Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
That's my understanding too, which is a far cry from Workman's assertion that "the Washington precedents don't count." It actually CAN count, but in a discretionary manner.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Video: Cop's expert open carry response goes viral
- Thread starter redboneshadow
- Start date
That's my understanding too, which is a far cry from Workman's assertion that "the Washington precedents don't count." It actually CAN count, but in a discretionary manner.
LkWd_Don
Regular Member
To me Officer Nork detained the OC'er Under Color of the Law without proper justification.
This as far as I am aware, is a Violation of Section 242 of Title 18 of our US Code.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
This as far as I am aware, is a Violation of Section 242 of Title 18 of our US Code.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Good, now find a court that will agree that's what happened.
LkWd_Don
Regular Member
That would be for the person who was illegally detained (under the color of the law) to undertake as the injured party petitioning for a redress of grievance.
If I should ever find myself in that situation, you can rest assured, I will. But as I am not someone who goes out baiting others into an encounter of that nature, it may be a very long time before it happens. I say baiting as I would swear I recognize the voice on that video as being someone who does that regularly just to be able to post the encounters.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Well I think Workman posted in his article that the guy does in fact try to state LE encounters to video tape them.
FireFighterchen
Activist Member
So it is illegal to carry a loaded long gun openly because the courts have decided a reasonable person would be frightened by a long gun being carried in a place that doesn't require such force? Or the "walking briskly and avoiding eye contact" makes it illegal? Also, can you provide me with any writing as to how the rifle was being held? It seems, according to the link, it was being carried in manner that it was ready to be used. Does that mean it was slung in front of him, with his hand on the grip? Or just because the "assault rifle" had a "clip" in it (I won't even go into how wrong they are on firearm terminology)?
What ever happened to his dog that he was walking?
So...just to be safe, because my car is in the shop right now, and I am using my motorcycle, I can not carry my rifle slung across my back to the range because it might frighten someone?
On a side note: here in lies the problem with using the word "reasonable." It's definition changes between people, and so reasonable should not be a definitive term used when talking about the 2nd amendment. But alas, no one really cares what the Constitution says, just what they feel it means. I think Spencer passed many people while carrying that AK, and all those people didn't have a problem, until 1 person did. It would seem the reasonable people were fine with it, but an unreasonable person decided it was unacceptable. No?
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
It is the totality of the circumstances in Spencer.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Exactly, and something people seem to forget that along with all the other circumstances Spencers "Demeanor" played a major role.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
The argument about the stop aside, I'm surprised no one has brought up that the officer may have damaged the guys personal property. You DO NOT function check a rimfire gun, every .22 I have has stated in the manual do not dry fire. Doing so can / may depending on the firearm cause damage to the firing pin as it will bounce it off the the chamber face. I know that with the GSG's (the first .22 MP5 Clones, I have 2) the firing pins are easily damaged through dry firing, and light primer strikes can quickly occur in them.
OC for ME
Regular Member
No, it was not the totality of the circumstances (facts). The court shot their entire opinion in foot the with these two "facts".
Stated as fact by the court based on eye witness account. Not "allegedly carried....".
The cop likely lied because she was ignernt too just as ignernt as the cop in the video. Saw Spencer witha AK slung on his shoulder and "perceived" a threat just as those nitwits who called in the MWAEBGITCQ (man with a evil black gun I'm terrified come quick).
State v. Spencer provides the precedent to "chill" LG carry just as Spencer argued. Another huge hit against our 2A right in WA.
As to the "looks like a ....."
http://www.kids-army.com/toy-hand-grenade/
OC for ME
Regular Member
What was the weather like that night?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Not sure, I don't agree with the Spencer decision I feel it was a stretch and an erosion of rights handing Statist cops and Prosecutors a little foot hold in being able to encroach upon, harass, or arrest gun carriers.
But many folks will latch on to specifics of the case and say you can't carry a loaded AR or you can't do this...but the judges didn't mention any specifics they took the total circumstances in as Gogo had mentioned. I think it's dumb and a grasp at giving the state more power over someone who had done nothing illegal.
OC for ME
Regular Member
What's missing? "Assualtive type manner" and "weapon ready."
A BS ruling.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The court sided with the cop's version of how he carried and not, apparently, how the eye witnesses said he carried (if they even gave a description of how he carried, in spite of the fact that the court stated that the MWAEBGITCQ was apparently slung over his shoulder.
demeanor, low 60's, 5-10 MPH winds, rain likely. Is this common weather that/this time of year for Kent WA. Demeanor......hmmmm, how would you walk in this type of weather if the historical record is accurate.
rapgood
Regular Member
Yep. Workman's comment that "Washington precedents don't count" in Oregon is precisely accurate. What is considered "precedent" authority in Washington can be used in Oregon cases as "persuasive" authority. The distinction is that in Washington, the holding in the previous case must be followed by later courts in the same jurisdiction (subject to some allowable exceptions). Persuasive authority is viewed as just that: persuasive, and not required to be followed by the courts where it is offered as authority.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Yes, that's my understanding... which means Workman did a lazy 'journalists' short hand explanation imho.
doesn't count /= can't be possibly used (or useful)
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Don't disagree at all. The courts will continue to justify and rationalize statist behavior.
DocWalker
Regular Member
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
In our state you can't pull someone over for driving just to check they have a license. We don't even allow DUI check points.
Thank you for posting this officer Wolf, the rest I have argued this point here, there are some who insists it creates RAS, because it is possibly a crime.Not quite getting what RAS is.