Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

Originally posted by mishigas
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?

The deadliest thing in the world is a Marine with a rifle. I never shot less than a perfect score the entire time I was in the Corp, and I qualified on multiple weapon systems. Since getting out I've taken required courses twice in order to get my CCW in different states. Tell me again how you know better than I.

I'm teaching my kids how to handle weapons too; BUT that is no replacement for "formal" training, which they will get when they are old enough to apply for a CCW.

I'm done with you, you're just getting ridiculous and I have better things to do than play with you,

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

reply to post by mishigas


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

Where did I insult you? And you have been condescending in your replies.

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

See,, this is where your lack of experience shows once again.

Who said the cop wanted to check permits? Let me put it this way...can *anyone* open carry whether or not a permit is required? The answer is NO. Maybe the cop wanted to check for wants and warrants. Maybe someone reported a guy waving a handgun around. Get the point? You have NO WAY of knowing why the cop is doing what he is doing. This idiot Fiorino was making the typical rookie mistake of asking "Why are you pointing at me?" "Do you want to see my permit?" blah blah blah...

The cop's intention is to gain control of the situation immediately. Answering all your stupid questions before you are under control, even if that means getting on your knees, is a form of relinquishing control to you. There is a time for questions, not when the cop is barking orders.

All of that takes maturity and common sense to understand. Fiorino obviously lacked both.

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.

No they shouldn't. Just as an EMT has priorities of bleeding breathing breaks, cops have their own priorities, and they are not the same in every situation. If a cop chose to handle a 'car speeding' call before a 'man with a gun' call, he'd be disciplined.

You're still stuck on that strawman training argument, aren't you? Do you know what a strawman is? Google is your friend.

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

This tells me a whole lot about you. You have never been in a position of hierarchy or management. But your weak response to me will be to accuse me of condoning following an illegal order.

I did actually call a cop once. Once. Never again.
< snip>
I will not ever call a cop for any reason again.

As I suggested earlier, call a Nazi since you equate the two.

reply to post by OldCorp


Being a marksman doesn't give you common sense, obviously.

I'm done with you, you're just getting ridiculous and I have better things to do than play with you,

Good. You couldn't answer a single question posed to you anyway. Your stuff was weak.

Buh-bye. Come back when you can do more that troll the boards.

Well dee dee deeeeee!!!!!

These officers still wonder why they get shot at????????

reply to post by mishigas


There is no speeding car. Just a car.

As there was no man waving a gun. Just a man who happened to have a gun on his hip.

If I equate the two why would I call either?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Omigod.:shk: You are thick.

Now you're just trolling. And I don't feed trolls.

[dbl post #5

Originally posted by OldCorp

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?

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.

This idiot set the police up....why else would he be recording.

He was looking for trouble. How exactly are officers of the law supposed to know who is a criminal or not one.
How many serial killers were always thought of as normal appearing...how many people that have randomly killed and were also thought to have been normal and people were shocked to hear about what they did.

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.

I believe to get a weapon you must go through some mental exam...nuts like that Arizona fella can weapons to easily.

American pussies and their need for weapons

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

American pussies and their need for weapons

edit on 18-5-2011 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

This is the arrogance that makes Americans Citizens, and people of countries who outlaw guns subjects. The next time a wingnut from Europe or Asia decides to go on a war spree, you guys can defend yourselves.

Around 1 minute into the video....

These are the kind of pigs I want to use my soldering iron on...Telling a man to "Shut the # up"..This man was polite and never threatened them...They need my soldering iron where the sun doesn't shine and it needs to be turned on to full blast.......Officers....hahahaha, these were no more officers than a skunk, and a dead one at that...Punk a$$ pigs.....

reply to post by Caji316

These are the kind of pigs I want to use my soldering iron on...Telling a man to "Shut the # up"..This man was polite and never threatened them...They need my soldering iron where the sun doesn't shine and it needs to be turned on to full blast.......Officers....hahahaha, these were no more officers than a skunk, and a dead one at that...Punk a$$ pigs.....

And to think...somebody actually starred you for that. What has ATS become?:shk:

Originally posted by Caji316
These are the kind of pigs I want to use my soldering iron on...Telling a man to "Shut the # up"..This man was polite and never threatened them...They need my soldering iron where the sun doesn't shine and it needs to be turned on to full blast.......Officers....hahahaha, these were no more officers than a skunk, and a dead one at that...Punk a$$ pigs.....

ugh..an internet tough guy...the worst type of people on the web. Same person that would cry and curl up in a ball if confronted...

Here is the latest news 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)
SOURCE

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 felony.

American pussies and their need for weapons

European slaves and their need to blindly expect the State to do everything for them.

IN CONCLUSION:

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 officers.

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.

reply to post by OldCorp

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 officers.

I still don't know how a cop is supposed to know if a person is carrying legally. Just because it is legal to OC does NOT mean a person is legally carrying. A felon could take advantage of the naive premise that anyone OC'ing in Philly is cool just because the law says it is OK to OC. How is the cop to know whether the person OC'ing is not another Jared Loughner, or member of MS-13 or somesuch?

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by OldCorp

 

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 officers.

I still don't know how a cop is supposed to know if a person is carrying legally. Just because it is legal to OC does NOT mean a person is legally carrying. A felon could take advantage of the naive premise that anyone OC'ing in Philly is cool just because the law says it is OK to OC. How is the cop to know whether the person OC'ing is not another Jared Loughner, or member of MS-13 or somesuch?

I don't know, maybe as has been suggested they should have some kind of badge attached to the holster in plain view; but since it IS legal, it would probably be a good idea for cops to not draw down on someone automatically assuming right off the bat that the person is breaking the law. Someone's gonna get killed with that kind of ignorance.

I know when I open carried in Detroit in the 80's I was never once even stopped by a cop much less drawn on; and as far as cities go, Detroit and Philly have very similar crime rates and demographics. If the cops can do it in Detroit, they can do it in Philly.

Reply to post by OldCorp

He essentially did everyone a favor.

Saving time, money and lives by pointing out an area where 15 minutes of training will get the city better cops.

I guess they don't want better cops.

They're expending an awful lot of energy going after some guy for not doing anything wrong.

Makes me think Philly must be pretty crime free they have so much time to do this.

You can't help but laugh that the cops seem to have issue with the recording rather the gun.

Is this even a gun issue at all? Sounds more like a right to record than right to carry case.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by OldCorp


Well, once again we have no knowledge of what transpired in the time leading up to this event. What calls were in the queue? Man waving gun around? Who knows?

Badge on holster wouldn't work. If they can be duplicated, they will be. And if you OC multiple different handguns at different times, you'd need a separate badge for each holster. Well, maybe not.

I dunno. Why did the cop draw down? Previous experience? BOLO? He must have had a reason.

reply to post by Arcade425

Trust me I go to the Philadelphia Archery and Gun range at least three times a month. Most of the Philadelphia Police go there to practice. They always say "Whatever you do, do not open carry".

It sounds to me like the next time you go you should bring a copy of that Supreme Court decision and pass it around.

One of your cop buddies is going to pick the WRONG person to harass about "open carry" Either an ACLU lawyer or as just happen here in my state, the head of the state police.

The idiot cop who pulled the Little Hitler routine AND his idiot captain who backed him BOTH got their walking papers.

Now if tha would only happen more often. Reverse stings anyone.

Originally posted by OldCorp

The deadliest thing in the world is a Marine with a rifle.

A Marine is a thing? A deadly thing, like ebola or plutonium? Deadlier than those things?
If you say so, I guess it must be so.

reply to post by OldCorp


"If They can in Detroit, they can in Philly"

"Can" It's not a matter of can or can't... This is a matter of "want"

50% + of our current officers are a bunch of sniveling, whiny, out of shape, blow hard's without weapons or back up.

The states have tried to implement physical standards... Each and every time, the union reps fight it to have it thrown out..

Look at the instances of police brutality and criminal activity... Do you think this is a surge in their behavior?? HELL NO!!!

This is due to "Average Joe Citizen" recording more.

There are 3 Types of police
#1 High School Jock (local Hero) Breezed through high school on athletics, to find college ball to difficult, and mentally unable to keep up, due to mush brain. These cops are great for letting the locals slide by, but are short on memory for the "laws"
2# The ex- military ... These cops go 2 ways.. Good or Bad - Good ones can be modern day super hero's... They have the training and experience to NOT freak out in situations like this... They don't let fear control their actions. BAD ones are the worst... They have a taste for violence and come across as "Barney bad arse"
3) The nerd... Not the smart kind... The mouth breathers that want nothing more than to BE RESPECTED!!!! Damn it!!!!

Ok.... I was wrong.. their are 4 kinds...

There are a select few that truly want to help people... But their numbers are so low, it's almost not worth mentioning.

As a society we are constantly bashing athletes for screwing up in public, saying that they are being poor roll models for out children.... What about our officers?? Our kids see these fat obese cops in their neighbor hoods... If they look up to our officers like we assume they should, they are getting the wrong impression..

Police officers are not respected anymore.. Why would they be? You call them..... You could get a pizza on a Friday night, faster than you could get a cop... Then, when they show up, you can look forward to your rights being trampled on..

I have no use for cops.. NONE! This officer should lose his job, ostracized from the community, and sued until he cant afford Raimen Noodles.