Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

[longrange1947]

I have been stopped in three seperate occasions at "check points", you know the drunk driving types. Each time, I immediately declare I am a licensee and indicate if am armed and the location of the weapon. Twice I was carrying and once I was going to an occasion that would have been questionable as to my weapon on property in my car so left it home. In all occasions the LEO, once State, twice Fayettevilles finest, were well aware fo the proceedures and nop[roblems were incountered.

I firmly believe the difference in the "gun culture" of ther area. Most in Philly are anti gun, most in NC are not.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Pete

If the local cops don't understand the city's gun laws how the hell do they expect a civilian to understand them?

I can understand a cop not being up on minor local laws but guns and drugs?

How can local government expect to enforce laws if the cops don't know them?

Police are often trained in only specific aspects of certain laws, including gun laws. Sometimes the training may be flawed. We are all aware of varying interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. IMO, it is written in plain english and requires no interpretation, however there are attorneys who make a living trying to explain to everyone else what it means.

Many officers, law enforcement administrations, attorneys, and elected officials interpret laws according to their experiences, political ideologies or by what someone else has told them. To take something simple as an explanation, I don't know how many times I have had to explain the reasons that some speeding violations require one to go to court and others can pay a fine, to other officers. They don't deal with traffic violations that much and often get confused. The same goes for weapon violations, whether it be a firearm or a shuriken. If you don't have that much experience dealing with it, or that area is not your niche, then you may not know.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by rdret1

Police are often trained in only specific aspects of certain laws, .........

But the cops like to use the line "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" on people they are arresting.

So Joe Civilian can get a gun pointed at him and thrown on the ground and the excuse is "Well, we can't be expected to know all the laws."

This line of an excuse sounds like Bull Shit. If a cop is carring a gun the least he should be expected to know are the local gun laws.

Sad, Sad, Sad when civilains jump through all the hoops to get a gun license and end up knowing more about local open carry that the cops do.

Maybe cops should be required to go through the same course civilians do.

What does a civilian get for flashing a gun? Maybe that Philly cop should be charged with that.

[Snaquebite]

In the summer time I don't always CC, I may go somewhere, grab my piece and slap it on my hip. Very OC....I've had several encounters with both Cumberland and Hoke Sheriffs and Fay Police where they observed me in a parking lot or store and never blinked an eye..... I do believe sometimes perception can have a lot to do with it. Could be wrong.

Edit: None of those encounters were on the Murch or Bragg Blvd.....

[PSM]

Originally Posted by rdret1

It is unreasonable to expect an individual officer to be familiar with the hundreds, or even thousands, of laws which may apply in their specific jurisdiction, not to mention the fact that these laws tend to change or be amended every election cycle.

Yet, the citizen (read: taxpayer/employer) is told that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". We are all criminals. They just have to figure out which law we broke. The Nuremberg Laws were less intrusive.

Pat

[Snaquebite]

Originally Posted by PSM

Yet, the citizen (read: taxpayer/employer) is told that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". We are all criminals. They just have to figure out which law we broke. The Nuremberg Laws were less intrusive.

Pat

Have to agree with that to an extent. This is a law that every cop everywhere should be familiar with...I can see them not being aware of some obscure ordinances, IMHO this is very different.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by rdret1

If you are a CCW holder:
1. As soon as an officer approaches, even before he first speaks to you, keep your hands where they can be seen and inform him that you have a CCW whether you have your firearm with you or not. In NC, this is actually part of the law and responsibility of the CCW carrier.

2. If you have your firearm, tell the officer where it is (holstered on your hip, in the glove compartment, between the seats, etc.). KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE THEY CAN BE SEEN! Never reach for the firearm while saying "it is right here." NEVER APPEAR TO BE REACHING FOR SOMETHING UNSEEN BY THE OFFICER. This includes while the officer is approaching your vehicle.

3. Follow the officer's instructions. Some will ask you to exit the vehicle and either leave the weapon where it is or do like I do and ask to take possession of the firearm. Do not attempt to give the firearm to the officer, let the officer take it from you. Your hands should never come in proximity of the weapon.

4. No matter what the stop is for, maintain your composure and a cooperative, respectful attitude. This does not mean that you have to give permission to have your vehicle searched if you do not want to. That is a seperate issue from the legal possession of a firearm. You can decline the request for search consent while still cooperating within CCW law constraints.

Law enforcement, like any other occupation, has those who may specialize in certain areas while being relatively unfamiliar with other areas. The fact that some officers are unfamiliar with some firearms laws is indicative of that. Some officers can barely qualify every year or semi-annually, whichever their department requires. Some officers are experts at juvenile law, some with domestic law, others with traffic or firearms, etc.

Each officer tends to gravitate toward that which interests them the most. It is unreasonable to expect an individual officer to be familiar with the hundreds, or even thousands, of laws which may apply in their specific jurisdiction, not to mention the fact that these laws tend to change or be amended every election cycle. Most departments tend to focus training on the issues they view as the most important at the time. Usually, these are drugs; break-ins; assaults; homicides; or whatever the citizenry is complaining about the most at the time.

Some departments restrict the actions of their officers, compartmentalizing the training and experience. Traffic units only deal with traffic; warrants are only written by detectives; patrol only answers calls and take initial reports; etc. (fortunately, my department is not like this).

In my experience, it is easy to understand how some officers may not have been familiar with PA's firearms laws. It is not, however, an excuse to act unprofessionally. I am sure there were other officers on the shift who were familiar and could have answered questions if they had been asked.

rdret1- thank you for taking the time and making the effort to share such a succinct yet thorough explanation to my inquiry.

I travel quite a bit and travel through NC at least 3 or 4 times a year - we stay in Charlotte, Black Mountain and Asheville. We have never had a problem but it is always prudent to listen to the advice of a professional.

Thanks again.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Pete

But the cops like to use the line "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" on people they are arresting.

So Joe Civilian can get a gun pointed at him and thrown on the ground and the excuse is "Well, we can't be expected to know all the laws."

This line of an excuse sounds like Bull Shit. If a cop is carring a gun the least he should be expected to know are the local gun laws.

Sad, Sad, Sad when civilains jump through all the hoops to get a gun license and end up knowing more about local open carry that the cops do.

Maybe cops should be required to go through the same course civilians do.

What does a civilian get for flashing a gun? Maybe that Philly cop should be charged with that.

Even attorneys and judges have paralegals that do research for them when they are unfamiliar with a certain law or case. Police officers (for the most part) do not have law degrees and must have a general familiarization with almost the same laws that attorneys and judges do. It may sound like BS to you but you should go on a ride-along some time.

Many laws are very confusing. For instance, many officers get confused with the NC Statutory Rape law, which reads as follows:

§ 14-27.7A. Statutory rape or sexual offense of person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old.
(a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.
(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person. (1995, c. 281, s. 1.)

Juvenile officers would be able to explain it quite well, the average officer who does not deal with juvenile offenses often can get confused with it.

North Carolina Concealed Weapon statute is as follows:

§ 14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.

(a1) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any pistol or gun except in the following circumstances:

(1) The person is on the person's own premises.

(2) The deadly weapon is a handgun, and the person has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or considered valid under G.S. 14‑415.24.

(3) The deadly weapon is a handgun and the person is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(2a) who provides to the law enforcement officer proof of deployment as required under G.S. 14‑415.11(a).

(b) This prohibition shall not apply to the following persons:

(1) Officers and enlisted personnel of the armed forces of the United States when in discharge of their official duties as such and acting under orders requiring them to carry arms and weapons;

(2) Civil and law enforcement officers of the United States;

(3) Officers and soldiers of the militia and the National Guard when called into actual service;

(4) Officers of the State, or of any county, city, town, or company police agency charged with the execution of the laws of the State, when acting in the discharge of their official duties;

(5) Sworn law‑enforcement officers, when off‑duty, provided that an officer does not carry a concealed weapon while consuming alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance or while alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance remains in the officer's body.

(b1) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The weapon was not a firearm;

(2) The defendant was engaged in, or on the way to or from, an activity in which he legitimately used the weapon;

(3) The defendant possessed the weapon for that legitimate use; and

(4) The defendant did not use or attempt to use the weapon for an illegal purpose.

The burden of proving this defense is on the defendant.

(b2) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The deadly weapon is a handgun;

(2) The defendant is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(2a); and

(3) The defendant provides to the court proof of deployment as defined under G.S. 14‑415.10(3a).

(c) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a1) of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor for the first offense. A second or subsequent offense is punishable as a Class I felony.

Not every police officer or citizen knows that it is illegal to carry a sling shot outside of your property concealed.

North Carolina General Statutes consists of 168 chapters. Many with subsections from A - G. The chapters most relevant to LEO's are: 14 - Criminal Law; 15 - Criminal Procedure; Ch 18 - Alcohol; Ch 20 - Traffic; Ch 50B - Domestic violence; and Ch 90 Art 5 - NC Controlled Substances Act. Each one is a very thick BOOK unto itself, written in legalese. Then you have whatever local ordinances in effect in the city or county, which is another book. There being no excuses, realistically, how much of that do you believe any one individual is going to be familiar with on a particular day?

That would be like expecting the average soldier to know everything from AR 1-32 to AR 930-5, when you are doing good if you can get them to get AR 670-1 right.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PSM

The Nuremberg Laws were less intrusive.

YGBSM.

Richard

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Richard

YGBSM.

Richard

Broadly speaking, I'm not. I'm saying that the whole population is targeted, not just one minority segment.

Here, if the government outlaws incandescent light bulbs and mandates curlycue florescent bulbs and then, when the curlycue fails, I toss it in the trash, I've broken the law because of the HAZMAT laws. You'll point out that that hasn't happened, but it will.

How'd the Central Valley fair with the environmental law protecting the Delta Smelt? What would have happened to a citizen/taxpayer who poisoned the fish so he could water his crops? You lived there. What would you have done to save your livelihood?

There are many more.

Pat

[alelks]

Originally Posted by panama jack

It is better to eat humble pie and live to talk about it, (that is, in any situation involving an active duty LEO), than try to prove a point and wind up like this poor chap, ultimately arrested and in jeopardy of losing his CCW, and potentially DOA had things gone further south.

A little preachy but my .02 nevertheless...

While I can appreciate your logic I would have to respectfully disagree. Unless we as citizens hold law enforcement to the same standards we are expected to live up to there is a much higher chance of the misuse of power or perceived power in this case.

Of course once we loose that perspective things like the following video could happen VERY easily. Police officers have to be held to a higher degree of competency than the average Joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKLEOXenow

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by alelks

While I can appreciate your logic I would have to respectfully disagree. Unless we as citizens hold law enforcement to the same standers we are expected to live up to there is a much higher chance of the misuse of power or perceived power in this case.

Of course once we loose that perspective things like the following video could happen VERY easily. Police officers have to be held to a higher degree of competency than the average Joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKLEOXenow

I agree.

You have to give respect to get respect.

A gun and a badge are not a license to abuse citizens and treat them disrespectfully.

If you want to swear at citizens and call them names while issuing instructions, maybe you shouldn't be on the streets with a gun and a badge.

While the root cause of this incident was a citizen who decided to demonstrate his rights and an officer who was ignorant of the statute he was trying to enforce, he demonstrated not only his ignorance, but a complete lack of control of himself, the situation, and his professionalism.

If I start calling an officer names and dropping the f bomb on him, I would expect the encounter to go downhill quickly. Who likes to be treated like that?

IMHO, the DA is prosecuting to try and cover the likely civil suit coming along next.

TR

[Groleck]

Based on the audio alone, it sounds like a huge jackass fest to me.

There wasn't a good enough reason for the officer to get all butthurt and curse the man out, nor any excuse for stopping a man lawfully open carrying and not breaking the law. He sounded like one of the "little man syndrome" type of police officers. Although not in a position of power or authority, I've found being direct and respectful elicits desired behavior most effectively.

OTOH, Fiorino should understand that the world is bigger than his perception. Maybe there was some kind of report or warrant or other out for a man matching his description. Would it have been that big of a deal to comply and explain the situation to the police officer instead of square off "peacefully?" I think a quick conversation and presentation of ID and carry permit would have had the officers sending Fiorino on his way.

My .02

- Dan P.

[18C4V]

I'm an active LEO and a Supevisor. There's better ways of skinning that cat. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that agency does not interact with open carry laws nor does it have a policy to deal with it.

However, if he tried that tactic in CA it would have ended up bad for him. Especially in a city that's very anti gun.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by 18C4V

I'm an active LEO and a Supevisor. There's better ways of skinning that cat. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that agency does not interact with open carry laws nor does it have a policy to deal with it.

Probably a fair assessment. In WI where (currently) open-carry is the only legal recourse available because the law is mute in that regard, simply doing so makes one a target of the "he's just making a point about his rights" moniker. Several municipalities have found their coffers emptier for FTFSI when the AG even counselled in an advisory memo,

"Look folks, absent any other criminal circumstances, the simple presence of a holstered gun is NOT cause for a disorderly conduct charge or anything beyond a brief investigative encounter following a man-with-gun call." Departments that weren't in a coma have incorporated the dynamic in their policies and everyone drives on.

Hopefully that will soon change with codification of OC or CC on the books, since the same folks that cried "no hidden guns!" are the first ones to cry "oh, please put the offending things from our sight!"

I OC when in state but have no problems; then again, as TS advises, I don't make a point of being the 2nd belligerent asshat when there's already one at the scene. Most officers I know respond to civility as much as anyone.