Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Asked for cpl while OCing

  1. #1
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    Kind of a long story but here goes. About a month ago I decided to go 4wheelin on what looked like an abandoned rock quarry, lots of mud, good hills ect. While I was inching my way down a steep hill, I noticed a truck coming towards me at a pretty high rate of speed. This didn't look good. He parked his truck in a way that when I got to the bottom of the hill I would have nowhere to go. He got out and he looked pissed. I asked if there was a problem (being as polite as possible as to avoid confrontation). He started yelling at me telling me I was on private FU*&##& property and that he was calling the police. All the while I was trying to calm him down and explain that I didn't know that it was private property. He took some pictures and called the cops. I noticed as he was going back to his truck that he was obviously concealing a large pistol. I was escorted off the property while professing my apologies and desire to resolve the conflict to both our satisfactions. We agreed that nothing would happen If I came back and filled in the tracks that I made on his land. I gave him my information and told him to call me when he was ready. About a month went buy and no calls....perhaps it blew over. He tried to call me on the 6th at 0900 and couldn't get a hold of me so he decided to call my command about an hour later yelling at them and me saying that I never called.(He didn't give me his info). I went out to his property yesterday to fix th tracks while OCing my HKp7, he was still hostile and still had a gun. He left and told me to come get him when I was done. He came back about 20 minutes later with his companies policy on firearms that stated they were not allowed on the property. As soon as he told me that, I started walking towards my car. I was going to leave, bring my pistol home and return to finish the job. It is private property, that istheir right. On my way back to my car he asked to see my CPL. I explained that I was OCing and it wasn't required. He asked 3 more times dropping the f bomb again and saying that he could see my gun so I was required to show himso I decided that I needed to get the job done and avoid further confrontation so I showed him just to shut him up. He tried to pull it out of my hand saying he couldn't see it so I moved it closer to his face. He said ok but to leave my gunit in the car and that It wasn't the smartest Idea to bring it. What a tool

  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    Kind of a long story but here goes. About a month ago I decided to go 4wheelin on what looked like an abandoned rock quarry, lots of mud, good hills ect. While I was inching my way down a steep hill, I noticed a truck coming towards me at a pretty high rate of speed. This didn't look good. He parked his truck in a way that when I got to the bottom of the hill I would have nowhere to go. He got out and he looked pissed. I asked if there was a problem (being as polite as possible as to avoid confrontation). He started yelling at me telling me I was on private FU*&##& property and that he was calling the police. All the while I was trying to calm him down and explain that I didn't know that it was private property. He took some pictures and called the cops. I noticed as he was going back to his truck that he was obviously concealing a large pistol. I was escorted off the property while professing my apologies and desire to resolve the conflict to both our satisfactions. We agreed that nothing would happen If I came back and filled in the tracks that I made on his land. I gave him my information and told him to call me when he was ready. About a month went buy and no calls....perhaps it blew over. He tried to call me on the 6th at 0900 and couldn't get a hold of me so he decided to call my command about an hour later yelling at them and me saying that I never called.(He didn't give me his info). I went out to his property yesterday to fix th tracks while OCing my HKp7, he was still hostile and still had a gun. He left and told me to come get him when I was done. He came back about 20 minutes later with his companies policy on firearms that stated they were not allowed on the property. As soon as he told me that, I started walking towards my car. I was going to leave, bring my pistol home and return to finish the job. It is private property, that istheir right. On my way back to my car he asked to see my CPL. I explained that I was OCing and it wasn't required. He asked 3 more times dropping the f bomb again and saying that he could see my gun so I was required to show himso I decided that I needed to get the job done and avoid further confrontation so I showed him just to shut him up. He tried to pull it out of my hand saying he couldn't see it so I moved it closer to his face. He said ok but to leave my gunit in the car and that It wasn't the smartest Idea to bring it. What a tool
    If he is qouting "Company Policy" then he is only an employee of the Company whose land you were on.

    If he qouted "Company Policy" of no weapons allowed, then I would call the Company and complain that he confronted you angrily, yelling using curse words, and CARRYING A WEAPON, in clear violation of Company Policy as he stated it.



    This guy is a tool, and unless he is a cop, he has no right to see your CPL.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Puget Sound, Washington, USA
    Posts
    504

    Post imported post

    He has no rights to see your CPL, and I am surprised why showed it to him? Unless he is a Cop. If I were you I'll call his superiors and lodge a complaint regarding his missbehaviour.

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

    Post imported post

    Manu wrote:
    He has no rights to see your CPL, and I am surprised why showed it to him? Unless he is a Cop. If I were you I'll call his superiors and lodge a complaint regarding his missbehaviour.
    Even if he was a LEO he has no right at all to see it for OC. +1 on the complaint, especially if the property was not posted at regular intervals that it was private property and no trespassing.
    "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
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Sorry, but you were not technically OC'ing. You stated you were 4-wheeling, which I assume means you were in a vehicle. In that case, you are still required to have your CPL on your person.

    I do agree that unless the other guy was a cop, you did not have to show it to him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    Sorry, but you were not technically OC'ing. You stated you were 4-wheeling, which I assume means you were in a vehicle. In that case, you are still required to have your CPL on your person.

    I do agree that unless the other guy was a cop, you did not have to show it to him.
    The OC happened when he was filling in the tracks he made with his ATV a month ago. He was on foot when the guy demanded his CPL.
    "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

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Ok, I take it back then

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Wait wait. Someone trespassed, did physical damage, then is counseled to complain about the guy who called him on it?

    Folks, this is a "pick your battles" situation. Is it worth it for our Marine to fight this particular battle? I don't think so.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Wait wait. Someone trespassed, did physical damage, then is counseled to complain about the guy who called him on it?

    Folks, this is a "pick your battles" situation. Is it worth it for our Marine to fight this particular battle? I don't think so.
    It is not trespassing unless it is conspicuously posted at regular intervals around the border of the property. He stated that it appeared to be an abandoned rock quarry.

    Is it a battle to pick? That is for the OP to decide. Would I talk to the superior of the guy that freaked out? Oh you better believe it.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    I have let the situation drop, I don't want to deal with this guy any more. BTW the law that I would have been violating starts off with "A person is guilty of malicious mischief in the first degree if he knowingly and maliciously:" I didn't know and I sure as hell didn't do it maliciously. Also, in order to be trespassing on somebodies property you have to be trespassed in advanced and told not to return or have signs posted "private property, no trespassing" there were no signs anywhere declaring that it was private property or no trespassing.....just a road off the highway leading to a bunch of mud and hills.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    It is not trespassing unless it is conspicuously posted at regular intervals around the border of the property. He stated that it appeared to be an abandoned rock quarry.
    WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is tresspassing anytime you are on someone elses property without permission to be there. Private property does NOT have to be posted for you to have no right to be there.

    -adamsesq

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Personally I think running around on property without knowing it's ownership was mistake one. Showing up to repair damage was the honorable and correct thing to do, but given the owner's reaction towards you, I'm not sure I would have OC'D while there.

  13. #13
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    It is not trespassing unless it is conspicuously posted at regular intervals around the border of the property. He stated that it appeared to be an abandoned rock quarry.
    WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is tresspassing anytime you are on someone elses property without permission to be there. Private property does NOT have to be posted for you to have no right to be there.

    -adamsesq
    You should do a little more research (especially into WA law) before you go and look like this guy on the internet --> ()

    Take a good hard look at RCW 9A52.070: Criminal trespass in the first degree and RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree. joerocket was spot on.

    Oh... and I'm not a lawyer. :P
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    adamsesq wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    It is not trespassing unless it is conspicuously posted at regular intervals around the border of the property. He stated that it appeared to be an abandoned rock quarry.
    WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is tresspassing anytime you are on someone elses property without permission to be there. Private property does NOT have to be posted for you to have no right to be there.

    -adamsesq
    You should do a little more research (especially into WA law) before you go and look like this guy on the internet --> ()

    Take a good hard look at RCW 9A52.070: Criminal trespass in the first degree and RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree. joerocket was spot on.

    Oh... and I'm not a lawyer. :P

    It may not be a violation of 52.080 but it is still trespassing. I did not say he would be guilty of any particular crime just that it is still trespassing which is entry onto anothers land without permission.

    ETA - But he did know he was entering land that was not his. I can't say how that courts have interpreted it but that very easily could be all that is necessary to be a violation of 52.080. Yet again, my point was not that he was comitting a crime, just that he was trespassing.

    -adamsesq


  15. #15
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    LOL yeah right.

  16. #16
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    ETA - But he did know he was entering land that was not his. I can't say how that courts have interpreted it but that very easily could be all that is necessary to be a violation of 52.080. Yet again, my point was not that he was comitting a crime, just that he was trespassing.

    -adamsesq
    Really?... Huh, seems pretty clear from his original account up there that nothing was posted and the area appeared to be open land. So, where do you get "he did know he was entering land that was not his."?

    Also, by your definition, since I don't own City of Seattle property, such as a park or the Seattle Center, I'm trespassing as soon as I go onto that property. See... this is why we have legal definitions of such things.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    My yard in the City of Blaine is not posted "No Trespassing". Yet nobody drives their ATV around on it.

    I assume that sempercarry thought it was public land and therefore OK, but maybe the lesson here is that we should confirm that land is public rather than assume it is, just because a property owner doesn't post their property. They are under no obligation to post.

    I am not saying sc did anything wrong, but for future reference, maybe check first, then ride is a good policy.

    As far as it belonging to a company, I would probably call and talk to someone in the company rather than write a letter. You shouldn't have to be subjected to obscenities for something like this and the employee has no business talking to you about your gun at all other than to ask you not to bring it on the property.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    I decided to go 4wheelin on what looked like an abandoned rock quarry . . .He started yelling at me telling me I was on private FU*&##& property and that he was calling the police. All the while I was trying to calm him down and explain that I didn't know that it was private property. He took some pictures and called the cops.
    Warning -- I'm going to sound like an oldfart with a bad attitude about people who violate my private property rights . . . I make no apologies.

    I own property, and have had people drive over it like a**holes, even around my gate, so I understand the owner being angry. We property owners get tired of having to deal with it, and I'm sure this probably wasn't the first time for him. Yes, I'd block you in. Yes, I'd be armed when I confront you. Yes, I'd call the cops.

    I've gotten the same "I didn't know it was private property" excuse from trespassers. Unless it was posted as government property, why wouldn't you assume it is private property? All property is owned by somebody unless it belongs to the government -- how can you assume it isn't private? Even an "abandoned rock quarry" is private property, and it needn't be posted for charges to be pressed for trespass. What you did is no different than me driving through your front yard. Is it any wonder that all the private timberlands that were open when I was a kid are now gated and posted?

    Check your hunting regs booklet -- the State makes it clear that private property does not have to be posted.

    Personally, I would have agreed to drop the charges if you paid to have a contractor come out and fix the damage. At the time the deputy was there, I would have had him/her serve a criminal trespass notice.

    As much as I support open carry and the right to bear arms, had you shown up on my property open carrying after the initial incident, I'd have had a deputy responding priority 1 and would have filed the charges. Our actions represent the groups we belong to-- in this case you left a negative image of both ATV riders and OCers with this property owner.

    I'm done.

    Charles





  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    I thought 4x4in was restricted to private property, or if public lands trails?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    I decided to go 4wheelin on what looked like an abandoned rock quarry . . .He started yelling at me telling me I was on private FU*&##& property and that he was calling the police. All the while I was trying to calm him down and explain that I didn't know that it was private property. He took some pictures and called the cops.
    Warning -- I'm going to sound like an oldfart with a bad attitude about people who violate my private property rights . . . I make no apologies.

    I own property, and have had people drive over it like a**holes, even around my gate, so I understand the owner being angry. We property owners get tired of having to deal with it, and I'm sure this probably wasn't the first time for him. Yes, I'd block you in. Yes, I'd be armed when I confront you. Yes, I'd call the cops.

    I've gotten the same "I didn't know it was private property" excuse from trespassers. Unless it was posted as government property, why wouldn't you assume it is private property? All property is owned by somebody unless it belongs to the government -- how can you assume it isn't private? Even an "abandoned rock quarry" is private property, and it needn't be posted for charges to be pressed for trespass. What you did is no different than me driving through your front yard. Is it any wonder that all the private timberlands that were open when I was a kid are now gated and posted?

    Check your hunting regs booklet -- the State makes it clear that private property does not have to be posted.

    Personally, I would have agreed to drop the charges if you paid to have a contractor come out and fix the damage. At the time the deputy was there, I would have had him/her serve a criminal trespass notice.

    As much as I support open carry and the right to bear arms, had you shown up on my property open carrying after the initial incident, I'd have had a deputy responding priority 1 and would have filed the charges. Our actions represent the groups we belong to-- in this case you left a negative image of both ATV riders and OCers with this property owner.

    I'm done.

    Charles



    And the state also makes it clear that you have to enter unlawfully or knowing that you were not allowed. If it is not posted then a reasonable person should concluded that the owner of the property does not mind if you enter. Trespassing does not stick unless you have notification that you are not allowed on the property. This is why the police are powerless until a property owner posts no trespassing signs in conspicuous areas around the property.

    Other than that I do agree with you for the most part.
    "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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

    (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

    (2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

    (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

    (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

    9A.52.010 Definitions
    (3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

    A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    We of course don't have all the information here, and have to speculate about a lot of details. As far as "unimproved property," I haven't seen a quarry in a long time that doesn't have improvements -- a gate (be it open or closed), perhaps a weigh shack, sometimes an old sign. Were any of these present, I would consider the property to be "improved."

    It could also be argued that just the act of developing property into a quarry constitutes improvement -- there is usually a large investment in removing the overburden and excavating to suitable rock. If there were piles of crushed or screened rock, certainly it is obvious the land had been used and improved. The key word in the affirmative defense language that applies here is "unused." Building on the statute, would a "reasonable" person consider any quarry to be "unused?" If it went to a jury, I think it would be a crap shoot and the OP might be found guilty. Reasonable people these days seem to understand the concept of private property.

    I had trespass charges pressed against a guy that crossed my property to get to the river. At the time, the only improvement on that portion of the land was a primitive road to the river. I also mowed the area a couple of times each summer. To the deputy, that was enough to constitute "improved" property. No fence, no signs.

    One final point -- there is a huge difference between crossing property on foot and driving across private property -- especially if you are leaving ruts that need to be repaired. Try to defend that in court with a jury of a bunch of older citizens who don't like big 4x4s on the freeway, and my bet is you lose. If the agent of the property owner was concerned about ruts, the property must not be too "abandoned."

    We can debate the language of the statute, but without more specifics we will never know exactly how it would apply to the scenario presented. Hopefully the discussion is a good wake-up for those that travel from urban/suburban to more rural areas to not assume they can enter property without express permission.

    Charles



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    We of course don't have all the information here, and have to speculate about a lot of details. As far as "unimproved property," I haven't seen a quarry in a long time that doesn't have improvements -- a gate (be it open or closed), perhaps a weigh shack, sometimes an old sign. Were any of these present, I would consider the property to be "improved."

    It could also be argued that just the act of developing property into a quarry constitutes improvement -- there is usually a large investment in removing the overburden and excavating to suitable rock. If there were piles of crushed or screened rock, certainly it is obvious the land had been used and improved. The key word in the affirmative defense language that applies here is "unused." Building on the statute, would a "reasonable" person consider any quarry to be "unused?" If it went to a jury, I think it would be a crap shoot and the OP might be found guilty. Reasonable people these days seem to understand the concept of private property.

    I had trespass charges pressed against a guy that crossed my property to get to the river. At the time, the only improvement on that portion of the land was a primitive road to the river. I also mowed the area a couple of times each summer. To the deputy, that was enough to constitute "improved" property. No fence, no signs.

    One final point -- there is a huge difference between crossing property on foot and driving across private property -- especially if you are leaving ruts that need to be repaired. Try to defend that in court with a jury of a bunch of older citizens who don't like big 4x4s on the freeway, and my bet is you lose. If the agent of the property owner was concerned about ruts, the property must not be too "abandoned."

    We can debate the language of the statute, but without more specifics we will never know exactly how it would apply to the scenario presented. Hopefully the discussion is a good wake-up for those that travel from urban/suburban to more rural areas to not assume they can enter property without express permission.

    Charles



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    SemperCarry,

    What command do you belong to? Are you from the LSB there on Ft. Lewis? I was with Intel Support Bn, A Co., IPT 1. Worked out of the reserve bldg there. Maybe you know some of the same guys I know.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    No, I am not stationed anywhere near there.

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
  •