• 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.

Almost Drew my Weapon

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:
I will offer a different opinion. If this group is really dedicated to ensuring that OC continues and that the public is aware of OC laws and accepts them then we should all be appalled at the original poster's first paragraph.

The OP says he was throwing water ballons (apparently at cars) and decided to open carry while he was doing this. Throwing water balloons at cars or people without their consent is at least criminal disorderly conduct. Carrying a gun while committing this crime is at best stupid and at worst raises this to carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

The Washington Jury Instruction on Unlawful Display of a Weapon says:

"A person commits the crime of unlawfully displaying a weapon when he or she carries, exhibits, displays or draws a firearm in a manner, under the circumstances, and at the time and place that manifests an intend to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."

I think a prosecutor might make a run at convincing a jury that a person throwing objects at cars while carrying a firearm is committing this crime.

Even if no crime was committed, someone who seeks to advocate for greater respect for OC rights should be on his best behavior when carrying. The incidents described at the beginning of this thread are those of a hoodlum and whether he acted with good discretion after the criminal conduct is irrelevent.
OP: "My friends and I were just outside tossing water balloons down a hill by our apartment."

Sounds to me like they were just out having a little harmless fun, and did NOT realize where the balloons were ending up. When the thugs showed up, the OP said he & his buds tried to apologize. That tells me he wasn't out to cause trouble, he does something slightly foolish & tried to rectify it. Had the thugs been ordinary sensible people instead of guttertrash, that would have been the end of it. For all we know "hitting their cars with water" amounts to two droplets from the splash.
 

SpokaneIrish

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
they had no intention of hitting a vehicle with the water balloons but were throwing them where they thought there was no vehicles or people.

You really think so?? That is possible, I suppose, but who ever heard of throwing water balloons at nothing?

Throwing water balloons at cars is juvenile. Acting like a juvenile when openly carrying a gun only hurts the effort for which this forum was created.

Imagine if this had gone the other way and he had drawn and shot someone. If we read that someone carried while goofing around like this and then shot someone who stopped and protested, we would think "how stupid". Granted there would be some he said-she said about who was violent first, but nevertheless we would have someone dead over water balloons. Lets grow up a little here.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

No, we would have someone dead over an unprovoked attack by a car full of gang members. The water balloons had very little to do with it. Unless you are saying that hitting a car with a water balloon (unintentionally, plus an apology from those responsible)gives the occupants the right to commit assault on those throwing the water balloons. Is that what you are saying? Cause I believe common sense and the law disagrees with you.
 

SpokaneIrish

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

Granted the boys who stopped and tried to start a fight were wrong, but the boys who strapped on a gun and went out looking for trouble or at least went out acting foolishly are going to get a whole lot less sympathy when that trouble arrives than would if they were minding their own business.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:
Granted the boys who stopped and tried to start a fight were wrong, but the boys who strapped on a gun and went out looking for trouble or at least went out acting foolishly are going to get a whole lot less sympathy when that trouble arrives than would if they were minding their own business.
If some boys choose to do such, they would likely be in trouble. There is nothing to indicate that this is the case in this thread. Your continual mention of intent that is not in the OP is not logical.
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
SpokaneIrish wrote:
Granted the boys who stopped and tried to start a fight were wrong, but the boys who strapped on a gun and went out looking for trouble or at least went out acting foolishly are going to get a whole lot less sympathy when that trouble arrives than would if they were minding their own business.
If some boys choose to do such, they would likely be in trouble. There is nothing to indicate that this is the case in this thread. Your continual mention of intent that is not in the OP is not logical.
First off telling the cop the truthful events didn't get me arrested or fined, we didn't actually hit anyone and while my friends wanted to I convinced them otherwise. We were throwing them at a vacant lot and those guys who pulled up never even got their cars remotely splashed. To SpokaneIrish as to the boys who strapped on a gun and went looking for trouble it was actually only one man with a gun who's last thought would have been to start a fight. Was throwing water balloons foolish sure was it maligned not at all.

The two drunk guys who pulled up in their cars were the ones looking for a fight they saw three guys throwing water balloons on a hill and figured they should mess with them, people are going to have problems with you whether its the way you walk or talk or maybe you looked at them funny either way thats no reason to act violently and had these folks acted in a reasonable manner I would have been willing to pay for a car wash and there would be no need to be afraid of me or my gun.
 

400HP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
67
Location
Arizona, ,
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
No, we would have someone dead over an unprovoked attack by a car full of gang members. The water balloons had very little to do with it. Unless you are saying that hitting a car with a water balloon (unintentionally, plus an apology from those responsible)gives the occupants the right to commit assault on those throwing the water balloons. Is that what you are saying? Cause I believe common sense and the law disagrees with you.

Frankly, if the so called "water balloon vandalism" was bad enough to take the drive up the hill, then it would have been bad enough to call the police.....which the thugs did not. They came looking for more trouble. It isn't like it was eggs.

Since I wasn't there, I can only monday morning QB. It doesn't sound like they had weapons, right. Here in AZ, I think you could have been borderline, but I could be off base.

What's up with Pullman. Do they have gang problems, or were these a couple of football players?
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
imported post

400HP wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
No, we would have someone dead over an unprovoked attack by a car full of gang members. The water balloons had very little to do with it. Unless you are saying that hitting a car with a water balloon (unintentionally, plus an apology from those responsible)gives the occupants the right to commit assault on those throwing the water balloons. Is that what you are saying? Cause I believe common sense and the law disagrees with you.

Frankly, if the so called "water balloon vandalism" was bad enough to take the drive up the hill, then it would have been bad enough to call the police.....which the thugs did not. They came looking for more trouble. It isn't like it was eggs.

Since I wasn't there, I can only monday morning QB. It doesn't sound like they had weapons, right. Here in AZ, I think you could have been borderline, but I could be off base.

What's up with Pullman. Do they have gang problems, or were these a couple of football players?
These were just a couple of drunk guys wanting to prove something to each other. They didn't have weapons and I doubt they're gang members not much gang stuff here unless you count the coke dealers who are more like delivery boys.

They seemed like they were just wanting to scare a few white boys the way they were acting was more like a TV stereotype than reality.

What do you mean by could have been borderline in AZ?
 

400HP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
67
Location
Arizona, ,
imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:
400HP wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
No, we would have someone dead over an unprovoked attack by a car full of gang members. The water balloons had very little to do with it. Unless you are saying that hitting a car with a water balloon (unintentionally, plus an apology from those responsible)gives the occupants the right to commit assault on those throwing the water balloons. Is that what you are saying? Cause I believe common sense and the law disagrees with you.

Frankly, if the so called "water balloon vandalism" was bad enough to take the drive up the hill, then it would have been bad enough to call the police.....which the thugs did not. They came looking for more trouble. It isn't like it was eggs.

Since I wasn't there, I can only monday morning QB. It doesn't sound like they had weapons, right. Here in AZ, I think you could have been borderline, but I could be off base.

What's up with Pullman. Do they have gang problems, or were these a couple of football players?
These were just a couple of drunk guys wanting to prove something to each other. They didn't have weapons and I doubt they're gang members not much gang stuff here unless you count the coke dealers who are more like delivery boys.

They seemed like they were just wanting to scare a few white boys the way they were acting was more like a TV stereotype than reality.

What do you mean by could have been borderline in AZ?



Well, our local group here "The AZ Defense League" has been trying to get legislation passed that would allow for a defensive display of a firearm. Last year it got to the Gov's desk where she vetoed it.

From the AZDL:HB 2629 (Vetoed by Governor 5/28/08)
Pearce - justification; defensive display of firearm
Clarifies when a defensive display of a firearm is justified.
AzCDL requested this legislation and strongly supports it.

So here in AZ, such a display is frowned upon and assault charges could be coming your way here. You must be very very careful. My take is that if there is no weapon on the perp, it would be best to walk away, even with a castle doctrine here. Just my judgement of course.



EDIT:

Here is one of the CCW docs that are used in AZ:

http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/CCWLegal_12.2_02.14.08.pdf





[align=left][Example #2: You are in a heated argument that turns into
shoving and punching. To make a point, you pull back your coat, revealing your gun. You put your hand on your gun and tell the other person that he had better buzz off or you will end the argument right now. Simple assault + deadly weapon = aggravated assault.]



[/align]
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
imported post

400HP wrote:
Well, our local group here "The AZ Defense League" has been trying to get legislation passed that would allow for a defensive display of a firearm. Last year it got to the Gov's desk where she vetoed it.
Excuse the minor thread jack:lol:

I grew up in AZ, never ceases to amaze me that a state that is generally so conservative put that woman in office twice. Who's running the show down there now, now that she's screwing things up & letting illegals in on a national level?
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
imported post

400HP wrote:
Well, our local group here "The AZ Defense League" has been trying to get legislation passed that would allow for a defensive display of a firearm. Last year it got to the Gov's desk where she vetoed it.

From the AZDL:HB 2629 (Vetoed by Governor 5/28/08)
Pearce - justification; defensive display of firearm
Clarifies when a defensive display of a firearm is justified.
AzCDL requested this legislation and strongly supports it.

So here in AZ, such a display is frowned upon and assault charges could be coming your way here. You must be very very careful. My take is that if there is no weapon on the perp, it would be best to walk away, even with a castle doctrine here. Just my judgement of course.



EDIT:

Here is one of the CCW docs that are used in AZ:

http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/CCWLegal_12.2_02.14.08.pdf





[align=left][Example #2: You are in a heated argument that turns into
shoving and punching. To make a point, you pull back your coat, revealing your gun. You put your hand on your gun and tell the other person that he had better buzz off or you will end the argument right now. Simple assault + deadly weapon = aggravated assault.]



[/align]
In response to the threatening drawing is considered appropriate here in Washington and while even placing my hand on my holstered weapon could be considered to warrant alarm (at wal-mart) but under the circumstances it was viewed as completely justified.
 
Top