Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's the story. Mark Fiorino was walking down the street to go to an auto parts place to get a part for his car. He had a gun in a holster on his hip, which he had a license to carry in the open. He was complying with the law completely. Suddenly he's got a cop pointing a gun at him and telling him to get on his knees. He tries to calmly explain to the officer that he has a license to carry the gun and that he will gladly show it to him.
The officer calls for backup. The officer tells him that he can only carry a gun if it's concealed, Fiorino tells him that isn't true and even cites the exact directive from the police informing officers of this fact (he'd had trouble before with the police over this, so not only did he know the directive by heart he also carried a voice recorder with him and got all of this on tape). Here's the audio of the event.
They arrested him for illegally carrying a firearm, but had to release him without charge because he was right -- he'd done absolutely nothing illegal. But as Balko notes, the cops are only guilty of ignorance of the law -- which is bad enough.
When I've written about the arrests of citizens who record or photograph cops over the last couple years, I've repeatedly pointed out the double standard that exists when it comes to ignorance of the law. Citizens are expected to know every law. Break one, and you suffer the consequences. Ignorance is no defense, even when it comes to vague, obscure, or densely-written laws. But when law enforcement officials--the people we pay to enforce the criminal code--when they prove to be ignorant of the law, when they illegally detain, arrest, and jail someone based on a mistaken understanding of the law, they rarely if ever suffer any consequences.
But it's what happened later that is the real problem here. The prosecutor has decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct after he posted the audio on Youtube. Now you can listen to the tapes. There's nothing disorderly or reckless about it. He is polite and calm at all times. He does what the cops tell him to do even while trying to explain to them that they're wrong. He certainly did not violate any law. I think Balko is exactly right:
Here's what I make of it: It's criminal. Fiorino embarrassed Philadelphia cops, and Williams is punishing him for it. Williams and the police spokesman are claiming Fiorino deliberately provoked the cops. No, he didn't. He didn't wave the gun at anyone. He didn't invite police scrutiny. The cops confronted him upon seeing a weapon he was legally carrying in a perfectly legal manner. And they were wrong. Make no mistake. This is blatant intimidation. While their behavior in this story was repugnant, at least the cops had the plausible explanation of ignorance for the initial confrontation, then fear for their safety when an armed man they incorrectly thought was violating the law pushed back (though neither is an excuse, and neither should exclude them from discipline).What Williams has done since is much worse. It is premeditated. Much more than the cops, Williams should know the law. Moreover, even if he didn't know the law at the time, he has since had plenty of time to research it. By now, Williams does know the law. (If he doesn't he's incompetent.) And he knows that even if Fiorino did deliberately provoke the cops to test their knowledge of Philadelphia's gun laws, that also is not a crime.
Yet he's charging Fiorino anyway, with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct"--the vague sorts of charges cops and prosecutors often fall back on when they can't show an actual crime. A spokesperson for Wiliams said Fiorino was ""belligerent and hostile" to police who were investigating a possible crime. Read the transcript of the audio in the linked article above and tell me who is "belligerent and hostile." Read it knowing who was breaking the law, who was following it, and while remaining cognizant of which party was threatening to put a bullet in the head of the other.
Note that nothing Fiorino did was on its own illegal. Willliams is attempting a striking, blatantly dishonest bit of legal chicanery. His theory goes like this: If you undertake a series of actions that are perfectly legal and well within your rights, but that cause government agents to react in irrational ways that jeopardize public safety, you are guilty of endangering the public.
This can't stand. It's a blatant abuse of office. Williams is using the state's awesome power to arrest and incarcerate to intimidate a man who exposed and embarrassed law enforcement officials for nearly killing him due to their own ignorance. Exposing that sort of government incompetence cannot be illegal. And it isn't illegal.
The message Williams is sending is this: Yes, you may technically have the right to carry a gun in Philadelphia. But if you exercise that right, you should be prepared for the possibility that police officers will illegally stop you, detain you, threaten to kill you, and arrest you. And yes, you may technically also have First Amendment rights in Philadelphia, but if you dare exercise them to let the larger public know what happened to you for exercising your right to carry a gun, you will be arrested and charged.
I'm not trying to be needlessly provocative, here. This is important. Prosecutors can't get away with this kind of behavior. Even if the charges are eventually dropped, that isn't enough. Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Williams should be arrested. And he should be charged with knowingly violating Mark Fiorino's civil rights.
Exactly right. He's totally immune from civil suit thanks to the Supreme Court's insane theory of prosecutorial immunity that is literally invented out of thin air. So what other recourse is there? But good luck finding a prosecutor to charge him because, well, he's one of their own.
And if you think the fact that he was carrying a gun matters to this, it shouldn't. Carrying a gun is absolutely legal in Philadelphia. If you think that is the key fact here, substitute doing any other perfectly legal thing and see if you'd reach the same conclusions.
Politics
Comments
I wonder what would have happened if the victim had been wrong and the cop right? I somehow doubt that he'd have got the "oh well, it was an honest mistake, try not to make it again" that the cop got.
Posted by: G.Shelley | May 24, 2011 9:32 AM
Whats even crazier, is that the police have since have stated they will harass anyone they see carrying a firearm in teh name of "public saftey"
Posted by: Vic Vanity | May 24, 2011 9:44 AM
Williams is just saving face for the cops and himself. He was presented with a tough case, and had to make a show for the public. A total asshat. He probably couldn't get a job with a private law firm.
Posted by: omcdurham | May 24, 2011 10:09 AM
I keep wondering how long it will take before incidents like this, or the SWAT Team murder in Pima County AZ, will cause people to wake up and start demanding change from our Police & DAs.
Then I remember that far too many people in this country are abject cowards who are still more afraid of the myth of the violent, uneducated black guy with baggy pants and an attitude just waiting to rob or rape you (a rare thing indeed for the average law abiding citizen to encounter or experience), than they are of the highly trained, armed, and legally immune police.
Posted by: Mad Rocket Scientist | May 24, 2011 10:14 AM
> Whats even crazier, is that the police have since have stated
> they will harass anyone they see carrying a firearm in teh name
> of "public saftey"
Which will no doubt lead to an NRA rally - just what this needs to up the ante...
Posted by: Dave Durant | May 24, 2011 10:17 AM
Posted by: 2-D Man | May 24, 2011 10:28 AM
I'm afraid this is going to happen a lot with these "open carry" laws. Officers are going to be checking licenses any time they see a person carrying a firearm openly. If you think they are being careful just stopping a motor vehicle on the highway, they will now be approaching a known armed individual and they will be a lot more careful. You can bet there will probably be a lot of people looking down the barrel of a police pistol and being placed on the ground while the records are checked.
Posted by: s. pimpernel | May 24, 2011 10:29 AM
This is a pretty clear cut case of misconduct on the DA's part.
But Jesus God, what idiot legislature passed a law that said people can walk around like imaginary cowboys? I really don't trust the kind of (non-law enforcement) person who feels it is proper and necessary to be ready for a gunfight at a moment's notice. They strike me as the type who will just be itching for a reason to pull their gun.
I mean, come on, you weren't allowed to walk around with a gun on your hip in in Old West Tombstone. Why are you allowed to do so in modern Philadelphia?
Posted by: Norris | May 24, 2011 10:51 AM
I am just kind of surprised that the DA isn't using the illegal wiretapping charge that seems so common these days. It would be a much cleaner way around the lack of a crime than this vague "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct" charge.
Posted by: Lazy arm waver | May 24, 2011 11:42 AM
Ed Brayton: He's totally immune from civil suit thanks to the Supreme Court's insane theory of prosecutorial immunity that is literally invented out of thin air. So what other recourse is there?
The best shot would seem to be federal investigation via Color Of Law statute; ideally, finding an FBI agent and a US Attorney who are NRA members to complain to.
Unfortunately, amending that statute to allow individual civil suit would seem fundamentally barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Trying to re-amend the Constitution to strike the Eleventh seems a bit of an uphill fight.
Norris: But Jesus God, what idiot legislature passed a law that said people can walk around like imaginary cowboys?
Technically? That would be the First United States Congress, under the impetus of James Madison.
Posted by: abb3w | May 24, 2011 12:06 PM
why would there have to be a law passed specifically to allow that --- or any other behavior? there merely needs to not have been any law passed to prohibit it, is all.
open carry of firearms turns out to be legal in most of the USA, for just that reason. even though in most places, you'll end up arrested on some charge, whether bogus or otherwise. around where i live, they'd probably be clever enough to slap you with violating some hunting regulation or other, even (or perhaps especially) if you did it downtown.
you are, of course, perfectly free to distrust whoever you wish, for whatever reason or no reason at all. that doesn't mean that anybody's more and less prejudiced distrusts ought to be enshrined in law, however.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 24, 2011 12:45 PM
Why do you need a gun with you, say, when you're shopping at Target? What good will a gun do you in that situation? Or out at a sport's bar, how is that situation made more enjoyable by having your gun on your hip? How is anyone made safer with a bunch of gorram wannabe matinee cowboys wandering about, just waiting for the moment where they can pull out their gun?
Posted by: Norris | May 24, 2011 1:00 PM
hopefully you don't. most people, thankfully, never do. although it occurs to me that if you're ever unlucky enough to be proven wrong about that, you probably won't have the time to run over to the sporting goods section and buy one.
a more legitimate question is, why carry it in plain view? whether sensibly so or not, this practice seems to have become societally deprecated; the modern-day norm seems to be for concealed carry if one is going to carry at all. no shirt no shoes no service; cover up your sidearm if you choose to carry one, and for the same reason?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 24, 2011 1:10 PM
Norris, you'll definitely find a lot of people who agree with your ideas (I'm a hunter and gun owner and I am 85% with you on this matter), but I would hope you agree that the larger issue here is a completely unrestrained DA and police force that are breaking the laws set in place to apply to ALL of us. Personally I don't really like handguns, but the idea that you can be following the law, knowledgeable of said law, and still get arrested because a cop can't be bothered to do his job with professionalism (hear that Scalia?). Frankly I'm surprised as hell this didn't end with the citizen getting tazed for not obeying his superiors (/snark).
Posted by: Rob Monkey | May 24, 2011 1:13 PM
Nomen, don't you understand that a concealed weapon only increases your IPS (Imagined Penis Size) by a factor of 1.27, while open carrying bumps that factor up to 2.14? Thought that was common knowledge.
Really, I don't understand it at all. If I wanted to carry, I'd think the last thing I want is everyone within sight distance knowing that I'm armed, where it is in my body, and what kind of weapon/holster I'm using. If you really are thinking you're gonna go Rambo on some bank robbers, why would you want them having advance knowledge of your weapon?
Posted by: Rob Monkey | May 24, 2011 1:18 PM
@Rob Monkey: Oh, I completely agree that the police are in the wrong. Totally. And if anyone challenges a non-warrant arrest like this, I think the policy should be to contact dispatch and check the law before going to the station. I also agree that the prosecutor in this case is abusing his authority.
@Nomen Nescio: I used Target because I work at one. Lets just say that the idea of the assclowns who shout at employees because they can't get their way being able to do so while resting their hand on the grip of a gun...well, it is not a comforting though.
And, just to clarify, it is my opinion that concealed carry and wannabe matinee cowboy with a gun on his hip carry are two VERY different things. I'm not a huge fan of people being armed at all times, but there is the "out of sight, out of mind" factor (for both the carrier and the people around them) with the concealed. You're not walking around with it prominently displayed on your hip, essentially shouting to everyone "I've got a gun, you better watch yourself."
Posted by: Norris | May 24, 2011 1:27 PM
Rob Monkey:
...to make them reconsider robbing the bank in the first place?Or perhaps you're carrying for some other reason?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | May 24, 2011 1:31 PM
Yawn.
You are apparently thinking of meaning #1 (according to W3I). Ed used it in meaning #2, as everyone else noticed. Since this is basic, common, normative, widespread usage, I think you're more than just ignorant, you're willfully hyperstupid.
Posted by: william e emba | May 24, 2011 1:32 PM
There's also the Brian Aitken case. See the Balko article.
Posted by: william e emba | May 24, 2011 1:51 PM
What good does your SUV do you at target? It isn't like you are going to cross the rain forest to get there. And it endangers me more than any gun ever has.
Wither people carry openly or concealed isn't really of any consequence here. If the officer spotted what he thought was a concealed weapon that turned out to be a concealed weapon you would have the exact same story EXCEPT that someone carrying openly is almost certainly NOT a criminal while someone carrying a concealed weapon is less likely to be licensed.
Furthermore beyond the cop overacting which should be dealt with before he hurts someone the DA's charges are completely ridiculous. It would not be any more absurd for you to be arrested disorderly conduct for holding a peace sign.
Posted by: RH | May 24, 2011 1:54 PM
The question of what good it does you to carry a gun while shopping at Target (an amusingly ironic choice of stores!) is constitutionally irrelevant. What good does it do me while shopping at Target to wear a cross around my neck? What good does it do me while I'm there to pray that President B. Hussein Obama will come to Jesus? None, but it doesn't matter.
In the U.S., we do not grant rights based on whether they'll be useful or wise in a particular situation. The rights exist, period, and can only be restricted if there is a strong enough reason to restrict them. Perhaps there's reason good enough to limit our constitutional rights to the extent of not letting people walk into Target (or McDonalds, etc.) with guns, whether concealed or carried openly. I'm sure a reasonable argument to that end is not too difficult.
So I am not arguing for open carry into Target, but am just arguing that the question of "why do you need to do X" is the wrong approach in the American legal system--it starts from the wrong understanding of how our rights under the Constitution operate.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 2:09 PM
I agree that the gun question is irrelevant when it comes to the apparent misconduct of the prosecutor in this case. This has all of the earmarks of a DA lashing out at someone who "embarrassed" the cops.
Having said that, I agree with those who question the sanity of these recent laws that dramatically increase the number of guns in public. Here in AZ it's absolutely ridiculous, and to be honest dangerous to so extensively increase the number of firearms in public. I would argue that the situation makes it more dangerous rather than less dangerous for the people of these communities. If I am a law enforcement officer *OR* a criminal, I'm going to assume that the people around me are armed and operate in such a manner. We consistently see officers (and criminals) resort to violence more often in low income/high crime neighborhoods because there are generally more guns there. The "shoot first, fuck questions" mentality permeates many of those areas. The more guns we have will have the opposite impact that gun advocates believe it will have, things will be more violent, less safe, because people will simply assume that their potential foe is armed and, out of simple self interest, will operate in a more aggressive manner based upon that idea.
Posted by: dogmeat | May 24, 2011 2:13 PM
Squiddharta, my point was that if the bank is being robbed and the robber(s) can see where the guns are, they can more easily handle those who are armed. In reality, I think it's mostly fantasizing that someone is going to be in a good situation to stop a crime using a gun. Again, I'm not 100% against these laws, but I have strong doubts they really lower crime rates. I could see arming myself if I had a dangerous stalker for example, but I don't really get the guys who just carry in the hopes they'll get to be the knight in shining flannel.
It's kind of like my opinions on buying a gun for home defense: if you're worried about home invasion, buy a few motion sensor lights and a dog. If someone tries to get in, they're bathed in light and the dog goes nuts, a very effective deterrent. If nobody ever tries to break in, you've got a good light to open the door by and the best friend in the world. Much better than owning a gun that you don't know how to shoot accurately in the hopes that the guy who's already broken into your house will be deterred by the sight of your gun instead of attacking and taking it away. Unless of course you relish the idea of killing someone for trying to take your TV, sounds like a lot of paperwork and carpet stains to me.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | May 24, 2011 2:49 PM
A somewhat related anecdote:
About ten years ago my younger sister was working at Sears as a sales associate. One night right around closing time a guy came in to talk to her about some product. There were only a handful of employees scattered around the entire store, and no other customers. The customer and my sister were the only people in her department.
During the course of dialog the guy started becoming irate about something (misunderstood an advertised deal IIRC). He started raising his voice to my sister, who patiently tried to explain the deal to him. At some point he casually pulled back his jacket to reveal a handgun on his hip, and he rested his hand on it as they continued to talk. This freaked my sister out, but she stayed calm until the guy got fed up and left.
She reported the incident to her manager and police. The police just shrugged and said "for all we know he had a concealed weapon permit. If he didn't point it at you there's nothing we can do." Nothing more ever came from it.
My sister was shaken up by it enough that she quit, and never worked in retail again.
I get the right to carry concealed weapons, but I think this guy went beyond his right to carry and acted in a threatening manner (despite the police reaction). I can understand why private businesses would prohibit weapons on their property for reasons like this. While most people who carry are probably fine upstanding citizens, there are bound to be tiny-dicked jerks who think a weapon gives them a right to intimidate people.
Not that any of this applies to the story above, but I can see why some cops would be a little jumpy about it. The prosecutor's reaction is completely nuts though.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 24, 2011 3:08 PM
I can't stand concealed carry laws, personally. I much prefer knowing who around me is armed to having no idea whether some nutcase screaming at me is capable of killing me on the spot.
Posted by: Drekab | May 24, 2011 3:09 PM
I've never seen a convincing study that could establish a definitive link between gun laws and violent crime--in either direction. As near as I can tell, giving everyone a mandatory firearm as they graduate from high school, and going door-to-door with metal detectors and gunpowder-sniffing dogs to round up every last firearm, would seem to be just about the same as far as affecting crime rates and public safety.
At which point, it's probably better to use a licensing scheme that will make sure that people who do choose to carry firearms know the laws regarding them, and how to use them. (Personally, I think a "carry" license should include a practical demonstration of how to clean, store, transport and fire a weapon--and you need to get an 80% marksmanship score to pass.) Cost to the government for this purpose could be folded into charges for the licenses and taxes on weapons and ammo.
As for the cops and prosecutor, yeah, they should not be anywhere near a position of power; corrupt and ignorant are simply far more dangerous a combination than guns and Texans.
Posted by: Freemage | May 24, 2011 3:49 PM
Freemage, AFAIK here in MI (and a lot of other states), what you describe is in fact the process you have to go through. I'm actually rather surprised at how most concealed carriers consider the regulations to be something to be proud of completing, instead of the reaction I was expecting, i.e., "the government shouldn't tell me how to use my gun." There are accuracy requirements, education on applicable laws, and practical knowledge tests on the firearm(s) you're registering. In fact, to get my hunting license in MI, I had to go through an 8 hour course and a written test, both of which were pretty well managed IMHO. I'm still iffy on concealed carry, but at least there are logical requirements.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | May 24, 2011 4:33 PM
Three things:
1) Do you typically yawn when you're about to have a conniption?
2) It should also be noted that this "basic, common, normative, widespread usage" of the word "literally" literally means "not literally".
3) Given that you see no problem with a word being its own antonym, you might want to back off on charges of "ignorant" and "stupid".
Posted by: 2-D Man | May 24, 2011 6:18 PM
How fitting that 2-D man's complaint would be so lacking in depth.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 7:44 PM
We need to determine the root cause of law enforcement's failure. I once thought of police as public servants concerned with the safety of every citizen. Now police seem like personal armies or restrictive in-groups overwhelmed by groupthink.
I question the premise most police officers have that their perceived safety has a higher priority than a citizen's rights and well being.
I agree law enforcement workers, along with firefighters, do work in dangerous professions. I think harsher punishments, including capitol, is appropriate for those who kill or maim police or firefighters in the course of their duties.
However police are decently paid volunteers who knew the risks when they started their chosen profession. They should understand, from the start, the danger of police work is more than the average citizen is exposed to.
We should expect civil, respectful treatment from them, not foul mouth abuse in the name of the officer's personal safety.
My speculation in this case is a police officer, unhappy with a law he and his co-workers disliked, used personal safety as a excuse to harass a law abiding citizen to send a message about carrying exposed handguns.
I have an idea for police safety: everyone within one hundred yards of a police officer should lie face down in the mud with their hands to their sides and their legs spread until the police officer is at least one hundred yards distant from them. As the police officer walks by, the people lying on the ground, should respectively say: "Hello Officer, good day to you." The greeting is not optional. Woe be unto the fool who substitutes "Hi pig" for "Hello Officer."
"Support Your Local Police!" A useful meme for those who swing the battle axe of patriotism.
Unquestioning support is not patriotism, its stupidity; sentencing your children to fascism because you were too stupid, lazy or afraid to ask questions and insist upon the right answers.
Posted by: Pinky | May 24, 2011 7:50 PM
well you're just SOL, then. most any nutcase who's actually nutty enough to go around randomly killing people is quite capable of doing so on the spot; and people who have any serious proclivities down those lines (and who go armed) aren't likely to advertise their carrying weapons whether they do so legally or illegally.
honestly, being technically able to randomly kill people pretty much comes with being a healthy, moderately intelligent adult human. that most of us are unlikely to be willing to even attempt any such thing has nothing to do with us being either armed or not, as we choose to be.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 24, 2011 8:06 PM
Not to excuse the prosecutor, but this incident points up why open-carry laws are a bad idea. 90% of people who want to carry weapons openly do this because they want other people to perceive them as being dangerous and threatening. Now this guy wants to act so put upon that the cops actually perceived him as being......dangerous and threatening.
Posted by: CherryBombSim | May 24, 2011 9:04 PM
No. When I'm bored, especially by ignorant stupidity that seems to exist without purpose. Like yours.
Yawn cubed.
Yes. What of it? Do you have a point, or are you just discovering the reference I gave and haven't yet assimilated it past your zona incerta?
Yawn zenzizenzizenzic.
I don't believe in having denialism issues with reality. I sometimes dislike particular aspects of it. See, for example, the topic of this discussion thread for an instance of reality that Ed, myself, and several posters strongly dislike. You apparently dislike other particular aspects of reality. Whatever.
Yawn exponential.
But know that "ignorant" and "stupid" are (for your ignorant, stupid edification) the hallmark of people who openly, brazenly, cluelessly deny reality.
Yawn Ackermann.
In this case, the reality is of words meaning what they happen to mean, and seemingly to make matters worse, you were obviously not consulted on this matter. See reference I gave. That you apparently dislike this one tiny aspect to the point of trumpeting your false beliefs about reality--see reference I gave for correct beliefs about reality--as grounds for insulting Ed for not sharing your delusion is solid grounds for identifying you as "ignorant" and "stupid".
Yawn Grzegorczyk-Löb–Wainer.
I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps you thought Ed thought he was posting in Loglan, and you were trying to be helpful, or something? Well, no, Ed was posting in English, and you were not being helpful. You were being something. For further help on this issue, see reference I gave.
Yawn Church-Kleene.
Posted by: william e emba | May 24, 2011 11:16 PM
Norris @ 8:
What law better protects the rights of people in the midst of gun-holders, concealed or open-carry laws?
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 25, 2011 5:42 AM
Regardless of the justification of concealed/open carry/RKBA/the 2nd Ammendemnt etc in general, in this case it is quite clear that the person who could not be trusted not to pull their gun on someone was the one in law enforcement.
Posted by: GravityIsjUstATheory | May 25, 2011 6:35 AM
Rob Monkey @27: Thanks for that info--as a non-gun-owner myself, I haven't had much reason to closely examine the procedures for carry licenses, just had an opinion on what they should entail. Nice to know TPTB actually agreed with me on something, for once.
Posted by: Freemage | May 25, 2011 11:32 AM
Before we judge the cops too quickly on this we should remeber what cops have to go through because of idots with guns,whether it's being shot at or having to see too many dead bodies.Cops may often act like thugs but they are still human.
Furthermore just because somethng is legal does not make it right.
Posted by: Paen | May 25, 2011 3:35 PM
of course, the same is also true of thugs.
cops are not charged with upholding the moral right; they are charged merely with enforcing the law. there is a big difference, and an excellent reason.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 25, 2011 4:13 PM
Before we judge the cops too quickly on this we should remeber what cops have to go through because of idots with guns,whether it's being shot at or having to see too many dead bodies.Cops may often act like thugs but they are still human.
Furthermore just because somethng is legal does not make it right.
Posted by: Paen | May 25, 2011 3:35 PM
"Furthermore just because something is legal does not make it right"
Paen, what planet are you from? Who would you suggest should determine what is "right" Every cop on the street would have his own idea of what is right. What a scary society that would be, even wrse than what Philadelphia is today.
Just look back in the last year and see how many Philly cops have shot and killed people in non police activity, or shooting un armed people.
Posted by: Gary | June 21, 2011 1:12 PM