Is Philiadelphia really this bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, three years of law school was plenty to know that it's not a city I want to live, however much I enjoy visiting.
Click to expand...

Temple, huh? Because no way a pro-gunner would go to Penn. I think I was the only one there, and Villanova is on the main line in Delco, not Philly. :D

I think this was deplorable. As a PA CCW holder, I carry concealed in Philly. I do not want to invite this treatment, and I am not about to spend thousands of $$$ to defend myself in a law suit to exercise my right to OC. That is the reality of the environment. Yes, it needs to change, and that means voting out the current thinking in City Hall and with the vast majority of consituents in Philly believing that way, it ain't gonna happen soon. Plus, I'm not moving back into that hell hole after 49 years out of it in order to cast my one vote.
 
I am very surprised that he was not charged with felony wiretapping for making an audio recording without the consent of the officers involved.
Click to expand...

There are rulings by the PA Supreme Court in at least 3 cases:

Agnew v Dupler 717 A.2d 519, 523 (PA 1998)
Kelly v. Borough of Carslile, 622 F.3d 248 (3d. Cir. 2010)
Com. v. Henlen, 522 Pa. 514, 564 A.2d 905 (1989)

in which the court has held that a police officer in the performance of his duty has no reasonable expectation of non-interception of conversations, the wiretap laws do not apply. In other words - it's perfectly legal in PA to record a police officer interacting with others - with or without the consent of the officers.

Good police officers welcome this as it protects them as well as protecting a suspect. Bad police officers hate it because it exposes them for what they are - bad police officers.

This case has gone viral in the last couple of days and has been picked up by the AP and Fox News as well - with a lot more to come.
 
In other words - it's perfectly legal in PA to record a police officer interacting with others - with or without the consent of the officers.
Click to expand...

Do that in Illinois and it's a felony. We are one of those "all consent" states. :(
 
Do that in Illinois and it's a felony. We are one of those "all consent" states.
Click to expand...

Sadly I'm aware that the legality of recording the police will vary from state to state which is why I bolded the phrase "perfectly legal in PA" in my post.

Mr. Fiorino is well aware of PA law and the fact that he can legally record interactions with police should they occur; in this case he actually had started the recorder as he left the house on his walk to the hardware store which is why he had it running during the encounter. I posted for the benefit of those who may not be aware of PA law to point out why the legality of the recording has not been questioned.
 
aside from the fact that listening to that officer made my blood boil.........there is absolutely no reason for him to be speaking like he was....


the fact remains....there is no video with the recording.......so all we have to go on is what they say......

for all we know, the guy could have been waving his gun in the air......so its really hard to say one way or the other.
 
for all we know, the guy could have been waving his gun in the air......so its really hard to say one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Mr. Fiorino has been charged by the DA but none of those charges are related to the gun which he carried.

Consider that this encounter began with the police Sargent accosting Mr. Fiorino as "Yo Junior" and Mr. Fiorino turned to find the Sargent's pistol aimed at his COM. I think it's a pretty safe conclusion that Mr. Fiorino did not wave his gun in the air, nor did he make any movements to touch it or touch anything close to it, nor did he make any movements that could be construed or miss-construed as reaching for his gun. If he had done ANY of those things this event would have turned out very differently and we could all have attended his funeral months ago.
 
Wow... This is seriously disturbing. Its disgusting that the cop has no apparent respect for the man in the recording or the law. This is why police have a bad reputation, idiots like this who give a bad name to all those who serve the law and their communities. The open-carrier is more than respectful and every other word out of the cops mouth is f***, usually telling him to shut the f up or f you. Then he tries to spin the story while talking to other officers, making it sound like he disobeyed and resisted when he actually offered to show him his permit. I'm definitely glad the cops where I live are nice people with respect for their fellow citizens and the law.
 
Do that in Illinois and it's a felony. We are one of those "all consent" states.
Click to expand...

Challenge it up to SCOTUS and I guarantee it won't be a felony anymore. States are free to keep passing stupid laws. Every law against recording police officers that has ever been challenged has been struck down.
 
Consider that this encounter began with the police Sargent accosting Mr. Fiorino as "Yo Junior" and Mr. Fiorino turned to find the Sargent's pistol aimed at his COM. I think it's a pretty safe conclusion that Mr. Fiorino did not wave his gun in the air, nor did he make any movements to touch it or touch anything close to it, nor did he make any movements that could be construed or miss-construed as reaching for his gun. If he had done ANY of those things this event would have turned out very differently and we could all have attended his funeral months ago.
Click to expand...

ill admit, he most likely wasnt waving his gun in the air.........but like i said... we cant see what is happening......or what events took place prior to the encounter( if any).......

now are the officers actions despicable....yes, based on nothing more than his language and temper alone........

However, it is irresponsible to pass judgment when you dont have all the facts.
 
However, it is irresponsible to pass judgment when you dont have all the facts.
Click to expand...

We have about as much facts as any jury could hope to ever have. Normally the people expected to pass LEGAL JUDGEMENT on such a case would just have two conflicting testimonies. We have a fairly complete audio recording that leaves very little to the imagination. As a matter of fact during the entire video you can tell that the whole issue being contested wasn't a disturbance, wasn't brandishing, wasn't some guy yelling at cops. The entire issue discussed was that evil little gun on his hip.

In reality, there are no time machines. Judges and juries don't get transported back to checkout the event for themselves. They are presented with the evidence at hand. I feel that I have MORE than enough information to form my opinion here, and it's very simple: these cops can be swearing at the clerks in the unemployment line tomorrow if they're not moving swift enough for them.
 
We have about as much facts as any jury could hope to ever have. Normally the people expected to pass LEGAL JUDGEMENT on such a case would just have two conflicting testimonies. We have a fairly complete audio recording that leaves very little to the imagination. As a matter of fact during the entire video you can tell that the whole issue being contested wasn't a disturbance, wasn't brandishing, wasn't some guy yelling at cops. The entire issue discussed was that evil little gun on his hip.

In reality, there are no time machines. Judges and juries don't get transported back to checkout the event for themselves. They are presented with the evidence at hand. I feel that I have MORE than enough information to form my opinion here, and it's very simple: these cops can be swearing at the clerks in the unemployment line tomorrow if they're not moving swift enough for them.
Click to expand...

i suppose.....im just always a little leery of videos like this.......

ive found that there is always more to the situation than what is being show.
 
ive found that there is always more to the situation than what is being show.
Click to expand...

The saddest / scariest thing in this situation is not that there is something more to this situation that makes it not as bad as it looks (as you seem to be suspecting) but rather that the situation with the PPD is actually much worse than this incident highlights.

Just as a reference - this is a link to mandatory training for all Municipal Police Officers in the state of PA - given in 2009 - that covers the laws on open carry in the state and how police should deal with open carriers:

http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc.pdf

Any police officer in the state of PA who believes that open carry is not legal is - at the very least - simply wrong. In this particular case some of the PPD officers who are wrong include highly placed individuals in the PPD. One example of this is that the head of the Philadelphia Gun Control Unit (which is responsible for issuing firearm carry licenses in Philadelphia) has publicly stated with regard to this very incident that she did not know that open carry was legal in the state - and yet she was seen on camera present in a public meeting where this was discussed and explained.
 
The saddest / scariest thing in this situation is not that there is something more to this situation that makes it not as bad as it looks (as you seem to be suspecting) but rather that the situation with the PPD is actually much worse than this incident highlights.
Click to expand...
thats not what im saying at all.......

my personal gut feelings are just like everyone elses in this thread.....a guy legally carrying his firearm being treated like a criminal by an uninformed over eager officer.....


HOWEVER, i cant prove that.....nor do i even have anything to lend credence to it.....all we have is an audio recording.......and as we all know, what a person says and what a person does can often times be very different.
 
The guy of course was quite close to being killed, even more by the responding officers than the initial officer.
The initial officer requested backup because he was having trouble with someone with a gun, with few other details given to dispatch. Imagine how those responding officers felt upon arriving to assist an officer they believe may be in immediate danger.

Then as other officers arrive the initial officer increases the tension and desperation in his commands, presumably because of movement by the open carrier. Those arriving backup officers were probably closer to being ready to shoot than the initial officer that had some idea of what was going on.
 
presumably because of movement by the open carrier
Click to expand...

Given that there's no audio evidence to suggest that - either from what Mr. Fiorino can be heard saying or from what any of the officers can be heard saying that may be a big presumption.

I suspect the upcoming trial will be interesting and that claims will be made about what happened. It's going to be hard to substantiate any claims about events that are not in evidence in the audio however.
 
These "officers" shouldn't be!
Click to expand...

Indeed. And maybe I'm reading more into it than there really is, but I found it a little strange how often that guy was shouting "I don't know you!".

To me, that can often imply that there is some class or group of people that they DO know not to bother. IE, payoffs.

Again, I might be reading too much into it, but just based on his reaction to the discovery of the tape recorder this cop seems like the type that has something to hide. I mean they basically panicked when they figured out they were being recorded.
 
It's going to be hard to substantiate any claims about events that are not in evidence in the audio however.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
There is probably dash cam video from either the initial car or one or more of the responding cars, or video footage from a nearby business, unless such evidence was misplaced or lost or never saved.

but I found it a little strange how often that guy was shouting "I don't know you!".

To me, that can often imply that there is some class or group of people that they DO know not to bother. IE, payoffs.
Click to expand...

Not likely, more likely the officer is implying he does not know the armed individual and so cannot take him at his word that he is not a threat.
Which of course would still not justify harassing someone legally carrying and just walking down the street with a holstered firearm.
Most people the police talk to are armed with several ton vehicles that could crush a human being in an instant, but they don't treat them like just being in the driver's seat of an automobile is grounds for being shot.
 
Last edited:
littlebluevette said:
Why would you want to open carry in Philadelphia?
1. You open yourself up multiple times to getting killed by thugs who will hit you from the rear because they want your weapon.
2. If someone has something against you or wants to rob you they will just shoot you first.
3. The police have it tough enough, why would you want attract this type of attention?

Just because it is legal don't make it smart....
Click to expand...

You know, anti's say the same thing about concealed carry...
 
Are you willing to help bankroll it? I'm out of work and spending my "retirement"!
Click to expand...

Me personally? Nope. But I'd be willing to bet if you were charged someone would. The EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation www.eff.org - consider them like the NRA of this type of issue ;)) is usually more than happy to take on such cases. They're all about government transparency.
 
The Philadelphia PD has recently had operating INSIDE of it, a gang which robbed immigrant owned convenience stores on the pretext of drug "raids", after first disabling all security cameras.

When supervision of a police department is so nonexistent that you can have armed robbery gangs operating INSIDE of it for YEARS (as was the case in both Philadelphia and Chicago), then the sky's pretty much the limit for individual police behavior.

The recent OC debacle in Philly is only the very TINIEST tip of a monstrous iceberg. Considerable evidence points to that being a ROUTINE mode of interaction with citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Mark Forino-Hero or Looser?
Replies
4
Views
511
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
If this video had ended in deadly force... would it be justified?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
kcofohio
  • Locked
Don't Talk to Police (5th Admendment)
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
hdwhit
H
D
  • Locked
Geezer squad gone wild!!! (not really)
Replies
17
Views
935
Dave McCracken
D
G
  • Locked
Helpful or harmful?
Replies
8
Views
658
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top