oh definitely, I was just trying to put things in perspective for some of the non-LEO's. Many people think it's part of the job. My job description says nothing about getting shot.


Wow Greg... You must really love what you do. I can't think of any job I'd want to do for 13 bucks an hour, let alone one where I could take a bullet for my troubles.

It's more of trying to get my foot in the door in a competitive job market... If I had a job offer for a decent wage I would consider leaving.


It's not always about the pay...

Nope but respect in this job is gone, both towards us and by each other. Leads to a quick burnout. That's a whole different topic though.


For the issue at hand the guy wanted to turn it into an issue as already discussed. That's very obvious to me. It didn't need to be that way by any means. People throw out common sense and stir **** up these days to make a quick buck. If I was a judge in that civil suit and only had the audio I would probably laugh at the guy. For all we know the guy was holding a gun at the officer the whole time.

For the issue at hand the guy wanted to turn it into an issue as already discussed. That's very obvious to me. It didn't need to be that way by any means. People throw out common sense and stir **** up these days to make a quick buck. If I was a judge in that civil suit and only had the audio I would probably laugh at the guy. For all we know the guy was holding a gun at the officer the whole time.


You arn't encouraging an officer of the law to lie to a judge and jury are you?

One of the more 'reasonable' people there, a lawyer, told me that his advice is to never talk to the police under any circumstances. No witness statements, no crime reports, not anything ever, no exceptions.


I've dealt with a few of those types here as well. Some people are just fanatical. What happened to exercising good judgement and common sense? I've dealt with some that called our agency to give a vague report of a crime they were a victim of, and then when we arrive on scene to take a report, they refuse to talk to us. Fine with me, Don't want to be a victim? I clear the call out as uncooperative victim and go about my business. They are usually the first one's to cry that we didn't do anything. How can we do anything when YOU REFUSED to speak with us?

The only one's that truely bother me are the ones that refuse to be a witness. Have the cajones to stand up and help someone out. Give us a statement so that we can put someone in jail for victimizing someone else. I've dealt with a few of these, and I have no problem telling them that Karma will eventually bite them in the a$$ and that it could be them or someone else they know or love that is a true victim of a crime and the lack of assistance from a witness in the case, could break their case and rob them of justice.

You arn't encouraging an officer of the law to lie to a judge and jury are you?

I'm sure he meant that hypothetically norm.

It's more of trying to get my foot in the door in a competitive job market... If I had a job offer for a decent wage I would consider leaving.


How far away from the rust belt are you willing to step through that door? Jobs are tough all over but there are still departments hiring out here and they pay twice what you mentioned to new recruits out of the academy.

Pennsylvania is a tough market. it wasn't long ago that two officers from neighboring suburbs out pf philly got in a physical fight over an arrest. Both departments were shrinking and the demographics were changing. Not a very job-secure/opportunistic place to be, IMO. Maybe Pitt is different? Dunno.

You arn't encouraging an officer of the law to lie to a judge and jury are you?

Not at all. If it was holstered it was hosltered. I'm just trying to make the point that audio alone as evidence has its flaws.


How far away from the rust belt are you willing to step through that door? Jobs are tough all over but there are still departments hiring out here and they pay twice what you mentioned to new recruits out of the academy.

Pennsylvania is a tough market. it wasn't long ago that two officers from neighboring suburbs out pf philly got in a physical fight over an arrest. Both departments were shrinking and the demographics were changing. Not a very job-secure/opportunistic place to be, IMO. Maybe Pitt is different? Dunno.

I'm willing to move jobs before locations. Just no desire to move really.

It's competitive everywhere and part of the issue is all of the part timers we have here. Every time a decent full time job comes up part timers flock like vultures applying for it. Mix in the military people and politics (people that know someone)and it's a tough hill to climb. My degree might as well be toilet paper around here. I recently applied to the AG's office but I doubt I have the experience for something like that.

Well, I cannot speak about PA, but.......

If an officer drew down on me then put me in cuffs while I was shopping for carrying a holstered firearm, not only would he soon be unemployed, but the county would be writing me a nice fat check.

Well, I cannot speak about PA, but.......

If an officer drew down on me then put me in cuffs while I was shopping for carrying a holstered firearm, not only would he soon be unemployed, but the county would be writing me a nice fat check.

I'm actually kind of surprised that he did'nt try to sue ESP since he was correct about the law being legal...it would of been REALLY bad if he ended up shot...what a mess that would of been....

Threatened by a HOLSTERED gun? He must crap his pants every time he goes to work.

Must be a culture thing, Norm. I run across citizens nearly every day wearing holstered pistols. No big thing unless they are doing something wrong that requires my attention. And, "lawful" citizens can carry concealed without any type of permit here so I don't know how many people I speak to, drive or walk by everyday that are armed.

As long as they are not conducting any other unlawful, disruptive or suspicious activity we don't even mention the holstered weapon.

We still get the occasional call from someone all worried about a man with a gun, but it's usually from a winter visitor or someone back east that freaks out. Call takers usually sort those out and deputies are not dispatched unless there is other suspicious activity involved.

I don't see it much around here. I did have a clerk at one of the local gas stations ask me about it somewhat recently. She said there is a customer that comes in on occasion with one showing. I told her he's fine as long as he isnt drawing it or demanding any money...


What I forgot to mention is that businesses have a right to deny armed people access. doh!

Well, I cannot speak about PA, but.......

If an officer drew down on me then put me in cuffs while I was shopping for carrying a holstered firearm, not only would he soon be unemployed, but the county would be writing me a nice fat check.

If that's the only reason he did it.

It's not wise to automatically assume that the cop is just concerned about your holstered weapon if he draws down on you. If I got a call with the suspect description of someone who committed a crime as a middle aged, heavy set man with brown hair, etc. and carrying a weapon on his hip and I see someone matching that, I'm going to draw down on him and I'm not going to explain why until I've secured that firearm. This would not be the time to go into a second amendment rant, believe me.

If I clear him as a suspect, I will return the gun, explain why I did what I did, apologize and that would be it. If that person wants to waste his money and time with a lawyer, go ahead.

The point I've been trying to make is, comply THEN complain. The moron in that audio didn't do that.

I got jacked up by a young officer not long after I retired in a small nearby town. Not over a gun, but he was a little more enthusiastic than the situation called for. I did everything the idiot said, was polite as hell and when it was over, I called and talked to his Sgt. The Sgt let out a long deep breath and I knew this wasn't the first time for this kid. That's the way to handle it, not be Joe I-have-my-rights at the scene.

Must be a culture thing, Norm. I run across citizens nearly every day wearing holstered pistols. No big thing unless they are doing something wrong that requires my attention. And, "lawful" citizens can carry concealed without any type of permit here so I don't know how many people I speak to, drive or walk by everyday that are armed.


Absolutely. I can drive a few hours from Portland and see people with guns on their hips and never give it a second thought. Downtown Portland is a different story.

HEHE, I like the people that probably have never worked in a LEO capacity and definitely never worked in a extreme high crime area talking about how they would approach someone with an open carry.


This isn't a us against them issue. I like when I interact with someone with a CHL. Does it mean I automatically give them extra credit? No, some of you CHL guys and gals need to drill that through your head, in no way does that mean you are less likely to commit a crime or that you are somehow a more upstanding citizen. It means nothing to me....because they are not hard to get....

The totality of circumstances is something that every court recognizes and something that some people are missing here. Someone open carrying in that area is not illegal, but is highly unusual.

Lets see how far we can apply this.

What if.... you saw a middle eastern male, walking down the street in your open carry area,

the male has....

A large beard...
Weighted camo vest with multiple pouches with BDUs...
A Glock on his hip with 8 magazine holders each carrying a fully loaded mag...
A koran in his left hand

Now you watch this guy walk into.....a Christian bookstore where your wife and kids are shopping while calmly chanting allahu akbar allahu akbar allahu akbar over and over with a menacing look in his eyes.

What would you do? I'm just curious, oh and he has a couple of metal canisters of butane sticking out of his pockets, oooh and lets not forget the death to America trucker hat he has on lol....

Oh and unfortunately you are wheel chair bound and there is a big ol' nasty curb between you and the store, however there is a cop standing nearby. What would you like to happen in this convoluted situation?

HEHE, I like the people that probably have never worked in a LEO capacity and definitely never worked in a extreme high crime area talking about how they would approach someone with an open carry.


Are you a LEO limeade?

Are you a LEO limeade?

Well for the time being you will have to draw your own conclusion, but my information has been sent to a moderator.

Well for the time being you will have to draw your own conclusion, but my information has been sent to a moderator.
I suggested you do that back in October, you just now getting around to it?

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/general-law-enforcement-topics-discussion-2/95727-ej-question.html#post1107872

And the beat goes on......


After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.


"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."

Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.

"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

Only seven states ban the practice of openly carrying guns, and Pennsylvania isn't one of them, according to OpenCarry.org, which advocates gun rights. In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly. But on Feb. 13 a police sergeant who was unaware of the law -- which dates back to at least 1996 when the state Supreme Court referenced it in an unrelated ruling -- stopped Fiorino, who was walking to an auto parts shop in Northeast Philadelphia with a gun on his hip.

Sgt. Michael Dougherty can be heard yelling out to Fiorino as "Junior," and asking him to show his hands as Fiorino protests having a gun pointed at his chest, prompting Dougherty to call for backup.

Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

When several other officers arrive, Fiorino is forced to the ground as he tries to explain that he's not breaking the law.

"Shut the f---- up!" Dougherty yells.

Police found the recorder while searching Fiorino's pockets. Officers eventually released him after speaking to the department's lawyer and being told that he was within his legal rights.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey took issue with Dougherty's language and his lack of knowledge about the law during the altercation, Evers said, but not with the stop itself.

Evers, who has been an officer for nearly 20 years, said "very rarely do people open carry in Philadelphia." But he added he wasn't make excuses.

"We weren't as up on that crime code as we should have been," he said, adding that officers are being re-educated on open carry in response to the incident.

Dougherty is facing disciplinary action pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation, Evers said.

Fiorino's trial is scheduled to begin in July and the district attorney's office emphasizes that Fiorino's response to the police, not his gun rights, are at issue.

"This office respects and upholds the rights of a citizen to lawfully carry a firearm," Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "The permit to carry a concealed weapon, however, does not mean that a permitholder can abuse that right by refusing to cooperate with police."

Jamerson said Fiorino "allegedly became belligerent and hostile" when police officers "were legally attempting to investigate a potential crime."

But Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the case is larger than Fiorino.

"It's my position that this entire prosecution is an effort by Philadelphia authorities to send a message to legitimate gun owners that open carry as a practice is not welcome in Philadelphia despite the fact that it's constitutionally protected behavior and that's offensive to me as a citizen and as a lawyer," Valvo said.

Gun rights advocates say they're are also offended.

John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org said, Philadelphia police have sent a clear message to gun owners that will chill their rights to openly carry.

"Even if it's legal, we can punish you financially and by disruptions in your life," he said.

But the district attorney's office dismissed as "ludicrous" claims it is seeking retaliation or trying to send a message.

"This office only charges people with offenses that we think we can prosecute," Jamerson said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We just don't willy-nilly charge a person with a crime as retaliation for an incident."

The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.

His handgun was confiscated once for five months, but neither occasion escalated like the third encounter.

Fiorino said he studied Pennsylvania law for a year before he started openly carrying a gun. He said he carries the gun openly because some of his friends have been held up at gunpoint and he's not willing to allow himself to be helpless.

Police spokesman Evers said Fiorino appears to be inviting trouble from the law by "surreptitiously" recording his encounters with police.

"If you put everything together, it was more than him walking down the street to go to an auto parts store -- without a jacket in the middle of winter," Evers said.

But Fiorino denies that he was looking for trouble.

"How many times does a convenience store need to be robbed to be justified in putting up a security system?" he said.

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews)

And the beat goes on......


After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews)

I would think proning out everyone they encounter with an open carry firearm is going to be legally problematic without some other violation. After this incident, is it 'reasonable suspicion' that an open carry firearm is illegal and therefore justifies an investigatory stop?

I would think proning out everyone they encounter with an open carry firearm is going to be legally problematic without some other violation. After this incident, is it 'reasonable suspicion' that an open carry firearm is illegal and therefore justifies an investigatory stop?

We'll have to see who's lawyers win......

We'll have to see who's lawyers win......

Naah. I'm waiting for them to change it into an city environmental issue. "You can carry firearms, just not any lead. Or gunpowder as that could increase carbon emissions if fired."

What would you like to happen in this convoluted situation?

I think a less sophomoric situational example would be more appropriate for meaningful discussion.

I suggested you do that back in October, you just now getting around to it?

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/general-law-enforcement-topics-discussion-2/95727-ej-question.html#post1107872

I'm paranoid, was skeptical about sending my information. Took the plunge with another site, now I'm ready for this one...and I'm lazy.

I think a less sophomoric situational example would be more appropriate for meaningful discussion.

Easy now, lets not attack the question. I just want to illustrate a point, it's all fun and games when a legal weapon makes a officer nervous, but more than likely that attitude changes when the variables get switched around.

HEHE, I like the people that probably have never worked in a LEO capacity and definitely never worked in a extreme high crime area talking about how they would approach someone with an open carry.




Who the hell are you and what are your creds?

Who the hell are you and what are your creds?

Easy now, what would you like to know?

Like I've said previously, my credentials have been sent to a mod. With the rules of this site in mind, I think specifically saying what I am without the proper designation may or may not land me in me in trouble.

If you would like to answer my question, then by all means answer it. If not, no harm no foul.

Limeade-

A little background... Norm's not an LEO, but he's a Verified BTDT and has seen a lot.

He may not know what it's like to be a cop, but he definately knows what it means to be a sheepdog, pure and simple.

(Norm- I don't intend to tell tales out of school here... I'll delete this at your request.)

-Citicop.

Limeade-

A little background... Norm's not an LEO, but he's a Verified BTDT and has seen a lot.

He may not know what it's like to be a cop, but he definately knows what it means to be a sheepdog, pure and simple.

(Norm- I don't intend to tell tales out of school here... I'll delete this at your request.)

-Citicop.

That's fine, my intention was never to insult him nor was it to specifically assign him my question. I'm assuming BTDT means been there done that, I don't think we need to take it any farther than that for obvious reasons.

My contention is that most reasonable people would agree that my scenario, although a little outrageous, would warrant the response of the police. However I've described nothing that is illegal. That man is free to wear any hat he wants, even if it's denouncing the US. He is free to enter that store so long as he has not been told previously that he can not. He is free to carry harmless butane canisters that he may have just purchased, he is free to wear a tac vest, free to look pissed and free according to this scenario to walk around with a pistol and loads of rounds on his person...

Most people in that scenario would scream bloody murder if something did happen and a nearby police officer did nothing.

On the flip side of this, to my knowledge American born Caucasian terrorist have killed more people in America than foreign born terrorist have. And again to my knowledge Timothy McVeigh looked like a pretty squared away kid.

I just feel like some of these guys that are getting pissed off want to say "Hey look, I'm a decent law abiding citizen, I don't look the part, pick on someone else" But I would never approach anyone with that mindset because I know that not to be true. And I seriously doubt anyone would feel comfortable in the situation if they were the ones responsible for handling the situation if one ever did arise.

Did the officer make a mistake, clearly. Can I sympathize with him and the rush of adrenaline you get when you are talking to someone that is armed and not very cooperative, absolutely.

Maybe this isn't the debate for me. Houston doesn't have this issue.

it was obvious they both was in the wrong I listened to the whole tape the cussing was unnecessary but then again when you are aggravated it's easy to let it slip, I'm obviously not a police officer but i would have at least questioned the guy about the firearm asked to see his permit...did he ever ask to see it?? or did he just insist on waiting for more back up I don't recall him asking for it..the guy offered to show him a zillion times I do know that...

I think the term "domestic terrorist" is used too loosely.

When I think of a terrorist I think of a Bin Laden - someone who wishes to instill fear (terror) and use violence against a whole nation of people. The attacks he perpetrated had everyone looking over their shoulders down all sorts of avenues. We ran around securing airports, shipping ports, embassies, etc.

Someone like McVeigh IMHO was not a terrorist. He was a nutcase with a cause for sure, and spooked a bunch of people, but he didn't plunge the nation into turmoil.

He was opposed to what was his interpretation of a "tyrannical government" and attacked a federal facility, so we labelled him a terrorist. But you see it's the victor that writes history. Had we lost the Revolutionary war, George Washington and the like would probably be labelled terrorists as well. Today however, we call them patriots and our founding fathers.

McVeigh (in his mind) attacked a government - I would call him a deranged citizen at best. Bin Laden attacked a people.

Just my $.02.

I think the term "domestic terrorist" is used too loosely.

When I think of a terrorist I think of a Bin Laden - someone who wishes to instill fear (terror) and use violence against a whole nation of people. The attacks he perpetrated had everyone looking over their shoulders down all sorts of avenues. We ran around securing airports, shipping ports, embassies, etc.

Someone like McVeigh IMHO was not a terrorist. He was a nutcase with a cause for sure, and spooked a bunch of people, but he didn't plunge the nation into turmoil.

He was opposed to what was his interpretation of a "tyrannical government" and attacked a federal facility, so we labelled him a terrorist. But you see it's the victor that writes history. Had we lost the Revolutionary war, George Washington and the like would probably be labelled terrorists as well. Today however, we call them patriots and our founding fathers.

McVeigh (in his mind) attacked a government - I would call him a deranged citizen at best. Bin Laden attacked a people.

Just my $.02.

This opinion is about as accurate as your opinion of the legality of cable theft and software piracy... :rolleyes5:

Comparing McVeigh to the Founding Fathers (and saying that the only difference between them is "who won") is offensive to me beyond words. McVeigh wanted to send a message. He targeted an occupied Federal Building with a large explosive device to kill people on a mass scale and make a big, loud point... It wasn't legitimate guerrilla warfare... that was terrorism, pure and simple.

-Citicop.

I've dealt with a few of those types here as well. Some people are just fanatical. What happened to exercising good judgement and common sense? I've dealt with some that called our agency to give a vague report of a crime they were a victim of, and then when we arrive on scene to take a report, they refuse to talk to us. Fine with me, Don't want to be a victim? I clear the call out as uncooperative victim and go about my business. They are usually the first one's to cry that we didn't do anything. How can we do anything when YOU REFUSED to speak with us?

The only one's that truely bother me are the ones that refuse to be a witness. Have the cajones to stand up and help someone out. Give us a statement so that we can put someone in jail for victimizing someone else. I've dealt with a few of these, and I have no problem telling them that Karma will eventually bite them in the a$$ and that it could be them or someone else they know or love that is a true victim of a crime and the lack of assistance from a witness in the case, could break their case and rob them of justice.

I agree with you 100%. The funny thing is the people that never want to say anything seem to think they'll never be the victim. Then when they ARE the victim they wonder why we don't arrest anyone...."But officer, there were at least 12 people that saw it happen........."

If that's the only reason he did it.

It's not wise to automatically assume that the cop is just concerned about your holstered weapon if he draws down on you. If I got a call with the suspect description of someone who committed a crime as a middle aged, heavy set man with brown hair, etc. and carrying a weapon on his hip and I see someone matching that, I'm going to draw down on him and I'm not going to explain why until I've secured that firearm. This would not be the time to go into a second amendment rant, believe me.

If I clear him as a suspect, I will return the gun, explain why I did what I did, apologize and that would be it. If that person wants to waste his money and time with a lawyer, go ahead.

The point I've been trying to make is, comply THEN complain. The moron in that audio didn't do that.

I got jacked up by a young officer not long after I retired in a small nearby town. Not over a gun, but he was a little more enthusiastic than the situation called for. I did everything the idiot said, was polite as hell and when it was over, I called and talked to his Sgt. The Sgt let out a long deep breath and I knew this wasn't the first time for this kid. That's the way to handle it, not be Joe I-have-my-rights at the scene.

Once again retdetsgt you speak the mind of many of us. That is due both to your age.....REALLY OLD AGE...and experence :) I've been dispatched to a "residential burglary in progress", made entry through an open side door, drew down on people and cuffed them, cleared the residence, only to find that they were a resident (teenager wearing a black hoodie who forgot his key so decided to hop the fence, remove a screen from a window and enter). I explained to them why I did what I did, called their parents to avoid any confusion, explained myself, and that was that. I never heard anything from it and the parents were actually understanding, and upset that their kid forgot their house key.

Most citizens do not know what information we have going into a call for service. 9 times out of 10 in similar situations people are understanding as long as you conduct yourself as a professional and explain your actions. Too many cops now-a-days have the attitude "I don't need to explain my actions to some a$$hole........" but I have found that when you are correct in your actions, were professional about it, and explain why you did what you did, people are more empathetic with you.

I am not going to say the cops in this particular case were right or wrong, I don't know what information they had going into the call. All I am saying is that from personal experience, putting myself into the shoes of somebody that does not know any better and explaining my actions, when feasible, goes a long way.

This opinion is about as accurate as your opinion of the legality of cable theft and software piracy... :rolleyes5:

I found the answer, did I not?

And trust me friend, I performed a 3 month software audit of a branch of a fortune 500 company. I know all about software piracy.



Comparing McVeigh to the Founding Fathers (and saying that the only difference between them is "who won") is offensive to me beyond words.

I knew as soon as I posted this that the reality of what I said would fly right over the heads of some.

Do I think McVeigh and Washington are the same? Hell no.

But they are both people who took a stance against what they believed to be a "tyrannical" government. One was right, one was wrong. But had Washington lost the war, you can be damn sure he would have been labeled a terrorist by the British.

McVeighs actions were based upon misguided beliefs. He was a lunatic and a murderer.

But you cannot define terrorism simply by an "act". If you do that, the word loses it's meaning - and that's why we have middle school kids today arrested for making "terroristic threats". It's ridiculous. Already back in 1988 there were 109 different definitions for "terrorism".

(Feel free to read it for yourself: Alex P. Schmid, Albert J. Jongman, et al., Political Terrorism: A New Guide to
Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.)


"Terrorism" has no goal other than to promote fear and violence against as many innocent people as possible.

The difference between McVeigh and Bin Laden is obvious. McVeigh's attack was targeted - federal employees. "Government" was the enemy, not just random Americans.

Bin Laden aimed to kill as many Americans as possible - he didn't care if they were government workers or school bus drivers. He wanted to weaken our nation as a whole, destroy our resolve, throw our infrastructure into chaos. He wanted our entire population to live in fear.

Did McVeigh? I would say no. His beef was with a government, not a people.

If we're going to define terrorism simply as high body counts, wide scale destruction, or collateral damage... well just about any high profile criminal could qualify. Along with a few world leaders. Or even our own military. We haven't had a declaration of war since WWII... would you call our soldiers "terrorists"?

See how silly it gets?


McVeigh wanted to send a message. He targeted an occupied Federal Building with a large explosive device to kill people on a mass scale and make a big, loud point...


So did Truman. On an exponentially larger scale than McVeigh. TWICE. Was he a terrorist?

I found the answer, did I not?

And trust me friend, I performed a 3 month software audit of a branch of a fortune 500 company. I know all about software piracy.



I knew as soon as I posted this that the reality of what I said would fly right over the heads of some.

Do I think McVeigh and Washington are the same? Hell no.

But they are both people who took a stance against what they believed to be a "tyrannical" government. One was right, one was wrong. But had Washington lost the war, you can be damn sure he would have been labeled a terrorist by the British.

McVeighs actions were based upon misguided beliefs. He was a lunatic and a murderer.

But you cannot define terrorism simply by an "act". If you do that, the word loses it's meaning - and that's why we have middle school kids today arrested for making "terroristic threats". It's ridiculous. Already back in 1988 there were 109 different definitions for "terrorism".

(Feel free to read it for yourself: Alex P. Schmid, Albert J. Jongman, et al., Political Terrorism: A New Guide to
Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.)


"Terrorism" has no goal other than to promote fear and violence against as many innocent people as possible.

The difference between McVeigh and Bin Laden is obvious. McVeigh's attack was targeted - federal employees. "Government" was the enemy, not just random Americans.

Bin Laden aimed to kill as many Americans as possible - he didn't care if they were government workers or school bus drivers. He wanted to weaken our nation as a whole, destroy our resolve, throw our infrastructure into chaos. He wanted our entire population to live in fear.

Did McVeigh? I would say no. His beef was with a government, not a people.

If we're going to define terrorism simply as high body counts, wide scale destruction, or collateral damage... well just about any high profile criminal could qualify. Along with a few world leaders. Or even our own military. We haven't had a declaration of war since WWII... would you call our soldiers "terrorists"?

See how silly it gets?



So did Truman. On an exponentially larger scale than McVeigh. TWICE. Was he a terrorist?

Actually a$$hole you are wrong. Bin Laden, and more specifically Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had more than just killing random Americans as their target. Their targets were specifically chosen for specific reasons. I am not going to get into details or an argument with you about 9/11 because 1: I will get banned from RP and 2: You can sit there and question my education and experience in regards to 9/11 all you want, but I will tell you, you will NEVER know what I do about 9/11.

You are no more than a troll and clearly have no idea of the context of words or phrases when applied to different circumstances. That is all I am going to say on this subject, don't expect a response.

McVeigh was a terrorist. Washington was an insurrectionist. Bin Ladin was a terrorist. They all acted illegally.

McVeigh was punished. Bin Ladin was punished. Washington was not punished because being successful meant that there was no authority to punish him. The moral and legal nature of the acts do not depend for the definition on 'post facto' punishment. They were ALL illegal at the time.

McVeigh was a terrorist. Washington was an insurrectionist. Bin Ladin was a terrorist. They all acted illegally.

McVeigh was punished. Bin Ladin was punished. Washington was not punished because being successful meant that there was no authority to punish him. The moral and legal nature of the acts do not depend for the definition on 'post facto' punishment. They were ALL illegal at the time.

Well said. Winning makes all the difference in the world. Washington wasn't a terrorist because as far as we know, he never targeted non combatants. I say as far as we know because again, history favors the winners. The South was vilified over the treatment of Union POW's at Andersonville, yet there are hardly any mention in history books of Camp Douglas outside Chicago where CSA POW's were treated at least as badly, if not worse. It could be argued that Lee was an insurrectionist, but Sherman was a terrorist. If the North had lost and Sherman were subjected to today's standards, he would be tried and probably convicted of war crimes rather than being hailed as a hero of the Union army. And I suspect many of his acts were toned down because the North won.

Bin Laden targeted the WTC because it was the symbol of the American economy. McVeigh targeted the federal building because it was a symbol of the government. I doubt anyone in that building (especially the children in the day care center) had ever done a single thing to McVeigh. The people there had done nothing more to him than the people in the WTC had done to bin Laden. Killing innocent people when going after a symbol is terrorism, IMO.

Killing innocent people when going after a symbol is terrorism, IMO.

Couldn't have said it any better. McVeigh was a (domestic) terrorist. Bin Laden was a (international) terrorist. Both terrorists who killed innocent non-combatants in order to instill terror by attacking a symbol.

but I will tell you, you will NEVER know what I do about 9/11.

If this is meant to infer that there are details not released to the public then you're probably right. If that's the case however, how can I be an ******* if I can only form an opinion based upon the information provided to me?



You are no more than a troll and clearly have no idea of the context of words or phrases when applied to different circumstances. That is all I am going to say on this subject, don't expect a response.

Ahh yes, the catch all "troll" word... over an opinion.

If I were here calling you a bunch of stupid pigs that should all rot in hell with no purpose other than to get a rise out of you, that would be trolling. Sharing my thoughts on a matter such as terrorism is not trolling simply because you don't like or agree with what I'm saying.

Couldn't have said it any better. McVeigh was a (domestic) terrorist. Bin Laden was a (international) terrorist. Both terrorists who killed innocent non-combatants in order to instill terror by attacking a symbol.

The only thing I don't like about the definitions is "WMDs". Domestically anything larger than a firecracker seems to be a WMD (i.e. McVeigh's conventional explosive is a "WMD") but internationally it only applies to NBC weapons. It seems lawmakers had a field day with definitions after all these acts. I suspect someone is going to challenge the meaning one day and use treaties we signed to get their "WMD" conviction tossed.

I don't really care if they are called terrorists or criminals or insurgents or anything else. All I want to know is Rules of Engagement. Are they military targets or police targets? As long as we know who responds and what the ROE is, that's all the definitions I care about. bin Laden - military target, DEVGRU RoE. McVeigh - police Target, FBI RoE. Airplane heading to building over continental U.S. - ?? - as long as someone knows what that is and it's legal and well thought out, call them whatever you want.

I think the term "domestic terrorist" is used too loosely.

When I think of a terrorist I think of a Bin Laden - someone who wishes to instill fear (terror) and use violence against a whole nation of people. The attacks he perpetrated had everyone looking over their shoulders down all sorts of avenues. We ran around securing airports, shipping ports, embassies, etc.

Someone like McVeigh IMHO was not a terrorist. He was a nutcase with a cause for sure, and spooked a bunch of people, but he didn't plunge the nation into turmoil.

He was opposed to what was his interpretation of a "tyrannical government" and attacked a federal facility, so we labelled him a terrorist. But you see it's the victor that writes history. Had we lost the Revolutionary war, George Washington and the like would probably be labelled terrorists as well. Today however, we call them patriots and our founding fathers.

McVeigh (in his mind) attacked a government - I would call him a deranged citizen at best. Bin Laden attacked a people.

Just my $.02.

The issue with McVeigh is that he was the product and culmination of a lot of groups thoughts. The ATF/FBI Waco raid and Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver standoff had a whole subgroup of support. When McVeigh acted with their sympathy (and sometimes support) it was like IRA/Sinn Fein. The armed group and the political group. The armed group is generally labeled terrorists as they use violence to bring attention to their cause. Shouting and voting didn't work, so McVeigh resorted to killing to get their cause in the paper. If you recall, there was also political pressure to try police for murder. Lon Horiuchi was actually indicted by a local prosecutor. That's the political side of that group. Similarly, there is lots of political support and sympathy for bin Laden in Islamic countries.

This is completely different than a true lone killer like Jared Loughner. He is not acting out of the political will of a larger group. It's his own self-interest that motivates him. Loughner is not a terrorist even though he committed a political act.

I found the answer, did I not?

And trust me friend, I performed a 3 month software audit of a branch of a fortune 500 company. I know all about software piracy.



I knew as soon as I posted this that the reality of what I said would fly right over the heads of some.

Do I think McVeigh and Washington are the same? Hell no.

But they are both people who took a stance against what they believed to be a "tyrannical" government. One was right, one was wrong. But had Washington lost the war, you can be damn sure he would have been labeled a terrorist by the British.

McVeighs actions were based upon misguided beliefs. He was a lunatic and a murderer.

But you cannot define terrorism simply by an "act". If you do that, the word loses it's meaning - and that's why we have middle school kids today arrested for making "terroristic threats". It's ridiculous. Already back in 1988 there were 109 different definitions for "terrorism".

(Feel free to read it for yourself: Alex P. Schmid, Albert J. Jongman, et al., Political Terrorism: A New Guide to
Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.)


"Terrorism" has no goal other than to promote fear and violence against as many innocent people as possible.

The difference between McVeigh and Bin Laden is obvious. McVeigh's attack was targeted - federal employees. "Government" was the enemy, not just random Americans.

Bin Laden aimed to kill as many Americans as possible - he didn't care if they were government workers or school bus drivers. He wanted to weaken our nation as a whole, destroy our resolve, throw our infrastructure into chaos. He wanted our entire population to live in fear.

Did McVeigh? I would say no. His beef was with a government, not a people.

If we're going to define terrorism simply as high body counts, wide scale destruction, or collateral damage... well just about any high profile criminal could qualify. Along with a few world leaders. Or even our own military. We haven't had a declaration of war since WWII... would you call our soldiers "terrorists"?

See how silly it gets?



So did Truman. On an exponentially larger scale than McVeigh. TWICE. Was he a terrorist?

Bin Laden's goal was NOT to "Kill as many Americans as possible." He chose specific targets for specific reasons. The choice of the WTC was an attack on our Economy. He, like McVeigh, was sending a message though violence. They both wanted to use violence (and the threat of future violence) against noncombatants to change US policies and the direction of our nation.

I would not call our soldiers terrorists, because we do not target noncombatants as a matter of policy, and in fact, our soldiers are putting their lives in greater danger with the ROE that are set up as I understand them. For instance, they cannot fire on a mosque from the outside, even if they are being fired UPON from that mosque. So, no... I would not call our soldiers "terrorists."

We don't define terrorism as simply high body counts. Ted Bundy killed a lot of people, but he wasn't a terrorist. It's the REASON that the action is taken that makes a person a terrorist. When you do violence to send a political message, that's terrorism.

The difference between Washington and McVeigh is that Washington didn't WANT violence. There was no other recourse at the time; there was no other available means to change things.

That's why when the Founding Fathers set up our system, they set it up so that it could be changed nonviolently. We transfer power from one group to another here all the time with no bloodshed at all. That was UNHEARD OF at the time the system was set up. Even the Constitution, the baseline set of rules on which we operate, can be changed. And in fact it has been, Twenty-seven times now. So if McVeigh wanted to fight a "Tyrannical Government," he had means to do so without violence.

And Wisco... when you start a post with "I knew when I posted this that it would fly right over the heads of some," it makes you sound like a self important elitist, who sees yourself as SO much more advanced than the morons on the forum you have to interact with. That could really rub people the wrong way, even if it's not the way you meant it.

-Citicop.

The Japanese high command were not tried as war criminals because of their attack on Pearl Harbor no more than the Nazi's were tried for their bombing attacks on London. To say Truman was a terrorist is silly and inane by any standards. It was a tactical decision that saved a whole lot of American and probably Japanese lives in the long run.

Bin Laden's target was the WTC. If there was a heart of the American economy, that was it. I suspect the impact that had not only on the people killed and their families, but the economy itself was staggering. I used to have this argument with Trip, if you just want to kill people and strike fear in them, go after an NFL game where there are 30-40K in attendance. There were a lot more of them at a game than in the WTC towers at any given time.

As far as our soldiers, I don't know what your military experience is, wisco nor your time in actual combat. I've had some and even though war hasn't been officially declared, the action was approved by Congress. And we were trained and under strict orders to not target civilians, only combatants. Lt. William Calley learned that the hard way. And that lesson is being learned by some young soldiers that were in Afghanistan too. But they were aberrations, not the typical soldier. Having been there, I really resent that implication from you or anyone else that American soldiers are terrorists.

To say Truman was a terrorist is silly and inane by any standards.



So did Truman. On an exponentially larger scale than McVeigh. TWICE. Was he a terrorist?

That was a question, not a statement.


I really resent that implication from you or anyone else that American soldiers are terrorists.


We haven't had a declaration of war since WWII... would you call our soldiers "terrorists"?

See how silly it gets?

And again here.

No where did I ever say Truman or our soldiers were terrorists. But if we're going to define a terrorist as someone/group who just kills a lot of people or causes large scale destruction then it opens the door to calling all sorts of people terrorists and that's where the ridiculousness sets in.

Bin Laden's goal was NOT to "Kill as many Americans as possible."

I suppose I just dreamed all of the "Death to America" chants?


He chose specific targets for specific reasons. The choice of the WTC was an attack on our Economy.

2 birds with one stone. He could've attacked the WTC at night when it would be far less occupied.



I would not call our soldiers terrorists,

Good, neither would I.


When you do violence to send a political message, that's terrorism.

So the revolts/protesters in Africa and the Middle East are all terrorists?



The difference between Washington and McVeigh is that Washington didn't WANT violence. There was no other recourse at the time; there was no other available means to change things.

The difference between them was not the violence. The difference was whether their cause was legitimate or not. Washingtons was, McVeighs wasn't.



That's why when the Founding Fathers set up our system, they set it up so that it could be changed nonviolently. We transfer power from one group to another here all the time with no bloodshed at all. That was UNHEARD OF at the time the system was set up. Even the Constitution, the baseline set of rules on which we operate, can be changed. And in fact it has been, Twenty-seven times now. So if McVeigh wanted to fight a "Tyrannical Government," he had means to do so without violence.

While I think that the founding fathers intentions were solid and sound, they have largely been ignored. The Constitution is being violated on a massive scale and Congress does nothing about it. But that would serve better for another thread.



And Wisco... when you start a post with "I knew when I posted this that it would fly right over the heads of some," it makes you sound like a self important elitist, who sees yourself as SO much more advanced than the morons on the forum you have to interact with. That could really rub people the wrong way, even if it's not the way you meant it.


Well I've noticed a recurring theme on this forum of people not really reading what has been posted and pondering it before hurling attacks. It seems that some pick a few key words at face value before giving thought to the underlying meaning.

I do my best to understand anothers point of view and if I can't I ask them to clarify. I'm not always right, but I don't resort to name calling and insults - that bears no benefit whatsoever.

No where did I ever say Truman or our soldiers were terrorists. But if we're going to define a terrorist as someone/group who just kills a lot of people or causes large scale destruction then it opens the door to calling all sorts of people terrorists and that's where the ridiculousness sets in.

You inferred it by the very question. Same as inferring our soldiers are terrorists.

Play your games all you want, your stock is dropping rapidly.

I suppose I just dreamed all of the "Death to America" chants?


Big deal, that's heard all the time in Middle East as it used to be in the Banana Republics. As I said, if his goal was just to kill people, he could have hit an major sporting event and killed 4X more. The WTC had an economic impact, not to mention the number of people killed in the Pentagon as opposed to the symbolism of hitting it. Just as he was planning to hit oil tankers. How many people would he have killed on one of them? Not many, but oil tankers are a life line to our economy. Bin Laden was an @ss, but he wasn't a dumb@ss.

So to pose a question is to infer a negative connotation? That's pretty backwards logic.

My questions were based off of what has been posted, not my personal beliefs. This is a debate, not a proclamation.

You're reminding me of the whole "phony soldiers" fiasco with Rush Limbaugh. I know you're more intelligent than that.

So to pose a question is to infer a negative connotation? That's pretty backwards logic.


You should probably stick to computer logic, not debate logic.

Well
You should probably stick to computer logic, not debate logic.

well c'mon now. Your trying to take questions I pose based off the posts of someone else and twist it to imply that it's what I personally think or believe?

google phony soldiers.

Just here to stir up crap, then?
...since it is <sic> not your belief and all.

Wisco-

Chants of "Death to America" prove my point, not yours. They were NOT chanting "Death to Americans." Bin Laden wanted to destroy what we represent; the freedom here, the way of life... our political ideology is what he was targeting.

The rest of your argument is largely semantic.

"Well, if we're going to call this guy a terrorist, why not this guy over here?... What do we really MEAN by 'terrorist?'"

You made comparisons between US soldiers, former presidents, the founders of this nation, and Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh, equivocating their actions. First you said it was only the outcome that made them any different, and then you changed your position and stated that it was the validity of thier cause (defiend solely by you, aparently) that made them different.

Playing these kind of semantic games makes you seem like a pompus elitist, Wisco.

So rather than allow you to take potshots at further definitions of terrorism of my choosing, I will ask you:


Define Terrorism. And remember that you've already said that here that we can't define it solely by the act, or the motivation, or the number of casualties, or the outcome.

And I have to agree with Switch here. If you are posting these things and they are not your personal beliefs, then are you just trying to get a reaction or rise out of us? What's the point in arguing something you don't believe?

-Citicop.

...And I have to agree with Switch here. If you are posting these things and they are not your personal beliefs, then are you just trying to get a reaction or rise out of us?

Look at his track record on here. The proof is in the pudding.

You made comparisons between US soldiers, former presidents, the founders of this nation, and Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh, equivocating their actions. First you said it was only the outcome that made them any different, and then you changed your position and stated that it was the validity of thier cause (defiend solely by you, aparently) that made them different.

I didn't change my position. I was stating that HAD the outcomes been different these people may or may not have been labeled terrorists.



Define Terrorism. And remember that you've already said that here that we can't define it solely by the act, or the motivation, or the number of casualties, or the outcome.

I can't give you a dictionary definition of terrorism, because it doesn't exist. I'm simply explaining what I believe is terrorism and what isn't.

Terrorism would require a fringe ideology. Speaking as though he were still alive, Bin Laden hates us because of what we represent, as you said. We are the "infidels". He and people like him will take a shot at us any way they can - be it an economical strike, a military strike, etc.

He may think he has a legitimate reason to do what he is doing by blaming the policies of our government. But when 9/11 happened he didn't focus his attacks against our government. He also intentionally murdered 3,000 civilians.

The difference between an action like this and say, Pearl Harbor, was the type of attack. Granted there was collateral damage and civilians died in Pearl Harbor, but that was not the purpose of the attack. The Japanese launched a military strike against a military installation and civilians got caught in the crossfire.

Back to McVeigh - same thing. His intent wasn't to kill "civilians" but rather a select group of people - federal employees. And again civilians were caught in a crossfire. McVeigh in his own twisted world declared "war" against a government. So did the Japanese. Both were wrong and both paid the price.

The difference between you and me, and someone like McVeigh is the method. We express our frustration at a government in a voting booth. He did it with a bomb.

Bin Laden didn't want to decimate a government. He wanted to decimate an entire way of living, and used our "policies" as an excuse to do it. That is terrorism. He and Hitler are probably patting eachother on the back in Hell. Yes, I consider Hitler a terrorist.



And I have to agree with Switch here. If you are posting these things and they are not your personal beliefs, then are you just trying to get a reaction or rise out of us? What's the point in arguing something you don't believe?


My reference to "personal beliefs" was meant to convey that the questions I asked were not representative of what I believe, but the impression I was getting from previous posters about their beliefs.

So you don't know what terrorism IS, you just want to sit back and take cheap semantic shots at the working definitions that other people use.

And you are saying that in your opinion, the employees of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to inculde cafeteria workers, clerks, janitors, and daycare personell, employees of the Federal Employees Credit Union, Department of Transportation, HUD, SSA, and Department of Agriculture, etc. are somehow less "civilians" than the daycare workers, janitors, bank employees, etc. at the WTC because they have government office jobs?

Really? They weren't "civilians" because they worked for the government and therefore were legitimate targets just like a military base?

Good luck defending THAT position; we're back to "I can steal cable because the cable is in my house and therefore I own it" territory.

And you never answered my other question. If the questions you are asking don't represent your position here, then what is the purpose in asking them? Are you playing 'devil's advocate' in an attempt to make some other point, or is there really some reaction you are trying to get. I'm really lost there.

-Citicop.

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS. One has to wonder, considering the liberal... err, I mean differing opinions on most things here, why stay?

So you don't know what terrorism IS, you just want to sit back and take cheap semantic shots at the working definitions that other people use.

All 109 of them? You bet. When we start arresting kids for making "terroristic threats" simply because they spouted off at the mouth the meaning of terrorism becomes diluted.



And you are saying that in your opinion, the employees of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to inculde cafeteria workers, clerks, janitors, and daycare personell, employees of the Federal Employees Credit Union, Department of Transportation, HUD, SSA, and Department of Agriculture, etc. are somehow less "civilians" than the daycare workers, janitors, bank employees, etc. at the WTC because they have government office jobs?

You're making assumptions. A life is a life. Nobody's is worth any more or less than someone elses.

I've explained my position quite clearly. An attack against a government is different than an attack against random people.



Really? They weren't "civilians" because they worked for the government and therefore were legitimate targets just like a military base?

In the mind of a McVeigh, yes they would be legitimate targets. I didn't say I thought they were legitimate targets.

I've re-read my post multiple times. I'm failing to see why it's so hard to grasp.



Good luck defending THAT position; we're back to "I can steal cable because the cable is in my house and therefore I own it" territory.

Feel free to research Wisconsin's permanent fixture laws if you feel so inclined. I have no desire to rehash a discussion that I myself found the answer to.



And you never answered my other question. If the questions you are asking don't represent your position here, then what is the purpose in asking them? Are you playing 'devil's advocate' in an attempt to make some other point, or is there really some reaction you are trying to get. I'm really lost there.

-Citicop.

You keep pointing out these "questions" of mine and evidently I'm failing to understand specifically what you're referring to. I initially didn't ask any question about terrorism or it's definitions. I commented on the statement of someone else. I was then questioned. I explained my position.

As far as reactions.... umm no. What possible purpose would it serve me to get someone riled up on the internet? If I wanted to "troll" I would come right out and do it. ie: "**** you pig".

I enjoy discussion. I enjoy debates. I like to read and learn different viewpoints. People interest me, and it's fun to talk to folks that don't think exactly like I do. The world would be a pretty boring place otherwise, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS. One has to wonder, considering the liberal... err, I mean differing opinions on most things here, why stay?

What pot and what drama?

You've had a thing for me ever since I joined this board. Heaven forbid someone disagree with you. But rather than maintain civil discussion you just start mudslinging. Show me an instance where I attacked a person rather than an idea.

There are plenty of conversations on this board I am in complete agreement with. Evidently you skip those and nitpick the situations where I have my own opinion. I am not a drone. I'm not going to nod and smile to appease the masses. If I disagree with something I'll speak up about it, and if someone shows me irrefutable fact that I am wrong than I will concede my argument.

Rarely has that happened because most of the things we have debated on here have been politcally oriented, interpretive, or personal ideals. But again, I don't attack people over what they think.

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS.

Can it be added?

Not sure BIG could get along with someone who superstitiously advocates BIG's death, being that BIG is a government employee, becausenthey don't agree with whichever ruling party's politics.

Domestic terrorism is real and applies to all who utilize it, regardless if you may identify with their cause or not.

Wisco is on temporary hiatus and will be back, in fine form, in 10 days time -- should he so wish.

Really? I work in this world, remember?

Go ahead ban this one too. Just be aware I can return whenever I wish.

Really? I work in this world, remember?

Go ahead ban this one too. Just be aware I can return whenever I wish.

And with THAT blatant violation of the TOS (returning under a new user name when banned) my vote is for a permanent ban. With as far out of your way as you went to alienate everyone on the forum, Wisco, I bet that the rest of the Mods will agree.

And for the record, you "found the answer" to the cable theft question when you argued the wrong side of the issue well past the point where your position made sense, and eventually were faced with so much incontrovertible evidence that you had no choice but to concede. You made yourself look like a moron who was arguing about things of which you CLEARLY had no understanding, and that pattern (which didn't start there) continued in this thread, which you managed to hijack nicely. Time to put this to bed.

And keep coming back. You don't think we have any defense against that (legal or technical)?

You'll fare no better at that game than you have in any of the discussions you've taken part in here.

-Citicop.