So... I THINK I had the cops called on me.....

imported post

Shopping at WinCo over by Vancouver Mall. It didn't go down as I thought it would.

The trip started out as a simple grab and dash for a few items, but I kept remembering random things that I needed, so I wound up wandering around the store longer than I expected. Now, when I first strarted to OC I was hyper-sensetive to people's reactions (or lack thereof), but since I've had next to no response for months I've stopped paying as much attention. That being said, I didn't NOTICE anyone reacting to the 1911 on my hip.

So after about 20-30 min in the store I decide to get a second gallon of milk and call it a day. Upon reching the Dairy section I was...not so much 'approached'.. as confronted by, who I am assuming was, a manager-type. (She had apparently been 'hunting' for the 'MWAG' and I had managed to 'sneak up' behind her). She turned around with that vacant 'search and scan' look on her face, and was caught off guard to find her target was directly to her 6 o'clock and within three feet. I think this flustered here a bit as she stammered out a hemed and hawed greeting.

Her: "Hi...um....."
Me: <smiling>"Hello."
H: "There's been...um... do you have..... "<looking around me to my strong side>" Oh.. yes......Um... do, uh...do you have a permit for that?"
M: "No permit is required for Open Carry." <spoken with a confused look>***
H: "Oh? Well... um... we had some... you're making some of the customers nervous."
M: "I don't see why...."
H: <guffawing in disbelief>"Well you are. I've had several complaint's already...."
Bystander (I think the primary complainant):"It's their perogotive." <spoken in a manner to suggest that a person's alleged 'right' not to feel nervous has superceding authority of all other rights>
M: <to bystander>"This is true." (Spoken in a way to indicate that his right to feel however he pleases does not superceed MY rights)
H: "Well.... I would appreciate it if you wouldn't carry that in here."
M: "OK...." <spoken in a manner that indicates an acceptance of her statement as fact (yes, I'm sure you WOULD 'appreciate' it) while indicating an expectation of something more from her. I'm not volunteering a DAMN thing.>
H: <after a long-ish pause, eyes locked with mine> "Ok, then... thank you.." and she walked off with complainant in tow.

She never did ask me to leave the store, or SPECIFICALLY ask/tell me not to carry. (only that she would 'appreciate it'.)
I kinda shrugged my shoulders, grabbed another gallon of milk and proceeded to checkout. You can always tell when a checker remembers your face if not your name. The smile becomes genuine, and they tend to relax a bit. Paid with cash, bagged my goods and out the door. I thought that was the end of it. Apparently not.

As I drove up the parking aisle toward the front of the store (easiest exit crosstraffic-wise) I see her standing at the door scanning the parking lot with a cordless phone in her hand and a male coworker standing next to her. She noticed me and her talking became a little bit more animated. She pointed me out to the male. I chuckled to myself and shook my head. (I almost put on a cheese-eatin' grin and waved to her, but I thought being snarkiy would not serve in the best interest of the cause). I could see she was relaying my license plate info over the phone. To his credit the male at least TRIED to look casual while keeping an eye on my truck as I crept up to the exit (parking lot traffic).

I prepped my recorder for the impending traffic stop. It never happened. I made it home unmolested and spent the next couple of hours anticipating, though not really expecting, a knock-and-talk visit from the sherrif. That never happened either.

It should be noted that at no time did she have the upper hand in the conversation (command presence?). She REALLY didn't know what to say. I'm not sure if this was because it was a new situation for her, or the fact that the complainant was RIGHT THERE and she felt like she had to do SOMETHING to appease him, or the fact that I had 'got the jump on her' instead of her being able to spot me from far off and 'work up' an authoritarian posture before confronting me.

All in all I was caught off guard a little bit myself. I was fully prepared for someone who was confident, and adamant in their statements.....the fact that she was foundering throughout the whole affair left me at a loss for actions/words. (if she doesn't spout wrong info, then I can't correct her....NEVER volunteer info). I realize it may be spitting into the wind, but since she did not specifically deny me entrance with my sidearm I fully intend to continue untill she does.

So....can I get copies of dispatch calls even if I'm not contacted by law enforcement as a result of said call?







*** Note that the confused look was meant to convey the same confusion one would encounter when asked if you had a permit to carry your cell-phone clipped to your belt, NOT an 'I wasn't aware of that aspect of the law' look. "WTF are you TALKING about, permit?"

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

...I see her standing at the door scanning the parking lot with a cordless phone in her hand and a male coworker standing next to her. She noticed me and her talking became a little bit more animated. She pointed me out to the male...

Click to expand...

Boy do I know that feeling. Good it didn't get ugly.

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

*** Note that the confused look was meant to convey the same confusion one would encounter when asked if you had a permit to carry your cell-phone clipped to your belt, NOT an 'I wasn't aware of that aspect of the law' look. "WTF are you TALKING about, permit?"

Click to expand...

Oh god, that was the best part of the story. :monkey

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

SNIP ... you're making some of the customers nervous."

Click to expand...

Its mis-assigned causation.

Another response might be, (withfriendly smile), "This perfectly legaldefensive sidearm does not emanate fear waves, ma'am. The complaintant is responsible for his own emotions (or) scaring himself."

imported post

Florida v. JL trumps MWOG call?

imported post

Just as an exercise to see where it leads: I wonder how it would play out to insist that the manager call the police.

You see, the law already has a standard where it recognizes as reasonable one person being in fear of anotherwith a gun. Its called brandishing. It is not called holstered-on-your-hip.

If, as alleged,you are scaring them withyourgun, then you "must" be guilty of brandishing.

"Sir, you are scaring the customers!"

"I see. Have you called the police? Its illegal to brandish a firearm. Who has accused me of brandishing a firearmthus causing fear?"

"Well, no. I just..."

"I'm sorry, ma'am. I insist you and the customer do your duties ascitizens and call the police. No? Its not thatbig a deal?Tell you what. I'll call them right now myself and tell them I have been falsely accused of brandishing and need assistance identifying the customer who complained."

If its not brandishing, then the fear, under the law, isn't reasonable, is it?

Now that I think about it, this isa core problem underyling gun control advocacy. People being in unreasonable fear of guns when the threshold for reasonable fear--brandishing--hasn't been met.

I wonder if there are other ways the existing brandishing statutes can be used. Maybe just trumpet the fact that the law already has a common-sense, reasonable way of recognizing when it is reasonable to fear a gun--when its being brandished.

Just keep pushing those adjectives: reasonable, common-sense, already recognized, etc.

Maybe heave in a few lines about the wisdom of the law, goes back centuries, lots of opportunities to set the standard as "possession = reasonable to fear" but didn't, etc.

imported post

I can see a little polish will have to be applied to the tactics, too. Beyond just the rough concept above.

Maybe smart to first ask, "Who said I had my gun out of its holster and was waving it around?" Get the manager's "nobody said that, sir" on the voice-recorder.

Nail down the absence of the elements of brandishinga little bit before asking if the police have been called.

"Have you called the police?"

"If I'm scaring someone then it must be brandishing (bluff). I'm going to call them myself and tell them I have been falsely accused of brandishing and get their assistance in identifying the customer who falsely accused me."

"You don't want me to do that?" "You don't think they really meant I was brandishing?" "You don't think I was brandishing?"

"Well, then, brandishing is the threshold for reasonable fear as recognized by the law. If I wasn't brandishing, their fear can't possibly be reasonable can it?"



I can't wait for the next pushy cop to tell me I'm scaring someone by open carry.



Please everybody, knock all the holes in the foregoing arguments you can.Help me find the weakspots.

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

So....can I get copies of dispatch calls even if I'm not contacted by law enforcement as a result of said call?

Click to expand...

Yes. CRESA's website says where to go and what to do to get a copy. I got the works with my 911 call. Call documentation, call audio, incoming 911 call and related radio traffic. The total cost was $9.25 (they require payment for the exact amount. No debit or credit cards). Pretty cheap so get as much detail as they offer.
http://www.cresa911.org/911inforequest.htm


On a somewhat related note I was shopping at the Fred Meyer on Highway 99 and 78th St a couple days ago. As I entered the store another person walked past me into the store as I was getting a cart. He clearly slowed down and looked at my Sig. He took several more steps into the store then turned around and looked at me again then walked out of the store.

I was there with my wife and two year old daughter so I hoped the guy just happened to remember that he left his wallet out in his car or something.

So we do our shopping and we're at the U-Checkout. I'm scanning the items and my wife says "oh great, here comes a cop." I didn't bother to turn around and look since I wasn't doing anything wrong. I finished up, paid and put my bags in the cart. The Sheriff's officer and an employee were talking a few checkouts down. When I glanced in their direction they were both looking at me. I acted like I didn't notice them and we left. Dunno if the cop was there because of me or not but it seemed like it.

Maybe the cops will quit showing up altogether unless there is an actual crime being commited.

imported post

nathan wrote:

SNIP The Sheriff's officer and an employee were talking a few checkouts down. When I glanced in their direction they were both looking at me. I acted like I didn't notice them and we left. Dunno if the cop was there because of me or not but it seemed like it.

Maybe the cops will quit showing up altogether unless there is an actual crime being commited.

Click to expand...

You can help them along possibly by requesting the 911 call recording to find out what was reported or how the deputy came to be there.

And then a little note pointing out thatOC is legal andthey can have the dispatcher askthe caller what exactly is being done with the gun, call us if a crime develops.

Getting the tape has the additional benefit of opening the door to possibly finding out about inappropriate actions by the police. Thats how the goldmine of highly embarrassing e-mails was discovered in the Manassas incident. In fact you could request e-mails and patrol car text messages just to see if the deputy said anything that needs correction.

imported post

Phssthpok

All things considered you handledyourself pretty well.

imported post

Does WA have a silly law like CA that prevents people from suing those who call 911 mistakenly??

In CA there was a guy who was accused of passing a bad check, except it was a bogus check that he had gotten to pay for something he sold (he was the victim), the bank teller accused HIM of making the check, and using her lack of common sense, called the police and said he was committing fraud. He of course was cleared of everything, but he was humiliated in public, handcuffed, etc, all over this woman's idiocy, and couldn't sue because CA has a law against suing citizens who 'act in good faith' in calling 911 to report a crime, even if it's not a real crime..


EDIT:

Berkeley Daily Planet

Edition Date: Friday, January 16, 2004

State Supreme Court Allows Fake Police Reports
By PAUL GLUSMAN Special to the Planet (01-16-04)

Let’s say you are a Hispanic female. You have an account at a local bank. You walk into the bank to deposit a check made out to you by your stockbroker. The bank teller suspects that the check is phony. It is a large check and the fact that you are Hispanic makes the teller suspicious. Also there is a smudge on the check. The teller calls the broker and is told that the check is phony. The manager then calls the broker back and is told the check is valid. Still, nobody calls the police and tells them not to come. The police come and detain you.
In front of other customers, the police spreadeagle you, pat you down, handcuff you and ask questions such as, “Did you come here in a stolen car?” and, “Are you carrying weapons?” This is all after the broker has told the bank that it has made a mistake and that the check is good. After an investigation of about 20 minutes the police release you.

You are deeply humiliated by the experience, you feel that you have been slandered, arrested on a false report and treated like a criminal in front of bank employees, other customers, and the public. You believe that this treatment was engendered, in part at least, by your Hispanic background, that the bank would not have done this to an Anglo customer who came in with a stockbroker’s check. You sue and are prepared to prove this in court. What can you collect from the bank for having put you through this treatment?

Surprisingly, the answer is absolutely nothing.

On Jan. 5, the California Supreme Court decided a case with the above facts, Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, and came to the sweeping conclusion that all reports to the police are absolutely privileged. That means that anyone reporting any criminal activity to a police department cannot be sued for it, no matter how false and defamatory that report is. Apparently, if the person is prosecuted in court, he or she can sue for malicious prosecution. But Hagberg was not prosecuted. She was arrested, handcuffed, then let go. Even the fact that she claimed that she was denied her civil rights under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act did not allow her to sue the bank. Chief Justice George was of the opinion that the absolute privilege to make a police report would foster free communication between citizens and law enforcement authorities whose responsibility it is to investigate wrongdoing, and this outweighed the aggrieved citizen’s interest in being compensated.

Although it would not be possible for the aggrieved customer to sue, someone making a knowingly false police report can be criminally prosecuted under the Penal Code section 148.5. The fact that this is a crime should deter most such false reports, according to the California Supremes, which, in any event did not see that false reports “present a widespread problem.” However, it is up to the District Attorney to charge someone with making a false police report, and, unless it was very serious and public (such as falsely reporting a missing winning lottery ticket) the District Attorney well might let such a report ride.

Because the court announced that the privilege and the immunity from a lawsuit was absolute, we can take the facts a little farther down the slippery slope the court built in Hagberg. Suppose an African-American entered a convenience store at Haystack Corners, California. He is driving somewhere else, and his intent is to buy a soda and a bag of potato chips and go on his way. Unknown to him, the manager of the convenience store is the leader of the local Ku Klux Klan and hates African-Americans. The manager calls the police, and knowing that the customer is simply trying to buy some soda and chips, makes a false report that the customer has tried to rob the store. The police come and, shotguns out, arrest the customer, take him to jail and hold him there over a weekend before he is arraigned to face charges in court. Just before the arraignment he is let go and no charges are brought. According to the California Supreme Court in the Hagberg case, there would be no lawsuit possible in this instance either.

One matter the court did not consider, probably because it was not brought up by the parties, was whether such a false report, based in part on race, would violate Federal Civil Rights act of 1964 which provides equal access on the basis of race to places of public accommodation. The federal civil rights laws would trump state law immunities because of what is known as the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution. If the false report did violate the federal laws, the California Supreme Court could not prevent someone from suing under those laws. In Hagberg, the plaintiff did not choose to file her lawsuit under federal law.

Surprising to some observers was the fact that the dissent in this 4-3 decision was written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is viewed as a far right wing justice, who is on the short list of those who might be nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President Bush when a vacancy arises, and whose nomination to a federal court of appeal has thus far been derided and blocked by Democratic senators. She is viewed, with some justification, as a judicial extremist out to enact the conservative agenda of the current administration. Be that as it may, Brown wrote regarding this decision: “The ramifications of an intentionally false report of suspected criminal activity to police are enormous. Citizens arrested pursuant to such a report will be stigmatized, and forever thereafter have to note the arrest on job, credit, and housing applications. Assertions that the charges were dropped, and of ones actual innocence, will likely fall on deaf ears. Under the majority’s conclusion today, such falsely accused individuals will have no opportunity to clear their name, or seek compensation for economic loss in defending the charges or loss to their reputation.”

Score one for the far right wing.


Paul Glusman is a Berkeley lawyer practicing primarily in the areas of employment and insurance.






May do more harm than good, unfortunately, even if you could sue, but damn, how many times do you have to hear [little kid voice from a grown man] but mommy, he's got a gunnnn, he's scarryyyyy[/little kid voice from a grown man], before you get fed up with it?

I understand that 'you' may not be comfortable with it, that's fine, but don't go inconveniencing ME because you think you can get me in trouble by calling the police.

I wish people would actually THINK.....


(phone ringing) 911, what's your emergency?
Yes, hello!?, there's a man, and he's got a gun, and OH MY GOD, NO! He's, he's.... shopping... with 2 kids... and.. his wife .. please.. hurry... come stop him...
(click)


:banghead:



I don't go around calling the police because of that hideous tie you're wearing, or the fact that you want to wear three pants sizes too small so your ass crack is hanging out, yes, it disgusts me, but I think I manage it OK.

imported post

Hey Citizen, Washington doesn't have anything in regards to "brandishing" laws, so the arguments you layed down don't really work word-for-word, but with enough reading into the RCW's, it could work.

We have wording that essentially says we have to "carry ... 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." (RCW 9.41.270 (1)). So they have to articulate that you were being intentionally intimidating or that something you did at the time and place you were at warranted alarm for the safety of others... not that they were alarm, but actually warranted alarm for their safety.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Hey Citizen, Washington doesn't have anything in regards to "brandishing" laws, so the arguments you layed down don't really work word-for-word, but with enough reading into the RCW's, it could work.

We have wording that essentially says we have to "carry ... 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." (RCW 9.41.270 (1)). So they have to articulate that you were being intentionally intimidating or that something you did at the time and place you were at warranted alarm for the safety of others... not that they were alarm, but actually warranted alarm for their safety.

Click to expand...

Which court case was it again that laid out the idea that open carry in a holster does not warrant alarm? I know...I should know this!

I'm thinking ahead to when I finally get up the stones to OC in Battle Ground, and a BG cop shows up claiming that its warranting alarm because some anti is freaked out at the sight of an ACTUAL GUN!!!

Although I suppose my email from the BG Police spokeswoman stating that OC is ok should cover it.

tnx!

imported post

Hey dt,

Can I get a copy of that email? I would like to show it to the gun store owner in Battleground who says I'll get arrested for OC.

imported post

dt wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Hey Citizen, Washington doesn't have anything in regards to "brandishing" laws, so the arguments you layed down don't really work word-for-word, but with enough reading into the RCW's, it could work.

We have wording that essentially says we have to "carry ... 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." (RCW 9.41.270 (1)). So they have to articulate that you were being intentionally intimidating or that something you did at the time and place you were at warranted alarm for the safety of others... not that they were alarm, but actually warranted alarm for their safety.

Click to expand...

Which court case was it again that laid out the idea that open carry in a holster does not warrant alarm? I know...I should know this!

I'm thinking ahead to when I finally get up the stones to OC in Battle Ground, and a BG cop shows up claiming that its warranting alarm because some anti is freaked out at the sight of an ACTUAL GUN!!!

Although I suppose my email from the BG Police spokeswoman stating that OC is ok should cover it.

tnx!

Click to expand...

That would be State vs. Casad.

It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the
street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

Click to expand...

imported post

nathan wrote:

Hey dt,

Can I get a copy of that email? I would like to show it to the gun store owner in Battleground who says I'll get arrested for OC.

Click to expand...

I only know of one... but it wouldn't surprise me. I've bought a few things there over the years, but he isn't that friendly to browsers and not my first choice.

Attached is the email from Gail Truax with BG Police. Keep in mind this was sent shortly after I found OCDO, and before I was fully aware of the laws concerning OC, preemption, and so on. The wording kind of makes me cringe now, but oh well. She doesn't specifically admit that OC is legal, but does say that they do not have an ordinance against it. I x'd out my personal info, feel free to use it.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

dt wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Hey Citizen, Washington doesn't have anything in regards to "brandishing" laws, so the arguments you layed down don't really work word-for-word, but with enough reading into the RCW's, it could work.

We have wording that essentially says we have to "carry ... 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." (RCW 9.41.270 (1)). So they have to articulate that you were being intentionally intimidating or that something you did at the time and place you were at warranted alarm for the safety of others... not that they were alarm, but actually warranted alarm for their safety.

Click to expand...

Which court case was it again that laid out the idea that open carry in a holster does not warrant alarm? I know...I should know this!

I'm thinking ahead to when I finally get up the stones to OC in Battle Ground, and a BG cop shows up claiming that its warranting alarm because some anti is freaked out at the sight of an ACTUAL GUN!!!

Although I suppose my email from the BG Police spokeswoman stating that OC is ok should cover it.

tnx!

Click to expand...

That would be State vs. Casad.

It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the
street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thank you Sir!