• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

deniedmyrights

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
51
Location
johnson county
This may be old news but is worth revisiting. Rest of the story can be read at this link:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...arass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun


A story in today's Philadelphia Daily News shows why it's so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops - it can be citizens' only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

This incident happened several weeks ago in Philadelphia to Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker who carries a gun on his hip at all times for self defense. He got the gun after several friends were mugged.

But he didn't count on attacks by police:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun. But that didn't matter to the cop:

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun#ixzz1jHTkjS9e
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
And they wonder why with LEO's like this, some people refer to them as pigs. These pathetic excuses for police officers are less than worthless.

BTW, do Philly LEO's always use that kind of language when addressing their employers?
 
Last edited:

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
Old article and old topic, maybe, but it was new to me. I really hate it when cops do NOT know the laws. But I shouldn't be surprised.. a friend of mine who is going to law school told me that in the Constitution class he is in, they are only going over the 1st and 4th amendments, and if he wanted to take the elective class, it would just be on the 14th. How can a lawyer NOT have to learn about the complete Bill of Rights?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Old article and old topic, maybe, but it was new to me. I really hate it when cops do NOT know the laws. But I shouldn't be surprised.. a friend of mine who is going to law school told me that in the Constitution class he is in, they are only going over the 1st and 4th amendments, and if he wanted to take the elective class, it would just be on the 14th. How can a lawyer NOT have to learn about the complete Bill of Rights?

It doesn't bother me so much that a particular LEO may not know the law. What does bother me is when a LEO is given the information on the law AND REFUSES TO LEARN THE LAW, CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, and CONTINUES TO OFFEND BY "COLOR OF LAW" ACTIONS.
 

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
It doesn't bother me so much that a particular LEO may not know the law. What does bother me is when a LEO is given the information on the law AND REFUSES TO LEARN THE LAW, CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, and CONTINUES TO OFFEND BY "COLOR OF LAW" ACTIONS.

Thats my point. When a LEO doesn't know the law, they REFUSE to accept that a "mere" citizen knows more about the law than they do and thats when altercations can arise. Cops tend to go nuts when they are told "Officer, the law does not state that." no matter calm you are or how nicely you state it.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
And in court he was aquitted of all charges. Now comes the civil rights law suit. What I hope is he is awarded enough for the Philly PD to stand up and take notice (that is at least 6 if not 7 figures). In general, I am not for punitive damages, but I would make exception for this case.

I am on jury duty call this week, too bad I don't get to hear his civil suit...I would push for 7 figures..just to get the Philly PD's attention.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
If I remember correctly, he was detained illegally, but released only after shift supervisors determined he was carrying legally. He was never charged with a weapons violation, but reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct, only after he posted his audio on Youtube. The DA decided to try and retaliate after Mark made his department look bad. Didn't work.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Old article and old topic, maybe, but it was new to me. I really hate it when cops do NOT know the laws. But I shouldn't be surprised.. a friend of mine who is going to law school told me that in the Constitution class he is in, they are only going over the 1st and 4th amendments, and if he wanted to take the elective class, it would just be on the 14th. How can a lawyer NOT have to learn about the complete Bill of Rights?

Doesn't surprise me. They are probably not actually teaching the real meaning of the first four amendments. They are probably only teaching what SCOTUS says they mean. Sad.
 
Top