Spokane OC Issues

Does anyone know if RCW 9.41.270 has been rewritten because of the Casad case?
Until the RCW 9.41.270 is rewritten, Casad or not, it will be that way in the Spokane Municipal Code, (SMC).
From my understanding the Casad case can only come into play after a warrants alarm incident has happend.

The SMC quotes the first paragraph of RCW 9.41.270 word for word. The city att was adamant about pointing out the wording in all of the first paragraph, not just the warrants alarm part, of RCW 9.41.270.

The city att knows it is legal to OC on city owned property, parks, etc. because of RCW 9.41.290. Our conversation was that it falls on our sholders to not incur the unlawful circumstanses of RCW 9.41.270.

This again brings us back to educating the people to the point that walking through a park OC'ing, no matter the time of year or event, does not cause alarm of any kind. OC'ing has to become a common sight.

Click to expand...

We should all quit arguing and get the main point across. What Fetch is saying is that we need to make OC as common as women carrying purses or men wearing pagers and cell phones on their belts. We all need to stop bickering and come together for the same cause and not get our panties in bunches because we all don't see eye to eye. We need to just stick together and come together so that our kids can OC and noone will give it a second glance.

Click to expand...

"I think the only disagreement here is trying to understand what the city attny meant, whether someone "being" alarmed qualifies as "warrants" alarm as mentioned in 9.41.270 or was only saying "don't be surprised if someone calls".

Click to expand...

Thank you 911boss for the wording,

"I think the only disagreement here is trying to understand what the city attny meant, whether someone "being" alarmed qualifies as "warrants" alarm as mentioned in 9.41.270 or was only saying "don't be surprised if someone calls".

Click to expand...

Yes, he knows merely OC'ing is not enough for warranting alarm, and was only trying to get across the "don't be surprised if someone calls" part. This was only the first meeting. We will have to see after the revised training bulletin is issued.

Click to expand...

Bear 45/70 wrote:

It doesn't matter if the cops are sent because of a 911 call initiated by a sheeple. When the cops see no illegal activity, their job is actually done, because anything more than a social contact is actually illegal for the cops, that includes a Terry stop. So what's the problem if the cops are called? I still don't understand how you figure the City Attorney didn't plant the "warrants alarm" idea in the OP. Since anyone who's been here for any length of time knows better.

Click to expand...

I agree, nothing wrong with the cops going out, it is what they do when they get that may become a problem (ie-tell person it is illegal, sieze the gun, etc.).

The point I am trying to make is I think you are blaming the city attny for merely pointing out that some people will be alarmed and call when they see a gun. Pointing that out as a possible (and even likely) reaction is not the same as saying such alarm is warranted or suggesting that if people call their complaint is legitimate.

I read this as the attny agrees OC is legal but merely offered that people might call about it. Not as a threat or warning, but just as a "don't be surprised if it happens" thing. That is different than saying "Sure it's legal but if anyone calls, then I could try you for "warranting alarm"".

I took the OP to mean, "I have clarified this with the city attny, now the next step is to educate the public". Not as "We have to educate the public otherwise the city attny is going to prosecute us".

I still think you are reading into it....

Click to expand...

Just wanted to add that the City Attorney does not work for "us," even if "us" is the people of the city. He actually represents the city itself, as a separate entity. The city is his client, the party to whom he owes his duties and loyalty.

Click to expand...