Thread: Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot legally open-carrying Philly man

Originally Posted by flame

Drunk or not, I dont feel we should give up our freedoms, and being stopped at a police checkpoint is a violation. We are protected from unlawful search and that is basically what they are doing.

Well I rember learning in my criminal procedure class that police are allowed to stop people at roadblocks ( Im guessing this would fall under it) as long as they are following a pattern. Ex: stopping every car, or every 3rd car. It just can't be random. So that wouldn't really be a violation.

Originally Posted by Truth86

Well I rember learning in my criminal procedure class that police are allowed to stop people at roadblocks ( Im guessing this would fall under it) as long as they are following a pattern. Ex: stopping every car, or every 3rd car. It just can't be random. So that wouldn't really be a violation.

See but it is. Road blocks were designed to stop someone from getting away or stopping people from entering an area they should not go for what ever reason. Since then they have twisted the purpose to include its a holiday so people are drinking. Thats not probable cause which is required to stop any individual. Just because people have let it slide does not make it legal.

When police begin to do as they wish to enforce they law you are already on the downward slope to a police state. Even the supreme court has ruled they are a violation of the 4th amendment. Altho they say it is it a minor intrusion where the benefits out weight the infringement. WHich is a crook of shit in my opinion. If you acknowledge its an infringement to any degree then there should be no farther discussion on it being illegal.

Did you see now where the philly police in response to this incident know that it IS legal to open carry but they've stated that they are going to make it "inconvenient" for people to do so? And that "laying on the ground until the officers are satisfied with the license" will be part of that inconvenience?

They are pissed that they didn't know it was legal and so they are going to take it out on citizens exorcising their legal rights.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

When it comes to violation of freedoms, then yes you shouldn't have to stop at checkpoints. However at the same time, I'm willing to take the 5 mins to stop, be asked a few questions and be on my way if it means it gets at least ONE intoxicated driver off the road that could potentially kill someone else.

I realize I shouldn't have to, but for that small amount of "trouble" (if you want to call it that), I'll do it to get a drunk driver off the road and potentially save a life.

Not to derail the thread, but law enforcement has already failed when drunk drivers get on the road. We need a better system that prevents drivers from drinking too much. I would support a persons DL being scanned every drink they order and being cut off before they can get intoxicated. Wouldnt stop them all but it would help.

Originally Posted by flame

Not to derail the thread, but law enforcement has already failed when drunk drivers get on the road. We need a better system that prevents drivers from drinking too much. I would support a persons DL being scanned every drink they order and being cut off before they can get intoxicated. Wouldnt stop them all but it would help.

Or stop them from driving period. Of course that would require things like good public transportation and cab companies, so probably would never work in most cities =/

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Or stop them from driving period. Of course that would require things like good public transportation and cab companies, so probably would never work in most cities =/

Right, because taxis are so rare...

...wait, what?

It for sure is rare in my town, I see maybe 1-2 taxis a week.