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.