Here is the
on this fiasco. Apparently the cops and D.A. are unapologetic and are intent on pursuing charges against Fiorino.
Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Speaking of fail...where exactly does it state that if an officer of the law...points a weapon at you..that you are allowed to fire at him.
If you were a citizen of the US, familiar with our laws, then you might not have to ask that question. Actually, in light of this discussion, it is
apparent that many people who are
US citizens - and law enforcement officers to boot - are also unaware of them. So for you, and for them, I'll
post a few relevant citations:
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted,
the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer
had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense
had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who
is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more
than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan.
245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use
of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App.
I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). “Each person has the
right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the
use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
A person can also come to the aid of a THIRD PARTY.
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is
not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.”
(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual
remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any
remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases
to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press,
1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v.
Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
Like I said, the cop is lucky he didn't catch a round to the face. Any more questions?
This idiot set the police up....why else would he be recording.
He's obviously NOT an idiot. He had been harassed before, and if he was ever harassed again he intended to have PROOF of that harassment. Sounds
pretty smart to me, especially these days when the word of a LEO carries more weight than that of an average citizen in court, and IDK if you know
this or not, but even cops are capable of lying.
He was looking for trouble.
No, he was looking for a hammer in a hardware store.
Tell me exactly how is an officer of the law to know what your intentions are....he sees a weapon...unless your carrying your license in plain
view..he has no clue as to what your doing. The guy should have complied...instead of causing a ruckus that was totally unnecessary because of his
actions. He had a license so the officer would have found it after he was searched...which most likely would have resulted in an apology(or
not..depends on what kind of dick the officer was) about the incident.
This officer was not responding to a crime. He was not even responding to a complaint. He stopped a man waking down the street who was minding his
own business because he saw that the man was carrying a pistol, and for no other reason. He wasn't concerned with the man's explanation, which I would
hardly call a "ruckus." The officer should have KNOWN that the man was perfectly within his rights to open carry; if he wasn't ignorant of that fact,
he may not have stopped Fiorino at all.
I believe to get a weapon you must go through some mental exam...nuts like that Arizona fella can weapons to easily.
IDK about how it is where you live, but here you don't have to prove you aren't a nut to exercise your Constitutional rights. That being said, if a
person has already been adjudicated "mentally ill," then they DON'T get a license to carry a weapon, and the same goes for those who have committed a
American pussies and their need for weapons
European slaves and their need to blindly expect the State to do everything for them.
Obviously taking the life of a police officer should be a VERY LAST RESORT, to be used only to protect your own life or the life of another from an
illegal killing. I can imagine that (at least for me) the circumstances that led to the shooting would have to be EXTREME, with the civilian truly
fearing for his life - not just to make a point. I'm just trying to point out the fact that just because a LEO has a badge and a gun, those items do
NOT place him above the law; in fact, they require extra care from the LEO to make sure that his actions are lawful and above reproach.
It would have been the worst kind of tragedy if this LEO (and probably Fiorino as well) had lost their lives because of what boils down to an
ignorance of the law on the part of the LEO, and a failure on the part of the Philadelphia Police Department to properly train their officers. One
would think that the fact that it is LEGAL to open carry in the city limits would be one of the first - and most important - things they teach their
Still, had Fiorino perceived the threat from a man pointing a gun at his chest to be life-threatening, he would have been perfectly within his rights
to take that officer's life: I'm just glad that he didn't. Being an idiot doesn't warrant the death penalty.
edit on 5/22/2011 by OldCorp
because: (no reason given)