# Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2011)

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...hoot-man-legally-carrying-gun?test=latestnews



> _"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip._
> _"Yes, you can, if you  have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."_
> Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun.





> _"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty  snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going  down!"_





> _Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the  officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if  they could lock him up._
> _When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go._
> But only temporarily. Fiorino posted the audio recordings on youtube, and now they are harassing him again:
> _ A new investigation was launched, and last month the District  Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment  and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to  cooperate with police... He's scheduled for trial in July._


listen to the audiotapes

Interesting.


----------



## rlobrecht (May 17, 2011)

Recording someone without their knowledge is usually illegal.  Recording police and then posting it to the internet seems like a really bad idea.

I didn't listen to the audio, but I suspect that everything the police did was reasonable (except not knowing their own directives.)  All my firearm instructors have told me to be ultra-cooperative with LEOs if you're carrying.  If something bad ends up happening between you (normal citizen with a right to carry) and an LEO, the LEO will likely end up being right, at least in the eyes of the courts.

Rick


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2011)

rlobrecht said:


> Recording someone without their knowledge is usually illegal.



No, it's not.  It is sometimes illegal; but mostly, it's legal.  One must know the law in one's own jurisdiction.



> Recording police and then posting it to the internet seems like a really bad idea.



Exercising First Amendment rights seems to me like a very good idea.  If there is room on the Internet for Right-Wing Rants and Left-Wing Rants and the world is going to end on Saturday, there's room for a little profanity-laced recording of cops behaving badly.  And I'm pro-cop.  I'm just not pro-idiot.



> I didn't listen to the audio, but I suspect that everything the police did was reasonable (except not knowing their own directives.)  All my firearm instructors have told me to be ultra-cooperative with LEOs if you're carrying.  If something bad ends up happening between you (normal citizen with a right to carry) and an LEO, the LEO will likely end up being right, at least in the eyes of the courts.
> 
> Rick



I suspect it was reasonable up until the point where they discovered that the man was not breaking the law, but it could have been done minus the profanity.  Charging him afterwards is petty and childish and that, along with the profanity and threats to shoot the man while was standing there will probably net a nice settlement out of the city.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2011)

Further to the legality of recording a public conversation in Pennsylvania:

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



> Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law.  Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation *unless all parties to the conversation consent.* See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
> The law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter A, and then the specific provision). *Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place without consent.* However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you is private.



I would expect that given the pettiness and vindictiveness of the DA's response to the gun owner, if they thought they could charge him with illegal recording, they'd have done that already.  So my best guess is that even they know he's in the clear on that.


----------



## lklawson (May 17, 2011)

rlobrecht said:


> Recording police and then posting it to the internet seems like a really bad idea.


Why should LEOs be exempt from public scrutiny?



> All my firearm instructors have told me to be ultra-cooperative with LEOs if you're carrying.


Looks like he was.



> If something bad ends up happening between you (normal citizen with a right to carry) and an LEO, the LEO will likely end up being right, at least in the eyes of the courts


You mean that LEOs are often excluded from the rules that non-LEOs are expected to live by?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suspect it was reasonable up until the point where they discovered that the man was not breaking the law,


Looks like the first thing that happened was the insulting use of the diminutive "Junior" in the LEO's very first sentence along with the LEO aiming his duty weapon at someone not breaking the law which was followed by an order to get to his knees.  It starts off as unreasonable and keeps going from there.



> but it could have been done minus the profanity.  Charging him afterwards is petty and childish and that,


It is becoming very common for people who record cops during public interactions to be charged because of doing so, especially in cases where it appears that the cops are misbehaving.  Even in the rare cases where the person so charged is eventually vindicated he is out massive amounts of money and time, sometime bankrupting him.  The LEOs who support such charges say that it is for the protection of cops.  They believe that the lives of cops and their families would be imperiled if their images, and the knowledge that they are cops, became general knowledge.



> will probably net a nice settlement out of the city.


I would bet against it.  How often do they actually win suits against cops?

My bet is that Mr. Fiorino will go to court over the recordings and end up dead broke, probably in debt, and lose his permit.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Empty Hands (May 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Further to the legality of recording a public conversation in Pennsylvania:



Quite "convenient" how these laws are being used in an attempt to silence the exposure of misconduct that makes the state look bad.  How else are we supposed to find out when our officials are misbehaving?  In a "he said, she said" dispute, the truth can never be definitively known.  The best evidence is video and audio, which should protect good officials against false accusations and help us weed out the officials who are criminals.  There is no rational reason to oppose the use of such recordings - except of course if you have something to hide.

Somehow pervasive surveillance and warrantless wiretapping is supposed to be for the public's own good - "if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide."  The state isn't too happy to be held to their own logic however.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2011)

lklawson said:


> Looks like the first thing that happened was the insulting use of the diminutive "Junior" in the LEO's very first sentence along with the LEO aiming his duty weapon at someone not breaking the law which was followed by an order to get to his knees.  It starts off as unreasonable and keeps going from there.



Yes.  Although I will say that had it been me, I would have followed the instructions given by the police and let my attorney argue the legality of it later, rather than lipping off.  However, that's down to personal preference.



> It is becoming very common for people who record cops during public interactions to be charged because of doing so, especially in cases where it appears that the cops are misbehaving.  Even in the rare cases where the person so charged is eventually vindicated he is out massive amounts of money and time, sometime bankrupting him.  The LEOs who support such charges say that it is for the protection of cops.  They believe that the lives of cops and their families would be imperiled if their images, and the knowledge that they are cops, became general knowledge.



I am in favor of recording in such cases.  The police are becoming more and more sensitive to their own accountability and have moved from dashboard cams to much more sophisticated means of recording their interactions with the public.  The public has the same right, and the same reason, to record as well.



> I would bet against it.  How often do they actually win suits against cops?



Not win, settle.  Cities have insurers and insurers like to settle.



> My bet is that Mr. Fiorino will go to court over the recordings and end up dead broke, probably in debt, and lose his permit.



It would be interesting to check back in a year or so and see where things are going.  I'd bet that the gun-owner won't be out-of-pocket for any lawsuit, win or lose.  If he does sue, it will be handled on contingency by a prominent law firm that will take 60% of the settlement plus their fees.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2011)

My issue:


> _"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip._
> _"Yes, you can, if you  have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."_



It appears that this is a case of a LEO not being aware or not only the local gun laws, but his own department's own open carry policies. Given the pompous 'bully with a badge' that this LEO comes across as, that's a dangerous situation. The anger and attitude expressed didn't come off as professional. No, I don't expect 'please' or 'would you mind' but the profanity could have been left out at the least.
A little more hostility and you might have been reading a different story. "Man legally carrying gun shot by out of control cop" or a fabricated "hero cop shoots crazed criminal".


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 17, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My issue:
> 
> 
> It appears that this is a case of a LEO not being aware or not only the local gun laws, but his own department's own open carry policies. Given the pompous 'bully with a badge' that this LEO comes across as, that's a dangerous situation. The anger and attitude expressed didn't come off as professional. No, I don't expect 'please' or 'would you mind' but the profanity could have been left out at the least.
> A little more hostility and you might have been reading a different story. "Man legally carrying gun shot by out of control cop" or a fabricated "hero cop shoots crazed criminal".


 
Just one more in a long long list of criminal cops.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Just one more in a long long list of criminal cops.


Thankfully the number of honest cops is still significantly longer.


----------



## lklawson (May 17, 2011)

What's been nagging at me is that this gent "just happens" to have his recorder going from the get go. 

To me this means that he was expecting to be harassed and came prepared for it.  The question then is, "why was he expecting to be harassed?"  Was he trying to "make a point" or was he expecting/trying to catch abusive LEOs?

Why does this matter?  There are a lot of people who dislike folks who go out "looking to make a point."  We have a lot of fence sitters on these issues (which are very important to me).  These fence sitters very often don't react well to such "in your face" tactics. Instead of making a point, this guy might have actually converted some folks to the opposition. 

This is one reason why I support "Open Carry Events" instead of Open Carry "ambushes."  It desensitizes the general public and gives both them and the cops time and opportunity for education. 


If the goal is to "catch" abusive, power mad little Napoleons in LEO blue, then this guy's apparent tack works just just fine.  If, on the other hand, the goal is to make Open Carry "legitimate" in they eyes of LEOs and the general populace, then baiting this confrontation is the wrong way to do it. 



Personally, I prefer the latter because it takes one more avenue for abuse of authority off of the table for abusive LEOs and puts more of the general populace on your side. 


Peace favor your sword, 
 Kirk


----------



## Hudson69 (May 28, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Just one more in a long long list of criminal cops.


 
This is another case of police behaving badly, and I haven't even heard the audio yet but your statement sounds like police bashing, like a blanket statement for "most" LEO's...  I'm just say'n.


----------



## PatMunk (May 28, 2011)

rlobrecht said:


> Recording someone without their knowledge is usually illegal.  Recording police and then posting it to the internet seems like a really bad idea.
> 
> I didn't listen to the audio, but I suspect that everything the police did was reasonable (except not knowing their own directives.)
> Rick



Recording without their knowledge .... at first maybe .. but why after they found the recorder didn't they turn it off .... Sounds to me like all parties involved were ok with the recording.

You should not comment on what happened unless you have listened to the recording. That way you can make an intelligent comment without just making assumptions.

Was the citizen right or wrong, ..... maybe right .. but Lucky YES.

As for recording and then posting it .... well if you're doing nothing wrong what's your worry.


----------



## Kemposhot (May 30, 2011)

While these police may or may not of had good intentions, once it was discovered that the firearm was legal it should have ended there.  There are plenty of illegal guns out there to go and find, time shouldn't be wasted on a law obeying citizen.


----------



## delaford321 (Jun 20, 2011)

I think Kempo deserves the "most logical response" award.


----------



## K831 (Jun 22, 2011)

Just like with any confrontation, disagreement etc it would behoove all parties involved to try and see it from the others point of view. 

The officer needs to know the laws much better, especially ones as significant to his everyday interaction with citizens and criminals as the state's firearm carry laws. That's kind of a big deal not to know. His language and anger levels were a bit ridiculous, I would like to see (hear) much more composure and restraint. For his lack of basic understanding of carry laws, his escalating anger, and his failure to communicate some basic things, I'd say the cop handled the situation poorly. 

As to the citizen carrying. He was pretty stupid too. Granted, his choosing to carry openly was legal, so no contact at all was needed, at most, a friendly stop, see his license and call it in to clarify legality.

However, it would be good for more citizens to realize a few things:

1.) Just because you are a "nice guy" you have to realize that many people the cops deal with regularly are very dangerous. You may be nice and safe, but he doesn't know that. 

2.) Once a person has been in harms way, they aren't as cordial about circumstances that can escalate quickly to lethal force situations. Control has to be established by the officer in an attempt to keep it from going there. You may know it's not going there, he does not. 

3.) Talking politely and saying sir doesn't mean anything really. As cops know, lots of nutters will smile and say "sir" right up until the point where they club you in the head or shoot you in the face. No matter how nice you are the cop needs to see your hands, and control your position. Of course he is going to get lit up if you reach for something. 

I think police have to be vigilant, and that means for their safety, they have to, at least a little, assume every contact may turn violent. This will be heightened when they know there is a weapon. 

If citizens would stop for a minute and think "for all this officer knows, I'm the next psycho who may try and shoot him and deprive him of going home to his wife and kids".... they would understand why cops approach them the way they do. Add the fact that the officer has had that stress all day, all week etc, and it becomes easier to comply with what may seem unnecessary. 

For the officers, remember that while you need to remain vigilant, be a little more clear on the laws to avoid unneeded confrontations, and for heavens sake, COMMUNICATE. It wouldn't hurt to say "man I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I do need to verify that you can carry that weapon... so I need to have you show me your hands, don't reach for anything, I don't know who you are, and I'm not going to mess around... this will take a few minutes." That way, if the officer gets non-compliance in return, he is much more justified for escalation having been clear and calm from the beginning. It wouldn't hurt to say "you're right, your ok to carry, sorry for the hassle, thanks for your patience." Then he goes away singing the officers praises for taking precautions, in a professional but authoritative manner. And being humble enough to concede the point once he has verified the legality.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 22, 2011)

Hind sight is always 20/20. Where firearms are involved, cops need to make it home after their shift. Whether the firearm is legal or not, this needs to be determined in a safe environment. 
If I was given this same situation I would secure the weapon, check ID and determine legality and face repercussions later.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jun 24, 2011)

seasoned said:


> Hind sight is always 20/20. Where firearms are involved, cops need to make it home after their shift. Whether the firearm is legal or not, this needs to be determined in a safe environment.
> If I was given this same situation I would secure the weapon, check ID and determine legality and face repercussions later.



Which is a logical course of action that I think no one could really fault.  A stop as you describe is one that wouldn't even be newsworthy.

However, what this officer did here was draw a firearm at the start (a little bit much maybe, but I could understand it happening for officer safety until the firearm was secured), use language that would normally incite a confrontation (the use of profanity, condescending names to the subject and general lack of professionalism), blatantly threaten to kill someone (a crime itself), detain them until they learned whether they could arrest them or not (somewhat reasonable for the officer to check on the laws, however, the officer should have known them beforehand).  

Those are not the actions of a professional law enforcement officer.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

Hmm...given who unprofessional all of the LEOs involved were, I'm surprised that once they discovered the recorder, they didn't confiscate it or smash it.  All that aside, a similar incident happened in CT.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144957

How can you not know whether or not its legal to carry, open or concealed, in the state you live in?  Of all people, an officer should know this. Now, I'm not going to put all the bad light on the cops.  IMO, until this was sorted out, the guy in question, should've just complied.  Yes, I know, I know, his rights, blah, blah, blah, but given the seriousness of this incident, I think it'd would be better to do what they say.  The more you resist, the more on edge the cops are going to be.  

As for the charges the cops filed later on....I think they're bogus, and its an attempt to grasp some straws.  They know they ****ed up, but ego is getting in the way, so......


----------



## Skpotamus (Jun 24, 2011)

MJS said:


> Hmm...given who unprofessional all of the LEOs involved were, I'm surprised that once they discovered the recorder, they didn't confiscate it or smash it.  All that aside, a similar incident happened in CT.
> http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144957
> 
> How can you not know whether or not its legal to carry, open or concealed, in the state you live in?  Of all people, an officer should know this. Now, I'm not going to put all the bad light on the cops.  IMO, until this was sorted out, the guy in question, should've just complied.  Yes, I know, I know, his rights, blah, blah, blah, but given the seriousness of this incident, I think it'd would be better to do what they say.  The more you resist, the more on edge the cops are going to be.
> ...



But the guy in question did comply.  He even cited the directives the officers should have known.  He was met with firearms pointed at him, profanity and death threats.  Heck, the encounter started with the officer calling him a condescending name and pointing a firearm at him.  

Honestly, most LEO's seem to know very little about the laws they enforce, but not necessarily due to their own fault.  I was taught martial arts by a longtime sheriff deputy.  He told me for years that it was illegal to open carry in Indiana.  Turns out, there is NO law on it at all, state law is silent but has a provision to stop other units from passing laws concerning carry and ownership of firearms.  When I asked him about it later, he said he'd talk to the prosecutor and sheriff, since they had told him what to enforce.  They came back with the "it's illegal to open carry" BS.  I asked the prosecutor to cite the code.  He said he'd get back to me on it.  When he found out that it was in fact legal to open carry, he said he could still get someone on another code that he could twist to apply to someone open carrying.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2011)

The term "Law Enforcement Officer" directly implies that the officer, being an enforcer of law, in fact knows said law.

How do you enforce something you don't know?


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

Skpotamus said:


> But the guy in question did comply. He even cited the directives the officers should have known. He was met with firearms pointed at him, profanity and death threats. Heck, the encounter started with the officer calling him a condescending name and pointing a firearm at him.


 
I disagree.  From the article:

_Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees._
_"Excuse me?" Fiorino said._

This could be taken as him honestly not hearing what the officer was saying, or, am I hearing you right?  What do you need my DL?

_"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said._
_"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"_

This reads to me that he is not immediately doing what the officer told him to do, and is telling him that he'd rather stand, not get on his knees.

_"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"_
_"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said._


This reads to me that he's still not on the ground.

_It went on like that for a little while, until other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup._
_Fiorino was forced to the ground and shouted at as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon._


Nope, not on the ground yet, because if he was, he wouldn't have been ofrced down.  Again, please dont misunderstand what I'm saying.  If you read my OP, you'll notice that I said the officers involved were unprofessional.  I also went on to say that that of all people, they should know the laws.  Furthermore, I also said that I felt that the charges brought on later, were bogus.  

So, that being said, no, I'm not sticking up for either side, as IMO, both did things that were in the wrong.  



> Honestly, most LEO's seem to know very little about the laws they enforce, but not necessarily due to their own fault. I was taught martial arts by a longtime sheriff deputy. He told me for years that it was illegal to open carry in Indiana. Turns out, there is NO law on it at all, state law is silent but has a provision to stop other units from passing laws concerning carry and ownership of firearms. When I asked him about it later, he said he'd talk to the prosecutor and sheriff, since they had told him what to enforce. They came back with the "it's illegal to open carry" BS. I asked the prosecutor to cite the code. He said he'd get back to me on it. When he found out that it was in fact legal to open carry, he said he could still get someone on another code that he could twist to apply to someone open carrying.


 
Then shame on the teachers at the academy and shame on the state for not making sure the academy is teaching correctly.  Someone needs to take the blame.  If a martial artist isn't learning correctly, or isn't getting their questions answered by the teacher, then shame on the student for not doing anything about the poor quality, and shame on the teacher for teaching something they know nothing about.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jun 24, 2011)

K831 said:


> COMMUNICATE. It wouldn't hurt to say "man I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I do need to verify that you can carry that weapon... so I need to have you show me your hands, don't reach for anything, I don't know who you are, and I'm not going to mess around... this will take a few minutes." That way, if the officer gets non-compliance in return, he is much more justified for escalation having been clear and calm from the beginning. It wouldn't hurt to say "you're right, your ok to carry, sorry for the hassle, thanks for your patience." Then he goes away singing the officers praises for taking precautions, in a professional but authoritative manner. And being humble enough to concede the point once he has verified the legality.


 
One of my Arms instructors used to stress this kind of communication. He called it verbal judo.


----------



## K831 (Jun 24, 2011)

MJS said:


> Then shame on the teachers at the academy and shame on the state for not  making sure the academy is teaching correctly.  Someone needs to take  the blame.  If a martial artist isn't learning correctly, or isn't  getting their questions answered by the teacher, then shame on the  student for not doing anything about the poor quality, and shame on the  teacher for teaching something they know nothing about.



Training that officer's receive may well need much improvement, but I don't think that is the crux of the problem. 

I think this sheds some light on it:



Skpotamus said:


> When he found out that it was in fact legal to open carry, he said he could still get someone on another code that he could twist to apply to someone open carrying.



This is simply how our legal system and political system works. There is no absolute truth or fact, it is all subject to high amounts of "interpretation" and as such, can be bent and twisted. 

LEO's end up in a crappy spot as they are asked to enforce laws that should be static, yet are anything but.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

K831 said:


> Training that officer's receive may well need much improvement, but I don't think that is the crux of the problem.
> 
> I think this sheds some light on it:
> 
> ...


 
Thats true...but I think its a big enough problem, that it should be addressed.  Whats even worse, is that the Sgt had to ask one of his supervisors!!  So, the Sgt doesnt know, but the LT is going to?  Whats wrong with this picture? LOL. 

Like I said, if people **** up, then admit your **** up, do what ya gotta do to fix it, and dont make it again.  Easier said than done, I know, but to intentionally try to find something else, in what seems to me, is one last ditch effort to not look like total fools, is wrong.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jun 24, 2011)

So we have a gang of armed men pointing weapons at an innocent civilian, threatening his life, and then taking him captive. And the only reason that's ok is because they have badges. And they have badges because, in theory, we need someone to protect us from gangs of armed men pointing weapons at us, threatening our lives, and taking us captive?

Right.

Cops.


-Rob


----------



## seasoned (Jun 24, 2011)

seasoned said:


> Hind sight is always 20/20. Where firearms are involved, cops need to make it home after their shift. Whether the firearm is legal or not, *this needs to be determined in a safe environment. *
> If I was given this same situation *I would secure the weapon*, check ID and determine legality and face repercussions later.


 
I know there is a lot of gray area in my above statement. The first statement means, the individual needs to be unarmed which makes this the "safe environment". Once this happens then determination can be made as to the legality. 



Skpotamus said:


> Which is a logical course of action that I think no one could really fault. A stop as you describe is one that wouldn't even be newsworthy.
> 
> However, what this officer did here was draw a firearm at the start (a little bit much maybe, but I could understand it happening for officer safety until the firearm was secured), use language that would normally incite a confrontation (the use of profanity, condescending names to the subject and general lack of professionalism), blatantly threaten to kill someone (a crime itself), detain them until they learned whether they could arrest them or not (somewhat reasonable for the officer to check on the laws, however, the officer should have known them beforehand).
> 
> *Those are not the actions of a professional law enforcement officer*.


 
No argument there.


----------



## K831 (Jun 24, 2011)

Thesemindz said:


> So we have a gang of armed men pointing weapons at an innocent civilian, threatening his life, and then taking him captive. And the only reason that's ok is because they have badges. And they have badges because, in theory, we need someone to protect us from gangs of armed men pointing weapons at us, threatening our lives, and taking us captive?
> 
> Right.
> 
> ...



You are correct, there is definitely some irony here. A lot of my life was spent with a love hate relationship with LEO's. I admire what a lot of them do and what they stand for. I believe in the notion of civil servants meets warrior class who stand guard against violent, dangerous criminals. 

I think in the name of creating enough order for a healthy functional and productive society, that there should be some policing of thief, robbers, murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc. 

I am less a fan of money and time being spent on certain "victimless" crimes. 

I'm certainly not a fan of the huge overgrowth of government and its current desire to regulate (and thus police) everything. 

That however, isn't really the LEO's fault, that is a much larger and systemic problem. Until a better balance is restored between government power / intervention and individual rights and freedoms, we will continue to see a lot of _symptoms  _such as the situation we are discussing.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jun 24, 2011)

Found some more info on this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lice-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/n...s-Dont-Know-Their-Own-Gun-Laws-121989564.html

Fiorino (an open carry advocate) had been stopped twice before over openly carrying, hence him having the recorder on him.  

The open carry law had been in effect in Philly since 1995 and you don't have to have a license to open carry in the rest of the state.  

The officer is facing possible disciplinary actions for his behavior.    

Philly officers have said that gun owners will be "inconvenienced" if they are seen open carrying (currently there is an argument ongoing about whether they have to legal right to stop someone for open carrying, since the rest of the state does not require a license to carry openly).  

The charges Fiorino are facing are reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct, from the audio, the only thing he did was not get on his knees when the officer told him to.  He never started using profanity, as the officers did, nor use lethal force as the officers did.  They also did not charge him until after he posted the recording online.  In fact, they had released him with his firearm.  This smacks of retaliation for him posting the recording.  

Sounds like the philly PD doesn't want people to open carry and the administration is encouraging it's officers to ignore the law and "inconvenience" their citizens to bully them into toeing the line rather than following the law.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

"Not that Fiorino totally faults cops for having a heightened sense of awareness. But he does take issue with the fact that officers arent being trained to* respect law-abiding citizens*. In my experience, in the city, its always been negative, Fiorino says of his interaction with Philly cops, many of whom appear unaware of the legality of open carry. Theres always a lot of attention with the police because they know youre armed and they automatically perceive you as a threat, he says."

And as K831 said, communication is key!  The above, which was taken from one of the recent links, speaks volumes.  Note the bold.  Until that communication is established, its physically impossible to tell whether or not someone is legal or not.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My issue:
> 
> 
> It appears that this is a case of a LEO not being aware or not only the local gun laws, but his own department's own open carry policies. Given the pompous 'bully with a badge' that this LEO comes across as, that's a dangerous situation. The anger and attitude expressed didn't come off as professional. No, I don't expect 'please' or 'would you mind' but the profanity could have been left out at the least.
> A little more hostility and you might have been reading a different story. "Man legally carrying gun shot by out of control cop" or a fabricated "hero cop shoots crazed criminal".



Agreed, let me add the LEO besides being a poor LEO was acted accordingly as trained, was scared and panicked, probably inexperienced with the situation of what he deemed as a dangerous situation. His mistake is all that fear and panic was turned into anger as the "bully with a badge."  He handled the situation poorly when he realized he was ignorant of policy and law, and when beyond the powers of his badge. An earmark of a poor LEO.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 25, 2011)

The DA is sending obviously a message. Just as poorly done as the LEO handling the situation. The Philly DA is opening themselves up for a big enough stink behind Fiorino to really cause both the police dept. and the DA's office headaches, instead of saving themselves from others who may do the same thing.


----------

