Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
rlobrecht
Brown Belt
Recording someone without their knowledge is usually illegal. Recording police and then posting it to the internet seems like a really bad idea.
I didn't listen to the audio, but I suspect that everything the police did was reasonable (except not knowing their own directives.) All my firearm instructors have told me to be ultra-cooperative with LEOs if you're carrying. If something bad ends up happening between you (normal citizen with a right to carry) and an LEO, the LEO will likely end up being right, at least in the eyes of the courts.
Rick
I didn't listen to the audio, but I suspect that everything the police did was reasonable (except not knowing their own directives.) All my firearm instructors have told me to be ultra-cooperative with LEOs if you're carrying. If something bad ends up happening between you (normal citizen with a right to carry) and an LEO, the LEO will likely end up being right, at least in the eyes of the courts.
Rick
No, it's not. It is sometimes illegal; but mostly, it's legal. One must know the law in one's own jurisdiction.
Exercising First Amendment rights seems to me like a very good idea. If there is room on the Internet for Right-Wing Rants and Left-Wing Rants and the world is going to end on Saturday, there's room for a little profanity-laced recording of cops behaving badly. And I'm pro-cop. I'm just not pro-idiot.
I suspect it was reasonable up until the point where they discovered that the man was not breaking the law, but it could have been done minus the profanity. Charging him afterwards is petty and childish and that, along with the profanity and threats to shoot the man while was standing there will probably net a nice settlement out of the city.
Further to the legality of recording a public conversation in Pennsylvania:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-recording-law
I would expect that given the pettiness and vindictiveness of the DA's response to the gun owner, if they thought they could charge him with illegal recording, they'd have done that already. So my best guess is that even they know he's in the clear on that.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-recording-law
I would expect that given the pettiness and vindictiveness of the DA's response to the gun owner, if they thought they could charge him with illegal recording, they'd have done that already. So my best guess is that even they know he's in the clear on that.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Why should LEOs be exempt from public scrutiny?
Looks like he was.
You mean that LEOs are often excluded from the rules that non-LEOs are expected to live by?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
Looks like the first thing that happened was the insulting use of the diminutive "Junior" in the LEO's very first sentence along with the LEO aiming his duty weapon at someone not breaking the law which was followed by an order to get to his knees. It starts off as unreasonable and keeps going from there.
It is becoming very common for people who record cops during public interactions to be charged because of doing so, especially in cases where it appears that the cops are misbehaving. Even in the rare cases where the person so charged is eventually vindicated he is out massive amounts of money and time, sometime bankrupting him. The LEOs who support such charges say that it is for the protection of cops. They believe that the lives of cops and their families would be imperiled if their images, and the knowledge that they are cops, became general knowledge.
I would bet against it. How often do they actually win suits against cops?
My bet is that Mr. Fiorino will go to court over the recordings and end up dead broke, probably in debt, and lose his permit.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Quite "convenient" how these laws are being used in an attempt to silence the exposure of misconduct that makes the state look bad. How else are we supposed to find out when our officials are misbehaving? In a "he said, she said" dispute, the truth can never be definitively known. The best evidence is video and audio, which should protect good officials against false accusations and help us weed out the officials who are criminals. There is no rational reason to oppose the use of such recordings - except of course if you have something to hide.
Somehow pervasive surveillance and warrantless wiretapping is supposed to be for the public's own good - "if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide." The state isn't too happy to be held to their own logic however.
Yes. Although I will say that had it been me, I would have followed the instructions given by the police and let my attorney argue the legality of it later, rather than lipping off. However, that's down to personal preference.
I am in favor of recording in such cases. The police are becoming more and more sensitive to their own accountability and have moved from dashboard cams to much more sophisticated means of recording their interactions with the public. The public has the same right, and the same reason, to record as well.
Not win, settle. Cities have insurers and insurers like to settle.
It would be interesting to check back in a year or so and see where things are going. I'd bet that the gun-owner won't be out-of-pocket for any lawsuit, win or lose. If he does sue, it will be handled on contingency by a prominent law firm that will take 60% of the settlement plus their fees.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
My issue:
It appears that this is a case of a LEO not being aware or not only the local gun laws, but his own department's own open carry policies. Given the pompous 'bully with a badge' that this LEO comes across as, that's a dangerous situation. The anger and attitude expressed didn't come off as professional. No, I don't expect 'please' or 'would you mind' but the profanity could have been left out at the least.
A little more hostility and you might have been reading a different story. "Man legally carrying gun shot by out of control cop" or a fabricated "hero cop shoots crazed criminal".
It appears that this is a case of a LEO not being aware or not only the local gun laws, but his own department's own open carry policies. Given the pompous 'bully with a badge' that this LEO comes across as, that's a dangerous situation. The anger and attitude expressed didn't come off as professional. No, I don't expect 'please' or 'would you mind' but the profanity could have been left out at the least.
A little more hostility and you might have been reading a different story. "Man legally carrying gun shot by out of control cop" or a fabricated "hero cop shoots crazed criminal".
LuckyKBoxer
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 39
Just one more in a long long list of criminal cops.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #11
Thankfully the number of honest cops is still significantly longer.
lklawson
Grandmaster
What's been nagging at me is that this gent "just happens" to have his recorder going from the get go.
To me this means that he was expecting to be harassed and came prepared for it. The question then is, "why was he expecting to be harassed?" Was he trying to "make a point" or was he expecting/trying to catch abusive LEOs?
Why does this matter? There are a lot of people who dislike folks who go out "looking to make a point." We have a lot of fence sitters on these issues (which are very important to me). These fence sitters very often don't react well to such "in your face" tactics. Instead of making a point, this guy might have actually converted some folks to the opposition.
This is one reason why I support "Open Carry Events" instead of Open Carry "ambushes." It desensitizes the general public and gives both them and the cops time and opportunity for education.
If the goal is to "catch" abusive, power mad little Napoleons in LEO blue, then this guy's apparent tack works just just fine. If, on the other hand, the goal is to make Open Carry "legitimate" in they eyes of LEOs and the general populace, then baiting this confrontation is the wrong way to do it.
Personally, I prefer the latter because it takes one more avenue for abuse of authority off of the table for abusive LEOs and puts more of the general populace on your side.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
To me this means that he was expecting to be harassed and came prepared for it. The question then is, "why was he expecting to be harassed?" Was he trying to "make a point" or was he expecting/trying to catch abusive LEOs?
Why does this matter? There are a lot of people who dislike folks who go out "looking to make a point." We have a lot of fence sitters on these issues (which are very important to me). These fence sitters very often don't react well to such "in your face" tactics. Instead of making a point, this guy might have actually converted some folks to the opposition.
This is one reason why I support "Open Carry Events" instead of Open Carry "ambushes." It desensitizes the general public and gives both them and the cops time and opportunity for education.
If the goal is to "catch" abusive, power mad little Napoleons in LEO blue, then this guy's apparent tack works just just fine. If, on the other hand, the goal is to make Open Carry "legitimate" in they eyes of LEOs and the general populace, then baiting this confrontation is the wrong way to do it.
Personally, I prefer the latter because it takes one more avenue for abuse of authority off of the table for abusive LEOs and puts more of the general populace on your side.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
This is another case of police behaving badly, and I haven't even heard the audio yet but your statement sounds like police bashing, like a blanket statement for "most" LEO's... I'm just say'n.
PatMunk
Yellow Belt
Recording without their knowledge .... at first maybe .. but why after they found the recorder didn't they turn it off .... Sounds to me like all parties involved were ok with the recording.
You should not comment on what happened unless you have listened to the recording. That way you can make an intelligent comment without just making assumptions.
Was the citizen right or wrong, ..... maybe right .. but Lucky YES.
As for recording and then posting it .... well if you're doing nothing wrong what's your worry.
Kemposhot
Orange Belt
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 21
While these police may or may not of had good intentions, once it was discovered that the firearm was legal it should have ended there. There are plenty of illegal guns out there to go and find, time shouldn't be wasted on a law obeying citizen.
delaford321
White Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 0
I think Kempo deserves the "most logical response" award.
Just like with any confrontation, disagreement etc it would behoove all parties involved to try and see it from the others point of view.
The officer needs to know the laws much better, especially ones as significant to his everyday interaction with citizens and criminals as the state's firearm carry laws. That's kind of a big deal not to know. His language and anger levels were a bit ridiculous, I would like to see (hear) much more composure and restraint. For his lack of basic understanding of carry laws, his escalating anger, and his failure to communicate some basic things, I'd say the cop handled the situation poorly.
As to the citizen carrying. He was pretty stupid too. Granted, his choosing to carry openly was legal, so no contact at all was needed, at most, a friendly stop, see his license and call it in to clarify legality.
However, it would be good for more citizens to realize a few things:
1.) Just because you are a "nice guy" you have to realize that many people the cops deal with regularly are very dangerous. You may be nice and safe, but he doesn't know that.
2.) Once a person has been in harms way, they aren't as cordial about circumstances that can escalate quickly to lethal force situations. Control has to be established by the officer in an attempt to keep it from going there. You may know it's not going there, he does not.
3.) Talking politely and saying sir doesn't mean anything really. As cops know, lots of nutters will smile and say "sir" right up until the point where they club you in the head or shoot you in the face. No matter how nice you are the cop needs to see your hands, and control your position. Of course he is going to get lit up if you reach for something.
I think police have to be vigilant, and that means for their safety, they have to, at least a little, assume every contact may turn violent. This will be heightened when they know there is a weapon.
If citizens would stop for a minute and think "for all this officer knows, I'm the next psycho who may try and shoot him and deprive him of going home to his wife and kids".... they would understand why cops approach them the way they do. Add the fact that the officer has had that stress all day, all week etc, and it becomes easier to comply with what may seem unnecessary.
For the officers, remember that while you need to remain vigilant, be a little more clear on the laws to avoid unneeded confrontations, and for heavens sake, COMMUNICATE. It wouldn't hurt to say "man I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I do need to verify that you can carry that weapon... so I need to have you show me your hands, don't reach for anything, I don't know who you are, and I'm not going to mess around... this will take a few minutes." That way, if the officer gets non-compliance in return, he is much more justified for escalation having been clear and calm from the beginning. It wouldn't hurt to say "you're right, your ok to carry, sorry for the hassle, thanks for your patience." Then he goes away singing the officers praises for taking precautions, in a professional but authoritative manner. And being humble enough to concede the point once he has verified the legality.
The officer needs to know the laws much better, especially ones as significant to his everyday interaction with citizens and criminals as the state's firearm carry laws. That's kind of a big deal not to know. His language and anger levels were a bit ridiculous, I would like to see (hear) much more composure and restraint. For his lack of basic understanding of carry laws, his escalating anger, and his failure to communicate some basic things, I'd say the cop handled the situation poorly.
As to the citizen carrying. He was pretty stupid too. Granted, his choosing to carry openly was legal, so no contact at all was needed, at most, a friendly stop, see his license and call it in to clarify legality.
However, it would be good for more citizens to realize a few things:
1.) Just because you are a "nice guy" you have to realize that many people the cops deal with regularly are very dangerous. You may be nice and safe, but he doesn't know that.
2.) Once a person has been in harms way, they aren't as cordial about circumstances that can escalate quickly to lethal force situations. Control has to be established by the officer in an attempt to keep it from going there. You may know it's not going there, he does not.
3.) Talking politely and saying sir doesn't mean anything really. As cops know, lots of nutters will smile and say "sir" right up until the point where they club you in the head or shoot you in the face. No matter how nice you are the cop needs to see your hands, and control your position. Of course he is going to get lit up if you reach for something.
I think police have to be vigilant, and that means for their safety, they have to, at least a little, assume every contact may turn violent. This will be heightened when they know there is a weapon.
If citizens would stop for a minute and think "for all this officer knows, I'm the next psycho who may try and shoot him and deprive him of going home to his wife and kids".... they would understand why cops approach them the way they do. Add the fact that the officer has had that stress all day, all week etc, and it becomes easier to comply with what may seem unnecessary.
For the officers, remember that while you need to remain vigilant, be a little more clear on the laws to avoid unneeded confrontations, and for heavens sake, COMMUNICATE. It wouldn't hurt to say "man I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I do need to verify that you can carry that weapon... so I need to have you show me your hands, don't reach for anything, I don't know who you are, and I'm not going to mess around... this will take a few minutes." That way, if the officer gets non-compliance in return, he is much more justified for escalation having been clear and calm from the beginning. It wouldn't hurt to say "you're right, your ok to carry, sorry for the hassle, thanks for your patience." Then he goes away singing the officers praises for taking precautions, in a professional but authoritative manner. And being humble enough to concede the point once he has verified the legality.
Hind sight is always 20/20. Where firearms are involved, cops need to make it home after their shift. Whether the firearm is legal or not, this needs to be determined in a safe environment.
If I was given this same situation I would secure the weapon, check ID and determine legality and face repercussions later.
If I was given this same situation I would secure the weapon, check ID and determine legality and face repercussions later.
Skpotamus
Brown Belt
Which is a logical course of action that I think no one could really fault. A stop as you describe is one that wouldn't even be newsworthy.
However, what this officer did here was draw a firearm at the start (a little bit much maybe, but I could understand it happening for officer safety until the firearm was secured), use language that would normally incite a confrontation (the use of profanity, condescending names to the subject and general lack of professionalism), blatantly threaten to kill someone (a crime itself), detain them until they learned whether they could arrest them or not (somewhat reasonable for the officer to check on the laws, however, the officer should have known them beforehand).
Those are not the actions of a professional law enforcement officer.
Hmm...given who unprofessional all of the LEOs involved were, I'm surprised that once they discovered the recorder, they didn't confiscate it or smash it. All that aside, a similar incident happened in CT.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144957
How can you not know whether or not its legal to carry, open or concealed, in the state you live in? Of all people, an officer should know this. Now, I'm not going to put all the bad light on the cops. IMO, until this was sorted out, the guy in question, should've just complied. Yes, I know, I know, his rights, blah, blah, blah, but given the seriousness of this incident, I think it'd would be better to do what they say. The more you resist, the more on edge the cops are going to be.
As for the charges the cops filed later on....I think they're bogus, and its an attempt to grasp some straws. They know they ****ed up, but ego is getting in the way, so......
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=144957
How can you not know whether or not its legal to carry, open or concealed, in the state you live in? Of all people, an officer should know this. Now, I'm not going to put all the bad light on the cops. IMO, until this was sorted out, the guy in question, should've just complied. Yes, I know, I know, his rights, blah, blah, blah, but given the seriousness of this incident, I think it'd would be better to do what they say. The more you resist, the more on edge the cops are going to be.
As for the charges the cops filed later on....I think they're bogus, and its an attempt to grasp some straws. They know they ****ed up, but ego is getting in the way, so......
