Arrested for being defiant

[draco664]

Link

On two afternoons in a row last week, Solomon, 24, was arrested after hanging out at a North Philadelphia bus stop, and each time, the cops confiscated from him a legally owned gun and a separate license to carry a gun, the licensed security guard said yesterday.

The guy's a security guard, has all the proper permits to carry a weapon, and was waiting at a bus stop. He refused to move along when ordered to do so by police, who then arrested him.

The next day, on advice from his lawyer, when he was at the bus stop again, he took photos of people also loitering at the same stop. The police again arrested him, and this time deleted the photos from his phone.

So, how much do you think he's going to get from a lawsuit?

Oh, wait, he has swarthy skin and a bushy beard. He must be a terrorist.

[bhskittykatt]

Um...it's a bus stop. People stand around and wait at bus stops. That's what you do at bus stops. You know, until the bus arrives to pick you up?

If I were his lawyer, my mouth would be watering at this case. I smell a beautiful lawsuit in this guy's favor.

(I don't know about his neighborhood, but here by the University, it's not unusual for you to wait for four or five or even six buses to pass by, either, since they get very crowded during peak hours and just can't fit more people.)

[Plaidman]

Yeah... I can ALMOST understand the police point of view. It wasn't right. It wasn't legal, and he should sue and get a big fat settlment.


The cops views were, big thug, using a licence from a loophole law to get a permit from another state, at a known drug dealing corner bus stop, and not getting on a bus. He obsuletly cannot POSSIBLY have a job, and must be selling dope. Cause he is, ya know, big and darked skin.

Idiot cops. He didn't do anything illegal.

[Ipecac Drano]

The next day, on advice from his lawyer, when he was at the bus stop again, he took photos of people also loitering at the same stop. The police again arrested him, and this time deleted the photos from his phone.

The pics wouldn't be of any value. They can't prove if those people were loitering or if they were waiting to ride the bus. He might seek counsel from a lawyer who actually cares about him.

So, how much do you think he's going to get from a lawsuit?

More like, "How much is his lawyer going to make from this?".

Oh, wait, he has swarthy skin and a bushy beard. He must be a terrorist.

Wait for this: he was hanging around a popular spot for drug dealers and had no intention of taking the bus.

not getting on a bus.

Big clue here, folks.

He didn't do anything illegal.

Or so you say...

[lordlundar]

Or so you say...

Slight problem with that. The bylaw code you cited (note bylaw, not criminal law) requires that the person be causing a disturbance or blockading an access point. Seeing as he was doing neither, there is no basis. And as I said, it's a bylaw, and a minor one at that. Why in the heck would they need to detain him instead of issuing a ticket?

This guy is not doing anything wrong and is being harassed by the police officers in question for no legitimate reason.

[Ipecac Drano]

Slight problem with that. The bylaw code you cited (note bylaw, not criminal law) requires that the person be causing a disturbance or blockading an access point. Seeing as he was doing neither, there is no basis. And as I said, it's a bylaw, and a minor one at that.

Read on:

Idling or lounging in or about any place or facility described in (2), so as to prevent others from passage, ingress or egress, OR to idle or lounge in or about any place or facility described in (2) in violation of any existing statutes or ordinances.

He was apparently doing the latter.

the heck would they need to detain him instead of issuing a ticket?

A gun isn't the same thing as a licorice stick.

This guy is not doing anything wrong and is being harassed by the police officers in question for no legitimate reason.

He might be in violation of some other laws. We might not have been given all of the particulars.

Regarding guns in Philly...

(2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time unless that person is:

(a) licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to carry a firearm or licensed to hunt;

(b) actively engaged in a defense of his life or property from imminent peril or threat; or

(c) a police officer or member of the State or Federal militia on active duty.

As for "(a)", he was licensed by the State of Florida.

Why would he be standing on a drug dealing hotspot, packing iron and letting three buses go by? I heard the part about not wanting to ride with school kids, but something isn't adding up.

[Greenday]

Pretty sure loitering is a legit reason to ticket someone. I'm also pretty sure carrying a gun where it's illegal to do so is against the law.

Lot's of, "I hate the cops, they do everything wrong!"

[Anthony K. S.]

If I were his lawyer, my mouth would be watering at this case.

Really?

If I was his lawyer, the one thing I'd be feeling is suspicious.

Rule # 1 here :

When somebody tells you that they did absolutely nothing to warrant being arrested, you never, ever accept their story at face value.

Sure, they could be telling you the truth, but you'd be a fool to blindly accept that they are.

If I was his counsel, I'd be warning him :

"If there is anything - anything - that the prosecution could ambush us with here, you'd damn well better tell me about it before we go to court. Understand?"

Personally, I'm reserving judgment on this case. I'm not siding either with or against this man.

This case looks like a clear-cut, obvious case of police misconduct. And that is precisely what bothers me. It's just a little too pat for my taste.

I'd wait for more information to come out before forming an opinion here.

[Eisa]

I'm a little suspicious, too, but...it still does sound like a case of police misconduct.

But if I were his lawyer, I would ALSO be asking if there was anything else he might want to mention...

[crashhelmet]

What I'm curious about is the bus schedule. All the article states is he let 4 buses pass.

Were they all the same route or different ones?

How often does each route pass that stop?

It's one thing if he was there for 30 minutes. It's a completely different matter if he was there for an hour or more.

I can't find any type of follow up to this article to answer those questions.

CH

[Plaidman]

I hate standing in a bus full of screaming maniacs too. I'd let several buses go by if they are too full.

[lordlundar]

Read on:

He was apparently doing the latter.

You only quoted part of that. Article (2) is as quote:

(2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall loiter in, on or about any underground platform or concourse, or any elevated platform serving public transportation facilities, or any underground or elevated passageway used by the public, or any railroad or railway passenger station or platform, or on the steps leading to any of them. No person shall loiter in, on or about private property used to accommodate the public.

So unless he was blocking access or was in violation of any statues or ordinances already existing (and since when is there a legally enforceable time limit for waiting for a bus?), then he was not doing anything wrong.

A gun isn't the same thing as a licorice stick.

I'm not objecting to the guns being taken away for not being locally licensed, but for being (falsely) ARRESTED AND DETAINED for loitering, when there was no legal reason for it.

He might be in violation of some other laws. We might not have been given all of the particulars.

Which he would have been formally charged with and would be publicly accessible. He wasn't. In fact the only thing he was charged with was "summary citation for failure to disperse" which is a goddamn ticket!

Why would he be standing on a drug dealing hotspot, packing iron and letting three buses go by? I heard the part about not wanting to ride with school kids, but something isn't adding up.

So let's tell him (and only him mind you) to leave the area and when he legally refuses, slap the cuffs on him and hold him without charges for 7 hours and delete any proof of him not breaking any laws, right? After all, that's the right way to do things apparently. You're right, something isn't right here, but I doubt it lies with the person waiting at the bus.

[Dreamstalker]

What I'm curious about is the bus schedule. All the article states is he let 4 buses pass.

Were they all the same route or different ones?

How often does each route pass that stop?

That was my question too. A few of the transfers I partake of have 3 bus lines on that section of route. It's not uncommon for people (especially those with wheelchairs or strollers) to be there for 4-5 buses until the line they want shows up and isn't packed to the gills with people.

That time can vary wildly depending on dispatch, traffic, etc.

[Andara Bledin]

As for "(a)", he was licensed by the State of Florida.

You should re-read the article. He happens to be also licensed by the State of Florida. The Act 235 permit "issued by State Police to security-training officers." As long as he was traveling to or from his employment, he should be legal to carry based on that permit. He carried the Florida permit on the second day because they confiscated the first along with the gun.

Of note: They gave him property tickets for the guns, but not the permits. That alone sounds like cause for people to take serious issue.

What I'm curious about is the bus schedule. All the article states is he let 4 buses pass.

The corner in question is Broad Street and Olney (from this article), which appears to be a transit center.

According to the SEPTA site, that particular place services connections for C, L, 6, 8, 18, 22, 26, 55, and 80. That's a lot of lines for one station, and without knowing the set-up, it's difficult to know if he was there for 15 or 1:15.

I do know that one of the stops I used to take to get to work had no less than 7 lines that would stop at that corner and it wasn't unusual to have three separate lines all lined up, stopped at the same time.

Another thing I find interesting is that the article I linked just above is on a police-centric website, and the vast majority of the comments are finding for Solomon, with some mentioning that while they are police officers themselves, they don't carry in Philadelphia to avoid being hassled by the local cops.

And the erasing of images from his cell phone is likely going to become a huge issue. Does anyone have a compelling argument as to how that could possibly be legal?

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

You should re-read the article. He happens to be also licensed by the State of Florida. The Act 235 permit "issued by State Police to security-training officers." As long as he was traveling to or from his employment, he should be legal to carry based on that permit. He carried the Florida permit on the second day because they confiscated the first along with the gun.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ipecac on this one, which is why I'm not disputing the guns being confiscated. The Act 235 is not a substitution for a license and the state of Pennsylvania requires a local state approved license for the Act 235 to be effective. In short, he was still carrying an unlicensed gun in the eyes of the state law. Furthermore, Act 235 only permits carrying a licensed gun "while working". For transportation purposes it needs to be fully secured and unable to be fired. Unloaded and a trigger lock or a locked strongbox are required if you do not have a standard CCW permit.