Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: The face of 'tolerance' for OC *WARNING - Possibly Offensive image

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    The face of 'tolerance' for OC *WARNING - Possibly Offensive image

    ‘The face of liberal tolerance and gun control’ in Seattle, says OC citizen

    Spanaway resident Steve Coffman was waiting for a bus in downtown Seattle yesterday afternoon, minding his own business, leaning against a wall listening to music and answering e-mail when he was verbally accosted by a man who – according to Coffman’s account published on the WaGuns forum – challenged his manhood, insulted him and otherwise tried to provoke him.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...ays-oc-citizen

  2. #2
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    ‘The face of liberal tolerance and gun control’ in Seattle, says OC citizen

    Spanaway resident Steve Coffman was waiting for a bus in downtown Seattle yesterday afternoon, minding his own business, leaning against a wall listening to music and answering e-mail when he was verbally accosted by a man who – according to Coffman’s account published on the WaGuns forum – challenged his manhood, insulted him and otherwise tried to provoke him.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...ays-oc-citizen
    Too bad he did not have a voice recorder running... is WA a 1 party consent state?
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    it's a 404 link, sorry
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Too bad he did not have a voice recorder running... is WA a 1 party consent state?
    Depends. If it involves civilians only, it is an "all parties" consent state (although, simply announcing to them that the conversation is being recorded gennerally suffices). If you are recording a public official acting in his/her professional capacity, it is a 1 party consent state.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Depends. If it involves civilians only, it is an "all parties" consent state (although, simply announcing to them that the conversation is being recorded gennerally suffices). If you are recording a public official acting in his/her professional capacity, it is a 1 party consent state.
    I will have to object. WA is an 'all parties' consent state only in the regard of a private communication, exceptions to the private communications and penalty are found in RCW 9.73.030.

    A private communication is partly defined with court case STATE v. TOWNSEND, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002).

    Quote Originally Posted by State v Townsend
    The subjective intention of the parties to the communication is among the factors that the court may consider in determining if a communication is private. A court may also consider other factors bearing on the reasonableness of the participants' expectations, such as the duration and subject matter of the communication; the location of the communication and the presence of potential third parties; and the role of the nonconsenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party.
    Further in STATE v. CLARK, 129 Wn.2d 211.
    Quote Originally Posted by State v Clark
    [5] Privacy - Privacy Act - Private Conversations - What Constitutes - On Public Street - Within Earshot of Third Parties. For purposes of the privacy act (RCW 9.73), a conversation on a public street in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby is not "private."

    [6] Privacy - Intrusion Into Private Affairs - In General. The notion of "privacy" entails a matter into which there should not be prying or intrusion and that the matter intruded on or pried into is entitled to be private. In general, the presence of another person during a conversation means that the matter is not private.
    If the conversation is occurring in a public space or domain where no attempt is being made to make the communication private, its not a private communication and only 1 party consent is required.

    In regards to police video/audio, the court case STATE v. FLORA holds that only 1 party consent is required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stave v Flora
    [2, 3] Although the term "private" is not explicitly defined in the statute, Washington
    courts have on several occasions construed the term to mean:
    secret . . . intended only for the persons involved (a conversation) . . . holding a
    confidential relationship to something . . . a secret message: a private communication . . .
    secretly; not open or in public.


    ...



    The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be
    private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered
    their words private.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 07-24-2013 at 06:28 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    it's a 404 link, sorry
    Site is experiencing problems. Apparently someone in Sea is upset and has "jacked' the site. Who know, it Seattle you know.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Site is experiencing problems. Apparently someone in Sea is upset and has "jacked' the site. Who know, it Seattle you know.
    The Examiner pulled the story due to an "offensive" photograph of the antagonizer giving the finger.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    The Examiner pulled the story due to an "offensive" photograph of the antagonizer giving the finger.
    Oooooh someone gave me the finger. I just say "take it easy grandma"...

  9. #9
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    I will have to object. WA is an 'all parties' consent state only in the regard of a private communication, exceptions to the private communications and penalty are found in RCW 9.73.030.

    A private communication is partly defined with court case STATE v. TOWNSEND, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002).

    Further in STATE v. CLARK, 129 Wn.2d 211.

    If the conversation is occurring in a public space or domain where no attempt is being made to make the communication private, its not a private communication and only 1 party consent is required.

    In regards to police video/audio, the court case STATE v. FLORA holds that only 1 party consent is required.
    You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

    I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.
    Last edited by rapgood; 07-24-2013 at 08:46 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

    I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.
    AND... the notice of being recorded must be on the recording as well...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

    I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.
    OK say you are soccer mom Susie and you are recording little Dillon's game as two other soccer moms and multiple others are chatting away next to you has Susie broken the law?
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 07-25-2013 at 08:14 AM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    OK say you are soccer mom Susie and you are recording little Dillon's game as two other soccer moms and multiple others are chatting away next to you has Susie broken the law?
    No expectation of privacy.

    It doesn't mean that if you and I step off to the side where no one else happens to be so we can discuss things privately that since we are still "in public" that I can record you with a hidden recorder without your permission.

    I am thinking too that if you are recording a game you are using video which would be fairly obviously a recording device.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

    I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.
    I must still not be following you.

    9.73.030
    Quote Originally Posted by 9.73.030
    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
    (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
    (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

    ...
    9.73.030(1)(a) is clearly for intercepting or recording any conversation on a telephone or radio, clearly that is private and subject to party consent.
    9.73.030(1)(b) is for private conversations, which requires all party consent.

    Via citations previously provided:

    The common court definition of private is:
    Quote Originally Posted by STATE v FLORA
    [2, 3] Although the term "private" is not explicitly defined in the statute, Washington
    courts have on several occasions construed the term to mean:
    secret . . . intended only for the persons involved (a conversation) . . . holding a
    confidential relationship to something . . . a secret message: a private communication . . .
    secretly; not open or in public.
    In STATE v TOWNSEND the court more narrowly defined 'private conversation':
    Quote Originally Posted by STATE v TOWNSEND
    The subjective intention of the parties to the communication is among the factors that the court may consider in determining if a communication is private. A court may also consider other factors bearing on the reasonableness of the participants' expectations, such as the duration and subject matter of the communication; the location of the communication and the presence of potential third parties; and the role of the nonconsenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party.
    In STATE v CLARK they explicitly detail 'private conversations' and public spaces:
    Quote Originally Posted by STATE v CLARK
    [5] Privacy - Privacy Act - Private Conversations - What Constitutes - On Public Street - Within Earshot of Third Parties. For purposes of the privacy act (RCW 9.73), a conversation on a public street in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby is not "private."

    [6] Privacy - Intrusion Into Private Affairs - In General. The notion of "privacy" entails a matter into which there should not be prying or intrusion and that the matter intruded on or pried into is entitled to be private. In general, the presence of another person during a conversation means that the matter is not private.
    The way I read RCW 9.73.030 is that its illegal to record an individual(s) without their consent or knowledge only if that individual is engaging in a 'private conversation' and has an expectation of privacy. Given the case law, it appears to me that private conversations are restricted and that while in public space and within earshot of third parties without attempts to make that conversation private the conversation is not considered private.

    Thus the use of a voice recorder or other recording device, used while open carrying in a public space or location open to public simply overhearing background conversations would not be illegal and still admissible in court as the conversations being overhead where not 'private conversations'.

    Now if the individual happen to go into a bathroom or other private room the consent would be needed.

    Am I missing something here?
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    It would have taken every bit of my self control not to brandish... my middle finger right back at him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    It would have taken every bit of my self control not to brandish... my middle finger right back at him.
    I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile. It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 07-25-2013 at 12:45 PM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    I must still not be following you.

    <snip>
    Am I missing something here?
    No. I misunderstood your original point. I misread what you posted as saying that if the conversation is "private" then it could be recorded without notice or consent. My response was directed at that narrow point. The question is usually very fact-specific as to what constitutes an "expectation of privacy." I now understand your point and agree with your analysis.

    I also wish to punctuate Trigger Dr's point that the notice should be recorded as per RCW 9.73.030(3) (although some cases have held that if the recording is readily apparent -- such as a 30 lb. camera on your shoulder -- that suffices as notice).

    Another excellent case on the topic is Lewis v. Dept. of Licensing, 157 Wn. 2d. 446 (2006).
    Last edited by rapgood; 07-25-2013 at 02:03 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile. It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.
    Indeed. Truth be told, I'm usually quite polite.

    I really just wanted to say something about brandishing a middle finger back at him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    I had to deal with somebody like this when I first started carrying in Washington. I generally have a pretty calm demeanor and I would have just smiled, said "sorry you feel that way, have a nice day" and just walk off. People like this want are either so stupid and immature as to not know how to act in a civilized manner or are so smart as to try to do whatever they can to tick you off and provoke a response. As many have said, recorder - or if you are feeling balsy, call the cops on them! Especially if they become belligerent.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No expectation of privacy.

    It doesn't mean that if you and I step off to the side where no one else happens to be so we can discuss things privately that since we are still "in public" that I can record you with a hidden recorder without your permission.

    I am thinking too that if you are recording a game you are using video which would be fairly obviously a recording device.
    +1 That is exactly my understanding as well, I thought maybe Rapgood had another angle that I did not know about and I wanted to hear it if he did I am always up to learn something new. I see from his response to slapmonkey that he was only talking about a private conversation so we are all in agreement and on the same page.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  20. #20
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: The face of 'tolerance' for OC *WARNING - Possibly Offensive image

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile. It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.
    I used to do that with my ex-wife when she would go into one of her rages... worked pretty effectively at ******* her off even more.
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by skeith5 View Post
    I used to do that with my ex-wife when she would go into one of her rages... worked pretty effectively at ******* her off even more.
    My line was I understand you are upset and I am so so very sorry smiling throughout the entire delivery.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  22. #22
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr
    the notice of being recorded must be on the recording as well...
    So while they're ranting & screaming, you say in a normal tone of voice (which you know will be picked up by your recorder) "I'm recording this".

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy
    I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile.
    It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.
    An incredulous look, raised eyebrow, & slight smirk or chuckle with a negative headshake is quite expressive too.

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    one is compelled to wonder about the stability of somebody who aggressively approaches a visibly armed man and tries to start an argument
    +1
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Wednesday july 31st, multiple locations around seattle - coffee meet!


    As we always have....

    Deros and I will be hosting a coffee meet at the 1st & Pike at 8am...


    What I would like to see is others host at different coffee stands/Starbucks around the city.

    Post your spot here, get a couple of OCers to each location and let's flash mob the city with lawful OC!
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 07-26-2013 at 09:08 AM.
    Live Free or Die!

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Wednesday july 31st, multiple locations around seattle - coffee meet!


    In response to Dave's article...

    Deros and I will be hosting a coffee meet at the 1st & Pike at 8am...


    What I would like to see is others host at different coffee stands/Starbucks around the city.

    Post your spot here, get a couple of OCers to each location and let's flash mob the city with lawful OC!
    It's a great idea in theory nick. I just worry our numbers would be hurt by people who are at work or work far away, oh and you took the location I would've chosen....

    But I'll think for a day and see if I can help with your project
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Depends. If it involves civilians only, it is an "all parties" consent state (although, simply announcing to them that the conversation is being recorded gennerally suffices). If you are recording a public official acting in his/her professional capacity, it is a 1 party consent state.
    The privacy act law that governs recording (intercepting) conversations only refers to "PRIVATE conversation" iow a conversation that is not loud enough for the general people around you to hear AND not recording stuff like you speaking to a teller at mcdonalds (commercial transaction in a store is not a private conversation), or if you are talking to a cop.

    If you record a cop at a traffic stop, that's not a private conversation either.

    Heck, case law came down that a cop can record (w/o consent or knowledge) an interview conducted by a defense investigator with himself, etc

    The "private conversation" element is the most glossed over element of this law. The loudness of the person speaking, the nature of the relationship between the people in the conversation (like the McDonalds or the Cop example) etc. are not private conversations and thus the need to inform before recording is not necessary

    Covered previously damn well in some prior posts I might add
    Last edited by PALO; 07-25-2013 at 11:05 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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