Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Recent phone call from Lt. Wilson

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yesterday Lt. Wilson of the OPD telephoned me. This was mainly to inform me of what he is doing regarding the complaints I had made. By wednesday he believes he will have finished interviewing all the officers involved. He also addressed some points raised in an email I had sent to the chief earlier that day.

    We discussed the fact that their dispatch CAPCOM did not relay any information to the responding officers outside of "man with a pistol sticking out o his pocket". Lt. Wilson thinks that procedure should be changed so that officers have more information and that the operator ask questions like "What is he doing?" "Is he waving it around?" "Is he acting crazy?" Lt. Wilson said in a situation like mine if they would have had more information at best the OPD might have driven by to see if I was acting suspicious and not contacted me. The operators should also be trained in the fact that peaceable OC is in fact perfectly legal. He said that to change the way CAPCOM does business that cooperation from several agencies would be needed.

    He also asked me for a copy of State v Day. I directed him to OCDO which he stated to me before he has visited. I heard him working the computer as I was talking to him. I believe he also reviewed the training bulletins list on this page as well.

    I told him my concerns of the Sgt. using the word "vendetta" in regards to my OC. I was assured that RCW 9.41.270 would be covered with the rank and file officers starting with the night shift coming on duty. I do not know how he will address the "warrants alarm" but given as he has repeatedly assured me he knows my actions and peaceable OC are legal and has never once deviated from that stance I feel assured that the issue will properly handled.

    I never recieved a direct reply from the Chief, but given the timing and some of the nature of Lt. Wilson's call I will take that as the Chief taking action, especially as my letter was a topic of conversation between the two men about an hour before the call.

    I will share a copy of my email with the Chief to anyone who asks, it is a bit verbose at times

    Methinks things are getting done in Oly.

    Steve

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    We need to have LT Wilsons here in Utah. He seems to be awesome

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    Sounds like this guy is doing right by you (and all of us, by extension). Thanks for your efforts to make sure that the police in your area are educated. It's just a shame that the citizens have to be the ones to ensure it happens.

    Luckily, OC seems to be catching on and people are awakening daily to the idea of exercising their rights and liberties. With a lot of effort and a little luck, OC will be accepted and "normal" in the not too distant future.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Cue-Ball wrote:
    Sounds like this guy is doing right by you (and all of us, by extension). Thanks for your efforts to make sure that the police in your area are educated. It's just a shame that the citizens have to be the ones to ensure it happens.
    Lt. Wilson does indeed seem to be doing right by all of us. Once everything gets wrapped up, I am going to write a letter to that effect to go into his file.

    It is a shame that citizens have to make sure that our rights get respected, but more importantly it is wonderful that we as citizens have the power to effect changes, and to see them take effect. Let's face it how many places are there where a person can be carrying a loaded gun, get hassled for it, and then have the police agency that did it admit that you are right, and they were wrong and then watch steps be taken to ensure that something like that will not happen again? Heck there are states where that would not be likely to happen (*coughs* Kalifornia)

    I may have taken steps in this matter, but I am a bit of a johnny come lately to OC in Washington. Lonnie and others laid the groundwork. I just picked up the ball a bit in Oly. I think every person who OC's with or without incident deserves appreciation because it continues to reinforce the notion that we are Good Guys.

    Besides, I'm not calling it over until I have a letter in my hands with an OPD letterhead starting out "Dear Mr. Coffman, We would like to apologize...."

    Once this wraps up, I am going to go to the Thurston County Sheriff and recount this story to them and ask point blank "You don't want this happening to you do you?" I think if when we go to local LEO to ensure our rights are protected, if we have a good "horror" story to tell them, especially if it ends up with a "happy ending" it will hold their attention a bit more. After all they don't want to be the next agency jacking a law abiding citizen up. The next guy may sue :shock:

    Steve

  5. #5
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Well-put SV-Lib, and I certainly hope it does come to a happy ending for all parties involved so that you can send that letter to Lt. Wilson, as he does seem to be 'doing right'.

    I too am pretty new to OC, but took to it like a fish to water. I've done some very minor leg-work for Lonnie on the B-ham incident and have tried to help-out here with arranging Lunches and keeping the Anti-gun/Pro-gun Business list up to date. Just cuz we're new, doesn't mean we can't make a difference. Keep on, keepin' on.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Once this wraps up, I am going to go to the Thurston County Sheriff and recount this story to them and ask point blank "You don't want this happening to you do you?" I think if when we go to local LEO to ensure our rights are protected, if we have a good "horror" story to tell them, especially if it ends up with a "happy ending" it will hold their attention a bit more. After all they don't want to be the next agency jacking a law abiding citizen up. The next guy may sue :shock:
    I think that is a very logical approach. It's about as persuasive as it can get without litigation.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communi...IES_SERVED.htm

    This is CAPCOM. Lacey acknowledged open carry as legal in a police academy class, and Thurston County is the primary agency for CAPCOM, which basically means word will spread around the county quickly. Definitely make contact with Thurston County Sheriffs, but keep what Steve said in mind.

    Steve, is Lt. Wilson taking the lead on getting the agencies on board with changing CAPCOM?


  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communi...IES_SERVED.htm

    This is CAPCOM. Lacey acknowledged open carry as legal in a police academy class, and Thurston County is the primary agency for CAPCOM, which basically means word will spread around the county quickly. Definitely make contact with Thurston County Sheriffs, but keep what Steve said in mind.

    Steve, is Lt. Wilson taking the lead on getting the agencies on board with changing CAPCOM?
    I'm not sure what is going to happen with CAPCOM, next time I talk with Lt. Wilson I will ask. There is still a bit of confusion with rank and file PD, I saw a Sgt today in a coffee shop I frequent who is also running for school board. She still sticks to the "causes alarm" I corrected her with "calculated to cause alarm" oh well. I suspect that Lt. Wilson will have to issue a formal training bulletin...

    Steve

  9. #9
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communi...IES_SERVED.htm

    This is CAPCOM. Lacey acknowledged open carry as legal in a police academy class, and Thurston County is the primary agency for CAPCOM, which basically means word will spread around the county quickly. Definitely make contact with Thurston County Sheriffs, but keep what Steve said in mind.

    Steve, is Lt. Wilson taking the lead on getting the agencies on board with changing CAPCOM?
    I'm not sure what is going to happen with CAPCOM, next time I talk with Lt. Wilson I will ask. There is still a bit of confusion with rank and file PD, I saw a Sgt today in a coffee shop I frequent who is also running for school board. She still sticks to the "causes alarm" I corrected her with "calculated to cause alarm" oh well. I suspect that Lt. Wilson will have to issue a formal training bulletin...

    Steve
    Not exactly sure where you get "calculated to cause alarm", since RCW 9.41.270 (1) reads:
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
    Saying that "causes alarm" is insufficient and that it must "warrant alarm" would be more appropriate, since just because someone is alarmed doesn't necessarily mean there's cause for alarm; see any number of phobias, such as haplophobia.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Not exactly sure where you get "calculated to cause alarm", since RCW 9.41.270 (1) reads:
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
    Saying that "causes alarm" is insufficient and that it must "warrant alarm" would be more appropriate, since just because someone is alarmed doesn't necessarily mean there's cause for alarm; see any number of phobias, such as haplophobia.
    Calculated generally means that a person intends to cause alarm. Where did I get it? Out of my brain as I staggered into a coffee shop seeking a caffiene fix. I think the meaning was close enough. At any rate she wasn't paying much attention to me.

    Yes, "causes alarm" is insufficient, something that not everyone is getting around here...

    Steve

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Warrant -"show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground for." In otherwords it has to be alarm for a reasonable cause. It can't be alarming because you just don't like guns, but could be alarming because the person was pointing it at someone or waving it around in a threatening manner.

  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    That law is unconstitutionally vague and should be changed, repealed and or struck down.

    I like CA's brandishing law better. Buy including "draws" it implies it had to be peacefully holstered to begin with:
    PC417(a)(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    That law is unconstitutionally vague and should be changed, repealed and or struck down.

    I like CA's brandishing law better. Buy including "draws" it implies it had to be peacefully holstered to begin with:
    PC417(a)(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel...
    For the purposes of OpenCarry, that law can be just as bad. "or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded"

    The simple act of open carrying a firearm could most assuredly be defined as "exhibiting" (to show, make visible or apparent). And since many sheeple find the mere presence of a fireard to be rude.. That code could actually be must worse than 9.41.270.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    cato wrote:
    That law is unconstitutionally vague and should be changed, repealed and or struck down.

    I like CA's brandishing law better. Buy including "draws" it implies it had to be peacefully holstered to begin with:
    PC417(a)(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel...
    For the purposes of OpenCarry, that law can be just as bad. "or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded"

    The simple act of open carrying a firearm could most assuredly be defined as "exhibiting" (to show, make visible or apparent). And since many sheeple find the mere presence of a fireard to be rude.. That code could actually be must worse than 9.41.270.
    Negative.

    Salient portions highlighted in red above.

    It's a two-part requirement.

    "...Exhibits...in a rude, angry, or threatening manner...."

    Another "Read the whole thing and think like a lawyer" situation...

  15. #15
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    That code could actually be much worse than 9.41.270.
    I was wondering if anyone would stand up for Washington RC. Good show!

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    That law is unconstitutionally vague and should be changed, repealed and or struck down.
    It is not unconstitutionally vague. See the legal opinion documents in this thread:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/5335.html

    However, I agree it should be changed. I'm going to bang the drum again and point out this thread:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/3849.html


  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I'll take your word for it as I won't be enforcing it anyway.

Posting Permissions

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