Hunter44 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Audio of the encounter: [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA[/url] [url]http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-16/news/29548742_1_firearms-license-youtube-clips-gun-rights[/url] MARK FIORINO'S story has three elements that tend to get people worked up - gun rights, Philly police and YouTube. 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." MORE AT LINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I go to Frankford ave area frequently because of the SPCA and it is one scary area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Well, this story oughta piss off both sides of the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Unbelievable how petty the DA is. Now they want to charge him with BS cause he told on them. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 "Fiorino said he didn't lay a trap for the cops. He regularly carries a recorder with him in case he ever has to use his gun and then offer proof of what transpired, he said." One of the smartest things said in this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Betcha those cops were Eagle's fans. Sounded like real *******s, even though they didn't know they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 "Fiorino said he didn't lay a trap for the cops. He regularly carries a recorder with him in case he ever has to use his gun and then offer proof of what transpired, he said."One of the smartest things said in this article. He is not in wrong, but I don't believe him. Seems like he was trying to make a point and IMO wanted a situation to record. The DA seems very petty. They were in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Evers said the department decided to take a second look at the case after learning about the recordings.Any number of things could have gone wrong during Fiorino's confrontation with Dougherty, Evers said. For one thing, Evers said, Fiorino could have been shot. Cops who raced to the scene could have gotten into a car accident or injured pedestrians. ...or you could make sure the officers KNOW THE LAW they're instructed to enforce... "Our officers weren't up to speed [because] we never really addressed it," said Lt. Francis Healy, the department's lawyer. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Wow ... talk about a dumb thing to say. Basically, if this guy wants to, he could easily sue the city of Philadelphia for a ton of money. This is what worries me about law enforcement. I know they're all not like this, but just the blatant overreaction to a holstered handgun is just absurd. If those officers aren't fired, I would expect some pretty severe reprimands and some remedial training on how to handle a situation. Its one thing to be aggressive when a guy is being belligerent and dangerous. But you should be able to tell the difference between someone who's obviously not a danger and someone who is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 wow, Philthy PD has major egg on their faces. The guy did nothing whatsoever to warrant the treatment they gave him. I'd sue the pants off of that department. ---------- Post added May-19th-2011 at 07:28 AM ---------- Man those officers should be fired for the way they treated him. Really damning audio, and how petty is it that now the DA had him arrested for audio recording the event? WhiskyTangoFoxtrot? I loved how they got all upset dropping f bombs and whining that "they got set up". If I had my legal gun confiscated for 5 months illegally from the local law enforcement, I'd record all interactions with them to. ---------- Post added May-19th-2011 at 07:29 AM ---------- Man those officers should be fired for the way they treated him. Really damning audio, and how petty is it that now the DA had him arrested for audio recording the event? WhiskyTangoFoxtrot? I loved how they got all upset dropping f bombs and whining that "they got set up". If I had my legal gun confiscated for 5 months illegally from the local law enforcement, I'd record all interactions with them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Sorry but if people are walking around recording things and carry cell phone cameras why is there so much opposition to having more cameras around to cut down on crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Sorry but if people are walking around recording things and carry cell phone cameras why is there so much opposition to having more cameras around to cut down on crime? one is by choice by a private citizen and the other is an invasion of privacy by the state. Who is recording certainly should have bearing and how they will use that recording too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The District attorney is stupid for bringing charges. This will backfire in a similar fashion as Snyder suing the City paper. Talk about unnecessarily fanning the flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Sorry but if people are walking around recording things and carry cell phone cameras why is there so much opposition to having more cameras around to cut down on crime? There are cameras everywhere, every store (where private citizens are protecting their interests), atm, etc. No one complains about them it's the government that people have a problem with. Think about the motivation. One is to protect yourself the other is basically a search without a motive. *SS beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The cops stopped him from behind with guns drawn. (doesn't sound like he 'set them up'). They acted out of ignorance The DA is re-acting out of ignorance to protect his own. wrong/wrong. I'd rather go to jail for 30 days for recording than spend 5 years in jail for false accusations i cannot disprove. I don't mind camera's on crowded streets. I mind camera's that can see in your house. After he began carrying, Fiorino said, he was stopped a handful of times by cops in Montgomery County and other parts of the state. The encounters were civil and quick, he said, and usually ended when an officer checked out his firearms license. I also find it odd that they say they've been training them pretty good. But a holstered gun on a guy = I'm going to ****ing Shoot you dead ******* was not one of the things mentioned in how to act around citizens. You'd think that was day 1 stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 He does nothing wrong but they charge him because he didn't want to get down on his knees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 He does nothing wrong but they charge him because he didn't want to get down on his knees? They didnt even charge him for that! All they are charging him now is endangerment of an officer due to the recording only. Its a clear case of abuse of powers and retribution against a person who embarrassed the heck out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Well I'm guessing this will be a huge lawsuit with the NRA involved heavily. Philly PD is going to get crushed. Actually this may involve the ACLU too. How funny would it be to see both NRA and ACLU lawyers teaming up for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Well I'm guessing this will be a huge lawsuit with the NRA involved heavily. Philly PD is going to get crushed. Actually this may involve the ACLU too. How funny would it be to see both NRA and ACLU lawyers teaming up for this. I've grown to respect the ACLU a ton more than I did back in my neo-con days. I would be even more impressed if they pursued ALL civil rights for ALL people equitably (and they do in a lot of cases, they fall down in second ammendment cases though IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I've grown to respect the ACLU a ton more than I did back in my neo-con days. I would be even more impressed if they pursued ALL civil rights for ALL people equitably (and they do in a lot of cases, they fall down in second ammendment cases though IMHO) I don't doubt it. I'm definitely liberal leaning but I'm also a gun owner, and I hate the fact that guns does seem to be a divisive issue. I love the work the ACLU does but if they really don't ever get involved with 2nd amendment cases then it's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 he should have been concealing. not that he was in the wrong at all, but open carry invites all kinds of problems like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 There are cameras everywhere, every store (where private citizens are protecting their interests), atm, etc. No one complains about them it's the government that people have a problem with. Think about the motivation. One is to protect yourself the other is basically a search without a motive. *SS beat me to it. Well then people are full of crap because if you are worried about privacy then you do not have society walking around recording each other just incase, if it is okay one the it is okay for the other, just say you are doing it to protect public officials from private indivuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 he should have been concealing. not that he was in the wrong at all, but open carry invites all kinds of problems like this With all due respect, thats the opposite of the proper way to look at this and akin to a rape victim being blamed due to a miniskirt. ---------- Post added May-19th-2011 at 10:19 AM ---------- Well then people are full of crap because if you are worried about privacy then you do not have society walking around recording each other just incase, if it is okay one the it is okay for the other, just say you are doing it to protect public officials from private indivuals Twisted Canadian backwards thinking at work. DRsmith, I assume you rooted for the antagonist in 1984? (just teasing btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Well then people are full of crap because if you are worried about privacy then you do not have society walking around recording each other just incase, if it is okay one the it is okay for the other, just say you are doing it to protect public officials from private indivuals Do you really not understand the difference between government watching your every move and a store doing it? And it's not about government protecting their public officials, though that would be an interesting way of spinning it. What kind of constitution do y'all have up there anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Well then people are full of crap because if you are worried about privacy then you do not have society walking around recording each other just incase, if it is okay one the it is okay for the other, just say you are doing it to protect public officials from private indivuals You don't see there being a difference between individual rights and collective rights? It's something we have made our bones on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.