Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry

[t1m0thy]

Yes, but not a single one of us at the OC Rally in Philadelphia on Saturday was checked for an LTCF.

Food for thought.

That fact alone makes me wonder if they were being disingenuous about knowing proper case law and that they know if push comes to shove they will lose that battle.

[whoshisface]

The fact that john lott wrote about this says win all over it.

[streaker69]

Yes, but not a single one of us at the OC Rally in Philadelphia on Saturday was checked for an LTCF.

Food for thought.

I really half expected them to, I really did.

[falcn]

Audio - http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/sho...dano-program/# go to 5/16/2011

Hmm the one from today does not go up to Ramsey statement.

[whoshisface]

You made me call my friend Tom Corcoran. Haven't hear dback from him. I doubt he'd write that though, must be another.

More evidence of the failure of the public school system:

"Mark Fiorino, you should walk in the shoes of a Philadelphia police officer before criticizing them.

Sgt. Dougherty was doing his job - a man walking down the street in Philadelphia with gun openly displayed is a nonverbal threat to every one in the city. Police officers are not mind-readers, and if you had any common sense you would realize this. The men and women who wear the uniform have enough to worry about.

Tom Corcoran, Philadelphia"

Um....wasn't Sgt Dougherty also "a man walking down the street in Philadelphia with gun openly displayed "?

In fact, Mr. Corcoran seems to forget that Sgt Dougherty did more than just "display" his gun, he pointed it at Mark, and threatened to "fucking shoot" him. Are actual verbal threats OK, as long as the aggressor is wearing a uniform?

Some cops (the good ones) welcome audio & video proof that they carry out their duties in a responsible manner. These cops point to unfounded accusations from citizens, and the comfort of having incontrovertible proof that they didn't fondle the female motorist, didn't steal drugs from the stopped car, didn't use excessive force, didn't use foul language or racial epithets.

Other cops, the bad ones, view all witnesses and recordings as incriminating evidence against themselves.

It's pretty clear where the dominant cop culture in Philadelphia stands on this. They view recordings of their on-the-job conduct in exactly the same way that Mafioso view someone who's wired for sound. And for the same reasons.

[whoshisface]

I really half expected them to, I really did.

I asked him prior to the event, he said no.

They know it would result in court action.

[Objective Viewpoint]

Now that I read every single post on the 214+ pages of this thread, I feel I am ready to chime in. I will disclaim with stressing a few points. 1. I am not an attorney. 2. I am 100% on Mark's side. 3. I am NOT posting my opinions to offend or stir!!

With that said, it seems at times throughout this tread that people lose sight of what Marks journey really is. This is NOT a "gun" issue, or a right to record the police issue. While these may be minor points in the arguement, this is ALL about being a Civil Rights issue. Mark very well could have been carrying a banana on his side, because that is equally as legal as carrying a gun.

I do urge some of the posters on here to take a step back and try an remove some of the emotion from their view. It bigger problem in all of this is not THAT the police responded, but more HOW they responded. My impression is that Mark knew what he was doing and was at least partially doing it to prove a point. That point being "I am Open Carrying simply because I CAN" beyond that he needs no other reasons.

Most of us are reasonable, and understand that cops are both human and have to deal with an element of society that is bad! As a reasonable citizen, I don't mind, and in some circumstances, expect that a police officer stop and make sure I am a safe and law abbiding citizen. I don't even necessarily mind that he had his gun drawn while he determines that I am no threat.

This is obviously the point it all goes down hill. What I DO expect is that our police officers conduct themselves professionally, and treat ALL of us with respect up until they find out whether an individual is a criminal or not. And even if they have a criminal, I still EXPECT them to show some restraint. Nowhere in any profession in any state of this country is calling someone "A F***ing Piece of S**T" or telling someone to Shut the F up, considered professional. In fact would venture to guess that 99% of us on this thread would lose are jobs if we said anything remotely like that to ANYONE we encounter during our job regardless of what we do to them.

It is my impression, and if I am incorrect, I apologize, that Mark at the very minimum understood what he was subjecting himself to when he OCs. He is obviously prepared with everything possible if and when he is stopped and questioned by the police. Remember people, CIVIL RIGHTS WERE NEVER CHANGED BY PASSIVE PEOPLE. In order to change things you HAVE to get in trouble, you HAVE to challenge the system. So I don't think that Mark minded getting stopped.

Once again, this is where it went down hill. The officer most certainly SHOULD have exercised a ton more patience in handling the situation. THE OFFICER was the one that was not calm, and that was Disorderly. Should Mark have listened and got on the ground...Maybe. But it should have never got that far.

Remember, the officers are human just like the rest of us, so they do make mistakes, just like the rest of us. While I would hope that they would have a better knowledge of the laws they are enforcing, I don't blame them when they don't fully know one. There are a lot of laws to know. What I do blame them for is how they proceeded. This would have been a whole different discussion if the officer would have calmly disarmed Mark, while he checked Mark's License and Verified (Key Point here) what the law actually was. Once again, my impression is that Mark would have shown them everything they needed to see. Once the officers got the facts, they could have given Mark his stuff back and sent him on his way.

I know there are people that are going to say "HOW DARE THEY Disarm" etc. In theory, the cops are there to protect! Remember, while Mark is not a threat, there are just as many others that are. If I am treated with respect, I am not going to mind a minor inconvenience while the Police do their job. When they breach that fine line of Respect, it is no longer about them doing their job, it becomes Harrassment.

It is a shame that anyone would be subject to this for ANY reason. The Bill of Rights gives Benefits and protections for EVERYONE with no exception at ALL TIMES!!!! Not just when it is convenient for certain people.

Thank you Mark for not letting this die.

[anonymouse]

This has been quoted pretty often, but it seems to apply pretty well to this situation:

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,[4] it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes — which it does not — such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.

Com. v. Hawkins, 692 A. 2d 1068 - Pa: Supreme Court 1997

Let's see what was said when this case was decided...

http://articles.philly.com/1998-01-1...charges-lorcin

Pa. Court Makes Road From Arrest To Conviction No Sure Thing Its Rulings In Cases Involving Guns And Drugs ``handcuff'' Police, The Philadelphia D.a. Says.
January 18, 1998|By Craig R. McCoy, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

<snip>

* The call to 911 was urgent. The caller said there was a man with a gun at a North Philadelphia corner. The caller gave a detailed description: The man was wearing a blue cap, black jeans and a dark coat.

Police arrived in just three minutes. They stopped and frisked Michael Hawkins, 32, who was wearing just such clothes and sporting a .22-caliber revolver in his waistband.

He was arrested that day in November 1993 on a charge of having an unlicensed gun.

Open and shut, right?

Last April, the state Supreme Court threw out Hawkins' firearm conviction. An anonymous 911 call was not enough for an arrest, the court ruled.

* A 1996 legislative effort to change the state constitution to undo this trend was turned back by opponents that included the ACLU and two key gun groups, the National Rifle Association and the even more conservative Gun Owners of America.

``Law-abiding citizens may find themselves the victims of overzealous searches by law-enforcement officials,'' the NRA had warned.

Advocates say the rulings by the high court protect all citizens and curb a too aggressive police force.

Police would ``like to do drug sweeps in the neighborhoods and search everybody,'' said John W. Packel, chief of appeals for the city Defender Association.

In rulings little known to the public, the state appellate courts have repeatedly found that the state constitution's First Article, barring improper police searches and seizures, is more rigorous in restricting police than the U.S. Constitution's equivalent Fourth Amendment.

``It is a very disturbing trend because, I believe quite honestly, it literally and figuratively handcuffs the police,'' Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham said.

A top aide, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, said the court posture was frustrating because rulings rooted in the state constitution left prosecutors with no recourse of federal appeal.

``We're in a bind,'' he said. ``We're seeing more and more cases thrown out.''

The rulings also are unsettling to police, who take some small comfort in stripping suspects of guns and drugs - even if an arrest does not lead to conviction.

``If we get one gun a day, that's good,'' a uniformed officer said last week.

<snip>

In a pair of opinions last year, the state justices rejected searches in which guns were found on city men after anonymous calls to 911. The court said in one case that there must be ``evidence independent of the telephone tip itself.'' In the other, the justices said city prosecutors had argued that police could frisk a suspect based ``on any information.''

``Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,'' the court wrote, ``it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire.''

The court's logic eludes D.A. Abraham.

``If a citizen sees someone on the street with a gun and gives a description that is fairly good and a police officer finds a gun and the person has no license,'' she asked, ``how are law-abiding citizens hurt by that?''

How are law abiding citizens hurt by unlawful searches and seizures?

[ViperGTS19801]

(insert quote of epic, reasonable, logical, objective assessment here)

Amazing first post. Thank you for seeing this for what it is. Have a great day, and I hope we see you around more often.

Rep sent. Don't spend it all in one place.

[whoshisface]

I agree with you assessment

The key point of contention will be

1. No need to stop anyone openly carrying unless you have a reason to believe the individual is committing a crime.

FYI: Mark has been stopped before and did give the officers his LTCF so you're correct Mark would have done the right thing.

Now that I read every single post on the 214+ pages of this thread, I feel I am ready to chime in. I will disclaim with stressing a few points. 1. I am not an attorney. 2. I am 100% on Mark's side. 3. I am NOT posting my opinions to offend or stir!!

With that said, it seems at times throughout this tread that people lose sight of what Marks journey really is. This is NOT a "gun" issue, or a right to record the police issue. While these may be minor points in the arguement, this is ALL about being a Civil Rights issue. Mark very well could have been carrying a banana on his side, because that is equally as legal as carrying a gun.

I do urge some of the posters on here to take a step back and try an remove some of the emotion from their view. It bigger problem in all of this is not THAT the police responded, but more HOW they responded. My impression is that Mark knew what he was doing and was at least partially doing it to prove a point. That point being "I am Open Carrying simply because I CAN" beyond that he needs no other reasons.

Most of us are reasonable, and understand that cops are both human and have to deal with an element of society that is bad! As a reasonable citizen, I don't mind, and in some circumstances, expect that a police officer stop and make sure I am a safe and law abbiding citizen. I don't even necessarily mind that he had his gun drawn while he determines that I am no threat.

This is obviously the point it all goes down hill. What I DO expect is that our police officers conduct themselves professionally, and treat ALL of us with respect up until they find out whether an individual is a criminal or not. And even if they have a criminal, I still EXPECT them to show some restraint. Nowhere in any profession in any state of this country is calling someone "A F***ing Piece of S**T" or telling someone to Shut the F up, considered professional. In fact would venture to guess that 99% of us on this thread would lose are jobs if we said anything remotely like that to ANYONE we encounter during our job regardless of what we do to them.

It is my impression, and if I am incorrect, I apologize, that Mark at the very minimum understood what he was subjecting himself to when he OCs. He is obviously prepared with everything possible if and when he is stopped and questioned by the police. Remember people, CIVIL RIGHTS WERE NEVER CHANGED BY PASSIVE PEOPLE. In order to change things you HAVE to get in trouble, you HAVE to challenge the system. So I don't think that Mark minded getting stopped.

Once again, this is where it went down hill. The officer most certainly SHOULD have exercised a ton more patience in handling the situation. THE OFFICER was the one that was not calm, and that was Disorderly. Should Mark have listened and got on the ground...Maybe. But it should have never got that far.

Remember, the officers are human just like the rest of us, so they do make mistakes, just like the rest of us. While I would hope that they would have a better knowledge of the laws they are enforcing, I don't blame them when they don't fully know one. There are a lot of laws to know. What I do blame them for is how they proceeded. This would have been a whole different discussion if the officer would have calmly disarmed Mark, while he checked Mark's License and Verified (Key Point here) what the law actually was. Once again, my impression is that Mark would have shown them everything they needed to see. Once the officers got the facts, they could have given Mark his stuff back and sent him on his way.

I know there are people that are going to say "HOW DARE THEY Disarm" etc. In theory, the cops are there to protect! Remember, while Mark is not a threat, there are just as many others that are. If I am treated with respect, I am not going to mind a minor inconvenience while the Police do their job. When they breach that fine line of Respect, it is no longer about them doing their job, it becomes Harrassment.

It is a shame that anyone would be subject to this for ANY reason. The Bill of Rights gives Benefits and protections for EVERYONE with no exception at ALL TIMES!!!! Not just when it is convenient for certain people.

Thank you Mark for not letting this die.