• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bellingham police draw down on Open Carrier

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
My question. Did the officer point a gun at you? Or did the officer keep the gun at low and ready?

If the officer kept the gun at low and ready, I would also not pursue further action.

If the officer pointed a gun at me, I would have an attorney pursue further action.

We should be able to go low ready if we feel threatened, as long as we dont point our firearm at someone, it should all be ok.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
We should be able to go low ready if we feel threatened, as long as we dont point our firearm at someone, it should all be ok.

I think feel threatened is a little too subjective. Lets keep it at an objective justification. Can't have it slopping over into police using a feel threatened excuse.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
My question. Did the officer point a gun at you? Or did the officer keep the gun at low and ready?

If the officer kept the gun at low and ready, I would also not pursue further action.

If the officer pointed a gun at me, I would have an attorney pursue further action.


He clarified it a few posts up. The cop pointed the gun at him several times during the encounter.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I am asking again for clarity. Is there embellishment to the story? His attitude towards holding the officer accountable demonstrates embellishment.

The thought occurred to me, too; but, I've learned it serves little purpose to hint or accuse such without strong evidence. No sense making an accusation or implying if it can backfire. Too little potential gain for too much potential damage. Also, some mighty strange things have turned out to be true.

So, generally, I just carry on as though the report was true. It tends to sort out in the end. And, nobody is mad at me. At least not for that. :D

If somebody comes along with a too self-aggrandizing story, or the story has lots of elements that don't check with experience, I might hint at disbelief or something. Otherwise, I generally keep that particular suspicion to myself.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
We should be able to go low ready if we feel threatened, as long as we dont point our firearm at someone, it should all be ok.

I strongly disagree with this. Unless in use, (or going to the bathroom) my weapon stays in the holster. If I draw my weapon I will use it. Draw to fire, NOT intimidate. If you are in a position to go "low ready" maybe vacating the area would be better.

Because this is not over yet, a few minor things have been held in check.
Yes, the OI drew at "low ready", Yes he pointed his weapon directly at me on several occasions. NO, I was not in danger of being shot for reasons that may be released later.

I am going in to see the BPD today to request the incident report. I have requested BPD to produce their Training Bulletin and records of training.
I am trying to find out what was done the last time this happened to SuddenValleyGunner. If the training was shelved, the OI has an excuse (a weak one) that Management fell down on the job. If I can verify this, I can direct action where it belongs.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
I am asking again for clarity. Is there embellishment to the story? His attitude towards holding the officer accountable demonstrates embellishment.

I have met MSG in person and don't put him as one to embellish a story. I trust what he says is only factual. I do think there is some more facts that could come out to help understand the interaction more.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
I have met MSG in person and don't put him as one to embellish a story. I trust what he says is only factual. I do think there is some more facts that could come out to help understand the interaction more.

I totally understand, I only ask because of the disconnect between the nature of the contact, the actions of the officer and the approach of MSG. It is these types of incidents, as rare as they are, that need to be followed through to effect change. When this type of disconnect occurs with a member on this board, what has been discovered in the past is a bit of an embellishment. There is nothing in MSG's past posts to infer that type of embellishment and he has been a member to meet in person, thus I suspect he is correct.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
If you feel that strongly, if you ever find yourself in such a situation (or witness it happening to someone else), place the officer under citizen's arrest. Brandishing is a misdemeanor, and threat of violence breaches the peace. Note that you cannot legally forcibly disarm the arrested officer unless he attempts to resist arrest with a weapon, but there is nothing in the law that shields him from the arrest itself.

Actually, it could be a 2nd or 3rd Degree Assault, which are serious Felonies.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.031

Or at the very least, Reckless Endangerment, a Gross Misdemeanor.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.050

Along with RCW 9.41.270

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

XD
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I strongly disagree with this. Unless in use, (or going to the bathroom) my weapon stays in the holster. If I draw my weapon I will use it. Draw to fire, NOT intimidate. If you are in a position to go "low ready" maybe vacating the area would be better.

I agree a gun should not be drawn to intimidate. But, I suspect the whole draw-only-to-fire policy is based on a teaching maxim designed to reinforce not using the gun to intimidate. That and maybe some similarity or derivative of Bushido where the samurai is only allowed to draw his sword if he's going to use it on someone.

Teaching people with short-tempers to only draw to fire is OK. But, not everybody is going to draw to intimidate. The maxim is over-broad.

I agree that vacating the area is better--if it is an option! Back to the wall, multiple potential attackers in close proximity, an attacker too close to turn your back and run, in your own home clearing the house after hearing a breaking window. Lots of legitimate reasons for low or high ready.

The point is to have the gun out already instead of dying while trying to draw. This is why police have low-ready. Simply because there are circumstances where the added time of having to draw may make you too late on the trigger, keeping in mind that multiple shots may be necessary, the whole 21-ft business, and so forth that makes time even more important.
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
Because this is not over yet, a few minor things have been held in check.
Yes, the OI drew at "low ready", Yes he pointed his weapon directly at me on several occasions. NO, I was not in danger of being shot for reasons that may be released later.
.

I'd be intrigued to hear how you were not in danger of being shot when he had his weapon pointed at your chest. Plenty of LEOs have had negligent discharges under less stressful situations.

My take on this incident is that you were subjected to an unconstitutional seizure. LEOs are sworn to uphold the Constitutions of the US and of the State of Washington.

It is imperative that every police officer understand the rights guaranteed by the 4th Amdnt and Art I, Sect 7. Failure to honor an individual's right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure under Art I, sect 7 can result in criminal liability and/or the suppression of evidence.

You were seized - the officer's show of force through the display of a weapon is a clear indication of a seizure. (State v Harrington).

The officer had no reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot. He stopped you for having a firearm in the park, which is perfectly legal. He should also have reasonably know this through his department training bulletins and the well publicized Seattle Parks case. Further, an erroneous belief that a statute exists that prohibits the objective facts observed by the officer will invalidate the detention. (US v King 9th cir 2001)

There is no firearms exception to the 4th Amnt / Terry doctrine (Florida v JL)


For the above reasons, the officer failed to uphold the Constitution and as such his behavior needs to be corrected.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I went down to the BPD and filed for my incident report. No worries. Four to six weeks.

Later my Sweet Baboo hunted this down on the internet.

Reported: Dec 19 2011 8:10AM
Location: 2200 BLK ELECTRIC AV
Offense: SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
Case #: OMGWHTBSHT

S1 was socially contacted and became hostile.


Socially at first, then that pesky pistol kept popping out and I did get a bit bloody hostile.
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA


S1 was socially contacted and became hostile.


Socially at first, then that pesky pistol kept popping out and I did get a bit bloody hostile.

Social at first, because you initiated contact and freely conversed. It certainly escalated to a seizure when he pulled his pistol. The pulling of the pistol was not justified by your shouting nor is it justified by 'officer safety':

"if a citizen, during a social contact, keeps placing his hands into an object laden pocket after being requested not to, or engages in other activites that makes an officer feel uncomfortable, the officer should terminate the encounter and return to his patrol car". State v Harrington (2009).

In your encounter, the officer was constitutionally bound to detach himself from the encounter; absent reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
---snip--

In your encounter, the officer was constitutionally bound to detach himself from the encounter; absent reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot.

How "constitutionally bound" to detach/disengage?

An officer does not need RAS to have a conversation or interact with someone.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
I went down to the BPD and filed for my incident report. No worries. Four to six weeks.

Later my Sweet Baboo hunted this down on the internet.

Reported: Dec 19 2011 8:10AM
Location: 2200 BLK ELECTRIC AV
Offense: SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
Case #: OMGWHTBSHT

S1 was socially contacted and became hostile.


Socially at first, then that pesky pistol kept popping out and I did get a bit bloody hostile.

Your case number looks like it stands for "oh my god, what bull $h!t"

I wonder if that was random, or if the officer could just make something up. :)
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
WA State

How "constitutionally bound" to detach/disengage?

An officer does not need RAS to have a conversation or interact with someone.

I'm referring to the Washington State Constitution which affords greater protection than the 4th Amendment.

I never said that the LEO needed RAS to have a conversation. In fact, I stated that this was initially a social contact; however, this incident escalated beyond a social interaction and into a seizure when the officer pulled his firearm and pointed it at the OP's chest.

See my earlier quote from Sate v Harrington: The WA court ruled that the police officer should have disengaged from the social interaction at the point that he felt unsafe, because the officer had no reason to escalate it to a seizure. Without a reasonable suspicion, what has now escalated into a seizure becomes unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Your case number looks like it stands for "oh my god, what bull $h!t"

I wonder if that was random, or if the officer could just make something up. :)

I did not share the actual number as I have not read the documents as of yet. The number I printed was MY reaction to being referred to as "hostile"
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm referring to the Washington State Constitution which affords greater protection than the 4th Amendment.

I never said that the LEO needed RAS to have a conversation. In fact, I stated that this was initially a social contact; however, this incident escalated beyond a social interaction and into a seizure when the officer pulled his firearm and pointed it at the OP's chest.

See my earlier quote from Sate v Harrington: The WA court ruled that the police officer should have disengaged from the social interaction at the point that he felt unsafe, because the officer had no reason to escalate it to a seizure. Without a reasonable suspicion, what has now escalated into a seizure becomes unconstitutional.

Appreciate the reference/reminder.

That adds a new element to everything, sheds new light. Will be interesting to see how that gets applied and to what degree.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"if a citizen, during a social contact, keeps placing his hands into an object laden pocket after being requested not to, or engages in other activites that makes an officer feel uncomfortable, the officer should terminate the encounter and return to his patrol car". State v Harrington (2009)

Oh! This is great! Just ask the cop if he is straight or gay. If straight, just invite him home for a consensual gay sex encounter. If it makes him uncomfortable, he is bound by case law to leave you alone! :D

Any question or comment that would make him uncomfortable. "How many times have you lied to your wife?" "How often have you been written up adversely by your supervisor?"


Oh, my. The opportunities this presents.
 
Top