Philly OC'er held at gunpoint, charged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this going to be a replay of the practical vs. theoretical?

Don't comply and get shot because of your theoretical right?

Comply and complain later?

Reason for doing such - making the theoretical statement to expand rights? Noble cause and you take the risk vs. you were carrying for the practical self-defense issue?

No cop bashing. Someone being incorrect doesn't generalize to the whole profession - usual warning.
 
Perhaps I am thin skinned,,,
But no one on this shiny green planet,,,
Has the right to curse at me and expect me to submit.

Cops are not supposed to be thugs.

Wait until this happens to you and see if your attitude doesn't change a bit.
Click to expand...


You're right, I would be very unhappy if it happened to me. Especially the abusive language from the 2nd cop. On the other hand, if a cop approached me and said "hey junior what are you doing there" I wouldn't take offence at that. And if he was genuinely afraid for his safety and wanted me to get on the ground until he could check my license etc., then I would. I might complain afterwards.

Bear in mind, the shouting and cursing starts at around 2 minutes 20 seconds into the confrontation. By that time, the officer has already made it clear that he's concerned because he doesn't know anything about the guy and doesn't know why he's carrying a gun, and that he believes it's against the law. The guy still hasn't done anything to make the cop feel safer except say that he has a license.

Later, the cop explains that his reaction was based on the guys attitude when he first accosted him - the whole "who-are-you-calling-junior" routine. It doesn't excuse the officer's mistake, or the language and aggressive behavior of the other officer who came afterwards. But I do think the guy could have avoided this much trouble without sacrificing his right to carry, if he could just look at it from the cop's point of view.
 
As I have said several times in the past... The police work for the people. Every police officer owes to every citizen reasonable behaviour. I listened to the recording. I do not believe the Officer was reasonable. At worse the officer had a case of mere possesion of a firearm. IMO This is a reflection on not only the individual officer but on his entire department.

I probably would nave not gotten down on the ground either. I may well have been shot. It seems to me that lately standing up to the police is grounds for all kinds of abusive behaviour. My personal opinion is this trend is becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The current (Orwellian) newspeak referring to the police as "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" only supports, and tends to excuse this bad behavour. The truth is... Other than traffic laws... Law enforcement takes up 10% or less of the average officers time. My personal observation is that the Police have become personal political bullies, and use local, state, and federal laws to propagate various political ideals.

Many people fear being pointed out as not supporting the police. I'm not one of those. I support the police, in most everything they do. It's a tough thankless job. But I refuse to excuse bad behaviour from someone because they have a tough thankless job.

More rant to come...LOL
 
My personal observation is that the Police have become personal political bullies, and use local, state, and federal laws to propagate various political ideals.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with this. And if I thought this was a case of that happening (which I did until I listed to the recording) I would say the guy did the right thing. Instead what I heard was a street cop in a rough city who has probably known or known of colleagues who are dead because they didn't take the precaution of drawing their own gun first. If we had reached the point where cops are pulling their guns to mug people etc. then OK, but it's not like that anywhere in America. In 99% of cases, the cops pull their weapons because their afraid they might be killed if they don't. Taking a somewhat aggressive stance and insisting on the person kneeling etc. is just part of that precautionary behavior. There is not much point in drawing the gun and then getting into an argument. You're either in charge or you're not. Cops are trained to take charge on the street. So why fuel the cop's fear even further?

I think it's fairly clear that the cop in question genuinely thought the guy was breaking the law by carrying openly. So that was his mistake, no question about it. But having made that mistake, his subsequent behavior was not really all that bad (talking about the first cop here, who didn't use much bad language). If a cop thinks someone is carrying a firearm illegally, how should he behave, exactly? That brings it down to the question of whether or not a cop being technically mistaken on a point of law constitutes a serious abuse of civil rights? I don't think it does.
 
I was expecting a blatant, wanton abuse of the guys civil rights, and I just don't see it here.
Click to expand...

You do not see it because it is audio not video. I think the abuse of the civil rights comes in when they drew down on a man obeying the law. There are also a code of ethics.

IF YOUR JOB IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS, KNOW THE LAWS!!!!!
THIS IS NOT A GAME!!!!!!!
KNOW THE LAWS OR FIND ANOTHER JOB THAT DOES NOT MAKE LIFE SOMETIMES DEPEND ON THOSE LAWS!!!!

If firearm safety is a #1 priority knowing the rules for firearms safety is a #1 priority, which means knowing the laws regarding firearms are a firearms saftey issue and should be a #1 PRIORITY!!
 
But I refuse to excuse bad behaviour from someone because they have a tough thankless job.
Click to expand...

AMEN! Act professional follow the rules and respect your fellow man according to the higher standard the police officer is set to.
 
You do not see it because it is audio not video. I think the abuse of the civil rights comes in when they drew down on a man obeying the law. There are also a code of ethics.
Click to expand...

Well it's clear from the audio that the officer drew his weapon preemptively. Perhaps seeing the video would change my perspective somewhat. Being there myself might, but then I would have behaved differently anyway.

"[drawing] on a man obeying the law" ...this way of looking at it is kind of what bothers me about the whole thing. Why did the cop draw his weapon, in your opinion? I do not think he did it so that he could intimidate the guy and punish him for exercising his rights. I think he did it so that he could investigate what he believed to be a crime, without getting himself killed.
 
Why did the cop draw his weapon, in your opinion? I do not think he did it so that he could intimidate the guy and punish him for exercising his rights. I think he did it so that he could investigate what he believed to be a crime, without getting himself killed.
Click to expand...

No, what he did was endanger his life, the CCL carry guys life, and everyone else in range of his weapon because he was ignorant of the law which goes well beyond violating civil rights, well beyond. This is a major problem.
 
Under our system of law, there is a little thing called RAS = reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Without that there is no legitimate reason for the contact. Because this cop does not know the law is no excuse for his behavior.

I am familiar with the case at hand from reading the first-hand account from the victim and listening to the audio recording. As I stated earlier there is a chronic failure of PPD to obey the law with regard to open carry (and other things)in that jurisdiction. The mayor, city council and chief of police have a bent against guns and it has been demonstrated repeatedly with thuggish tactics like this.

This is an attitude of a member of "THE ONLY ONES". If you are not familiar with that phrase it would serve you well to do a little google search and learn about it. It is an Us -v- Them attitude exhibited by some in police work and it needs to stop.

Mr Fiorino chose to exercise his rights and they were violated by PPD and back-up with a bogus charge from the DA. Good damn thing he was recording the incident or he could be dead with no evidence of what happened....and cops never lie. Do they?

I am not cop bashing. Nor am I being an apologist for police. I am stating facts as it pertains to this matter. I contend there are far too many folks willing to take the side of the police, always and every time any question of bad behavior arises. That is a mistake and a dangerous thing in and of itself.

Think about it.
 
Because this cop does not know the law is no excuse for his behavior.
Click to expand...

I must disagree with that point; there may be no excuse for him not knowing the law. But his behavior is excusable given his mistake about the law. Put another way: if open carry was in fact illegal, then the officer's behavior would have been appropriate.


This is an attitude of a member of "THE ONLY ONES". If you are not familiar with that phrase it would serve you well to do a little google search and learn about it. It is an Us -v- Them attitude exhibited by some in police work and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

I will read up on that - but I think I get it from the quote; only we are qualified/entitled/competent trustworthy enough to be armed...and I completely against them on that count.

Mr Fiorino chose to exercise his rights and they were violated by PPD and back-up with a bogus charge from the DA. Good damn thing he was recording the incident or he could be dead with no evidence of what happened....and cops never lie. Do they?
Click to expand...

Woh there, back up a second. OK, the bogus charge thing is true (they are trying to avoid being sued now that they know they were in the wrong). But saying he could be dead only for the recording? That's nuts: they didn't know he was recording anything until after they disarmed him. At that point, there was no question of anyone being shot. Anyway, they could have easily 'disappeared' that recording, or given it the magnet treatment, and we'd have no one's word but Mr Fiorino's that it ever existed (if he was still alive). Why didn't they? Because, as the first cop explains in the recording, he believes it exonerates him.

I contend there are far too many folks willing to take the side of the police, always and every time any question of bad behavior arises. That is a mistake and a dangerous thing in and of itself.
Click to expand...

No argument there, I agree 100%.
 
Last edited:
Did the cop have his gun at "low ready" or did he point it at the OC'er? The first might be OK. The second is (IMHO) a felony -- assault with a deadly weapon.
 
Did the cop have his gun at "low ready" or did he point it at the OC'er?
Click to expand...

According to the guy, the cop pointed it at him - he can be heard to say "why are you pointing your gun at me" and "you're pointing a weapon at me". The cop doesn't dispute this so I presume it's true.
 
I agree that it was handled poorly by all that are involved, but there are three things that really stick out to me.

First, an officer or a judge will be the first one to tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it. That must go both ways. Not knowing that OC is legal and drawing on the man is inexcusable.

Secondly, when a officer is in a tense situation (even though the officer made it a tense situation) and is pointing his gun at you ordering you to lay down is NOT the time to debate who is in the right and who is in the wrong. You follow instructions, let the situation be defused, and then sue the bajeezus out of the system if your rights were violated; a department having to settle a lawsuit will make much bigger waves of change than a street argument. My best friend is a retired sherriffs deputy and told me of the time a few years back when he was pulled over on his way back from hunting because his truck was mistaken for a stolen vehicle. He was spread eagle on the shoulder of the road, his truck searched and rifles laid out like a crime scene, and it stayed that way until they had finished running his plates and ID. He didn't try to yell "It's ok, I'm a retired cop, you have no right to pull me over, etc..." because he had been in these tense situations and knew the best way for everyone to be at ease was to follow along until things got sorted out. I think I would have been ticked enough to file a complaint, but he ever did. Guess he understands better than most of us.

Lastly, the charges brought up by the DA is one of the sketchiest parts of this whole story, if they would have offered him an apology, promised better training, etc. it might have been a step in the right direction. But trying to bully him through this stinks to high heaven.
 
I agree with most of this. My point is: it's not enough to plan only for the times when everything works the way it's supposed to. Yes, the cop was mistaken. Yes, he should have known better. But the cop is human. Humans make mistakes. When you train and arm a police officer and send him out onto the street to enforce the law, it is pretty much guaranteed that at some point in his career, he will make a mistake. There has to be a plan b for when that happens. And the generally accepted plan b is that cop gets the benefit of the doubt, and the civilian takes the immediate hit, puts up with the inconvenience, until it's all straightened out. At the end of the day, what does it cost you to get down on the ground for a few minutes? You're not really risking anything. But if it worked the other way around, if the officer always had to give everyone the benefit of the doubt just in case he was making one of those rare mistakes, then more cops would probably get hurt or killed.

If it happened again, I would be sining a different tune, because that would indicate that the police are deliberately ignoring what they know to be the law. But in this case, I would give at least that particular cop the benefit of the doubt.

There's an old saying that springs to mind: Never attribute to malice anything that can be explained by incompetence...
 
The trouble with the LEO not knowing is he received the training in a 2009 update he was required to get. After that year it is covered in their basic training at the academy. Him saying he didn't know just doesn't jive.
 
the philly LT's need to have some conf calls and sitdowns but the civilian should understand he can accomplish more by just obeying a LEO while at gunpoint whether he or the cop is in the right or the wrong, vice versa, etc. I know that is a highly debatable issue but he midas well just tell the cop to go f himself and hope for an over reaction to further prove his points if its that important to him. I wonder what would have happened if he was more mouthy.
 
I know that is a highly debatable issue but he midas well just tell the cop to go f himself and hope for an over reaction to further prove his points if its that important to him. I wonder what would have happened if he was more mouthy.
Click to expand...
That might not be a bad approach if wearing body armor...
 
I do not know the occurrence this happens with in Philadelphia but it seems that a large department would have some training on this issue for its officers. If this has not happened by now in the city the administration is doing a disservice to its police officers and citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top