Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: Forced To Disarm And The Outcome

  1. #1
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    18 Dec. @ 1200 hrs. someone tried to force enter my home. I called the police. Operator 117 asked if i was armed and i told her i am always armed and do have a permit. The chief dispatcher got on the line with me (operator 20) she demanded that i disarm. I told her very politely that my weapon is secure in my holster and this is my house and yard and I have no reason to disarm. She told the officers that i refused and was arguing with her. I explained that i was not arguing with her as I knew this would be on tape. She also told them that i would come out with my hands in the air but refused to disarm. Another lie on her part. They refused to even show up and take a report until i disarmed. Operator 20 stated again to leave the gun in the house. and to come out with my hands up. I told her i would leave it inside if it would clear this issue up. She told the officers and they showed up. I went outside to talk to them and 2 of them started lecturing me on obeying the dispatcher and to leave my gun inside from now on. I was surrounded by 6 cops with 2 standing in front of me with 4 more in front of the house and police cars all over. Then they left. The officers did not check the yard or house. Never got a case number.

    Outcome:

    23 Dec. 2009,

    Just got off phone with a Sgt. in internal affairs concerning when I was forced to disarm. He stated I did nothing wrong and he is sending a training memo to Sergeants of different Precincts to re-train Officers in a situation like this. Also a re-training memo is being sent to dispatch since they did not follow protocol concerning this issue. He fully supports my right to be armed and protect myself.


  2. #2
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    That is ridiculous. The dispatcher demanding that you disarm when you are on your own property??? WTF! Funny how some police/dispatchers think that they can just suspend the law and your rights just so they can "feel" safe. What kind of authority does a dispatcher think they have? As if they can force you to do something over the phone??? "Yeah, sure (dispatcher), you just try and make me disarm from over the phone line..."


    Edit: spelling


    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Thats a double head banger. Then refused to give you a case number.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Can you get a copy of the tape?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Already made a request for it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Per the Sergeant I talked to, he is sending a training memo to all precincts to re-train the new officers coming out about how to deal correctly with legal gun owners.

    The chief dispatcher is going to be corrected by her neglect to follow procedures and putting a legal gun owner in possible harms way.

    Re-training is also going to take place in dispatch to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes to procedures.

    The officers that did not check the house or yard or supply a case number are going to be disciplined.

  7. #7
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    redboneshadow wrote:
    Per the Sergeant I talked to, he is sending a training memo to all precincts to re-train the new officers coming out about how to deal correctly with legal gun owners.

    The chief dispatcher is going to be corrected by her neglect to follow procedures and putting a legal gun owner in possible harms way.

    Re-training is also going to take place in dispatch to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes to procedures.

    The officers that did not check the house or yard or supply a case number are going to be disciplined.
    Well if even half of that stuff happens it will be a good thing. Quite honestly I think a lot of problems can be solved by a dispatcher who is able to do their job well.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  8. #8
    Regular Member BrenTen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    It's almost getting to the point that having 911 on the line is MORE dangerous to your life than calling them in the first place. It might be better just to call 911, state the problem and then hangup.

    Can you imagine what a witness for the perps family she would be? "Well I told him to put hs gun down, but it was as if he WANTED to shoot someone. "



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wentworth, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    REX681959 wrote:
    Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.
    Uh.....no they aren't.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Seattle PD right? They are the only agency around here that refers to a "chief dispatcher".

    No civilian dispatcher, chief or otherwise, has any authority to order you to do anything on the phone. Seems well handled by SPD in the end.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.
    That's fine if you are craven enough. Or selfish enough.

    Why should you get to jump to the head of the line for acting like a baby? Can you at least admit that there might be someone close by who is in more trouble than you? If so, yet you still have no compunction about throwing a baby tantrum to get what you want, then you don't deserve any help.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    I'm curious what 911Boss thinks about this situation...

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.
    That's fine if you are craven enough. Or selfish enough.

    Why should you get to jump to the head of the line for acting like a baby? Can you at least admit that there might be someone close by who is in more trouble than you? If so, yet you still have no compunction about throwing a baby tantrum to get what you want, then you don't deserve any help.
    Yep when my life and my loved ones are in danger from a prowler I'd say I am more selfish than the person who didn'tget "proper service" from a fast food restaurant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

    "D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia



  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Thats why I don't rely on the police. And no one should.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Yep when my life and my loved ones are in danger from a prowler I'd say I am more selfish than the person who didn'tget "proper service" from a fast food restaurant.
    You clearly can't read.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Yep when my life and my loved ones are in danger from a prowler I'd say I am more selfish than the person who didn'tget "proper service" from a fast food restaurant.
    You clearly can't read.
    I clearly can, you clearly lack the ability for abstract thought. :P Why you gotta be an ass?

    Of course I was referring to the lady who tied up 911 with a call about being upset about bad service.

    I also don't give a rats ass what you are going through when my family is in danger, My guess you wouldn't care about me either that is human nature. And was trying to make light of the situation which you failed to percieve, oh well my bad.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Just got off phone with a Sgt. in internal affairs concerning when I was forced to disarm. He stated I did nothing wrong and he is sending a training memo to Sergeants of different Precincts to re-train Officers in a situation like this. Also a re-training memo is being sent to dispatch since they did not follow protocol concerning this issue. He fully supports my right to be armed and protect myself.
    What do you think is appropriate for the officers to protect themselves? Leaving your gun inside while you step outside to speak with the officers seems pretty reasonable to me.


  20. #20
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Its not up to the dispatcher to control the scene. All that needed to be said was " Homeowner is armed."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Its not up to the dispatcher to control the scene. All that needed to be said was " Homeowner is armed."
    I absolutely agree. Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
    Yes...?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    erps wrote:
    Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
    Yes...?
    IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.

  24. #24
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    erps wrote:
    Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
    Yes...?
    IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
    Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    erps wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    erps wrote:
    Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
    Yes...?
    IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
    Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.
    Well said, I completely agree.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •