PDA

View Full Version : Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun



megimoo
05-17-2011, 07:24 AM
A story in today's Philadelphia Daily News shows why it's so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops - it can be citizens' only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

This incident happened several weeks ago in Philadelphia to Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker who carries a gun on his hip at all times for self defense. He got the gun after several friends were mugged.......But he didn't count on attacks by police:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?".....Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip......."Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive.".....Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun. But that didn't matter to the cop:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees......"Excuse me?" Fiorino said......"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

Phillygirl
05-17-2011, 10:19 AM
It's Philly, I'm not surprised.

Novaheart
05-17-2011, 10:49 AM
This is not an isolated incident of ignorance of the law, especially disturbing when you consider that it's a civil rights issue.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/22/gun-owner-receives-apology/

As they walked out, Greene, who’d gone to the store to investigate a shoplifting call, told Putnam to stop. Greene asked for Putnam’s identification, grabbed his arm when he reached for his wallet and then asked why he carried a gun in public, records show.

Putnam ended up against a concrete wall being frisked as Greene took his gun.

“It’s called a concealed carry permit. State law says you carry it concealed, not in plain view (with the) hammer back,” Greene said. “I’ve been doing this for 12 years. I can put you in jail for something. It’s called inducing a panic.”

Greene ultimately let Putnam go after talking with another officer but told him to pull his shirt over the gun. He told Internal Affairs investigators he thought Tennessee and Ohio, where he previously served as a police officer, prohibited open carrying. Neither state does.

“There’s an issue there where there could be panic,” he said in a recorded statement. “I’m thinking the law is a concealed law. I’m not going to deal with a guy that has a loaded gun until I secure a weapon.”



The issue here is not simply the ignorance of the law by these few or many police officers, which sometimes takes the form of disregard for the law behind some belief in a absolute right of police to "protect myself" at the expense of law and liberty. Our founding fathers did not merely intend to protect our liberty at the end of a day in court, they intended to define our liberty and enshrine our dignity. Police officers as such did not exist when our founding fathers were crafting this nation, and I suspect that they might have written some pretty hard and fast rules for them if they had. In effect, our founding fathers would have regarded the status of police officers in our society as too similar to the standing army they forbid. The idea that anyone under color of government would force a gentleman into a concrete wall or on the ground in submission to a public servant would have been cause in the time of the founding fathers to use his second amendment right to defend his liberty and his dignity.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 10:53 AM
the police don't like people competing with them.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 10:57 AM
Love all the posturing by the police. :rolleyes: Usually I support the police - but hearing this - several officers need to be removed from the force.

Novaheart
05-17-2011, 10:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIpOXjVGneU


"We're not here to harass you."

Actually, that's exactly what they were doing.

Merriam Webster

1 a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2
: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>

Note that this police officer is unable or unwilling to cite the law or his authority to do what he is doing. He puts the burden on the citizen to verify at some future date that he hasn't been illegally detained and harassed. This is completely unlike a traffic stop in which the police officer clearly states the the statute which has been broken and writes it on the ticket.

Bailey
05-17-2011, 11:06 AM
They have a big set of balls to charge him with a crime, I'd sue the living shit out of them ASAP. I bet he has lawyers queing up to take the case :D

Bailey
05-17-2011, 11:07 AM
Does anyone know if there is a place to donate for this mans defense fund?

Novaheart
05-17-2011, 11:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbHK_bT7pxE&feature=related

This "FreeNH" and the "Free Keene" bunch are probably not people whose company I would enjoy too often, but I get a kick out of them and their objective.

I think it has to be noted and addressed that these people are the embodiment of the founding father's comment that our constitution only works for a moral people. The level of liberty these people are demanding, ie the constitutional standard, works in Vermont and New Hampshire, but would it work in Los ANgeles or New York? Not simply because of the criminal element in those places, but in terms of population density do special accommodations have to be made?

Note that the police are respecting these people's rights in this video.

Phillygirl
05-17-2011, 01:09 PM
Shame, a lawyer friend of mine who probably would have had this case died suddenly about a month or so ago. It would have been an interesting case. Although my guess is they drop everything pretty quietly.

Bailey
05-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Shame, a lawyer friend of mine who probably would have had this case died suddenly about a month or so ago. It would have been an interesting case. Although my guess is they drop everything pretty quietly.

They are prolly trying to blackmail him into dropping the civil suit.

Novaheart
05-17-2011, 01:59 PM
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.

I don't see why a police officer is any more entitled to verify the license of a passing gun owner than he is passing motor vehicle in the absence of probable cause. Once again, it would appear that we have police departments deciding what their rights and duties are.

Novaheart
05-17-2011, 02:13 PM
Philadelphia again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1YMgdphmwA&feature=player_embedded#at=136

megimoo
05-17-2011, 02:21 PM
Shame, a lawyer friend of mine who probably would have had this case died suddenly about a month or so ago. It would have been an interesting case. Although my guess is they drop everything pretty quietly.


from the last part of the piece....

" The cops discovered his recorder as they searched his pockets, and unleashed another string of expletives.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if they could lock him up......When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go.

But only temporarily. Fiorino posted the audio recordings on youtube, and now they are harassing him again:

A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police... He's scheduled for trial in July.

If one listens to the audiotapes, it's hard to imagine how a reasonable person could charge Fiorino (and not the cops) for disorderly conduct."

" The police mentality seems to leave a lot desired in cases of personel Constitutional freedoms..."

NJCardFan
05-17-2011, 03:44 PM
Philadelphia. The city who elected then re-elected John Street. Shouldn't surprise you that something like this happened. With the amount of crime in Philly, it's small wonder that someone got a CC license. But this is what you get when you have an area dominated by liberal politics since the 1950's.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 06:08 PM
The police are afraid of an armed populace.

Kay
05-17-2011, 10:44 PM
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.

How is this any different from officers in the State of Arizona asking
to see legal immigration papers?

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 11:01 PM
How is this any different from officers in the State of Arizona asking
to see legal immigration papers?

good point

megimoo
05-17-2011, 11:07 PM
How is this any different from officers in the State of Arizona asking
to see legal immigration papers?

But,But He could be an evil Conservative Constitution Loving Gun Runner... DONCHASEE !