Philly Police Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cloud8a

New member
I am going to post this here in Tactics. It seems to me that this works in both tactics and Law. If we could focus here in Tactics on how to respond both from the civilian and LEO point of view First the links and then the questions.

Article
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...hoot-man-legally-carrying-gun?test=latestnews

Audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

Questions

Why do these officers seem to not know the gun laws for their jurisdiction?

If a gun law to open carry is in existence are people who open carry subject to gunpoint questioning and in-custody investigations?

If at law enforcement gunpoint, law or no law, I keep my mouth shut and follow directions of the LEO. Do you or would you?

Please add any other angles.
 
If at law enforcement gunpoint, law or no law, I keep my mouth shut and follow directions of the LEO. Do you or would you?
Click to expand...

After reading and listening to the links, I would say that I would have complied immediately and gotten down on my knees; whether I am in the right or wrong, LEO pointing a gun at me I am listening and complying (remember LEOs want to go home after each and every shift and tend to make that a priority.)

It is just not worth the possibility of getting shot, "just because I am right, and they are ignorant".

That said, I am very negatively impressed with the foul language, ignorance of their own laws, and overall handling of the situation which seems to be the case with the police in this incident.
 
Wow, How bad is Philly society that the Police react with that kind of hostility to there citizens. Sure the Cop wants to go home daily, but the language, verbal abuse after the fact and the general way the backup reinforced the same attitude makes Me think the City of Philly is a hell hole. :eek: This is why they need citizen review boards to oversee the Police Dept. guarding Our Localities. 2 way street as all Cops are not overzelots as the locals get to hear any issues officers are dealing with. Pick the Review Panel the same way You pick a jury so there can be no question of it's independence. They arrested this Guy again for non-compliance of a Officer's request ( thats was My understanding from the article ), that 24y/o should be thanking that cop for the $75,000 payday He will have coming from Philly LOL LOL .......WVleo
 
More Gestapo tactics. Two weeks unpaid leave to study their books and attend some training on how to approach similar situations.
 
More Gestapo tactics. Two weeks unpaid leave to study their books and attend some training on how to approach similar situations.
Click to expand...

You're much more understanding than I am.... 2 weeks off? Im thinking more like unemployment and 3-5 years for false imprisonment under the color of authority.
In addition to the unprofessional behavior of the LEO's language, he was told SPECIFICLY what statute coverd the situation. A quick radio call should have cleared it up. Thugs and bullies like this are why more and more people have a negitive opinion of the police.
 
He should have complied with the Officers wishes as soon as the police officer started to issue verbal commands. PERIOD. It does not matter if he could legally carry a firearm or not. By not immediately complying the situation only worsened very quickly. If the gentleman in question complied immediately things would have gone much more smoothly... Had he not complied at all or lead the police to believe that he was challenging them they might have used much more force possibly even deadly force.

On a side note, I think the police officer overreacted and I am not happy by any means with how disrespectful they were.

Recently on the TV show “The Best Defense” (on the Outdoor Channel) aired an episode called “Open Carry” that briefly touched on how to deal with Police and the general public (store owners) when confronted while carrying openly. It was very insightful and well worth watching if you can find it.

Edit: Here is a link to the episode that is viewable on the Outdoor Channels website. http://www.outdoorchannel.com/Shows...Cjh7r6NeRUM239HE4uyLx2ZXLQCGW&tpid=1784610518
 
More Gestapo tactics. Two weeks unpaid leave to study their books and attend some training on how to approach similar situations.
Click to expand...

Mobuck, I don't disagree, but tactically speaking that all happens AFTER the fact.

Tactically speaking, when one is on the spot with the beat cop ESPECIALLY if they have drawn their sidearm then the best tactic for all involved is to follow the cop's directions immediately because, regardless of other factors, the cop in question (right or wrong) has the capacity and the training to SHOOT.

I'm always amazed at the people who seem to think "it's okay to argue, that cop wouldn't actually shoot me for this" when the truth is that if the cop feels threatened he/she can shoot.

In hindsight the cop may discover that they are 100% wrong but that won't "unshoot" anyone.
 
The first and most important point of this incident is that not all LEO's know all the laws of their own districts.

Secondly, not every LEO is respectful of Joe Average Citizen. Those that are not have a "them against us" attitude.

I would think that in this particular incident it would have been prudent for the gun toting "victim" to be compliant with police and it probably could have been cleared up in short order. However, he decided to stand his ground because he was technically right....good way to get shot and killed. That doesn't make it right/wrong, it's just the way it us.

It would be advantageous to carry the particular law/regulation that allows open carry on a laminated card to show any LEO that approaches. Years ago in Florida it was decided that motorcycles with only a single rider could utilize the HOV lane. Many LEO's were unaware of the new law/regulation. It was suggested by a local motorcycle organization that all riders utilizing the HOV lane carry such a card with them. It saved time during stops. It saved aggravation and unnecessary court appearances. Perhaps the same concept could be applied to Philadelphia and it would probably behoove every Sgt. at the morning briefing to tell his troopers about the change in the law.

The bottom line for this young man is now he is going to have to hire an attorney (not inexpensive), take time off from work (loss of pay) and make an appearance in court in which he will most likely be found guilty of some misdemeanor and maybe lose his CCW permit. Would I want to get on my knees knowing I was right? You bet not, but when looking down the barrel of a gun held by a LEO, I will comply and sort it out afterwards.
 
What about the officer? What kind of tactics and training could he have used to have averted this?

Is there something an officer can do if he is not sure? Or maybe he is sure but finds out after a lot of pointing guns and screaming that he was wrong, what then to fix the problem?
 
I think that in a way, this is a development in what is called the War on Crime, in which the policeman sees himself as a soldier (and not a civilian). We are the enemy.
 
I don't know how they expect the "after the fact" charges to stick. They released him at the time of the incident. The charges only came up after he was posted the audio. He was "disorderly" and noncompliant for releasing the audio, otherwise they should have charged him right then and there. Looks like a malicious prosecution to me. I'm thinking a jury might just see it the same way. The city should just cut their losses now. The original incident makes the city justice apparatus look like incompetent jerks. The new charges make them look like vindictive & petty incompetent jerks.
 
I would have obeyed ever letter of every word that cop told me..and then when im sitting cuffed in the back of his car unarmed..my pistol laying safely 5 feet from me in the cops hands then I would have started protesting and stating the law..and got into a cursing contest...what its not like they going to shoot me unarmed sitting handcuffed in the back of a car...but there is no way I would have stoof there talking back to a cop even tho I was right...he still has me pegged as a dude with a gun...
 
cloud8a:
Why do these officers seem to not know the gun laws for their jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Because Pennsylvania gun laws, like many other states, are so convoluted, complex, and even conflicting that only a lawyer or one very well versed in all the intricacies, as the "victim" in the story apparently seems, would be able to navigate through the morass.


If a gun law to open carry is in existence are people who open carry subject to gunpoint questioning and in-custody investigations?
Click to expand...
I would hope not, buit it seems in PPD it's acceptable practice. Please note that outside Philly, this behaviour is generally rare. As an example the Penna. game commission WCO's routinely interact with almost exclusively armed citizens without drawing down on the hunters/trappers.


If at law enforcement gunpoint, law or no law, I keep my mouth shut and follow directions of the LEO. Do you or would you?
Click to expand...
I would use much different tactics. I would follow the immediate orders to ensure my lawyer can make my civil rights violation case with a still living client. ;)

This situation can be very volatile. The "victim" in the article must really be able to keep his cool under duress.

hatfield:
The fact is the police do have the right to detain you for a short time to check your identification and to see if you are not violating the law. Its what is known as a "Terry Stop".
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I don't believe that is exactly what "Terry" implies. Terry only allows that when they detain those whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity. The LEO can't just stop you to "check your papers." The offended party was doing nothing suspicious and/or criminal. That's the reason for a fourth ammendment.


Here is the directive for the Philly PD:
Police directive sent to all districts regarding open carry in Philadelphia, PA Sept 22, 2010 GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.


3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”


D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.
Click to expand...

Apparently, they want the officers "to stop and ask for papers.":( :mad:

Additionally the phrase "concealed carry license" is a misnomer. It's officially called a License to Carry Firearms (LCTF). As stated previously, there is no requirement to conceal in Pennsylvania.
 
45Gunner:
The bottom line for this young man is now he is going to have to hire an attorney (not inexpensive), take time off from work (loss of pay) and make an appearance in court in which he will most likely be found guilty of some misdemeanor and maybe lose his CCW permit.
Click to expand...

The money(and more) to cover his lawyers' retainers has already been raised.

Additionally a civil lawsuit IS in the works.

Mark Fiorino is very committed to see this through and has the support of many PAFOA members. I doubt that the retaliatory charges will stick.
 
hatfield, I have to disagree with you, at least in part.

The officer was way out of line in his entire line of approach. The officer is primarily at fault.

That said, Fiorino would have been better served by using the approach you suggest.

I just think you, and several others, are letting the officer, and PPD's policy, off the hook way too easily. They have a policy in place that is clearly designed to harass open carriers. The directive has been published by several sources. The officer drew down on a citizen who was committing no crime; that is much worse than the officer's language, which wasn't good.

In Fiorino's place, I'd sue PPD, the city of Philadelphia, and if possible, the sergeant as an individual (because immunity may not apply if an officer goes outside policy, and I'm not so sure the drawing of his weapon in the circumstances will have been covered).
 
hatfield: He could have also kept a copy of that directive with him from the police department to show to the officer. That might have helped.
Click to expand...
Seriously doubt it. The burden for proof of a crime is on the police, not the citizen. They are the ones that need to know and understand the law in order to apply it.
If I showed up to my job and my company thought I knew basic engineering principles, and then it turned out I didn't, I would be fired. Why should it be any different for these officers?
 
A couple of points to consider, about the police....

Police officers are fairly well versed in those laws that they are most likely to encounter, not in all law and directives of their depts. It is quite likely that the officers in this case may have been exposed to the Directive in question, in a required reading, or some training class, but did not retain the information, as it seldom comes up in their day to day lives. That's a human thing, and not something we can find great fault with.

However, the performance of the officer(s) in this case leaves much to be desired, and possibly violates their writtern code of conduct. That is something a review board would have to determine.

We ordinarily think that there would be no call for the officers to prone the guy out, using profanity laced commands. However, we have the benefit of knowing (after the fact) that the man with the gun is no threat, and within his legal rights. They don't.

Remember the vast majority of the time, the people these cops deal with day in, day out are not law abiding polite citizens. Many do not take command seriously unless they are laced with expletives, in their own language, so to speak. Trained to control he situation, officers react poorly (by our standards) to anything other than complete and instant compliance. But this is because officers have been killed and injured by people who feign cooperation in order to get the cop to let their guard down. It may not happen often, but it has, and does happen.

Cops are taught, both in training, and from street experience that in situations where there is clearly a danger (gun in sight) that a polite "graded approach" jeapordizes their own, as well as public safety. As soon as there is ANY non compliance, their response goes from where ever it was, to full blown. They have learned through bitter experience that anything less endagers lives.

The "underside" of all of our major metro areas (and more than a ffew of our smaller ones as well) are dangerous places, and acting like the friendly deputy in Mayberry risks officer safety in a serious manner.

Do I condone the specifc actions of the police in this instance? No. Do I think they went beyond proper professional conduct? Yes, I do. But I also understand why they behave that way, especially in a major city with gang and drug problems. All the cops know is that there is a man with a gun, who is arguing with them. Period. So they revert to what they know works best, firm domination of the situation, without regard to the feelings (and what we would consider the basic rights) of the individual.

IS this attitude on the part of the police a result of the "war on drugs"? Probably. The militarization of our community police certainly is. SWAT teams, and similar approachs to serving warrants and many other things that used to be done by plainclothes or regular uniformed officers is a good example of that. And Philidelphia polcie do not have a very good record, historically, and institutionally of being moderate and reasonable when their authority is challenged.

As to charging the fellow, AFTER he released the audio recordings, I find that more than a bit vindictive in appearance, if not in fact. How dare he make the cops look bad, after they were nice enough not to arrest him for legal behavior?:rolleyes:
 
This guy had knowledge of the law and, IMHO, went out looking for a confrontation.

Was he within his legal rights? Yes.

Could he have handled it better? Yes. The second he did not comply with the instructions given he was in trouble. This was compounded when the cop called for backup 20 seconds in to the encounter.

Is there anything wrong with posting the audios on YouTube? No. But, it was stupid. Now that he has published the audio it is in the public domain and anything he hoped to gain in court is gone. I'm sure the DA filed the charges after hearing the audio which means that he is pretty sure he has a case.

What is the take away from this?
This is all about who has control of the situation. The cop will not feel in control until the threat (you) is immobilized. The best thing you can do is submit.
1. The first thing you should do if in a similar situation is say "what would you like me to do officer?". Then do exactly as he/she commands. Do not try to engage in any conversation. Do not presume to try to lecture the cop on the legality of your action. Once the cop has control he/she will start asking the question.

2. Answer any question directly and in submissive manner.
"Don't you know its illegal to openly carry in Philadelphia?"
"Sir, under Philly PD directive 137 it is legal to open carry if the person carrying has a concealed weapons permit."

"Do you have a permit? Thats a concealed permit, not an open carry permit?
"Yes I do, it's in my wallet, please radio in and have someone verify directive 137."

3. Don't be a smarta$$. Don't worry about scuffing your shoes, the cop was worried about getting shot. Do not underestimate the ramifications of being in "contempt of cop".

4. Once the cops are gone, if you feel your rights were violated, contact an attorney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top