Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Who was OCing at the Walla Walla Home Depot?

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

    Post imported post

    A buddy of mine was the cop who was called and I am ashamed to say he asked whoever it was to put their gun in his car if he wanted to continue shopping. Was it anyone here?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    *A buddy of mine was the cop who was called and I am ashamed to say he asked whoever it was to put their gun in his car if he wanted to continue shopping. Was it anyone here?
    Why ashamed? He was probably asked to make contact about the firearm by management.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    No, he told the guy to put it in the car before speaking to anybody at the store. He said he didn't want to keep getting calls.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    No, he told the guy to put it in the car before speaking to anybody at the store. He said he didn't want to keep getting calls.
    Easy solution....."Quit your job". How canhe be a LEO and not want to get calls. Unless of course it is interfering withhis daily hooker watch.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    No, he told the guy to put it in the car before speaking to anybody at the store. He said he didn't want to keep getting calls.
    Then apparently your buddy needs to go through some retraining.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Disregard.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.

  8. #8
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.
    Did you also inform him that he committed crime when he did what he did?... Or did you just leave that part out?

    Coercion is a crime.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

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

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.
    Did you also inform him that he committed crime when he did what he did?... Or did you just leave that part out?

    Coercion is a crime.
    Telling someone to put a gun in the car if they want to continue shopping is far from coercion.
    "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
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post


    Заранее извиняюсь. Советую удалить этот ролик,так как это не показатель твоего таланта. *аботать над собой надо больше,а потом выкладывать свое творение.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    PolskiG wrote:
    Заранее извиняюсь. Советую удалить этот ролик,так как это не показатель твоего таланта. *аботать над собой надо больше,а потом выкладывать свое творение.
    Translate, please?
    "In advance I apologize. I advise to remove this roller, as it not a parameter of your talent. To work above itself it is necessary more, and then to spread the creation."

    Not sure how that applies to the OP.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.
    Did you also inform him that he committed crime when he did what he did?... Or did you just leave that part out?

    Coercion is a crime.
    Telling someone to put a gun in the car if they want to continue shopping is far from coercion.
    When it is a cop that is doing the telling, from his own opinion, because he doesn't want the calls...that is EXACTLY coercion...I'll be happy to post quotes of the applicable RCW's if you like.

    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

    RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions.
    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:
    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or
    Now, just what do you think the officer would have done had the person being harrassed said, "You know, officer...* I'm sorry but your solution just isn't going to work for me.* I intend to shop dressed just exactly the way I am now, thank you."
    Show me the threat of force or confinement. I know exactly what coercion is and how it is applied. It does not matter what anyone thinks the officer might do. The only thing that is applicable is the actual threat of force.

    You conveniently bolded only the portions of the RCW that make the statute look like it applies in this instance.

    Again there was no coercion in this instance as there was no threat of force or confinement presented.

    I am not saying what he did was right because it was not. He needs some retraining and counseling but it was far from criminal.
    "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

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.
    Did you also inform him that he committed crime when he did what he did?... Or did you just leave that part out?

    Coercion is a crime.
    Telling someone to put a gun in the car if they want to continue shopping is far from coercion.
    When it is a cop that is doing the telling, from his own opinion, because he doesn't want the calls...that is EXACTLY coercion...I'll be happy to post quotes of the applicable RCW's if you like.

    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

    RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions.
    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:
    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or
    Now, just what do you think the officer would have done had the person being harrassed said, "You know, officer...* I'm sorry but your solution just isn't going to work for me.* I intend to shop dressed just exactly the way I am now, thank you."
    Show me the threat of force or confinement. I know exactly what coercion is and how it is applied. It does not matter what anyone thinks the officer might do. The only thing that is applicable is the actual threat of force.

    You conveniently bolded only the portions of the RCW that make the statute look like it applies in this instance.

    Again there was no coercion in this instance as there was no threat of force or confinement presented.

    I am not saying what he did was right because it was not. He needs some retraining and counseling but it was far from criminal.
    You did not answer my question.* What do you think the officer would have done had the OCer not complied?
    Yes I did answer your question. Read my post again.
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Notice that 9.04.110 states:

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent

    an indirect communication with the intent....

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    So, you don't think that a uniformed officer giving you an order to do something doesn't carry with it the indirect intent that you will be charged if you do not comply?* Especially to an average citizen who is not as familiar with their constitutional right to tell the officer basically to go ____ themselves because we know they have no legal ground to stand on?
    27(d) is not part of the definition of threat as used in the coercion statute. only 27 (a, b, and c) are applicable. I do not think him telling the OP to put the firearm in the car is a threat as used in 9a.36.070.

    It does not appear to me that there was an indirect threat and there definitely was not a direct threat. Police tell people to do a lot of things that there is no criminal penalty for if not followed. With the description of the event as told I do not see an intent to charge of a threat.

    Unfortunately we do not know the exact circumstances but I will concede that it could be coercion under the right circumstances just not this one as told.
    "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

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    Im not going to stop being friends with him over this, thats just stupid:?....I have known this guy for 7 years. I let him know in the most tactful way possible that he needs to review the laws and read up on the training bullitens from other counties and perhaps get his department to print one up.
    Did you also inform him that he committed crime when he did what he did?... Or did you just leave that part out?

    Coercion is a crime.
    Telling someone to put a gun in the car if they want to continue shopping is far from coercion.
    When it is a cop that is doing the telling, from his own opinion, because he doesn't want the calls...that is EXACTLY coercion...I'll be happy to post quotes of the applicable RCW's if you like.

    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

    RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions.
    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:
    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or
    Now, just what do you think the officer would have done had the person being harrassed said, "You know, officer... I'm sorry but your solution just isn't going to work for me. I intend to shop dressed just exactly the way I am now, thank you."
    Show me the threat of force or confinement. I know exactly what coercion is and how it is applied. It does not matter what anyone thinks the officer might do. The only thing that is applicable is the actual threat of force.

    You conveniently bolded only the portions of the RCW that make the statute look like it applies in this instance.

    Again there was no coercion in this instance as there was no threat of force or confinement presented.

    I am not saying what he did was right because it was not. He needs some retraining and counseling but it was far from criminal.
    When a police officer "explains" such options, it IS coercion. Color of Law. The "threat of force" is inherent in the position the LE holds.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Notice that 9.04.110 states:

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent

    an indirect communication with the intent....

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    So, you don't think that a uniformed officer giving you an order to do something doesn't carry with it the indirect intent that you will be charged if you do not comply? Especially to an average citizen who is not as familiar with their constitutional right to tell the officer basically to go ____ themselves because we know they have no legal ground to stand on?
    27(d) is not part of the definition of threat as used in the coercion statute. only 27 (a, b, and c) are applicable. I do not think him telling the OP to put the firearm in the car is a threat as used in 9a.36.070.

    It does not appear to me that there was an indirect threat and there definitely was not a direct threat. Police tell people to do a lot of things that there is no criminal penalty for if not followed. With the description of the event as told I do not see an intent to charge of a threat.

    Unfortunately we do not know the exact circumstances but I will concede that it could be coercion under the right circumstances just not this one as told.
    If a LEO gives you an order, and you fail to obey, then the officer can arrest you under RCW 9A.76.020, Obstructing a law enforcement officer. Therefore when a police officer gives you an unlawful order in order to get you to do something you have a legal right to do that is "possibly" coercion, depending on the order and the activity, and a lot of other factors. Really without a court decision we can't say which way this would go.

    HOWEVER, in this case the officer supposedly "asked" the person to put the gun in their car. So in this case there is no threat of restraint because you can't be charged with obstructing for saying no to a request. So I don't see this as being coercion no matter what, though it is fairly close.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Notice that 9.04.110 states:

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent

    an indirect communication with the intent....

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    So, you don't think that a uniformed officer giving you an order to do something doesn't carry with it the indirect intent that you will be charged if you do not comply?* Especially to an average citizen who is not as familiar with their constitutional right to tell the officer basically to go ____ themselves because we know they have no legal ground to stand on?
    27(d) is not part of the definition of threat as used in the coercion statute. only 27 (a, b, and c) are applicable. I do not think him telling the OP to put the firearm in the car is a threat as used in 9a.36.070.

    It does not appear to me that there was an indirect threat and there definitely was not a direct threat. Police tell people to do a lot of things that there is no criminal penalty for if not followed. With the description of the event as told I do not see an intent to charge of a threat.

    Unfortunately we do not know the exact circumstances but I will concede that it could be coercion under the right circumstances just not this one as told.
    If a LEO gives you an order, and you fail to obey, then the officer can arrest you under RCW 9A.76.020, Obstructing a law enforcement officer. Therefore when a police officer gives you an unlawful order in order to get you to do something you have a legal right to do that is "possibly" coercion, depending on the order and the activity, and a lot of other factors. Really without a court decision we can't say which way this would go.

    HOWEVER, in this case the officer supposedly "asked" the person to put the gun in their car. So in this case there is no threat of restraint because you can't be charged with obstructing for saying no to a request. So I don't see this as being coercion no matter what, though it is fairly close.
    I agree totally with the way you see this.
    "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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Notice that 9.04.110 states:

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent

    an indirect communication with the intent....

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    So, you don't think that a uniformed officer giving you an order to do something doesn't carry with it the indirect intent that you will be charged if you do not comply?* Especially to an average citizen who is not as familiar with their constitutional right to tell the officer basically to go ____ themselves because we know they have no legal ground to stand on?
    27(d) is not part of the definition of threat as used in the coercion statute. only 27 (a, b, and c) are applicable. I do not think him telling the OP to put the firearm in the car is a threat as used in 9a.36.070.

    It does not appear to me that there was an indirect threat and there definitely was not a direct threat. Police tell people to do a lot of things that there is no criminal penalty for if not followed. With the description of the event as told I do not see an intent to charge of a threat.

    Unfortunately we do not know the exact circumstances but I will concede that it could be coercion under the right circumstances just not this one as told.
    OK.* So, as soon as the individual did not comply with the officer's request, as soon as the officer restrained the individual in any way, or threatened to restrain the individual in any way, then we would have a clear case of coercion. This is exactly the way I read the statue for it to apply. With the exception of an indirect threat, which you noted earlier. An indirect threat, to me, would be one that they officer makes some kind of comment that a reasonable person would take to mean you would be detained or arrested if you did not comply.

    My response to the officer would have been (and has been in my encounter in the past), "I'm sorry, sir, I am not covering up my firearm, and, if I am not being detained, I am carrying on about my legal behavior as I intended to do before you showed up." I agree fully with this. You have done nothing wrong therefore he has no reasonable suspicion. If he does then he had better state it to you.

    One of the big questions that would have to be researched is the definition of a threat.* The coercion statute mention sections 25 (a)(b)(c).* Then the note says that section 25 became 26 and later 27.* Well, did the original section 25 have anything beyond subsection (c), or as part of the definition, were the later subsections beyond (c) added when it moved to section 26 and then 27?* If the original section (25) was only parts (a)-(c) and with the subsequent revision more subparts were added, then I believe you would have a case to add all the later subparts to the definition of coercion as well.The way they did the revisions to this is typical when they want to add a new section in the middle of the statute. They add the new one and simply re-number the remaining sections.
    I think we are on the same page and the problem may be with the way I was trying to convey my thoughts in the earlier posts.
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    When a police officer "explains" such options, it IS coercion.* Color of Law.* The "threat of force" is inherent in the position the LE holds.
    Not in Wa. There has to be a threat of force or detainment. Neither was present in this instance.
    "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

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

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    When a police officer "explains" such options, it IS coercion.* Color of Law.* The "threat of force" is inherent in the position the LE holds.
    Not in Wa. There has to be a threat of force or detainment. Neither was present in this instance.
    Yet.* Because the MWAG complied with the officer's request.* So, how about in my encounter with an officer.* He held up my CPL and waved it around and stated, "This can easily be taken away."* Well, in order to revoke a CPL, a person must be convicted of a crime, so I took that as a threat that he would charge me with a crime if I did not comply and conceal my firearm.
    I agree. However in your encounter it would more likely have been a citation which is neither the threat of force or physical confinement. Your encounter was very close to coercion but I am still not sure that it would apply. Your was definitely an unlawful detainment which, I think, may be an area of confusion.

    A detainment is not a threat of force or physical confinement in itself. In my opinion the officer would have go hands on in one way or another or threaten to in their attempt to keep you from doing something you have the lawful right to do in order for coercion to come into play.
    "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
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    When a police officer "explains" such options, it IS coercion.* Color of Law.* The "threat of force" is inherent in the position the LE holds.
    Not in Wa. There has to be a threat of force or detainment. Neither was present in this instance.
    Yet.* Because the MWAG complied with the officer's request.* So, how about in my encounter with an officer.* He held up my CPL and waved it around and stated, "This can easily be taken away."* Well, in order to revoke a CPL, a person must be convicted of a crime, so I took that as a threat that he would charge me with a crime if I did not comply and conceal my firearm.
    I agree. However in your encounter it would more likely have been a citation which is neither the threat of force or physical confinement. Your encounter was very close to coercion but I am still not sure that it would apply. Your was definitely an unlawful detainment which, I think, may be an area of confusion.

    A detainment is not a threat of force or physical confinement in itself. In my opinion the officer would have go hands on in one way or another or threaten to in their attempt to keep you from doing something you have the lawful right to do in order for coercion to come into play.
    Umm... what about RCW 9a.04.110(27)(d):
    To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person;
    That RCW is just the definition. Is there an RCW that might come into play if someone is accused or charged with a crime for simple OC? There has to be something that uses 27(d).
    "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

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    That RCW is just the definition. Is there an RCW that might come into play if someone is accused or charged with a crime for simple OC? There has to be something that uses 27(d).
    I think the coercion statute now refers to all of 27(d).* It used to refer to 25 (a)(b)(c) but then those got changed to section 26 and then later changed to section 27.* There is a note at the end of the coercion statute that states that.
    I'm not so sure. Usually they just renumber when they add sections in the middle. The entire section 25 was renumbered to 27 after two revisions. It does not appear that they revised the section itself, just the number. I am going to go to the library to look up a RCW from 1977. I will see if I can find this one before the renumbering.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post



  24. #24
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    It wasn't me. I know someone who OC's in Walla Walla. I'll find out if it was him.







    P.S. This thread is now back on topic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •