Open Carry Encounter (Tacoma PD, at US. Dept. of Homeland Security Detention Center

In this video, I was documenting a small protest at the U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Southwest Detention Center, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA (10 MAR 2014) I was approached by Tacoma PD Officer D. Reda. This officer represented himself, his department, and law enforcement, as a whole, in a professional and positive light. He is the benchmark for what other officers should strive for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-SNZydpaDg

Okay, Scott.

Since the police came and talked to you, any outside observer would view that because you are carrying that the police SHOULD talk to you and as an extension everyone else who open carries.

You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.

NavyLCDR said:

So, you don't think there should be any investigation of someone filming the entrance to a Federal facility? Stop out front the gate to Everett Naval Base or Whidbey Naval Base and start filming the gates and see what happens.

Let me ask this - if someone was in front of your house taking a video of it, what would you do?

Click to expand...

1. Public filming is fine. Maybe he is gathering b-roll. Just because he has a gun doesn't mean there's anything nefarious going on. Suspicion is the error.
2. Taxpayers don't pay for my home.

Overall, compared to what we've seen on youtube, this is a far better interaction than, say, Temple PD.

Freedom1Man said:

Okay, Scott.

Since the police came and talked to you, any outside observer would view that because you are carrying that the police SHOULD talk to you and as an extension everyone else who open carries.

You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.

Click to expand...

Pardon sir, but but who are you to tell me what I SHOULD think? I'm an outside observer, I see he's carrying, I see the police officer made a consensual contact. As it happens, I think the police MAY talk to someone who's openly carrying, but any other citizen is free to do the very same.

The contact was consensual, any observer on the street could have approached Scott, even an ice cream vendor could have come up to him to offer his wares. The officer made no implication that Scott was in any way required to remain nor to answer the officer's questions.

What I glean is that 'some people called the police to report something' and since I don't think they called the officer directly, I imagine the calls went to central dispatching. When central dispatching contacts the officer to 'go there and do that' he has a responsibility to his employers to 'go there and do that' or face disciplinary action. His attitude made it clear that the officer had no suspicion of illegal conduct and that he didn't think he was investigating a crime. He can now report back to the employers who ordered him to 'go there and do that' that he did indeed go and contact the person who was the subject of the calls and that he found no hint of illegal conduct.

Paraphrasing the cop at the 1:02 minute mark.

"We got a call about you having a gun."

So, the cop did his job and made contact. He did not ask for ID. Yet he "deduced" that the citizen was not breaking any laws before he approached. So, why approach.....cuz he was told to. Not a thug cop. Just a thug policy that does not permit that cop to observe the facts present to him at the time and then decide a appropriate course of action (don't make contact cuz there is no law breaking evident) based on those facts.

All things considered, the citizenry is once again comforted that the cops will engage LACs when called upon to do so.

Liberty is not advanced in my view.

positive encounter with Whatcom County Sherrif

I had a similar incident a few days ago. I sometimes pick my Sweet Baboo at work, and sometimes I just show up to escort her home when we ride the motorcycles.
Sunday afternoon was great for motorcycles. I rode down the street passing the jail and pulled into the jail parking lot. I parked behind Herselfs bike, got off and stretched. There was a WCS squad in the lot and a Sheriff behind the wheel. It took him about ten or fifteen minutes to get out of the vehicle. He opened the trunk and peeked around the lid to observe me. A minute later he started to mosey my way, about thirty or forty feet.
"Are you open carrying Sir?" "Yes, I am" as I sat on my bike. "Do you do it often?" "Why Yes, every day, all day". "I wanted to ask, because I am out in the County most of the time and you see it quite a bit there. Have you had any problems in the City?" Only once, with a patrolmen who wanted to bully me. Not about the gun, he was just a bully." " Do you have a CPL?" "Yes, I have to in order to carry on my bike or in a car without unloading?

The Sheriff NEVER asked to produce ID, was very polite and treated me as just another Citizen. We talked about how the unload/load regarding vehicles was dumb and should be changed for safety. We both admired Herselfs bike spoke a bit more and he moved on. Now I was sitting in HIS parking lot, armed, and just sitting, waiting. He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter. Not every LEO is an allen bass.

NavyLCDR said:

K. Now I heard it finally . I still don't have a problem with the interaction, though.

Click to expand...

OK.

OC for ME said:

Paraphrasing the cop at the 1:02 minute mark.

"We got a call about you having a gun."

So, the cop did his job and made contact. He did not ask for ID. Yet he "deduced" that the citizen was not breaking any laws before he approached. So, why approach.....cuz he was told to. Not a thug cop. Just a thug policy that does not permit that cop to observe the facts present to him at the time and then decide a appropriate course of action (don't make contact cuz there is no law breaking evident) based on those facts.

All things considered, the citizenry is once again comforted that the cops will engage LACs when called upon to do so.

Liberty is not advanced in my view.

Click to expand...

Thing is, if the cop hadn't made any contact, thereby advancing liberty, we never would have known. In fact, it might be happening much more frequently than we realize. I see these kinds of encounters, where contact is made but in a casual, non-offensive way, as advances, in civility if nothing else.

MSG Laigaie said:

"Are you open carrying Sir?" "Yes, I am" as I sat on my bike. "Do you do it often?" "Why Yes, every day, all day". "I wanted to ask, because I am out in the County most of the time and you see it quite a bit there. Have you had any problems in the City?" Only once, with a patrolmen who wanted to bully me. Not about the gun, he was just a bully." "Do you have a CPL?" "Yes, I have to in order to carry on my bike or in a car without unloading?

Click to expand...

That's one of those questions that can be taken two ways, depending upon circumstances.
On the one hand, it could be an investigatory question that the officer wants to have proven that an illegal situation doesn't exist (or he's gonna take somebody to jail.)
or,
it could be an inquiry to make sure the person he's talking to understands the circumstances to something legally. As the officer was satisfied with the answer and didn't request further proof, I'm going with the latter interpretation.

MSG Laigaie said:

...He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter...

Click to expand...

I doubt it. He may have had a dual purpose, though.

MSG Laigaie said:

He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter.

Click to expand...

BB62 said:

I doubt it. He may have had a dual purpose, though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those duels happen in the other Washington, on another lawn.

Running Wolf said:

Thing is, if the cop hadn't made any contact, thereby advancing liberty, we never would have known. In fact, it might be happening much more frequently than we realize. I see these kinds of encounters, where contact is made but in a casual, non-offensive way, as advances, in civility if nothing else.

Click to expand...

Civility does not always equate to liberty, The cop did his job and was minimally invasive.....I stress, invasive. No matter how you slice it, the cop was put in a no win situation. Bad encounter, no matter how cordial is appeared to be.

OC for ME said:

Civility does not always equate to liberty, The cop did his job and was minimally invasive.....I stress, invasive. No matter how you slice it, the cop was put in a no win situation. Bad encounter, no matter how cordial is appeared to be.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

NavyLCDR said:

So, you don't think there should be any investigation of someone filming the entrance to a Federal facility? Stop out front the gate to Everett Naval Base or Whidbey Naval Base and start filming the gates and see what happens. I don't see a single thing wrong with the encounter. And, "I'm Scott" is identifying yourself? Really?!?

If there was someone filming the entrance to a Naval base, I would be disappointed if they were not approached and checked out.

Not all police officers are the enemy of freedom and the Constitution.

Let me ask this - if someone was in front of your house taking a video of it, what would you do?

Click to expand...

Is it unlawful to film the entrance to a federal facility?

Is it unlawful to film the front of my house?

Simply put nothing should happen if some one is filming the entrance to a federal facility or my home from the street since they are visible to the public from a public area.

Jeff Hayes said:

Is it unlawful to film the entrance to a federal facility?

Is it unlawful to film the front of my house?

Simply put nothing should happen if some one is filming the entrance to a federal facility or my home from the street since they are visible to the public from a public area.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

Click to expand...

Pretty sure federal courthouses aren't among those 'facilities', maybe you know one that is illegal to film, or are you just speculatin'?

As to the legality of photographing the inside of someone's house, it depends on if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that part of the house. Photographing, even with a high power lens someone at their dinner table, legal, in their bath? no bueno.

So, let's say someone does call da coppers and they show up and begin asking questions. The photographer refuses to answer. What's their next step, the "it all depends on the totality of the circumstances" card?
Are we going to 'move the goalposts' in order to manufacture circumstances that weren't apparent in your original post?

Primus said:

Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Cite.

I said it before and I will say it again, if several armed citizens approached an officer just check what he's doing how would the officer feel?

And "civilians" are not constitutionally restricted.

I identified myself?

You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.[/QUOTE]

I did not "identify" myself. I gave my first name (which I did not need to do) but made sure to give my Rogue Reflections name. I did this so the officer could find the video (or anyone else who might be wanting to find out who originally posted the video.) When people post videos online, others try to steal them, and say they are the original poster. Live Leak simply takes videos other people have shot, puts their own watermark on it, and passes it off as their own. With me stating Scott, with Rogue Reflections, I am in no way identifying myself. I know better than to do that.

Good or Bad.....

I posted this video, in part, to show not all police are willing to violate the rights of citizens who are acting peacefully, and in a legal manner. There are TONS of those videos already. If I see a law enforcement officer doing that, you can be sure I will be filming and posting. I post encounters, whether positive or negative. With regards to filming the Homeland Security Detention Facility: as a photographer (and open carrier) it is my duty and responsibility to keep on top of all local, state and federal laws. You can be sure I am well aware of what I am legally able to do and not do. One of the last videos I did (30 MAY 2013 time frame) I was drawn on by a USCBP officer, while at the Port. What would have been an incident that only myself and the 10 officers on scene witnessed, turned into a video series where a few hundred thousand people have seen. I watch the watchers. They watch us, why not do the same. Many of the positive changes that are happening to law enforcement, on all levels, are directly due to the fact that videos of them surface. It is not longer "their" word against "ours." I don't even like the "us and them" mentality. I just want to remain a free citizen in a free country.
- Rogue Reflections -