Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Seattle Police Dept Bulletin

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently. Thank you!

    I received the following email after contacting SPD concerning open carry in Seattle.

    To: might@usa.com
    CC:
    Subject: Open Carry Law -- SPD response
    Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:12 -0700


    Dear Mr. Dorny:
    As requested, please see the attached SPD Legal Bulletin. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

    Renee Clarose
    Legal Unit Assistant

    desk: (206) 233-5141
    fax: (206) 233-5139
    Seattle Police Department
    610 5th Avenue, Unit A001
    PO Box 34986
    Seattle, WA 98124-34986

    The attached Bulletin:


    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an ******* way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    This is good news. I haven't read the download. I'm talking generally.

    They have just told us where to next direct our attention and efforts. If the OP'er hadn't asked, we wouldn't have known.

    Go get get boys!! (insert rebel yell here)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an ******* way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.
    I agree with you on this Bear, however the second paragraph in it is the key. They admit that merely open carry in a holster or somehow affixed to the person and is not threatening is not illegal. Having said that I do not care for anything else they say in it other than dispatch is being told to try and identify if it is an "open carry" event or if it is an actual violation of law.

    As far as an ******* way to view State v Casad you have to look at who is in charge of the city and police dept.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an ******* way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.
    I agree with you on this Bear, however the second paragraph in it is the key. They admit that merely open carry in a holster or somehow affixed to the person and is not threatening is not illegal. Having said that I do not care for anything else they say in it other than dispatch is being told to try and identify if it is an "open carry" event or if it is an actual violation of law.

    As far as an ******* way to view State v Casad you have to look at who is in charge of the city and police dept.
    You're not implying they might be liberal ******** are you?

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Cool, hadn't seen this one before! Welcome! Great way to introduce yourself! New bulletins are few and far between of late!

    So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?

    Oh well, at least they have a reasonable grip on reality and train their dispatch to ask questions.

    I should pass this along to OPD, maybe they can learn how to dispatch an OC call from this.

    Good work!


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Oh, I would never do a thing like that.

    After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

    All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Oh, I would never do a thing like that.

    After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

    All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
    Yeah, but they tell the officers to disarm you, which is illegal.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?
    They just don't get it. We carry our guns in peace and the only time WE are confronted is when it is by those who ignore the law - namely criminals, anti's or LEO's that don't know or don't care. All of which are an insult to law abiding citizens and cause more harm to society than good.



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

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?
    They just don't get it. We carry our guns in peace and the only time WE are confronted is when it is by those who ignore the law - namely criminals, anti's or LEO's that don't know or don't care. All of which are an insult to law abiding citizens and cause more harm to society than good.

    Now I have to say all of my LEO encounters with SPD were postive. Once it was a simple "howdy" and a couple of times officers just looked me up really good to see what I was up to. I just smiled and went about my business.

    I've found a few pro gun LEO's in Oly as well.

    I think the problem isn't so much LEO's as, LEO's not having the right tools to deal with this. In so many places OC is still "cutting edge" and there will be confusion and internal cultures to break down. This is what we get for being trailblazers...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    aktion wrote:
    I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently. Thank you!

    I received the following email after contacting SPD concerning open carry in Seattle.

    To: might@usa.com
    CC:
    Subject: Open Carry Law -- SPD response
    Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:12 -0700


    Dear Mr. Dorny:
    As requested, please see the attached SPD Legal Bulletin. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

    Renee Clarose
    Legal Unit Assistant

    desk: (206) 233-5141
    fax: (206) 233-5139
    Seattle Police Department
    610 5th Avenue, Unit A001
    PO Box 34986
    Seattle, WA 98124-34986

    The attached Bulletin:

    Good reading. Wishwe had something like that here in Utah.

    TJ

  12. #12
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Oh, I would never do a thing like that.

    After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

    All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
    Yeah, but they tell the officers to disarm you, which is illegal.
    Actually it says to disarm "as necessary", so it's up to the discretion of the officer. They're mainly talking about responding to "oh-hand" encounters which they consider illegal and, I believe, is a correct interpretation unless the person OC'ing felt threatened.

    Also, this bulletin puts a whole new spin on my encounter with SPD: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/9593.html
    That Patrol officer should have known better. I think I'll be printing this out and keeping it with me... may even have to eat at that Denny's again (and it's the worst Denny's I've ever been to).

    Thanks aktion, great contribution!
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    "Trespass:
    ...the court was clear that managers of public..buildings..may adopt rules and enforce policies restricting the "open carry" of firearms. ..."

    What do they mean by public buildings? Buildings open to the public or state, county, city buildings?

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    "Trespass:
    ...the court was clear that managers of public..buildings..may adopt rules and enforce policies restricting the "open carry" of firearms. ..."

    What do they mean by public buildings? Buildings open to the public or state, county, city buildings?
    I am assuming they mean privately owned buildings open to the public. If starbucks wants you to leave over OC, you leave, whereas city hall can't do jack unless you are in a secure area.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    I think it's great progress and thanks to all (Lonnie) who helped make it happen. I am a bit concerned about the procedures though. Instead of the 911 operator asking "Was it in the holster?" it seems like they're just trying to get their ducks in a row so they can make charges stick better. First approach the complainant and ask a few leading questions (Were you scared? Did he seem threatening?) and then use those responses to nail you. Having the patrol sargeant involved adds reliable testimony and weight to the report. This is not my favorite bulletin.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

    "Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

    This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Shy_Panda wrote:
    Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

    "Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

    This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.
    I didn't see it that way. The way I saw things, was the legality of OC is laid out, and then it goes on to explain what they can do depending on if the incident is legal or not. I think though some letters to SPD are in order asking for clarification.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    I think it's great progress and thanks to all (Lonnie) who helped make it happen. I am a bit concerned about the procedures though. Instead of the 911 operator asking "Was it in the holster?" it seems like they're just trying to get their ducks in a row so they can make charges stick better. First approach the complainant and ask a few leading questions (Were you scared? Did he seem threatening?) and then use those responses to nail you. Having the patrol sargeant involved adds reliable testimony and weight to the report. This is not my favorite bulletin.
    Actually having a Sgt. respond goes both ways. It adds more credibility to an arrest but it also will make them handle it within thier authority of the law because a Sgt is liable for the officers under thier direct supervison. Most of the Sgt's didn't make the rank because they are idiots, they made it because they know how to do thier job.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Shy_Panda wrote:
    Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

    "Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

    This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.
    I didn't see it that way. The way I saw things, was the legality of OC is laid out, and then it goes on to explain what they can do depending on if the incident is legal or not. I think though some letters to SPD are in order asking for clarification.
    +1. That is exactly how I am reading it too. As far as letters go it would not hurt but I do not think they will clarify anything in it because every incident is different and they do not want to take officer discretion out of the picture.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Very very interesting. You know what's really funny is that two months after that bulletin was published, I put in a PRA for exactly that document, but it was declined saying it didn't exist.

    Ca-Ching$$$$

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    aktion wrote:
    I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently.
    Why are you contacting the police for legal advice?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the feedback. I am not contacting the police for legal advice. I contacted them for legal clarification. I found a comment on Wikipedia about open carry being legal; a reference to Mr Wilsons efforts concerning oc, and I sought clarification from my local PD legal counsel what departmental policy was on the matter. That way I know ahead of time, rather than assuming or believing what it is.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Oh, I would never do a thing like that.

    After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

    All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
    Yeah, but they tell the officers to disarm you, which is illegal.
    Re-read it. That's in response to an unlawful display call, not in response to an open carry call. They define the two, and that procedure is clearly listed under "unlawful display".

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Reads favorable to our position, really.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    aktion wrote:
    I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently.
    Why are you contacting the police for legal advice?
    1) He's new. Cut him some slack

    2) He provided us a missing document that we knew existed but Seattle PD repeatedly lied saying that it didn't exist.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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