• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Recent phone call from Lt. Wilson

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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 :D

Methinks things are getting done in Oly.

Steve
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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....":cool:

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
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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. ;):cool:
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communications/6_AGENCIES_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? :)
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communications/6_AGENCIES_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
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/communications/6_AGENCIES_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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Warrant [size="-1"]-"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.
[/size]
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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...
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
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.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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...;)
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
Top