Philly OC'er held at gunpoint, charged

[zxcvbob]

The next step should be filing an ethics complaint with the PA bar association against the DA for the bogus charges. (obviously bogus because of the late filing) Think Nifong.

I don't get it; if he had a CC permit then why not keep the weapon out of sight? That said; the cop only felt like he was in danger, because he drew down, from behind, on a dude who was just minding his own business. I guess some cops only feel comfortable doing their jobs if they are the only ones carrying. If I was the cop, I would be looking for a new line of work.

I'm not sure how to say this; the cop is lucky that it wasn't a trap. [I started to go into details and then changed my mind. Don't want to give anyone ideas.]

 

[bigbaby]

The reason I say he should be looking for a new line of work is for two reason; one because he did not know a very important legal point which a line officer should know, not some obscure law or ruling, second because he allowed the person he drew down on to wheel around and did not take the idiot out. In Baltimore if a cop draws down on you, for any reason, from behind and you 'wheel around on him' he or she will shoot your ass. Only a fool would wait to see if the person was armed. A cop draws down on you and you suddenly turn around, what is he supposed to do?

 

[hogdogs]

I don't get it; if he had a CC permit then why not keep the weapon out of sight?

Because he opted not to...

why not keep the weapon out of sight?

Reasons I can quickly come up with to open carry...
Cheaper (less expensive carry holsters)
Easier (more selection in OWB carry holsters.)
Easier (far easier to choose apparel if concealed concerns do not exist)
Comfort (for me, I cannot seem to feel truly comfortable with any gun in side the waist band or even typical high carry position of concealed holsters)
Fast Access
Draw failure risk mitigated being un encumbered by cover garments

The only reasons I ever heard that held any merit to me, personally, was the threat of being "singled out" to "take out" the armed good guy risk to a criminal in a crime and the risk of, for any reason, someone goes for your gun from hostile to humorous intentions have been cited...

To the first one... I feel many more crimes at that time and at that place would be aborted when the crook sees armed people. I don't care where he goes and what he does once he leaves if I never knew of his intentions in the first place...

To the second... Just let me plan to, train to, practice to and likely succeed to avoid letting this happen.

I would prefer open carry for pretty much every single reason that police agencies world wide prefer open carry for officers when ever it is possible. Fully Concealed Carry being chosen by on duty officers only when an operation requires it. Usually concealed carrying operations have the cop looking like a bad guy of some sort...

If more people could carry open, the fear in the general population of un-armed people would go way down. Only the most radical of anti self defense folks would be freakin' out.

Brent

 

[Eghad]

If it is a right that a citizen has he should have the option of freely exercising that right without undue harassment from the government as long as you are exercising it responsibly and not endangering others.

 

[bigbaby]

In the city cc just makes sense to me. I can see why you want to oc, but it is just too risky.

 

[secret_agent_man]

District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct

That is a load of dog poop. Without a valid reasonable suspicion for the stop, those charges are as good as in the trash.

"Get down on your knees...I'm going to shoot you???" That cop's elevator doesn't go all the way up.

Must be sumthin' in the water with all that natural gas shale formation fracturing going on up there in Pennsylvania.

 

[Glenn Dee]

First off... The police will not shoot anyone for turning around. The guys gun was in a holster on his waist as far as I can tell from the information. If we look at this situation through a force continum with 10 being the use of DPF (deadly phisical force) and 1 being a conversation. The origonal officer started the incident in a confrontational manner by going directly to level 9. This IMO was the mistake. The citizen remained calm, and engaged in conversation. The officer escalated by calling other officers also exciting them to a level 9 1/2. Again the citizen remained calm, and stayed at level 1 attempting a conversation.

Much is being made of the police ordering the citizen to the ground, and him not complying. NO ONE is under any duty to comply with unreasonable instructions from the police. In fact it's the police who have a duty to protect the citizen... even if that citizen is percieved as an adversary. I dont think the guy laying on the ground when ordered to do so would have made much, if any difference at all. He would have still been verbally, and probably to some degree physically abused.

Having been in this same situation myself more than a few times I'm critical of the police not so much for 2A issues, but for huge tactical, procedural, and common sense errors. My first criticisim is any cop with any kind of street experience would know that most if not all perps dont wear holsters. But ALL brother officers wear them. Most departments mandate them. Were I in this officers position... I would have been thinking probably another cop.
Second criticism is drawing down and yelling from a distance would only serve to panic other's and put innocents in danger. If the civilian with the gun was a bad guy, and willing to shoot it out the results wouldnt have been pretty. And the officer would have provoked the gunfight, and may be held responsible, or negligent.
Third criticisim. The Officer should have been aware of the current laws and rulings. If O/C was legal within the city... there's no excuse for not knowing.

I know that hindsight is 20/20 vision, and it's easy to critique after all the facts are known. The police must understand that they must stand up for the critique. The police act on behalf or the citizenry, and must answer to that same citizenry. Remember we are governed by concent.

Given my own experience I believe this police action is the exception rather than the rule. I believe that most Officers would have handled it differently.

All this drawing down on people for no real reason, yelling and screaming at folks, forcing people down on the ground anywhere in any weather, assuming everyone is out to kill you, strict enforcement of every minor ordinance, keeping a terrible attitude, rudeness, ignorance of law, and like behaviour from the police I believe is life immitating art. Real cops are acting like what they see in the movies and on TV. This IMO is not good. This incident is a perfect example. The police lost their cool. Thats actually bad. Panic is contaigous... And it spread from the first officer to the responding officers. Thats dangerous.

Glenn D.

 

[bigbaby]

Glenn here is why I disagree with you. If you wait till they are turn around after you have ordered them to stop(not sure the officer did that here, but he should have) holstered weapon or not, you can not know what other weapon may be in his hands. If he put his hands up or on his head and turned around slowly, as he should have been instructed to do, that is fine, if he 'wheeled around' with hands still free, then the officer should assume he is a threat and shot him; In the legs if you can shoot low, but I've never been very good at that.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You don't deliberately shoot at legs if you are implying a perhaps more likely to be less than lethal response in American doctrine.

Interestingly, policeone.com had a nice discussion of European doctrine on shooting to wound but that's a divergence.

If the police here decided to shoot (independent of whether they should have) they weren't going to shoot a legs on purpose.

Such a conflict of the ideological, the practical, the ignorant. Oy Vey !

 

[markj]

Doesn't really matter to me what unfounded fears a person has about me...

Me either unless he is pointing a loaded gun at me and ordering me to get down. Obey a cop, later on make the complaint or ask to speak with his shift super.

In their state, they get a permit to carry a firearm. It is up to the permit holder to decide how he wishes to legally tote his gun.

Well it is the same here but I dont see anyone OCing here, they know the cops will not put up with it and the ocer will be questioned. Sheriff office recomended strongly to conceal it and not oc in town.

So what connection does a man with a publicly displayed legally carried firearm have in common with a criminal with ill intentions regarding the well being of an officer? How is this different from a person legally carrying a concealed firearm?

Oc is out in the open, cc is hiden and he wont see it. He saw it and asked the guy some questions guy got smart mouthed cop got upset. I do not recommend talking to a cop in this fashion, adrenaline will be high and he may accidently shoot you and that isnt what OCing is about at all.

Do as you wish, just like this guy did. Maybe you will get by OK, maybe a badge heavy cop will hand you your rear end. Why take the chance just because you can? I dont and I wont, I can afford a cc holster. I dont wish to be detained in any way so it goes under teh shirt.

I think some are just attention getters, look at me I got a gun on my hip just like the cops......but you aint a cop.

The permit isnt for this, this stuff draws attention to all permit holders and sheds a bad lite on all of us. In any confrontation with the law a permit holder should be polite and do as told period.

 

[bigbaby]

Glen the shoot him in the legs reference was a joke; but I guess you haven't seen "hang 'em High" That is ok, I don't consider you ignorant, for not getting my joke. I am well aware of the risk of hitting the major artery in the leg; which would certainly not be non-lethal. As for a cop who is willing to allow a 'suspect to 'wheel' on him after he has already identified the 'suspect' as so potentially dangerous that he must draw on him; well an inept cop is fine by me.

 

[hogdogs]

Well it is the same here but I dont see anyone OCing here, they know the cops will not put up with it and the ocer will be questioned. Sheriff office recomended strongly to conceal it and not oc in town.

Well in the above statement you freely admit that the LE agencies in your region need put back into their place. They have obviously forgotten that they are to enforce existing laws and not make up the rules as they go. They have no right or privilege to be law makers. NEVER!!!

Oc is out in the open, cc is hiden and he wont see it.

And this shouldn't matter where open carry is FULLY LEGAL and for an officer to draw a gun on a person not obviously breaking a law. The officer who initiated the "stop" needs deep training at minimum but I feel he should face no less than a formal write up in his employee file.

He saw it and asked the guy some questions guy got smart mouthed cop got upset.

We must be discussing 2 different cases. In the one mentioned in this thread... The guy never got smart mouth with the officer but rather tried to calmly explain the error in this officer's mind regarding true law stance on open carry.

I do not recommend talking to a cop in this fashion, adrenaline will be high and he may accidently shoot you and that isnt what OCing is about at all.

Well had the officer spoken to this citizen as he should have and left his gun where it belongs... this citizen with more gun law knowledge than the beat cop could have educated him and no onw would have to have their life threatened by a hot headed adrenaline producing officer with a firearm in his paw.

Brent

 

[BGutzman]

I would aways suggest complying and being polite. You can always state what the law actually is once your in the patrol car. Ultimately in offensive and abusive cases sue the everyone involved and make sure they understand that your rights are not to be stomped on but do so in court. Thats my two cents..

 

[Standing Wolf]

It comes down to the idea that there is no rational reason for the police to be afraid of anyone carrying openly in any jurisdiction where open carry is not against the law.
It is simply unreasoned fear.
It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you, 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.

I'll buy some of that, but I draw the line at humbling myself: I'm an American citizen, not a Russian serf. No, it's not possible to reason with the unreasonable; it is, however, possible to take the vermin to court. They aren't now nor ever will be reasonable, but if they lose enough money in court, they'll be forced to go through the motions of reasonability.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I would have peacefully complied with the officer and then let him sort it out. It sounds to me like this guy was deliberately after a story....sort of an entrapment. Too bad. It will cost him dearly regardless of the outcome, because it is unlikely he will recover any damages IMHO.

 

[MLeake]

Eagle Eye, it won't cost him a red cent. Activist groups and friendly attorneys seem to be picking up the tab.

 

[Eagle Eye]

M.Leake: Agreed. I missed that. I guess it will cost the taxpayers though. But maybe it will be worth it to help fix what appears to be a problem in the City of Brotherly Love.

 

[Glenn Dee]

bigbaby

Please read my entire post. From a tactical point of view, the Officer limited his own options, and placed everyone in a terrible situation. You suggested that the civilian may have had a second weapon in his hands. I submit thats very unlikely, and that much more likely he was an off duty, or pain clothed officer. But given your scenario... perhaps it would have been better if the uniformed officer waited, and observed the situation before making himself known, and lost the element of surprise?

My own opinion is that this, and any police officer has a responsibility to protect everyone in the store. Not just himself. I have no issue with the officer being first on the gun. I do however have a problem with his challange. If the civilian was a criminal, with armed criminal intent innocent people may have been hurt. Just poor tactics for the situation... But this is what happens when people recieve their training from TV and the movies.

Glenn

 

[bigbaby]

I certainly doubt the officer received his training from TV or the Movies! Even the poorest region will at least offer some training to the police? I hope. I read your post, Glen, all of it; especially the part where you assumed I was serious about shooting the poor guy in the legs LOL. I have to question anyones "arm chair tactics"(my tactics are arm chair too, since I am not a police officer of any kind!) that does not think that the first words of the officer must be "freeze" or "don't move or your dead" or something to let the "suspect" know he has a weapon trained on him with a cop weilding the weapon. If he had said that and still allowed the "suspect" to 'wheel' around, then he was an idiot. How can that be "tv tactics" you do not pull a weapon on someone from behind and fail to even identify yourself as a cop? His words were something like a kid would say in a playground or a school yard. I would like to hear from one actuall City Cop that thinks the intial tactics of this officer were sound. Approaching a suspect from behind, weapons drawn, no identification as a cop and calling the "suspect out like a school boy" Then allowing him to quickly turn around. OH YEAH GOOD TACTICS. I have to stop watching Law and Order, it must be muddling my brain.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bigbaby - one thing you will learn here is that we don't make jokes about techniques of using lethal force.

The last LOL does come from the staff. That's a hint.