Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them
from the lovely dept
As police are insisting that having the public record them is a dangerous situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times. Julian Sanchez points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws:On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"You can hear all of this via the YouTube clip, embedded here:
Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.
What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.
"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 offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims. They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well. Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police. If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face. It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.
"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.
"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.
"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"
"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.
No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio. It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disorderly conduct, guns, harassment, open carry, philadelphia, police, recording
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
Yep, he knew that the police would be completely ignorant of the law and purposefully set himself up to almost get shot by Officer Jackass with a chip on his shoulder. Clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
I'm still flabbergasted by the story above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
Will the united-statians start paying attention now? Probably not. But it was worth a shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
It's protocol to threaten citizens with lethal force for not breaking any laws? Maybe that's the problem then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, But It Is Expected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing this isn't an action movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question that comes up in my head
Why do we have such "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios as regular citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The question that comes up in my head
I'm not familiar with that term. Did you mean "serfs" or "lords", maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question that comes up in my head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question that comes up in my head
The cops wouldn't have bothered a lord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The question that comes up in my head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The question that comes up in my head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The question that comes up in my head
18USC242 has a penalty of 10 years in federal prison for use of official authority under color of law to deprive someone of civil, statutory or constitutional rights by threat of deadly force. By any measure, that is a felony level offense. Police qualified immunity almost certainly does not shield them from an offense that only a police officer or other public official can commit, that a private citizen explicitly cannot commit.
The US Constitution states an unalienable right to bear arms. Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution says much the same thing. Carrying a firearm in the city of Philadelphia requires a license, but the victim of that cop had such a license and offered to produce it; The cop told him if he made a move to do so he would be murdered. Carrying a licensed firearm in Philadelphia is a statutory right.
Trying to draw his sidearm probably would have gotten him shot, but it would have been absolutely justified under US, state and local laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the playground is where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all shootin' some B-Ball outside of school
When a couple of cops, who were up to no good, started makin trouble in my neighboorhood
I recorded one little fight and the cops got scared, had the D.A. trump up some charges that weren't really fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Someone primed to expect a threat sees what he mistakenly thinks is a threat and overreacts.
2) The accused attempts to assert his rights.
3) The accuser begins to realize he's made a mistake. At this point he has a choice, and his response will tell us whether he's an essentially good person under a lot of understandable stress or the kind of miserable, insecure jerk who understands that his (authority/paycheck/reputation) is entirely undeserved based on the (lack of) value he delivers to society and is afraid that someone will notice and take it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember this discussion ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only they were this, for lack of a better term, vigilant towards actual criminals. After they're all remanded to a course on professional conduct and basic law, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im a resident of NY, and I know that my carry permit most definitely does not apply in NYC. as crazy as i think the situation is, are we sure the cops were entirely wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same w/Illinois and Chicago. The "logic" goes something like this.
Me: Ah, the state of IL allows me to own a handgun.
Chicago: Yeah, but you can't have one inside our city limits, whether you own one or not.
Me: Really? But I use my handgun to protect myself from criminals. Why can't I carry inside Chicago?
Chicago: Because we have more crime here.
Me: Oh, gotchya-wait, what???!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> Chicago: Yeah, but you can't have one inside our city limits,
> whether you own one or not.
Supreme Court of the United States: Wrong. It's a guaranteed right under the 2nd Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> your home. Therefore, the second amendment isn't being
> infringed.
Yes, but the post to which I was responding was talking about owning one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> now we can have guns. Thanks for pointing that out.
All you have to do is "tell the mayor" via suit through the federal courts. He'll get the message. If he doesn't, he could be sued personally via Section 1983-- deprivation of civil rights under color of authority. Threaten to take his house and his car and I bet he starts paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And whose side do you think that judge is going to be on, Average Joe's or Mayor Emannuel's?
Is that too cynical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> at a gun range before you're allowed to have it. Oh, and we
> prohibit gun ranges in the city. Have fun with your rights!
Which of course would instantly fail any challenge. That's like saying, "Sure, you have the freedom of speech, but you have to have a permit to speak and we don't give out permits." How long do you think the federal courts would let a city get away with that kind of bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe, but I wasn't theorizing here: those are actually the rules.
To get a handgun license in Chicago now, you have to have at least an hour of time logged at a shooting range, but they also ban shooting ranges in city limits. Neat, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> you have to have at least an hour of time
> logged at a shooting range, but they also
> ban shooting ranges in city limits.
It's a nonsense rule, ripe for challenge, but even so, I'm sure there are ranges out in the suburbs. Just go log your hour there, then come home with the certification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(emphasis in bold is mine)
Cities of the First Class exception
The act does not address the carrying of firearms in the open (also known as "open carry"). Thus it is legal to do so without a permit. However, the act states that any person may not carry a firearm in a city of the first class (Philadelphia is the only one in the Commonwealth) without a permit or falling under an exception. While carrying a firearm in the open in Philadelphia is legal for license holders, it is not a commonly-used carrying technique. Philadelphia law enforcement officers are likely to detain an individual who is openly carrying a firearm.
The open carry of a firearm in the rest of the state is widely practiced and generally well-accepted by local law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think anyone is having an issue with that. It's the 0-60 draw the gun 'get on the ground you fucking scum' reaction that's the problem.
I'm not a fan of guns, so I really don't have a problem with an officer taking an interest in someone open carrying. However, that 'interest' should be limited to, 'Sir, you need to have a license to do that...may I see your license?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I actually do have a problem with that even though I accept it. How many hardened criminals have you ever seen, seen depicted, or heard described as openly carrying a gun? The only people I hear of openly carrying are law abiding citizens. Often a little gun crazy, but still law abiding. The criminals are the ones who tuck the gun into their waist band or carry the gun in their pocket (at least until they pull it out to threaten or shoot)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America has changed
America has become a first-world country with third-world cops and courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America has changed
While I understand what the term "third world" has come to mean, describing the USSR as third world or Third World makes no sense.
In which case, it might be nice if we had Third World cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America has changed
The categories aren't perfect - for instance, the US and Canada are definitely 'New World' and developed, but where would you class Brazil or Argentina?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America has changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virginia has open carry law as well
Anyway, this is another case of police abusing their power, not admitting their wrong and even going so far as to prosecute someone for something that should in no way be illegal. I am sure the NRA will step in and help this guy beat this trumped up rap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
No, the bad guy will simply leave you alone. Bad guys are out there looking for easy prey not to get into random firefights.
Also it used to not be considered gentlemanly to conceal your weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
If you ever took a lesson in self defense, you would know that "bad guys" go after the weak ones because they won't put up a fight. Putting up any sort of a fight is enough to encourage most bad guys to pick a new target.
The real reason not to carry a firearm is because merely owning a firearm dramatically increases your chance of dying from a firearm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
The only reason to not own a gun is because you don't want one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Unless you live in one of the few major cities in the country with decent mass transit, owning a car is almost required to function in society.
Owning a gun is not.
I don't understand conceal permits at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Would you support completely disarming the police? Somehow, I doubt you would. So if it's their guns that give them the edge in fighting crime, why shouldn't the average person have that same edge? In most cases, average people can prevent being robbed or car-jacked by simply displaying their gun to the criminal. Criminals may be scum, but they don't want to get shot any more than anyone else. In fact, there have been interviews with convicted felons who have stated point blank that they would avoid anyone they suspected was carrying a gun.
If you meant that you don't understand why people conceal them, well, it's to avoid situations like the one in this article. Over the last few decades, there has been a big push to get rid of the right to own and carry guns, so even though many states in the US allow normal people to carry guns with the proper permit, the police will still treat you like a criminal if you have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
I support gun rights. I think, just like cars, you should need a license, and there should be reasonable restrictions on the type of guns (example, assault rifles and grenade launchers). I have no problem with a law-abiding citizen, properly licensed and knowing how to handle it safely, owning and openly carrying a handgun, rifle, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Also, concealed carry permits are given to people without a felony record. Two states actually allow concealed carry without permit which is as it should be. So you do realize that the people with permits aren't the ones you have to worry about right? I forget the real stat, but something like less than 1% of permit holders commit a crime with their gun. So that says you are much more likely to commit gun crime if you don't have a permit? That is how statistics work right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Isn't it interesting that the cities that have the strictest gun control laws are also the cities that are the biggest crime-ridden cesspools with a near-logarithmic murder rate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[citation needed]
Even if true, you're assuming that strict control of guns is causing the crime. Maybe it was the other way, and that the crime was there before the laws, and the laws were a reaction to attempt to bring the crime rate down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
FBI — Uniform Crime Reports
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
> Even if true, you're assuming that strict control of guns is
> causing the crime.
Not at all. All sorts of things cause crime. Strict gun control just creates an environment where it can flourish unchecked.
If you were a home invasion specialist, where would you choose to ply your trade-- a city in Texas where you know there's a 70/30 chance that the person inside the home is armed, or Washington, DC, where you know there's a near 100% chance the person inside is unarmed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Choosing not to own or carry the required tools of self- defense is your right. But make no mistake, you are indeed choosing pro-actively to not be defend yourself against a serious attack. You might well change your mind when your life is in danger, but having chosen not to own a gun, you would be doomed. A responsible citizen (armed, in other words) can choose not to draw their weapon, or choose not to fire it. But an unarmed person has already chosen to be a victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Fired by an ignorant cop, it sounds like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
This is completely wrong and it is foolish to continue repeating it. "Studies" that have been put out by the liberal agenda to show this is true are universally biased propaganda. The NRA has produced numerous works showing it.
Your chances of dying in the course of a violent crime are not changed by your owning a gun. A violent criminal planning to do you harm can use a pencil to kill you.
Is a pencil necessary for daily life? No. Should you get rid of them because it could be used as a weapon? No. The same is true of guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Your chances of dying in the course of a violent crime are not changed by your owning a gun.
Even if I were to believe your "evidence" provided by the NRA (not unlike trusting the tobacco companies to give "evidence" about the danger of smoking)...
How many people accidentally die from gunshots every year?
Had those people not owned guns, would they have died?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
Suicide: 16,586;
homicide: 10,801;
Accidents: 776;
Legal intervention: 270;
Unknown: 230
your point holds true for 776 people apparently. however, if 10,801 homicide victims -had- owned guns, would they have died?
firearms being the great equalizer only holds true if everyone is armed... if only the aggressor is, it gives him or her an overwhelming advantage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Virginia has open carry law as well
The NRA produces pro-gun studies that show the opposite. If you disregard these because of the source, you have to also disregard the anti-gun studies, or you become a hypocrite.
There are a few neutral studies around, and they generally agree with the NRA ones. I recall one by a guy who was devoted anti-gun, until he did research. He's pro-gun now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost...
"Too smart to be a police officer" is a very real situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Dad Is A Cop
I sometimes wonder if I'd make a good cop, but then I also worry that conventional wisdom regarding politicians applies to police as well: "If you throw a guy in the sewer, don't be surprised when he comes out smelling like ****."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I almost...
People will laugh at what you wrote, but the same happened to my father when he tried to join the RCMP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I almost...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they were wrong to threaten his life. Yes their language was inappropriate, unprofessional and served to escalate the situation, but Fiorino's public record on the Internet makes him appear to be a shit disturber.
WHO the heck runs a black box recorder every time they leave the house?!?
Someone at http://www.copblock.org/2187/mark-fiorino-nearly-shot-by-philly-pd-for-open-carrying/ has posted details about Fiorino's previous run-ins with the law, which include:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-13&dock etNumber=CR-0000104-05
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1 -13&docketNumber=NT-0000667-05
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?distr ict=MDJ-38-1-28&docketNumber=NT-0000501-09
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport .aspx?docketNumber=CP-46-SA-0000941-2009
It is surprising to me that someone with this history could obtain a firearms permit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if the cops knew him because he got busted for being drunk in public and getting into a fight, then those are some of the most attune police on the planet.
Philidelphia: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philidelphia: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Philidelphia: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the cop repeatedly saying "I don't know you" would maybe indicate that he didn't know him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well done, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're basically saying: Who the hell thinks they have the right to walk around and enjoy their constitutional rights whenever they feel like?!?! They should get advanced written permission and allow at least seven days for police notification before they try crap like that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
EVERY carry class I have ever seen specifically addresses how to handle an encounter with the police regarding the firearm. Basically the general process is to keep your hands in the open and non threatening, inform the officer your are armed, and COMPLY with his instructions.
I have had a number of these encounters and never once has it ended poorly. Typically you are asked where the weapon is, then instructed to move to a specific place, then the weapon is secured by the officer, then your permits/license is examined and whatever business is needed is conducted and then you are given the weapon back unloaded and everyone goes on their way.
THIS GUY did NOT comply, he ARGUED. His confrontation and non compliance ESCALLATED the problem. Granted the officer makes his share of mistakes too, BUT the initial mistake was the citizen.
Next comes the questions about WHY was this being recorded, and exactly HOW did the recorder get turned on. If the guy has no legitimate reason for recoding SOMETHING and the recorder was just recording silent air until this encounter then the it will be hard to convince someone that he was doing anything other than trying to antagonize the officers into some form of action by openingly carrying the weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is the going rate nowadays?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You realize that this encounter started off with the officer's gun drawn and pointed at him while instructing the guy to get on his knees, right? That's a bit different from a traffic stop where your gun is in the glove box with your registration and you want to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings.
the initial mistake was the citizen.
Clearly, putting his hands up and speaking calmly and respectfully to the officer but questioning the need for him to kneel in the dirt is the same as being "uncooperative" and "confrontational". How dare he deign to question his better? This is America; obey authority without question or pay the price!
trying to antagonize the officers into some form of action by openingly carrying the weapon.
You're saying he knew the police were all ignorant of their own rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you white?
Did they start with a gun being pointed at you? Or were you calmly asked what that is your carrying or if you have a licsence for that?
"If the guy has no legitimate reason for recoding SOMETHING and the recorder was just recording silent air until this encounter then the it will be hard to convince someone that he was doing anything other than trying to antagonize the officers into some form of action by openingly carrying the weapon."
So if I do something legal but record myself doing it I am up to no good? Not sure I really follow your logic.
I mean its his RIGHT to carry a firearm. Maybe he has been harassed before and is sick of not being able to prove/do anything about it so he carries a black box 24/7. Just because he knows he might get harassed doesnt mean he has to stop exercising his right and just because he is recording in case he is harassed does not make this his fault. If the cop had not over reacted he would have tape of a cop doing a good job, whoopity-do.
"THIS GUY did NOT comply, he ARGUED. His confrontation and non compliance ESCALLATED the problem."
Shy of catching a bullet in the face how do you escalate a confrontation when the other guy already pulled a gun on you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> the initial mistake was the citizen.
Actually the initial mistake was the cop's, in drawing his gun and aiming it at the citizen before even saying a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> anything other than trying to antagonize the officers into
> some form of action by openingly carrying the weapon.
Maybe he was just sick of being harassed for enjoying his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
No different than the people who bring video cameras to protests so they can document any attempt by the police to infringe their 1st Amendment rights.
Or do you think people who do that are merely antagonizing the police, too, and they should just shut up and do what they're told and only speak when, where, and how they're told to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why does he need a reason to record something? Depending on state recording laws I guess.
it will be hard to convince someone that he was doing anything other than trying to antagonize the officers into some form of action by openingly carrying the weapon.
And would that be illegal? What if he was in fact trying to shine a spotlight on this problem? He succeeded, with the help of the Philedelphia police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial
That they don't want their actions to be seen by the General Public, pretty much says everything anyone should need to know about they way they operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A prior guilty plea to drunk and disorderly and a dismissed shoplifting charge should make you ineligible to assert your constitutional rights? Imagine if they could show he had unpaid parking tickets too! The horror!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Couple drunk in publics, a fistfight and a dismissed misdemeanor theft. Not really a huge deal.
I imagine the black box relates to how he was treated during those drunk in publics. I know more than a few people that got charged with that because the cops wanted to charge them with something even though they did nothing wrong(well illegal at least).
"inconceivable that the cops in question knew about his record, or had been antagonized by him in the past."
Not the kind of record that would make you think the cops know this kid from the back but it isnt unthinkable that he has had words with this cop before, I imagine if he has it is hinted or flatout said in the audio but i cant listen right now.
"WHO the heck runs a black box recorder every time they leave the house?!?"
Someone who lives in a neighborhood where the cops like to draw guns on you and start swearing then write you public intox tickets maybe? I can't wait to listen to the audio but if he was calm, respectful and taping this then he probably has been hassled by the cops before and was waiting for it to happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, but you used those clever "the cops were obviously idiots/they were wrong to threaten his life" so you don't look like a total authoritarian apologist. Typical "it was wrong BUT..."
But nothing. You don't pull a loaded gun on someone unless they're threatening your life. Period. If you don't have that much self control, then you shouldn't be given a loaded gun in the first place.
FYI: your second amendment rights are stripped from you when you commit felonies, not misdemeanors. But why would we care about little things like the law when Great Police Officers just Know this guy's got a Record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: B's Opinion Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: B's Opinion Only on May 18th, 2011 @ 1:33pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> be a shit disturber.
Funny how anyone who actually stands up for their rights and/or makes the government actually abide by the laws it imposes on everyone else is so pejoratively labeled.
The question is always, "Why didn't you just be good and submit? It's so much easier that way."
As if easier is always better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carry laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carry laws
But, ignorance of the law is no excuse. That has been drilled into us by our legal system and our police since I can remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Carry laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the beginning of it one of the officers says 'Nobody knows the answer on this...' as the police officers are trying to figure out if the guy broke any laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. What did Mark think this was, a free country? How dare he not lick the boots of the officers when ordered!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something smells like fish
BUT has anyone considered to ask the questions:
If his intent was not to set them up for this, exactly WHEN and HOW did he turn on the recorder??????
Seems to me that the encounter started off with the officer drawing his gun. If this is fact, then exactly WHEN and HOW did the recorder get turned on??? Does this guy go around recording EVERYTHING??? If not then how did he know this was about to happen to know to turn the recoder on????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
Does it matter? Bad behavior is excusable if you don't know you're being recorded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
> and HOW did he turn on the recorder??????
Even if his intent *was* to set them up for it, my response is so what?
If the cops actually knew the laws in their own city, his set-up would have failed. The fact that it succeeded indicates there's some serious deficiencies on the police force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells like fish
Checking to see if a system is working correctly is called an "inspection" or "audit".
Intentionally or not, this situation was a great test of the police force in Philly, and they failed miserably.
If this guy was auditing his local police to make sure that they (a) responded correctly to him carrying a gun and (b) that they knew their own laws, then what he's actually doing is very brave.
You're acting like cops should "own" the citizens and have no scrutiny, no accountability, and no responsibility for their own actions. You're acting as if it's wrong to expect cops to know what they're doing, and to respond appropriately to a citizen going about his LEGAL AND VALID business.
Are you saying that cops should be able to attack random people for no legal reason at all? That's exactly what you're implying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the cops are reliably ignorant assholes then so what if the cops got exposed for it? We really gotta get some "How many cops does it take...." jokes going. Because really, How many cops does it take to know if something is a crime.
What do they go by? The laws? obviously not. Their gut feeling? Apparently works most of the time, and gets you out of any trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you know being a paranoid schizophrenic cop, gives you unlimited power? Your always in fear of your safety so all your actions are justified, and you hear odd noises coming from wherever you are, so you have warrantless access everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know this was intended to be a joke, but it certainly isn't true, at least in most states. Paranoid schizophrenic cops won't make it through the psych-evaluation. Also, the law states "reasonable person", and a paranoid schizophrenic is not reasonable (when the syndrome is not under control.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not necessarily. Many jokes have an element of truth to them. And some jokes are funny because they are true. So I think you might have to work a little on your hypothesis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's the 'normal' ones that go through the 'be the biggest asshole in the room' training that you have to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I haven't heard of many getting bounced for failing a psych eval, it is usually after they kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually
Your recourse to abuse of this latitude is in the courts, not against the officer you are dealing with while the situation is going on.
If an officer believes there is imminent threat they can break in to your house. If physically try to stop them, you are assaulting an officer. That's the 'law'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There was no gun involved until the cop pulled his. Pretty sure the "honeypot's" gun was holstered the entire time.
I don't think anyone disagrees with stopping and checking him out. Asking for his license, etc. It's the pull-gun-first-ask-questions-later attitude that isn't acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you get a handful of bullets too?
Really though, if it's a honeypot (Which just seems odd when your doing something completely legal waiting for someone to do something illegal, good examples are security cameras in banks and stores), the guy would have had to have the cops do this to him before often enough for the cops to be a sucker for it and NOT learn the law. How many cops are going to forget by the next time, when it's legal to carry a firearm. And realistically they didn't talk about it to other officers? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in Canada no one can carry a pistol, so I was unaware that only felony convictions can take away that right in the US.
The action of the cops was reprehensible. I only mentioned that Fiorino had a record to indicate what may have set them off after a random license plate check or something.
Perhaps running a recorder all the time is an advisable activity in the new police state. I was just surprised that someone, with no supposed agenda, had done that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It takes a stand up guy to admit something like that on the internetz. I applaud you, sir.
Perhaps running a recorder all the time is an advisable activity in the new police state.
Seems that way. I wonder what they have these days for cheap, long running recorders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're commonly called "Smart phones" or "cell phones" and I hear their pretty popular these days.
Seriously though any smart phone has good audio/video recording apps available and for basic cell phones there are numbers in most locations that allow you to call in for a recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The biggest battery draws on a smart phone are the screen and the various radios (GPS, Data/Phone).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming that recording a LIVE AND IN PERSON conversation (not over the phone) is illegal in this jurisdiction, This person will be prosecuted for that action. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the recording is not necessarily admissible in any action against the police officers. Thus, it might be admissible in a disciplinary hearing and in a civil suit filed by Fiorino. So Fiorino is prosecuted, takes a plea deal for a fine, and then sues the police using the tape. The resulting verdict could certainly be five figures. More than enough to compensate Fiorino for any fine. (Whether or not it is actually admissible will depend on a number of factors, but it certainly might be.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they're not, then your legal inability to defend yourself doesn't mean you have no need of self-defense, only that you're screwed if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now we all know that American cops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he really likes the cops
But they disappointed him and now he is sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association even states that the Filly cops are almost guar-un-teed to be douches about open carry stating they "will do everything in their power to make your life difficult".
It's apparently well known that in Philly that the legal right of open-carry has been prempted by the requirement to obtain a license and that even with such lawful permit local officials do not recognize the priveledge to open carry with a permit as they themselves do.
It takes arrogant attention whoring asshats like this guy to point out the hipocracy of dempcracy and the abuse of power that some get away with. Hopefully his voice is not quashed as happens so often.
He pointed out an important misunderstanding of the law by those entrusted to protected. The responsible thing for a society to do is to fix the problem and move on. But I fear this man will simply end up with a criminal record and have his permit revoked as a lesson to those who choose to speak up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cops were wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop pointing it out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With a firearm license in Philadelphia, open carry of a firearm is no more illegal than open usage of an automobile (also a licensed item that can be used to kill people).
An order that infringes a constitutional, civil or statutory right is an illegal and unlawful order. Google "18USC242" and you'll be able to read the law for yourself. No one is under any legal or moral obligation to obey an unlawful order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry, but calmly asserting your rights and refusing to abide by unreasonable orders made by a clearly overzealous and ignorant officer is not a free license for the officer to overreact, draw his weapon without cause. It simply isn't.
We cannot defend police officers who are so clearly in the wrong. We cannot make excuses for them. We must hold them to the same standards that citizens are held to, and when they react inappropriately, they must be penalized.
In contrast, if the officer would have responded just as calmly said "sir, I understand that you are telling me you have a permit. For my own safety, I would like to disarm you. Place your hands on your head and walk backwards towards me." this whole situation would have played out differently. Hell, if the cop wanted to handcuff Fiorino at that point, it would have been acceptable IMO. I totally understand that police need to protect themselves, and when faced with an uncertain scenario, I'm okay with them taking precautions.
It's called situational awareness. Many officers are capable of making rational decisions regarding the situation they are faced with. Those who can't need to be retrained, penalized, or fired - in that order.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust people like Sgt. Dougherty or ANY of the backup officers to protect citizens. Cops like that do more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the focus on why he was recording?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police...
Lots of states (including my home state of Mass) prosecutes, under wiretap laws, people who videotape the police.
On one hand the police want people to trust them, and then wonder why people do not trust them. The reason is simple; police should not necessarily be trusted. If you happen to be in a minority group and under 25, then the police are not your friends anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not trying to say that people shouldn't avail themselves of their rights but it isn't real hard to put myself in the shoes of the Police Officer whose job is to insure public safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If openly carrying a pistol, when the law says you have the right to and that nobody can take that right away, is all the grounds you need to conclude the public is being endangered, I would have to point out that police carry guns openly too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So torn...
On the other hand, god complex cops who don't understand the laws they're supposed to be enforcing appear to be the bigger threat to my everyday life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So torn...
Why? Everywhere it's been tried, the city has turned into a war zone. Just two examples:
Washington, DC -- strictest gun control in the country / highest murder rate in America, three years running.
Chicago -- very strict gun control laws / crime is so out of control that the mayor has asked the governor for national guard assistance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So torn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So torn...
Criminals commit acts of violence on the innocent, and will use the best means available, legal or not, to accomplish this. Simply ban a weapon and soon only criminals will have them (why would a criminal respect a law against guns, when they don't respect one against killing people?). If you actually get rid of all the weapons, it won't stop criminals from being violent, it will just mean anyone weaker than they are becomes defenseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So torn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So torn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So torn...
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright
(5 June 1824)
Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII (25 January 1978).
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), p. 708.
Scottish Gaelic proverb
Richard G Sjolin Jr (AKA BearGriz72) - Repeatedly and Often
Bruce Willis (2006)
..........Any Questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Story
I don't know that I necessarily want these officers to lose their jobs, but someone certainly should. It is unacceptable to have a law in place about something as potentially dangerous as gun ownership and possession and have that many officers utterly ignorant of the current status of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starting to think we would be safer without the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A possible reason for why he was recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Your Talents To Save Our Economy
Thank you for risking your life to expose egregious ignorance among our public servants. This was a clear case of institutional ineptitude. The police officer pointing a gun at you for legally walking down a sidewalk is a public disgrace, as were the follow up charges against you by his superiors.
With that street gutter attitude, no doubt the semi-educated police officer’s mother let his stepfathers beat him as a child. He should have started a conversation by calling you “Sir” instead of “Junior”. Worse, even if his parents were pathetic in shaping his demeanor toward fellow humans his employers should have nipped that behavior in the bud a long time ago.
Any public servant nowadays that behaves inappropriately should have no reason to expect privacy while performing their public duty. If the government is going to film us with speeding and stop light cameras and dashboard cameras why would it not expect quid pro quo –of the people, by the people, for the people? Aren’t we all in this together? The old adage, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” is now “What happens in Vegas goes on the Internet”.
Despite his upbringing, if the police officer is any kind of man with a social conscience, he should have called you or written you by now personally apologizing for putting your life in jeopardy, using foul language, and not knowing the limits and responsibilities of his job. A true professional will acknowledge their shortcomings and work like heck to remedy them –part of the 12-step process.
Did you set them up? Oh yeah. Did that particular officer need to be the scapegoat for public scrutiny in the police department’s failure to understand the laws they are entrusted to enforce? No. You too need to be a man and apologize to him for using him as a tool for getting your point across. He became a police officer so he could legally carry a gun just like you. Nevertheless, I’m afraid you both have more in common than I’d want in my neighborhood.
I always tell my kids, “Never argue with an idiot. The casual observer can’t tell which one is which.” Without argument everyone here seems to agree: open carry is idiotic –it invites nothing but trouble from both sides of the law.
You’re fortunate you hadn’t committed Suicide by Cop, which any police organization would rally around as the reason for your death. They have an interest in protecting their employees like family –nepotism being alive an well in most organizations. I grew up during the Rizzo era reading about their antics in The Philadelphia Bulletin. It’s entertaining to see things haven’t changed much –and I don’t live there anymore.
Now that you’ve won your argument with the man, count your blessings and use your talents for something more important, like reducing the federal debt so we’re not owned by the Chinese. Come spend time at Goldman Sachs and the Department of Treasury, otherwise we’re going to see a spike in DWA (Driving While Asian) traffic tickets as our little yellow friends visit their new properties: Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Statue of Liberty, White House, Capitol Building …
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is not correct.
"No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
* (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
* (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theses are the peoples to blame for the current drive toward a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an interesting note...
Not the same title or chapter, but the EXACT statute is what gave both Fiorino and the cops the ability to lawfully possess pistols in Philadelphia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its felony to issue a charge after the fact
He didnt break the law and now its felony perjury for trying to charge him with false crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]