• 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.

Toy guns now to be considered weapons? (Lakewood WA.)

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
Lakewood is looking at taking RCW 9.41.270, changing a few words and making their own city code from the changes.......



Law to Change to Fit the Crime?

Full Story Here:
http://lakewood-jblm.patch.com/grou...?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-6-post

The City Council will consider a recommended ordinance change to the city’s weapon laws on August 5 perhaps to address what happened very late one evening this past month.
Shortly before midnight on June 18, twenty-eight year old Patrick O’Meara was shot dead at a Tillicum residence by Lakewood Police.

In a follow-up story June 24, Lt. Chris Lawler stated that the four officers at the scene believed the cap pistol O’Meara was holding at the time was a firearm.
“Officers approached the residence and knocked on the door, announcing that they were the ‘Police’. Other officers were standing at the side of the residence at a window and spotted O’Meara inside, armed with a firearm. Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara.
Now, in a letter dated July 25 to the Mayor and City Council, Matt Kaser, Acting Lakewood City Attorney, suggests the following change:
“It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any pistol, rifle, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club or any other weapon item apparently that appears to be capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
Both “weapon” and “apparently” are crossed out, while the word “item” and the phrase “that appears to be” are inserted.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
IMHO as long as the words, "pistol, rifle," remains in the description, it would still fall under preemption. Argue as you will, but there still remains the
"reasonably believed the instrument was a firearm" and that protection is there for NON LEO as well.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
IMHO as long as the words, "pistol, rifle," remains in the description, it would still fall under preemption. Argue as you will, but there still remains the
"reasonably believed the instrument was a firearm" and that protection is there for NON LEO as well.


Ahhh, I dunno, Jim.This might be splitting hairs and it might run into .290 head-on.

Check 9A.16.040 and 9A.16.050 on the use of lethal force. Reasonable man doctrine would kick in, methinks, and that doesn't require diddling with the statute or adopting a local ordinance that runs afoul of preemption.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara. .. first link

"Forced"? I don't think so ... the officers could have simply walked away ..so technically, this is not true.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Ahhh, I dunno, Jim.This might be splitting hairs and it might run into .290 head-on.

Check 9A.16.040 and 9A.16.050 on the use of lethal force. Reasonable man doctrine would kick in, methinks, and that doesn't require diddling with the statute or adopting a local ordinance that runs afoul of preemption.

Dave, What I was trying to say is that the new statute, as written, would fall under preemption. As far as the reasonable man doctrine, as stated in 9A.16.040 if the officer (or LAC) reasonably believed this to be a deadly weapon, they would be covered.
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Lakewood is looking at taking RCW 9.41.270, changing a few words and making their own city code from the changes.......



Law to Change to Fit the Crime?

Full Story Here:
http://lakewood-jblm.patch.com/grou...?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-6-post

The City Council will consider a recommended ordinance change to the city’s weapon laws on August 5 perhaps to address what happened very late one evening this past month.
Shortly before midnight on June 18, twenty-eight year old Patrick O’Meara was shot dead at a Tillicum residence by Lakewood Police.

In a follow-up story June 24, Lt. Chris Lawler stated that the four officers at the scene believed the cap pistol O’Meara was holding at the time was a firearm.
“Officers approached the residence and knocked on the door, announcing that they were the ‘Police’. Other officers were standing at the side of the residence at a window and spotted O’Meara inside, armed with a firearm. Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara.
Now, in a letter dated July 25 to the Mayor and City Council, Matt Kaser, Acting Lakewood City Attorney, suggests the following change:
“It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any pistol, rifle, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club or any other weapon item apparently that appears to be capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
Both “weapon” and “apparently” are crossed out, while the word “item” and the phrase “that appears to be” are inserted.

Looks like the city wants to CYA themselves from a wrongful death suit if some overreaction ends in the death of someone that is not truely armed.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Looks like the city wants to CYA themselves from a wrongful death suit if some overreaction ends in the death of someone that is not truely armed.

I don't think that their proposed language changes will pass judicial scrutiny. As I understand the plain language of RCW 9.41.290, their changes are void from the get-go.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Does that mean they can shoot me for using my walking stick if A cop thinks it could be used for A deadly weapon.

As long as your are within 20 feet, geek yeah they can!
The Tueller drill has proven conclusively that ANYONE within 20 feet and holding something is an imminent and deadly threat, even if facing a dozen officers with M16A1's set to full auto..... Only reasonable response to ensure the officers all go home that night is to fire ever found they have until you are a poor of blood, bone, and lead, with a little flesh left over if you are lucky.

(In case you can't tell, I kind of have a thing against how the Tueller drill is misunderstood and misapplied to cause and justify bad police shootings.)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
 

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
As long as your are within 20 feet, geek yeah they can!
The Tueller drill has proven conclusively that ANYONE within 20 feet and holding something is an imminent and deadly threat, even if facing a dozen officers with M16A1's set to full auto..... Only reasonable response to ensure the officers all go home that night is to fire ever found they have until you are a poor of blood, bone, and lead, with a little flesh left over if you are lucky.

(In case you can't tell, I kind of have a thing against how the Tueller drill is misunderstood and misapplied to cause and justify bad police shootings.)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

So I reckon unless you have your gun out in your hand, it's actually a BAD idea to bring a Gun to a knife fight? That contradicts that old saying....
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara. .. first link

"Forced"? I don't think so ... the officers could have simply walked away ..so technically, this is not true.

Yup. I love the way police are constantly "forced" to violate every moral code by enfarcing the law, except of course when it's time to challenge the thin blue line.
 
Top