Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Women Says Shotgun Incident Was Misunderstanding

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clark County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post



    http://www.kptv.com/news/16394182/detail.html

    LONGVIEW, Wash. -- A woman said an incident that caused police officers to surround her and draw their guns Friday was a misunderstanding.


    Lauren Smith said she was holding an empty shotgun on a Hudson Street sidewalk after her car broke down. She and her 5-year-old daughter were taking the shotgun to a pawnshop.

    While they waited, Smith stood in front of a bank, which led to a prompt police response.

    "The next thing we know there was cops telling me to get on the ground with M-16s pointed at us," Smith said.

    Smith said she slowly put down the shotgun while her 5-year-old daughter was hysterical. She said she tried to explain the situation to Longview police.

    "I was doing what my husband asked me to do, which was take our shotgun down so that our phone didn't get shut off," Smith said.

    Police eventually stood down. They told Smith she can't carry a shotgun around two banks and the police department. Officers, who said there have been a number of armed robberies in the area, wrote her a ticket for disorderly conduct.

    "It's not a crime to walk down the street to go to the pawn shop," said husband Robert Smith. "Unfortunately, the police have to do their job, and you know, I think they did what they were supposed to."

    Smith could be fined $250. She'll have a court appearance next week.

    Smith and her husband said they learned their lesson, but they wish the officers would have been more sensitive to their daughter.

    "I know they're good guys, they just scared me a little bit," said 5-year-old Kaydence Smith.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Hmm....

    Can't say the reaction to someone standing in front of a bank with a shotgun was too overblown. The presence of the kid ads to the mix...

    Wonder how she was carrying it? Slung over the shoulder, hand around the stock with the muzzle pointing any which way?

    Don't know if the ticket is justified. So little information at this point.

    When I transport long arms in the open, I do one of two things. If I am going a short distance, say from a neighbor's boat to mine (have done several long arm trades around here) and the gun has a sling, I just open the action and slip it on my left shoulder, muzzle pointed skyward. No sling, I'll put it in some sort of a case.

    In this woman's case, I would have at least wrapped a sheet around the dang thing and carried it in as non threatening a manner as possible.

    Not so sure I wouldnt' have given a long hard thought to calling the cops too seeing someone standing outside a bank with a long arm....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    wrote her a ticket for disorderly conduct.
    So who, exactly, caused the brief disorder that occured during this incident? Hmmmm . . . ?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    wrote her a ticket for disorderly conduct.
    So who, exactly, caused the brief disorder that occured during this incident? Hmmmm . . . ?
    That ticket is the cops way ofjustifing their total over reaction to the incident. Whenever they screw the pooch, they always ticket or charge the person they have violated the rights of, to cover the fact the cops blew it. Didn't the Casad case pretty much say that this kind of reaction by the cops is illegal? The presents of a firearm doesn't mean there is something wrong, especially with a 5 year old present.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    their total over reaction to the incident.
    My point exactly. She didn't cause any disorder, they did.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    That ticket is the cops way ofjustifing their total over reaction to the incident. Whenever they screw the pooch, they always ticket or charge the person they have violated the rights of, to cover the fact the cops blew it. Didn't the Casad case pretty much say that this kind of reaction by the cops is illegal? The presents of a firearm doesn't mean there is something wrong, especially with a 5 year old present.
    The Casadruling doesn't count, no matter what it said.

    The reason being that the Casad opinion is "unpublished." That means it cannot be used as a precedent, it cannot even be referred to by attorneys in a subsequent trial. It might be considered by prosecutor, defense and judge prior to arraignment or in chambers away from the courtroom, as a reason to drop this case like a hot toilet seat, but it can't be used as a cite on which to dismiss the case.

    I tried last year to contact the defense counsel in that case, but she simply would not return my calls. The reason for that effort was to ask if she wouldn't petition the appeals court to publish that opinion and then it would be part of the legal fabric regarding open carry.





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    This is the definition of Disorderly Conduct in Utah,




    So?

    This case isn't unfolding in Utah. It's unfolding in Washington. Utah's law is irrelevant.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post


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

    Post imported post

    Washington Definiton of Disorderly Conduct,

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.030




    [/b](1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

    (a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

    (b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

    (c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

    (d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

    (A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

    (B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

    (C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

    (D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

    (ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

    (2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

    [2007 c 2 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.84.030.]


    Notes:



    Effective date -- 2007 c 2: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [February 2, 2007]." [2007 c 2 § 2.]
    ================================================== ========

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/BillInfo/2...e/3293.HBA.htm

    ================================================== ========



    TJ

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    So what we can tell is that there IS a difference in Disorderly Conduct between States, mr Dave Workman.

    Maybe that's just too hard to understand

    TJ

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Hey utoc, you added nothing to the discussion besides insults. Open carry here in Wash allows longarms, the cops screwed the pooch.

    Please go back to the Utah section and your wives.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Wheelgunner wrote:
    Hey utoc, you added nothing to the discussion besides insults. Open carry here in Wash allows longarms, the cops screwed the pooch.

    Please go back to the Utah section and your wives.
    Yeah, yours is one of them. She didn't tell ya

    TJ

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Washington Definiton of Disorderly Conduct,

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.030
    It's so easy to get into the mindset that criminal law is state law because we seem to be rather preemption focused here. Disorderly Conduct can be and is codified by municipalities and counties and those codes vary widely. It's kind of like that nebulous catch-all of Obstructing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    But wouldn't the application of a municipal disorderly conduct ordinance to firearms fall under state preemption? It certainly seems to me that if a city considers conduct disorderly only because of the presence of a firearm, any such application would be a de facto regulation of the manner in which firearms may be carried, which would of course be illegal since the Washington legislature "fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state."

    In other words, it would be no different from, for example, a city claiming that their definition of disorderly conduct would criminalize peacable carry of a handgun in a holster.

    To put it even more succinctly, I don't think that it is legitimate for local entities to circumvent specific restrictions on local authority by capturing the specific case within the general.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Ok, does this woman have an attorney or a public defender? Then call them. Seriously.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    This whole thing is reeking. I think the PD threw the book at her just to save face. Which makes it reek even more.

    I still would like to know how she was carrying the gun. If she had her finger anywhere near the trigger like so many people who do not know guns do, that could have been a problem. Where was the muzzle pointed? Up? Down? At things?

    I'm quick to jump to her defense as a knee jerk reaction, but I for one think more facts are needed.

    More than likely charges are BS though.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    I believe that this is the section of Longview Muni Code. As I read it more in depth, I began to ponder just how many activities guaranteed under the constitution could one code violate. I was initially going to edit to only include what I thought was possibly relevant to firearms. But here's the whole thing.
    9.22.040 Disorderly conduct.
    It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to disturb or endanger the public peace or decency by any disorderly conduct.

    The following acts, among others, are declared to be disorderly conduct:

    (1) Use of obscene, abusive or profane language in a public or private place in a manner which incites or tends to incite a breach of the peace, or which disturbs the public peace or decency;

    (2) Making any threats of violence to or against any other person;

    (3) Lying, sitting, kneeling, leaning or standing in a public place in such a manner as to willfully impede, hinder, delay or obstruct other persons lawfully using such place for its intended use. The term “public place” for purposes of this section, shall be deemed and construed to include every public building, sidewalk, parking strip, public way, public park, public or private school, apartment house hallways, doorways and interiors of other commercial buildings to which the general public, having lawful business therein, is freely admitted; provided, however, this subsection shall not apply to injured persons or public officials, including police officers, who are performing their lawful duties;

    (4) The operation of a motor vehicle within the city in a manner that disturbs the public peace and tranquility, whether by excessive speed, excessive noise, or by other operation manifesting disregard for reasonable safety precautions;

    (5) Any noisy or riotous conduct either in a public or private place which causes a disturbance of the public peace and tranquility including, but not limited to, any person who screams, shouts, yells or gives commonly known offensive signs or plays musical instruments in a manner calculated to divert the attention of a motor vehicle operator to such person or that reasonably causes alarm for the safety of any person, persons, or property in the vicinity; provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any parent or parents seeking to gain the attention of their child or children by screams, or yells, or to any act expressly permitted by city ordinance or state law, or to any act of a public official, including police officers, while engaged in performing their lawful duties;

    (6) Engaging in, promoting, encouraging, aiding or abetting any fight, riot or noisy and disorderly proceeding on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (7) Assault and battery upon any person on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (8) For any person by means of the use of the telephone to disturb, or tend to disturb, the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any other person or family by repeated or continuous anonymous or identified telephone messages intended to harass or disturb the person to whom the call is directed; or by single call or repeated calls, to use obscene, profane, indecent, or offensive language, or suggest any lewd or lascivious act over or through a telephone in this city; or to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person or family by means or use of the telephone or to threaten any physical violence or harm to any person or family; or to repeatedly and continuously ring the telephone of any person or family with intent to disturb or harass them; provided, however, that the normal use of the telephone for the purpose of requesting payment of debts or obligations or for other legitimate business purposes shall not constitute disorderly conduct;

    (9) Intentionally disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

    (10) Intentionally obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority. (Ord. 2765 § 1, 2000).
    I think that if the cityactually proceeds with this, they will attempt to show the highlighted. Asharp attorney would be able to knock that down with the "shall not apply" clause. You could argue thatopen carry is not expressly permitted by state law and I would throughly enjoy arguing this case.

    I got the sense from the video that these are descent people and would end up paying the fine. $250 versus an easy couple of grand to fight it; hell, he was pawning his shotgun to pay the phone bill and the car was broke down. Sounds like a genuine ****-storm to me.

    That being said, I would hope that for her sake, the gun was left in the broke down car and only taken out in transferring to the ride that came to the rescue.


  21. #21
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    underthebridge wrote:
    I believe that this is the section of Longview Muni Code.* As I read it more in depth, I began to ponder just how many activities guaranteed under the constitution could one code violate.* I was initially going to edit to only include what I thought was possibly relevant to firearms.* But here's the whole thing.*
    9.22.040 Disorderly conduct.
    It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to disturb or endanger the public peace or decency by any disorderly conduct.

    The following acts, among others, are declared to be disorderly conduct:

    (1) Use of obscene, abusive or profane language in a public or private place in a manner which incites or tends to incite a breach of the peace, or which disturbs the public peace or decency;

    (2) Making any threats of violence to or against any other person;

    (3) Lying, sitting, kneeling, leaning or standing in a public place in such a manner as to willfully impede, hinder, delay or obstruct other persons lawfully using such place for its intended use. The term “public place” for purposes of this section, shall be deemed and construed to include every public building, sidewalk, parking strip, public way, public park, public or private school, apartment house hallways, doorways and interiors of other commercial buildings to which the general public, having lawful business therein, is freely admitted; provided, however, this subsection shall not apply to injured persons or public officials, including police officers, who are performing their lawful duties;

    (4) The operation of a motor vehicle within the city in a manner that disturbs the public peace and tranquility, whether by excessive speed, excessive noise, or by other operation manifesting disregard for reasonable safety precautions;

    (5) Any noisy or riotous conduct either in a public or private place which causes a disturbance of the public peace and tranquility including, but not limited to, any person who screams, shouts, yells or gives commonly known offensive signs or plays musical instruments in a manner calculated to divert the attention of a motor vehicle operator to such person or that reasonably causes alarm for the safety of any person, persons, or property in the vicinity; provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any parent or parents seeking to gain the attention of their child or children by screams, or yells, or to any act expressly permitted by city ordinance or state law, or to any act of a public official, including police officers, while engaged in performing their lawful duties;

    (6) Engaging in, promoting, encouraging, aiding or abetting any fight, riot or noisy and disorderly proceeding on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (7) Assault and battery upon any person on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (8) For any person by means of the use of the telephone to disturb, or tend to disturb, the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any other person or family by repeated or continuous anonymous or identified telephone messages intended to harass or disturb the person to whom the call is directed; or by single call or repeated calls, to use obscene, profane, indecent, or offensive language, or suggest any lewd or lascivious act over or through a telephone in this city; or to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person or family by means or use of the telephone or to threaten any physical violence or harm to any person or family; or to repeatedly and continuously ring the telephone of any person or family with intent to disturb or harass them; provided, however, that the normal use of the telephone for the purpose of requesting payment of debts or obligations or for other legitimate business purposes shall not constitute disorderly conduct;

    (9) Intentionally disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

    (10) Intentionally obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority. (Ord. 2765 § 1, 2000).
    I think that if the city*actually proceeds with this, they will attempt to show the highlighted.* A*sharp attorney would be able to knock that down with the "shall not apply" clause.* You could argue that*open carry is not expressly permitted by state law and I would throughly enjoy arguing this case.

    I got the sense from the video that these are descent people and would end up paying the fine.* $250 versus an easy couple of grand to fight it; hell, he was pawning his shotgun to pay the phone bill and the car was broke down.* Sounds like a genuine ****-storm to me.

    That being said, I would hope that for her sake, the gun was left in the broke down car and only taken out in transferring to the ride that came to the rescue.
    'unless specifically permitted' would seem to be too broad of a restriction, IOTW, if it's not legal, then it's illegal.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    underthebridge,

    In addition to the stuff you highlighted, that entire section (5) begins, "Any noisy or riotous conduct..." and the rest is simply an elaboration of when or how such noisy or riotous conduct might fall under this provision. There's no way that quietly and peacably carrying a firearm could be subject to that particular provision in the first place.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    underthebridge,

    In addition to the stuff you highlighted, that entire section (5) begins, "Any noisy or riotous conduct..." and the rest is simply an elaboration of when or how such noisy or riotous conduct might fall under this provision.
    Exactly. Unless she was noisily firing it in the air or something.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    underthebridge wrote:
    I believe that this is the section of Longview Muni Code. As I read it more in depth, I began to ponder just how many activities guaranteed under the constitution could one code violate. I was initially going to edit to only include what I thought was possibly relevant to firearms. But here's the whole thing.
    9.22.040 Disorderly conduct.
    It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to disturb or endanger the public peace or decency by any disorderly conduct.

    The following acts, among others, are declared to be disorderly conduct:

    (1) Use of obscene, abusive or profane language in a public or private place in a manner which incites or tends to incite a breach of the peace, or which disturbs the public peace or decency;

    (2) Making any threats of violence to or against any other person;

    (3) Lying, sitting, kneeling, leaning or standing in a public place in such a manner as to willfully impede, hinder, delay or obstruct other persons lawfully using such place for its intended use. The term “public place” for purposes of this section, shall be deemed and construed to include every public building, sidewalk, parking strip, public way, public park, public or private school, apartment house hallways, doorways and interiors of other commercial buildings to which the general public, having lawful business therein, is freely admitted; provided, however, this subsection shall not apply to injured persons or public officials, including police officers, who are performing their lawful duties;

    (4) The operation of a motor vehicle within the city in a manner that disturbs the public peace and tranquility, whether by excessive speed, excessive noise, or by other operation manifesting disregard for reasonable safety precautions;

    (5) Any noisy or riotous conduct either in a public or private place which causes a disturbance of the public peace and tranquility including, but not limited to, any person who screams, shouts, yells or gives commonly known offensive signs or plays musical instruments in a manner calculated to divert the attention of a motor vehicle operator to such person or that reasonably causes alarm for the safety of any person, persons, or property in the vicinity; provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any parent or parents seeking to gain the attention of their child or children by screams, or yells, or to any act expressly permitted by city ordinance or state law, or to any act of a public official, including police officers, while engaged in performing their lawful duties;

    (6) Engaging in, promoting, encouraging, aiding or abetting any fight, riot or noisy and disorderly proceeding on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (7) Assault and battery upon any person on any street or public place, or in any private building or dwelling, when persons residing in the vicinity are disturbed;

    (8) For any person by means of the use of the telephone to disturb, or tend to disturb, the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any other person or family by repeated or continuous anonymous or identified telephone messages intended to harass or disturb the person to whom the call is directed; or by single call or repeated calls, to use obscene, profane, indecent, or offensive language, or suggest any lewd or lascivious act over or through a telephone in this city; or to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person or family by means or use of the telephone or to threaten any physical violence or harm to any person or family; or to repeatedly and continuously ring the telephone of any person or family with intent to disturb or harass them; provided, however, that the normal use of the telephone for the purpose of requesting payment of debts or obligations or for other legitimate business purposes shall not constitute disorderly conduct;

    (9) Intentionally disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

    (10) Intentionally obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority. (Ord. 2765 § 1, 2000).
    I think that if the cityactually proceeds with this, they will attempt to show the highlighted. Asharp attorney would be able to knock that down with the "shall not apply" clause. You could argue thatopen carry is not expressly permitted by state law and I would throughly enjoy arguing this case.

    I got the sense from the video that these are descent people and would end up paying the fine. $250 versus an easy couple of grand to fight it; hell, he was pawning his shotgun to pay the phone bill and the car was broke down. Sounds like a genuine ****-storm to me.

    That being said, I would hope that for her sake, the gun was left in the broke down car and only taken out in transferring to the ride that came to the rescue.
    So where are the NRA and other gun rights groups that should be all over this with lawyer assistance as this case is a stinker from word go. Total over reaction by the cops and the charges are an attempt to cover their sorry law breaking butts.

  25. #25
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Sometimes I wish there was a 'public stupidity law'...

    Standing in front of a bank, with a shotgun in your hand, wether 'innocent' or not, is just plain stupid.

    I will, however, support the rights of those who wish to be stupid in a lawful manner..
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

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
  •