Philadelphia Police Threaten To Kill Open Carrier

Wow, I can’t even believe this:

“On a Sunday afternoon, a Pennsylvania resident was walking up Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia, bound for an auto parts store, and happened to be legally openly carrying a Glock pistol on his hip, under PA state law.

A passing Philadelphia Police officer saw his walking up the road, pulled over his squad car in the middle of the busy street, and drew his weapon on the man, threatening to kill him multiple times if he moved.

That is one of my worst nightmare scenarios. Gotta love the tough guy “I’m gonna kill you” confrontational attitude the officer stuck with the whole time.

Pretty funny at around 5:00 when they find the guy’s recorder.  I’m just glad they didn’t know how to turn it off.  LOL To top it all off they were all concerned it was a “set up” which made it obviously they knew they were doing something wrong.

Note: The video contains 4 parts I added to a playlist… they will play back to back.

192 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

RANDJA March 25, 2011 at 12:33 am

THE NEW GESTAPO EVERY CITIZEN IS A CRIMINAL. HOPE HE SUES AND WIN

Reply

Michael Bakowski March 25, 2011 at 12:54 am

I love how in all of these situations the police are absolute assholes and the person “Breaking the law” is as nice and respectable as possible. Like in this video how the officer takes “Sir, may we please peacefully see this through?” as Lip.

Reply

BigMo Morel March 28, 2011 at 09:36 pm

Many cops are like privates with a duty belt. They are on a power fantasy. Most of them were probably bullied in school.

Reply

PFULMTL March 25, 2011 at 01:24 am

“I DON”T KNOW WHO YOU ARE!”

Reply

Michael Bakowski March 25, 2011 at 01:32 am

Lmao

HE’S GOT A GUN!

HE’S HAS HIS HANDS IN THE AIR AND IS ON HIS KNEES AND IS COOPERATING AND HE IS WILLING TO HAVE ME DISARM HIM AND HE SEEMS BE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SITUATION AND TALK TO ME BUT I DON’T KNOW HIM!

Stranger Danger: Even Police follow it.

Reply

PFULMTL March 25, 2011 at 03:36 am

THERES TOO MANY CARS IN THE AREA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I DON’T KNOW WHO YOU ARE! OPEN CARRY, WHAT DOES IT MEAN!

I’ve heard Philly (my hometown where I was born) isn’t a safe place anymore. What I think is that if this was a black person obeying the law just trying to protect himself, they would have shot him.

Reply

Josh March 25, 2011 at 08:48 pm

I’ve heard Philly (my hometown where I was born) isn’t a safe place anymore. What I think is that if this was a black person obeying the law just trying to protect himself, they would have shot him.

That’s why I moved in with my auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.

Reply

Hightower207 March 26, 2011 at 04:00 am

LMAO!!!

Reply

M@ March 25, 2011 at 01:53 am

Watch it on YouTube, there are four parts total.

Can’t wait to see what happens in FL if Open Carry is approved… If cops already don’t like Security carrying firearms while working, just wait until the general public scum bags are doing it.

Reply

SPC Fish March 25, 2011 at 04:23 am

this cop wasnt just out of line because he stopped a lwa abiding citizen. His language was highly unacceptable. We had a cleveland PD officer suspended for saying a cuss word on his cell phone 30 seconds before a call. the dash cam starts recording 60 seconds before the sirens or lights are switched on. This PO should be suspended without pay and fined. If i were the victim i would request a written apology and force any of the officers involved to have to memorize the firearms laws.

this is incredibly unacceptable and definitely puts the whole Philly PD to shame. Even after the officer knew he was wrong he still badgered the victim to try to get him to confess to not cooperating with the police. Luckily the victim was smart enough to choose his words wisely and avoid a ridiculous charge.

A lesser informed person would very likely have ended up being jailed. Also, for your well being, watch the “flex your rights” videos on youtube to avoid being pestered into a confession or making things worse for yourself. The video clips are very helpful

Reply

Joe Citizen March 28, 2011 at 07:37 pm

How would the camera know that it was going to be activated 60 seconds before it is actually activated?

Reply

Dayid Alan March 30, 2011 at 07:43 am

It continuously caches the video all day. At any given time it keeps in it’s “short-term memory” the last 60-seconds to a few minutes. When it is activated, it dedicates the “pre-time” information that is in short-term memory to disk/tape. This is fairly standard for many dash-cams (to hold information up to 30+seconds before lights are turned on, etc).

Reply

BrokenTrace March 25, 2011 at 07:08 am

This is simply appalling! In able to enforce the law you are supposed to know it first.

Reply

L. March 25, 2011 at 07:14 am

It’s so awful it just makes me sick. It’s really time to disarm police officers.

Reply

ariggsd March 25, 2011 at 07:26 am

Hahahahaha you know this guy had to be trying to hold back the biggest smile ever, knowing that this probably just won him a fair amount of money!!!

Reply

PFULMTL March 26, 2011 at 07:36 pm

I’m sure they know who he is then hahaha.

Reply

mmasse March 25, 2011 at 07:42 am

You would think as an officer would have recognized he was not waving the pistol around or threatening people with it. This whole thing could have been resolved with out dropping the guy to the ground and drawing a bead on him. Clearly the whole IQ test thing has come back to bite that police department

Reply

TM March 25, 2011 at 08:22 am

Laws , courtesy and the truth are for the little people.
I doubt anything will come of this. The people who cry about their selfless public service are anything but, it has nothing to do with safety or service. It is power and ego.

Awesome though that the police didn’t realize the recorder ran the whole time. Should come in handy when the officer perjurs himself in front of IA.

Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because ’tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him.
John Selden

No one watches the watchers.

Reply

CB March 25, 2011 at 09:22 am

I DON’T KNOW YOU…. WTF is up with these cops? I hope they get disciplined.

Reply

Casey March 25, 2011 at 09:35 am

hopefully, several police officers will be out of a job.

Reply

Toadstone March 25, 2011 at 10:04 am

Here’s a post on the Pennsylvania Firearm Owner’s Association forum by the guy who got stopped, in case you want to know what happened next:

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/93236-had-sit-down-chief-lansdale-police.html

Reply

Steve March 25, 2011 at 11:11 am

Un-frigging believable!

Reply

Mikey D March 25, 2011 at 11:34 am

This guy keeps going out looking for a fight all the time. One of these days he is going to get his LTCF yanked based on the character clause or his life cut short. He is fueled by a bunch of knuckleheads on a website. What kinda idiot walks around OC all the time but NEVER goes to the range ? He wants the ability to protect himself , but never shoots the damn gun. He is a POSER, A WANNABE
It is amazing the shit this goof will post all over the web and thinks no one can figure it out.

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-13&docketNumber=CR-0000104-05

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-13&docketNumber=NT-0000667-05

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?district=MDJ-38-1-28&docketNumber=NT-0000501-09

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?docketNumber=CP-46-SA-0000941-2009

There is a bunch of traffic also . A real winner here folks !!!!

http://vipergts.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=96#/d4pu5d

http://vipergts.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=120#/d3l9ns (never served a day in his life)

http://vipergts.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=120#/d3kx4y ( yet another lie, never made it in due to bad psych eval) or says he was discharged in boot for some sort of brain issue…. brain issue = mental

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C7ksNjmMcygJ:vipergts.deviantart.com/%3Foffset%3D130+mark+fiorino+viper+gts+army&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com ( comments are priceless )

Reply

CJ March 25, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Ya know, I don’t care if he never goes to the range. His right to carry is the same as mine… I just choose to practice. A right is a right, God given and protected (not granted) by our Constitution (yea, the document that our government has walked on for the past 20 or so years) for all humans. In fact, I wish there were more people looking for the fight against Tyranny, power trips, and other such coming from those who are supposed to be serving the public good. We the people in general are failing to keep our government and our police in check, and this guy is one of the few who are doing something about it.

So again, I don’t care if you think this guy is a poser looking for a fight… he’s fighting a good fight in my view and he is doing it legally.

Reply

Mark March 25, 2011 at 12:26 pm

I agree with CJ

Reply

hiro March 25, 2011 at 01:53 pm

So you are saying that just because a guy is an ass hat (that has not done anything illegal) means that the government can abuse his rights and be excused for their ignorance of the laws they’re supposed to follow and enforce?

Reply

Toadstone March 25, 2011 at 03:55 pm

When we listen to the audio tracks, we don’t know him any more than the police officer with the gun drawn does. He could be a dirtbag, or he could be a saint – it really doesn’t matter. The fact is, he had a weapon pointed at him because his local PD did not know what the law is. They had no right to disarm or detain him.

Reply

Bryan S March 25, 2011 at 09:58 pm

So you just posted a bunch of lings to a dismissed theft charge (one could assume it was dismissed because a crime was not committed) and a couple cases of being drunk in public. And then some links to a younge guys drama filled deviant art site. Imagine that.. artist being dramatic. You sure oare the investigator and got him now!

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Reply

Mr. Peabody March 27, 2011 at 01:11 am

Mike D…….’D’ as in Docherty, the same as the unifomed Sargeant Docherty?

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 07:26 pm

More like Mike D as in Dickhead.

Reply

032125 March 28, 2011 at 06:14 am

You posted this exact link on another forum, under the name (Jason Bourne) trying to discredit Mark Fiorino. You then follow up with a comment from the oh-so-subtly named “Jason B” to defend your original post.

You are trolling every forum that mentions the case and posting this crap to discredit Mark, as though that justifies your obscene behavior. I’m pretty sure you used public resources to wage your off-duty war against Mark, which is unethical at best. I think it’s safe to say that you are indeed the cop in the audio.

Is this the Protecting part or the Serving part of your job? Or is it “To Protect and Serve (Ourselves)”?

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 06:45 am

That’s why it’s called “Deserve and Collect.”

Reply

Dr. Evil March 28, 2011 at 10:34 pm

Mike FYI mark does go to the range! He is a good shot and have seen it first hand. Two shot group at 100 yards two rounds touching from a cold bore, not to bad considering he never shot a .308 rifle. The third shot he put in the chest of the target. While he was at the range shooting some multiple targets one of the local, non Gestapo Police officers stopped by, saw mark shooting pistol and asked if he was a cop. As for his military service he was given a medical discharge. I have no doubt he would have made it through boot camp. He had to have an operation on the base of his brain. He has a nice scar to prove it! Say what you want its easy to judge some one over the net! Mark is standing up for his rights as well as yours. One day you may have no rights left because you did not stand up when you should have!

Reply

Ed March 25, 2011 at 12:27 pm

If your going to be an officer of the law, at least know the laws and behave professionally

Reply

James March 25, 2011 at 01:20 pm

Just because something is legal to do, it does not make it a good idea. I agree that the police were way out of line, and hopefully someone gets fired or taken to court over this, but I believe that the whole open carry movement is really hurting gun owners more than it helps. It makes normal gun owners look like crazies.

One of these days, somebody is going to get killed because of one of these publicity stunts. What is the point? If you want to carry a gun, you can get a concealed license, which doesn’t scare the hell out of everyone around you. It isn’t about self defense, it is all about provoking a reaction from people.

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 25, 2011 at 01:26 pm

Just because something is legal to do, it does not make it a good idea.

It really bothers me when people say that. Honestly when did the United States become a place where we have to walk on eggshells around one another, and be careful of what we do (within the law) in order to not “upset” others.

The best argument i’ve seen yet, in support of my point is from David Alan on my “taking the ak-47 out for a stroll open carry style” post:

Everytime I see this type of thing, I can’t help but think of the old fun of replacing the word “gun” (since, after-all, it’s just another inanimate object without a mind of its own) with something else:

“You should stop carrying around that Christian cross pendant on your necklace.”
“What? Excuse me?”
“Yeah, it makes some people uncomfortable, so you should forgo your own rights in order to keep their minds at peace.”
“Why don’t they educate themselves and realize that it’s not going to hurt them?”
“Well, it’s just in general these people don’t know much about Christianity, so we’d prefer if you just practiced your rights in a different manner than going around scaring people.”

Reply

johnnyreb March 25, 2011 at 03:07 pm

No where on a Pennsylvania License To Carry a Firearm does it mention that it has to be concealed …

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 09:42 pm

Paranoia is not an excuse for tyranny.

If seeing someone carry a gun scares “the hell out of you”, then you might want to seek professional help for your mental disorder.

In other words: Does your reasoning really work? Should protesters be jailed for legally protesting just because it scares people? In a nation of laws, feelings are irrelevant. Fact and action are what determines legal culpability not what someone “Feels” about what you do.

Reply

Grudge March 25, 2011 at 02:09 pm

I don’t understand how its ok to conceal a weapon and carry it, but not have it not concealed?

Wouldn’t it be better to know that the person has a gun rather than not?

Then again when has logic ever been a part of enforcing the law?

Reply

Joe Mama March 25, 2011 at 03:23 pm

Sounds like cops having roid-rage. Can’t wait ’till they retire and grow tits.

Reply

MJM March 25, 2011 at 03:58 pm

Bad violation of a citizen’s constitutional–and statutory–right. Good lawsuit.

Reply

Steve March 25, 2011 at 04:54 pm

I think if was going to open carry in this day and age(can’t in Texas) I would carry the recording device too. Recording an encounter is a very powerful tool, especially when that encounter is with any “authority” figure. If you listen that cop changed the story around so quickly he practically reversed the roles in that encounter.

I turn on my video camera on my iphone whenever I go through the TSA checkpoints in the airport for the same reason that guy carries a gun. I hope I never have to use the recording, but if I do I’ll be glad I had it.

Reply

Ratster March 25, 2011 at 05:47 pm

“Some” cops are just morons.

Reply

Josh G March 25, 2011 at 06:02 pm

Pretty disgusting conduct on behalf of the “peace” officers there to serve us. I’m NOT a fan of cops that use intimidation, bullying, and stupidity in their everyday jobs. ONE incident such as this and they should be working security for Wal*Mart.

Reply

Priest (adam.skidmore@us.army.mil) March 25, 2011 at 06:21 pm

so, I can’t help but think that there is only two situations to an armed confrontation: Kill them, or do what they say. Obviously killing an officer is out of the question, so why didn’t recorder dude just say “yes, sir” and do exactly what is said? A cop tells you to get down and you do, it makes him look bad later. If he tells you to get down and you don’t, well, you are breaking the law, right? Instant criminal. Not saying thats right or wrong, but the law is just that.

I don’t understand why recorder-dude felt it was so wrong to stay standing. I know all cops should be polite paragons of integrity and justice, but sometimes you gotta err on the side of caution. Cop saw a gun, and used proper escalation of force (for the army, anyway, not sure what police procedure is), took it one step up, and drew his, and he did his damnedest to keep it from going any further, explaining exactly what the next step was.

no offense, guys, really, but what exactly am I missing that you all get? Why do you all think that the civilian was right in this?

Reply

jpcmt March 25, 2011 at 06:36 pm

1) Cop should know the law, and respond properly
2) Be professional, especially since subject didn’t threaten, brandish, or respond to provocative language from the cop.
3) Subject had every right to question his treatment..sadly the treatment was life/death for the unlearned cop
4) Yes, he should have complied with unjust commands for his own safety, not because it was lawful.

Reply

Priest (adam.skidmore@us.army.mil) March 25, 2011 at 06:44 pm

1 agreed.
2 agreed.
3 my dad always told me to “never argue with a gun.”
4 also agreed.

but I do think you have to comply with unlawful demands, or find an alternative. I just can’t think of any alternative other than shoot, die, or get your face planted in the concrete by an enthusiastic officer.

Your “officer not in danger” comment…he was one step away from being in danger. recorder dude had a gun, right? all he had to do was pull it to act crazy. If you are in a confrontation, you have to go one tiny step past what they do. They talk, you talk, they pull a knife from ten feet away, you put your hand on your taser, they have a gun, you draw yours.

I carry myself, and I would hate to lose because of something that I don’t know yet.

Reply

chris March 25, 2011 at 09:31 pm

ok army dude,
I hope you are a POG because you seem to misunderstand escalation of force. If you are going to escalate than there has to be a base line. Recorder-dude was presenting 0 danger to anyone smarter than a dog who is scared of the vacuum cleaner. Saying what the cop did was ok would be like saying anyone who saw a cop with a gun on his belt was ok to draw on that cop.

Reply

032125 March 28, 2011 at 06:19 am

POG is an idiotic and offensive term. Use it if you must, but know that it disparages a lot of soldiers who go into harm’s way just as much as infantrymen, who like to pretend that they are the only meat eaters in the world. Dick move.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 06:47 am

I don’t find it offensive in the least (of course I wouldn’t, I was an 03 ;)

And it’s not POG, It’s Pogue.

Reply

dave March 28, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Bryan S March 25, 2011 at 09:51 pm

Cop saw a gun, and drew on him. They saw a gun, sitting in a holster, and took action to threaten a man’s life by not only pointing a weapon at him, but by then disarmin and handling a loaded weapon, whihc they may or may not be famliliar with, outside of it’s holster.

Not safe for anyone around, including the officers. But an accident for them gets a paid vacation and a light workload. An accident for anyone else, years in jail and hefty fines, and no more rights.

And no matter what, the guy in the tape was not committing a crime! He was walking down a street, with less fabric covering a firearm than the officer would prefer.

Reply

Ron Jones March 26, 2011 at 02:43 pm

The Citizen was right because it *is his right* to be walking, armed, down the street. Furthermore, anyone who suggests it is right (or even correct) to comply with unjust and unlawful demands, is actively *advocating* usurpation of your rights by a tyrannical, out-of-control, nationalist government.

It’s been years since I left the Marine Corps. But, back in the day, it was considered a point of honor that one does not follow an unlawful order. And as Washington said “when we took up the soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”

In this day and age, peace officers have become federalized “law enforcement officers” (“enforcement” being the operative word); most of whom aspire to ‘the swat team,’ or (in smaller towns) look forward to ‘swat call.’ …Yet, there is a significant percentage of the population who, lemming-like, still think they are “heroes in blue.”

I’ve had enough of “deserve and collect.” Even IF the police had an obligation to protect the citizenry (which, by supreme court ruling, they do not), It’s MY responsibility to protect myself, my family, and my property. No one else’s.

For my part. Erring on the side of caution is a good thing. That’s why a policeman should be held to the gun laws passed for the Citizens of that state (i.e. if the Citizen cannot own or carry it, then the police cannot own or carry it). And NO civilian employee of the federal government should be armed. Period.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 07:37 pm

Pennsylvania is an “open carry” state for firearms. That means that there is a presumption that carrying a loaded handgun in an exposed holster, for instance, is legal unless specifically prohibited by statute. Open carry of handgun while on foot does not require a license unless such person is in a City of First Class (18 Pa C.S. § 6108) or in areas of declared emergency. On the other hand, concealed carry of a handgun out in public, or any carrying of a handgun in any vehicle, is generally illegal without governmental authority (such as a license to carry firearms or a police commission, see RCW 18 Pa C.S. s. 6106(b) and 6109(a) for more information on those exceptions).

It is a felony crime to possess or carry any firearm (concealed or in the open) by convicted felons and convicted domestic violence offenders (see 18 Pa C.S. § 6105) and minors (see 18 Pa C.S. §6110.1) In addition to that, below are the portions of the selected laws that specifically illegalize the carrying of firearms. Underlines are added for emphasis. In order to save space, several large portions of the laws were not included; therefor, officers should refer to the complete Code and be familiar with the details of each. All sections are in chapter 18 unless otherwise noted.

Unless there is an actual possibility of threat against an officer or others (something besides the open carrying), taking someone’s firearm and handling it should be taken only under dire circumstances. Due to unfamiliarity with the differing forms of actions on firearms, there is a possibility of accidental discharge.

Unless there is a direct danger or threat, the appropriate reaction to open carry in vehicles, in a declared emergency, or in a city of First Class is to ask for a carry license. Any form of felony stop procedure for open carry by itself is unwarranted. – http://tinyurl.com/346wwr Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997)

Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. The significance of this is borne in §5301.

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

ADVISORY NOTE: This advisory in its entirety serves as notice that open carry is lawful in Pennsylvania, and it is a right that is protected by state law, and by Article 1, Section 21 of the state constitution. Unless there is actual illegal conduct being committed, mistreatment by law enforcement officers of those who are lawfully open carrying may be subject to second degree misdemeanor charges. If you have a personal opinion against open carry by private civilians, there is no reason to share that opinion or belief with such a person that you are making contact with, as it is unprofessional. If a person is open carrying on foot, and unless such person is known to you for certain to not be allowed to possess firearms per §6105 or §6110.1, or is violating §912/§913, there is no reason for anything other than voluntary contact with said person, and even then must exercise their judgement to make said contact. If a person is doing so in a vehicle, or another time or place that requires a license or a statutory exemption, contact may be made specifically to ascertain if such person is exempted per §6106(b) or §6109. If they are determined to be licensed or exempted, the officer must allow the person to continue without delay. See: Commonwealth v. Hawkins.

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 09:50 pm

I think the civilian was right precisely because he wasn’t in the military.

A subject should obey his betters, and those his betters have delegated their powers to. A citizen in a free country, a “Free Man” should only obey the law. When the police act to enforce the law, it is the LAW that you obey, not the police. When the police violate the law, they are criminals.

The cop “Saw a gun”. So what? “Saw a gun” is not probable cause, nor was it against the law. If you had worded it thus: “The Cop saw an obviously illegal firearm” then you’d have a point, but your statement leaves the cop not a leg to stand on.

Consider if you rewrote it thus: “The cop saw a protest sign”. Would it then be appropriate for the police officer to stop the citizen carrying said sign, under the fear that the person was enroute to an illegal protest? There are those who have argued that the Police Officer was in the right because the man MIGHT have been breaking the law, or MIGHT have been planning to break the law. But neither is sufficient in a free country to justify a stop. Only a reasoned belief that one has probable cause justifies a stop.

Reply

jpcmt March 25, 2011 at 06:21 pm

He wasn’t cooperating? If I’m not mistaken, you don’t have to cooperate with unlawful demands. The officer was in no danger (regardless of not knowing who he was) so no drawn gun was necessary. Not knowing who he is is not cause to threaten a subject..unless Philly law has some crazy law that says to throw down on unknown persons. This kid should go to town on these bums and be the worthy test case to bring education to these departments as I and other Californian gun-rights activists have done in our backwards state…where we can now open carry in most of the 58 counties who all know open carry is legal!

Reply

farmboy7.62 March 25, 2011 at 06:50 pm

I have never met a cop I couldn’t outshoot. Most of the cops I know have a poor understanding of the law as well as an extremely poor understanding of firearms in general.

Reply

JaneS. March 25, 2011 at 07:56 pm

Typical pussy cops….

Reply

supersoaker March 25, 2011 at 10:09 pm

Saw some cops-in-training shooting at the range the other day…

It was horrible. Worst handgun shooting I’ve seen in a while. Wouldn’t want any cop-scum pointing a gun at me.

Reply

CJ March 28, 2011 at 07:36 am

So what you are saying is that the safest place to be is where those guys were aiming? :)

Reply

Cowboy March 26, 2011 at 09:51 am

Why being a bad cop isnt a good thing…because they dont get the best training….if he actually knew the law he would have just gone up to the man and been calm…..sergeant = an older officer who probably wasn’t informed on what he was doing..

Reply

Bryan S March 26, 2011 at 10:55 am

Doesnt explain all the other officers who had the same attitude and mis-information.

Reply

MoFoJoe March 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm

I can see The JackBoot’s point….because most hommies and gang banger open carry *rolling eyes*

Reply

cashman March 27, 2011 at 12:02 am

if that asshole was like the dirtbag who shot Dallas Greens 9 year old grandaughter and a congresswoman;
Too bad a cop like this didn’t get to him first. Cop has to make a judgment call about who is and who is not a nutjob. why don’t you try that in your daily jobs.

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 27, 2011 at 12:06 am

good point… Even if an old lady has a suspicious bulge under her jacket it’s best not to be too cautious, A good cop would tell her he’s going to “fucking kill her”, make her get down on the ground, call for backup, etc.. Get real cashman. If you don’t like the idea of freedom, there is lots of room for you overseas.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 28, 2011 at 07:43 pm

If I heard the recording right, the threat was made AFTER this Bozo refused to comply with clear orders… with FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Reply

David March 28, 2011 at 07:51 pm

That works both ways Phil regardless of who what where when or why…

Reply

Bryan S March 28, 2011 at 08:09 pm

So you comply with anyone who randomly yells “get your hands in the air” ? I at least make an effort to see what is happening, and it is reasonable, if you are doing nothing illegal, to ask an officer why you are being threatened.

in this case, illegally threatened.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 28, 2011 at 08:16 pm

Bryan, what part of this don’t you understand…. this guy wasn’t ordered to get his hand in the air by ANYONE, he was ordered to get his hands in the air by a sworn, uniform wearing, marked car drive PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICER… if you are not doing anything wrong, as you say, then why not comply with the Officer and try to clear up the situation. Obviously this guy didn’t want to clear up a situation, he wanted to CREATE a situation.

For the record, I am a retired 29 year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department… who has had a partner shot, and who has been shot at and stabbed in my career. This guy is really lucky to still be standing.

Reply

Bryan S March 28, 2011 at 08:29 pm

I dont know a sworn officer of the law by voice, or through the back of my head.

“this guy wasn’t ordered to get his hand in the air by ANYONE, he was ordered to get his hands in the air by a sworn, uniform wearing, marked car drive PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICER…” who was clearly on the wrong side of the law in this event.

Do you also condone the actions and words of the other officers? Sounds to me like they are mad that he is LEGALLY recording the incident, and try to destroy evidence by breaking the recorder. they also sound like the guys I see on cops… but they sound like the ones usually being arrested. Its a foul mouthed power filled tirade, and has no business there or anywhere.

I bet you saw a lot of bad things in your time, but that doesnt make what these officers did any more legal or right. If they had been operating in accordance with the law, do you think you and your fellow former officers and current officers would be needing to do damage control on the internet?

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 12:26 am

Did he ask permission to “record” the conversation, sound to me like he was treading all over “wiretap” laws… I guess you would feel the same way if the Officers had recorded what he said without his consent.

Reply

Lou March 29, 2011 at 07:20 am

Another law you know nothing about. This is why people dislike cops. The “Law” is what you say it is.

Public servants in the performance of their duties have NO expectation of privacy or non-interception. PA Supreme Court says so.

Reply

Freedom May 1, 2011 at 02:08 pm

When you are recording public officials who are your employees, it is not wiretapping, it’s not a crime. It’s called the First Amendment. Just because you are ignorant to your rights to report on what the government is doing doesn’t automatically throw everyones rights out the window. Freedom of the press is an individual right. These rights are already endowed to us by our creator, not given to us by governments. The rights are secured in a document called the constitution which is the highest law of the land set for the government to follow. These rights such as freedom of speech and of the press are individual rights and the government was told they may not infringe upon these rights, they were secured as to make sure we the people have a way to keep tabs on the government. The only reason a government would try to tread on those rights is to hide something and such attempts to tread on our rights is an attempt to overthrow our government. Think about that. It’s an attempt to overthrow the government, a government laid out in our constitution and rules set for them to follow becuase the are our servants. If they don’t like the rules set for them, breaking those rules is overthrowing our form of government. An act that is tantamount to levying war against us, which is treason.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 07:55 pm

And Sgt Doughery will be lucky to keep his job & his pension. If you enforce the laws, know the laws.

Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. The significance of this is borne in §5301.

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm

When some arrogant, heavily armed thug in a dark suit barks orders, yells obscenities at you, and threatens to kill you… the fact that he’s carrying a badge does not make him right… or his potential kill a righteous one.

Next thing you know, killer cops everywhere will claim in outrage “Criminals aren’t the only ones who wear masks!” And then… I won’t be able to tell the cops from the crooks.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 12:28 am

Sounds to me like someone has had prior contacts with the Law… right away the Police are wrong, no matter what!!!

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Clear orders, but not necessarily legal.

See my post about the difference between subjects and citizens of a free country.

Reply

Ron Jones March 27, 2011 at 12:08 am

Are you sure you want to play the “I put my life on the line every day” card?… That dog don’t hunt.

It’s a free market. If you want to become a Peace Officer, you should know the risks (same with congresspersons). But you should never forget that you are a servant of the public that pays your salary.

And by the way, every day, and twice on Sunday, I would prefer that the Civilian Citizen got to Jared whats-his-name first… before any cop does. That way, the shooter is down, but armed bystanders are not harassed and intimidated by over-amped egomaniacs with a state-issued magic talisman.

Reply

032125 March 28, 2011 at 06:22 am

You sound almost as articulate as the “peace officer” waving his pistol around in the audio. I gather that a lot of folks on this blog have walked a beat (myself included), yet do not condone this outrageous abuse of authority.

Reply

Gypsy March 27, 2011 at 12:11 am

If the pheasant citizen was also carrying a box of donuts the cop would of never noticed the sidearm….aiiight

Reply

cashman March 27, 2011 at 12:15 am

20.What do I do if someone calls the police on me for open carrying?

——————————————————————————–

1.Is open carry legal in PA?
Answer: Yes, with some restrictions.

Anyone whom can legally own a firearm in the commonwealth can openly carry, on foot, with the EXCEPTION of court facilities, federal buildings, motor vehicles and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)

Reply

Bryan S March 27, 2011 at 09:12 am

Nice to see you only read parts of the facts.

If the man in question was committing a crime, then why did he get let go afterward?

Why?

Because every officer there was WRONG. Wrong in their assumptions, wrong in their knowledge of the law, and wrong in their responses and actions.

WRONG.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:13 pm

Yes, that is the law.

All a law enforcement officer is allowed to do is request their LTCF, to verify that they are not commiting a VUFA.

I know the Philadlephia police department does not train their officers correctly on this matter.

In PPD internal documents thet refer to a License to Carry Firearms as a “Concealed Carry Firearms License”. It is not a conceaeld carry license, and the law does not mandate anywhere in the Commmonweatlh that the firearm must be carried concealed.

In PPD internal documents the stated policy regarding a stop of a citizen openly carrying a firearm to investigate a Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA) includes the guidance, “Immediately seize any firearms for officer safety druing the stop and unload the firearms if possible, but only if it can be done safely.”

I think the State Attorney General and Supreme Court may have something to say about searching and seizing when no crime is being committed.

Reply

cashman March 27, 2011 at 12:21 am
Ron Jones March 27, 2011 at 12:27 am

# Is open carry legal in PA?
Answer: Yes, with some restrictions.

Anyone whom can legally own a firearm in the commonwealth can openly carry, on foot, with the exception of court facilities, federal buildings, motor vehicles and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)

Those person possessing a valid License to Carry Firearms are also permitted to carry openly (or concealed) while in a vehicle and in cities of the first class.

# Do I need a permit to open carry in PA?
A PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) is needed to open carry in a vehicle and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)

A LTCF is not needed for open carry on foot in the rest of the commonwealth save for prohibited areas.

# Can I be charged with “brandishing” or “disturbing the peace” if I open carry in PA?
Short answer: Yes, you could be charged with a number of violations by an unknowing LEO. BUT, the charges would not be applicable, per the statutes, for merely open carrying. Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 clearly states that open carry, in and of itself, lacking any actual threatening or illegal behavior on the part of the person open carrying, is not grounds for a “stop and ID” by police. As such, open carry can not be anything warranting a “stop and ID” or greater reaction such as detainment or arrest.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 12:33 am

What you fail to recognize, or just want to plain ignore, 1st Class Cities in the Commonwealth can and usually do, have Ordinances MORE RESTRICTIVE than the state law…

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:16 pm

This incident already has triggered (pun intended) draft legislation to make a even playing field in Pennsylvania for open carry.

Thanks you Sgt. Dougherty.

Reply

Anina April 7, 2011 at 10:58 am

Philadelphia (and all other municipalities, counties and townships in Pennsylvania) is preempted by state law from enacting or enforcing any ordinance more restrictive than that which exists in the state’s Uniform Firearms Act.

So it is not true that ‘first class cities in the Commonwealth can’ have ordinances more restrictive than state law. It is, in fact, illegal for them to have such ordinances.

Reply

cashman March 27, 2011 at 01:22 am

This is directly from PA Uniform Firearms Act;(June 13, 1995, 1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1024, No.17, eff. 120 days)

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

1.such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
2.such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

§ 6109. Licenses.

a.Purpose of license. — A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth.
b.Place of application. — An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff for a license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth. If the applicant is a resident of this Commonwealth, he shall make application with the sheriff of the county in which he resides or, if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city.

Reply

Joe March 27, 2011 at 08:21 am

None of this nonsense would be necessary if everybody understood the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed…”

Reply

Bryan S March 27, 2011 at 09:10 am

PA has a stronger version…

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Reply

Josh March 27, 2011 at 05:09 pm

There’s a certain amount of ambiguity in that isn’t there? What was he defending himself against? That looks like it could easily be interpreted to mean that if someone is breaking into your house and trying to attack you, you have the right to bear arms against them, in defense of yourself. But of course these things are written with a certain amount of ambiguity to allow them to be interpreted later as society changes. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights certainly was.

If these passages are to be interpreted as meaning that you are allowed to carry a firearm no matter what, how come we never see anybody challenging bans on carrying them into schools, or into courthouse, or federal buildings, maybe onto airplanes, etc. If you and Joe believe that the laws clearly state that there is an absolute right to carry a firearm, and any laws or rules to the contrary are a violation of your rights, I think you guys should spearhead the effort to attempt to walk into federal buildings with a firearm, or carry one on an airplane.

*This comment is not really related to the incident that took place here, but is a response to the comments suggesting that the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the quoted section of what I assume is the Pennsylvania Constitution, or its bill of rights, can only be interpreted as meaning that you have an unfettered right to carry a gun anywhere or at any time, and any restrictions are a violation of your rights.

Reply

Joe March 28, 2011 at 06:06 am

One of the great issues we struggle with in this country is whether the Bill of Rights is an inviolate document, or is subject to interpretation.

I feel that the Founding Fathers’ most precious gift to future generations was the care they took to craft a set of instructions that would be unambiguous, despite the societal changes that they well knew would occur.

Those who view the document as malleable seem to always be the same people who feel that the rights of ‘society’ supersede the rights of the individuals that make up that society. This of course leaves open the chance that the meaning of the document will be lost as it is modified to ‘fit’ the will of whomever wields it.

My opinion (one mostly shared by the Supreme Court of this land (thank God…) is that the Bill of Rights outlines a set of absolute restrictions against society (government) interfering with the rights of the individual. Most recently, Heller vs. DC confirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the individual (not ‘grant’ those rights, but ‘protect’ them,) and McDonald vs. Chicago affirmed that States and Municipalities are subject to the same proscriptions as the Federal Government. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said:

“It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

Those who fear guns, and wish them taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as myself, ignore one basic fact: The good guys outnumber the bad guys by a wide margin. Restricting the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment serves only one purpose – to reduce the number of armed good guys, and shift the balance of power further to the side of evil.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 07:01 am

I think user “josh” was being a bit disingenuous. It’s almost as if he does not actually believe you have the [absolute] right to be prepared to defend yourself at all times.

As to Alito and Heller vs D.C. …In the Heller case, because it was D.C. (and only because of that), our black-robed demi-deities had decision-making authority.

When it comes to the rest of the states (the parties who entered into the federal compact, which created the mere creature of the compact, aka washington’s government), the legal absurdity known as the “incorporation doctrine” does far more harm to the cause of Liberty, than good.

In truth, the 2nd amendment applies (and should be interpreted) only to the Federal Government. Most States who have Citizens with a high regard for Liberty, have far stronger protections in place for firearms (WY & TN come to mind ;) ).

By allowing the 2nd amendment to apply to the States, we have been tricked into accepting violations of Liberty such as the blatantly unconstitutional 1934 NFA, and all subsequent infringements practiced by washington’s government.

Reply

Joe March 28, 2011 at 07:43 am

I live in Florida, so I know what living in a state that values my gun rights is like. I do feel that the 2nd Amendment should protect my right to bear arms no matter which state I happen to be in. The rights of the state do not abrogate the rights of the individual – any more than the rights of the federal government abrogate them. Example – I can keep a loaded gun in my car as I travel from state to state – that’s protected. Except in Illinois, which deems itself above federal law in this regard.

McDonald vs. Chicago was not about the federal government gaining power over the state governments. It was about protecting the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the state.

Also, please explain how the NFA act is a state’s rights issue.

Reply

dave March 28, 2011 at 11:51 pm

“I live in Vermont we do what we want”
a permit makes it a privilege not a right.
any state that requires a permit is violating the 2A.
If you don’t live in Vermont, Alaska or Arizona then it’s just degrees of infringement.

Reply

Joe April 1, 2011 at 09:59 pm

True enough, but these days, I’ll take what I can get – without having to endure Vermont or Alaska winters…wink, wink!

Reply

Anina April 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

As of McDonald v. Chicago, the SCOTUS has in fact confirmed that under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

You’re a little out of date on your SCOTUS news.

Reply

Jeff March 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

This proves that cops are criminals. It is your civic duty to kill criminals.

Reply

Josh March 27, 2011 at 04:54 pm

This proves that cops are criminals. It is your civic duty to kill criminals.

Congratulations on making the most ridiculous statement of the day, or at least, the most ridiculous statement that I’ve read anywhere today.

Of course, if you kill a cop, or anyone else for that matter, simply because you consider them a criminal, that makes you a very serious criminal. By your logic, it is someone’s civic duty to then kill you. Then, of course, it’s someone’s duty to kill them, and on and on, and the cycle never ends.

Of course, your basic premise is wrong because misunderstanding of what “civic duty” is. A civic duty is an obligation to society that is enforceable by law. Examples would be paying taxes, obeying the laws, serving on jury duty when called, serving as a witness when subpoenaed, serving in the military if drafted (or in a country with mandatory military service), etc. Obviously, there’s no legally enforceable obligation to kill a criminal, EVEN IF you’re witnessing him commit violent crime.

Reply

Ron Jones March 27, 2011 at 05:53 pm

While I, of course, disagree with poster “jeff” on civic duty. I suspect he was using hyperbole [badly] to make a point. What it was, I do not know.

However, I do tire of the absurdity prevalent in society that Peace Officers are an elevated class of hero.

(ASIDE) almost as much as I hate hearing the word “elite” when used by the news media to describe a bunch of door-kickers who miss the military so much that they’ve pushed for the institutions of “kill teams” in their own city, so that they have an opportunity to whack-em-and-stack-em with impunity.(/ASIDE)

If a Peace Officer loses his life in the performance of his duty, it is no more tragic than when a motorist loses his life in an accident during his daily commute. While it is probable that someone pulled the trigger on the cop… if it was a criminal offense, that person should be held to account. But no more so, and no more urgently than if any other human were fired upon and killed.

By that, I mean, whether child, grandmother, mechanic, doctor, banker, politician, or thief (but I repeat myself, and again)… if someone is killed with malice aforethought, it is murder. Their lifestyle (criminal or otherwise) is irrelevant. No human life is worth more than another. To declare, or act, otherwise is to pervert the very meaning of justice.

As to “civic duty,” that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms; no matter which position one takes it is entirely subjective now that we have declared in the us that there is no absolute moral standard.

If I cannot live in a radically decentralized nation-state (about the size of Middle Tennessee) that Worships the One, True, Living God (what most folks call a Theocracy); I’ll agitate for Lysander Spooner’s position (expressed in his book, “No Treason”).

Reply

Josh March 27, 2011 at 07:27 pm

I certainly was aware of the possibility that it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (although, pretty poorly executed). But i felt compelled to address the notion that a person should kill criminals (undoubtedly there are those out there who believe that way – people believe all sorts of crazy notions). I also thought it was worth mentioning the misuse of the term “civic duty.”

If a Peace Officer loses his life in the performance of his duty, it is no more tragic than when a motorist loses his life in an accident during his daily commute.

That’s a bit much. Would you say the same thing of a fireman who loses his life trying to put out a fire in someone’s home? Or a soldier who dies in the line of duty? Not to mention that there’s a difference in losing your life in the performance of your duties and an accident on the highway. While I think there are a great many police officers out there whom I wouldn’t respect as individuals, ultimately, they’ve taken a job that requires them to put themselves in harm’s way in order to serve the public. That makes it an inherently different thing when a police officer is killed in the line of duty compared to when someone who works to serve himself dies in a car accident on the way to work.

You go on to say

if it was a criminal offense, that person should be held to account. But no more so, and no more urgently than if any other human were fired upon and killed.
By that, I mean, whether child, grandmother, mechanic, doctor, banker, politician, or thief (but I repeat myself, and again)… if someone is killed with malice aforethought, it is murder. Their lifestyle (criminal or otherwise) is irrelevant.

You need to connect your thoughts in a rational manner. First you’re equating a police officer being shot in the line of duty to an accidental death of a motorist on his way to work, and then you move to a police officer getting shot and equating that with anyone else getting shot. Even if you compare shooting to shooting, don’t you think it’s a little more tragic if a police officer, or a soldier, for that matter, gets shot while doing his duty to protect others? Isn’t it, by nature, more tragic if a firefighter dies trying to save someone than if that citizen dies in a fire in their own home? Each family may grieve the same, but there’s certainly a difference between someone dying in an accident and someone dying in a line of duty that puts them in grave danger for the purpose of protecting others.

Reply

Ron Jones March 27, 2011 at 09:12 pm

No, I said the loss of life is tragic. This is unconnected with how that loss happened.

As to my comparing shooting to shooting (the absurdity of holding the murder of a mother, a child, or a grandparent as “less” tragic than a policeman or soldier)… yes, that’s what I meant… If we open the door to such ‘feelings,’ we end up with abominations of justice like “hate crimes legislation.”

When I was young, dumb, and republican, I joined the uS Marine Corps. During 9+ years as an Infantryman, I faced risk on occasion. However, I knew the risk, and accepted it. I volunteered for it. It has always made me uncomfortable when people “thank me for my service,” as (like Maj Gen Smedly Butler said in his book “War is a Racket”) I never once “fought to keep them free.” But I did contribute to the enrichment of the elite at the expense of the rest.

Placing a priority on the life of one, over the life of another cheapens all life.

Reply

Josh March 27, 2011 at 09:38 pm

Placing a priority on the life of one, over the life of another cheapens all life.

I can see you just don’t get it. It’s not about placing a priority on someone’s life over another’s. In fact, I, as a young infantryman in the 82nd, and serving in combat, I actually placed a priority on the lives of my family, friends, former classmates, people in my hometown – everyone who wasn’t able to do what I was doing.

It’s not about placing a priority on life; it’s about recognizing a sacrifice. In your earlier comment you seemed unable or unwilling to recognize the difference in the sacrifice a police officer makes when putting himself in harm’s way because of his job and getting shot and killed in the line of duty, and equated that to the “sacrifice” that someone makes driving to work and getting in a fatal car accident.

Without a doubt, every loss of life is tragic to those affected by it. But when someone loses their life in service to their country, their community, etc. – whether it be a soldier, a police officer, a fireman, an EMT, etc. – it affects the community, and I think it can certainly be seen as a little more tragic than, say a fatal car accident, many of which occur everyday.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 12:35 am

The attack on a Police Officer isn’t just an attack on a person, it’s an attack on the ENTIRE COMMUNITY!

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 03:17 am

And you get the “Horse’s Ars” Award for the month with that statement!!! Congratulations!

Reply

David March 27, 2011 at 03:40 pm

Police are not idiots or stupid, sadly they are under trained and misinformed of laws that aren’t frequently infringed upon. If there were more open carriers the police would be encouraged to study these laws in depth to properly understand their rights as officers and our rights as citizens.

Reply

Bryan S. March 28, 2011 at 07:13 am

This is not the first time that a Philly PO has violated soemone’s rights because of legal open carry. the man being arrested in this audio had his firearm stolen by two police officers previouslybecause he has doing little more than carrying it without a bit of cloth over it.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 29, 2011 at 12:37 am

You used the word “Stolen”, by that I assume you mean that the Officers seized his weapon, placed it on a property receipt, and turned it over to the Firearms Identification Unit… that’s not a theft, that’s a LEGAL PROCESS…

Reply

Bryan S. March 29, 2011 at 07:34 am

For which the average person has to pay hundreds if not thousands in legal fees and many hours of time (which is better spent earning money) to get their processed property back. If they can.

Meanwhile, there was no reason to disarm and bring a live firearm into the mix for anyone’s “safety”, nor reason to take it anywhere.

So yes, it was stolen and held for ransom, illegally. I’m not a lawyer, but I call it as i see it.

Reply

D March 28, 2011 at 04:07 pm

I hope the next time Mr. Ferrero get shot for being a dumb fuck.

What an ass, he puts the responding officers in jeopardy because he wants to test the waters of how far he push an issue.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 04:28 pm

Young victim didn’t put *ANYONE* in jeopardy. Sgt. Pig(*)
put *EVERYONE* in jeopardy because he didn’t know the law he’s allegedly paid to “enforce” and instead (1) brandished his weapon without the slightest cause and (2) put out a panic-call for backup, thus endangering the responding cops and every person whose paths they crossed on the way.

What part of *ANY* of this demonstrates “honor” “service” or “integrity”?
(*)See below

Reply

Philly369 March 28, 2011 at 08:17 pm

He does know the law, the punk who was not complying does not. IT IS A ILLEGAL IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TO OPENLY CARRY A FIREARM!

Reply

Captain March 28, 2011 at 09:01 pm

Citation, case law, or a response that is more in depth officer?

Fact of the matter is, he was breaking no law, exercising his rights. The initial officer, and those who followed were uninformed, aggressive, and unprofessional. The Philly police force has on many occasions been brought under scrutiny for many different instances in which their attitude, and actions have been less than what should be expected of a public officer. It just so happens, that while those in defense of Mark’s actions put forth thought out responses. We have the Philly PD posting in a manner that is almost amusing in the fact that youtube comments made by 12 year old kids make more sense, with better grammar.

Reply

dave March 29, 2011 at 12:01 am

Philly369 you quote just part of the law..read posts above.
It is perfectly legal to open carry as long as you have a permit to carry.
You and your fellow officers should really bone up on the laws you are enforcing. I am not condoning OC ..especially in philly where it looks like you can get shot for doing it.I think the guy should have complied
with sgt dicks request and then did his civil rights speech.None of this is worth getting shot by a nervous cop.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 05:14 pm

Mr. Ferrero did not put the responding officers in jeopardy.

The responding officers put their own selves in jeopardy.

Some years ago, it was brought to my attention that police departments around the country were changing the intellectual and psychological profile of their ideal recruit… Now, it seems, the ideal cop is well educated, but of mediocre intelligence… and absolutely committed to following orders without question; and putting the chain of command, the department, and elected officials ahead of any concerns over little niceties like “legality,” or antiquated notions of “constitutionality.”

Unfortunately, there is still a significant portion of the population who automatically believe that a worthless metal talisman issued to a subnormal by some faceless bureaucrat, “automagically” imbues the wearer with unquestionable integrity, ethics, and the moral high ground in every dispute.

Thankfully, this attitude is slowly changing. Due largely to the writings of brave men, contributors to LewRockwell.com like William N. Grigg and others.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:24 pm

Hey D, his name is Mr. Fiorino, didn’t you copy it off his LTCF when you called it in to the radio room?

Help me understand you comment about putting officers in jeopardy?

The officers placed themselves in jeopardy of a civil rights lawsuit and loss of their jobs for not knowing the law.

On the other hand Mr. Fiorino’s firearm sat quietly in it’s holster not putting anyone in jeopardy unil an officer removed it from Mr. Fiorino’s holster.

If you like please post you badge number, so we can request some overtime for yo,u when we have our open carry rally in Philly this year.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 04:09 pm

F***ing PIGS.*

The S is going to HTF one of these days, and they’re going to need us. These Pigs* really ought to think about this fact.

This “Sgt.”-Pig* especially belongs in gen-pop with the rest of the thugs.

DIAF, Sgt. Pig*.

DD

*Peace-Officers aren’t Pigs. If you don’t know the difference, odds are you are the latter.

Reply

Jennifer March 28, 2011 at 06:15 pm

First of all when a law enforcement officer directs or instructs you to do something, you do it. If you do not do it, or if you do not do it in a timely manner, especially while armed your going to piss off the cops and rightfully so.
Yeah, the cops were being a little street thuggy with thier language, and later became assholes only after Mr. Antagonistic would not comply and would not shut up. The guy was clearly not cooperating as citizens should.

Reply

David March 28, 2011 at 07:38 pm

Sorry Jennifer but you are wrong and the officer was wrong from the beginning, any state city town that allows it’s citizens to carry firearms via permit or constitutional right has no right or authority to draw a weapon upon a citizen for exercising their right. Can an officer stop a citizen and ask too see a permit? Yes they can and they need to and should show that citizen respect as they wish to be shown to themselves, This particular officer escalated this situation before there was a situation and was treated accordingly be a citizen who’s own safety and rights were being violated.

Reply

Jennifer March 28, 2011 at 08:06 pm

David,
I appreciate your point of view but to be really honest, neither of us were there. Audio could only tell part of the story. I agree the cops mouth / language / threats were extreme, but neither of us know if thier buddy was just shot by a guy in a simmilar situation etc. I am not saying it is okay to be as extreme as these cops but I want it to be taken into consideration that the guy with the recorder was purposely egging these cops on by not complying where in my book…that is insane. And might I add I am not wrong. Any law enforcement officer who feels his life is threatended may draw his weapon as to defend himself. I think both the recording guy and the officers are equally wrong. I am stating my opinion which is right.

Reply

Dante March 28, 2011 at 10:07 pm

“And might I add I am not wrong.”

Sister, you are WAAAAAY wrong.

Reply

dave March 29, 2011 at 12:14 am

cops are trained to be threatening.depending on what “hood” your beat is in.
It’s like telling a dog to lay down.If you just say “oh what a nice doggy please lay down”.Chances are the dog is going to do what he wants.If you say it with authority the dog complies out of fear. So the same Pavlovian treatment works for the cops. I honestly think They just scream and shout out obscenities ..Because in a heated situation they have learned it works for them.
I am not condoning their behavior I am just saying It may save lives..theirs and the bad guys. I think Both parties are wrong here ..The cops for being
the idiots that they are…and this open carry fool for being an attention whore.

Reply

Philly369 March 28, 2011 at 08:11 pm

You sir are wrong. The officer does not know who that person is and in this city where shootings are an everyday occurrence, the officer has every right to draw his weapon, whether he draws it on the person carrying or just holds it at his side. Even from what was going on in this recording, the officer did everything by the book to protect himself. As for respect, it went out the window when the armed male failed to comply with the officers orders. This douche bag is making it out like he is the victim, but he in fact is in violation of the law and ordinances of the city

Reply

Bryan S March 28, 2011 at 08:16 pm

If doing it by the book, which is the law, then he would know that he has no right to stop, detain, much less draw a weapon on someone who is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME. He can ask him a question, but the person in question still retains his 4th amendment rights and does not have to answer anything, and is is free to ask if he is free to go.

Are you a police officer? If so, you should have gotten the memo on this in 2009 and had training on open carry of firearms in PA>.

Reply

dave March 29, 2011 at 12:25 am

Brian sorry but i think philly369 is beyond learning.
I never argue with ignorant people .They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience..LOL

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 09:19 pm

I smell Bacon!

You need to read up on the law – and the training all PPD Cops were (supposedly) given in 2009.

Absent any probable-cause that some crime is being committed, he has no right to even approach someone for OC.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:31 pm

Philly369 and the City of Philadelphia keeps passing laws and polivce rules of engagment that are in diect violation of the laws of the Commonwealth. When Philadlephia cleans up it’s act you are more then welcome to offer your opinion. In the mean time get off the soap box.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 09:15 pm

WOW!
Do you talk to **YOUR** boss the way Sgt. Pig(*) and others talked to this man?

“Citizen” DOES NOT EQUAL “Subject” — a basic fact that Peace Officers understand, but Pigs do not!

Sadly, your mentality is far to common today — a result of too many years of “mandatory-public-indoctrina…”er…”-education.”

Sam Adams had it right: “…”If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which [BEAT] you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen…”

So did Patrick Henry: “…What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! ”

For that matter, so did Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Peace Officers duties have long been summarized as “To Serve and Protect” – an acknowledgment that they are our SERVANTS – not our MASTERS! In recent decades, this has been corrupted somehow – utterly inverted — until otherwise (apparently) sane people somehow think their servants are entitled to act as their Masters. It’s been allowed to continue for far too long.

We’d all be better off without Pigs(*) – if we can’t have Peace Officers then we’d be much better off defending ourselves!

DD

(*): Pigs ain’t Peace Officers. If you don’t know the difference, you’re likely a Pig.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:28 pm

Jennifer, the only thing that officer should have done was calmly ask for Mr. Fiorino’s LTCF.

The responding officer chose to escalate this encounter by having his weapon drawn, prior to engaging Mr. Fiorino. I can only hope that Sgt. You Need to Respect my Authority is riding a desk somewhere, working out his itchy trigger finger on a mouse, until he is dismissed with a pension.

Reply

Ted N(not the Nuge) March 31, 2011 at 11:22 pm

The cops deserve it. They (the bad ones anyway) have been running over people’s rights for way too long. Not knowing the law is no excuse for citizens to violate it, they keep saying, so why is not knowing the law an excuse for them to violate our rights.

Reply

Anina April 7, 2011 at 11:12 am

Sgt. Dougherty started off in an antagonistic manner by addressing Mr. Fiorino as ‘Junior’ in order to initiate the encounter.

Addressing a total stranger as ‘Junior’ is in no way respectful, nor is it professional behavior. On the contrary, it was the so-called professional officers who used abusive language, were aggressive, made threats (which had they not been wearing badges would easily be terroristic threats), used lethal force (drawing your firearm on someone is the use of lethal force) and violated Mr. Fiorino’s rights.

Advocating that people must follow the orders of police, even if those orders are abusive and illegal, makes ordinary citizens the victims of kidnapping and assault under color of authority – not a road a free society should be going down.

Reply

Phil Bowdren March 28, 2011 at 07:39 pm

Sounded an awful lot like this guy intentionally provoked this situation, knowing that he was carrying a tape recorder… and intentionally disregarding instructions from the Officers.

Reply

Josh March 28, 2011 at 07:56 pm

Would anyone be surprised if he called the police himself?

Reply

Bryan S March 28, 2011 at 08:11 pm

I would, because it isnt cheap to clear your name. And how many 24 year olds can afford to council lawyers all the time?

He has had enough trouble carrying a firearm legally that he carries a tape recorder. If you look, there have been multiple issues with rights violations with this PD, and anyone carrying a firearm in Philly would be wise to do the same.

Reply

Philly369 March 28, 2011 at 08:13 pm

He is not carrying it legally. In the city of Philadelphia, you can not openly carry

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 28, 2011 at 08:23 pm

I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it’s been repeated over and over again that with a LTCF one can legally open carry in the city of Philadelphia.

Reply

Bryan S March 28, 2011 at 08:23 pm

Yes you can, he has a License To Carry Firearms. there is no mention of concealing in the law, as stated by the PA Supreme court. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED OR OPENLY DISPLAYED WEAPON IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, WITH A LTCF.

Go back and hit the books, unless you are a troll, and then go back to your bridge.

Reply

Les Apt March 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm

Philly369:

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Reply

Thorgrimr March 31, 2011 at 07:01 pm

Hey Jackass- if it were illegal HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED INSTEAD OF LET GO. Are you REALLY this stupid?

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:37 pm

I carry a digital recorder with me everywhere I go, with or without a gun. In a court of law it is my word against the officers, unless there is documented proof otherwise.

Reply

Philly369 March 28, 2011 at 08:06 pm

It is illegal to openly carry in the city of Philadelphia. In the state, it is legal, in the city, it is not. It is a violation of CITY ordinance. You must conceal in the city. The guy openly carrying was provoking the sergeant and should have complied with his orders, whether he has a license to carry or not!

Reply

Dante March 28, 2011 at 08:57 pm

I must inform you that you are ignorant of the law. It is not illegal to openly carry in Philadelphia. Local ordinances CANNOT preempt state law. I hope for the sake of everyone in Philadelphia that you are not a cop.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 09:25 pm

Sadly, I’d bet dollars to donuts(+) he IS a cop.
The remaining question is whether he’s a Pig or a Peace Officer.
The latter will go inform himself, come back to apologize and thank us for educating him, then endeavor to inform his more porcine peers in an effort to STOP this sort of crap.
The former? Well — we all know what to expect from them.

DD
(+)I really crack me up sometimes … ;^D

Reply

Josh March 29, 2011 at 03:26 pm

You’re ignorant of the law as well. The PA STATE> law states:

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

The reason he was legally able to carry in Philadelphia is not because a local ordinance prohibiting it was invalid because it preempted state law; it’s because he had a license to carry a firearm. Sheesh
I hope for the sake of everyone in Philadelphia you’re not an attorney.

Reply

Josh March 29, 2011 at 03:28 pm

Whoa, that comment’s formatting got screwed up somehow. And It even put a couple of my sentences out of order. Anyway, the point is in there.

Reply

Joe April 1, 2011 at 10:02 pm

Stay out of these discussions if you are ignorant of the law. Please?

Reply

Joe April 1, 2011 at 10:03 pm

I meant that for Dante, and anyone else who doesn’t understand that the protagonist in this case was IN THE RIGHT.

Reply

LGB March 28, 2011 at 09:07 pm

You really don’t have a clue do you? HE HAS A LTCF so therefore can carry anyway his heart desires. And who give a crap about a city ordnance, it’s pre-empted by STATE law.

Reply

concerned citizen March 28, 2011 at 09:40 pm

I wish you would do your G*d D@mn homework before spouting off at the mouth. You are wrong. Again. State law clearly states-

18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition
(a) General rule.–No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

Read that again. NO COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR TOWNSHIP MAY IN ANY MANNER REGULATE THE LAWFUL OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, TRANSFER OR TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS…

City ordinances regarding firearms are illegal and unenforceable!!! Furthermore, here is a memo from the Philly PD regarding Open carry of firearms- Read it.

Police directive sent to all districts regarding open carry in Philadelphia, PA Sept 22, 2010

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.

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”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

Now go ahead and tell me you still think it’s illegal to Open carry in Philly.

Reply

johnnyreb March 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm

game.set.match.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 10:59 pm

One basic Problem: PA doesn’t have a “Concealed Carry Firearms License” – it has a “License to Carry Firearms.” The difference should be obvious.

Further, NOWHERE in this “directive” does it state that it’s appropriate to make your first contact with the subject while your weapon is pointed at his center-mass.

All that said, you’d think maybe a frigging SERGEANT would be aware of (1) the law (2) the Department’s MANDATORY TRAINING materials and (3) “Special Directives” like this one. In fact, I don’t really believe it’s possible that he could not be — which means that his actions were deliberately and maliciously in violation of law, of his training, and of Department policy.

Not only should he be fired and stripped of his pension, he should be charged and tossed in gen-pop.

Those entrusted with the power of The State must — MUST — be held to a higher standard than “ordinary citizens.” They’re *NOT* above the law, they’re not our “masters” — they’re our SERVANTS – and it’s long past time they’re reminded of this fact.

Reply

Philly Refuge March 29, 2011 at 08:39 pm

Philly369 I am sorry to inform you that since 1995 the city has no authority to pass their own gun laws and the ones on the books prior to 1995 were nullified. I hope you are not a LEO, since you don’t know the laws of the Commonwealth.

Reply

Josh March 28, 2011 at 08:19 pm

Thank God for the unsubscribe option; this shit has gotten beyond old.

Reply

Les Apt March 28, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Yes it has, Mr. Goldfarb.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 10:41 pm

In America’s transition from “Brave New World” to “1984,” have we already progressed so far… That heavily armed agents of the state can harass and intimidate law-abiding Citizens… and his fellow Citizens will openly cheer for his murder at the hands of the next agent whom he encounters?

You REALLY think the police state is keeping you, or your children, safe?

Goethe was, of course, right when he opined: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

America, you are hopelessly enslaved…. and you deserve the government you have gotten for yourselves.

Reply

Dedicated_Dad March 28, 2011 at 10:52 pm

Oh, and just to settle this once-and-for-all for those who still do not get it:

Here’s an inarguable statement of fact from an ADA: http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaDALetter.pdf

Further -for the PPD-Pigs(*) who slept through their “mandatory training” and never bothered to read the manual they were issued, here’s the relevant section for you: http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc.pdf

You might want to note the part which says that “absent probable cause” to think they’re committing some crime, there is no justification for any action “beyond a mere encounter” and SPECIFICALLY says that “a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified…”

It goes on to say that “…The rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be carefully considered, when interacting with such persons. Persons engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may they be required to produce identification or other documents…[other than a LTCF in Phl]…”

Now…

^^THAT^^ is the LAW.

Let’s discuss COMMON FRIGGING SENSE for just a moment – shall we?

Should you see some guy loitering on a street-corner in an area known for gang or drug-activity, with a pistol stuck in his “sagging” pants ala “non-specific-foreign-national-carry”, you might PERSONALLY (but not necessarily LEGALLY) have a reason to suspect him of breaking some law.

However, when you see some reasonably clean-cut/reasonably well-dressed person apparently going about his lawful business and making no effort whatsoever to conceal a pistol openly displayed in a Blackhawk retention holster, it’s a safe bet that he’s breaking no law.

Quite frankly, drawing down on anyone who is not threatening you is simply not justified, however simple common sense should tell you that you have much more to fear from the guy who’s attempting to HIDE his gun than you do from someone who is not. Even my child instinctively understands this fact – anyone capable of making Sgt. in a big-city force CERTAINLY should.

Frankly, it seems pretty clear that PPD pigs(*) have an unwritten policy of bringing potentially-fatal harassment on anyone daring to OC, so as to reduce the numbers of people daring to do so. This is both disgusting and abhorrent.

For those who claim to support carry-rights but be against O/C, you make no sense whatsoever. In places where OC is common, there are no panicked “man with a gun!” calls and hoplophobia is almost non-existent. The more people see folks carry, the less “sensitive” they will be.

After all – they see people open-carrying every day, but don’t panic because of the magic tin-talisman pinned to their chest or hanging on their belt. Further, “man-with-a-gun” calls should be taken as opportunities for Peace Officers to educate the hoplophobic callers – not for pigs(*) to abuse law-abiding citizens who are merely exercising their rights!

In any case, Pig(*) or Peace-officer, the least you could do is know the law!

DD

(*)Peace-Officers ain’t Pigs. If you don’t know the difference, you’re probably a Pig.

Reply

Ron Jones March 28, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Not so very long ago, one bright, sunny April day, in a suburb of Boston… There were a number of citizens who were carrying weapons openly. As you may well know, this is quite the legal faux pas in liberal Boston.

So a duly appointed agent of the lawful government barked a direct “order” for these Citizens to disarm and surrender. These Citizens were not ordered to disarm by ANYONE, they were ordered to disarm by a sworn, uniform wearing officer of the [bloody effing] LAW. If they weren’t doing anything wrong, as they claimed, then why not comply with the officer and try to clear up the situation. Obviously these insolent dirt bags didn’t want to clear up the situtaion, they wanted to CREATE a situation.

So, like a bunch of Waco [TX] nuts, they refused to comply.

In the ensuing gun battle, a number of Civilians were killed. Worse still, a number of government men were killed as well. It raised quite a stir in the community.

Thankfully, the men and women of the day were made of stronger stuff, and valued their Liberty much more highly than the bunch of useless, feminized, pantywaisted, Nancy boys that seem to be so prevalent in society these days…. As a result of this violent assault on Liberty, the local community [and beyond] decided they’d had enough with the police state tactics of their governor (their GOVERNOR… and his duly appointed law enforcement officials!).

For those who were educated at taxpayer offence, it’s a fascinating case, which was linked to to all manner of hate & discontent, crime, tax protests, treason, and [horrors!] domestic terrorism. That’s why April, 19 1775 is such an important day in our history.

Today, men don’t want Liberty, they just want kinder master.

Reply

M@ March 29, 2011 at 12:47 am

Wow, this has gotten ridiculous.

Have fun, I’m unsubscribing.

Reply

George March 29, 2011 at 07:54 am

It comes down to leadership. The large cities are usually run by leftist Democrat mayors and city councilmen who are rabidly anti-gun. The set the policies for their employees, which in this case happen to be the police officers.

Reply

CJ March 29, 2011 at 07:55 am

I can’t take it anymore… I’m unsubscribing as well. I’m glad to hear those with some sense seems to be the majority here though.

Reply

Mike March 29, 2011 at 10:36 am

I see a lot of you people saying that he should have complied with all of the officer’s demands, even though those demands violated his rights. I for one would have complied with everything except getting on my knees. At that point it goes from being a precaution for the officer to being humiliating for the victim. I would however maintain a calm demeanor while peacefully asking the officer to holster his firearm. I would let him know that he is welcome to carefully disarm me and I would make him aware of whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber. If he doesn’t want to do this, I’d be more than happy to turn away from him and slowly remove my own firearm. The biggest problem is that the officer did not know that it was legal to carry a firearm openly and acted over-zealously in what should have been a simple “Can I see your permit?” situation. He did not know the law and he did not know how to properly present himself in a way that positively represents his community. THAT is the problem. If he had conducted himself decently, not spouting out obscenities every few seconds, then most of this probably would not have been a problem.

Myself and my family have been victims of an uneducated or just unwilling to help sheriff’s department and county attorney. I have been told that shooting safely at a range I constructed on my own property well outside of city limits is considered a public nuisance, because my neighbors don’t like it. My mother was at one point assaulted by a neighbor, leaving physical bruises on her face and rupturing a disc in her spine. The sheriff’s department refused to make an arrest, and the county attorney refused to prosecute, instead deciding to charge both parties with disorderly conduct. I guess that’s his way of teaching someone a lesson for making a legitimate complaint in his county.

This kind of treatment has to be stopped. Law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals, while gang bangers continue to run free on our streets. We as gun owners need to fight this corruption and stand up to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. Educate people, join the NRA, do whatever you can think of to help spread the word about responsible gun ownership.

Reply

BigDaddy April 18, 2012 at 10:47 am

Mike, I appreciate and agree with your indignation that the officer was not clear on the law. I do feel the need to point out, though, that the officer was acting in a manner that was self-protecting and, under the circumstances, understandable. If you drew on someone you thought was a threat, would you be as courteous and indulging as you expect the officer to be? I think not; I think you would be on edge, hyper-vigilant, and suspicious. I think you would require the potential threat to assume a vulnerable and nonthreatening position that gave you the advantage. I think you would do so using a voice of authority and determination; maybe even a few curse words, huh?

You suggest that this is an example of law-abiding citizens being mistreated. I ask you to consider that the officer is right to perceive an open carry as a threat because he cannot know that the carrier is a law-abiding citizen and cannot confirm that as long as the potential threat exists. It’s not as easy as just seeing your license; anyone can get a fake license. It has to be checked out against the current record and that means that the threat has to be eliminated or controlled. In addition, it is impossible for the LEO to arrest gang-bangers while having to waste his time dealing with some yahoo who only wants to test the law or show off his big gun while he publicly displays his 2nd amendment pride.

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 10:23 pm

Wrong again. The police have no right to assume you are violating a law, and then stopping you to check it out. They must have a reasoned belief that they have probable cause.

The assumption that a person carrying a firearm does NOT have the proper paper work does not constitute a reasoned belief of probable cause.

If it did, then we, as citizens, would have the right to stop police officers to verify that they are, in point of fact, police officers in good standing with the right to carry openly.

Reply

D.R. March 29, 2011 at 04:18 pm

YOU would ask the officer to holster his weapon?? HAHAHHAHAHA. Come down south and try that shit, you moron.

Reply

Ed March 30, 2011 at 02:08 pm

You are either a cop, a cops asshole buddy, or just a loser with a cop fetish. I am betting on the latter.

Reply

William May 18, 2011 at 03:29 pm

Most of the cops in my area in the South wouldn’t hastle the guy. Of course most of the law officers in my area still regard themselves as common law peace officers and haven’t fallen into the NYPD Blue/KGB communist mentality that divides OFFICERS from civilians–they have enough sense to know they are “civilians” too. As we used to tell the SWAT guys when they would come to Benning for ‘training’: You might be playing Airborne Ranger on the streets, but you aren’t one.

Reply

Chuck Berry March 30, 2011 at 11:38 am

This is why the general public dislikes the police. They abuse their authority. Remember people tape these thugs so they can be locked up in the jails they like to fill with the innocent, the poor,and the weak.

Reply

Cole Phelps May 17, 2011 at 01:10 am

This could easily have been LAPD. They talk to normal, penny-loafer-and-sweater wearing public like they are gangsters. Cops here think they can do anything, park anywhere, talk any way they want, take freebies, and they make a TON of money! These cops should lose their rank for this AT MINIMUM. I hope they get their asses sued right off. QUESTION: how can you be SET UP if you are treating people respectfully and acting lawfully? THEY TOTALLY VIOLATED this guy’s rights. Let’s just say this owner is a douchebag trying to trick the cops…. SoTFW? Did he force them to not know the law and treat him like crap. If cops carry guns on their hips and can behave in a lawful manner without being put on their knees, why can’t a citizen who is not screaming, crazy, and OUT OF CONTROL like these effing ego-trip, militant, “I’m the man” power trippers carry one the same way? They acted like he was brandishing!

Reply

farmboy7.62 March 30, 2011 at 02:13 pm
Admin (Mike) March 31, 2011 at 04:20 pm

LOL what a disaster

Reply

Ted N(not the Nuge) March 31, 2011 at 11:44 pm

That’s the professionalism I hope to see in my peace officers! /sarc

Reply

A April 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

That was at Bridge & Pratt… a bad ass neighborhood filled with lunatics. The cops have their hands full …lots of shootings, rapes, assaults, tons of drugs, hookers etc..
Nobody open carries in Philly and the cops are not used to seeing it , ever. On top of that, Philly makes up their own rules, I’m not saying it’s right, it’s just the way it is. They don’t allow open carry in philly but you can get a permit to conceal carry as many folks do. When that guy refused to do exactly what
the cop was telling him to do he had a very good chance of being shot. He was really lucky he hadn’t.
The way to protest philly rules on open carry would be to go to Harrisburg or go to your local politician
and not go down in a war zone and put the cops through a bunch of crap that they have no say over.
The way to protect yourself in philly is to get a conceal carry permit and arm yourself to the hilt.
Open carry in philly is stupid as someone could walk up behind you and grab your loaded gun and they would do it all the time if everyone open carried.

Reply

Anina April 7, 2011 at 11:20 am

There is no such thing in Pennsylvania as a concealed carry permit. There is a License to Carry Firearms, which is issued in accordance with state law, and which places no obligation whatsoever on anyone who bears one to conceal a lawfully carried firearm.

Further, LTCF holders are specifically exempted from the state law prohibiting open carry in cities of the first class, which would be Philadelphia.

The Philadelphia Police Department, and Sgt. Dougherty specifically, need to start following the law, not simply making up their own extra-legal rules and then threatening to shoot people who don’t conform to their unlawful view of how a submissive citizen should behave.

Reply

William May 18, 2011 at 03:33 pm

Seems like open carry in Philly is protected by the constitution of the commonwealth. Maybe this guy should read that particular document. Here is an even better idea–maybe everyone should carry open like the cops, you know, following the whole principle of equal protection under the law which is supposed to apply across the board, and maybe your crime rate would drop.

Reply

L. April 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

“Open carry in philly is stupid as someone could walk up behind you and grab your loaded gun and they would do it all the time if everyone open carried.”

That’s why all the cops in Philadelphia carry their guns concealed.

Reply

Blaine April 1, 2011 at 11:48 am

Far too many cops are bullies who seek compliance with their own will rather than with the laws of the land. Every cop in the nation needs immediate comprehensive remedial training on the US Constitution and on the laws they enforce with refresher training every month. Those who persist in bullying the people or imposing their own version of the laws must be terminated.

Reply

Alec April 8, 2011 at 09:40 pm

I wouldn’t mind writing a letter of complaint to this Philadelphia Police District Chief. Which district is Sgt Doughtery part of? This guy should be off the street and his buddy that pulled up screaming “F***in shut up…blah..blah” what a bunch of moron cops. All they had to do was calmly ask the guy for his permit and info and to hold his firearm until they could verify the information. All the treats to shoot him or taze him were extremely unprofessional. Sgt Dougherty’s statement “I don’t know who you are” applies to 99% of the people they come in contact with. Stupid, stupid, a Sgt should know better and be an example. Sloppy police work, ignorant police.

Reply

Will Waters May 6, 2011 at 10:46 am

this is BULLSHIT. All you dicks supporting the cops, just shut the fuck up! I dont car3e what the situation is, in the Academy, they tell you to be calm, yet assertive, patient, yet firm. Not cuss the citizen out, or completely shut him down whn he tries to explain. The officer doesnt pull a firearm unless necessary either. They are ONLY supposed to pull their tazers. So all yopu pricks who dont know shit, shut the fuck up. Those cops were WRONG.

Reply

BigDaddy April 18, 2012 at 11:16 am

Will, the 1st amendment gives everybody the right to voice an opinion, so telling anyone to STFU is just out of line. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that these officers were the epitome of fine police work and professionalism, but the initial officer WAS completely justified in drawing his weapon in the face of the potential threat that the gentleman posed. He was also fully justified in calling for backup. This guy was definitely seeking a confrontation, so he got what he was looking for. The officers could have been better informed and a bit more courteous, but the fact that they didn’t shoot him indicates to me that they were fairly measured in their response.

Reply

firecracker May 17, 2011 at 04:01 pm

Listen closely to the officers conferring in the background. At 11:05 you hear one say “You know what? You just got the training”.

Guess it only counts if they pay attention to the training…

Reply

Jacob Schoenecker May 18, 2011 at 07:44 pm

“The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Reply

dano May 21, 2011 at 04:34 pm

Objectivity. so it was lost in this occurrence. lucky for the PPD the kid didn’t get capped. yeah, when i was 14 in co springs co. ( 1974 ) running from the cops because they crept up on us, in an open field, all my bud’s fleeing in all directions, lazer’d on me. running up an embankment trying too unload an oz. of mexican reefer from my pants…no luck, cop has me in his sight w/ 38 spec. i cooperated, until he without notice, reached in my jeans, i flinched, he pulled me into a full nelson, broke my arm, went to jail, doc at precinct took notice, cop investigated that nite, deal reached that nite, no charges made. released to parents on condition THEY WOULDN’T SUE COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEP.!! parents were liberal idiots thinking they got a real deal…they didn’t have the broken arm. 2 oz’s were a misdemeanor back then! now i carry hand gun carry permit. would i take aim at a cop who was irrational and ignorant, you bet ya baby! they, the law keep pressing us ( UNITED STATES CITIZENS ) AND WITHOUT REGARD TOO OUR 2 ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THINK WE WILL CAPITULATE AND SURRENDER OUR RIGHTS?! HELL NO BROTHER’S AND SISTER’S! WHEN DO WE SHOW THESE BASTARDS THEY WORK FOR US?!! THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL AND WILL CONTINUE TOO GROW IN THIS DIRECTION AS LONG AS THERE ARE FAR LEFT IDIOT COMMIE’S IN CHARGE. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, AND REMEMBER THE ‘FRAMERS’ OF THIS GREAT NATION THOUGHT VERY CAREFULLY WHEN THEY GAVE US PROTECTION FROM THE BIG GOV. ELITE FASCIST PIG ASSHOLE’S WHO THINK THEY’RE IN CHARGE. WE ARE THEIR PAYCHECK’S, THEY ENFORCE THE LAW’S OUR LEGISLATOR’S IN-ACT. DON’T FORGET BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE PEOPLE. WE ARE ONLY ONE GENERATION FROM A LOST SOCIETY WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION! AMEN.

Reply

concerned citizen October 27, 2011 at 07:14 pm

After the audio was posted on YouTube, a warrant was issued for the OC’ers arrest. Obviously nothing more than retaliation by Philly PD, as they embarrassed themselves in the audio clip by their lack of professionalism and lack of knowledge on the law they were attempting to enforce. He was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment of another person. (oddly enough, those charges sound appropriate for the Officers in the audio clip. They should be charged with the same.)

Fast forward to today’s court date. The OC’er was found Not Guilty on all charges!! Congrats Mark!!!!

stay safe,
smithwessn.

Reply

BigDaddy April 18, 2012 at 10:28 am

I realize that there are varying opinions about this, so I’ll try to stick mostly with the facts as I understand them and offer my personal opinion at the end. First of all, the idea that open carry is legal in PA is a legal theory, not a statement of law. The fact is, the PA law is silent on open carry, so it is ASSUMED that it is not prohibited. To my knowledge, no case precedent has been definitively set on this matter, so it is still theory.

I have come in contact with several Phil. LEO’s and all of my interactions were good. One must understand that these are inner-city urban cops, so they deal with assholes every day and they lay their life on the line every day. This can make some people very crusty and “edgey”. In dangerous situations, they tend to throw courtesy out the window, especially when they perceive that their authority (real, perceived, or imagined) is being questioned. They also get real pissed off when they feel like their time has been wasted or they are being used. I’m not saying that is right or wrong; I’m just saying that it IS the reality of being a cop in a city as dangerous as Philly.

I carry because I can, because others don’t, and because I feel that I am the first line of defense against an attack on me or my family. I carry concealed because it gives me an edge, because it prevents others from having negative perceptions about me, and because it doesn’t create fear or panic in public. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to carry openly in Philadelphia is doing to be intentionally provocative. Surely, you understand and expect that you WILL draw attention; no one is so stupid as to think they won’t. If this guy wants to put his right to carry and his life at risk and test the law, then that is his choice, although it should be noted that he failed because he was not charged with a firearm violation. IMHO, it was a stupid thing to do.

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Is protesting a stupid thing to do?

OWS-type Protesting is much more disruptive, requires a lot more police presence, and creates a lot more trash, damage and petty-to-serious crime.

Even if you assume the OC was doing this as a protest, it was the most benign and beneficent of protests, as the police COULD have and SHOULD have simply ignored him, as they had no probable cause.

As is probably obvious from this web site alone, his protest generated some good discussions, so I’d say he was not only doing a good thing, but that his courage benefits us all by helping defend our freedoms while not risking the lives of any innocents.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: