imported post
Going back to the characterization of Sempercarry's detainment, it was neither terrorist nor militaristic. It was a simple attempt at intimidation, nothing more. Not that that makes it any less objectionable, of course.
The word "terrorist" gets thrown around a lot lately but usually refers to surprise attacks on women and children or indiscriminate attacks such as bombings. It wasn't "militarization" because that term refers to the military build-up itself of civilian police forces not police behavior. It was "intimidation" or the attempt at such.
The cop in question, Sgt. C, decided, for whatever reason, that Sempercarry should be the target of an intimidation. Sgt. C simply had to know that open carry is legal in WA. There is no rational person who would look at Sempercarry and think "criminal". He doesn't look the part and he doesn't act the part. He wasn't making "furtive movements", that old cop catch-all phrase that they use to justify whatever they might have done. I know this because I know Sempercarry.
The only thing our guy did, that could possibly cause a rational person to take notice, was to pace back and forth as if waiting for someone. Oh wait, he was waiting for someone. What's a poor policeman to do? A sensible cop (none need apply to Bremerton PD) would simply have asked Sempercarry if he were waiting for someone to arrive on the ferry. I know, it's a leap to assume that somone hanging around a ferry terminal might be waiting for someone to arrive on a ferry. So what drove this encounter?
It sounds to me as if Sgt. C (C for cretin?) is an only-one. For those not familiar with the term, an only-one is a cop who beleves that cops are the only ones who should be allowed to carry guns. This despite the response times to 911 calls and despite Supreme Court rulings that the police have no obligation to protect anyone. There was no overt threat to anyone before Sgt C took action. He just took the wrong action. He should have been conducting an investigation, not an intimidation.
MD
