cops harassing man legally carrying gun

[Baljit]

Hello guy's, i am doing some research on the internet and i found this video.Guy's watch this video and see how the cops harassing the people in NewYork state when they are carrying there firearem legally.


New video shows cops harassing man legally carrying gun ''

[youtube][/youtube]



A new YouTube video shows two Philly cops antagonizing a man last week who was legally carrying a .40-caliber Glock on his hip as he headed to a Manayunk barbershop.

One officer wrongly tells Joshua Rodriguez, 22, that his ammunition is illegal. Another officer later tells the barber that Rodriguez has a gun.

"You have all these laws, man. You go to law school? You're not supposed to have 13 bullets of hollow points in your gun right now," an officer says.

The bullets are, in fact, legal.

He asks Rodriguez, who took the video, a series of questions and later says, "Shut your mouth" and "Don't call me 'officer.'

" The other cop, who repeatedly tells Rodriguez that his gun should be concealed, says,

"I should've pulled my gun out on you, technically."

"I don't want to argue," an exasperated Rodriguez says. "I want to get a haircut."

The officer tells him he's free to go, then walks into the barbershop and revives the debate. "You want this guy in here with his gun open?" the cop asks the barber. "This guy here, right here."

Capt. Francis Healy, a police lawyer and special adviser to Commissioner Charles Ramsey, said officers should be "respectful and courteous, and also be safe" in such situations.

He said the first officer might have misstated the law about the ammo, and the other might have been "a little overzealous" in the barbershop.

The department increased training on open-carry stops after a February 2011 incident involving Mark Fiorino, an information-technology worker with a firearms permit who was harassed and handcuffed for carrying a gun in Northeast Philly.

A sergeant told Fiorino he was breaking the law and held him at gunpoint on his knees, threatening to shoot him.

The city paid Fiorino $25,000 to settle a lawsuit.

"They're demonizing people," Fiorino said of the new video. "In a lot of cases, it's a bully with a badge."

Healy said that openly carrying a gun is dangerous - someone could grab it - but that most open-carry advocates are law-abiding.

He tells cops to consider thinking of it this way: "If something would go wrong on the street and you were getting your butt kicked, I would venture to guess it'd be one of these individuals that would come to help you.

"Make a friend," he said. "You might need them one day."

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-1...-fiorino-open-



Baljit

[Oggie]

Yes true but these guys are basically rebels without a real cause. They open carry to prove a point. No sympathy for them.

[xl_target]

Yes true but these guys are basically rebels without a real cause. They open carry to prove a point. No sympathy for them.

That is BS! So, I take it that you support police harassment of law abiding citizens? Even when the citizen is 100% in compliance with the law?

The law in Pennsylvania says they can carry openly. By carrying openly, they are exercising their rights. A right not exercised is a right lost.
Not all cops are idiots but some are. As most of these cops are finding out, when they violate a citizens rights without cause, it costs their employer (the city) big bucks. It's fine if the cop wants to check out his licence, call it in whatever but he doesn't have a right to lecture him and hassle him (and come up with bogus laws about ammunition type, etc.) when he is not breaking the law. In the US, even the cops have to follow the law. The moment he verified that the licence was legal, that should have terminated the stop and let him go on his way.

When cops go about rousting law abiding citizens instead of concentrating on criminal activity, there is something wrong... with the cops in question.
I personally don't open carry and don't intend to (in public) but I support the right of the individual to do so.

This is how it should be done (albeit this in a different state with different laws).
[youtube][/youtube]

[Oggie]

Calm down ! You really call that police harassment ???? You've gotta be kidding me mate ! Have you even seen the entire video ? The police officer is polite and respectful at all points. He's doing his job and doing it very well I might add. I'm not for police excesses or against open carry. All I was trying to say was that if you troll You tube you will find a whole heap of right winging gun owners who open carry just to aggravate cops and make a point. In fact they just wait for the cops to arrive ! Sure - open carry all you want as long as you dont offend someone or scare the living daylights off someone. But then I suppose you will say - If the laws allows you, you should go ahead and scare the crap outa anyone - its your constitutional right after all. You know what - Its OK to be considerate of people who don't understand that guns dont kill, people do. They do contribute towards opinion building and by setting good and responsible firearm practices we will only help our own cause as firearm owners.

Besides this on another note : I'm quite happpy for police officers to stop anyone open carrying to question them. There's enough nuts around to get a bit concerned about their intent. And if its all innocent then that's cool too.

[xl_target]

You really call that police harassment ???? You've gotta be kidding me mate !

Yes, when you get cops detaining law abiding citizens when there is no evidence of a crime being committed. If he had just checked the license and let him go, that would have been fine. Making up non-existent laws and telling a citizen that he was in violation is harassment. If the cop had actually believed that the hollow points were illegal, he would have arrested the guy. The second officer had stopped this guy before so he knew the guy was legal so why was he making up stuff and dumping on him.

Have you even seen the entire video ? The police officer is polite and respectful at all points.

Yes and hardly. The police officer in the video I posted was respectful. These two, not so much.

All I was trying to say was that if you troll You tube you will find a whole heap of right winging gun owners who open carry just to aggravate cops and make a point.

Sure and so what? This guy was just going about his business and he was stopped with no evidence that a crime was being committed or that one was going to be committed.

Sure - open carry all you want as long as you dont offend someone or scare the living daylights off someone. But then I suppose you will say - If the laws allows you, you should go ahead and scare the crap outa anyone - its your constitutional right after all. You know what - Its OK to be considerate of people who don't understand that guns dont kill, people do.

So, if they think guns kill people, how come those same people don't get scared when they see a cop carrying. If so, why is it OK for a cop to carry a gun but not a civilian? If they see enough civilians open carrying, they will get used to it. Go to places like parts of Arizona, Montana, Tennessee, etc and you will find a lot of people open carrying and no one gets scared and the cops don't have fits. Philly cops are known for this kind of harassment. After Wisconsin got permitted carry, Madison, WI cops had publicly said that they would treat citizens like felons and prone them out at gun point if they saw anyone open carrying. it just took a couple of very expensive (for the city of Madison) lawsuits to stop them.

They do contribute towards opinion building and by setting good and responsible firearm practices we will only help our own cause as firearm owners.

How is carrying in full accordance with the law against responsible firearms practices?

Firearms laws are different in the US compared to the rest of the world. You cannot project public prejudices against firearms in other countries to the US. Permit holders as a class (in the US) are the most law abiding citizens out there. The rates at which they commit offenses (any offenses) are statistically non-existent compared to the general population. Unlike in a lot of other countries, in the US, unless you are committing a crime or the police have a reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, they don't really have a right to detain you and ID you or search your person.

Look at this video. This was before Wisconsin's permit law went into effect.
[YouTube][/YouTube]
"Train several days a year"? Most of the permit holders I know train every week. Now listen to the lady lawmaker.
The authority to deny permits for any whim or reason got yanked from law enforcement and they had to issue those permits unless a person had very specific disqualifying factors (none of this guideline BS) that were written into the law. In Minnesota, the law enforcement authorities were dead set against the permit law. They predicted blood would run in the street. They predicted that road rage incidents would turn into killings. None of that happened.

Here is what one Iowa Sheriff had to say.

“Also I don’t like that a permit holder can now drive around in their vehicles with shotguns and rifles loaded in plain view or that any permit holder can walk around in plain view with a gun strapped to their hip or walk around with a loaded shotgun in their hands,” he said.
Why? The cops do it all the time. If their guns don't just jump up and kill people, why would a citizen's gun do that?

Here is what a citizen had to say:

“Personally, I think it’s a great thing, Hart said.

“The thing about the old law, the law in place now, is that if the sheriff doesn’t like you on a personal level he can say no and you don’t get a permit. He can do it for whatever reason he wants,” Hart said.

“We should be granted every right guaranteed by our Constitution until we prove that we don’t deserve that right or can’t handle that right,” he said.

Hmm! Sound familiar?

Iowa law does not currently require that people who have carry permits conceal their weapons, but many sheriffs added that restriction.

If the executive branch are not forced to comply with the law, you will end up with all kinds of illegal restrictions on permit holders, where the law says one thing but the permit issuing authorities do whatever they want. I can think of at least one other country where this is prevalent.

[Oggie]

You make good points. I'm not the most familiar with the law environment around firearms in the US - have a bit of info. My assertions are based on common sense and due consideration for other citizens rather than the precise interpretation of the law around "open carry". The way I see it (and this is my opinion only) there really is no reason for allowing open carry in a civilized society but then I dont make the laws in the US ! Don't get me wrong - conceal carry is absolutely fine by me. The reason I'm against open carry in the first place is that no matter what one says or thinks there are law abiding citizens that are fearful of firearms when they are carried by people who are not in some form of authority - read cops, armed forces etc. I'm not saying this is a justified fear, but it exists. Therefore one is bound to get calls from the public when an individual decides to excercise their right to open carry. And the Police do need to investigate, question etc. Now I agree that the level of questioning should be rational and within the parameters of the level of suspicion aroused. However there are just too many nuts out there that just bait cops with Open carry. Their cam is on and all they want is their 10 minutes of You Tube fame.

[xl_target]

Oggie,
You are absolutely correct when you say that there are people who are afraid of civilians open carrying. It is an irrational fear and it is taught to them, especially in school. For years the NRA had the Eddie Eagle program in schools that taught kids what to do if came across a gun accidentally.
[youtube][/youtube]


Unfortunately, rather than give them practical advice, now they teach kids to fear guns. While most kids in rural America will have grown up around guns, we have to be cognizant of the fact that America is no longer the largely rural society that it once was. Nowadays many inner city kids don't even know how the nice plastic wrapped packets of meat, in the supermarket, get there. For all the TV that they watch, there will be nothing on there that will give them a clue that some animal has to to be slaughtered so they can have their burger and fries. I'm not wholly serious here but you will be surprised at how many people are clueless about this. Where guns were a commonplace tool that was used, along with a hoe or a shovel, to harvest the bounty of the land, now they are seen as dark and sinister and considered evil.

I would like to relate an anecdote that my carry permit instructor told me about. When he goes in front of the carry permit class, he wears a holster and he carries a "blue gun" in it. The blue guns are accurate plastic replicas of real guns, basically just a bright blue, solid piece of plastic. Anyone can tell it is not a real gun. They are used by holster makers to make their forms, by instructors to demonstrate gun handling, etc. As he was walking around, he set it down on one of the tables and a lady sitting at the table jumped. So he stopped and asked her if she was OK. She said she was afraid to be in the same room as a gun (don't ask me why she came to a carry class). He said that he could only shake his head. That a person would be afraid of a block of blue plastic, just because it looks like a gun.... it just boggles the mind but unfortunately that mindset is relatively common, especially with the urban young. They are taught that guns are evil (in school). They are not allowed to think for themselves and individuality is not allowed.That was the day I decided that I wasn't going to worry about how other people felt about my carrying a handgun. There are going to be a lot of things that I do that a great many people would not like. As long as I keep within the law, that is their issue and not mine and I refuse to make it mine. I refuse to encourage irrationality and stupidity.

When my daughter was very young and we were getting ready to go to the range for one of the first times, I put a gun on the table while I was packing the range bag and she looked nervous. I asked her if she was nervous about the gun and she said yes. So I put the gun away and went to the basement and brought my hammer up. I laid it on the table and asked her if it made her nervous. She looked at me kinda funny and said "no". I asked her if she wasn't afraid that it would jump up and start hammering nails or hitting people by itself. She rolled her eyes. I then asked her why she was afraid of a gun sitting on the table by itself. It dawned on her then that inanimate objects are not the problem. Tools are not the problem. The problem is bad people.

I carry concealed but if for any reason, my gun gets exposed, because the law allows me to carry openly if I want, it is not an issue.

My assertions are based on common sense and due consideration for other citizens rather than the precise interpretation of the law around "open carry". The way I see it (and this is my opinion only) there really is no reason for allowing open carry in a civilized society but then I dont make the laws in the US !

As far as common sense, if everyone had common sense, we wouldn't need laws. I appreciate Oggie's opinion about there being no reason to open carry. If that is what he want to do, that is fine for him.

(Oggie, before you get all bent out of shape here; these comments that I will be making below are not directed at you personally.)
However, in a free society, what give anyone else the right to decide what god I should worship, what sexual orientation I should be, what seat on the bus I can sit on or how I carry the gun that I am allowed to carry. You see where I am going with this? It is a truly unique American perspective. Unfortunately, most of the world's citizens don't see it that way and not all Americans see it that way any more, either. It started in 1775 when some citizens in New England decided that they didn't like some far away monarch dictating to them. He wasn't going to force them to drink that over taxed tea in Boston harbor and he wasn't going to take away their gun powder at Concord. From that sprang a completely different set of ideals, ideas, and a constitution that was absolutely unique. That constitution which nourished and nurtured a nation so well that in a short two hundred years it went from an almost unpopulated wilderness to the most powerful nation on earth. The average American doesn't like other people, especially anyone in authority, poking their noses into his business. They tend to get testy about it. So while many people would view that encounter as no big deal, there are many Americans who would view that as a gross invasion of privacy and unwarranted rudeness. People from many other countries, who have for generations been taught to be subservient to authority, will see no problem with the way those policemen acted.

[nagarifle]

it all reminds me of the famous welcome.

LAPD welcomes everyone like KING

[xl_target]

it all reminds me of the famous welcome.

LAPD welcomes everyone like KING

The LAPD made Rodney King a millionaire.

[Baljit]

Very nice writen and very well explane XL,thank you.

My whole point is this, cops should know more laws then civilians but in this video they don't even know which ammo is legal which not.



Baljit

[Hammerhead]

Rabbeca Peters

[ckkalyan]

As far as common sense, if everyone had common sense, we wouldn't need laws.

Very nice debate, thanks gentlemen. xl_target I think the whole issue and perception has a lot to do with common sense and wide / expanded exposure to the world in general as against 'area-insulation'.

However what you said brings to memory what my late dad told me a long time ago about common sense. It is still so clear in my mind, as if it were yesterday!

He said "Do you know son, the rarest thing in this world is common sense - it is indeed the most un-common thing!"

He may have been quoting some ancient and they may not have been his own words - but that thought has stayed with me all these years so steadfastly that I have always generously, allowed for that 'uncommon' factor in real life! Not to say that I have have been immunized against being surprised on a regular basis, with the frequent instances of 'the absence of common sense'!

[xl_target]

Baljit, Haji, Kalyan sahib.Naga,
I'm preaching to the choir with you guys.
I wish more people would see it that way.

[Mark]

Here's another one in the news right now:

Canton Police Officer Daniel Harless scored a hat trick Thursday when a third dash cam video emerged showing him threatening to kill a citizen during a traffic stop.

The threats begin at 4:40 in the above video where he eventually tells a citizen, "If you scratch you balls wrong, I’m going to pull my gun and I am going to shoot you.”

He has also been cleared in 18 internal affairs investigations since 2001, according to a NewsChannel5 investigation.

But Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm told the news station that “there was no evidence Harless was a problem.”

However, the three videos were enough evidence for internal affairs to determine he violated three department rules.

The rules Harless is accused of breaking include deportment, cooperation with the public and treatment of persons in custody.

But the real problem was not necessarily that he threatened to kill citizens who were of no threat to him.

The real problem was that these videos went viral, prompting people throughout the country – including many who saw the videos on PINAC - to call the Canton Police Department to voice their displeasure.

Here are some statements from the internal affairs report obtained by Canton Rep.

“Officer Harless’ conduct ... has brought disrepute upon himself and the Canton Police Department,” concludes a report by the internal affairs division, which the Law Department released to The Repository on Wednesday following a public records request.

“The volatile attitude that Officer Harless displays (during the traffic top) ... has gained negative national media attention towards these officers and the Canton Police Department,” the report adds.

“The Canton Police Department’s operation and efficiency has been impaired due to negative phone calls and emails that have been fielded by its members (regarding the case),” the report says.

Harless will face a hearing on September 7 that will determine his fate.

Here is the link which also has the video, but there are some possibly NSFW links to articles at the bottom, depending on where you are:
Read more at http://www.pixiq.com/article/canton-cop ... 2j1QHXZ.99




Anyway, it looks like he can now have his job back:

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/11/20/cop- ... z2DR2phNRM

From the article:

Fired police officer Daniel Harless could get his job back if he gets medical clearance to return to work.

An arbitrator hearing Harless’ appeal ruled in the former patrolman’s favor. The 15-page ruling was dated Saturday and released by the city Wednesday.

Harless’ attorney indicated his client is unlikely to seek his old job, at least for now. He has been receiving workers’ compensation and has applied for a disability retirement pension.

But Harless now has the right to be back on the job, according to arbitrator Harry Graham.

“Return to active service, if ever, is to be determined by competent medical authority,” wrote Graham, an arbitrator since 1972 and a retired professor of industrial relations at Cleveland State University.

The internal affairs division of the Police Department had investigated three traffic stops involving Harless, each one filmed by a cruiser dash camera. Investigators said the officer had violated rules for conduct, cooperation with the public and handling persons.

Harless was accused of violating police department rules during the June 8, 2011 traffic stop during which police cruiser video shows Harless berating and threatening a man pulled over around 1:30 a.m. on Newton Avenue NW.

In the dash cam video, the officer can be heard unleashing a profanity-laced tirade, yelling, “I should blast you in the mouth right now…I’m so close to caving in your head,” and “you’re just a stupid human being!” He continued to berate the license-holder, shouting, “You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head?” “People like you don’t deserve to f#$%*@g move throughout public. Period!”

After the June cruiser video was posted on the Internet, it went viral. Soon, other videos turned up, revealing a long pattern of deplorable behavior.

The Repository uncovered a video from another incident, in which Harless threatened to send the suspects “to the grave” if they moved, adding, “I will shoot you in the face and I’ll go to sleep tonight.”

In a third dash cam video uncovered by Cleveland’s ABC affiliate, Harless can be heard engaging in yet another profanity-laced tirade, saying, “If you scratch your balls wrong, I’m going to pull my gun and I am going to shoot you.”

Again, from the article:

“Given the circumstances of that night and the mental status of (Harless), it must be concluded his conduct was defensible,” Graham wrote, referring to the Newton Avenue stop. “The employer lacked just cause to discharge him.”

Yes, you read that right. According to the arbitrator, “Harless’ “conduct was defensible.”

What’s more, according to the article, the arbitrator also said that prior to the firing, Harless, a 15-year department veteran, had a good record.

A “good record,” despite the fact that The Repository has uncovered numerous complaints against Officer Harless dating back to 2000.

At the arbitration hearing, the city noted Harless has betrayed little remorse for his actions. He even failed to appear at his own disciplinary hearing. His union attorney tried to excuse Harless’ absence, stating that he was too mentally “disabled” to attend. He also failed to attend a rescheduled hearing in December. Yet despite all this, Harless was supposedly competent enough to testify at a murder trial on November 29, in which the accused was ultimately convicted.

The city argued the post-traumatic stress disorder and depression do not excuse officer’s behavior. Indeed. If he is well enough to testify in a murder trial, in which the defendant was ultimately convicted, he was certainly well enough to show up to his hearing a week later.

If Harless continues to claim that he is mentally disabled by PTSD, one wonders how long it will take for the convicted killer’s attorney to file an appeal based on Harless’ self-admitted incompetence and possibly get his client’s conviction overturned.

If, on the other hand, Harless is given a clean bill of health and returned to duty, there is little doubt based on his decade-long track record that his abusive behavior will continue.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

About:
Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots political action committee dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities. Visit: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org


Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/11/20/cop- ... z2DR43tpIA

[Baljit]

Mark
This is nothing but clear violation Charter of Right and Freedom and Code of Conduct of Police Department and here is Police Chief Dean McKimm said to news"he is not the problem".

what he is waiting for?What he want him to do?Shoot someone, when he allready have three dash cam video as a evidence plus he cleared in 18 internal affairs investigations since 2001.

Forsure these kind's of Police officers gained negative images not only for there self but for the whole Police Department in public.

Here is other big joke, he could get his job back if he gets medical clearance from the doctor.wow!!!

I think we all should stand up for these kind's Police behaviour, if we are not going to said anything about these kind's of behaviour then one day we are going to loose our Freedom and Right.



Baljit