Be afraid of the Police in Philly
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,216
From: Westerly, RI
Be afraid of the Police in Philly
They don't know their own laws.
Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun - Stossel's Take Blog - FOXBusiness.com
Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun - Stossel's Take Blog - FOXBusiness.com
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.
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.
Last edited by Erik S.; May 17, 2011 at 07:05 AM.
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 207
He escalated the situation. He should have complied with the officer. Had he complied and been arrested he would have a case agianst the department and officer. The officer handled the situation terribly and should be unemployed right now though. Its a shame that there are places where a gun owner has to carry in the open and single themselves out. I can simpathize with others but I love my state and can exercise the second amendment without harrassment.
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
He escalated the situation. He should have complied with the officer. Had he complied and been arrested he would have a case agianst the department and officer. The officer handled the situation terribly and should be unemployed right now though. Its a shame that there are places where a gun owner has to carry in the open and single themselves out. I can simpathize with others but I love my state and can exercise the second amendment without harrassment.
The officer started the threat level on a level of the scale that is way, way beyond where it was supposed to be... There is no justification what-so-ever for him to start the situation off at gunpoint...
Worst case, if he's in a situation with a non-threatening, unknown person, that is openly carrying, with the gun in a holster, is to have his own gun in a "ready poistion", ie drawn, ready to use, but pointed at the ground... In that situation a trained officer can get a shot, or more, off long before the unknown can even unholster his gun...
Then escalating this to demanding to put this guy on the ground or on his knees, in cuffs, which is what the officer is aiming for is also completely unjustified in the beginning of this... At that point, Mark is completely justified to not blindly comply, and instead remain calm, offer to show credential and state that what he is doing is infact legal... But doing it without making any movement that can escalate things...
Beyond that point though, if the officer is dumb enough to escalate it, which he evidently was, then he should indeed have complied, and let the officer cuff him, and remove his weapon... At that point, while in custody, and unarmed, he's not considered a threat in any way, by any training the officer have or haven't got... And at that point, arguing is a possibility...
The officer started the escalation... Mark continued it... Bad move... they should both be fined, and the officer should be either fired, or put in a position where he isn't allowed to hold a gun as part of his work...
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
I'll bet the second or third time that tape recording gets played in a court room there will be a closed door talk where Mark is compensated in exchange for not commenting further to the press and removing the tapes from the internet. It is the police officer's professional responsibility to know the laws and manage situations properly, not cause them to begin with.
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 313
From: South Kakalaki
People should be psych tested before allowed to legally carry a gun. That whole situation was handled horribly by both the cops and the idiot with the gun....I mean really....who's first reaction to a cop pointing a gun at them is "ahem, excuse me mister officer, why oh why are you pointing your gun at me, that is sooo totally not right."
I don't care who you are, if an officer of the law points a gun at you (legally or illegally) you should be just a little afraid. If you're not, something is mentally wrong with you.
I don't care who you are, if an officer of the law points a gun at you (legally or illegally) you should be just a little afraid. If you're not, something is mentally wrong with you.
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,090
From: Big Lick
Bluesuperhawk83 is exactly correct. The guy was doing nothing wrong, but by not complying with the officer's orders, he created the situation. He should have stated that he had the carry license and done exactly what the cop told him to go in getting down.
Moderator
MotoGP
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,708
He escalated the situation. He should have complied with the officer. Had he complied and been arrested he would have a case agianst the department and officer. The officer handled the situation terribly and should be unemployed right now though. Its a shame that there are places where a gun owner has to carry in the open and single themselves out. I can simpathize with others but I love my state and can exercise the second amendment without harrassment.
Actually the COP escalated the situation immediately by having his firearm drawn and pointed for absolutely no reason... what an idiot.
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 207
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 201
Personally, I think the officer was completely within his scope to be the way he was. Mr Fiorino escalated the situation for not complying with the officer. We don't know what brought this on. Someone may have called and said "there is a man carrying a gun! COME QUICK!."
Bottom line, if you are told to do something by a LEO, you do it. If you have an open carry permit, and you are asked to get on you knees while the LEO verifies that you have an open carry permit, then thats the price you pay for having you gun on your hip.
The officer needs control of the situation at all times. Not just for his safety, but for the safety of the people around him in public. He should be allowed to get that safety with any reasonable means, even if it includes pulling his weapon and holding someone at gun point.
Why was this guy recording the sound of himself walking? Because he knew that the LEO would be alarmed that he was carrying a weapon. And he had more than likely decided to act in an inappropriate manner like this.
*DISCLAIMER*
I am not for a police state. I am for an officer being respected, and complying with his requests so I can be on my way in a timeley manner.
Bottom line, if you are told to do something by a LEO, you do it. If you have an open carry permit, and you are asked to get on you knees while the LEO verifies that you have an open carry permit, then thats the price you pay for having you gun on your hip.
The officer needs control of the situation at all times. Not just for his safety, but for the safety of the people around him in public. He should be allowed to get that safety with any reasonable means, even if it includes pulling his weapon and holding someone at gun point.
Why was this guy recording the sound of himself walking? Because he knew that the LEO would be alarmed that he was carrying a weapon. And he had more than likely decided to act in an inappropriate manner like this.
*DISCLAIMER*
I am not for a police state. I am for an officer being respected, and complying with his requests so I can be on my way in a timeley manner.
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 201
Guy has a gun, I don't know who he is. I pull mine out, and have it at the ready so I have control over the situation, because I am in a public area with lots of people around, and I don't know if thie guy with the gun is crazy and going to start shooting the place up when I ask him about it. The LEO was perfectly justified to have his out and at the ready, because it's not common the see someone carry a gun on their hip unless they have a badge on their chest or next to their gun.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,216
From: Westerly, RI
He escalated the situation. He should have complied with the officer. Had he complied and been arrested he would have a case agianst the department and officer. The officer handled the situation terribly and should be unemployed right now though. Its a shame that there are places where a gun owner has to carry in the open and single themselves out. I can simpathize with others but I love my state and can exercise the second amendment without harrassment.
Apparently, in Philly, in accordance with Directive 137, he is supposed to be able to exercise his 2nd Ammendment in an open fashion without harrassment. The LAW ENFORCEMENT officer, was not aware of this.
This appears to be a breach of the 4th Ammendment:
The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a search and seizure is reasonable if it is based on probable cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual.
Anyhow, it's interesting reading.
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
Guy has a gun, I don't know who he is. I pull mine out, and have it at the ready so I have control over the situation, because I am in a public area with lots of people around, and I don't know if thie guy with the gun is crazy and going to start shooting the place up when I ask him about it. The LEO was perfectly justified to have his out and at the ready, because it's not common the see someone carry a gun on their hip unless they have a badge on their chest or next to their gun.
"ready position" means drawn, pointed at the floor in front of yourself, ready to aim and open fire long before the unknown kan do the same... That's justified in a situation with an armed unknown... Pointed at someone is NOT justified, and is in fact escalating the situation unneccesarily... It also considered bad manners...
We will likely never know the truth of it though...
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,934
From: altoona, pa
there are some cops with big egos and small brains, and that's why you need to be submissive when you deal with such. Carrying a recorder and turning it on shows that he is expecting and maybe encouraging this type of encounter. This demonstrates what happens when 2 dumb-asses meet.
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 258
From: Santa Clara, CA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If that's bad manners, I'd hate to think of what you're genuinely insulting manners are like =p
I think the officer instigated, both of them escalated and likely, the cop is going to catch the brunt of the punishment because he is supposed to be an example of a good citizen. Any smuck can carry a gun (apparently according to PA law) so long as they're legally allowed to with a permit, not any person can be a cop.
My thinking is at-least he had it where it was visible and legal, not concealed and going to be used on the cop!
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,987
From: Bisbee, AZ
In the bigger picture. Prepare your thinking for much more of this kind of abuse. Fewer and fewer rational, thinking people and more thugs and bullies going into law enforcement. Willing to do their masters bidding no matter how morally, ethically and legally wrong.
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,934
From: altoona, pa
+1 There's a whole shitload of people like this today and many of them are just intelligent enough to ignore reason, common sense, and morals in favor of protecting their own irrational thoughts that serve to realize their desired outcome. Kinda like the OJ's defense attorneys' who magnified the unimportant evidence and minimized the important facts to confuse the dumbass jurors who couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 207
Not only that you have complete idiots that somehow get a badge. Several years ago one of the cops here responded to a breaking and entering. He walked around the back of the house just as a kid was carrying a tv out the back door. He scared the cop so bad that he put a round through the TV. The kid's breast bone stopped the bullet and he didnt have any serious injuries. had the kid been carrying a toaster instead he would probably be dead now. Luckily that dumbass cop resigned as soon as the chief got to the scene. Nothing else ever really came out about it because the kid was a minor. I dont know if he got a settlement or served any time for the B&E. Moral of the story is STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO BE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
The irony in this is that OJ's (brilliant) defense attorneys were able to do what they did because the impulsive/incompetent police that first arrived at the scene didn't do their jobs correctly and caused most of the important evidence to not be admisable in court.
Moderator
MotoGP
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,708
Guy has a gun, I don't know who he is. I pull mine out, and have it at the ready so I have control over the situation, because I am in a public area with lots of people around, and I don't know if thie guy with the gun is crazy and going to start shooting the place up when I ask him about it. The LEO was perfectly justified to have his out and at the ready, because it's not common the see someone carry a gun on their hip unless they have a badge on their chest or next to their gun.
Obviously it would of been best for the cop to study local laws before hitting the beat to avoid such an incident, especially gun laws. Is this guy writing tickets for people going the speed limit as well? A badge and a uniform doesn't equal respect especially when you start out with a comment like "Hey Junior!". So much for being a professional.
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,934
From: altoona, pa
this is true, and the tactic of the defense was to maximize the significance of these errors and minimize the circumstantial and common sense evidence that make the verdict obvious to anyone with a brain. The real reason the defense was able to pull this off is that they were permitted by the prosecution to spend six figures on screening jurors to identify specific personality types who were unlikely to convict if there was a shred of evidence that was questionable, that is, people who magnify the particulars to a point where they can't see the forest for the trees. They were able to hire a company that specialized in identifying certain personality types through interviews and questionnaires. Lawyers love these kinds of people because they can exaggerate minuscule items to a point where they create enough confusion to erase their ability to look at the whole picture when arriving at their verdict.
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
The defense worked with what they were given and won. The point was, it all started with shabby police work. If they detectives did it correctly they could have put that $1m legal team out of the game.
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,090
From: Big Lick
there are some cops with big egos and small brains, and that's why you need to be submissive when you deal with such. Carrying a recorder and turning it on shows that he is expecting and maybe encouraging this type of encounter. This demonstrates what happens when 2 dumb-asses meet.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,216
From: Westerly, RI
there are some cops with big egos and small brains, and that's why you need to be submissive when you deal with such. Carrying a recorder and turning it on shows that he is expecting and maybe encouraging this type of encounter. This demonstrates what happens when 2 dumb-asses meet.
Nath, I'm going to respectfully disagree.
The incorrect actions of many LEOs and many civilians are the reason a lot of motorcyclists are now riding with video cameras rolling, in the event that something happens.
The guy in (I think) Maryland who had his camera running when the undercover cop got out with his gun at the ready, not drawn.
He was speeding, he's guilty of that, but now he has defense against a LEO who did not follow guidelines and ROE.
Perhaps this guy with the gun has had encounters before, and knows to protect himself, because the people who are enforcing the laws, are not knowledgable of the laws.
I agree with your being submissive to save your own ***. I also agree with him recording it for the same purpose, to save his own ***.
Member
Squid
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 74
From: 28° 4' 26" N / 82° 28' 18" W
Both the gun owner and the officer may be at fault for how this story unfolded, but let's consider something...
It's Frankland Avenue in Northeast Philly - NE Philly is a heavy crime area in Philadelphia. The police in that district have a daily battle with the criminal element - their awareness is hypersensitive which makes their job more difficult. The story does NOT describe how the police were summoned. Did a panic stricken caller heighten the call by exaggerating the details? Did the store manager (who may have been robbed before) call? Did someone outside the store see a "man walking into the store carrying a gun"? All of these possibilities will increase the level with which the police will respond and approach a suspect - even if the gun is holstered.
Having said that, all of these comments in this post have merit. However, there are two mitigating factors that have the highest priority here.
First, every private citizen gun owner who gets a permit to carry, and then carries in public, takes on a unique responsibility. The permit does NOT allow them any MORE rights. In fact, it creates a new dynamic. Legally carrying a gun in public creates a new responsibility and awareness with which the gun owner must be aware. The gun owner knows that carrying a firearm can make the general public nervous - that fact is greater if the gun is visibly carried. Walking into a retail establishment with a visible firearm can make anyone in the area nervous. Anyone that sees the gun will, by human nature, become keenly aware of its presence and each individual will interpret that information different from the next individual. Some will become more nervous than others. That change in the human dynamics surrounding the gun carrier has been CAUSED by the gun carrier him/herself - he/she should not be ignorant to that fact. He/she has now been uniquely categorized by each individual that sees the gun. Some individuals may seek immediate Law Enforcement aid.
Second, LEO's (law enforcement officers) must consider any gun NOT in the possession of another LEO, a potentially lethal weapon that can be used against the LEO or other private citizens. It is their duty to assess and diffuse that danger in every encounter. This is where many debates can begin on the subject of LEO training - I'm not going to debate LEO training, except that... Every private citizen, carrying a gun, has made the decision to carry FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE, not to so he/she can publicly engage in a legal debate with an LEO over their civil rights. It does NOT give the gun owner a new right to display bravado and claim a higher status than other citizens. It is within that context that many of these encounters with LEO's and gun owners go awry. The gun owner forgets about the REAL reason why they are carrying the gun and get into a "Civil Rights" frame of mind when approached by the LEO. Yes, it may be their right, but the LEO is not there to discuss that. That discussion can only be made in a court of law. It does no good to engage the officer in an argument - in fact, an argument only escalates the situation. Therefore, every permit carrying gun owner must continue to respect the law AND its officers. In the big picture, there is nothing wrong with complying with the LEO's request to "diffuse the danger" no matter how dramatic the officer may be acting. Once the officer has engaged the gun owner, the officer is in control and the gun owner should not get into a pissing contest. The momentary embarrassment or delay in the gun owners activities is far less to deal with than the possibility of a gun fight with the LEO. Not to be redundant, but the gun owner does NOT have a permit to carry so he/she can get into civil rights arguments with LEO's - the permit allows the gun owner to defend him/herself in a life threatening situation ONLY.
Every encounter like this has its unique and discreet details, but the overall story is the same...
If you carry a gun, carry with responsibility, with respect for the law and remember that you carry for personal defense only. If an officer of the law engages you, respect the officer and comply with any requests. If the officer abuses your rights, deal with it in a court of law - not on the streets.
I am not a lawyer or affiliated with any law enforcement agency or judicial office.
I am a gun owner - with a permit to carry.
It's Frankland Avenue in Northeast Philly - NE Philly is a heavy crime area in Philadelphia. The police in that district have a daily battle with the criminal element - their awareness is hypersensitive which makes their job more difficult. The story does NOT describe how the police were summoned. Did a panic stricken caller heighten the call by exaggerating the details? Did the store manager (who may have been robbed before) call? Did someone outside the store see a "man walking into the store carrying a gun"? All of these possibilities will increase the level with which the police will respond and approach a suspect - even if the gun is holstered.
Having said that, all of these comments in this post have merit. However, there are two mitigating factors that have the highest priority here.
First, every private citizen gun owner who gets a permit to carry, and then carries in public, takes on a unique responsibility. The permit does NOT allow them any MORE rights. In fact, it creates a new dynamic. Legally carrying a gun in public creates a new responsibility and awareness with which the gun owner must be aware. The gun owner knows that carrying a firearm can make the general public nervous - that fact is greater if the gun is visibly carried. Walking into a retail establishment with a visible firearm can make anyone in the area nervous. Anyone that sees the gun will, by human nature, become keenly aware of its presence and each individual will interpret that information different from the next individual. Some will become more nervous than others. That change in the human dynamics surrounding the gun carrier has been CAUSED by the gun carrier him/herself - he/she should not be ignorant to that fact. He/she has now been uniquely categorized by each individual that sees the gun. Some individuals may seek immediate Law Enforcement aid.
Second, LEO's (law enforcement officers) must consider any gun NOT in the possession of another LEO, a potentially lethal weapon that can be used against the LEO or other private citizens. It is their duty to assess and diffuse that danger in every encounter. This is where many debates can begin on the subject of LEO training - I'm not going to debate LEO training, except that... Every private citizen, carrying a gun, has made the decision to carry FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE, not to so he/she can publicly engage in a legal debate with an LEO over their civil rights. It does NOT give the gun owner a new right to display bravado and claim a higher status than other citizens. It is within that context that many of these encounters with LEO's and gun owners go awry. The gun owner forgets about the REAL reason why they are carrying the gun and get into a "Civil Rights" frame of mind when approached by the LEO. Yes, it may be their right, but the LEO is not there to discuss that. That discussion can only be made in a court of law. It does no good to engage the officer in an argument - in fact, an argument only escalates the situation. Therefore, every permit carrying gun owner must continue to respect the law AND its officers. In the big picture, there is nothing wrong with complying with the LEO's request to "diffuse the danger" no matter how dramatic the officer may be acting. Once the officer has engaged the gun owner, the officer is in control and the gun owner should not get into a pissing contest. The momentary embarrassment or delay in the gun owners activities is far less to deal with than the possibility of a gun fight with the LEO. Not to be redundant, but the gun owner does NOT have a permit to carry so he/she can get into civil rights arguments with LEO's - the permit allows the gun owner to defend him/herself in a life threatening situation ONLY.
Every encounter like this has its unique and discreet details, but the overall story is the same...
If you carry a gun, carry with responsibility, with respect for the law and remember that you carry for personal defense only. If an officer of the law engages you, respect the officer and comply with any requests. If the officer abuses your rights, deal with it in a court of law - not on the streets.
I am not a lawyer or affiliated with any law enforcement agency or judicial office.
I am a gun owner - with a permit to carry.
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,806
From: Atlanta, GA
Yes indeed, and well documented examples of this are ridiculously easy to find.
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,452
From: San Clemente, CA
Last December a 35 year old man, who was holding a hose nozzle, was shot and killed by police in Long Beach, CA.
He was sitting on the stairs in the courtyard of a friends apartment. Several cops had positioned themselves in an apartment and behind other cover. He was drunk, and waiting for his friend to get home and give him a ride. He apparently made the mistake of awaking from his semi stupor and raising the nozzle. The cops, all still under cover and none of whom identified themselves, opened fire.
I wouldn't want to be a cop, but this guy in Philly was lucky he didn't get shot by a trigger happy cop. I would have done what the cop said and straightened it out later.
He was sitting on the stairs in the courtyard of a friends apartment. Several cops had positioned themselves in an apartment and behind other cover. He was drunk, and waiting for his friend to get home and give him a ride. He apparently made the mistake of awaking from his semi stupor and raising the nozzle. The cops, all still under cover and none of whom identified themselves, opened fire.
I wouldn't want to be a cop, but this guy in Philly was lucky he didn't get shot by a trigger happy cop. I would have done what the cop said and straightened it out later.
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 199
From: s.e. Michigan
People think they can reason with police officers when they give a command, that is the dumb. If an officer has the reason to believe public safy at risk they have every right to detain a person with a gun. If they do not obey orders then it gets scary. Best to always do what they ask. If they are in the wrong, take it up with a court. At least you will not get shot. FYI police officers can put you in handcuffs at anytime for your and his safety. If you try to stop, it's failing to obey orders, not nessary arrest.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
