• 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.

First Encounter

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

colt45ws wrote:
They told me on the phone there is no written policy. It almost sounds like branch discretion.
So they didn't know the policy at the time you were there. You didn't cause any trouble, but they called the cops on you after the fact anyway resulting in them giving the police personal information and the cops visiting to harass and threaten you with non-existent laws.

And now, after the fact, they have checked into it and found that there is no policy.

Nice.

My accounts would definitely be closed ASAP. Complaints filed with manager, district manager, corporate, and police.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

There is a perfectly reasonable and legal explanation for how the police found you: license plate, if you drove in a car registered to you at your home address.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

deanf wrote:
There is a perfectly reasonable and legal explanation for how the police found you: license plate, if you drove in a car registered to you at your home address.
No Dean, you've got it wrong.

First you loudly and incoherently rant against the mere notion of the police.
Then you loudly and incoherently rant against the agency in particular.
Then finally you loudly and incoherently rant against the government and mention some weird conspiracy and/or the militia. :p
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

How would they get the license plate?

See him get out of his car and note it?
See him get into his car and note it?
Retrieve it from security camera video?

You don't mean the cops, do you? If so, then the bank employees probably passed it on.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Dean makes a good point but still they were wrong. I would get to the bottom of this and find out how they got the info. Harrassment from authorities should never be tolerated.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Oh, they got the info by reading his plate number off the security tapes, and then giving it to the cops for the purpose of looking up his address to make a visit for the sole purpose of harassment? You're right, that mitigates everything. Silly me.




:quirky
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

We don't really know anything. It's just a theory.

But there is no inherent evil in noting (or even photographing) the license plate of a car that is parked in a public area or even in passing it on to the police when asked.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Let's not forget that when a public official (spelled cop in this case) attempts to intimidate one by threatening arrest, when the person is going about a legal activity (one that is not prohibited by law), then that official is guilty of Coercion which is a gross misdemeanor.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

deanf wrote:
We don't really know anything. It's just a theory.

But there is no inherent evil in noting (or even photographing) the license plate of a car that is parked in a public area or even in passing it on to the police when asked.
This much I will concede. However, the whole incident still should never have occurred.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

the whole incident still should never have occurred.

I find that unreasonable.

I find it unreasonable to expect every citizen of this state to understand the minutiae of every single law in the state, particularly laws about a subject with which they may hold no interest. And make no mistake, this OC legal theory that we rely on (and some treat as the word of God) is minutia.

I don’t find it unreasonable that a bank employee’s eyebrows might be raised because of a man standing outside a bank carrying a gun waiting for it to open, particularly since bank employees are trained to be suspicious of someone waiting around for the doors to be unlocked. The gun only raises their index of suspicion. Frankly I’m surprised they were so circumspect in handling the situation. I also don’t find it unreasonable that they would call their security department for guidance. That’s what they’re trained to do in security situations. I also don’t find it unreasonable that the security department might refer them to the local police, since their security HQ is probably in another state.

In a legal sense, there is no way to say if the incident should have occurred or not. We can say that the conclusion of the incident certainly should not have evolved into the (possibly illegal) contact it did, but there is no blame at the bank for that.
 

wrightme

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

deanf wrote:
the whole incident still should never have occurred.

I find that unreasonable.

I find it unreasonable to expect every citizen of this state to understand the minutiae of every single law in the state, particularly laws about a subject with which they may hold no interest. And make no mistake, this OC legal theory that we rely on (and some treat as the word of God) is minutia.

I don’t find it unreasonable that a bank employee’s eyebrows might be raised because of a man standing outside a bank carrying a gun waiting for it to open, particularly since bank employees are trained to be suspicious of someone waiting around for the doors to be unlocked. The gun only raises their index of suspicion. Frankly I’m surprised they were so circumspect in handling the situation. I also don’t find it unreasonable that they would call their security department for guidance. That’s what they’re trained to do in security situations. I also don’t find it unreasonable that the security department might refer them to the local police, since their security HQ is probably in another state.

In a legal sense, there is no way to say if the incident should have occurred or not. We can say that the conclusion of the incident certainly should not have evolved into the (possibly illegal) contact it did, but there is no blame at the bank for that.
No LE observed the event. Thus, the bank is the ONLY avenue of contact. It is their responsibility.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

I fail to see anything suspicious about his behavior. And even if it is reasonable to assume that some people might, once the police were called it would be reasonable for them to say "Well, when was the last time a bank robber stood around outside a bank with a holstered gun? Obviously nothing happened, and it doesn't sound like there was any reason to worry", and then to not go to his house and harass him.

I'm sorry, none of your justifications change the fact that I consider OC fully normal behavior, and waiting for a business to open when one arrives early also normal behavior, and thus the two combined are no less normal, and I furthermore would be very upset if the police came to my house to "discuss" with me any lawful, normal, peaceable activity. The police should deal with crimes. Whatever may have been the opinion of certain individuals, there was never at any point any evidence of a crime occurring or having occurred. So the police had no reason to involve themselves.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

I've never defended the police in this thread, never will, as long as their side of the story and the bank's side agree with the original poster's side.
 

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
It is their responsibility.

The cops decided to make contact with the original poster. The bank has no control over that. They did nothing illegal or immoral.
Yes, but the bank is the only one that could have given the police his contact information. If that's not a violation of their privacy policy then it should be.
 
Top