A funny thing happened on the Link tonite...

sudden valley gunner · Nov 9, 2011

golddigger14s said:
Go back to VA, this is directed to the WA people involved.

This is an Open Forum. The folks in Virginia have graciously conversed with me and I more than welcome them to converse here. His location has nothing to do with the content of his post.

MSG Laigaie · Nov 9, 2011

I like to point out to my Canadien family members that I am a Free Man, and they are subjects. Drives my Mum-in-law nuts, she's a Brit

deanf · Nov 9, 2011

How precisely is it dumb? That sort of thing is precisely what inciting a riot is.

Sorry if I call B.S. where I see or read it.

Now if you think that telling someone they can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist in Washington isn't B.S., or isn't dumb, please explain.

Metalhead47 · Nov 9, 2011

deanf said:
Sorry if I call B.S. where I see or read it.

Now if you think that telling someone they can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist in Washington isn't B.S., or isn't dumb, please explain.

Well then enlighten us dean, what's the closest thing in the rcw's to inciting a riot? Gotta be something

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=47.774879,-122.342794
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

deanf · Nov 9, 2011

Well then enlighten us dean, what's the closest thing in the rcw's to inciting a riot? Gotta be something

We're not discussing the "closest thing . . . to"

"I told him he could be charged with the closest thing to inciting a riot (what that is I had no idea). That shut him up right quick!" Lol.

Metalhead47 · Nov 9, 2011

deanf said:
We're not discussing the "closest thing . . . to"

"I told him he could be charged with the closest thing to inciting a riot (what that is I had no idea). That shut him up right quick!" Lol.

WA does not have a "brandishing" law, instead we have .270, unlawful display. If not "inciting a riot," I'm sure there's something along the same lines in the rcw's.

---
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

deanf · Nov 9, 2011

Not that I can find in Titles 9 or 9A.

Jim675 · Nov 9, 2011

I'll throw out: 9A.84.030 Disorderly conduct. Its a stretch though.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or ...SNIP

Yelling "GUN" in a crowd could logically be expected to cause a class 3 CF as the previously lawful assemblage heads for the exits.

The screamer isn't blocking traffic but using others to do so. Like I said, a stretch.

amzbrady · Nov 9, 2011

Was the game they were referring to Lara Croft?

OrangeIsTrouble · Nov 10, 2011

amzbrady said:
Was the game they were referring to Lara Croft?

That's not a game, that's a character!

sudden valley gunner · Nov 10, 2011

deanf said:
Sorry if I call B.S. where I see or read it.

Now if you think that telling someone they can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist in Washington isn't B.S., or isn't dumb, please explain.

Now if we can only make prosecutors, judges and LEO realize this.

slapmonkay · Nov 10, 2011

deanf said:
Sorry if I call B.S. where I see or read it.

Now if you think that telling someone they can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist in Washington isn't B.S., or isn't dumb, please explain.

I have outlined a few laws below that I personally believe may be a chargeable offense for this.

False Reporting

9A.84.040 said:
(1) A person is guilty of false reporting if with knowledge that the information reported, conveyed, or circulated is false, he or she initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged occurrence or impending occurrence of a fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe, or emergency knowing that such false report is likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or transportation facility, or to cause public inconvenience or alarm.

Disorderly Conduct

9A.84.030 said:
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:
(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;
(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;
(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

Reckless Engagnerment

9A.36.050 said:
(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

While it won't say its a solid case but one could pursue an extortion by means of wrongful thread case against someone.

Extortion

RCW 9A.56.130 said:
(1) A person is guilty of extortion in the second degree if he or she commits extortion by means of a wrongful threat as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(28) (d) through (j).

(2) In any prosecution under this section based on a threat to accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person, it is a defense that the actor reasonably believed the threatened criminal charge to be true and that his or her sole purpose was to compel or induce the person threatened to take reasonable action to make good the wrong which was the subject of such threatened criminal charge.

RCW 9A.04.110 (28) said:
(28) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:
(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 or her health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;

Also, just for clarity. Not all words or actions are protected by the 1st amendment/freedom of speech.

STATE v. PAULING on Protected Speach said:
Certain speech is not protected. For example, threats that have a tendency to incite an immediate breach of the peace, i.e., fighting words, are not protected and may be regulated by the government. See Huff, 111 Wash.2d at 925, 767 P.2d 572 (citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)). “ ‘Speech is often provocative and challenging․ [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.’ ” City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987) (alteration in original) (quoting Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949)); see also Huff, 111 Wash.2d at 925, 767 P.2d 572. Words creating an immediate panic are not protected speech. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470 (1919).

deanf · Nov 10, 2011

I have outlined a few laws below that I personally believe may be a chargeable offense for this.

That's fine but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the imaginary crime of inciting a riot.

Metalhead47 · Nov 10, 2011

deanf said:
That's fine but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the imaginary crime of inciting a riot.

Maybe YOU were. I believe the rest of us were discussing what actual crimes the doofus in the previous post could have been charged with for his stupid "don't shoot" comment. You're the one still picking at that "inciting" nit. If you don't stop picking at that, it'll never heal!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OrangeIsTrouble · Nov 10, 2011

deanf said:
That's fine but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the imaginary crime of inciting a riot.

we don't know if m1 claims you can be charged with INCITING a riot. He just claimed you can be CHARGED. Until he returns, we'll never know.

Hell, maybe he was just bluffing to that guy to shut his ass up. Either way, it did the job.

gogodawgs · Nov 10, 2011

GreenIsFaster said:
we don't know if m1 claims you can be charged with INCITING a riot. He just claimed you can be CHARGED. Until he returns, we'll never know.

Hell, maybe he was just bluffing to that guy to shut his ass up. Either way, it did the job.

Yes, that is what I took from it...a well placed bluff.

(BTW, the new avatar is great....and not your girl friend that you were shooting with)

deanf · Nov 10, 2011

Hell, maybe he was just bluffing

Oh. You mean like cops and others do to discourage open carry? That was the whole point of my original comment. The OC community shouldn't bluster and bluff like the cops do.

A funny thing happened on the Link tonite...

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran

deanf

Regular Member

Metalhead47

Regular Member

deanf

Regular Member

Metalhead47

Regular Member

deanf

Regular Member

Jim675

Founder's Club Member

amzbrady

Regular Member

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran

deanf

Regular Member

Metalhead47

Regular Member

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

deanf

Regular Member