Washington Cop asks open carrier if he is feeling erratic.

Tacoma, WA – On 8/6/2015, at approximately 1:20 pm, I was walking down the street when I noticed about 3 marked police vehicles and 1 unmarked SUV in the area. Eventually a motorcycle officer pulled up and the officer directed me to come over to him. Upon complying with the officer’s request, he immediately asked me if I was “in some kind of bad mood or an erratic state of mind.” Knowing better than to answer questions from law enforcement, I politely informed him that I don’t answer questions from law enforcement. He then informed me that a citizen had “called” and reported that I was acting erratically. I thought that was perplexing, since I was simply ambulating with one foot in front of the other, like I normally do. The officer did not press the issue or resort to failed intimidation tactics. He simply was responding to a call. I informed him that I understood, but I still chose to exercise my right to not answer questions and go on about my way.

Some might think a citizen who refuses to answer questions is rude to a police officer who has a hard and dangerous job. I submit that no good can EVER come out of talking to a police officer (unless you have called them for a service) since the relationship between citizen and police officer is adversarial in nature. I believe it is best to be informed of the laws, exercise your right to remain silent, and go on about your business. Once a citizen starts answering questions, they run the risk of law enforcement officials using the words of the citizen against him/her. It is not rude to be free and decide not to comply with police officers, if you have done nothing illegal and there is no legal reason for an interaction with them. Often times “discussions” with citizens turn into probable cause for further investigation or detention.

The following is the video of the encounter with the law enforcement officer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7BH_WqK6yQ

- Rogue Reflections –
www.roguereflectionsphotography.com

Why do yo keep getting hassled?
Iv'e OC'd for about 6+ years, and Iv'e never had an issue.

Didn't watch the video. Like your handling, though.

Have you considered following up on the false report phone call?

golddigger14s said:

Why do yo keep getting hassled?
Iv'e OC'd for about 6+ years, and Iv'e never had an issue.

Click to expand...

Not sure. Maybe walking with one foot in front of the other, in a left-right-left fashion, is the new erratic?

Citizen said:

Didn't watch the video. Like your handling, though.

Have you considered following up on the false report phone call?

Click to expand...

I just took this video a little while ago. I will be submitting (as per my norm) the audio for the 911 call, through Public Disclosure. I am entitled to the call and I think it would be interesting to hear. I will include that audio once I get it. I will decide what to do after I hear the call.

golddigger14s said:

Why do yo keep getting hassled?
Iv'e OC'd for about 6+ years, and Iv'e never had an issue.

Click to expand...

Some people get hassled some don't.

I have several times by the cops. For doing nothing unlawful.

excellent work as always rougue, I guess your just lucky, I have not had any LEO interactions in years when I OC.

Rogue and I should go for a walk around Redmond, Washington.

Kirkland and Bellevue should also be on the list.

I can hold the camera. Hopefully I could OC again after, drum roll please, September 11th.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

RogueReflections said:

Some might think a citizen who refuses to answer questions is rude to a police officer who has a hard and dangerous job.
I submit that no good can EVER come out of talking to a police officer (unless you have called them for a service) since the relationship between citizen and police officer is adversarial in nature.

Click to expand...

You have the Right to remain silent, everything you say can, and will, be held against you.................Everything you say will be used to support your claim, said no LEO ever.

Citizen said:

Have you considered following up on the false report phone call?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. You were "swatted" and that ***** needs to be stopped. A few public convictions, followed by hanging would be nice.


gee, cuts chinese swear words too?

Freedom1Man said:

Rogue and I should go for a walk around Redmond, Washington.

Kirkland and Bellevue should also be on the list.

I can hold the camera. Hopefully I could OC again after, drum roll please, September 11th.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That would be a fun way to celebrate your re-entering into the OC realm. LoL

Was I "Swatted?"

MSG Laigaie said:

You have the Right to remain silent, everything you say can, and will, be held against you.................Everything you say will be used to support your claim, said no LEO ever.


Absolutely. You were "swatted" and that ***** needs to be stopped. A few public convictions, followed by hanging would be nice.


gee, cuts chinese swear words too?

Click to expand...

It is interesting to consider this may have been a "swatting" call. I had not considered it as an option until someone suggested it in another forum. If that was the case, this officer handled himself well in the way he responded. If he was doing the normal "we got a call" thing, he still did not press the issue, which is what I was interested in determining if he might be inclined to do. Either way, I will be doing a number of records requests to try to get the full picture of the story behind the encounter.

... give the caller a consiquence ...

I don’t know if it’s possible to find out “who” made the call, but if possible, I’d file charges and a lawsuit against them, make it as public as possible so as to make an example of them, and give others who consider the same tactic reason for pause. If allowed to consider it a successful harassing tactic, then others may do the same without consiquence.

Batousaii said:

I don’t know if it’s possible to find out “who” made the call, but if possible, I’d file charges and a lawsuit against them, make it as public as possible so as to make an example of them, and give others who consider the same tactic reason for pause. If allowed to consider it a successful harassing tactic, then others may do the same without consiquence.

Click to expand...

I agree with this idea and I agree that we all should try this. Is there an attorney who would take this case? Maybe file to force the prosecutor to do his/her job by prosecuting the caller with misuse/abuse of 911 service.

I would say the charge would be attempted murder.

Then file a civil charge.

If the system was fair this would work. Now we have corrupt public servants and judges who would side against you (the gun owner).



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Batousaii said:

I don’t know if it’s possible to find out “who” made the call, but if possible, I’d file charges and a lawsuit against them, make it as public as possible so as to make an example of them, and give others who consider the same tactic reason for pause. If allowed to consider it a successful harassing tactic, then others may do the same without consiquence.

Click to expand...

it should be, just PDR the audio of the 911 call, those are public record, normally the dispatcher will ask what the complainants name is and confirm the phone number they're calling from.

Freedom1Man said:

I agree with this idea and I agree that we all should try this. Is there an attorney who would take this case? Maybe file to force the prosecutor to do his/her job by prosecuting the caller with misuse/abuse of 911 service.

I would say the charge would be attempted murder.

Then file a civil charge.

If the system was fair this would work. Now we have corrupt public servants and judges who would side against you (the gun owner).



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

remember though, due process also cuts to the 911 caller, the prosecutor would have to prove the caller was malicious in their intent. an attempted murder would NEVER fly, they would have to prove that the caller 1) made a phony 911 call 2)with the intent to cause death to RR tell statements that they knew were false and 3) reasonably expected the police would use deadly force against RR based soley on the information they provided. good luck proving that.

it's not ilelgal to be wrong when you call 911, only if you lie or tie up their resources.

a few months ago I was delivering to a customer in a part of a town where all the businesses were closed, so I go to the back of our customer, enter the code in their key box and grab the key so i can open the back door and start delivering. across the street at another business were these two people who looked in their teens, wearing dark clothing, walking around a business and trying at door handles, I called the king county sheriff and reported this as suspicious activity.

if the deputies showed up and searched these two and found everything legitimate, they were really on the up and up, should I be faced with charges for being wrong?

EMNofSeattle said:

it should be, just PDR the audio of the 911 call, those are public record, normally the dispatcher will ask what the complainants name is and confirm the phone number they're calling from.

Click to expand...

The problem is that nobody is required to give their name and people call 911 for some of the dumbest things. I once heard a dispatched call over the scanner from a person who called because his neighbor's rooster woke him up at 6 am!

Dario said:

The problem is that nobody is required to give their name and people call 911 for some of the dumbest things. I once heard a dispatched call over the scanner from a person who called because his neighbor's rooster woke him up at 6 am!

Click to expand...

true they're not required but many do.

it makes sense to start there because it's the easiest thnig to search. and maybe he'll get lucky and get a name, number, possibly an address.

EMNofSeattle said:

true they're not required but many do.

it makes sense to start there because it's the easiest thnig to search. and maybe he'll get lucky and get a name, number, possibly an address.

Click to expand...

Good point. They do ask and most people probably give it out now that you mention it.

EMNofSeattle said:

remember though, due process also cuts to the 911 caller, the prosecutor would have to prove the caller was malicious in their intent. an attempted murder would NEVER fly, they would have to prove that the caller 1) made a phony 911 call 2)with the intent to cause death to RR tell statements that they knew were false and 3) reasonably expected the police would use deadly force against RR based soley on the information they provided. good luck proving that.

it's not ilelgal to be wrong when you call 911, only if you lie or tie up their resources.

a few months ago I was delivering to a customer in a part of a town where all the businesses were closed, so I go to the back of our customer, enter the code in their key box and grab the key so i can open the back door and start delivering. across the street at another business were these two people who looked in their teens, wearing dark clothing, walking around a business and trying at door handles, I called the king county sheriff and reported this as suspicious activity.

if the deputies showed up and searched these two and found everything legitimate, they were really on the up and up, should I be faced with charges for being wrong?

Click to expand...

Seeming to check for unsecured doors is PC and RAS. That is a legitimate sign of a possible crime about to be committed.

Openly Carrying a pistol is not illegal. Also stated on some anti-gun organizations they admit to trying to get LACs killed through police interactions by calling 911.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Allegations of "behaving erratically" are a common ruse used by LEOs to create probable cause to arrest someone who is carrying. The term "erratic" appears frequently in police reports to support arrests of firearm carriers. It's utter rubbish in most cases. I suggest that being approached by an armed LEO for no reason other than the fact that you are lawfully carrying is "erratic behavior" as it is not supported by the law and has been openly criticized by the courts as not establishing an exigent circumstance.