Machoduck
Regular Member
imported post
(1) 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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270
The above is the part that seems to cause all the trouble because certain people insist on inferring that if only one person is "alarmed" then the open carrier is in violation of .270. Much of the law, from what I understand is based on the perceptions of reasonable people. Key word is reasonable.
We've probably all seen someone from the tinfoil hat brigade, probably around 1st and Pike in Seattle, talking to people who aren't there and avoiding the goofy rays from the Mother Ship. I say that if Officer Olsen, just to pick a name at random, says that anyone being alarmed proves violation of .270, then officer Olsen would let the guy in the tinfoil hat determine his concept of reality. People in full control of their faculties don't let other people determine reality for them. This is known in some circles as common sense.
Im not sure the statute needs to be reworded. A principle of law that depends on common sense cannot function at the street level if cops refuse to think. Training bulletins help with this but we'll never avoid the need for common sense.
Mainsail, I expect you to remind us of WA vs Cassad. Anyone else?
MD
(1) 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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270
The above is the part that seems to cause all the trouble because certain people insist on inferring that if only one person is "alarmed" then the open carrier is in violation of .270. Much of the law, from what I understand is based on the perceptions of reasonable people. Key word is reasonable.
We've probably all seen someone from the tinfoil hat brigade, probably around 1st and Pike in Seattle, talking to people who aren't there and avoiding the goofy rays from the Mother Ship. I say that if Officer Olsen, just to pick a name at random, says that anyone being alarmed proves violation of .270, then officer Olsen would let the guy in the tinfoil hat determine his concept of reality. People in full control of their faculties don't let other people determine reality for them. This is known in some circles as common sense.
Im not sure the statute needs to be reworded. A principle of law that depends on common sense cannot function at the street level if cops refuse to think. Training bulletins help with this but we'll never avoid the need for common sense.
Mainsail, I expect you to remind us of WA vs Cassad. Anyone else?
MD
