Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

[Skpotamus]

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......

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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:



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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.