Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12
Results 111 to 117 of 117
  1. #111
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auburn
    Posts
    2,733
    I don't think that the city & it's employees should just be required to pay a SIGNIFICANT amount of money in this case. I think they should be brought up on SOME sort of criminal charges.

    The worst thing in a "free" society is the state backed abuse of authority against innocent people. If that doesn't warrant criminal charges then I believe THEY have won.

    The city will just pass on the costs of the judgement to the taxpayers. If there is no personal & SIGNIFICANT punishment to the individuals involved then there is NO INCENTIVE to change their behavior.

    I say if the guy wins then lock up all of the JBT's involved to teach all the others a lesson in civics.

    WE are the masters. They are the EMPLOYEES.

    I can't believe how there are so many LEO's & their departments who think that it's OK to act like this & do it in PUBLIC & then justify it with PUBLIC statements.



    I'm am SO glad that Mr. Fiorino had the recording device as proof of these acts. Those cops & their bosses need a SMACKDOWN.

    If this guy doesn't win (& win BIG) then there really is no hope.

  2. #112
    Expert A 7.62 Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Among the Corn
    Posts
    1,044
    I find it interesting how one of the cops says "He's setting us up" MEANING, the @$$hole realizes he's doing something that could backfire in a court. Philly's finest.....
    Last edited by A 7.62 Exodus; 02-16-2012 at 22:28.

  3. #113
    I read a review of this case on Jon Turley's blog and one of the comments noted:

    "What he means is that there was an internal policy of the police department that said you must conceal. That policy was changed in September 2010 (because the police department realized it was not in compliance with the actual law) so that it now said that open carry was legal with a license to carry firearms. However the department failed to train its officers on that new policy.."

    That's why law firm of McCausland Keen & Buckman pounced on this along with the ACLU. When it's an institutional failure, a civil case win is almost a slam dunk.

  4. #114
    Plinker PA2Ind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph Co.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by indymike View Post
    I read a review of this case on Jon Turley's blog and one of the comments noted:

    "What he means is that there was an internal policy of the police department that said you must conceal. That policy was changed in September 2010 (because the police department realized it was not in compliance with the actual law) so that it now said that open carry was legal with a license to carry firearms. However the department failed to train its officers on that new policy.."

    That's why law firm of McCausland Keen & Buckman pounced on this along with the ACLU. When it's an institutional failure, a civil case win is almost a slam dunk.

    They always say that not knowing the law is not a defense, but they can claim to not know the law?! Its their job to know the law! Besides, I know for a fact to keep their police cert all PA cops have to take a certain amount of inservice/law updates classes every year. They knew, they choose to enforce their own opinons.
    "Remember the first rule of gunfighting ... have a gun." -Jeff Cooper

  5. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by PA2Ind View Post
    They always say that not knowing the law is not a defense, but they can claim to not know the law?! Its their job to know the law! Besides, I know for a fact to keep their police cert all PA cops have to take a certain amount of inservice/law updates classes every year. They knew, they choose to enforce their own opinons.
    I think the point of that guy's post is that they obviously did not know the law and no, that is not a defense. And they will soon find out from the highest ranks on down the consequences of not knowing the law or not training your staff to know the law.

    I have no doubt that if the leadership had held inservice/law updates regarding open carry in the city, they would have no problem leaving one or two officers out to dry. They would prove in court that the training was provided and the officers acted in opposition to it. They (the institution) would have a better case in civil court if that were true.

    There are some really big guns on Philadelphia PD now with that law firm and the ACLU. So if these guys really did impose their own opinion or it was a failure of leadership, they are about to get the smackdown from the voters who will have to foot the big bill coming.

  6. #116
    Expert Liberty Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brainardland
    Posts
    1,289
    "FAILURE TO TRAIN" is a leading justification for lawsuits against LEO agencies.


  7. #117
    Plinker PA2Ind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph Co.
    Posts
    142
    Well PA requires inservice/law updates to keep their cert. What those updates consist of are decided by the commonwealth. And since OC'ing is usally a non issuse in most of the state, they prob dont think to add it.

    They give Philadelphia an exception(OC within city limits, ONLY if you have a license) from the rest of the state, because of its size. I can foresee that happening with Chicago, IF a carry law is ever passed in IL.

    Last edited by PA2Ind; 02-19-2012 at 11:42.
    "Remember the first rule of gunfighting ... have a gun." -Jeff Cooper

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •