I thank god that our justice system doesn't work the way you wish a "true justice system" should.
-
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.
WA:Bellingham Pays $15,000 for Police Pointing Gun at Open Carrier
- Thread starter ccwinstructor
- Start date
I thank god that our justice system doesn't work the way you wish a "true justice system" should.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Agreed, and I did not address this point. Cop apologists use a training deficiency as their first choice on a wayward cops behavior, not if the cop's behavior is consistent with the law, all of the law. Cop apologists constantly proclaim that cops are citizens too, well, find out if the circumstance warranted the cop to employ lethal force from a criminal statute violation perspective first, then work your way down to a training deficiency. Sadly, the top cop is OK with her minions drawing down on law abiding citizens.
The hold the top cop accountable also for failure to train properly. She, in this instance, should certainly be aware of the current state of the law. Sadly, she too will be held to have not properly trained herself.
Back-handed insult noted. If YOU have read any of my other posts on this "civic duty" burden YOU place on the citizenry, for cop waywardness, YOU would have read that I have done that which you chide me for not doing.
Why not? You are a LEO, and civic duty minded. A insider so to speak. Help your fellow officers and work from within the system to affect change.
Punished for what? A rights violation? Or, the apparently unwarranted and possibly unlawful use of lethal force in that specific situation? there is no indication that a cop, who cost the city 15Gs is going to be sanctioned other than a Post-It note in his service jacket for not being trained properly.
Again, hold that LEA accountable for not properly training their officer(s). Why do you continue to let the entire LEA off the hook. The top cop is responsible for the training.
We are not talking about the law, here, because that cop will not face a judge or a jury. Nothing more than a policy/training issue that cost tax payers 15Gs.
The just following orders defense. The law would not be they way it is now if LE would follow the law as they are and as they were.
Does a OCer throw the training bulletin & policy handbook at cop, pointing a gun at him, for lawful activity?
Filming is not apart of this topic. A cop drawing his gun on a OCer, lawfully OCing, is the subject of this topic. Though, the gun drawing part does not seem to be of much concern to very many folks.
Blame the LEA and not the beat cop. Again, why do you folcus on the beat cop and not the LEA?
Again, you ignore the fact that the cop is alleged to have drawn his gun on the OCer, multiple times it seems, and focus of the cop's training or lack thereof.
Merely getting hassled is far different than getting almost shot dead. That is not a training issue. The initial contact is the training issue. The getting almost shot should have been a criminal issue, apparently a felony in WA if the ECWs apply to cops as well as citizens. In this case the top cop has stated that the applicable RCW(s) did not apply to this cop.
Stating the obvious, yet this does not mitigate the fact that the top cop is OK with drawing down on a citizen engaged in a lawful activity.
Anyway....
Ah yes, the recourse of every American... sue sue sue.
Fortunately, here in America, we have due process and CBA's for officers in most agencies such that the disciplinary process is *generally* fair and it does a good job of holding ofc's accountable while respecting due process, weeding out false claims against officers, etc.
This is why I advocate people film the cops. It helps protect the good cops from bogus complaints and helps to punish the bad cops. Win/win. Given the fact that nearly everybody is walking around with a video camera of sorts on their person (cell phone), and that UOF's often occur in public places in full view of same, etc. it is much more likely now a days, that misconduct is caught on camera AND much more likely that GOOD conduct is caught on camera to protect good officers from bogus complaints.
I know of an officer from my agency just recently whose butt was saved from a false complaint because somebody had their cell phone videotaping the incident. Unfortunately , WA state is extremely weak on holding those who make falso complaints against officers liable (civilly and criminally). But w/o the videotape, it's quite possible the complaint would have been sustained. The investigation was going that way until the discovery of the video and thank that fine citizen for coming forward to save the officer and doing his civic duty.
Imo, the system IN MOST JURISDICTIONS works pretty well at disciplining (up to and including firing) officers consistent with due process. I've seen some cases where my agency went way overboard and were spanked by an arbitrator and the officer rehired with backpay (including overtime he would have worked), just like I've seen cases where they underpunished ofc's too leniently but OVERALL I think the system works pretty well at holding ofc's accountable, while respecting their rights.
The more people we have videotaping/audiotaping the cops (and the more cops we have with body cameras etc.) the better it will be in incentivizing ofc's to do the right thing (because they know they are on camera), protecting them when they do so, holding them accountable when they don't.
I'm out on injured leave right now from an injury I sustained several days ago taking a violent assaultive suspect into custody. Unbeknownst to me at the time I was tackling him and wrestling him into handcuffs, I had an audience of a half dozen barbeque'ers on their porch watching my every move. But since I did nothing wrong and used reasonable force (which aint pretty sometimes fwiw. even reasonable force can LOOK ugly. Cause that's how force works. It's not all TJ Hooker wristy-twisty magick), I now have a half dozen witnesses to back up my actions if the nimrod felon tries to drum up some kind of bogus complaint. I even got a standing ovation! booya
Recognize that the first refuge of a person who did something wrong (like this guy) is to try to turn it around on the cops, make a false complaint, and take pressure of HIM by blaming the cops and putting suspicion on them. That's why it's so important to have people filming stuff because it can shut down these bogus complaints in an instant.
Nobody got "almost shot". Spare me. Cops routinely draw down on people (when justified ) like felony stops etc. Cops are taught to try to get one step ahead of people they have reason to deem a threat. That's why on a felony stop , an example where a cop has JUSTIFICATION in fearing an armed and dangerous perp, they don't wait to see if the person is armed before they draw down, etc. they draw down at the outset. To get the upper hand. That's a good thing. It's basic officer safety, it protects officers and it does NOT result in anybody getting shot unless the guy reaches for his gun and/or charges an officer who has his gun out. Felony stops are a wonderful way to nearly ELIMINATE the necessity of an officer using deadly force, since by getting the upper hand, they almost always convicnce the perp NOT to try anything as it would be futile. In rare instances, ofc's have to fire during a felony stop and because they drew first, they are in a tactical position of being much more likely to survive (also because they use cover).
The problem in this incident was IT DID NOT JUSTIFY A FELONY STOP. The officer had NO cause whatsoever to draw down on the OCer. PERIOD. Full stop. But any OCer in their right mind would recognize that as long as they followed instructions, they were not going to get shot.
Fwiw, I have been drawn down on by cops during a felony stop. In that instance, they WERE justified, but it does not make it any less unpleasant to have a police officer draw down on you.
Fwiw, as a firearms instructor I teach that you do NOT point your gun at a person during an average felony stop. You draw your gun to indoor ready or low ready, generally speaking
As for your point about me having a duty to check out BPD's policy, um no.
I said people have a civic duty to check their OWN LOCAL PD and effect positive change. Politics being local, etc. I *have* met that civic duty burden with MY PD.
Imo, it is not the duty of a person who lives in (for example) Tacoma to effect positive change in Bellingham. We get the govt's we deserve. People should get involved with their LOCAL PD's. THOSE are their servants and those are the people they need to keep a close eye on.
The bellingham chief sounds like a nimrod.
We probably both agree on one thing. The officer got off TOO lightly in this case. We may disagree about to what extent the officer should have been punished, but we can both agree he should have been punished vs. how the incident was handled by BPD
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Wrong, our state has ruled qualified immunity isn't dependent upon that, I have provided the cites. This officer Allen Bass has had received the training, we actually talked about him before.
Yes it is good to do but it isn't our responsibility, the cops took the job, it is their's to leave us alone, unless people don't believe in liberty.
This case had nothing to do with with filming. I don't buy the line we get the govt. we deserve, that implies that the rule of majority is the best way to go, I say we deserved to be left alone. I shouldn't be coerced by violence to comply with intrusions into my liberty or freedom because my neighbors wanted it.
jhfc
Regular Member
Here's the link to Bellingham's current (pre-recent events) training bulletin. The tone is "problematic" to say the least.
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f8ad20d00d6bfe79e2055cd0c832347c&action=downloads;cat=1
What is this concept of "in the hand"? Is it merely the firearm existing in the holster? or does it have to be touched in some way? Not at all clear.
And then later, the training is to have all OC calls investigated, including a supervisor. To me, this is an utterly ridiculous response to a legal activity:
Training bulletins from around the state, all say much the same thing. What is the public's "right to feel safe"? What does that even mean?
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f8ad20d00d6bfe79e2055cd0c832347c&action=downloads;cat=1
What is this concept of "in the hand"? Is it merely the firearm existing in the holster? or does it have to be touched in some way? Not at all clear.
And then later, the training is to have all OC calls investigated, including a supervisor. To me, this is an utterly ridiculous response to a legal activity:
Training bulletins from around the state, all say much the same thing. What is the public's "right to feel safe"? What does that even mean?
We can disagree on this and we will. Imo, it IS our responsibility to "police the police". OUR responsibility. Private individual citizens.
The essence of the BOR is to be left alone by govt. We can probably agree on that. But we are going to disagree on our responsibilites
You can not buy the line about getting the govt we deserve, but again I disagree.
Wanking on a forum like this doesn't effect positive change. Being active in our community (block watch, citizen's academy etc.) DOES
Checking our local PD for policies and training regarding OCers and pointing out failings *does* .
We are not rocks and islands. Our govt. is by the people, for the people , of the people. That means me and you.
And again, if you, as an active OCer can spend hours and hours on the intertoobs complaining about the police , but can't spend a couple of hours attending a community meeting where you have the ability to ACTUALLY INTERACT WITH THE POLICE, QUESTION POLICY, AND SPUR POSITIVE CHANGE, then yes... you are getting the govt. you deserve.
You (and I) are better versed on OC and case law surrounding same than the overwhelming majority of cops and lawyers. You have the knowledge, you have the concerns, you have the power, you have the means, you have the opportunity, but you don't feel it's your "responsibility"?
I disagree. Your local PD either has trained their officers regarding OCers or it hasn't. They either have a positive history of leaving OCers alone or they don't. Do you know? I *do* know when it comes to my PD. Because they work for me, I wanted to know. I checked and they do have firm policy/training regarding OCers and filmers. Good. When my local city park had signs that said firearms were prohibited, I went to a city meeting and got them to remove the signs. They were very responsive to fix the problem as ime local govt. usually is when polite informed citizens get involved.
It's your community, it's your PD. And yes, it *is* your responsibility, your civic duty, your MORAL obligation. But we are probably not going to agree on that. Groovy. I have no problem disagreeing with people. I only have problems with people who are intellectually dishonest and I have never seen that from you.
My first police job was a small new england town where everybody knew all of their local cops, where citizens had NO hesitancy whatsoever in making their concerns known, whether it was talking to us, to include the chief on down, at the local (and only) gas station, or walking into the station and talking to us there. We had town meetings that were about as close to direct democracy as you can get. And what the people got was an excellent police dept. responsive to their needs.
You probably don't live in such a bucolic tiny community where you know every officer by their first name. But you do live in a community and you do have a PD full of people who are public servants.
You can be part of the solution or you can do nothing, which makes you part of the problem assuming there IS a problem in your local PD and how they handle OCers. I have no idea. It's your PD.
That's crap policy. Rubbish. Awful.
I can state my agency's training was very clear cut - DO NOT CONTACT AN OC'er based on citizen complaint. We are required if dispatched (and because our dispatch has been edumacated on OCing, we very rarely GET dispatched) *AND* the complaining party wants contact, to contact the complaining party. Even if they don't request contact we can contact the complaining party and educate them on the law and explain why we are NOT contactign the OCer
The public has NO right to "feel safe". That's utter rubbish. OCing makes many people FEEL unsafe. So what? The public doesn't have that right. AN OCer does have the RIGHT to openly carry, otoh. One is a right. One isn't.
I assume "in the hand" means outside the holster carried in the hand, which would ,absent good cause, make one liable to a citation or arrest for 9.41.270. there is a huge difference between walking down the street with a gun in a holster and walking down the street with a gun in your hand.
Ofc's, can "investigate" OC calls all they want as long as it doesn't involve harassing the OCer. They can drive to the scene and OBSERVE the OCer to see if they recognize him/her as a convicted felon or subject to a DV protective order or otherwise prohibited from carrying based on their personal knowledge. I've never heard of a convicted felon OCing, but I have seen and arrested several for CONCEALED CARRYING. No convicted felon in their right mind would OC.
Again, that policy is crap. It should state outright that case law has established that
1) OCing by carrying in a holster has been determined to be lawful protected activity in WA state DESPITE however many people may FEEL unsafe by witnessing same. Carry of a handgun in a holster cannot be viewed as behavior that warrants alarm on the part of the public or otherwise triggers a violation of 9.41.270. Examples of conduct that could warrant alarm or intent to intimidate would include such actions as verbally threatening violence towards others or being incapacipated by drugs or liquor while carrying a firearm. Incapacitated means the person is so affected that they cannot safely care for themself.
2) Ofc's should leave OCers to go about their business unless they have reasonable suspicion the OCer is committing a crime. "Social Contacts" of OCers should be discouraged, apart from a friendly "hello" or other pleasantries that an officer would direct towards any other member and that in no way impede the OCers freedom of movement. Social Contacts that go further , such as asking for identification are strongly discouraged.
3) A person OCing does not warrant alarm on the part of an officer,as it is protected activity and is not an indicator of violent intent
Something like that
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
There is no right to feel safe. Security and rights are often at odds with each other. Our political system was designed to favor rights over safety. Franklin warned us not to give up essential Liberty in order to obtain some temporary safety.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Exactly. The alleged right to "feel safe" is the kind of rubbish that has lead to unconstitutional speech codes on college campuses, etc.
Some people may feel unsafe if they see an OCer but that is no more relevant to police action, than if a person felt unsafe by seeing a minority in their neighborhood. If people "feel unsafe" by seeing an OCer, then the only right they have in that regards is to leave the vicinity.
jhfc
Regular Member
From the training bulletin:
The phrase "whether in the holster or in one's hand, may create a safety issue..." is problematic. The implication is, even in the holster, the OCer may be in violation of 9.41.270 if the public feels unsafe. I think that is the intent of this language.
If you read the other training bulletins on the link I posted, most all of them contain the same language -- it's boilerplate.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Inserting a situation that is not relevant to the op is disingenuous and a deflection.
Pure speculation on your part. It is irrelevant that the citizen did not get shot. The drawing of the gun enables a situation where that citizen could have been shot. Bass did draw his gun and thus he had every intention of shooting the citizen in a non-felony stop situation. Again, you seem to minimize the severity of that cop's act if the applicable RCWs are to be observed.
In a felony stop a officer is justified to draw his gun if he thinks it prudent given the specific circumstances of that stop. I have no issues with this. A officer has a absolute right to defend himself as the circumstances dictate. The circumstances did not dictate this and thus there should be harsh criminal penalties for that act. Reality check: there will be no penalties at all it seems, merely "retraining."
I did not state that you have a duty. I pointed out that you are civic duty minded and your position as a "insider" would be effective in affecting positive change, even in the BPD. Does it not concern you that Officer Bass and his acts reflect poorly on all LEOs regardless of where they work in WA?
Of course, it is a duty of all citizens of a state to hold any LEA in their state accountable. I have no vested interest in Bellingham PD and their acts because I do not live there. I did send them a note (e-mail) expressing my concerns about their acts. Knowing what I know now, heightened caution is warranted because officer Bass may be a outlier, then again he may not be a outlier, I have no data other than a BPDs word on that this type of situation will (should) not happen again. Now, being a outsider I am easily dismissed because I do not live there.
Agreed.
Agreed on all of your points here.
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
Good morning all. You have probably figured out the individual involved was myself. That said, I was a witness to what actually happened.
1. Yes, someone came very close to being shot. the LEO was appx 30 INCHES fom my person. The weapon was from 3 to 7 INCHES from my cute little belly button. His hands were shaking and he was visibly upset. My hands were slightly more than shoulder width apart, holding a dogleash. He was very vulnerable.
2. I do not submit to bullies.
3. This is Truth.
4. He is now an identified "Brady Cop" and can no longer testilie in court without having his testimony thrown out. His "word" is now "cr@pp". With his name, (Allen Bass) being bandied about in the news others he has intimidated may come forward.
I did what I thought was the right thing. I do not bow down to a bully. I do not get intimidated.
ccwinstructor
Centurion
Thank you for joining the discussion, and for all the good work you have done
I only know a little from what I have read, but it is clear that you are at the forefront of the fight to restore our rights. Thank you for having the fortitude to force this decision. Thanks for the great photo ops in the Seattle gun turn in/ gun show. There are probably dozens of events you have been involved in that never made the news. If you have information for stories that you think need to get out, contact me. I run Gun Watch. We need to build the new media, because the old media is destroying the Republic.
I only know a little from what I have read, but it is clear that you are at the forefront of the fight to restore our rights. Thank you for having the fortitude to force this decision. Thanks for the great photo ops in the Seattle gun turn in/ gun show. There are probably dozens of events you have been involved in that never made the news. If you have information for stories that you think need to get out, contact me. I run Gun Watch. We need to build the new media, because the old media is destroying the Republic.
1) was he indexed or was his finger on the trigger? Or was the somebody who almost got shot HIM and you are referring to what you almost did?
2) wonderful
3) groovy
4) imo, nothing is more important for a cop than credibility. If he lied, and he is now a "brady cop", GOOD! There is no excuse for that kind of crap. I'll tell you that as a cop with 15+ yrs with the same agency, credibility is EVERYTHING. I had a defense attorney tell me that when they get one of MY reports, they know it's truthful and if their client says X and my report says Y, they know Y is true, even though their client says otherwise, and their duty is to their client. That filled me with warm fuzzy. In my agency, screwing up may get you in trouble or not (depending) up to and including termination for a major major screw up, but LYING is ... automatic termination. We demand truthfulness from our officers. I've cited the polling data before that shows that the public overwhelmingly believes cops to be honest and I can state from countless examples in court, that I (as a cop) am almost always given the benefit of the doubt from juries and if I say X and a witness says Y juries will believe me. That is an incredible "power" to have so to speak and it should never be abused. What I teach my recruits is that most officers don't realize it, but every officer has a well established reputation with both defense attorneys and prosecutors. And their reputation, if it's a self-generated incident (iow they are the complaining party - like a DUI or such) is exceptionally determinative as to whether the prosecutor dumps the case or goes to bat with it. No matter how tempting, never sully the badge by being untruthful.
Our job is to be a witness. Not a witness for the defense or prosecution, but an impartial witness. That means that if a case is strong enough to arrest (remember that a huge amount of investigations we do clears people of suspicion instead of fingering them, and it's just as important to do the former as well as the latter depending on case facts. The former never MAKE it to trial of course so the public never sees it , but it's a substantial %age of the work we do), that we still must remain impartial and report the case facts that indicate innocence AS WELL AS the case facts that indicate guilt. Our job isn't to "win" the case. Our job is impartially collect evidence (at the scene) and present it (testimony) at the trial. For example, if it's a dui, and the guy stumbles getting out of the car, you obviously document that. But if he gets out the car with no difficulty whatsoever (even if he later fails the FST's), you STILL report that "the suspect exited the car without apparent difficulty" even though it hurts, not helps the case for guilty. Doesn't matter. Don't even get me started on a rant about this... cops absolutely need credibility. Everything else is secondary to that. Even among criminals, it pays to have the rep that you are a straight shooter and always honest and fair. Among other things, besides being the right thing to do , it means you will get WAY more compliance in the field, even from hardcore bangers. They respect "tough but fair". An officer who would lie to make a stronger case is no brother of mine.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Didn't the declaration of independence talk about security? lol
They took that the wrong way
I'm not sure if you are right or not about the intent of the language (you very well may be), but it's just crap. It should be very "bright line"... because it is. Sure, in a sense, even in a holster it could present a safety issue and that's as true for cops as it is for noncops. Iow, if I am in a tight crowd, with people bumping into me, etc. in close quarters, having a firearm in a holster is a liability in that I have to be extra vigilant to protect it, and also remember I have a level III retention holster. Many OCers carry holsters with little to no retention, which is fine except for in a tightly packed crowd, like a japanese subway car!
Imo, I think the language needs to be crystal clear that WHAT ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ***FEELS*** IS 100% IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE METHOD OF CARRY "WARRANTS ALARM" OR "INTENT TO INTIMIDATE"
Analogize it to Free speech. No matter how many people may feel offended about certain speech, that doesn't make it any less protected. If anything it makes it MORE "protected" since it's the offensive speech that is most in need of constitutional protection.
The bright line should be explicitly stated -
"carrying of a handgun in a holster with neither hand holding on to it is a method of carry that does not warrant alarm or intent to intimidate, no matter how many members of the public FEEL that way. "
While I, as a LEO, am exempt from the provisions of 9.41.270 I am still liable administratively if I draw my handgun without due cause in view of the public, and that's as it should be. A handgun IN HAND does make people often feel alarmed and THAT alarm *is* reasonable (per case law and per common sense) and thus must be justified. I can't draw my handgun "just because" any more than joe noncop can (joe noncop can of course do that at his residence or fixed place of business)
OC for ME
Regular Member
Just to lock this one statement down.
1) Relevancy? I always index just prior to discharging my firearm, and then I index after discharge. Safety process I use. Others may be different.
2) Nice. Hold the victim accountable for a cop's acts.
The relevance is he said somebody "almost got shot". I am not sure if he;s referring to the cop almost got shot (by him) or he almost got shot by the cop.
THe relevance of the indexing is that if the cop pointed his gun at him, I would not consider that "almost got shot" whether or not the cop was justified in pointing the gun, which he CLEARLY was not
But if the cop was pointing the guy AND had his finger on the trigger, that would make the "almost got shot" statement more reasonable because a mere startle reflex could cause the cop to fire
hth
I'm not sure what you are referring to in your 2nd statement. Who is holding the victim accountable for the cop's acts? Not me. There is only one person in the wrong here and it's the cop who drew down on the OCer. The OCer is on the side of the angels in this incident
OC for ME
Regular Member
Well, since it has been established as a fact that MSG Laigaie did not even tough his gun then the only conclusion that a reasonable person can draw is that MSG Laigaie is the only person in that encounter who could have been shot. You inferred to the contrary by cloaking your allegation in a question.
You are holding the victim accountable. See my above reference to the established fact.