Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hueyfreeman77
I dont understand what all that stuff is about "Class 1" city.


State law based description of a city of 1 million or more.

It's one of those bizarre and wholly unnecessary regulatory definitions that come about from having densely populated urban centers with their own politics butting heads with the rural rest of the state with its own politics.

Typically dragged out when firearms are the topic.

Mass has similar "districting" nonsense where certain gun owners in certain zones get certain color permits which mean certain things.

It's all just tyrant crap.


PA Title 53, section 13101:

"Those [cities] containing a population of one million or over shall constitute the first class."
edit on 17-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




Secure the scene from what? Was the guy waving the gun around? Was he yelling and threatening?

If we were to follow your logic every single car on the road would be getting pulled over every 5 miles.

How else are we going to know if the person operating that car has a valid license to do so?

There's too much "pre-crime" nonsense in this country. Why are we all guilty until some "authority" decides we arent?


You're not seriously equating OC permits with drivers licenses, are you?

And nobody is presuming you 'guilty' of anything. The "authority" you seem to disdain is doing his job. We in this country are the luckiest on earth when it comes to rights. We have a responsibility to exercise them sensibly. But we as a species have a long way to go before we can trust every other person to have honest intentions. Unfortunately some 'adults' OC just to appear bigger than they are; those are the ones who maintain databases on police activity as a hobby, and who cry foul at every opportunity.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
dbl post again?
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 



Think what might have happened during infamous mass shootings like Virginia Tech, the massacre at Luby's in Texas, or other high profile crimes where many were injured or killed if there had been ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity. For that matter, what about everyday armed robberies that could be nipped in the bud?


How do you know that there weren't ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity? That nutcase at VT and Jared whats-his-name were not going to be dismayed by another gun.

And it makes no diff whether the "ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity" were OC or CC on those tragic days.



The average police response time is 7 minutes: how many lives would be saved if responsible gun owners took care of the threat themselves instead of being forced to wait for the police?


That's a state's rights issue, whether they have a Castle Doctrine or not. Same as whether or not the homeowner wants to own a firearm.
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Unfortunately, as the news stories make plain, Fiorino was completely in the wrong beyond the basic notion that he had a right to do what he was doing. He did not, however, have a right to disobey lawful orders by the police officers present. If a police officer tells you to get on your knees, GET ON YOUR KNEES. The instant you disobey a police officer is the instant at which you are perceived as an active threat against the officer's safety, and the safety of everyone in the vicinity. It's always wise to let a cop know that you acknowledge that they are in control of a given situation. If not, prepare to be aggresively handled, as would be warranted. A threatening individual confronting police is a recipe for disaster, even if the person in question is only "threatening" in the eye of the police beholder.

"Reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct" is PRECISELY what Fiorino was doing, and it's only marginally related to the fact that he was walking around brandishing a legal firearm.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You're not seriously equating OC permits with drivers licenses, are you?


Sure I am. Why shouldnt I?

They both require fees and tests of competency. They both permit the owner to wield a potentially devastating weapon. They are both sanctioned by the state.

What's so different about them?

Doing his job? Right. Whipping negroes and gassing Jews. Just doing his job. A job he chose. A job he has leeway in how he approaches. A job where he could, if so capable or inclined, use judgement rather than hide behind the ever present excuse of policy.
edit on 17-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You're not seriously equating OC permits with drivers licenses, are you?



Sure I am. Why shouldnt I?

They both require fees and tests of competency. They both permit the owner to wield a potentially devastating weapon. They are both sanctioned by the state.


You live in NH; you should know that they do not require a test of competency. All you need is a clean record and $10.


What's so different about them?


The purpose of the object they are permitting. You don't typically drive a car with the intent of killing someone, do you? Next you'll be equating OC with a fishing license.



Doing his job? Right. Whipping negroes and gassing Jews. Just doing his job. A job he chose. A job he has leeway in how he approaches. A job where he could, if so capable or inclined, use judgement rather than hide behind the ever present excuse of policy.


Wow! I never said this to any one else here, but I just lost any respect I ever had for you. Equating LEO with Nazis and slaveowners.:shk:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I dont drive with the intent to kill. I do not carry with the intent to kill.

We're not talking about NH are we? Philadelphia, NH? I know we have a Pittsburgh. Not sure about a Philadelphia.

I didnt equate cops with slave owners and nazis. I just illustrated that the justification used is a poor one.

Plenty of cops whipped negroes before "policy" was overturned.
Makes me wonder if non-racist cops were whipping right along with racist cops because , hey, it's their job.

Seems anyone following "policy" for whatever reason is incapable of thinking for themselves. It's a weak excuse for any behavior. Effectively saying, "I'm too stupid to have an opinion so I just do what they tell me."



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by OldCorp
 



Think what might have happened during infamous mass shootings like Virginia Tech, the massacre at Luby's in Texas, or other high profile crimes where many were injured or killed if there had been ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity. For that matter, what about everyday armed robberies that could be nipped in the bud?


How do you know that there weren't ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity? That nutcase at VT and Jared whats-his-name were not going to be dismayed by another gun.

And it makes no diff whether the "ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity" were OC or CC on those tragic days.



The average police response time is 7 minutes: how many lives would be saved if responsible gun owners took care of the threat themselves instead of being forced to wait for the police?


That's a state's rights issue, whether they have a Castle Doctrine or not. Same as whether or not the homeowner wants to own a firearm.
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)


Point 1. If there were armed citizens in the vicinity, they both would have been shot. I know that's what I would have done - right in the face.

Point 2. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. How do you equate police response time with state's rights and the Castle Doctrine? My point is all about carrying your firearm AWAY from the home.
edit on 5/17/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 



Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by OldCorp


Think what might have happened during infamous mass shootings like Virginia Tech, the massacre at Luby's in Texas, or other high profile crimes where many were injured or killed if there had been ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity. For that matter, what about everyday armed robberies that could be nipped in the bud?



How do you know that there weren't ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity? That nutcase at VT and Jared whats-his-name were not going to be dismayed by another gun.

And it makes no diff whether the "ordinary armed citizens in the vicinity" were OC or CC on those tragic days.



The average police response time is 7 minutes: how many lives would be saved if responsible gun owners took care of the threat themselves instead of being forced to wait for the police?



That's a state's rights issue, whether they have a Castle Doctrine or not. Same as whether or not the homeowner wants to own a firearm.
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)





Point 1. If there were armed citizens in the vicinity, they both would have been shot. I know that's what I would have done - right in the face.


That didn't happen in Tucson, did it? The nut that shot Gabby Giffords was taken down (tackled) by several people including one middle aged woman. And one of them was armed; he never fired a shot.


Point 2. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. How do you equate police response time with state's rights and the Castle Doctrine? My point is all about carrying your firearm AWAY from the home.


First of all, where is it written that you must wait for the police? I refer you back to Point 1. So I assumed you were talking about home invasion, which happens far more often than the nut in the crowd. Some states still say that you, as a homeowner, must flee from the perp. In that context, it made your (false) statement that you are forced to wait for the police to respond a little more sensical.

And to those being threatened, whether AWAY from home or in their bedroom, it makes no difference. The police response time will be the same. So your point about carrying AWAY from home is moot.
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
He is openly carrying and a licensed to carry. -Not a crime.
He is recording the encounter. Despite what the officers say. -Not a crime.
He uploads the audio to youtube. -A criminal mastermind. Goes to trial in July.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





I dont drive with the intent to kill. I do not carry with the intent to kill.


We're not talking about you. A cop that sees a person behind the wheel does not immediately go into a defensive state of mind.


We're not talking about NH are we? Philadelphia, NH? I know we have a Pittsburgh. Not sure about a Philadelphia.


Does PA require training? I don't think so...although I may be wrong. I lived there for 20 years, had plenty of guns, and not a day of formal training. Things may have changed.


I didnt equate cops with slave owners and nazis. I just illustrated that the justification used is a poor one.

Plenty of cops whipped negroes before "policy" was overturned.
Makes me wonder if non-racist cops were whipping right along with racist cops because , hey, it's their job.


You put them in the same category, and in the same context. Don't try to backpedal away from what you said.


Seems anyone following "policy" for whatever reason is incapable of thinking for themselves. It's a weak excuse for any behavior. Effectively saying, "I'm too stupid to have an opinion so I just do what they tell me."


You never worked for any majors, did you? First thing many of them do is give you a policy handbook. And, if they are doing their job, they explain to you that "Policies are not rules. They are guidelines. Whenever you are uncertain, do the right thing".



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Reply to post by mishigas
 


I've no reason to backpedal. I don't have a problem with directly comparing cops to Nazis.

My objection comes from simplifying my analogy to such a petty degree.

"Following orders" goes much further than a superficial label of fascist.

And the drivers license to carry permit holds true. Perhaps not in a state like NH but certainly in a state like CT, MA, CA, FL or any other state with a training requirement.

If PA should have nonsuch requirement then the cop should have know so and as such would have even less of a reason to suspect an individual carrying would be doing so unlawfully.

A gun on a hip is not a crime nor is it a cause for alarm.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hueyfreeman77
 


In PA Class 1 city refers only to Philly, as it designates a city of 1 million or more inhabitants. Philly has 1.5m citizens. Pittsburgh is PA's class 2 city, and Scranton is PA's only "Second Class City A" (apparently they wanted to feel special because I can't find anywhere on how that's important) All other cities under 250k are Class 3 cities. There are a number of cities in PA that fit in with Scrantons designation (80k-250k) that refuse to be Second Class A cities. The designation has a lot to do with government makeup I assume.. taxes, regulation (state control), population, school funding etc etc.

www.lgc.state.pa.us...

It's a boring read if you want to understand the makeup of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania....
Essentially Pennsylvanians (ites.. ians .. ers... I dunno) like to class EVERYTHING in a tier structure .. so you can live in a class 3 borough with a 2nd class school in a 1st class county? Yeah, most Pennians (new kick name I made up) have no idea, and don't care. Philly is number one, and is the only exception to the open carry laws. (what type of card is needed etc)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahajohn
Unfortunately, as the news stories make plain, Fiorino was completely in the wrong beyond the basic notion that he had a right to do what he was doing. He did not, however, have a right to disobey lawful orders by the police officers present. If a police officer tells you to get on your knees, GET ON YOUR KNEES. The instant you disobey a police officer is the instant at which you are perceived as an active threat against the officer's safety, and the safety of everyone in the vicinity. It's always wise to let a cop know that you acknowledge that they are in control of a given situation. If not, prepare to be aggresively handled, as would be warranted. A threatening individual confronting police is a recipe for disaster, even if the person in question is only "threatening" in the eye of the police beholder.

"Reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct" is PRECISELY what Fiorino was doing, and it's only marginally related to the fact that he was walking around brandishing a legal firearm.


That statement is so full of fail I don't even know where to begin. But I'll try anyway.

That police officer is lucky Fiorino didn't shoot him after he drew his weapon, which Fiorino would have been perfectly within his rights to do - a fact that would have come out well after Fiorino's funeral, his death undoubtedly caused by the backup officers. My point being, just because you have the right to do something, discretion in exercising that right is a key element in your survival when coming up against out of control cops.

You are assuming that the police officer's orders were lawful, which in fact they were NOT. This man was a law-abiding citizen, minding his own business, when he was accosted by the first police officer. The police officer ASSUMED that Fiorino was breaking the law because he was ignorant of the law himself; a supremely idiotic mistake on the part of the officer, and a failure by the department in making their officers aware of 137.

You say the officer "perceived an active threat." What about Fiorino's perception? He's just walking along, obeying the law - not "brandishing" his weapon but carrying it in a holster - and not expecting a confrontation when someone pulls a gun on him! What about Fiorino's perception that his life might be in danger? He had a reasonable expectation to believe that the police would know the law, and to have a weapon drawn on him for no good reason is reason to retaliate in kind. That the police officer and Fiorino didn't both get killed is a miracle.

I can't say what I would do in that situation because I wasn't there. I didn't feel what Fiorino felt. That being said, if I was walking along minding my own business, knowing I was obeying the law, there just might be bloodshed depending on how I perceived the threat at that moment. In my home is a completely different story; anyone busting in can expect a face full of .00 buckshot because I KNOW that there is no good reason for the police to enter my home, and if anyone were to do so, I can reasonably believe that they are there for nefarious purposes..

As far as "Reckless Endangerment," how much you wanna bet that gets thrown out before the case even comes to trial?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I could have put this response in with the last one, but I felt it deserved it's own post.


Originally posted by mishigas
Does PA require training? I don't think so...although I may be wrong. I lived there for 20 years, had plenty of guns, and not a day of formal training. Things may have changed.


If that is true, I would say that you are a dangerous individual who has no business owning a firearm.
edit on 5/17/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





I've no reason to backpedal. I don't have a problem with directly comparing cops to Nazis.

My objection comes from simplifying my analogy to such a petty degree.

"Following orders" goes much further than a superficial label of fascist.


You have the right to equate cops with nazis. Next time you need a cop, call a Nazi.

And this whole 'following orders' schtick is a straw man.


And the drivers license to carry permit holds true. Perhaps not in a state like NH but certainly in a state like CT, MA, CA, FL or any other state with a training requirement.


Weren't you the one whining about "We're not talking about NH, we're talking about PA" when I schooled you on carry requirements? Now you want to use the same words to defend your argument.


If PA should have nonsuch requirement then the cop should have know so and as such would have even less of a reason to suspect an individual carrying would be doing so unlawfully.


That makes no sense at all. How does a training requirement translate into whether a person is carrying legally? But then, that's the kind of 'logic' I've come to expect from you.


A gun on a hip is not a crime nor is it a cause for alarm.


Nor is it an excuse to act like a maroon.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 



Originally posted by mishigas
Does PA require training? I don't think so...although I may be wrong. I lived there for 20 years, had plenty of guns, and not a day of formal training. Things may have changed.



If that is true, I would say that you are a dangerous individual who has no business owning a firearm.


Your ignorance is showing. I probably forgot more about gun safety than you will ever know.

And I notice that you avoided answering the questions and comments I posed to you from your last response to me. Are you limited to making ad hominem remarks?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
dbl post...4th time today. ?
edit on 17-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


We can do without the childish insulting, can't we? Did I do that to you?

If there is no requirement for a carry permit there is no reason for a cop to seek such a permit.

If training is a requirement of both a carry permit and a driver's license then cops should be equally vigilant in seeking out licensed drivers as they are in seeking out permitted carriers.

Of vehicles and guns one is certainly more dangerous and if danger is a criteria for extra police scrutiny then one could argue that one over the other could draw an excusable amount of extra police attention, I'll give you that.

I'll leave it to you do discover which of the two is the more dangerous. The CDC/WMMR stats should help with that.

"Following orders" as a concept or justification is indicative of a great sociological problem.

I did actually call a cop once. Once. Never again. By the time they had arrived the need had passed by hours. Upon arrival I was made to feel as a suspect and was verbally threatened. At that time I still had faith in cops. Still liked cops. Still looked up to family who were cops. That day set in motion an amazing chain of events lasting years which brought me to my current opinion of cops. All learned through experience. No paranoia or hyperbole. Just experience.

I will not ever call a cop for any reason again.





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join