More Ignorant Cops Violate Civil Rights

[FBD]

And in this case, when the cop is entirely ignorant of the law?


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



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.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

It went on like that for a little while, until other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup.

Fiorino was forced to the ground and shouted at as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon.

"You f------ come here looking for f------ problems? Where do you live?" yelled one officer.

"I'm sorry, gentlemen," Fiorino said. "If I'm under arrest, I have nothing left to say."

"F------ a------, shut the f--- up!" the cop hollered.

The cops discovered his recorder as they searched his pockets, and unleashed another string of expletives.

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.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun#ixzz1Mbo0EkGC

[Loser]

The fact of the matter is, whether he was legally carrying or not, he should of obeyed their orders. Flat out.

Peoples ignorance makes them believe that if they are doing something legal that they don't have to listen to the cops....Wrong.

IF he had just complied, it would of been over a lot faster and none of this shit would of mattered.

Honestly, he should be charged and lose his license to carry.

[Deepsepia]

The fact of the matter is, whether he was legally carrying or not, he should of obeyed their orders. Flat out.

Peoples ignorance makes them believe that if they are doing something legal that they don't have to listen to the cops....Wrong.

IF he had just complied, it would of been over a lot faster and none of this shit would of mattered.

Honestly, he should be charged and lose his license to carry.

Yup.

Same applies to cops, too.

There have been more than a few cases where a cop mistook an undercover cop carrying a weapon for a bad guy and shot him.

When a cop sees a guy with a weapon, particularly in a high crime area, he's going to go into a completely different posture. It's an extremely dangerous situation until it's resolved "who's who", and it's both unwise and irresponsible to do anything other than comply with police orders -- right or wrong-- at that time.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The fact of the matter is, whether he was legally carrying or not, he should of obeyed their orders. Flat out.

Peoples ignorance makes them believe that if they are doing something legal that they don't have to listen to the cops....Wrong.

IF he had just complied, it would of been over a lot faster and none of this shit would of mattered.

Honestly, he should be charged and lose his license to carry.

Exactly...why some people always decide to disobey or become hostile with cops is beyond me. As you said, if the guy just would have done what the cop said, it would have been solved without the mess. I don't blame cops one bit when they get excited over seeing someone with a gun, especially in a city like Philadelphia.

[Muddy]

FBD, I think you should post a story or something about the Smurfs... Happy little creatures that make you want to smile you know..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

FBD, I think you should post a story or something about the Smurfs... Happy little creatures that make you want to smile you know..

Rogue smurfs that are violating Gargamel's civil rights? :-k

[Muddy]

:lol: Happy smurfs that are trying to just live in todays gritty society..

http://www.weirdocards.com/cardimg/13_The-Outcast-Smurf.jpg

[Acid Trip]

This guys lawyer is going to have a field day suing the city. I'm thinking 6 figures + a written apology from all the officers involved will be the verdict.

[Deepsepia]

This guys lawyer is going to have a field day suing the city. I'm thinking 6 figures + a written apology from all the officers involved will be the verdict.

Not likely.

A man with a gun refuses a direct order from a cop. This dude is lucky he didn't get his wiseass shot.

Oh, and Police Directive 137 that is being referred to here:


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”


So the officer was doing what Directive 137 said that he should do . . .

[Acid Trip]

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.

He did temporarily detain and investigate the individual. He was found to have both is ID and firearm permit and the harassment still continued. Try again.

[Deepsepia]

He did temporarily detain and investigate the individual. He was found to have both is ID and firearm permit and the harassment still continued. Try again.

No. Officer attempted to detain him, and he refused to obey the officer's orders.

Once the officer gives you an order, and you fail to comply, you're in deep shit.

Let's say you're driving along, at 55. Your license and registration are in good order.

Cop pulls up behind you lights flashing . . . do you keep driving? Do you get to decide on where you want to pull over? Do you get to get out of the car and wander over to the officer? What do you think happens if you pull that?

You may be "obeying the law" up to that point -- but you're not obeying the officer, and that in and of itself is a breach of the law.

Officers are instructed to deal with firearms situations with great care, and they do ("better judged by 12 than carried by 6"). Every gun situation has the potential for an officer getting shot, and so they're instructed to do what they have to do to be safe.

We have a man with a gun here refusing the officer's instructions . . . very lucky he wasn't shot.

[Acid Trip]

""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."

He explained to the officer he (the officer) was incorrect and offered to show him proof. If you don't think the officer was out of line for everything beyond feel free to believe that.

[Deepsepia]

""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.".

Read Directive 137.

I've posted it in this thread

Its quite specific:

"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."

The instructions are not "have a discussion with the man with the gun about what permit he does or doesn't have"

Taking a gun off a person is not a "lets do it the way you want" process. Its a "listen to the officer" process. The officer wants the guy on his knees for a very good reason-- rule #1 of a stop is to get control of the situation. What he's got is a guy standing facing him, with a gun, who's not obeying a direct -- and legitimate-- order.

The cop may not have been as polite as protocol requires, but when cops are faced with folks who are refusing a direct order, language can get a bit salty.

[Pony]

He simply needed to get on his knees as he was told and let the officer disarm him and check his paperwork. There is no cop that would let you reach for your license while wearing a gun on your hip. He refused to be detained and that's why he ended up in the shit.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Read Directive 137.

I've posted it in this thread

Its quite specific:

"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."

The instructions are not "have a discussion with the man with the gun about what permit he does or doesn't have"

Taking a gun off a person is not a "lets do it the way you want" process. Its a "listen to the officer" process. The officer wants the guy on his knees for a very good reason-- rule #1 of a stop is to get control of the situation. What he's got is a guy standing facing him, with a gun, who's not obeying a direct -- and legitimate-- order.

The cop may not have been as polite as protocol requires, but when cops are faced with folks who are refusing a direct order, language can get a bit salty.

This ^^^^


He simply needed to get on his knees as he was told and let the officer disarm him and check his paperwork. There is no cop that would let you reach for your license while wearing a gun on your hip. He refused to be detained and that's why he ended up in the shit.

And this ^^^^

[Teh One Who Knocks]

All I know is, if I have a police officer with his weapon drawn telling me to do something, I'm gonna do what he says.

[Godfather]

If I were a cop and someone with a gun told me they weren't going to just take a knee while I looked their papers over.... I'd tell them to do it or get popped in the f*cking head too.

http://www.odmp.org/ is depressing and scary enough as it is....


There are cops out there booting drunk kids in the head and abusing their power like nobody's business. This cop doesn't fall into that category though IMO. The profanity and social class of the 'suspect/victim' just make it an easy target for the newspapers

[Loser]

The first thing you are taught when you get your license to carry is how to obey the law while carrying, and if you fail to comply with an officers commands, its resisting arrest and obstruction of justice.

If that idiot had reached for his wallet and the cop mistook it as him reaching for his firearm, guess what, ANY cop in the world would of shot him dead. Plain and simple.

[FBD]

Wow, cowering in fear of the cops :roll:

Look, the law isnt what's in question. Its 1) this cop's utter and complete ignorance of the law, and 2) his severe overreaction because of his ignorance.

Why was the first action taken by this cop to draw his own weapon and CREATE A SITUATION? Because he was ignorant of laws he was supposed to uphold.

What would the appropriate action have been? Question, perhaps detain - but to draw on him as if he was holding the store up? That is bogus. This cop needs to be reprimanded.


Like the cops say when you say you didnt know what the speed limit was,

YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT MY PROBLEM.

The cop acted inappropriately from moment ONE of this. Instead of treating this man like a citizen, he treated him immediately like a criminal.

I would have acted quite the same way - spelled the law right out for him, and then sue his ass if he violated my civil rights just because of his own ignorance.



COPS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

[Loser]

FBD, ask anyone on any gun forum or anyone who teaches NRA carry classes.

It's commonly taught that EVERY SINGLE cop overreacts to someone carrying a firearm, legally or illegally, doesn't matter, and when that cop does overreact you listen to their every command.

Hell, watch "The Best Defense" on the Outdoor network, almost every single episode they say this same thing, and even had a special episode last week covering this very subject.

When an officer gives you an order, you listen or possibly get shot. Flat out, no exceptions. This is just a common sense thing when you personal carry, which I've been doing since I was 18 years old.

It pretty much boils down to this, argue the law while he's checking your papers? or when you have a bullet in your fucking head.... pick one.

[FBD]

:rolleyes: ok, so any cop that overreacts for anything whatsoever has complete carte blanche to act however he pleases and blame being in the middle of an incident! (even one he created!)

ok ok I give up, cops are *always* right :razz:

[Pony]

I'm not saying the cop reacted properly, I agree he did overreact. The suspects actions are what caused the situation to escalate though. Two wrongs don't make a right. If he would have immediately complied with the cops orders no matter how absurd they seem at the time... ..I'm sure the cop once he had full control of the firearm and didn't feel threatened most likely would have calmed down enough to then explain to him that you have a license to carry. If you feel you were mistreated take it up later in court, trying to argue with the officer ALWAYS ends up badly.

I've been in situations with cops where keeping cool and patient immediately changed the cops attitude.

[Acid Trip]

:rolleyes: ok, so any cop that overreacts for anything whatsoever has complete carte blanche to act however he pleases and blame being in the middle of an incident! (even one he created!)

ok ok I give up, cops are *always* right :razz:

I gave up awhile ago. Anyone who thinks a person is right just because they hold a position of authority is a fool.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:rolleyes: ok, so any cop that overreacts for anything whatsoever has complete carte blanche to act however he pleases and blame being in the middle of an incident! (even one he created!)

ok ok I give up, cops are *always* right :razz:


I gave up awhile ago. Anyone who thinks a person is right just because they hold a position of authority is a fool.

You are both so right...in fact, the poor persecuted guy should have taken it a step further to defend himself from the terrible oppression. He should have spun around as fast as he could have and drawn on and shot the cop. That would have shown the officer who was boss and would have sent a message to the other police not to forcibly oppress the populace. :thumbsup:

[Pony]

*sigh* I give up too.

[Loser]

:rolleyes: ok, so any cop that overreacts for anything whatsoever has complete carte blanche to act however he pleases and blame being in the middle of an incident! (even one he created!)

ok ok I give up, cops are *always* right :razz:

So now your gonna be deep and put words in my mouth? Cause I never said this.:rolleyes:

My argument pertains to personal carry of a firearm and how cop generally reacts to such.

They deal with murderers, rapists, thieves, and general assholes all day long, so when they see a guy they don't know carrying a firearm, of course they're gonna err on the side of caution.

They fear for their safety and the safety of others and are going to be anal as a motherfucker, and if you claim you wouldn't act the same, your lying flat out or have no business ever being a cop.

I can't even count how many times I've had a cop pull his sidearm on me AFTER I told him I was a legal CCW. It's just a common occurrence, and common sense to do WHATEVER he tells you to do. You don't just stand there and be a smart ass trying to argue whats legal or not.

[Acid Trip]

You are both so right...in fact, the poor persecuted guy should have taken it a step further to defend himself from the terrible oppression. He should have spun around as fast as he could have and drawn on and shot the cop. That would have shown the officer who was boss and would have sent a message to the other police not to forcibly oppress the populace. :thumbsup:

I never said anything close to what you're insinuating. I'm just saying people have a right to question authority, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE RIGHT. So if I put on a police uniform (maybe a genuine one I stole) and demanded I be let in your house you'd do it simply because I have on a uniform? That's not good.

[FBD]

So now your gonna be deep and put words in my mouth? Cause I never said this.:rolleyes:

My argument pertains to personal carry of a firearm and how cop generally reacts to such.

They deal with murderers, rapists, thieves, and general assholes all day long, so when they see a guy they don't know carrying a firearm, of course they're gonna err on the side of caution.

They fear for their safety and the safety of others and are going to be anal as a motherfucker, and if you claim you wouldn't act the same, your lying flat out or have no business ever being a cop.

I can't even count how many times I've had a cop pull his sidearm on me AFTER I told him I was a legal CCW. It's just a common occurrence, and common sense to do WHATEVER he tells you to do. You don't just stand there and be a smart ass trying to argue whats legal or not.
That wasnt specifically directed at you, it was a sarcastic generalization of the general air of responses in this thread. Its basically "yes masta, I'm gonna do whatever a cop tells me to as soon as he says it."

Did you listen to the audio?

To differentiate between the real situation being discussed and the myriad hypotheticals, the cop in question was not only abusing his authority, he was entirely ignorant of the law - so this was not a case of "please hand over your weapon while I verify that you may legally, openly carry" - this was a case of "I'm a fucking cop, I'm right, do whatever the fuck I say and if you question or deviate in the least I am going to call you a fucking asshole and abuse you and your 'civil rights'."

It is a problem with many a police ossifer. Automatically puts himself on a pedestal. I'm not arguing about the cop having his gun drawn, that is within the realm of appropriate actions - but this guy had it out to prove his authority and created a situation from step one in this process.

Police officers arent there to harass and intimidate - they are there to uphold the law - anyone wonders why so many people have next to no respect for police officers? Because no respect is given on their end, they automatically feel entitled to make themselves Dad and you are the four year old being reprimanded.

Seriously, three out of the entirety of my encounters with police have been what I would call an appropriate and respectful upholding of the law. The other times? The son of a bitch was merely harassing as 90% of their job being performed. For a comparison, I've been pulled twice for reckless driving in all my years (both long ago) - once I was treated with an amazing amount of respect, the officer made statements plainly, addressed me with respect, and told me you may be a good driver, but it really was dangerous to be doing 90 mph in the rain, even if the highway was totally empty. The second guy made sure to whip his K9 up into an absolute frenzy so that the thing was barking incessantly and as loud as possible the entire time, the officer damn near RAN to my car saying WTF is the matter with you you f'n asshole, do you have a gun on you, get out of the car...and I was also doing 90 (except that second time, it was rush hour and I was going perhaps 7-10 mph faster than the rest of traffic, perfectly beaut day out.)


This cop in question operated on a false premise - it helps if you're going to be enforcing laws, it might be a good idea to know what the law actually is. I would have been a bit ticked off too if I was minding my own business doing things that are entirely legal and some cop comes along and ignorantly causes a situation because he believes otherwise - and not only that, will not listen to a word I have to say.

There's a difference between upholding the law and being an asshole about what you think the law is, be an asshole about...well, anything whatsoever

Like the time I sent some friends to my parents house to pick up some equipment - nobody was home, door unlocked, alarm on - it went off, so they sat there and waited for the police, basically. The cop wouldnt let them make a phone call to me, he wouldnt let them even go near their car when one of them wanted to go check what time it was - and the cop's reply when they said ok well if we cant go to the car to see what time it is, can you tell me? Cop's response? "It doesnt matter. We're going to wait here for your friend, and if he doesnt show up soon, we're going to the station." Nevermind that I wasnt even planning on being there in the next 12 hours - luckily my brother got home and persuaded the cops that he knew my friends and they could go.


fkn rookies...it reminds me of another story going back to the 70s, a buddy of my dad's was rippin across country in a souped up car and got pulled over doing about 140 way out in the desert by a rookie cop, who was nervous as all hell, shaking, did not even know what to do and after having him get out of the car, draw his gun on him for no reason, still shaking, with his finger on the trigger...
...I dont know how, but the dude's fast...and he whipped the gun right out of the cop's hands and threw the thing and read the cop the riot act, pointing a gun at someone when you're two feet away...
and then when he got to the station, he gets sat alone in front of the police chief and goes "hey, not for nothin...but I'm *really* not comfortable being in this position being marched in here and I still have my gun on me!

...Chief shook his head and told him to leave, he was all set...and rookie got the third degree.



Fact of the matter is, abuse of police powers is ridiculously prevalent, and even at that, people wouldnt think them such assholes if they but treated people like PEOPLE instead of a sub-human convicted felon behind a prison gate.

[Pony]

ok ok I give up, cops are *always* right :razz:


I gave up awhile ago. Anyone who thinks a person is right just because they hold a position of authority is a fool.

Not a single person here said the cop was "right".


I'm just saying people have a right to question authority, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE RIGHT.

Yes, you have a right to question authority. Everyone simply said that doing it while disobeying a direct order from an officer that has a gun pointed at you is not the right time to have a discussion about who's right or wrong.

[FBD]

The only "direct order" from the officer should have been "please be patient, I am going to temporarily take custody of your weapon while we verify the legality of your carry." What this "but I dont know who you are" shit?

[Pony]

Yes it should have. Yes the cop was way aggressive, out of line (and ignorant of the law). It's still a really bad idea to stand there armed with a gun in your face arguing with the cop. Both were in the wrong in this case.

[Muddy]

Holy shit FBD... Thats one of the largest posts i've ever seen... :lol:

[Loser]

I've still yet to get through it :lol:

[FBD]

Holy shit FBD... Thats one of the largest posts i've ever seen... :lol:

you should see me when I'm interested in the subject :lol: