"Alarm" and Terry Stop Court Ruling

[Mainsail]

imported post

They cite State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) several times in their ruling, and it sounds significant to the issue of firearms carry. Does anyone know how to access this case via the internet?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

They cite State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) several times in their ruling, and it sounds significant to the issue of firearms carry. Does anyone know how to access this case via the internet?

Edit...... link did not work right.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

The court cited another case where the suspect “walked briskly with his head down in a hostile, assaultive type manner”. This shows how subjective the law is, and rightly so. A young adult dressed in goth clothes and carrying an AR, walking in the direction of a school would certainly give me reason to feel alarmed.



So it appears that the lawmakers wanted some ambiguity with what defines ‘alarm’.

The case you mention is State v. Spencer, 1994. It's "the" test case on open carry, and he lost. But in the process,the appellate court affirmed RTC, and handed out some very prudent advice to anyone who practices open carry. My strong recommendation is for people to read that decision, or at least consult the passages in my book, pages 18-21.

Always err on the side of caution...and good manners

This new case with Casad expands RTC (and OC) parameters a bit.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Hey Dave,welcome to OCDO.Glad to have you aboard! Feel free to jump in anything that interests you. How did you hear about OCDO?

Well, I was sitting at the loading bench one night, and this strange chorus of Voices spoke to me, and....

 

[unrequited]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Well, I was sitting at the loading bench one night, and this strange chorus of Voices spoke to me, and....

Bleh... the usual, I was kinda hoping for an interesting story.


*snicker*

j/k

Welcome to the board! Deos this mean we all get free subscriptions?

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Well, I was sitting at the loading bench one night, and this strange chorus of Voices spoke to me, and....

Well, if ever there was a chorus of strange voices, it's right here!

 

[amlevin]

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Oh, if you decide to read the entire ruling, look for the creative editing by Officer Ryan on his police report.

Where can one obtain a copy of the entire ruling?

 

[amlevin]

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

Oh, if you decide to read the entire ruling, look for the creative editing by Officer Ryan on his police report.

Where can one obtain a copy of the entire ruling?

Sorry! Senior moment. Didn't notice the link..:uhoh:

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

unrequited wrote:

Welcome to the board! Deos this mean we all get free subscriptions?

Uhhh, noooo, I kind of doubt it.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote

I get the feeling you are a wannabe too, as you don't really understand the issue.

WHOAH! Friendly Fire!

Bear, you have obviously mistaken me for the enemy.

Did you read the quote in my post from BobCav before you resorted to misdirected INSULTS? I was making a point on that quote...


I'll explain since my post was not obvious enough in and of itself for you.

BobCav said that he believed that a "reasonable person" (per the court ruling) should be a "gun owner"

I then simply pointed out that not all "gun owners" are "reasonable", especially when it comes to open carry. I also posted a particularly good example to this point. A "gun owner" who proclaims to CC but that would "call the police" if he saw someone OC'ing.

Calling me an "wannabe" for bringing this point up is simply beyond assinine which is why I assume you mis-read my post.

Is everyone clear now?

ETA: Bear, next time it would be prudent to search an individuals posts before calling them names that do not apply. Searching my posts would have likely given you the hint that you mis-read something.

The only thing I will say isif your post was unclear, that is your fault not mine. Second I will not do aback groundsearch on anyone to clarify their posts. It would be prudentto poof read your posts and not tell me me to read all you posts on the forum. First, I'mnot interested and second, not my responsibility. If you were offended, sorry but your post makes you sound like a wannabe to me. You bad mouth me for calling you a wannabe and you turn around and call me "assinine" (spell check wouldn't hurt as it is spell wrong) and assume something not in evidence. Make sure your words say what you mean, it's called proof reading.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

Bear 45/70.
you claim my post makes me sound like a "wannabe"
That doesn't even make sense... wanna...be... WHAT?

My post was perfectly clear. Your lack of reading comprehention is not MY problem.
At least I was nice enough to explain it in language more easily understood specifically by Bear 45/70 :quirky
Something, I'll add, that I did not need to do. I will be sure to not hold the rest of the class back for your sake again...

As if that is not enough, you then fail to comprehend my reply as well. I did not call you "assinine" I said that calling me a "wannabe" for pointing to an example of a less than "reasonable" gun owner was assinine. Which was why I assumed (incorrectly apparently) that you MISUNDERSTOOD me. Read it again:

" Calling me an "wannabe" for bringing this point up is simply beyond assinine which is why I assume you mis-read my post." {emphasis added}

In other words I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. You've convinced me you really are assinine, at least.

As to your condescending "It's called proof reading" comment I will say my post says exactly what I wanted it to say. Just another example of your inability to comprehend what you read.

It's sad when a good post has to be polluted by this crap. Of course it could have been avoided if you had just "played nice" originally instead of going off half-cocked about somethig you couldn't even read correctly, but I digress. So with that I'll leave it for what it is. Ugly on you.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

Bear 45/70.
you claim my post makes me sound like a "wannabe"
That doesn't even make sense... wanna...be... WHAT?

My post was perfectly clear. Your lack of reading comprehention is not MY problem.
At least I was nice enough to explain it in language more easily understood specifically by Bear 45/70 :quirky
Something, I'll add, that I did not need to do. I will be sure to not hold the rest of the class back for your sake again...

As if that is not enough, you then fail to comprehend my reply as well. I did not call you "assinine" I said that calling me a "wannabe" for pointing to an example of a less than "reasonable" gun owner was assinine. Which was why I assumed (incorrectly apparently) that you MISUNDERSTOOD me. Read it again:

" Calling me an "wannabe" for bringing this point up is simply beyond assinine which is why I assume you mis-read my post." {emphasis added}

In other words I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. You've convinced me you really are assinine, at least.

As to your condescending "It's called proof reading" comment I will say my post says exactly what I wanted it to say. Just another example of your inability to comprehend what you read.

It's sad when a good post has to be polluted by this crap. Of course it could have been avoided if you had just "played nice" originally instead of going off half-cocked about somethig you couldn't even read correctly, but I digress. So with that I'll leave it for what it is. Ugly on you.

All you do is start nasty name calling rather than get it right. But you are digressing into the shadow of anasty name caller when you can't have your way. You prove my point that you are a wannabe intellectual know it all. You can't even spell check much less make you poorly written missive understandable. Talking to you is like

I'm through trying to get through to you, you are an over sensitive whiner.

 

[gregma]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Pa. Patriot wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I would say in this case, a "reasonable person" would be another gun owner....

There are more if you care to look...

If a handgun in a holster or a longgun just being carriedin the open scares them, then they qualify as sheep, not sheepdogs.

These are what I like to call "armed sheep". And there are many of them. They may be armed, but they are still nothing more than sheep. Ashamed of of the fact that they are armed so they have to "hide" the firearm. They like to spout "tactically superior", "suprise factor", "don't want to scare the sheeple", etc. I'm sure we've all met many of them.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

gregma wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Pa. Patriot wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I would say in this case, a "reasonable person" would be another gun owner....

There are more if you care to look...

If a handgun in a holster or a longgun just being carriedin the open scares them, then they qualify as sheep, not sheepdogs.

These are what I like to call "armed sheep". And there are many of them. They may be armed, but they are still nothing more than sheep. Ashamed of of the fact that they are armed so they have to "hide" the firearm. They like to spout "tactically superior", "suprise factor", "don't want to scare the sheeple", etc. I'm sure we've all met many of them.

That's exactly what I've said in many posts both here and on other forums. Concealment can allow one toslip into Condition White and after a while, that will be theirnormal mode, without them even realizing it. Not only do they lose the situational awareness edge, to the BG's they are just another grass eater.

Personally, I've never CC'ed on my person and don't care to. The only reason I even have a CHP is for when I'm in the car and the holster might be covered by the seatbelt and basically to cover my butt should I one day accidentally conceal. If it offends someone or alarms them, that's their own internal issues they need to resolve. A person'sright to self defense should always trumps another'scomfort factor.


Bear and PA, please no more insults and the back and forth. If you feel the need to continue, take it to PM. You've both smacked each other now shake hands and go have a beer together.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

gregma wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Pa. Patriot wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I would say in this case, a "reasonable person" would be another gun owner....

There are more if you care to look...

If a handgun in a holster or a longgun just being carriedin the open scares them, then they qualify as sheep, not sheepdogs.

These are what I like to call "armed sheep". And there are many of them. They may be armed, but they are still nothing more than sheep. Ashamed of of the fact that they are armed so they have to "hide" the firearm. They like to spout "tactically superior", "suprise factor", "don't want to scare the sheeple", etc. I'm sure we've all met many of them.

That's exactly what I've said in many posts both here and on other forums. Concealment can allow one toslip into Condition White and after a while, that will be theirnormal mode, without them even realizing it. Not only do they lose the situational awareness edge, to the BG's they are just another grass eater.

Personally, I've never CC'ed on my person and don't care to. The only reason I even have a CHP is for when I'm in the car and the holster might be covered by the seatbelt and basically to cover my butt should I one day accidentally conceal. If it offends someone or alarms them, that's their own internal issues they need to resolve. A person'sright to self defense should always trumps another'scomfort factor.


Bear and PA, please no more insults and the back and forth. If you feel the need to continue, take it to PM. You've both smacked each other now shake hands and go have a beer together.

I said I was through.

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

I’ll take a little of the blame for the misunderstandings. I had assumed that everyone would follow the link and read the entire ruling. I should not have broken off the quote where I did, since the passage that follows clarifies it.

Alarm is "warranted" if the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would be alarmed. While it is not unlawful for a person to merely possess a firearm in public, the statute at issue does not violate one's right to bear arms because "in the vast majority of situations, a person of common intelligence would be able to ascertain when the carrying of a particular weapon would reasonably warrant alarm in others."

As firearms continue to be vilified in the media, I’m glad to see a court recognizing a difference between ‘alarm’ and ‘shock’.

 

[deanf]

imported post

That's funny. I think I am related to that Sgt. Roggenbuck mentioned in the decision.

When was this case decided? I couldn't find that in the decision.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

According to the document I have, this thing came down on June 26.

I am doing a piece on it for GUN WEEK. Anyone care to comment for publication, now's the time.

Here are the requirements (some folks know these already):

Quick, readable quote. 25-50 words.

Name and Town
Name and Town
Name and Town

I don't quote internet "handles" (nicknames)

and you can e-mail me direct at: davew@liberty.seanet.com

 

[openryan]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

gregma wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Pa. Patriot wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I would say in this case, a "reasonable person" would be another gun owner....

There are more if you care to look...

If a handgun in a holster or a longgun just being carriedin the open scares them, then they qualify as sheep, not sheepdogs.

These are what I like to call "armed sheep". And there are many of them. They may be armed, but they are still nothing more than sheep. Ashamed of of the fact that they are armed so they have to "hide" the firearm. They like to spout "tactically superior", "suprise factor", "don't want to scare the sheeple", etc. I'm sure we've all met many of them.

That's exactly what I've said in many posts both here and on other forums. Concealment can allow one toslip into Condition White and after a while, that will be theirnormal mode, without them even realizing it. Not only do they lose the situational awareness edge, to the BG's they are just another grass eater.

Personally, I've never CC'ed on my person and don't care to. The only reason I even have a CHP is for when I'm in the car and the holster might be covered by the seatbelt and basically to cover my butt should I one day accidentally conceal. If it offends someone or alarms them, that's their own internal issues they need to resolve. A person'sright to self defense should always trumps another'scomfort factor.


Bear and PA, please no more insults and the back and forth. If you feel the need to continue, take it to PM. You've both smacked each other now shake hands and go have a beer together.

Bob,

I agree with you somewhat, but must say -- there have been many people who have cc'ed for decades and have thwarted a crime with a single well placed shot or two.

I do however agree that oc'ing makes me much more aware of my surroundings, and activities in my immediate surroundings.

 

[Mortech]

imported post

Hmm , I wonder if this will having any bearing on that one Tacoma police officers behavior ?