• 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.

Email from Lt. Wilson

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:
Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.
Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
People whoopenly carry weapons are not immune to human frailties of arguments, disputes, victimization, etc., etc. I am only stating this because I worry about you inadvertently placing yourself in danger of being shot.

He's walking a very thin line there; he's essentially insinuating that OC'ing will cause someone to place themselves in danger of being shot.

I agree. He actually admitted (threatened?)'open carry and you might get killed by the police.'

What a pair of brass ones.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Dave_pro2a wrote:
Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.
Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Search SCOTUS / lexis yourself. I will not google for you.

I will not 'prove' that police do not have the duty to protect indivual citizens, and I will not 'prove' that cops are allowed to lie during interregation.

Both are true, do your own leg work.
 

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:
Johnny Law wrote:
Dave_pro2a wrote:
Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.
Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Search SCOTUS / lexis yourself. I will not google for you.

I will not 'prove' that police do not have the duty to protect indivual citizens, and I will not 'prove' that cops are allowed to lie during interregation.

Both are true, do your own leg work.
That's what I thought, Thanks for your opinion.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
...As you know we check out this type of complaint quickly since it involvespotentially adeadly weapon and thelikelihood that the individual carrying the weapon may want to do harm to others.(my emphasis)
I call BS
...I also urge you to avoid staging any "test" or "scenario" that might further your nationwide efforts to engage the police on the Open Carry issue. Having read your website and many others I believe that is one of your missions to "educate" the police about Open Carry. In my opinion that is unnecessary...
So now he is accusing you ofleading or being a part of an organized national movement, eh? Isn't there something in WA law he may be trying to pin on you?
Bottom line - as has been noted by the OP and others- he is trying to deflect things from turning into an internal investigation, and on top of it stacking the "documentation" in his department's favoras best as he can in the meanwhile.

Sounds like a lawyer on retainer is a good idea.
 

Get A Life

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

The Troll is back. I didn't mean to vent and bail,I was having a lengthy PM chat with another member. OK.. I support and applaud your intent. You are clearly within you legal right to OC, and I did not mean to imply that you were not within your right. However, alot of times, especially with all of the crazy people in the world shooting up schools & Malls, carrying a gun in plain view is kinda like shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theatre. Also in Washington it is easier to get a CCW than it is a building permit, so why all the fuss about OC.

Also this is a political issue that goes way beyond the local beat cop. Why put him in the middle of it? To my knowledge the city of "O" does not have an ordianance dealing directlywith "OC", but as to the intent of the subjet while he is OC, IE: is his goal to intimidate some one, or is he just armed while going to get bread.

Every election "gun control" becomes a political chess pawn. If we act inappropriately (even if it is legal) we just create more negative press. This is an issue that should be taken up at the ballot box, not the local rib joint. We shouldhold ourselves to a higher standard and act accordingly, as well as, changing peoples minds and perceptions through education.

G.A.L. AKA the Troll
 

Wheelgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Kingston, Washington, USA
imported post

(Translation in black)



Mr. Coffman,

Thank you for coming in yesterday to "vent" about your contact with our officers. (Blow it out your ass)I would like to set a few things straight and to assure you that you are not being singled out nor are we somehow going to damage your property or give you a valid reason for a law suit. (Any of you nutcases show up in Oly with a gun will get the same treatment, lawsuit or not) Our officers are aware and have been trained recently about the Open Carry issue and your Constitutional right to bear arms. (We have heard about your agitation and we think it is stupid.)

Our community, including our police force, is not and probably never will be at ease with people walking around with a gun or any other instrument capable of inflicting deadly force.(Open carry of guns are for us, not for creeps like you. It gives us the willies thinking about people like you with guns) You are right in your opinion that mere calling 911 to report a person openly carrying a weapon does not, in and of itself, meet the legal thresholds for violations of RCWs 9.41.270 or 9.41.300. This has been ruled upon by our State Supreme Court and other courts around the country. (We don't have the law on our side yet, but we think we canget you weirdo's into backing off with a little pressure.)

State law is clear about where a person's right to possess or have control over a weapon is prohibited. (You got your gun "right to carry concealed" taken away from us years ago, but we are working on it. It is also clear about a jurisdiction's right to limit access to public facilities: (We know that our sign sealing the police station is illegal, but we are not going to take it down, never, never, never!
You know of course that our officers have to investigate all circumstances, each and every time, to determine if a violation of any oftheseRCWs has occurred. (We will harass you guysevery time, over and over, till you go away.)

We received two calls yesterday about a man carrying an automatic pistol on his hip. The complaints were not specific as to what you were doing other than you were in the process of walking downtown. As you know we check out this type of complaint quickly since it involvespotentially adeadly weapon and thelikelihood that the individual carrying the weapon may want to do harm to others.(We saw you out the window of the cruiser and decided to do an illegal stop for no good reason.)

As I explained beforeofficers have a right to protect themselves and that is their first priority as they approach any situation. (We may draw on you to freak you out.) Our mission is to protect life, property and individual rights. (Except the Rights you are trying to express, we hate that.) I'm sure you can agree with me that our mission is in line with what a reasonable person would expect from their police force. (The liberals in Olympia are working to get rid of all guns; you make us look bad if they see creeps like you walking around with guns. They will yell at us and they are the ones we must obey.) Our officers cannot protect others without first arriving safely at the incident scene, evaluating the circumstances with the minimal facts known to them at the time, and making sure any weapons that you may have on you are rendered safe at least for the brief time the officers are in your presence. (We are going to roll up on you, scream at you to obey, search youand your weapons and get a charge out of watching your eyes get bigand your face sweat.)

Our officers will conduct themselves professionally and treat you with respect. (We have no legal standing to throw your ass in jail, yet.) Our officers should not engage you in a philosophical debate about the merits of Open Carry or your rights as a citizen to own or carry arms.(If you want to get awaywithout being thrown down on, don't argue with us about what islegal, we know we are in the wrong, so screw you.)Officers should not coerce you into carrying your weapon concealed or trying to get you to change your behavior so long as it is legal behavior.(We hope the pressure and fear we inflict will be enough for this whole thing to die away.) You will likely get our officers discussing your behavior which may have lead to people calling 911. (We will make up calls if we have to.)We expect them to do this. (We are going to jump on your web blog too.)

I understand that you may have engaged in a discussion about the legalities of Open Carry. (Again, I don't care what the law says.)I strongly urge you not to do this. (We will get physical with you if you try to use your Constitutional rights either to debate us, point out our thug tactics, or otherwise bother us.) My reasoning is simple; when you or the officers engage in a debate people on either side of the issue tend not to listen and therefore the debate is not productive nor satisfying to either party. (We don't want to hear it.) I also urge you to avoid staging any "test" or "scenario" that might further your nationwide efforts to engage the police on the Open Carry issue. ( You bring your open carry buddies down to Olympia and start walking around, we will open a can of whoop-ass on you and them, since you all probably don't have a dime or an educational degree in the whole lot of you.) Having read your website and many others I believe that is one of your missions to "educate" the police about Open Carry. In my opinion that is unnecessary. We are watching you and taking names. It only takes one mistake or threatening language for us to cry "terrorism and shut down the whole lot of you. We are Watching.

Mr. Coffman, I want to urge you and others who carry weapons openly to be very careful in the way you conduct your personal actions especially while you interact with others. (Look, there is a chance I could get a letter of reprimand in my file if this keeps going and I am not going to let a bunch of gun nuts spoil my retirement, so stop before I have to pull out all the stops.) People whoopenly carry weapons are not immune to human frailties of arguments, disputes, victimization, etc., etc. (Maybe you can be provoked into something stupid. We will shoot you if we get the chance.) I am only stating this because I worry about you inadvertently placing yourself in danger of being shot. (That would back you bastards off, eh?)Please, if you notice the police in your proximity, especially if you see them approaching you, stop and keep yourhands in plain sight. Obey every command they maygive you.(Please make it easy for us to get you disarmed and pliant.)

We realize that people such as yourself haveintervened to prevent people from being seriously wounded or killed at the hands of suicidal or homicidal people. (We know that guns are not inherently dangerous, we just don't like you having them.) This week's Colorado church shooting is a great example of it. Thank you for not entering the police lobby the other day which might have subjected our staff to unnecessary alarm. (We would have shot you and stated to the news media that you were a man trying to get into the Police station with a gun.) I'll let you know if it would be appropriate at a future time to have you meet with our officers. I'm not sure it would be productive or desired from our officers' point of view. (We are hard core cowards who are afraid of people who assert their rights in a free society. Wewant to stay as far away from you as possible.)

If you have questions or just want to talk please give me a call. Stay out of Olympia if you know what's good for you.)


Best regards, (Drop dead, Wacko)

Bill Wilson, Lt.
O.P.D.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Excellent post Mainsail. I think I'll print that out and start carrying it with me to hand to LEO's if they start walking that line of illegality in regards to coercion.
Likewise - that's going into the firearms laws pamphlet tonight!
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Get A Life wrote:
Also in Washington it is easier to get a CCW than it is a building permit, so why all the fuss about OC.
Principle. The desire to freely exercise a natural and legal right without being subject to harassment. As an analogy, "there's a perfectly good colored cafe over there, why are you making such a fuss about eating here?"

We shouldhold ourselves to a higher standard and act accordingly, as well as, changing peoples minds and perceptions through education.
Agreed; unfortunately, some people are immune to education, either through stupidity or through having preconceived notions that they are unwilling to discard. What do you do then?
 

Get A Life

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

I do not disagree with you. Good men die every day over principal. Also, being new to this site I did not realze the passion of those dedicated to OC. I have always carried CCW and never contemplated otherwise.

Troll
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
[size="-1"][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
[/font][/size]


[align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="-1"][/size][/font][/align]
Unfortunately, without these stops being recorded, there is no way to even attempt to get this to court. We have proven that the cops will lie in our last dealings with them and the Southcenter Mall.
However, once we get them on tape, then we are good to go. If *anyone* needs a recorder, just let me know, I'm sure we can come up with something as this is getting to be VITAL to protect ourselves from these criminals.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:
Careful Gregma, you might set the RKBA movement back by alienating cops.

I mean they are such strong supporters of OUR Constitutional rights already, having helped us so much in the past with RKBA issues.

We would not want them to start ACTIVELY working against us on the political front.
You are sooo right! LOL
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

Not a good pic, but always with me when I OC.

2-1/4" x 5" x3/4"

Just be cautious what is recorded on that tape... If and when it would go into court, the rules of evidence would include EVERYTHING recorded on the tape. Could be embarrassing if your wife / girl friend / significant other, left you a secret message.

Jim
 

Attachments

  • recorder 003.jpg
    recorder 003.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 287

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
I am not however using the threat of physical harm or force against them, so it is not coercion.

"Definitions of Threat in Washington Coercion Statute as noted in RCW 9A.04.110"

(27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:

(a) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

(c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

(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 health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;



How many times do you think the above "threats" are either voiced or implied to someone like the OP who keeps getting stopped for legal open carry.

Isn't it a "threat" under this definition to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent to restrain someone legally carrying a firearm, especially when the officers are not only aware of it's legality but also have fore knowlege of the individual they are contacting?

Isn't it also a threat under this statutory definition to imply that the party will be arrested (again knowing that his activity is legal, it just doesn't meet with the officer's approval) and he can then sort it out in court at his own expense {see (j.) above}?

I'd be interested in your reply.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Get A Life wrote:
Also in Washington it is easier to get a CCW than it is a building permit, so why all the fuss about OC.


Keep in mind your privilege to CC is subject to the whim of the majority. The Right to openly carry is what keeps your privilege secure. A Right unexercisedIS a Right lost. A Right the police can intimidate you from exercising similarly does not exist. Your basic human Right to self defense is directly connected to open carry.

Ohio got CC through OC. California can't getshall issue CC legislatively and OC has been made difficult through legislation. We here are essentially disarmed unless you are a special class of person with exemptions to state law.


photo by Oleg Volk:
 

Attachments

  • bodyguard3374.jpg
    bodyguard3374.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 275

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Mainsail, unfortunately there is immunity for LEO in this RCW and I think they know there is.

3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:


(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

He was trying to intimidate; not to make an arrest for an offense, but in an effort to coerce SV. That is not ‘in the performance of his duties’. His immunity stopped where his authority did, when he saw no law being violated and illegally detained SV.

I think the important phrases to remember are, “Are you detaining me and, if so, for suspicion of what crime?” and “Am I free to leave?” As the Lt says, there is no need to debate or argue.
It's the wording of it Mainsail. "Any person vested by law with a duty to....". I see what you are saying but it does not say any person vested by law with a duty and making an arrest. It is a pretty open statement if you ask me and one that I do not like much but it is there.
Unfortunately I think most reasonable people, keep in mind all people, would not be alarmed for thier safety at the site of a LEO holding a person at gunpoint. That is one of the biggest problems.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
The law however does not agree with you, and consequentlyputs Policeon a higherpedestal than a citizen. This standard applies not only while on duty, but while off as well. It allows fora great many morefreedoms that may be exercised because of the position.

A reasonable person has norighte to think that an Officer is an unknown quantity. There is agovernmentdemand that any Officer isbelieved to uphold the law and actin a rational manner,due to the position theyhold. If there is a question as to the Officer's credibility, a complaint is typically filed, and the matter is investigated.......til people move on to the next crisis.
FTFY
 
Top