@5:40 in the officer finally evokes the mythical "right" to police safety that trumps the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
I've always wondered about that. Given the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, how can a seizure of a lawfully carried weapon be legal? Washington supposedly has stronger constitutional protections than the federal constitution provides, so if an action would seem to violate the federal constitution, it would almost certainly violate the state one.
Seizing a weapon, even temporarily, "for officer safety" is making the statement that the officer believes the citizen is going to unlawfully draw and fire. How is making such a claim in public not defamation?
It's illegal to forcibly disarm a police officer in Washington except in self-defense or on the order of a judge, but what would the reaction be if you cited the recent acts-of-Birk and asked an officer to disarm himself for citizen safety? What's the penalty for standing on your rights and refusing to surrender your weapon for "officer safety"?
A public official who uses the authority of his/her position to violate a statutory, civil or constitutional right has committed a federal crime, and doing so with a dangerous weapon is a felony (18USC242). Washington does not exempt a uniformed police officer (in any law that I've ever found anyway) from a citizen's arrest. Does Washington case law support the concept that simply being visibly armed (even if weapon is not drawn) while committing a crime makes the crime an armed crime? If so, a simply oral discouragement of exercise of rights by a police officer would be a felony crime for citizen's arrest purposes.