Well... I am 100% positive that if my training was forgotten and I was caught not abiding by company training and protocol, I would, at minimum, be reprimanded and have a written form inserted into my file... At worst, dismissal, for failing to do my job... AS TRAINED...(How many of us remember everything we where trained on? How many times did you just sign off on the training roster and think "I'll read the stuff later."?)
Does anyone else think that the guy should have just gotten down on the ground like the cops asked
The permit allows for concealed carry, this is how I do it, never let em know you got it. Cops are afraid of folks got guns, back in teh past seems some of them got shot by guys carrying guns........ some may over react just like the guy did argueing with a cop had a gun on him.
The backup guys were much more aggressive, but then if you look at it from their point of view - all they know is, they've been called to the scene where an officer is confronting an armed individual and needs backup. So they naturally err on the side ofcautionthe cop.
But that's precisely the point. Based on the SCOTUS criteria set forth in Terry the officer had NO LEGAL BASIS for drawing on the guy. In fact, the officer had no legal basis to even approach him. The criteria established by Terry are that the officer must have "a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed."divil said:"[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.
Nope. I understand what you're saying, but under the clear parameters laid down by the SCOTUS in Terry it won't fly. Since open carry in Philadelphia can be LEGAL, the mere sight of a person carrying openly simply CANNOT satisfy the two-pronged test of a "reasonable" suspicion, based on "clearly articulable facts." I don't dispute that the officer had a suspicion. The key point is that, under the law of the land, that suspicion was NOT "reasonable" because there were no "clearly articulable" facts to support it. There was, in fact, nothing to even indicate that a crime was being committed. It was an UNreasonable suspicion, and that won't fly in court.44 AMP said:Reasonable suspicion....while it may come out after the fact that the cop was in the wrong, because this fellow is merely, peacefully, exercising his rights, open carry of a weapon is not a common occurence in ouor metro areas, and a call reporting "man with a gun" means most cops would approach the situation with suspicion that a crime was being committed.
The whole thing may turn out to be "bogus", but based on what the cop(s) believed at the time, they would have reasonable suspicion.
A cockfight, so to speak?The recording sounded like a lot of oversized, out of control egos battling it out...and in the end, no clear victor.
There was, in fact, nothing to even indicate that a crime was being committed.
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.
44 AMP said:Reasonable suspicion....while it may come out after the fact that the cop was in the wrong, because this fellow is merely, peacefully, exercising his rights, open carry of a weapon is not a common occurence in ouor metro areas, and a call reporting "man with a gun" means most cops would approach the situation with suspicion that a crime was being committed.
The whole thing may turn out to be "bogus", but based on what the cop(s) believed at the time, they would have reasonable suspicion.
Al Norris said:It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you [for legal behavior like open carry], you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
article said:Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Seth Williams, said in a statement that Fiorino became "belligerent and hostile" while officers were trying to investigate a potential crime.
"Philadelphia police officers on a daily basis are often confronted with extremely dangerous situations involving guns," the statement said. "And someone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon should not only be aware of that, but should also go the extra length to cooperate with law enforcement."
I want to know if the cop was planning to shoot him in the back if the OC'er just said "F.U." and kept walking. Or ignored him completely and kept walking.