Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun owners

[George Gervin's Afro]

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners


After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners
By Stephen Clark

Published May 21, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (2369)
Text Size


Mark Fiorino

Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, is in legal trouble after posting to YouTube an audiotape of his encounter with Philadelphia police over his unconcealed handgun.
With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.



"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."

Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.

"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

Only seven states ban the practice of openly carrying guns, and Pennsylvania isn't one of them, according to OpenCarry.org, which advocates gun rights. In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly. But on Feb. 13 a police sergeant who was unaware of the law -- which dates back to at least 1996 when the state Supreme Court referenced it in an unrelated ruling -- stopped Fiorino, who was walking to an auto parts shop in Northeast Philadelphia with a gun on his hip.

Sgt. Michael Dougherty can be heard yelling out to Fiorino as "Junior," and asking him to show his hands as Fiorino protests having a gun pointed at his chest, prompting Dougherty to call for backup.

Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

When several other officers arrive, Fiorino is forced to the ground as he tries to explain that he's not breaking the law.

"Shut the f---- up!" Dougherty yells.

Police found the recorder while searching Fiorino's pockets. Officers eventually released him after speaking to the department's lawyer and being told that he was within his legal rights.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey took issue with Dougherty's language and his lack of knowledge about the law during the altercation, Evers said, but not with the stop itself.

Evers, who has been an officer for nearly 20 years, said "very rarely do people open carry in Philadelphia." But he added he wasn't make excuses.

"We weren't as up on that crime code as we should have been," he said, adding that officers are being re-educated on open carry in response to the incident.

Dougherty is facing disciplinary action pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation, Evers said.

Fiorino's trial is scheduled to begin in July and the district attorney's office emphasizes that Fiorino's response to the police, not his gun rights, are at issue.

"This office respects and upholds the rights of a citizen to lawfully carry a firearm," Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "The permit to carry a concealed weapon, however, does not mean that a permitholder can abuse that right by refusing to cooperate with police."

Jamerson said Fiorino "allegedly became belligerent and hostile" when police officers "were legally attempting to investigate a potential crime."

But Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the case is larger than Fiorino.

"It's my position that this entire prosecution is an effort by Philadelphia authorities to send a message to legitimate gun owners that open carry as a practice is not welcome in Philadelphia despite the fact that it's constitutionally protected behavior and that's offensive to me as a citizen and as a lawyer," Valvo said.

Gun rights advocates say they're are also offended.

John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org said, Philadelphia police have sent a clear message to gun owners that will chill their rights to openly carry.

"Even if it's legal, we can punish you financially and by disruptions in your life," he said.

But the district attorney's office dismissed as "ludicrous" claims it is seeking retaliation or trying to send a message.

"This office only charges people with offenses that we think we can prosecute," Jamerson said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We just don't willy-nilly charge a person with a crime as retaliation for an incident."

The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.

His handgun was confiscated once for five months, but neither occasion escalated like the third encounter.

Fiorino said he studied Pennsylvania law for a year before he started openly carrying a gun. He said he carries the gun openly because some of his friends have been held up at gunpoint and he's not willing to allow himself to be helpless.

Police spokesman Evers said Fiorino appears to be inviting trouble from the law by "surreptitiously" recording his encounters with police.

"If you put everything together, it was more than him walking down the street to go to an auto parts store -- without a jacket in the middle of winter," Evers said.

But Fiorino denies that he was looking for trouble.

"How many times does a convenience store need to be robbed to be justified in putting up a security system?" he said.



he wasn't looking for a confrontation with police..he made sure to prove that by secretly taping the incident....:rolleyes

[LnGrrrR]

he wasn't looking for a confrontation with police..he made sure to prove that by secretly taping the incident....:rolleyes

Who cares if he was looking for an incident? Did he do anything against the law? Was he violent? Confrontational?

This cop is an idiot, plain and simple. People in positions of power will try everything they can to skirt the law if there's no one in place to check them.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm maybe this is why he records the events...


The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.

[Trainwreck2100]

Who cares if he was looking for an incident? Did he do anything against the law? Was he violent? Confrontational?

This cop is an idiot, plain and simple. People in positions of power will try everything they can to skirt the law if there's no one in place to check them.


The unconcealed gun is a source of power for the cop so of course they don't want other people to have it

[MannyIsGod]

What the fuck is he going to trail for? Thats such a crock of shit.

[ElNono]

Ignorant cop on a power-trip... worst combination ever...

[Wild Cobra]

he wasn't looking for a confrontation with police..he made sure to prove that by secretly taping the incident....:rolleyes
He has been harassed by the police before, and you assume he was looking for trouble when he has the foresight to use a recorded?

Bad cops need to be exposed.

[ChumpDumper]

Ignorant cop, but had Dirty Harry just cooperated he wouldn't have these charges against him.

[Wild Cobra]

Ignorant cop, but had Dirty Harry just cooperated he wouldn't have these charges against him.
Cooperate for what?

Understanding the 2nd amendment?

"Papers please."

Are you suggesting that probable cause includes anything the police don't like?

[ChumpDumper]

Cooperate for what?

Understanding the 2nd amendment?

"Papers please."A paper is required to open carry.

[LnGrrrR]

A paper is required to open carry.

Which he had. And offered to show the officer.


Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees,

[Wild Cobra]

A paper is required to open carry.
No it isn't. It's only required to hide one rather than bear it.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are few exceptions to this that the courts agree with.

Not only are you agreeing with "papers please," but you wish to throw away parts of our constitution. Simply showing you have a weapon is not threatening.

[ChumpDumper]

Which he had. And offered to show the officer.Great. He shouldn't have done anything to merit any charge then.

Haven't heard any of the audio, but I'm going to venture a guess that both were probably being dicks about it. I'm never going to be a dick to a cop who is pointing a gun at my chest. That's just the way I am.

[Wild Cobra]

Haven't heard any of the audio, but I'm going to venture a guess that both were probably being dicks about it. I'm never going to be a dick to a cop who is pointing a gun at my chest. That's just the way I am.
Search his name on YouTube.

I did.

[ChumpDumper]

No it isn't. It's only required to hide one rather than bear it.
In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are few exceptions to this that the courts agree with.

Not only are you agreeing with "papers please," but you wish to throw away parts of our constitution. Simply showing you have a weapon is not threatening.You are wrong and I already corrected you.

[ChumpDumper]

Search his name on YouTube.

I did.You didn't for Gingrich and his support of health insurance mandates, asshole.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't for Gingrich and his support of health insurance mandates, asshole.
Yes I did, there was simply too much out there to find what I was looking for.

Stop changing the subject asshole.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes I did, there was simply too much out there to find what I was looking for.I found it in about a minute.

You suck at the internet.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe I don't use the internet as much as you do, like you do in your aunt's basement all day long.

Why do you want to implement "papers please" here in the USA?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe I don't use the internet as much as you do, like you do in your aunt's basement all day long.That's your idea of an insult?

:lol

You simply aren't as smart as you think you are. Don't get angry.


Why do you want to implement "papers please" here in the USA?A permit is required in Philadelphia.

[Wild Cobra]

A permit is required in Philadelphia.
A permit may be required, but doesn't mean you can thwart the constitution. It amounts to a 4th amendment violation to require such "papers please" be searched unless there is probable cause to check.
Are you also unaware of the 4th amendment?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[ChumpDumper]

A permit may be required, but doesn't mean you can twart the constitution. It amounts to a 4th amendment violation to require such "papers please" unless there is probable cause to check.
Are you also unaware of the 4th amendment?I believe openly carrying a gun could be construed as probable cause for suspicion of unlawfully openly carrying a gun.

Besides, is showing a government permit the same as being searched?

Are you a constitutional legal scholar, WC?

I'm not.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe openly carrying a gun could be construed as probable cause for suspicion of unlawfully openly carrying a gun.

That's a stretch, and you know it. It compares to stopping someone because they are black, just because statistically, blacks commit more crimes. It's an improper way to profile.


Besides, is showing a government permit the same as being searched?

So I assume you agree with police slowing down the movement of citizens for any reason they can rationalize?


Are you a constitutional legal scholar, WC?

I'm not.

The constitution is plain enough to interpret in most cases.

[CuckingFunt]

That's a stretch, and you know it. It compares to stopping someone because they are black, just because statistically, blacks commit more crimes. It's an improper way to profile.

Black men =/= guns.

[Wild Cobra]

Black men =/= guns.
guns =/= criminal.

[ChumpDumper]

That's a stretch, and you know it. It compares to stopping someone because they are black, just because statistically, blacks commit more crimes. It's an improper way to profile.It's not a stretch at all. Show me a case where asking for a gun permit is considered unconstitutional, counselor.


So I assume you agree with police slowing down the movement of citizens for any reason they can rationalize?No, I can see why having every douchebag in Philly carrying heat on his hip with impunity could be a problem for law enforcement. Folks use these things for more than penis compensation.


The constitution is plain enough to interpret in most cases.:lmao

Yeah, that's why there's a court permanently dedicated to interpreting it.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not a stretch at all. Show me a case where asking for a gun permit is considered unconstitutional, counselor.

Asking is one thing. Having to produce it? It is a search that requires probable cause.

The constitution indicates otherwise, so I suggest you show a case that requires it without probable case.


No, I can see why having every douchebag in Philly carrying heat on his hip with impunity could be a problem for law enforcement.
Are you suggesting the cops are pussies? Afraid of their own shadows?

Folks use these things for more than penis compensation.
Wow...

Sorry you relate to the situation like that.

I pity you.


Yeah, that's why there's a court permanently dedicated to interpreting it.
Do you have a ruling up your sleeve?

[ChumpDumper]

Asking is one thing. Having to produce it? It is a search that requires probable cause.You made the assertion.

Prove it.

Should be easy for you, what with your Westlaw account.
Are you suggesting the cops are pussies? Afraid of their own shadows? Quite the contrary. Seems the open carry Dirty Harrys are more that type, if they are claiming the only way they can protect themselves is to openly carry a firearm.
Wow...

Sorry you relate to the situation like that.

I pity you.I don't use anything for penis compensation. That's the point.
Do you have a ruling up your sleeve?You were already asked for one, counselor.

[Wild Cobra]

That's the point.You were already asked for one, counselor.
You are asking me to validate the constitution?

My God...

You really are lame. You are suggesting the courts ruled against the 2nd and 4th. You need to prove that.

[ChumpDumper]

You are asking me to validate the constitution?

My God...

You really are lame. You are suggesting the courts ruled against the 2nd and 4th. You need to prove that.I am asking you to show a court ruling supporting your assertion that merely asking for a government issued gun permit is unconstitutional.

You do know this is how things work, don't you?

A lawyer doesn't just walk into the Supreme Court, reads a clause from the Constitution and then rests his case.

[Wild Cobra]

I am asking you to show a court ruling supporting your assertion that merely asking for a government issued gun permit is unconstitutional.

You do know this is how things work, don't you?

A lawyer don't just walk into the Supreme Court, read a clause from the Constitution and then rests his case.
Asking is one thing. Having to produce it...

It's on record.

Why are you OK with authoritarianism?

I showed you two clearly portions of two amendments. How you can skew such things is real troublesome.

I'm not going to waste my time looking for a case that has both reasons I listed. That would be a next to impossible search, especially if such a case was never presented to the courts.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sincerely asking for this. I don't know what the actual law is on this. "Because I said the Constitution says so" isn't a compelling argument.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, you're just a lazy simpleton.

I understand.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

You sure are stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

You sure are stupid.You're the one who said there could never be a court case involving the inspection of a gun permit in the history of American jurisprudence "because I said so."

[Wild Cobra]

You're the one who said there could never be a court case involving the inspection of a gun permit in the history of American jurisprudence "because I said so."
Where did I say never?

I'm just no good at searching for the criteria I listed.

[ChumpDumper]

Where did I say never?

I'm just no good at searching for the criteria I listed.We've established your shortcomings previously.

[Wild Cobra]

We've established your shortcomings previously.
I'm done with your stupidity for the night. Have better things to do.

[MannyIsGod]

Great. He shouldn't have done anything to merit any charge then.

Haven't heard any of the audio, but I'm going to venture a guess that both were probably being dicks about it. I'm never going to be a dick to a cop who is pointing a gun at my chest. That's just the way I am.

It should never be illegal to be a dick to a cop. Especially one who doesn't even know his fucking job. I understand your thoughts, but for them to incorrectly harass the man then proceed with charges is a fucking waste of taxpayer money and a travesty.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ WC you've got to be the dumbest person I've ever come across.

[ChumpDumper]

It should never be illegal to be a dick to a cop. Especially one who doesn't even know his fucking job. I understand your thoughts, but for them to incorrectly harass the man then proceed with charges is a fucking waste of taxpayer money and a travesty.I think they are trying to set a precedent for behavior of open carriers and they'll be open to a plea bargain. I'm sure there will be a lot of officer training regarding this, as I think the number of Dirty Harrys in Philly will only increase after this.

[Oh, Gee!!]

either side could have resolved the issue in under two minutes if either side would give up on being a prick, but you can't trust cops to stop being pricks. unfortunately, that means that we average joes have to swallow our prides when confronted by cops. sucks, but tis truth. cops are dicks and they can make our lives a living hell if they feel like it.

[TheProfessor]

The constitution is plain enough to interpret in most cases.
:lol And the fact that you said that with reference to the Fourth Amendment makes it even funnier...

[TheProfessor]

A permit may be required, but doesn't mean you can thwart the constitution. It amounts to a 4th amendment violation to require such "papers please" be searched unless there is probable cause to check.
Are you also unaware of the 4th amendment?
The "papers" in the Fourth Amendment refer to personal papers. "Probable cause" has nothing to do with requesting proper documentation for open carry, because there is nothing inherently unreasonable about asking a man openly carrying a handgun to show his papers. Simply asking, without more, would not establish a Fourth Amendment violation.

[LnGrrrR]

Since the Supreme Court has deemed that a person must at least give an officer their name at a stop, I wouldn't be surprised if the same held true with asking for an open-carry permit.

That aside, this officer was still an idiot. At the very least, he was not professional at all.

[Wild Cobra]

does WC not approve of arizona-style (aka impending texas-style) immigration laws

dett would be da definition of papers please (aka papeles por favor senor)
I do approve of Arizona improving enforcement against illegal immigration. That doesn't mean I would approve of the police asking anyone for their "papers" simply because of skin color or language. There would have to be probable cause, and skin color isn't adequate for that.

[ChumpDumper]

If he looks Mexican and has a gun on his hip, that will be enough, right?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol And the fact that you said that with reference to the Fourth Amendment makes it even funnier...
What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by constitution? Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"

Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?

Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"

[Wild Cobra]

Since the Supreme Court has deemed that a person must at least give an officer their name at a stop, I wouldn't be surprised if the same held true with asking for an open-carry permit.

That aside, this officer was still an idiot. At the very least, he was not professional at all.
Doesn't a legal stop still require a legal violation or probable cause?

[Wild Cobra]

If he looks Mexican and has a gun on his hip, that will be enough, right?
Hell no.

There are legal Mexicans who are and are not citizens here.

Is that in your KKK or SS world fantasy?

[ChumpDumper]

What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by constitution? Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"There are probably court cases further defining what "papers" are, counselor. I wouldn't be surprised if a government issued permit is not included. Ever go fishing where a permit is required?


Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?Wearing a gun on one's hip is not clearly legal in Philadelphia, counselor.


Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"Why do you work so hard building straw men when you are too lazy to look up a court case or two, counselor?

[LnGrrrR]

Doesn't a legal stop still require a legal violation or probable cause?

Hmm... You might be right. Although in practice, they could probably make something up in either case.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, if you are fishing and a game warden asks to see your fishing permit, are your constitutional rights being violated?

Yes or no.

[Wild Cobra]

There are probably court cases further defining what "papers" are, counselor. I wouldn't be surprised if a government issued permit is not included. Ever go fishing where a permit is required?

What amendment is the right to fish in?


Wearing a gun on one's hip is not clearly legal in Philadelphia, counselor.

Then where else should someone "bear arms?"


Why do you work so hard building straw men when you are too lazy to look up a court case or two, counselor?

What about the DC case where DC lost?

As for searching a case that has both arguments presented... There is already too much information out there in cyberspace. I would be reading forever looking for the points made.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to show a case a court held up such a questionable search and arrest?

My God...

The police's own lawyers made them release the guy!

[ChumpDumper]

What amendment is the right to fish in?It's a paper. By your definition it is constitutionally protected from search without cause, including, you know, fishing. Do you now see your definition is flawed?


Then where else should someone "bear arms?"Then why is the law allowed to exist in Philadelphia and over 40 states, counselor?


What about the DC case where DC lost?You mean the one you didn't look up and just started whining about now with no content whatsoever?


As for searching a case that has both arguments presented... There is already too much information out there in cyberspace. I would be reading forever looking for the points made.You are lazy. I get it. Just don't claim your ignorance to be fact next time. You don't know what you are talking about and you are too lazy to cure your ignorance on these matters.


Wouldn't it be easier for you to show a case a court held up such a questionable search and arrest?You are the one who made the assertion, you idiot. You have the burden of proof.


My God...

The police's own lawyers made them release the guy!And they say they will be asking for permits. You say that is unconstitutional because, well, because you say so. That isn't good enough, counselor.

[TheProfessor]

What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by constitution?
Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"
You're conflating two concepts. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. Separately, warrants shall not issue but upon probable cause. The Fourth Amendment does not apply when you lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. The person is carrying a firearm. Even with the statute, documentation is required. The officer was well within his rights to ask for it, and I doubt the Court would see society as recognizing a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a permit when you are carrying openly. Otherwise, the officers would have to let everyone carry openly regardless of permit, contrary to the statute's requirements.


Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?
That's the point - it's not clearly legal. Just because someone carries openly does not mean it is legal without proper documentation. Besides which, the balance between the statute and the safety the officer would likely lean towards the latter. Police don't even need PC to do a limited frisk for dangerous weapons when they believe criminal activity is afoot, just reasonable suspicion. Here, a dangerous weapon is on display.


Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"
I don't. The officer was an idiot. But I also think there is a critical balance between individual rights and officer safety.

[Wild Cobra]

The Fourth Amendment does not apply when you lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. The person is carrying a firearm. Even with the statute, documentation is required. The officer was well within his rights to ask for it, and I doubt the Court would see society as recognizing a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a permit when you are carrying openly. Otherwise, the officers would have to let everyone carry openly regardless of permit, contrary to the statute's requirements.

Now this, I do find acceptable for an explanation.

Still, he did offer to show it to the officer.

Did you listen to the YouTube? When such a combination of events occur, I doubt the officer cared if he had a permit.

[ElNono]

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Now this, I do find acceptable for an explanation.Cool, because that's exactly what I said.

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you probably still can't figure out you did.


Still, he did offer to show it to the officer.

Did you listen to the YouTube? When such a combination of events occur, I doubt the officer cared if he had a permit.Yes, when a strange man with a gun is uncooperative, the veracity of his claims about the permit law loses importance.

[MannyIsGod]

w1vbwPM0Q-4

Man, fuck these ignorant fucking cops who can't be bothered to learn the fucking law. What assholes.

[Wild Cobra]

Cool, because that's exactly what I said.

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you probably still can't figure out you did.

It's not my fault that you placed yourself in the light of having no integrity. I often dismiss everything you say.

[Wild Cobra]

w1vbwPM0Q-4

Man, fuck these ignorant fucking cops who can't be bothered to learn the fucking law. What assholes.
Probably not in the union contract.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not my fault that you placed yourself in the light of having no integrity. I often dismiss everything you say.I'm sorry I proved you aren't as smart as you think you are. I can understand why that would be upsetting to you.


Probably not in the union contract.Is integrity in yours?

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, forgot the blue. Will edit.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think anyone is arguing the cops shouldn't know about that gun law.

Dirty Harry was looking for a confrontation, though. Fuck that guy.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think anyone is arguing the cops shouldn't know about that gun law.

Dirty Harry was looking for a confrontation, though. Fuck that guy.

How was he looking for a confrontation? If the cop just asks him for his permit, and it checks out, this incident never happens.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, when a strange man with a gun is uncooperative, the veracity of his claims about the permit law loses importance.

How was he uncooperative?

[ChumpDumper]

How was he uncooperative?If I heard the recording correctly, he refused to get on his knees and was generally being a dick. Dude was looking for a confrontation with a cop; I really have no sympathy for him. If you don't want trouble, just do what the cop says (while he has a gun on you, no less) and then you can be a know-it-all after he finds out about the permits.

[LnGrrrR]

If I heard the recording correctly, he refused to get on his knees and was generally being a dick. Dude was looking for a confrontation with a cop; I really have no sympathy for him. If you don't want trouble, just do what the cop says (while he has a gun on you, no less) and then you can be a know-it-all after he finds out about the permits.

That's not quite "looking for a confrontation". When he was asked to go to his knees, the confrontation had already begun. And if this is the third time he'd been hassled in the last 6 months or so, I could understand why he'd be annoyed. The man was more well-versed in the law than the cop was, and the cop could've just checked with the precinct.

And while it's usually a smart thing to do what a cop asks when he has a gun on you, I don't see why should expect more professionalism from a citizen than the cop harassing him. Should we hold cops to such low standards?

[ChumpDumper]

That's not quite "looking for a confrontation". When he was asked to go to his knees, the confrontation had already begun.A confrontation he was prepared for and wanted to perform in. Fuck him.
And if this is the third time he'd been hassled in the last 6 months or so, I could understand why he'd be annoyed. The man was more well-versed in the law than the cop was, and the cop could've just checked with the precinct.The cop was going into this blind. All he knows is some douche with a gun is being uncooperative. Fuck him.


And while it's usually a smart thing to do what a cop asks when he has a gun on you, I don't see why should expect more professionalism from a citizen than the cop harassing him. Should we hold cops to such low standards?When guns are involved, I don't fuck around.

This guy was fucking around to get on YouTube.

Fuck him.

[LnGrrrR]

Chump, if that's how you feel, I can't change that. Cops know that their job is stressful, and I sympathize for then because any random stop could be life threatening.

That said, cops should a) know the law and b) remain professional. To me, I don't care if the guy wants to be on YouTube. If the cop follows procedure correctly, there's no incident to put on YouTube.

Police have a unique position of power and trust, civilians do not. This position of power means that police must realize that any violation is more noticeable. To me, the cop was ignorant and rude: a bad combo.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, if that's how you feel, I can't change that. Cops know that their job is stressful, and I sympathize for then because any random stop could be life threatening.Everyone knows their job is stressful, why make it moreso just to reinforce your douchiness?


That said, cops should a) know the law and b) remain professional. To me, I don't care if the guy wants to be on YouTube. If the cop follows procedure correctly, there's no incident to put on YouTube.We'll see if he followed procedure correctly. I didn't hear the entire recording, but I'm not convinced he didn't.


Police have a unique position of power and trust, civilians do not. This position of power means that police must realize that any violation is more noticeable. To me, the cop was ignorant and rude: a bad combo.So why make it worse when you know better?

Fuck that guy.

[LnGrrrR]

Everyone knows their job is stressful, why make it moreso just to reinforce your douchiness?

Probably because it was the third time he had been stopped. After a certain number, I suppose human nature would kick in and he might be aggravated by how many cops weren't familiar with the law.

Also, having a gun pointed on you is very stressful, especially when you are in the right. That stress could have some effect on his reactions.


We'll see if he followed procedure correctly. I didn't hear the entire recording, but I'm not convinced he didn't.

I think there's a very good chance he will be disciopined. He didn't know the job, and he was unprofessional.


So why make it worse when you know better?

Because he can? Frankly, if he's dealing with a cop who is swearing and being rude to him, why should we hold the man to higher standards than the cop?


Fuck that guy.

Who was in the wrong? The man acting like a jerk, or the cop acting like a jerk, who also didn't know the law?

[MannyIsGod]

Because he shouldn't be harassed at all. How can one go looking for a confrontation when the confrontation requires the police to do their job incorrectly? If I go driving in a white neighborhood and I get pulled over for no reason am I looking for a confrontation too?

[ChumpDumper]

Because he shouldn't be harassed at all. How can one go looking for a confrontation when the confrontation requires the police to do their job incorrectly? If I go driving in a white neighborhood and I get pulled over for no reason am I looking for a confrontation too?If you plan on being uncooperative and have your recorder and script ready for just such an occasion to post it on YouTube, yes.

I am fully aware the cop was ignorant of the law and should not have been.

Philly cops don't see open carriers much, this douchebag's story proves it. There was no reason for him to escalate a very dangerous situation. Fuck him.

[LnGrrrR]

If you have your recorder and script ready for just such an occasion, yes.

If a person can do something that is legal, and yet is getting stopped for it repeatedly, that says more to me about the police than the person.

And honestly, without this public incident, would anything ever get done? Do you think that his complaints would go anywhere? Complaints go slot further with evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

If a person can do something that is legal, and yet is getting stopped for it repeatedly, that says more to me about the police than the person.I want police to check the permits of open carriers if there is a law requiring a permit. People get checked for fishing permits; fishing is legal.


And honestly, without this public incident, would anything ever get done? Do you think that his complaints would go anywhere? Complaints go slot further with evidence.Still didn't have to escalate. Fuck him.

[LnGrrrR]

I want police to check the permits of open carriers. People get checked for fishing permits.

I'm cool with that too. However, this cop seemingly wasn't even aware of the open carry law, so I don't see how that would've made a difference in this case.


Still didn't have to escalate. Fuck him.

Yes, but it didn't have to occur in the first place either.

[TheProfessor]

The guy went looking for trouble. It's obvious from the way he's narrating everything that happens for the audio. He's doing it to bring attention to how police are handling "open carry" laws in Philadelphia, which I don't have a problem with. But I can't blame an officer, even an ignorant one, for being suspicious of a guy openly carrying that weapon who is intent on not doing exactly what he says. They're both responsible for the way this went down; if the guy is upset he's being charged or harassed, he should go ahead and file civil suit.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The guy went looking for trouble. It's obvious from the way he's narrating everything that happens for the audio. He's doing it to bring attention to how police are handling "open carry" laws in Philadelphia, which I don't have a problem with. But I can't blame an officer, even an ignorant one, for being suspicious of a guy openly carrying that weapon who is intent on not doing exactly what he says. They're both responsible for the way this went down; if the guy is upset he's being charged or harassed, he should go ahead and file civil suit.

In summation, this is how I view this scene. If I were a law enforcement office what in the hell do you do when you see people walking up and down the street with pistols in thier holsters. Do you just assume that they are no gang bangers with illegal firearms? Of course you'll run across an idiot with an attitude like this guy who will give you grief for even stopping him...

[George Gervin's Afro]

If you plan on being uncooperative and have your recorder and script ready for just such an occasion to post it on YouTube, yes.

I am fully aware the cop was ignorant of the law and should not have been.

Philly cops don't see open carriers much, this douchebag's story proves it. There was no reason for him to escalate a very dangerous situation. Fuck him.

[MannyIsGod]

The guy went looking for trouble. It's obvious from the way he's narrating everything that happens for the audio. He's doing it to bring attention to how police are handling "open carry" laws in Philadelphia, which I don't have a problem with. But I can't blame an officer, even an ignorant one, for being suspicious of a guy openly carrying that weapon who is intent on not doing exactly what he says. They're both responsible for the way this went down; if the guy is upset he's being charged or harassed, he should go ahead and file civil suit.

You can't blame the officer for being suspicious of a guy who's not breaking the law even if he's ignorant of the law? Just because something is uncommon it does not mean the officer or that department should get a pass.

A man breaking no law is harassed by multiple police officers who are fucking ignorant of the law and the man shares in the blame? The point that its not against the law pretty much kills off any probable cause.

I don't think you guys understand that point. Doing something that is uncommon but completely legal is not grounds for probable cause.

I don't care if dude had an interview with Oprah all ready to go. This incident happens completely because of PPD being ignorant of their own laws. Thats unacceptable. That is their job!

I can only imagine where this blame the victim mentality can take us if we somehow attach blame based upon recording things.

Catch an employee stealing from your business because of a hidden camera? Obviously you were looking for the confrontation with the camera.

Catch an auto shop selling unnecessary repairs with a hidden camera? Obviously looking for an autoshop to fuck things up.

Document being pulled over by cops in a white neighborhood as racial profiling with a hidden camera? Obviously looking for confrontation by driving.

Would you give a doctor a pass for being ignorant on anatomy? Would you give a lawyer a pass on being ignorant on the law? Would you give your mechanic a pass if he was ignorant on how to fix your vehicle? etc etc

I just don't understand the idea of faulting this guy for "looking for a confrontation" when that confrontation is predicated on the police force not knowing how to do their damn job properly. If anything, he just performed a public service by educating the officers on what they should have known to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

No one is excusing the cop for being ignorant of the law.

I'm not going to excuse this douchebag for making the situation worse than it had to be, knowing the cop was ignorant of the law.

[Wild Cobra]

If I heard the recording correctly, he refused to get on his knees and was generally being a dick. Dude was looking for a confrontation with a cop; I really have no sympathy for him. If you don't want trouble, just do what the cop says (while he has a gun on you, no less) and then you can be a know-it-all after he finds out about the permits.
No.

He should have never had to get on his knees.

What if the ground was dirty or wet? Is that appropriate when there is nothing else other than holstering a weapon?

[Wild Cobra]

The guy went looking for trouble. It's obvious from the way he's narrating everything that happens for the audio. He's doing it to bring attention to how police are handling "open carry" laws in Philadelphia, which I don't have a problem with. But I can't blame an officer, even an ignorant one, for being suspicious of a guy openly carrying that weapon who is intent on not doing exactly what he says. They're both responsible for the way this went down; if the guy is upset he's being charged or harassed, he should go ahead and file civil suit.
Back to Manny's point:
Because he shouldn't be harassed at all. How can one go looking for a confrontation when the confrontation requires the police to do their job incorrectly? If I go driving in a white neighborhood and I get pulled over for no reason am I looking for a confrontation too?

[ChumpDumper]

No.

He should have never had to get on his knees.

What if the ground was dirty or wet? Is that appropriate when there is nothing else other than holstering a weapon?You're an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

You're an idiot.
Would you please stop looking in the mirror.

[ElNono]

lol floor wet...

[ChumpDumper]

Would you please stop looking in the mirror.You think the most important thing to do when a cop is pointing a gun at you is to keep your pants from getting dirty.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree he should have gotten on his knees. I'm not sure if he did or didn't according to the video but I can also understand his frustration at this being the 3rd fucking time and the cop being ignorant as shit.

My problem is more along the lines of the cop creating an necessary situation to begin with. I think its pretty fucked up to be charged with a crime directly because an ignorant police officer doesn't know what he should.

[TeyshaBlue]

You think the most important thing to do when a cop is pointing a gun at you is to keep your pants from getting dirty.

I can guaran-damn-tee you if a cop points a gun at me, my pants are gettin dirty one way or the other.:depressed

[ChumpDumper]

I agree he should have gotten on his knees. I'm not sure if he did or didn't according to the video but I can also understand his frustration at this being the 3rd fucking time and the cop being ignorant as shit.

My problem is more along the lines of the cop creating an necessary situation to begin with. I think its pretty fucked up to be charged with a crime directly because an ignorant police officer doesn't know what he should.Like I said, there's probably going to be some officer education about this, which is a good thing. Ultimately I think the charges were filed to send the message to the Charles Bronsons out there that an open carry permit isn't a license to be an armed dick to a police officer.

[Wild Cobra]

Like I said, there's probably going to be some officer education about this, which is a good thing. Ultimately I think the charges were filed to send the message to the Charles Bronsons out there that an open carry permit isn't a license to be an armed dick to a police officer.
Why the lack of education to begin with? This is a serious point. How can police enforce the law if they don't stay updated with the changes?

[ChumpDumper]

Why the lack of education to begin with? This is a serious point. How can police enforce the law if they don't stay updated with the changes?No one excused the officer's ignorance.

I don't know how many open carry permits have been issued in Philadelphia.

[Wild Cobra]

No one excused the officer's ignorance.

I don't know how many open carry permits have been issued in Philadelphia.
Yet you support the incorrect authoritarian actions of the cop.

[ChumpDumper]

Yet you support the incorrect authoritarian actions of the cop.Given his ignorance, I wouldn't expect much else.

I didn't excuse the ignorance.

You support a guy's getting killed to keep his pants dry.

You're an idiot.

[LnGrrrR]

Like I said, there's probably going to be some officer education about this, which is a good thing. Ultimately I think the charges were filed to send the message to the Charles Bronsons out there that an open carry permit isn't a license to be an armed dick to a police officer.

And that, to me, explains why he prepared for the confrontation. Would filing a civil suit based on his say-so alone have done anything? Would it have fixed the police dept's ignorance of this law? I doubt it.

[ChumpDumper]

And that, to me, explains why he prepared for the confrontation. Would filing a civil suit based on his say-so alone have done anything? Would it have fixed the police dept's ignorance of this law? I doubt it.Is he filing a civil suit?

[LnGrrrR]

Is he filing a civil suit?

I don't know. Do you think a civil suit would've gone far without evidence?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know. Do you think a civil suit would've gone far without evidence?I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think he really has much evidence for a successful civil suit as it is.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think he really has much evidence for a successful civil suit as it is.

So if he doesn't have enough evidence NOW, how would any civil suit before he had the evidence turn out?

IOW, would you agree that using this method to bring to light the ignorance of the Philly PD on this law is more effective than a civil suit or a comment to the PD?

[ChumpDumper]

So if he doesn't have enough evidence NOW, how would any civil suit before he had the evidence turn out?

IOW, would you agree that using this method to bring to light the ignorance of the Philly PD on this law is more effective than a civil suit or a comment to the PD?No, I'm saying he probably couldn't file a civil suit because nothing really happened to him that would merit it.

And he can record these encounters with the police without being an uncooperative douchebag in a dangerous situation.

[LnGrrrR]

And he can record these encounters with the police without being an uncooperative douchebag in a dangerous situation.

Agreed. I don't particularly support the way he went about the encounter, but considering the officer was in the wrong (and wasn't very cooperative either), I tend to side against the officer.