Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Casual LEO conversation shows surprising alarming perspective

  1. #1
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872

    Casual LEO conversation shows surprising alarming perspective

    On my way home from work tonight I stopped at a local gas station for a soda. Still in my security uniform and duty belt (has everything cops carry minus a gun) I walked in got my soda and got in line to check out. I was second in line right behind a local Police Officer who was also getting a late night soda. A casual conversation started started by the Officer "how did your night go, any trouble makers tonight" so for and so on. We walked out of the gas station together and continued our conversation next to his vehicle. Our conversation stayed very casual for several minutes but eventually turned to work. The Officer started comparing our duty belts and asked me what type of gun I carry. I told the Officer work dose not allow me to carry a gun but I told him I always carry when off duty.
    After a few more minutes the Officer asked what I thought about people who open carry while I am at work. I explained to the Officer how being a open carrier my self it dose not bother me and in fact I welcome the sight of guns while I am at work, I told him because I can't carry while on the clock it makes me feel better to know there is one near by. This got us started about open carry and the conversation changed. The Officer quoted RCW 9.41.270 in what seemed to be word for word in its entirety. The Officer then looked over at me and said "I know its legal for people to open carry but you understand if I get a 911 call for MWAG and I show up and tell you to cover it up you have to, right?"
    I disagreed and asked him to explain he told me if someone had a problem with me carrying a gun in a holster and called 911 that would then be considered "displaying a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" and thus illegal by RCW 9.41.270. (his words) He then told me because he is a Officer of the law if I disobey a direct order from him I am then disobeying the law and that too is illegal. He then admitted he could not arrest me for open carrying but told me he could and would condensate my hand gun, write me a ticket, fine and detain me "as long as the law allows" for disobeying his "lawful order to cover it up" (again his words)
    We talked for a few more minutes before he got in his police car and drove away. As he was walking away he told me "I'm just trying to look out for ya I'd hate to see you in jail because you misunderstood the law"
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    What a maroon!

    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    On my way home from work tonight I stopped at a local gas station for a soda. Still in my security uniform and duty belt (has everything cops carry minus a gun) I walked in got my soda and got in line to check out. I was second in line right behind a local Police Officer who was also getting a late night soda. A casual conversation started started by the Officer "how did your night go, any trouble makers tonight" so for and so on. We walked out of the gas station together and continued our conversation next to his vehicle. Our conversation stayed very casual for several minutes but eventually turned to work. The Officer started comparing our duty belts and asked me what type of gun I carry. I told the Officer work dose not allow me to carry a gun but I told him I always carry when off duty.
    After a few more minutes the Officer asked what I thought about people who open carry while I am at work. I explained to the Officer how being a open carrier my self it dose not bother me and in fact I welcome the sight of guns while I am at work, I told him because I can't carry while on the clock it makes me feel better to know there is one near by. This got us started about open carry and the conversation changed. The Officer quoted RCW 9.41.270 in what seemed to be word for word in its entirety. The Officer then looked over at me and said "I know its legal for people to open carry but you understand if I get a 911 call for MWAG and I show up and tell you to cover it up you have to, right?"
    I disagreed and asked him to explain he told me if someone had a problem with me carrying a gun in a holster and called 911 that would then be considered "displaying a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" and thus illegal by RCW 9.41.270. (his words) He then told me because he is a Officer of the law if I disobey a direct order from him I am then disobeying the law and that too is illegal. He then admitted he could not arrest me for open carrying but told me he could and would condensate my hand gun, write me a ticket, fine and detain me "as long as the law allows" for disobeying his "lawful order to cover it up" (again his words)
    We talked for a few more minutes before he got in his police car and drove away. As he was walking away he told me "I'm just trying to look out for ya I'd hate to see you in jail because you misunderstood the law"
    I hope you got his name and department so you can contact his supervisor and get this erroneous thinking straightened out before he causes a legal hassle for someone AND his department.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    that cops attitude is EXACTLY the same as the cop that ticketed josh w07rolla!
    he told josh over and over to cover his gun. josh wouldnt cover, and got wrote
    up for violating 9.41.270, lost his gun, and lost in court!
    it is not sounding like much is being done about his appeal either.
    starting to wonder if my donation was worthwhile.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    They don't care about inalienable rights.
    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)

  5. #5
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    So the officer is using the first part of the RCW, "... display a weapon..." but not extending that to the whole part, "... in a manner...time...place...". He's just picking an choosing what part of the wording benefits him, not the RCW in it's entirety.

    Sad, and shame on him.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Such a great guy he was.
    I'll bet his community loves him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Officer must be from Poulsbo and had been drinking too much Pickled Herring juice.

    So he believes just because he issues and order it is a "lawful order"? It would definitely be a good idea to advise his Department that he's just a little out of touch with the law. Maybe they could copy a couple of the other, larger, PD's training bulletins that explain that OC is perfectly legal. Maybe find a couple of other bulletins that explain how "making up laws as you go" isn't a real career builder either.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Law

    Did he ask if you had a CPL? Because if you do not have a CPL, then he is breaking the law by telling you to break the law.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    LOL, that happened to me once with a couple of Kent PD bicycle patrol officers. I was OC without my CPL and they wanted me to cover up, just so we could stand there and talk. I had already told him that I didn't have my CPL on me and I asked him, " So, you're asking me to break the law?" His face dropped, and that was the end of that.
    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.

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    It appears this Officer has difficulty understanding, just because it comes out of his mouth does not mean it has the weight of law behind it.
    He could use a refresher course in reading comprehension.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Savage206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    He then admitted he could not arrest me for open carrying but told me he could and would condensate my hand gun, write me a ticket, fine and detain me "as long as the law allows" for disobeying his "lawful order to cover it up" (again his words)
    We talked for a few more minutes before he got in his police car and drove away. As he was walking away he told me "I'm just trying to look out for ya I'd hate to see you in jail because you misunderstood the law"
    The key word here is LAWFUL ORDER. He can give me as many tickets as he wants. They will all be dropped. I am so sick of hearing police repeat this utter BS. It is not my responsibility to make sure other people are educated enough that my OC doesn't cause them concern. Honestly I think if someone calls in a MWAG and it turns out to be a OC doing so legally and not waving a gun around or anything, that the person who called it in should be fined for the police's time. Next time learn the law before calling something into the police dummy.....

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage206 View Post
    The key word here is LAWFUL ORDER. He can give me as many tickets as he wants. They will all be dropped. I am so sick of hearing police repeat this utter BS. It is not my responsibility to make sure other people are educated enough that my OC doesn't cause them concern. Honestly I think if someone calls in a MWAG and it turns out to be a OC doing so legally and not waving a gun around or anything, that the person who called it in should be fined for the police's time. Next time learn the law before calling something into the police dummy.....
    I've often wondered about the legality of a situation where an officer threatens arrest if you don't obey him, but obeying him would cause you to commit a crime. The officer has a gun, and may in fact be menacing you with it. Does this count as "under duress" legally speaking?

    Suppose an officer issues a lawful order, like demanding you leave the scene when the only way to do that is to jaywalk? Or as in the original post in this thread, if you don't have a CPL and get ordered to "cover it up" or be arrested for disobeying, while obeying is in itself illegal? If you will be arrested for disobeying, does obeying, even though doing so is also a crime, provide you with a defense in court? Does the fact obeying is itself a crime provide a defense against the charge of disobeying? Or are you simply screwed no matter what you do in that sort of situation?
    Last edited by Difdi; 05-10-2011 at 07:59 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    It's called coercion, and it is unlawful. http://tinyurl.com/3dq9mzv

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajetpilot View Post
    It's called coercion, and it is unlawful.
    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

    Wow. Is a clear threat of arrest considered "force" if used against a law abiding OCer? I.e. "Cover it or I'll arrest you..."
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  15. #15
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    (h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding
    To which can be added Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the U.S. Code, which would add a federal charge on top of the state charge.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

    One thing I've been wondering for some time, but never gotten a straight answer on. I know what the RCWs have to say about citizen's arrest for state-level crimes, but I've never been able to find anything, anywhere, on whether witnessing someone commit a felony-level federal crime would justify a citizen's arrest. And who would you deliver the arrestee to, and/or call for pickup? I've tried asking the state AG's office via email, but got an answer that basically, minus the bureaucratese, said they only provide services to the People, not individual citizens, and refused to answer beyond that.
    Last edited by Difdi; 05-11-2011 at 05:18 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    I was trying to get my enter encounter across without making the post too long for everyone. One other thing the Officer told me is open carry is "only legal if no one has a problem with it" this statement then lead into his resisting of the RCW. Frustrating and scary to know there are still cops out there with this level of thinking. If he was to respond to a 911 call generated because of one of us there would be no good way to get out of the situation
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    I was trying to get my enter encounter across without making the post too long for everyone. One other thing the Officer told me is open carry is "only legal if no one has a problem with it" this statement then lead into his resisting of the RCW. Frustrating and scary to know there are still cops out there with this level of thinking. If he was to respond to a 911 call generated because of one of us there would be no good way to get out of the situation
    Or he just could be full of hot air trying to intimidate you into not doing something you have the legal right to do.
    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)

  18. #18
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    If you don't obey everything he tells you, because even though he's wrong, his word is the law and he can arrest and/or cite you for disobeying him? Holy crap....haha...I wonder if he was married or not...haha

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110

    RCW 9A.04.110
    Definitions.

    *** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 1188-S.SL) ***

    In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required:

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:

    (a) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

    (b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    (e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

    (f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened; or

    (g) To testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

    (h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; or

    (i) To bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective action to obtain property which is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group which the actor purports to represent; or

    (j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;

    Now all that's needed is for someone complain and have a Prosecutor charge the individual. Some how I think we'll see this first:

    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Now all that's needed is for someone complain and have a Prosecutor charge the individual. Some how I think we'll see this first:

    I have brought this up to prosecutors (they really don't like me now in this town/county) you should see the uncomfortable look in their eyes.

    One of Bellingham's prosecutors just said I have never brought charges against a police officer and don't see me doing so.
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

    Wow. Is a clear threat of arrest considered "force" if used against a law abiding OCer? I.e. "Cover it or I'll arrest you..."
    Tag team that with:

    RCW 9A.80.010
    Official misconduct.


    (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

    (a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

    (b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

    (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
    (emphasis mine)

    then report it to the actual SHERIFF:

    RCW 36.28.011
    Duty to make complaint.


    In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it shall be the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law, which shall come to their knowledge, within their respective jurisdictions.
    (emphasis mine)

    And for the PA that refuses to pursue the LEO's in question:

    RCW 36.27.020
    Duties.


    The prosecuting attorney shall:

    (1) Be legal adviser of the legislative authority, giving them [it] his or her written opinion when required by the legislative authority or the chairperson thereof touching any subject which the legislative authority may be called or required to act upon relating to the management of county affairs;

    (2) Be legal adviser to all county and precinct officers and school directors in all matters relating to their official business, and when required draw up all instruments of an official nature for the use of said officers;

    (3) Appear for and represent the state, county, and all school districts subject to the supervisory control and direction of the attorney general in all criminal and civil proceedings in which the state or the county or any school district in the county may be a party;

    (4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, defend all suits brought against the state or the county, and prosecute actions upon forfeited recognizances and bonds and actions for the recovery of debts, fines, penalties, and forfeitures accruing to the state or the county;

    (5) Attend and appear before and give advice to the grand jury when cases are presented to it for consideration and draw all indictments when required by the grand jury;

    (6) Institute and prosecute proceedings before magistrates for the arrest of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of felonies when the prosecuting attorney has information that any such offense has been committed and the prosecuting attorney shall for that purpose attend when required by them if the prosecuting attorney is not then in attendance upon the superior court;

    (7) Carefully tax all cost bills in criminal cases and take care that no useless witness fees are taxed as part of the costs and that the officers authorized to execute process tax no other or greater fees than the fees allowed by law;

    (8) Receive all cost bills in criminal cases before district judges at the trial of which the prosecuting attorney was not present, before they are lodged with the legislative authority for payment, whereupon the prosecuting attorney may retax the same and the prosecuting attorney must do so if the legislative authority deems any bill exorbitant or improperly taxed;

    (9) Present all violations of the election laws which may come to the prosecuting attorney's knowledge to the special consideration of the proper jury;

    (10) Examine once in each year the official bonds of all county and precinct officers and report to the legislative authority any defect in the bonds of any such officer;

    (11) Make an annual report to the governor as of the 31st of December of each year setting forth the amount and nature of business transacted by the prosecuting attorney in that year with such other statements and suggestions as the prosecuting attorney may deem useful;

    (12) Send to the state liquor control board at the end of each year a written report of all prosecutions brought under the state liquor laws in the county during the preceding year, showing in each case, the date of trial, name of accused, nature of charges, disposition of case, and the name of the judge presiding;

    (13) Seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice and stimulate efforts to remedy inadequacies or injustice in substantive or procedural law.
    (emphasis mine)

    And:

    RCW 42.20.100
    Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.


    Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.
    And point out 9A.80.070 applies to the PA/Sheriff as well.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Done this Mike, My Sheriff won't do Jack.
    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)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    So take it to the PA that the Sheriff is in criminal violation of 42.20.100 and that it is his duty under 36.27.020 to prosecute said sheriff or be in violation of the same criminal statute. And if he refuses, get it in writing so you can take it to the next level level. (Judge for Writ of Mandamus?)

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    So take it to the PA that the Sheriff is in criminal violation of 42.20.100 and that it is his duty under 36.27.020 to prosecute said sheriff or be in violation of the same criminal statute. And if he refuses, get it in writing so you can take it to the next level level. (Judge for Writ of Mandamus?)
    Or file a complaint with the FBI and include all documentation. The more information showing that the behavior is condoned by all levels of Law Enforcement in the area may get their attention. Do it soon and maybe they can use some of the investigators that are working on the Seattle investigation too.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  25. #25
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Now all that's needed is for someone complain and have a Prosecutor charge the individual. Some how I think we'll see this first:

    Washington state law permits a citizen's arrest for misdemeanors, not just for felonies. A gross misdemeanor certainly qualifies for citizen's arrest.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •