• 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.

Women Says Shotgun Incident Was Misunderstanding

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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 shit-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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
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. :D
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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 shit-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.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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..
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
And just why would a bank be any different that say a grocery store or a hotel?
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank? I've done it a number of time BTW.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank? I've done it a number of time BTW.
He said he would support your right to be stupid, so I am guessing he does not think you should be arrested.

Or such was my read.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank?   I've done it a number of time BTW.

Your reading comprehension sucks.


I will, however, support the rights of those who wish to be stupid in a lawful manner..

If it's legal, you wouldn't be arrested would you?


Lets look at this from Joe Blow's point of view...

Lauren Smith said she was holding a (..) shotgun (..). While they waited, Smith stood in front of a bank (..).

A woman is standing in front of a bank, with a shotgun in her hand. Following ockams razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I'd say it's MORE likely that she's a lookout, or about to rob the place, than 'taking it to get pawned'...


I'd say the terry requirement was met, and disarming her was the proper measure. The cops can't say 'You're a real stupid SOB, you know that?', so they ticket her instead,lol.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank? I've done it a number of time BTW.

Your reading comprehension sucks.


I will, however, support the rights of those who wish to be stupid in a lawful manner..

If it's legal, you wouldn't be arrested would you?


Lets look at this from Joe Blow's point of view...

Lauren Smith said she was holding a (..) shotgun (..). While they waited, Smith stood in front of a bank (..).

A woman is standing in front of a bank, with a shotgun in her hand. Following ockams razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I'd say it's MORE likely that she's a lookout, or about to rob the place, than 'taking it to get pawned'...


I'd say the terry requirement was met, and disarming her was the proper measure. The cops can't say 'You're a real stupid SOB, you know that?', so they ticket her instead,lol.
A lookout with a full sized shotgun? Now you are the MORON! You haven't got a clue of how to be a bad guy. Standing outside on the sidewalk with a long gun as a lookout fails in the primary purpose of the lookout. That is to blend in and not draw attention of anyone or the cops especially. Christ, you better walk the straight and narrow because you aren't smart enough to be a criminal. Very poor logic skills also.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank? I've done it a number of time BTW.

Your reading comprehension sucks.


I will, however, support the rights of those who wish to be stupid in a lawful manner..

If it's legal, you wouldn't be arrested would you?


Lets look at this from Joe Blow's point of view...

Lauren Smith said she was holding a (..) shotgun (..). While they waited, Smith stood in front of a bank (..).

A woman is standing in front of a bank, with a shotgun in her hand. Following ockams razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I'd say it's MORE likely that she's a lookout, or about to rob the place, than 'taking it to get pawned'...


I'd say the terry requirement was met, and disarming her was the proper measure. The cops can't say 'You're a real stupid SOB, you know that?', so they ticket her instead,lol.
A lookout with a full sized shotgun? Now you are the MORON! You haven't got a clue of how to be a bad guy. Standing outside on the sidewalk with a long gun as a lookout fails in the primary purpose of the lookout. That is to blend in and not draw attention of anyone or the cops especially. Christ, you better walk the straight and narrow because you aren't smart enough to be a criminal. Very poor logic skills also.

Bear, how come you have a stick up yer butt? I know I'm new here, but I'm sensing some internet commando style anxiety.

If crooks were as smart as you posit, life would be entirely different.

I have *PERSONALLY* seen an armed robber, gun out, outside of a bank.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

maclean wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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..
So you're saying I should be arrested for Open Carrying into my bank? I've done it a number of time BTW.

Your reading comprehension sucks.


I will, however, support the rights of those who wish to be stupid in a lawful manner..

If it's legal, you wouldn't be arrested would you?


Lets look at this from Joe Blow's point of view...

Lauren Smith said she was holding a (..) shotgun (..). While they waited, Smith stood in front of a bank (..).

A woman is standing in front of a bank, with a shotgun in her hand. Following ockams razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I'd say it's MORE likely that she's a lookout, or about to rob the place, than 'taking it to get pawned'...


I'd say the terry requirement was met, and disarming her was the proper measure. The cops can't say 'You're a real stupid SOB, you know that?', so they ticket her instead,lol.
A lookout with a full sized shotgun? Now you are the MORON! You haven't got a clue of how to be a bad guy. Standing outside on the sidewalk with a long gun as a lookout fails in the primary purpose of the lookout. That is to blend in and not draw attention of anyone or the cops especially. Christ, you better walk the straight and narrow because you aren't smart enough to be a criminal. Very poor logic skills also.

Bear, how come you have a stick up yer butt? I know I'm new here, but I'm sensing some internet commando style anxiety.

If crooks were as smart as you posit, life would be entirely different.

I have *PERSONALLY* seen an armed robber, gun out, outside of a bank.
I was saying crooks are smarter than to put a woman with a shotgun and a 5 year old in front of a bank as a lookout and Techno isn't smart enough to be a crook if that's the way he thinks and you can bite me. I don't really give a rat's a$$ what you like or want. I get my opinion here just like everyone else whether you or any one else likes it or not. Everybody has seen stupid, his logic is way beyond the pale of common sense. Women don't endanger their children as a normal thing, it happens but get real for a minute. The cops over reacted and ticketed her to at least charge her with something to intimidate her after pointing guns at her and a 5 year old for God's sake.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
A lookout with a full sized shotgun?  Now you are the MORON!  You haven't got a clue of how to be a bad guy.  Standing outside on the sidewalk with a long gun as a lookout fails in the primary purpose of the lookout.  That is to blend in and not draw attention of anyone or the cops especially.  Christ,  you better walk the straight and narrow because you aren't smart enough to be a criminal.  Very poor logic skills also.

If criminals were so smart, they wouldn't get caught.

The fact is, I've seen stupider shit, INCLUDING 'lookouts' with FRS radios telling the dealer to stash his stuff, with the dealer radioing back where the stash was, of course, the police listening in the whole time.

You'd never know if I was a successful bank robber, I wouldn't be caught ;)


If I was going to rob a bank, I'd setup a spread sprectum sweeping jammer, centered around 850 Mhz and sweeping up and down +/- 100 Mhz. It'd kill every nextel and trunked radio system within about 30 miles, and considering failsoft is usually digital, it'd wipe out failsoft as well, introducing so much interference as to be unusable.. By the time PD was able to get their heads out of their asses and figure out what'd happen (and find the hidden transmitter) I'd have a few hours headstart, more than enough time to get away comfortably.

It'd be easier to rob an armored car.... More money, easier target, less witnesses, easier to jam, etc.

But I digress..

No criminal would ever rob a store but leave his ID on the counter,leave a 20$ on the counter and 'escape' with 12$ that was in the register, walk past a fully marked police car into a gun shop and announce a robbery with a gun in his hand, run your truck into a store to break the door tearing off your bumper with the license plate attached for the officers to find..etc etc

So, SURELY, they'd never post a 'lookout' with a shotgun in plain view of the public.

Sounds like YOU are out of touch with reality, 'bear'.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Then there was the guy last summer who tried to rob one of the banks in University Place. His getaway method was to hop on the bus, get off at Green Firs, and try to blend into the crowd at Starbucks.

When I took my Utah Permit class down at FAS earlier this year, on of the components was a film of interviews with prison inmates (about their views on armed victims.) Now maybe there was selection bias going on, but of the 6 interviewees one of them actually seemed fairly sharp, but the rest were definitely from very near the bottom of the barrel (enough so that it was hard not to feel sorry for them.)
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

You all are missing the point. Women with children with them rarely endanger their children. They will be just like mama Grizzlies and fight to the death to defend themwhen it comes to protecting their young. And screw this bank BS, it is irrelivant as a woman with a gun and a child outside any building should be treated the same and that doesn't include start out with M16s point at the 2 of them. Can't anybody observe anything and react accordingly, every thing is SWAT time anymore for God's sake. This isn't Iraq or Chicago.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
A lookout with a full sized shotgun? Now you are the MORON! You haven't got a clue of how to be a bad guy. Standing outside on the sidewalk with a long gun as a lookout fails in the primary purpose of the lookout. That is to blend in and not draw attention of anyone or the cops especially. Christ, you better walk the straight and narrow because you aren't smart enough to be a criminal. Very poor logic skills also.

If criminals were so smart, they wouldn't get caught.

The fact is, I've seen stupider shit, INCLUDING 'lookouts' with FRS radios telling the dealer to stash his stuff, with the dealer radioing back where the stash was, of course, the police listening in the whole time.

You'd never know if I was a successful bank robber, I wouldn't be caught ;)


If I was going to rob a bank, I'd setup a spread sprectum sweeping jammer, centered around 850 Mhz and sweeping up and down +/- 100 Mhz. It'd kill every nextel and trunked radio system within about 30 miles, and considering failsoft is usually digital, it'd wipe out failsoft as well, introducing so much interference as to be unusable.. By the time PD was able to get their heads out of their asses and figure out what'd happen (and find the hidden transmitter) I'd have a few hours headstart, more than enough time to get away comfortably.

It'd be easier to rob an armored car.... More money, easier target, less witnesses, easier to jam, etc.

But I digress..

No criminal would ever rob a store but leave his ID on the counter,leave a 20$ on the counter and 'escape' with 12$ that was in the register, walk past a fully marked police car into a gun shop and announce a robbery with a gun in his hand, run your truck into a store to break the door tearing off your bumper with the license plate attached for the officers to find..etc etc

So, SURELY, they'd never post a 'lookout' with a shotgun in plain view of the public.

Sounds like YOU are out of touch with reality, 'bear'.
The failsoft is analog in King County. Just sayin.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
You all are missing the point. Women with children with them rarely endanger their children.
Except when they do, of course. We see news reports about women recklessly endangering their children daily, and usually for far less reason than a bank robbery.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

For a supposed pro gun group you guy are as anti as can be. Never give a person the benefit of the doubt.
rolleyes.gif
I'd make sure my lawyer kick your sorry asses off any jury I had to face.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
For a supposed pro gun group you guy are as anti as can be. Never give a person the benefit of the doubt.
rolleyes.gif
I'd make sure my lawyer kick your sorry asses off any jury I had to face.
I'm not anti-gun at all. Just taking issue with comments that don't make sense.

Personally, I don't think the woman should have been charged with anything.

BTW, since you're so big on giving people the benefit of the doubt, you should probably go apologize on a half-dozen other threads where you conspicuously failed to do that.
 
Top