Plymouth, PA Cops Assault Me and Terrorize My Toddler Son Right Outside My Home

Holy crap. What a bummer! Sounds like you handled it very well, despite what, for me, would have been a very scary issue: your son potentially being in the custody of those violent cops while being passed off to the government child “care” institution had they arrested you.

I’m glad it ended OK, and that your son is safe. I’d hate to think what would happen if he had gone into the system, even for an hour.

You should look into legal recourse, if you have the time, money, and patience for it, if only to put them on notice that you’ll hit back (figuratively) if they try anything again.

It also crossed my mind that you might have screamed your head off when they first physically assaulted you, just to attract adult witnesses. It would be nice if you could set up some way via the cell phone to alert your wife if you see such a thing developing again, so at least she can come and get your son, and take that worry out of the equation.

Glad he’s OK, anyway. You have a teachable moment here.

Thanks for sharing this, George. I’m glad they didn’t arrest you and take your son away.

I’m glad it all worked out, George. The whole time I was reading this I was picturing myself in your shoes since I also have a little boy (who I imagine would be quite traumatized by this kind of thing). I plan to pass this around widely so people can better understand the lack of clear distinction between the Mafia and the State.

Exciting stuff! We are intending to get handguns soon and to start open carrying here in Utah. I hope when I have a run in with the cops, that I can stand my ground just as well as you did. Awesome job!

I submitted it to Reddit about 15 minutes ago. Hopefully that brings some more.

You see. The difference in SPORTING a Gun and having the BALLS to ENFORCE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS has just put your POP GUN TOY AWAY along with your Civil Right’s. You would have let “ANYONE” haul your child away anyway. Now who is afraid ? ? ? YOU ARE. HA ha.

Holy Wowzas, there, Mr Donnelley. I used to be a solid defender of law enforcement across-the-board, but I’ll admit your posts have been helping me to see the flaws in that.

Shameful and disgusting. Good job standing your ground. We’re all in support of you, also glad to hear your son is ok.

Anarchist & Winterbear — Leaving your children fatherless; while perhaps ok in your personal lives; is not always the best option for the rest of us.

oh, and that old busybody that called the cops on you needs to spend some time in prison.

Got very nervous just reading this. Stay safe, George.

@anarchist, you should have no trouble picking that fight any time you think you’re ready. Why are you still here, then?

Abbie has a good point. The old biddie with the yappy dog needs a good talking to. In a perfect world, she should get more than that, but this is not a perfect world. I’d suggest honey, not vinegar, maybe have her over for coffee to discuss your views, and how you are prepared to defend not only yourself and your family, but the community and even her should the need arise. If she remains recalcitrant, you at least know your enemy a little better.

It sounds like you made the best of a crap situation, George, which is commendable. Still, reading this really makes me feel like crap.

I was musing yesterday, walking in the neighborhood, about how when I was a kid in the late 70s and early 80s I would from time to time stumble upon spent shotgun shells or small-caliber rifle casings as I wandered around the more wild areas near where I lived outside Orlando, Florida.

I imagine, today, what the reaction would be if a kid found one of these someplace and brought it home to show mom and dad — and then connected those thoughts to your story.

America doesn’t seem sane to me any more. Maybe it never was, but it once was to me. Did it change, or did I? Probably both.

I’m sorry to read about your experience, George. I applaud you in how you handled a difficult situation. Having your son with you was an added complication. I’m confident that few of us patriot fathers would have performed better in similar circumstances.

These types of affronts to our liberties are to be expected. By exercising your open carry rights you and others are in essence working muscles in the body politic that have been atrophied. Waking those muscles up again is a service you do for all of us as it puts you on the front lines where you feel the brunt of the state’s resistance. Thank you.

George – thanks for standing up for our rights – get a lawyer – I know a good firearms lawyer in Montco – let me know if you want his info,
See you at Appleseed next week.

At least you got to teach your kid that members of the State police/terrorist/thug monopoly are evil.

Wow. Must have been a slow day for 5 cops to show up. I agree strongly with those who are placing more focus on the lady who called the police though. That’s the real problem isn’t it?

You were having no trouble at all until someone called to report on you. That call gave them ‘permission’ so to speak (and they would say ‘duty’) to harass you.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending the police behavior AT ALL. But this was not a case of a cop seeing you with the gun (without an attending report) and then deciding to come up and harass you.

The call instigated the action on their part, right?

So it seems to me that this story demonstrates that the real problem is the fact that those being ruled are perfectly willing to call the authorities on people even when they are doing nothing wrong.

We would probably make much more progress focusing on how to communicate with people about this rather than complaining about the cops behavior and attitude. It would also do much more to prevent such occurences too.

You shouldn’t have let them stop you or handcuff you. Just keep on walking and mind your own business. If they don’t have probable cause to stop you they can’t do anything.

It would have been a bad idea to walk away. The police would have shot and killed him. Then, it would have been George Donnelly’s word against the policemen. The police could have said “He was reaching for his gun! We had to murder him!”

you fucked up. The answer is YOU NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. If they ask a question just look at them but do not open your mouth.

Obviously, if the man had co-operated, all would have gone smoothly. But seeing as he chose to have an attitude, of course the cops would check him more closely. If he really wanted to carry a gun, he should obtain a CCW and carry it in a fanny pack on his outings to the park. Open carry makes alot of folks nervous, especially mothers in a park with children, if any had happened to be around.

@George: Don’t even think about deleting this post at this point. I’ve got an armed cache here, and I’m ready to use it! :D

George:
Thanks for sharing your experience with all of us. I too would like to see this featured on fr33agents.com.

I thought I was brave for carrying a butterfly knife.

@Mr. Frame: “Common sense”, indeed, is what tells you that the world is flat. And that dipshits are princes, and that beggars will ride.

“Live on your knees if you must but” “may your chains rest lightly upon you”…

Jeff Frame,

There was no reason to stop him at all.

“Officers should be aware that citizens may become alarmed or concerned when they witness persons engaged in open carry. This may be due in part to individual sensibilities regarding firearms and the fact that persons engaged in open carry are infrequently encountered in Pennsylvania. However, a citizen’s alarm or concern does not alone negatively impact the rights of a person engaging in the lawful open carrying of a firearm. Officers receiving citizen reports of a “man with a gun” would be prudent to respond to determine the nature of the report. However, the rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be carefully considered when interacting with such person. Persons engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may they be required to produce identification or other documents.”

http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc.pdf

“I sat down and talked with my son for several minutes, hugging him and telling him, look it works, you can face the bad guys and talk sense into them until they leave you alone.”

“I am traumatized but not angry. I’m not “out for justice”. I am not planning to file a lawsuit. I just want the aggressors to STOP.”

It’s because people cave into normalcy and either are ignorant of their options or are unwilling to persue them that we even have a police culture that regularly violates our rights to life, liberty, and property. You didn’t talk them into being good guys, and in fact if you don’t peruse relief, they will only be bolstered by what they got away with here, and it will be worse for the next law-abiding person.

It sounds to me like crimes were committed, so not only should you consider filing civil suit but also criminal charges (via private criminal complaint.) Here are some potentially helpful comments on the private criminal complaint, but note they appear to be written in response to someone else’s abuse at the hands of police:
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/62560-guns-drawn-surrounded-12-moon-townships-finest-tonight-page-48.html#post784329
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/62560-guns-drawn-surrounded-12-moon-townships-finest-tonight-page-20.html#post777485
http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/24419-i-have-now-officially-been-harassed-psp-page-20.html#post325619

I’m still uncertain why you continued to converse with an alleged officer who wouldn’t provide identification. At that point he could be any criminal dressed up as an officer ready to do harm to you and your child. GET AWAY!

Also, the reason people tell are telling you to delete your description of the events is because if the Commonwealth/defendants every discover them (should you pursue a civil or criminal complaint), they will become VERY scrutinized in the courtroom. Also, you don’t want to provide defendant time to make up falsifications to combat your claims.

Absolutely write everything down from your incident, because the longer you wait, the more you may forget or confabulate. There’s just a more appropriate time to release that information than now.

Gatz is right. Never talk to cops when they question you. Just stick to, “Officer, am I being detained?” If they say yes, politely tell them that you have no obligation to speak with them and ask them to please promptly arrest you if they feel that you have or are committing a crime, or to let you go so that you can go about your business (enjoying the park). They will avoid saying that you are or aren’t being detained. So just keep repeating the question. If they say no, however, then tell them, “If I’m not being detained, I’m free to go. May I go now?” If the answer is no, “Then you are detaining me? Are you detaining me?”

Now, I recommend that a group set up an open carry event at that park with a letter sent in advance to these thugs to let them know when and where. It could be a combined picnic and litter pick-up like Ridley’s NH group. Set up the event by posting on a few meetup sites – Delco, Bucks, Montco, Philly, Chesco. Oh, add Lancaster. They can always be counted on to defend personal liberty.

George – Btw, go to http://ronpaul.meetup.com/972/ and send an email to asst. organizer Bill. He will give you contact information for an attorney who specializes in gun rights lawsuits. Based on discussion, he’ll tell you whether or not he’s interested in working on a contingency basis. Don’t consider that you don’t have a case.

I am all for standing up for your rights, however there is a fine line between patriotism and provocation. Sacrificing the security of your son in that situation on the altar of your ideals was both irresponsible and poor modeling. That exchange could have, and sadly often does end very badly for the open carrier who stands on one principle, one ideal to the sacrifice of another. Someday I hope you will understand that well enough to apologize to your son for endangering him in that way on that day.

You “WORE” a gun, Because, you are a “chicken punk wanna be bad ass.” You watch TOO much TV. I WOULD HAVE SHOT the COMMUNIST PIG in a FAIR Draw. Although be it the Pig would loose.
Anyway, You have been CALLED OUT – And your YELLOW. . .
Put your toy up, BOY. We ALL know your a chicken shit . . .

Winter Thea Bear
Vietnam Era Vet
82nd TAC
4449th Combat Squad
1973-1975
– – – SORRY – – –
I was NOT TRAINED to be
AFRAID OF
COMMUNIST – ANTI AMERICAN
ACLU VIOLATING RIGHTS
NAZI POLICE TERRORIST PIGS
IN AMERICA

Dont Worry the COMMIE PIG is YELLOW TOO . . .
He just hasen’t met a REAL AMERICAN MAN – “Y E T . . .”

Stumbled onto this, George. Best of luck with this and any future contacts. It may not work out like this, but if the NOB calls you in again, maybe eventually the police will tire of chasing after her fears and tell her you aren’t of any concern. I used to dispatch locally, and once someone was checked and found to be OK, the officer(s) generally would indicate it’s a waste of time to return. For those who suggested getting a CCW permit, that’s fine, but even that hasn’t prevented some really bad outcomes, one guy indicated verbally he had a CCW as required (wasn’t even carrying at the moment) and was taken down hard by an overzealous officer, a veteran of all of 2 years on the street, and his backups. He was apparently released with no charges since he did nothing wrong, but I suspect the local PD hasn’t heard the last of it. Pretty sad when you consider someone that carries openly or concealed with a permit is as close to an ally as anyone gets. And folks, don’t forget, all who carry a badge aren’t abusive like this. Be careful out there.

umm, maybe you shouldn’t carry a gun? if you hadn’t been carrying a gun it would have never happened.

George – Waiting for your email re attorney. The guy has made a certain spunky second amendment sister in west PA some money each time cops have disrespected her constitutional rights. No LEO’s in her area screws with her gun rights anymore because the memo went out.

i dont believe this why the hell would u carry a gun whilst out walking with your son…..yanks unbelievable….u brought this all on your self…so fecking stupid….

@Karl, to scare off potential bad guys. Duh.

@Ian, don’t carry, have some stranger assault you. Loser.

I don’t have time to read all 100 comments, so I apologize if this information is repetitive:

The email address for the Plymouth, PA JackBoot Dept is:
[email protected]

…if you’d like to express your views on this attempted kidnapping, by all means, let them be heard.

I’m very sorry to hear about your troubles, Mr. Donnelly. I had a similar experience carrying concealed IN MY DRIVEWAY. I was cuffed and placed in “investigative detention”, unlawfully searched, and ultimately found to have done nothing wrong. The cops reason for even stopping me? I was smoking a cigarette at night in my driveway. From this experience, I have learned one very, very, important lesson. Record every interaction you have with police, at least on a voice recorder. Since then, I purchased a smart phone that is capable of recording video and audio, and even uploads to Youtube. From what it sounds like, you would have been well within your rights to have recorded this incident.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-recording-law

Immediately after the incident, I filed a complaint with my local police department. Their take on the incident was that the only violation of my rights that occurred was that one of the officers had improperly searched through my cigarettes, and that otherwise, everything done was by the book and that the violation of my rights was justified simply because I politely told the officers I was in possession of a firearm (something that is legally required in the state of Oklahoma). Unfortunately, I was not able to find a lawyer who would pursue my case in court. It is very hard to fight City Hall, particularly when cops are involved. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of justice.

I was looking at Google Maps of Plymouth. I suspect you had most of the on-shift officers with you that day. Definitely a candidate for Little-Police-Department-Syndrome. And what’s that the officer’s on in the photo? It’s not even a proper Segway or dirtbike.

Wow! I’m really sorry that this happened to you. Sounds like you did a great job keeping your cool. What a stressful situation for the thugs to place you in!

I think police depts need to have a I.Q cutoff point. If you were a criminal don’t you think you’d be carrying concealed? Think maybe they are bored and just like fucking with people?

All of you keep forgetting that they were following up on a call. They had to respond. Would yoou have them not respond? Or should they just respond to every third call? What if they received a call of a break-in at your house while you were out? You would expect the police to check on your house! You are crucifying them for doing what they are suppossed to do.

George, you refer to the fact that he did not properly identify himself. Then you state that he showed you his badge and stated that he was a police officer. That is all he has to do. You also claimed Lacy lied about offering you his business card, yet you have his Badge number and job title. He must have given you the information that you requested. You also mention that you asked for his bond number. I muself and not a cop, however I was raied around police officers. Several uncles and a cousin have been police officers and I have never heard of a bond number. So your “Get out of jail free” card doesn’t exist.

To patriot, the fact that you show your colors when you openly wish for the terrorizing and hunting of police officers. Thank you for letting all of us sane people know that we can discount what you say.

I have read all of your so called “facts”. I remind my self that the story I read was simply your side of the story. There are always two sides. In cases as these I have always found that there is a need to hear from the other parties involved. Even then, one has to sift through the information and use and educated judgement as to what actually happened.

In the end, you still got the information. I miss attributted the get out of jail free comment to you. It was from one of your responders. That stated, the bond number still does not exist. You got his name, title, and badge number. That is all the information there is to collect.

If you would have give him the information he asked for, you would have shown that you were legally carrying a gun and that would have been the end of the story. You chose to escalate the situation by not giving what was requested.

@Quark, do you understand their law? According to their own law, they have no right to ask for identification just because someone is carrying a gun. You are also posting a strawman. No one has claimed the police should not respond to the call. However, according to their own rules, all they have to do is assess the situation. They should have determined, after showing up, that there was nothing wrong going on, and left. Instead, they decided to break their own rules, harass George, and go so far as to break their own rules and handcuff him and make an unlawful search of his person.

Maybe you should go learn what the governments own laws say before you start commenting?

“Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

ummmm, what’s the point of having a f***ing gun if you’re not going to use it to defend yourself from police violence?

Because the level of force you use is only legitimate if it is necessary to end the threat. Obviously, George thought it was not and he turned out to be right. Also, using a deadly weapon is not political posturing; it’s a serious matter that requires considering all the elements of the situation, including the likelihood that using deadly force would actually lower rather than raise the short & long-term threat, all things considered.

if that had happened to me, things would have gone down A LOT differently.

Sure you would, tiger. Been in a lot of gunfights with police lately? Why don’t you share your stories and expertise?

Dude why the hell would you bring a gun, to get into a gun fight with your son around?

Because he should get into a gun fight with his son around without a gun? At least from the rest of your post, I can see you aren’t completely clueless. Just a few cobwebs to sweep out and you’ll be on the right page.

Then again, without aspiring writers like you causing incidents to happen, you wouldn’t have anything to write about.

What’s next on your list? Skimpy dresses cause rape to happen?

I am all for standing up for your rights, however there is a fine line between patriotism and provocation.

I think the last thing that George is concerned with is patriotism. I think you are confusing the citing of constitutional amendments with a belief that the constitution or the state is the source of those rights. The constitution in this story is simply a stand in for the natural liberties George has as a human being in a language that the police are more likely to understand and have sworn to respect. It doesn’t require George to believe in it or idolize it.

As for “provocation”, where do all of you people with your skirt-excuses-rape style logic get your ethics? Because you are more frightening than the police in this story. Nobody, and I mean nobody but the police (and the old lady) endangered George or his son. Twisting the language like that makes your perspective clear, no matter how you might protest to the contrary: you think the presence and behavior of the police in this case was not only legitimate but properly carried out. Absolutely scary.

Cops have enough crap to deal with without having to check out armed citizenry to insure that their intentions are peaceful.

Way to miss the point. The point is that they should not be checking out the “armed citizenry” simply for being armed.

Too bad he didnt blow your silly anarchist head off.

So this is how responsible gun owners talk? Cavalierly joking about blowing people’s heads off for being what…rude?

@Winter Thea Bear…By the looks of your spelling and all-caps style, I’m guessing you are about 12 (physically, mentally or both).

umm, maybe you shouldn’t carry a gun? if you hadn’t been carrying a gun it would have never happened.

Oh, for crying out loud! Again, the victim is never the cause of aggression.

@George, I agree that your logic about not using the state to fight the state is probably not veryconsistent if you (say) drive on state roads, for example; it’s not anti-anarchist to drive on those roads. I know that you see it as the state using aggression against aggression but that is an incoherent concept; there is no such thing as using aggression against aggression. If there is aggression coming from one direction, the opposing force is by definition not aggression. (Also, the state no more is aggression that it is a ham sandwich. I’m probably being overly pedantic but that phrasing grates my seamy philosophical underbelly. But on the other hand, I’m probably being under-poetic, in which case, just overlook me here.)

The point shouldn’t be so much that it is the state monopoly offering the service but rather is the service something that wouldn’t be available or just in the absence of a state (or costs too much or whatever). Unless you feel that using the state courts (the only ones available, sadly) would subject others to unjust statism, I say don’t hesitate and stay aware.

i dont believe this why the hell would u carry a gun whilst out walking with your son…..yanks unbelievable….u brought this all on your self…so fecking stupid….

*facepalm*

Easy, don’t carry a gun, don’t get the thugs in your face, [email protected] not saying what they did was right, not at all it was wrong in all cases, BUT if you didn’t have the piece they wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at you.

Tell that to Mark’s friend or Omegis13 (see their comments above) or any number of unarmed individuals that are terrorized and even killed by police. There are little old ladies out there that will call the cops because you “looked suspicious”.

Look, I’m not going to argue that open carriers shouldn’t expect more attention anymore than I’d argue that tax protesters shouldn’t expect a visit from the IRS; the state is predictably absurd. But I don’t see George complain about why he’s getting this attention or asking what he can do to get less of it. He seems perfectly aware and as weighed that against the threat he feels from criminal harm and the need for personal protection from that. He seems more concerned with the fact that such an outcome is possible or probable in the first place by making his readers aware and publicly declaring the situation.

@Quark, again, you need to go learn what the law says. Having a gun is not enough reason for suspicion to search someone or put them in handcuffs.

No, it’s not time to “terrorize the police” (Patriot 10.11.09 at 8:06 pm), but it is long time to socially preference against them – and other enforcers of the State. The situation is larger than just your encounter, George, as terrible as it was for you (and your young son) – but that fact is one I think you realize. A major part of the solution for withering the State is to have nothing voluntarily to do with government enforcement agents. Without the enforcing agents, the Laws/Mandates/Edicts/Decisions of all the legislators, government executives (President included), and judges are meaningless! This is a universal truism anywhere in the world. The enforcers are the key!

I recommend that any anti-Statist reading this who personally knows a government enforcer, urge him/her (hir) to get a productive job. If s/he rebuffs the persuasive arguments then reduce voluntary associations, and finally to none, letting the individual know exactly why you are doing so. And let others know that you are using negative social preferencing with this person and will do so with any other government enforcer who persists in that role. Have no voluntary interactions with any government enforcer! This selective (discriminating) association to exclude those who cause harm is a potentially very powerful method of non-violent action, referred to as ostracism by many down through the ages. It is included in Gene Sharp’s 2nd volume (of 3), “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”, Chapter 4, “The Methods of Social Noncooperation”. I and husband Paul Wakfer use the term “negative social preferencing” for purposeful non-voluntary association (contrasted with positive social preferencing towards those who do provide value) and have describe how it is the ultimate effector of social order in a truly free society (The Freeman Society) – http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html

Even in the current very unfree societies (of which the US is a major one), negative social preferencing can be effectively used to influence individual social behavior and the actions of the State. http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html

@Brodie, So you were one of the police officers? How do you know what was going through their minds? If they felt the situation needed further investigation, then it did.

@PJB, May the good Lord keep you away from my family. Anyone who thinks that little about life is a threat to all of society!

@Quark
The only people that are dangerous to a free society are spineless subhuman scum like you that worship these fucking thugs, and will let them get away with anything, even atrocities. Quark, you need to leave this country, because there are many “dangerous” people like me and PJB, and we will plot and plan and kill and die to maintain our freedoms that we have TAKEN for ourselves. FREE MEN are what you are afraid of.
@Kitty, your nonviolent “passive aggression” is nice, but pointless against Jack Booted Thugs. You know what happens to peaceful protesters in this country? They get teargassed, beaten, and thrown into “detention centers” while some bureaucrat comes up with some violation to charge them with. Peaceful protest hasn’t accomplished anything since the 60’s, when your oppressor is killing you and throwing you into prison the answer is not to march and yell, but to KILL.

Therefore, I think the analogy to holding a gun to your neighbors is strained a bit, if you’ll forgive me for saying so. You aren’t holding a gun to your neighbors head to help you get to work in the morning or to help bring water to your house.

But of course you are. Who funds the state? How are those funds derived? What are the consequences of refusing to contribute? From whence its authority? Cooperating in lieu of being shot is forgivable, as is taking necessary action which doesn’t sanction the state but may either benefit it or benefit from it indirectly (purchasing goods at a store that pays taxes, driving on state roads, etc). Overtly and voluntarily cooperating with the state however is just using its guns by proxy.

I will start off by saying that I am for your right to carry. I don’t see my self exercising it in a park where there might be children…I think that was not to smart on your part. Question is, if you are going to than why would you be surprised to be asked by Police officers for your ID? I don’t see what the problem with providing it is. You clearly had nothing to hide…so why in the world would you act like you did? I think I would have considered you to be acting a little suspicious if I were a Police officer, with the whole “show me your ID first nonsense” I happen to know Officer O’Brien and know him to be a fine cop, and a great guy. Perhaps, you took his “looks” the wrong way. I have never seen him put on some sort of a “tough guy” act.

This could have turned out worse for both you, the cops, and most of all your son. Perhaps, you could refrain from bringing a deadly weapon to the park with your Son next time, and if you don’t perhaps you should be prepared for the same occurrence by concerned citizens. I don’t think I would appreciate seeing you with your gun while my child was running around, I wouldn’t call the cops, but I might leave. Please don’t misunderstand, I am 100% for gun rights, and also 100% for the right to carry…however I think there is a time and place, and the park… for me is not one of them. BTW, I tired of be accused of being anything other than a concerned American, when I disagree with the President as well…LOL

@Karen, why in the world would the cop ask for his ID, when obviously, he is doing nothing wrong? What right does the cop have to ask for the ID in the first place. I would hope America would stand for something more than being a police state like the Soviet Union. “Papers please comrade”.

Brodie…Seriously? What right does the cops have to ask for ID? Ummm how about because he is a cop, and he is serving to protect the community. Let’s say that George happened to be a felon, who has no right to have a weapon, and noone even asked for his ID…then let’s say he ended up shoting someone in the park that day? Who’s at fault then? The cop who never asked? YES, of course that’s who everyone would blame. Just because you are a human being walking through a park in PA, doesn’t mean that you must be “ok” to carry that weapon. Of course the Police Officer had a duty to make sure you have a right to have that weapon…NOT everyone does you know…I mean you are aware of that, correct?

@Karen, it is irrelevant that it is illegal for some people to carry a firearm. What is relevant is that neither U.S. law nor PA law authorizes a police officer to ask for ID just because someone has a gun. Or do you think the police should be able to disobey the law anytime they want to?

As to it being illegal for people to carry a firearm, that law is a joke. If someone served their time in prison, they served their time. If they are too dangerous to trust with a gun, then why are they on the street and not still in jail? And lastly, do you think some stupid law will stop a criminal from getting a gun? Are you that naive? Are you also so naive as to think a criminal would openly carry a gun? All gun laws are stupid. Criminals do not follow laws, only law-abiding people do, which means it is harder for a law-abiding person to defense his or her self from a criminal.

Re. Patriot 10.12.09 at 10:16 pm and George Donnelly 10.13.09 at 8:02 am
I will reemphasize my recommendation of Gene Sharp’s writings, mainly for the benefit of those making comments here who do *not* think that returning violence (or just violence-provoking behavior) with violence will get a person anything but injured or dead when the initiators/provokers are government agents. At age 81 with numerous writings on the subject, Gene Sharp is probably the current greatest authority on nonviolent action as an instrument of social change. His descriptions of the nonviolent and not-so nonviolent actions of the past (including Russia in 1905, Ghandh in South Africa and India, US civil rights movement, and even ancient Rome, to name just some) are extremely interesting with his analysis of what went right and wrong. Although Sharp is not an anarchist and appears to be actually a statist of the democratic sort, all of his strategy and many of his methods can be employed by anti-statists in bringing about the withering of the State. His collection of strategies and tactics are a valuable resource for study by serious anti-statists. See his website that contains some of his writings and lists all of them – http://www.aeinstein.org/ His books are available in large bookstores and Amazon; and recent interviews of him can be found on the Internet.

Keep in mind that the enforcers of the State are comparatively few in number in relation to the entire populace. When large numbers of people in an area refuse to voluntarily associate with law/regulation/edict enforcers and the reasons made well known, some of them will resign their positions rather quickly. And if it is clear that the same negative social preferencing will be used towards any replacements, the total numbers of enforcers will begin to fall. It is not a quick process – it can not be if it is to be effective towards withering a social system that is still accepted by the majority as being necessary for an orderly society.

But as I stated before, the correct philosophical basis for what replaces the State must be understood and accepted otherwise any glib talking politician-like individual can easily sway those whose grounding in mutually beneficial social interaction is weak or non-existent.

A self-ordering society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit, each with the goal of maximizing hir lifetime happiness (the purpose of each whether or not s/he recognizes that fact), is possible, even though the vast majority of the current world’s populace thinks that governments are a necessity for any order to exist. Individual self-order *without* rule by others is the social system whose members are humans who have become *fully* adult. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become social adults – if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently. Understanding the social interaction methodology by which more individuals would progress to become fully socially mature adults requires a paradigm shift in thinking about human interactions. I invite – and even challenge – those who seek a society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit (or are maybe only curious at this point) to read “Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction” (http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html and then review the twin frameworks of the Natural Social Contract (http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html ) and Social Preferencing (http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html ), both of which flow from that basis.

After I posted I did realize that I indeed was wrong…You said what schools are IN parks…my mistake. However, what is the law for having a weapon within a certain distance from a school? I know there is one…Is is 1,000 ft or something? Perhaps, your parks was within this distance of a school? What do you think? Possible?

Karen this has nothing to do with being tough, although I’m sure you think those big manly police officers are so tough with their guns and badges. I bet it gets you a little bit — just knowing all that power they have. I know women just like you, I call them “Porkophiles”, you’ll support anything an officer does, because his use of power satiates a primal need for power in females.
As for Kitty, your “social negative reinforcement” will not work in this society, precisely because of people like Karen. You’re right, defending yourself against violence initiated by Government Agents rarely turns out well, look to Waco for such an example. However INITIATING such violent action will prove to be far more effective than anyone realizes. The only way to gain back our freedom is to do it the same way it’s always been done, by killing the motherfuckers that are taking it from you.

I’m not so anti government, but try to read all spectrums of people’s beliefs, but it seems to me like you could have jsut shown him your ID and not gone through a lot of this trouble. I understand self protection; I work security and have been shot at, had knifes pulled and been in near riots where I was incredibly worried for myself. And almsot every time, a COP or many would be there helping me. I know many many cops some WILL in fact lay down their lives for your rights, and some will screw with you just for kicks because they are meat heads. If there were no cops and just vigilantes enforcing ‘law’ don’t you think you’d have the same? That cop didn’t know you. He knew you had a gun he knew you had a kid, and he knew you weren’t being cooperative. Hell, Police tend to be very gun law friendly, atelast most I know, because they are immersed in the firearm’s world; often times veteran’s with even more immersion.

I agree with you that this situation got way out of hand, but it takes two to dance, and you were on the dance floor. Only a few people here are being hostile towards all police officers, but I hope those people never once dial 911 when their lives or family’s lives are in danger. Better yet, get a police scanner and start showing up to every call from domestic violence, to robberies, to gunfire. And I know people will say htey are armed and will take care of their own families, but that just isn’t reasonable. 5 people break in to your house armed because they also have the right to bear arms…have fun with that one.

Again not trying to be hostile towards anyone, and I agree these particular officers were in the wrong, but not everyh officer everywhere is a meathead. Andrew

We all have something to hide, whether socially or legally. State actors aren’t there to propagate information they believe indicates an affair or a shady business deal, and state actors will create evidence of crimes out of NOTHING. They need only claim the ID of the alternate-universe-cooperative-George is fake or that the bulge around his abdomen looks like a bomb, etc.

Here is another reason we all have something to hide. Suppose George was tied up in a criminal prosecution he didn’t deserve based on this incident, and some officer alluded, in a non-sequitir, that George was a child rapist, based on some inane object he acquired in the course of unlawful investigation. George is not a child rapist, but in any case that should not be relevant, but either way in this criminal prosecution, George is found guilty and appeals. The appellate judge feels, personally, that George has a superior legal argument, but the judge also abhors child rapists to the point that it affects his judgement. The judge performs some legal gymnastics to condemn George because he thinks George is a child rapist.

Replace ‘child rapist’ with anything that offends anyone’s sensibilities.

But wait! Consider even further that the bad case law the judge just made, not persuant to George’s superior legal argument, will fix the rights of all in the state…all because he was ‘so respectful’ of authority!

KarenC already makes a great subject and will someday make a great slave!

As for the GFSZ Act, the prior version was struck down on constitutional grounds (in Lopez, 1995 maybe?), but was then amended by Congress. All they did was add some words about ‘interstate commerce’. The current version HAS NOT been struck down, although I understand that prosecutions have been quite rare.

They key to this in my opinion is that the cop could be justified in stopping to talk to you to assess the situation and monitor your reaction. Why? Because any truly trained law enforcement personnel understand that there are tell-tale signs if someone is really up to no good while being questioned. Once the cop realized that you were calm, cool and collected, he should have backed off WITHOUT cuffing or disarming you, then he could have checked and double checked, while in his car, the vast databases we know they have for child abductions, etc., etc. and IF there was one near your location, he could have then cuffed you and “investigated”.
BOTTOM LINE: We have the “perfect storm” for “bad police”.
High unemployment
some supposed “great need” for more cops
not hard to become a cop
not a high paying job
what does this equal??
People who are generally dumber than most, many times “power hungry” and also at times 1 step from being a criminal themselves, being given the authority and a gun.

If you think Nazis, or “Not See’s,” are EVER going to VOLUNTARILY STOP doing what they are doing, without being MADE TO STOP, you are very naive. These mind-controlled thugs have had their brains destroyed through what they have taken into both their bodies and minds over their lifetimes. People don’t just “magically emerge” from a devastated state of consciousness such as this. It takes WILL power that they DON’T HAVE, due to their conditioning and brainwashing. To understand this dynamic, and what the America public is REALLY facing, I recommend watching the 2-disc video documentary “Auschwitz: Inside The Nazi State,” available from
Netflix:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Auschwitz_Inside_the_Nazi_State/70023446
or Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Auschwitz-Inside-State-Samuel-West/dp/B000777JH8
Particularly take note of the interviews with former Nazi’s, who, to this day, are totally unrepentant for the crimes against humanity that they committed. Once “people” like this exist, you’ve already failed. The goal is to make sure, through proper moral education of our young, that “people” like this never come to exist in the first place. Well, sorry to break the news to you, but it’s far too late for that. They’re here and they’re all around us. We made them. Now we have to deal with the monsters we’ve all made. And that’s exactly as it needs to be.

@Steve, it is great to see that police are reading this story! Anyways, I don’t get what you mean by “the right to carry and the common sense to carry do not always go together.” Is it not always common sense to carry? Is it not always a possibility that there will be some bad guy waiting to assault us? As to your comment that police always show their badges or uniforms, can’t someone buy a fake badge and pretend to be a police officer? I admit, I don’t hear of this happening very often, but it could happen. Lastly, the officer did not have any authority to ask George for his ID, so George was not flaunting his authority, he was standing up for his right to be treated like an equal.

You cite Ghandi as one of your influences yet carry a gun? Isn’t that similar to the soldier in the movie Full Metal Jacket who had a Peace sign right next to the words Born To Kill on his helmet.

Because real criminals OC all the time, right Steve?

1. OC on foot does not require licensure/exception except when in Philadelphia, or during a declared emergency.

2. Any encounter without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion is a mere encounter; a person is not required to perform any action and may walk away from a mere encounter. Anonymous tips are generally not sufficient to generate RAS.

3. Having to regularly prove innocence at any evocation of a state actor is a violation of due process. Remember ‘innocent until proven guilty?’

4.. I think open carry in Texas was outright ILLEGAL up until a few years ago, and it may now require licensure (contrary to the findings of several state high courts that see open carry must either be protected by the second amendment specifically or the state’s constitution, even when concealed carry isn’t.)

Steve, A great beginning of a polite dialog on this topic should begin with a full apology from every cop that participated in the unlawful and immoral assault on Mr. Donnelly. Everybody makes mistakes, but how we handle them shows our true character. Lets see if they can do the right thing, now that they know the law.

Perhaps the citizens need to have a training program for cops on how not to violate individual rights.

@Steve, do you blindly enforce the law, or do you think about the law that you are enforcing and whether it is justified or not? To better understand my point, these short videos of Jan Halfeld questioning Elliot Engel will help you understand what I am getting at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8XYHXxMc0E, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu7LW6qMGxs.

The police posting on here, in the year 2009, with the DELUGE of information that is available to them in the public domain, STILL don’t get that they’re CLOWNED. You’re wholly owned, boys. You can’t see how YOU YOURSELVES have been deceived and turned into PUPPETS because you are too DRUNK with what you “think” is POWER. And your EGO won’t allow you to say the most powerful words that can ever be spoken by a human being: I WAS WRONG. That’s why the Nazis couldn’t turn back from what they did, either. Turning aside from the course they were on would have involved admitting they had been DUPED by their PUPPET-MASTERS. Make no mistake, you are certainly POL-ICE. But do you know what “Pole Ice” means. No, of course not. You are certainly “OFF-I-C-ERS.” But why would you care that you are “Off Eye Seers”? The term is meaningless to you. But please, stop referring to these pawns as LEO’s. It insults the great and proud Arm of the Great Cross, a high point of LIGHT. But again, those in Darkness haven’t a clue. Back to the ball game you go, have a hot dog, they’re great for the neocortex.

@Steve, I have not seen you address some excellent points made by a few people on here. As such, I can only conclude that you have made up your mind and are unwilling to look at reality. I doubt any good would come about by George meeting you in person. None of us here doubt that a cops job is dangerous. I am sure George understands this. But when cops put themselves in dangerous situations unnecessarily, that is their problem. And they do it all the time when they harass peaceful people, people who have not harmed anyone. Stopping someone for a “traffic violation” is harassing a peaceful person. Stopping someone for carrying a gun is harassing a peaceful person. Stopping someone for filming in a court is harassing a peaceful person. Cops also harass people for using some drugs (as determined unlawful by some men and women), for not having a proper license to do business, for paying for sex, for not paying taxes, etc., etc. You put yourselves in danger unnecessarily. And that is your problem, not ours. And George, I am sure, understands this perfectly, that your job is dangerous. But it is far more dangerous than need be, because you make it so. And this is why a lot of people on here do not respect cops.

You have alot to learn. While you think it’s ok to carry on your hip did you ever consider the public alarm it might arouse? Those police were there because a citizen called and reported you because they themselfs were fearful. If you need a gun apply for a concealed weapon permit. As far as the police go they are allowed to enter your pockets for officer safety , you had a gun and a knife on you, it’s more than enough to legally enter your pockets. The I’d issue… When asked by an LEO for I’d you must MUST present it and yes it is a law, look up what a Terry stop is. You said you had a gun because you were fearfull for your saftey, yet you criticize the LEO for have extra mags on his belt, why shouldn’t he if Joe citizen is so scared in public that he needs a gun ? Are you stopping cars with unknown people or arresting addicts high on PCP or serving felony arrest warrants ? He needs them because it’s a tool to perform his job like a carpenter needs nails. You claim you were concerend for your son but denied telling them your wifes address when they asked a second time. If you really cared
about him you wouldn’t have tries to prove a point and made things difficut when you said you told them them the first time the address because you didn’t want your son to go to CYS so clearly you understood that they had the authority to do that yet you openly objected to helping them. You need to get your facts in order before you rant. Look up pa title 75 5503 . Your actions caused public alarm and inconvience and served no legititmate purpose, you should have been cited and lucky you weren’t. Your rights were not violated, the police had more than enough probable cause to investigate thia situation . If you put your beef aside with all things you assume are conservative and just spoke with the officer, let him do his job, you would have been out of there in 10 mins. A call for man with a gun is serious, don’t forget that officer has a family he wants to go home to too, he doesn’t know you from any other stranger on the street and he has to act accordingly and treat every situation as a real threat.

Hiram Abiff recently ( http://morelibertynow.com/asides/plymouth-pa-cops-assault-terrorize#comment-9304 ) made worthwhile points regarding the word “respect” and the nature of law enforcement officers as “tools”. His expressive methods are not mine, however, and I’m now sharing some thoughts with you, George, and other anti-Statists, that I noted to myself earlier last week, in the hopes that they will help in discussion of serious subjects with others, especially those who are supportive of the State.

Persuading a person to change his/her (hir) thinking – in contrast to changing actions – comes from that person having discovered (often with assistance) ideas that s/he then accepts as being better than those s/he previously held. Now that acceptance may be a result of truly understanding the principles involved and having integrated the new ones, replacing opposing old ones. Another possibility – and more likely with a person who is weak in critical thinking – may be change in some of hir thinking (as a start) and much of hir behavior as a result of having been socially preferenced against by a large number of those who highly value the ideas and behavior that this person has been reluctant to embrace, if not actually has refused to consider. (The more important and esteemable those who are doing the negative social preferencing are to the one being preferenced against, the greater the likelihood that this type of nonviolent social persuasion will be effective.)
Simply getting a person to *stop* doing some action (or perform another) can easily be done at the point of a gun, lash of a whip, shock of a taser, or threat of harm to a valued other person. All of these have and are done by the State but do nothing to alter a person’s actual held convictions on a subject matter (often referred to as “beliefs”).

A first question to ask someone who states, “I was raised to respect authority” (as did Karen C in http://morelibertynow.com/asides/plymouth-pa-cops-assault-terrorize#comment-9207 ) is “What type of authority?” It is important to keep in mind prior to asking this question that the only proper authority in a *free society* is that position of recognition of an individual granted by another as a result of producing something of great value to the one doing the granting or others. For instance I have recommended Gene Sharp’s writings on nonviolent political actions ( http://morelibertynow.com/asides/plymouth-pa-cops-assault-terrorize#comment-9217 ) and referred to him as an “authority” because of his large numbers of thoroughly detailed works on this important subject over many years. Of course many (?most?) people (likely even in the US) think of “authority” as that decreed by government (or a religious entity) – a person or agency to be *obeyed*. Gene Sharp’s authority derives from his knowledge and can be accepted or not by each individual; he has no ability to force agreement with his ideas or compliance with his recommended methods. In contrast, the State is all about physical force. (Most religious entities now use only ostracism or “eternal damnation” for disobedience to their edicts, having relinquished the use of physical force to the State.)

In conjunction with determining the type of “authority” to which the person is referring, is being sure what s/he means by “respect”, since this word has slightly different meanings.
1 obsolete : RESPITE, POSTPONE, NEGLECT
2 a obsolete (1) : CONSIDER, DEEM, HEED (2) : to look for : ANTICIPATE (3) : to look toward or at : front upon or toward (4) : to look upon b : to be depicted facing (as one another) — used of heraldic figures
3 a : to consider worthy of esteem : regard or treat with respect : ESTEEM, VALUE b : to refrain from obtruding upon or interfering with
4 : to have regard or reference to : relate to : be concerned with
intransitive verb : LOOK, FRONT, FACE — usually used in heraldry “respect.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Oct. 2009).
Get the person to clearly state that s/he means “obey” – if that is what s/he *really* means, though that word is not included in Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary online definition. It is close, however, to definition 2a which M-W maintains is obsolete. Or maybe it will be “honor” (a synonym included in M-W), but then what does that mean? In any case, logically the the next question to ask is “Why?” “*Why* do you respect (obey/honor/etc) this person/group?” In regard to “respecting” a group – in actuality only individuals can *earn* respect (as in honor), or lose it, because only individuals perform actions. But this is a separate (but related) subject with much to be said.

I think it is important to put the person in a position where s/he must do at least some thinking rather than simply state what s/he was “raised” to do. I suggest asking many “why?” questions, like those above, and to also present any and all contradictions resulting from what the person states and/or omits. It’s possible that in going through such an exchange, the person will actually recognize hir errors.

You can’t trust the police, I have encountered, police robbing me, illegal entry, thinly veiled threats ad infinitum, one was a state officer pulled me over near Chicago, got in the passengers side and said “you know I could do anything I want to you out here!” I pushed my face into his and said “You better call your f*cking buddies” he giggled! I have no police history to speak of, am law abiding, etc. It is going to get worse, one has to make one’s own decisions about how to handle each situation.
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

Heres another one. Any of you coppers want to justify this crap.
THIS!!! THIS!! is what my tax dollars is going to, for these idiots to do?? harass kids WALKING and CARRYING their skateboards??

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=811_1256271394

Just to respond to this comment of yours:

“Any further insane comments like “Wow”’s will not be published.”

I know my comment won’t get published, but I’m going to write it anyways to at least YOU have to read it.

I think it’s sad, almost to the point of ironically funny, that you complain about your rights of carrying an open weapon are being questioned, but then you turn around and start censoring the free speech of others.

@Joseph, if George owns the gun, and if George is part of the public, and if George is on supposedly public property, where does a cop derive the authority to tell George what to do, when the cops own rules state that there is nothing wrong with carrying openly? Since George owns the blog, that gives him the authority to censor posts. Duh.

Personally I think your “attitude” is why you evently got put in cuffs.

He asked if I had ID and I asked him if I was legally required to give it. He said it would make it easier or some other nonsense so I did not give it. Looking back, had I reached for it I might be in jail or worse right now since my pistol was on the same side as my wallet. Later he claimed that I refused to cooperate in his “investigation”

The LEO was investigating a supposed call of “man with a gun” you basically shrugged off his approach with the abouve comment. As a person who has carried for years, your mentally about dealing with people has to be completely different than when not “carrying’. You mentality was “how dare you, doubt me.” His mindset was that he was doing his job and you hendered that.
Instead of being confrontational how would it have worked if you explained that you were a licensed permit holder but you choose to open carry (which I don’t understand. You like attention?” My I.D. is in my pocket by my weapon.

Here is another perfect example of the difference between Peace Persons(think volunteer firemen) as opposed to Law Enforcers(think municipal firemen paid via gunpoint taxation/theft/robbery).

If Peace Persons were curious or concerned then they would engage you with courtesy and equality. Their claim of disarming you for their safety is without merit since they are frequently surrounded by human beings with all sorts of concealed-from-view tools which might well be used for good or might well be used for bad.

Even if we have videos of this sort of activity and we produce educational video showing how Peace Persons would have behaved differently, we still wouldn’t overcome the Law Enforcer mentality in BOTH the minds of the leos and mere common folk.

This is largely due to the massive amounts of main stream media programming and subterfuge. Look as the vast array of cop/law-order/bad-boys/court-drama/etc. shows produced to keep the sheeple effectively hypnotized and zombified.

If you read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Tom Baugh’s Starving The Monkeys you will begin to understand that the mobocracy encompasses virtually everyone these days. Moreso now in Amerika since the last significant domestic battles were the Northern Aggression and the British Aggression.

Please, from the very bottom of our hearts, please read and assist us in promoting Starving The Monkeys!

Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged and Starving The Monkeys, Owners Manuals For The Universe!(tm)

.

Also, to the poster with the comment about Atlas Shrugged — um, you do know that Rynd built a fictional presence in that book as the only way to define her reality, correct?

Again, if you take that stuff to heart, I do feel for you.

Rob,

So if something scares you, it should be illegal?

Rob is just being a good slave and practicing what he learned in school. Yay Rob, keep paying those taxes so you can feel safe! We’ll keep our guns close so that we are safe.