Bookman
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Time and again I see something on here that makes me cringe a little. That is when someone uses the phrase "cause(s) alarm" in place of the proper phrase "warrants alarm". This may seem petty at first glance, but it really isn't. There is a very important difference between the two, illustrated by the following scenario:
OCer is shopping at Safeway and minding his/her own business. One of the sheeple sees him/her and calls 911, convincing the operator that a police presence is necessary. Everything turns out okay as the responding LEO knows his/her laws and settles the caller down while letting them know that OC is legal in the state of Washington. End story.
Now let's examine what just happened. Our hero/heroine is not brandishing, glowering at people, or doing anything that would indicate that he/she is or has been up to anything illegal, HOWEVER the person who called 911 became "alarmed" at the sight of someone carrying a pistol in plain site because they are either anti-gun or ignorant of the law. The very fact that our law abiding hero/heroine is carrying in such a manner has "caused alarm" in the caller.
NOW we must ask the question, "Was this alarm warranted?" Certainly not! Our hero/heroine has done nothing illegal, aggressive, or otherwise intentionally intimidating or threatening. Therefore they haven't violated state law and can't be held accountable for the "alarm" experienced by the caller.
See the difference and how important it is in this case?
Time and again I see something on here that makes me cringe a little. That is when someone uses the phrase "cause(s) alarm" in place of the proper phrase "warrants alarm". This may seem petty at first glance, but it really isn't. There is a very important difference between the two, illustrated by the following scenario:
OCer is shopping at Safeway and minding his/her own business. One of the sheeple sees him/her and calls 911, convincing the operator that a police presence is necessary. Everything turns out okay as the responding LEO knows his/her laws and settles the caller down while letting them know that OC is legal in the state of Washington. End story.
Now let's examine what just happened. Our hero/heroine is not brandishing, glowering at people, or doing anything that would indicate that he/she is or has been up to anything illegal, HOWEVER the person who called 911 became "alarmed" at the sight of someone carrying a pistol in plain site because they are either anti-gun or ignorant of the law. The very fact that our law abiding hero/heroine is carrying in such a manner has "caused alarm" in the caller.
NOW we must ask the question, "Was this alarm warranted?" Certainly not! Our hero/heroine has done nothing illegal, aggressive, or otherwise intentionally intimidating or threatening. Therefore they haven't violated state law and can't be held accountable for the "alarm" experienced by the caller.
See the difference and how important it is in this case?