Bellingham OC Training Bulletin

Bill Starks · Feb 6, 2012

Bellingham PDF Available here: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=82

All training bulletins here: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;cat=1

Vitaeus · Feb 6, 2012

direct link not working for me in Chrome

So they are going to dispatch an officer AND a supervisor to an "open carry incident" sounds like a wonderful use of the Bellingham tax payers money as well as possibly taking possession of the firearm for officer's safety. Yep, that is a load of bollox.

Bill Starks · Feb 6, 2012

Vitaeus said:
direct link not working for me in Chrome

this works for me in chrome: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;cat=1

geojohn · Feb 6, 2012

I've never knew there was such a thing as "...the public’s right to feel safe." Did they just make that up?

BigDave · Feb 6, 2012

They did leave out;

RCW 9.94.043 Deadly weapons -- Possession on premises by person not a prisoner -- Penalty.
RCW 9.94.049 "Correctional institution" and "state correctional institution" defined.
RCW 70.108.150 Firearms — Penalty.
RCW 70.108.020 Definitions

sudden valley gunner · Feb 7, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
The Bellingham Training Bulletin is a complete load of manure.

I concur especially since my agreement says it is to be modeled after other training bulletins.
And they call it a memorandum and not a training bulletin.

MSG Laigaie · Feb 8, 2012

also posted in BPD draw down on OCer

SVGs settlement with the BPD required them to
"The City of Bellingham police department will develop and issue a training bulletin substantially similar to those issued by various other agencies around the state on the topic of open carry of a firearm in Washington State. Such training bulletin will comport with constitutional law, state law, police safety, and police best practices, and will be issued within three (3) weeks of this agreement being fully signed."

I requested a copy of said document from the Chief of police and received this. It was published on 30 NOV 10, even tho it is not marked as such. It was approved by the city atty and dep chief david dole, even tho it is not marked as such. As of 10 Jan 12, no training has been conducted in reference to this "training bulletin". Bellingham police department policy(and I quote from CoP T Ramsey) "Does not require officers to read the training bulletins."

Who was and what were the circumstances in the BPD OC encounter the year before SVGs encounter (which was a year before MY encounter, sounds like a pattern)

sudden valley gunner · Feb 8, 2012

MSG Laigaie said:
SVGs settlement with the BPD required them to
"The City of Bellingham police department will develop and issue a training bulletin substantially similar to those issued by various other agencies around the state on the topic of open carry of a firearm in Washington State. Such training bulletin will comport with constitutional law, state law, police safety, and police best practices, and will be issued within three (3) weeks of this agreement being fully signed."

I requested a copy of said document from the Chief of police and received this. It was published on 30 NOV 10, even tho it is not marked as such. It was approved by the city atty and dep chief david dole, even tho it is not marked as such. As of 10 Jan 12, no training has been conducted in reference to this "training bulletin". Bellingham police department policy(and I quote from CoP T Ramsey) "Does not require officers to read the training bulletins."

Who was and what were the circumstances in the BPD OC encounter the year before SVGs encounter (which was a year before MY encounter, sounds like a pattern)

My encounter was two years prior, they settled over a year after.

I have tried to contact the other guy, Gray Peterson had helped him and Uncoolperson some posts on it.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,16470.0.html

We should try to find those videos John it proves they had no excuse in my incident or yours.

John Hardin · Feb 9, 2012

MSG Laigaie said:
SVGs settlement with the BPD required them to
"The City of Bellingham police department will develop and issue a training bulletin substantially similar to those issued by various other agencies around the state on the topic of open carry of a firearm in Washington State. Such training bulletin will comport with constitutional law, state law, police safety, and police best practices, and will be issued within three (3) weeks of this agreement being fully signed."

As of 10 Jan 12, no training has been conducted in reference to this "training bulletin".

Well, the agreement didn't specify that the training bulletin should actually be used to train officers... The settlement agreement wording was almost paranoid enough.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 10, 2012

John Hardin said:
Well, the agreement didn't specify that the training bulletin should actually be used to train officers... The settlement agreement wording was almost paranoid enough.

Yep but I was under the impression they were mandatory. Who wouldn't think training bulletins are mandatory. So are you saying it should be more "paranoid". Not quite sure what you mean by this?

Believe me they know it was legal and this officer knew it was legal.

amlevin · Feb 10, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Yep but I was under the impression they were mandatory. Who wouldn't think training bulletins are mandatory.

Isn't "training" the major issue that get's most PD's "tallywhacker in the wringer" when things go wrong?

Every time they shoot someone, the first thing that the Civil Attorneys point out is improper training. Hell, even the Police Unions point out improper training when they try and defend their officer's jobs when charged with with killing a citizen.

A Training Bulletin that isn't used for Training is an expensive piece of scratch paper. If soft enough they could use it in the restrooms at the Station and in those cases the user might actually read it before he applies it to his backside.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 10, 2012

amlevin said:
Isn't "training" the major issue that get's most PD's "tallywhacker in the wringer" when things go wrong?

Every time they shoot someone, the first thing that the Civil Attorneys point out is improper training. Hell, even the Police Unions point out improper training when they try and defend their officer's jobs when charged with with killing a citizen.

A Training Bulletin that isn't used for Training is an expensive piece of scratch paper. If soft enough they could use it in the restrooms at the Station and in those cases the user might actually read it before he applies it to his backside.

Yea I agree.

I would like to add though it really doesn't matter whether or not they require officers to read it. The fact that they had to settle and there is no excuse for ignorance because the department made an agreement with me. They were notified, if anything it shows a higher negligence on their part, and they shoulder greater burden for continued actions like this. And it wasn't just me, the city attorney had warned the whole city a year before my incident they cannot harass open carriers. If we can find those videos that are missing in the link I provided it would prove that.

hermannr · Feb 11, 2012

They start out like they are only talking about someone carrying in their hand rather than carrying in a holster,,,but then they don't make any exceptions to a rifle or shotgun, which normally cannot not be carried in a holster, and they do not seem to differentiate later with holsterd handguns either,

Poorly written...they mush have talked to those guys down in Clark county eh?

Sounds like they are ripe for another plucking don't you think?

sudden valley gunner · Feb 11, 2012

hermannr said:
They start out like they are only talking about someone carrying in their hand rather than carrying in a holster,,,but then they don't make any exceptions to a rifle or shotgun, which normally cannot not be carried in a holster, and they do not seem to differentiate later with holsterd handguns either,

Poorly written...they mush have talked to those guys down in Clark county eh?

Sounds like they are ripe for another plucking don't you think?

Funny you mention that if we can get those videos one of the council men mentions something about 'what about a man carrying a shotgun squirrel hunting in Elizabeth park.'

The attorney clearly articulated the law to them, when I ran into this same council men at the courthouse and told him about my illegal detention, he told me he wasn't aware it was legal to Open Carry.

Yep they are ripe for another plucking they have set themselves up to be royally plucked.

John Hardin · Feb 12, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
So are you saying it should be more "paranoid". Not quite sure what you mean by this?

The legal settlement agreement was, in essence, forcing somebody (in this case the Bellingham PD) to do something they don't want to do (i.e. treat lawful open carry as not being a criminal behavior).

When you are trying to force someone via a legal agreement to do something they don't want to do, "paranoia" is figuring out all the ways they can wiggle out of actually doing what you're trying to force them to do and covering those possibilities in the agreement. Think of a business contract with someone you don't really trust that much, or making a deal with a ten-year-old.

The assumption that they would actually use the training bulletin you've just forced them to produce to train their officers, while reasonable on its face (why wouldn't they use a training bulletin in training?), was a loophole in the agreement. And apparently it is a loophole they are exploiting to continue with their current practices, obeying the letter of the settlement agreement while thwarting its intent.

I also would have put in a clause that the complainant's lawyer must review and approve the training bulletin before it is adopted and used in training. The poor quality of the training bulletin could have been predicted.

If they need spanking, spank them again.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 12, 2012

John Hardin said:
The legal settlement agreement was, in essence, forcing somebody (in this case the Bellingham PD) to do something they don't want to do (i.e. treat lawful open carry as not being a criminal behavior).

When you are trying to force someone via a legal agreement to do something they don't want to do, "paranoia" is figuring out all the ways they can wiggle out of actually doing what you're trying to force them to do and covering those possibilities in the agreement. Think of a business contract with someone you don't really trust that much, or making a deal with a ten-year-old.

The assumption that they would actually use the training bulletin you've just forced them to produce to train their officers, while reasonable on its face (why wouldn't they use a training bulletin in training?), was a loophole in the agreement. And apparently it is a loophole they are exploiting to continue with their current practices, obeying the letter of the settlement agreement while thwarting its intent.

I also would have put in a clause that the complainant's lawyer must review and approve the training bulletin before it is adopted and used in training. The poor quality of the training bulletin could have been predicted.

If they need spanking, spank them again.

Gotcha thank you for your clarification. I agree.

PALO · Feb 12, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Gotcha thank you for your clarification. I agree.

training bulletins about open carry are rather easy to write. the case law is about as crystal clear as can be

it does not matter HOW MANY PEOPLE call 911 to complain about the scary man walking down the street with a holstered handgun

same activity is 100% legally protected behavior and in itself is NOT any indicia whatsoever of unlawful behavior. that some people are alarmed is indisputable. that that alarm is not REASONABLE is also indisputable.

again, LOTS of agencies make this crystal clear in their training bulletins. this isn't conjecture. i know this from READING them

heck, i know officers who open carry themselves.

this reminds me of the pushback we STILL see since the passage of citizen initiative outlawing racial preferences. many cities still do everything they can (and can't) to circumvent the law, because they don't agree with it

seattle, in regards to carry (not just open carry) actually had their mayor pass (an illegal) "executive order" outlawing guns in city parks. that was promptly spanked down, and they wasted taxpayer money trying to defend it, not to mention printing signs, etc.

i will make it a point to open carry if i ever go to bellingham.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 13, 2012

PALO said:
training bulletins about open carry are rather easy to write. the case law is about as crystal clear as can be

it does not matter HOW MANY PEOPLE call 911 to complain about the scary man walking down the street with a holstered handgun

same activity is 100% legally protected behavior and in itself is NOT any indicia whatsoever of unlawful behavior. that some people are alarmed is indisputable. that that alarm is not REASONABLE is also indisputable.

again, LOTS of agencies make this crystal clear in their training bulletins. this isn't conjecture. i know this from READING them

heck, i know officers who open carry themselves.

this reminds me of the pushback we STILL see since the passage of citizen initiative outlawing racial preferences. many cities still do everything they can (and can't) to circumvent the law, because they don't agree with it

seattle, in regards to carry (not just open carry) actually had their mayor pass (an illegal) "executive order" outlawing guns in city parks. that was promptly spanked down, and they wasted taxpayer money trying to defend it, not to mention printing signs, etc.

i will make it a point to open carry if i ever go to bellingham.

I Open Carry everywhere I go in Bellingham, B'ham had to settle a potential lawsuit with me they are well aware it's legal. They don't like it and decided to harass someone else.

We on this site follow those cases very closely. Many of those training bulletins are the result of members of this forum.

Give me a holler if you are up this way, I'll meet you for coffee or lunch. I usually can find the time.

PALO · Feb 14, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
I Open Carry everywhere I go in Bellingham, B'ham had to settle a potential lawsuit with me they are well aware it's legal. They don't like it and decided to harass someone else.

We on this site follow those cases very closely. Many of those training bulletins are the result of members of this forum.

Give me a holler if you are up this way, I'll meet you for coffee or lunch. I usually can find the time.

y'know, i've never actually been to bellingham, but i will take you up on the offer. from what i understand it sounds like a "hippie haven".

i've always wondered waht would happen btw, if people OC'd on the campus of Evergreen State College, another hippie haven. that place is such a liberal stronghold i strongly suspect people would call 911 and try to make a huge deal over it.

this is the place that had mumia abu jamal (obviously not in person) speak at a graduation for pete's sake.

again, if i ever get bellingham way, ... you can buy me lunch!!

PALO · Feb 14, 2012

amlevin said:
Isn't "training" the major issue that get's most PD's "tallywhacker in the wringer" when things go wrong?

Every time they shoot someone, the first thing that the Civil Attorneys point out is improper training. Hell, even the Police Unions point out improper training when they try and defend their officer's jobs when charged with with killing a citizen.

A Training Bulletin that isn't used for Training is an expensive piece of scratch paper. If soft enough they could use it in the restrooms at the Station and in those cases the user might actually read it before he applies it to his backside.

training is a good issue. GOOD training greatly decreases liability, and frankly - makes for better officers.

however, one of the things that many agencies are cutting substantially in this economic environment is training.

Bellingham OC Training Bulletin

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member