Philly OC'er held at gunpoint, charged

[zxcvbob]

The recording sounded like a lot of oversized, out of control egos battling it out...and in the end, no clear victor.

A cockfight, so to speak?

[Nitesites]

Sounds about right...

[Al Norris]

I keep reading stuff like this and I really shake my head.

Someone please enlighten me.

Criminals conceal their firearms because ... erm, they don't want anyone to know they have them? Gangbangers (or whatever) conceal, even if they aren't wanted, ... why? Because the local cops know who they are and they will be hassled (if not jailed on felony possession) if they appear to be armed.

Has any case ever been observed that crooks don't conceal? That is, does anyone know if Joe, the local knee-breaker, carries openly, because the cops won't bother with him, being such an upstanding citizen and all....

As far as I know, the only people who carry openly, are law abiding citizens. Caveat: In jurisdictions where it's not against the law. Crooks just don't do that. They don't want the cops to know they are armed and they don't want you to know they are armed.

It comes down to the idea that there is no rational reason for the police to be afraid of anyone carrying openly in any jurisdiction where open carry is not against the law.

It is simply unreasoned fear.

It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you, you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

[egor20]

I was talking about this with a friend over coffee, and we kind of agreed that both sides over reacted, I mentioned that just because its "legal" doesn't make it "smart". He asked me what I meant and I told him this.

In open waters a ship or boat operated by sail always has the right of way versus a ship or boat operated by a motor. If I'm in a skipjack that means I have the "legal" right of way against a supertanker. It doesn't mean I'm going to play chicken with it though.......

On the water its called the "Law of Gross Tonnage" , on the Street its called "common sense".

[youngunz4life]

There was, in fact, nothing to even indicate that a crime was being committed.

true, but if I am sitting in my vehicle waiting for my wife and an old lady is suspicious for whatever reason(only an example) & decides to call the cops...

they or someone will show up and ask for my license. Point being, they are going to want to ID someone when they come to a scene to make sure the person is indeed a regular joe and not a wanted criminal.

that being said, I think it is ridiculous the cop pulled a weapon from behind immediately upon seeing the person, but I guess he decided not to take any chances. You never know these days...but I'm guesing. It seemed an over reaction.

[tyme]

You're right, I would be very unhappy if it happened to me. Especially the abusive language from the 2nd cop. On the other hand, if a cop approached me and said "hey junior what are you doing there" I wouldn't take offence at that. And if he was genuinely afraid for his safety and wanted me to get on the ground until he could check my license etc., then I would. I might complain afterwards.

This sentiment is dangerous. Do you consider it to be acceptable that cops can demand papers for any citizen brazen enough to exercise his/her rights to open carry?

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Reasonable suspicion....while it may come out after the fact that the cop was in the wrong, because this fellow is merely, peacefully, exercising his rights, open carry of a weapon is not a common occurence in ouor metro areas, and a call reporting "man with a gun" means most cops would approach the situation with suspicion that a crime was being committed.

The whole thing may turn out to be "bogus", but based on what the cop(s) believed at the time, they would have reasonable suspicion.

I don't buy that at all. It sets the stage for an environment where the State can at any time demand papers from anyone exercising the right to open carry. Should police be detaining people at gunpoint if those people (suspects) have tattoos and bling?

This was not a situation where some hoplophobe caller called in about a person with a gun being threatening. In those cases the dispatcher should make sure the caller is clear about what's happening, but if that's the story being told, cops can't do much other than to treat the situation as dangerous and go after the person who reported it if the report turns out to be a lie or exaggeration.

No, this was a case of a cop acting on his own to harass someone for perfectly legal behavior when nobody had complained. The cop is in the wrong 100%. I have no idea where you see any reasonable suspicion in those circumstances.

Originally Posted by Al Norris

It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you [for legal behavior like open carry], you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Brilliant and wise. However, it is funny and depressing to see the depths to which the establishment will sink, throwing BS charges at someone who, at risk to him/herself, stands up against the more equal pigs among us.

Originally Posted by article

Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Seth Williams, said in a statement that Fiorino became "belligerent and hostile" while officers were trying to investigate a potential crime.

"Philadelphia police officers on a daily basis are often confronted with extremely dangerous situations involving guns," the statement said. "And someone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon should not only be aware of that, but should also go the extra length to cooperate with law enforcement."

IOW: Citizens! Please submit to requests for papers at our whim! We can't tell the difference between an extremely dangerous situation involving guns and someone walking down the street with a legally holstered gun. As a result, we may need to hold you at gunpoint and demand papers if you're walking down the street, so don't get uppity! It hurts our feelings and we may shoot you (or miss, and shoot innocent bystanders), or other cops rushing to aid in defense of your uppity-ness may drive unsafely and get hurt or killed in a TA. Nobody wants that! Just submit to our authority and everything will be okay.

I think Ms. Jamerson needs to go back to grade school and learn what belligerent means, because calmly, verbally resisting harassment by a LEO does not qualify under any reasonable definition.

[zxcvbob]

I want to know if the cop was planning to shoot him in the back if the OC'er just said "F.U." and kept walking. Or ignored him completely and kept walking. (probably one of those unanswerable questions)

[ZeSpectre]

I want to know if the cop was planning to shoot him in the back if the OC'er just said "F.U." and kept walking. Or ignored him completely and kept walking.

Usually (so the training goes) if a law enforcement officer has drawn their sidearm, it's comply or get shot.

[bigbaby]

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

[Eghad]

The DA filing charges at this time is just a pure case of retaliation because someone got caught making a mistake and had it plastered all over the national news.

The person had the right to open carry. Its up to citizens to know the law as ignorance is no excuse to the police or the court. Seems to me that shoe needs to fit on the law enforcement side of the house as well.

There are plenty of states with open carry where the Police do not freak out at the sight of an armed citizen.

The DA and the police would do themselves more credit if they admitted they made a mistake said they had taken actions to educate the officers in the Dept on carry laws. Instead they chose to retaliate against the citizen at a later date.

[zxcvbob]

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

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

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

[bigbaby]

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

[hogdogs]

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

Because he opted not to...

why not keep the weapon out of sight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent

[Eghad]

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

[bigbaby]

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

[secret_agent_man]

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Dee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn D.

[bigbaby]

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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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

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

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

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

[markj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bigbaby]

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

[hogdogs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent

[BGutzman]

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

[Standing Wolf]

It comes down to the idea that there is no rational reason for the police to be afraid of anyone carrying openly in any jurisdiction where open carry is not against the law.
It is simply unreasoned fear.
It is precisely because of this unreasoned fear that should a LEO pull a gun on you, you do everything you can to take that fear away. If that means humbling yourself by putting your face in the dirt, then you do it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

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

[Eagle Eye]

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