Four Men, three rifles, a woman, and a handgun (Vancouver)

jt59 said:

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

Silly!

As the victim (you), I'm talking about you requesting and reviewing the 911 call given to a (public servant), the officers that got sent on the call, because of it (public servants)....via a FOIA request to the police department. You indicated that they requested your personal info for their "report", so it should be on the record, if you want to pursue this....

....and the (father) that likely made it from across the street on his cell phone....if he overstated the threat (maybe he said you were "waving the gun around", that required such a heavy handed (IMO) response, then it may be that you have grounds to file a complaint against the 911 caller....the police will have to investigate...and at a minimum you can let them deliver the message back to the dink that ruined your day.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread it. I thought it was making misleading statements ABOUT a public Servant. I got ya, now.

Joe, just out of curiosity, why would i contact the sheriff about it? It was VPD that responded, because it was within Vancouver city limits.

Trigger Dr said:

make changes as necessary to get it to the police chief, city attorney, and city council. Mail it return receipt requested. Mail a copy to yourself and keep it sealed when it arrives.

Click to expand...

Might I recommend getting it notarized instead?

What good does mailing to yourself do? (hint: be on the watch for urban legends)

This just shows the power over a legally carrying hand gun owner, by 1 person in the general public.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I commend you for your calm demeanor and cooperation with the LEO when you have nothing to be guilty of.
I personally would have done the same. I have the non confrontational gene, I guess.
Sure, there are many that will not agree, BUT------
So far it has worked for me.
"JMHO" = JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION....... PLEASE, no trashing old Dave.

Dave

Given the SEVERE reaction of the PD, would it be appropriate to, after the OC picnic/meet, split up into pairs or small groups to OC around Vancouver?

"just as an aside in case i didn't state it earlier, all the officers i dealt with were very courteous, and as friendly as they could be while maintaining their professional position."

Yes, for jack-boot fascists and anti-American, unpatriotic cowards I'm sure they were very nice.

Hurry for the police state hounding the citizen they admitted wasn't breaking the law. They should lose their jobs, the police department should write you a LARGE check and perhaps jail time should be in order for the completely unconstitutional detainment.

tompkins said:

Joe, just out of curiosity, why would i contact the sheriff about it? It was VPD that responded, because it was within Vancouver city limits.

Click to expand...

Oh, God, that explains it. What the hell is wrong with Vancouver PD? I'm up here in Federal Way but I'd be up for a trip to an open carry meeting just to correct their attitudes. Any coming up?

SaintJacque said:

Oh, God, that explains it. What the hell is wrong with Vancouver PD? I'm up here in Federal Way but I'd be up for a trip to an open carry meeting just to correct their attitudes. Any coming up?

Click to expand...

Its on the 25th, right?

Lovenox said:

Its on the 25th, right?

Click to expand...

Yes, I just found the Vancouver thread. It's on the 25th at 1pm... I wasn't planning on going before, but now... I'm planning to attend.

SaintJacque said:

Yes, I just found the Vancouver thread. It's on the 25th at 1pm... I wasn't planning on going before, but now... I'm planning to attend.

Click to expand...

In light of the recent threads it appears as though we have to show en' force. Peacefully.

SaintJacque
Yes, for jack-boot fascists and anti-American, unpatriotic cowards I'm sure they were very nice.


That comment stinks Saint J

You have a lot of anger and Police Bashing SUCKS in my book.
Wait until you need them. Maybe then you will change your tone. Maybe not.

Dave

jt59 said:

I don't think "embarrasment" counts...but this might: If the OP requests the 911 transcripts and after review, wishes to file a complaint.....well..

RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.


[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]


Notes:
Purpose -- 2001 c 308: "The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995." [2001 c 308 § 1.]

Effective date -- 2001 c 308: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001]." [2001 c 308 § 4.]


Effective date -- 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

Click to expand...

I was talking about sueing the 911 caller for damages, embarasment would be one of the possable damages along with temporary loss of your rights, freedom etc all of which I take very seriously. Oh I forgot emotional distress would be another reason to sue.

69Charger said:

SaintJacque
Yes, for jack-boot fascists and anti-American, unpatriotic cowards I'm sure they were very nice.


That comment stinks Saint J

You have a lot of anger and Police Bashing SUCKS in my book.
Wait until you need them. Maybe then you will change your tone. Maybe not.

Dave

Click to expand...

With all respect to you, Dave, any "police officer" who so wantonly violates the liberty he's sworn to protect deserves no respect and should not wear that uniform.

I'm not bashing LEOs, and you should not imply that I am bashing all cops. THESE cops that the OP described deserve a LOT of criticism. I know some AWESOME police officers in Federal Way. I just had a conversation with one the other night, he complemented my XD as "the best handgun ever made." (His words). I own a small business and work regularly with the police to keep the criminals away, and I appreciate the job that they do.

However, I cannot stand it when people like you suggest that you cant' call out the unethical and un-American officers who show no regard for liberty. We can and we must.

PS:
I can never "need them" as you say, since I have taken it upon myself to be my own protector and the protector of my family and my property. As they say, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Samuel Adams said:

Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!

Click to expand...

"With all respect to you, Dave, any "police officer" who so wantonly violates the liberty he's sworn to protect deserves no respect and should not wear that uniform."


I'd like to think it's a training issue. But it seems that Vancouver has a lot of "training issues".

tompkins said:

Joe, just out of curiosity, why would i contact the sheriff about it? It was VPD that responded, because it was within Vancouver city limits.

Click to expand...

I thought the Sheriff had oversight of the County Police. Vancouver is within Clark County. I could be wrong...

Wow. I thought the officers were called out to a report of an unknown situation with a man and a gun. This would put anyone in the alert and in an uneasy mode, dont you think?
Put your self in there BOOTS.
How can you call out the officers when you know NOTHING?
I truly hope you or your family never need the help of an officer. Your analogy of you can handle it all with your gun, is at best, wishful thinking. Ever been in a traffic accident? Had a drug dealer live next to you?
Good luck.
Dave

NavyLT said:

What good does getting it notarized do? All the notary does is witness your signature not the mailing. Certified mail, with signature receipt is the way to indicate that the other party received something. There isn't much you can do to prove exactly what they received unless you have a person witness everything from stuffing the envelop to depositing in the mailbox.

Click to expand...

What good does mailing yourself a copy do?

My point is that getting something notarized would be more effective - that plus sending it through certified mail would show what document was sent and received.

NavyLT said:

Why should I hurry for them? I think I'll just take my own sweet time and get to them when I get to them... they can wait.

Oh.... I think you meant hooray!

Click to expand...

You got me... when my blood boils, I forget how to spell...

69Charger said:

Wow. I thought the officers were called out to a report of an unknown situation with a man and a gun. This would put anyone in the alert and in an uneasy mode, dont you think?
Put your self in there BOOTS.
How can you call out the officers when you know NOTHING?

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what the call is, the officers can't act to take away life, liberty or property based solely on one individual's claim. Otherwise, if I don't like my neighbor, I could say they have a drug lab in their home and sit back and watch as the SWAT team raids the home. It doesn't work like that, you need evidence and a warrant and they had neither.

I truly hope you or your family never need the help of an officer. Your analogy of you can handle it all with your gun, is at best, wishful thinking. Ever been in a traffic accident? Had a drug dealer live next to you?

Click to expand...

No, believing that the police will arrive in time and with the situational awareness to protect you is wishful thinking. Yes I've been in a traffic accident and I would much sooner want a medic then a police officer, generally, in that circumstance. And yes I've lived next to a drug dealer - it's called Tacoma. I lived there and Spanaway and I can tell you from experience that in many neighborhoods there's a good chance you live next to a drug dealer.

One night several years ago when I was living in Tacoma at around midnight a pair of meth-heads decided to bash down our front door after we refused to let them come in to "use the phone." I flashed and racked my grandfathers old, probably inoperable and certainly unloaded, shotgun and they ran away. If they called my bluff I don't know that I would be here today. We called 911 and the operator would not even dispatch an officer. She said they got a lot of reports of these people doing this in the neighborhood and would be on the look out. So, that's the extent of the help I got from the police.

That was the day I decided to become a gun owner. I now own, practice with, and keep loaded a semi-automatic shotgun at home and a Springfield XD everywhere else. Again, I value the cops because we need to keep the thugs off the street, but I don't, can't and won't rely on them for my own protection or for my family's protection.

That said I support the police and try to work with them frequently. I check my store late and night and report any suspicious activity to the cops. I converse with them when I get the chance and am currently working to oppose cuts to the city's police department as a solution to our city's budget deficit.

I live in Federal Way, a city of more than 85,000 (as of the 2000 census). 6th largest city in Washington. Do you know how many cops we have? 130. And many of those are desk workers. The rest are divided amongst the various shifts of the day. Which means that at any given time only a fraction of those officers are actually on the street responding to calls and now the acting city manager (who is ironically the police chief) wants to cut even that number to save money. I am responsible for my own safety.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

You as well.

Wouldn't the 911 caller have the perceived danger card on there side?
What you PERCEIVE as a danger or threat may not be the same.
Who knows the RIGHT answer that covers ALL of society?
The LEO is there to have to get it RIGHT the first time and may not have the second try when it comes to weapons.
I know I would go above and beyond if I had the issue of going home alive or going to the morgue.
They did go above and beyond on this one, but every one went home.
Dave

69Charger said:

Wouldn't the 911 caller have the perceived danger card on there side?

Click to expand...

If the OP was accurate then there was no manifest threat, only a pissed off anti-gunner who called 911.

69Charger said:

What you PERCEIVE as a danger or threat may not be the same.

Click to expand...

That's correct, and there's nothing wrong with caution. But perceived threats have to create a reasonable fear for your safety in order to act on them. Again, there's nothing wrong with the cops being cautious and even keeping their weapons ready, but they can't just violate your due process rights because of a safety concern.

69Charger said:

Who knows the RIGHT answer that covers ALL of society?

Click to expand...

The framers of the Constitution did, which is why we have due process rights.

69Charger said:

The LEO is there to have to get it RIGHT the first time and may not have the second try when it comes to weapons.
I know I would go above and beyond if I had the issue of going home alive or going to the morgue.
They did go above and beyond on this one, but every one went home.
Dave

Click to expand...

And I'm glad no one was hurt. But, there job is more than just avoiding injury, their job is to protect and defend the law (including the Constitution) and individual liberty, not to crush it based on any arbitrary safety concern.

By the way, as soon as the officers arrived and saw that there was no threat, their actions beyond that in detaining, searching and harassing these people are inexcusable even if you want to dismiss their previous violations in the name of officer safety.