• 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.

CSGV urging SWATing campaign against Open Carriers

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
Saw this on Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/0...permit-holders-putting-lives-at/?intcmp=hpbt4

I knew that some small, informal groups and morons like the "see open carry? call 911"-idiot on facebook had been doing this, but this is a large, well-funded organization. I equate this to an organized terror campaign, and possibly massive attempted murder.

We need to start ramping up info requests on all MWAG calls and show these people that actions have consequences and see if we can get anyone prosecuted for filing false police reports. Do jurisdictions in WA state censor out the name of the caller on the 911 recordings?
 
Last edited:

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
I hope no one is stupid enough to SWAT OC'er(s) (heh, fat chance), but if they're going to do it, I hope they do it in volume. An occasional report of OC the police can handle with a large presence "out of an abundance of caution"... but if calls happen with any frequency that disrupts normal operations, they will have to stop responding without additional detail from the callers or taking action against false reports.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,281
Location
Montana
Caller names and numbers should be available to the FOIA requestor as long as the caller was not anonymously leaving the report. IE, if they leave name and number on 911 recording or not.

One of my FOIA in Washington, the FOIA Officer asked if they could redact or if I cared about phone numbers. In that incident I did not care they redacted the final 4 digits. I guess one of the callers gave a stink about someone getting her information which is why she asked. The FOIA Officer calls the callers to inform them the calls are being released, not sure if that was normal practice or not.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Caller names and numbers should be available to the FOIA requestor as long as the caller was not anonymously leaving the report. IE, if they leave name and number on 911 recording or not.

One of my FOIA in Washington, the FOIA Officer asked if they could redact or if I cared about phone numbers. In that incident I did not care they redacted the final 4 digits. I guess one of the callers gave a stink about someone getting her information which is why she asked. The FOIA Officer calls the callers to inform them the calls are being released, not sure if that was normal practice or not.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Different states have different viewpoints regarding telephone numbers being part of a "privacy" concern that does not need the phone number's owner to plead a privacy issue.

Myself? I would not want anything redacted that is properly disclosable under the FOIA law that governs the disclosure.

If one wants to claim a privacy issue and the law does not automatically call it exempted information then its up to that person to prove that it actually would fall within a privacy common law exemption ... just saying its private is not enough; one would have to detail the steps that they took to keep the information private (unlisted number etc.).

For example, in my state, if the phone number is an unlisted number then the courts have generally recognized this as enough w/o the need for the phone number owner to plead a privacy exemption. But if its a listed number then the number is disclosable and no privacy exemption claim would succeed.

Nor do I further redact information as records obtained via a FOIA request are already public records that are available to the public.

Not my issue what happens upon my dissemination of a public record to other members of the public.

So I would have replied to the FOIA officer "Under what exemption, exception, or common law claim would the phone number not be acceptable to be provided under the law?" If he says none, then he has his answer. I'm sure that the previous person who complained had the opportunity to ask for a change to the law and maybe did and the legislature decided against it.

So unless there is something for me in agreeing to anything regarding a FOIA request then I do not agree to anything that would lower my knowledge regarding records being sought.

You never know what the records that they will provide contain ... I have learned many things that were not the focus of requests just from records produced.
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,281
Location
Montana
Different states have different viewpoints regarding telephone numbers being part of a "privacy" concern that does not need the phone number's owner to plead a privacy issue.

Myself? I would not want anything redacted that is properly disclosable under the FOIA law that governs the disclosure.

If one wants to claim a privacy issue and the law does not automatically call it exempted information then its up to that person to prove that it actually would fall within a privacy common law exemption ... just saying its private is not enough; one would have to detail the steps that they took to keep the information private (unlisted number etc.).

For example, in my state, if the phone number is an unlisted number then the courts have generally recognized this as enough w/o the need for the phone number owner to plead a privacy exemption. But if its a listed number then the number is disclosable and no privacy exemption claim would succeed.

Nor do I further redact information as records obtained via a FOIA request are already public records that are available to the public.

Not my issue what happens upon my dissemination of a public record to other members of the public.

So I would have replied to the FOIA officer "Under what exemption, exception, or common law claim would the phone number not be acceptable to be provided under the law?" If he says none, then he has his answer. I'm sure that the previous person who complained had the opportunity to ask for a change to the law and maybe did and the legislature decided against it.

So unless there is something for me in agreeing to anything regarding a FOIA request then I do not agree to anything that would lower my knowledge regarding records being sought.
All I wanted to convey was that in WA phone numbers and names are available.

Regarding my single specific scenario I could care less the phone number and since one of the callers asked the officer if it could be redacted that's why they asked. The FOIA Officer did inform me it was completely my option as it was a public record and no exception applied. For a SWATing call I would surely ask for the full report, name and numbers.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Thanks for the information Slap ... excellent information to know. I did a FOIA request with Seattle PD a few months ago and I got records with no phone #s redacted and they did not ask if I was willing to accept them w/redaction.

Interesting that the FOIA officer even asked given the information provided in your last post. I would assume that this inquiry of the FOIA officer did result in a delay, however slight, in providing you with the records requested. In this, and without a legal basis for withholding the phone number(s), the FOIA officer unlawfully delayed access to the records sought.

I don't know the time frame .. if you asked and then he contacted you back and a little back and forth occurred (which is what I assume in the above paragraph) as is normally encountered with a FOIA request.

I could imagine the (or a) FOIA ofr getting a request, noticing a phone number on the record, calling the requester and then delaying transmitting the record due to a non-response or delayed response to his contact asking for a redaction that the law simply does not support. We cannot have public officials making up FOIA law or trying to modify it IMO.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
581
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
I fully expect to see this happen in Seattle. A calm, rational approach with the responding law enforcement officers will serve best and aid in the prosecution of the caller(s) for false reporting/harassment. Get an incident number from the responding LEO and make your FOIA request immediately - - 911 calls are not preserved forever.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,228
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
~ Fire Back ....

The trick is to use extreme legal ramifications against these people that abuse 911 against lawful activities, sue the crap out of them, for as much as you can get out of them, and make it as public as possible, news media etc. If they belong to a group that advocated, assisted or had any influence upon them to do it, then sue them both –separately. If they own property, sue them for it, if they have bank accounts, sue them for it… Make it sting, hard, so the next guy will think twice about subversive, manipulative and abusive use of 911 against an innocent Open Carrier.
- At very least use small claims and sue for damages… They attempted to cause harm upon you, defend yourself with equal efforts.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
The trick is to use extreme legal ramifications against these people that abuse 911 against lawful activities, sue the crap out of them, for as much as you can get out of them, and make it as public as possible, news media etc. If they belong to a group that advocated, assisted or had any influence upon them to do it, then sue them both –separately. If they own property, sue them for it, if they have bank accounts, sue them for it… Make it sting, hard, so the next guy will think twice about subversive, manipulative and abusive use of 911 against an innocent Open Carrier.
- At very least use small claims and sue for damages… They attempted to cause harm upon you, defend yourself with equal efforts.
Small claims is generally not a venue for torts .. check local and state rules and laws concerning small claims. And you want them to feel pain ... make them spend 40K on a lawyer while you go pro se and you'll be in a $500 v. $40,000 loss scenario .. how many 40K cases do they want?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I hope no one is stupid enough to SWAT OC'er(s) (heh, fat chance), but if they're going to do it, I hope they do it in volume. An occasional report of OC the police can handle with a large presence "out of an abundance of caution"... but if calls happen with any frequency that disrupts normal operations, they will have to stop responding without additional detail from the callers or taking action against false reports.
+1

These guys may be doing us a huge favor without even realizing it. The first few folks who are victimized will suffer; hopefully not more than mild inconvenience. But some number of OCers suffer that already from good-faith (misguided and ignorant, but good-faith) MWAG calls. If enough gun grabbers do this to make it a real problem for the cops, then eventually, every MWAG--whether good-faith or malicious in nature--will have to be screened for risks beyond just having a holstered gun. And that is good news for lawful OCers as well as (casual or careless) CCers whose gun may be noticed.

Not to mention the benefits of increased, widespread publicity to lawful carry just from the news article the OP linked and the potential follow-on reports. Those may prevent any number of mistaken but good-faith calls as well.

Charles
 
Last edited:

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,228
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
§ 256.35 Statewide emergency services number
§ 256.35(10) Penalties.
(a) Any person who intentionally dials the telephone number "911" to report an emergency, knowing that the fact situation which he or she reports does not exist, shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $600 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both for the first offense and is guilty of a Class H felony for any other offense committed within 4 years after the first offense.
100% This! – File a report, follow up on the report, let the media know about the report,
and demand, as a tax paying citizen, that the charges be processed and brought forward.
Go to the court proceeding and bear witness, and file the papers requesting compensation
for damages. Express your desire to use the case as an example, so that other
will not be subjected to the same abuses created by the offender…. They are
criminals, committing intentional criminal acts that could cause injury or
death to innocent citizens, justice should be served.

Ya, it's something I feel strongly about... hasn't happened to me, but it's something that needs to be stomped out or they will feel empowered, even obligated to conduct this sort of potentially violent criminal activity.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
Calling 911 cuts both ways. In Tarrant County, apparently after enough lies had been phoned in to 911 the gun rights activists had enough of it and started retaliating by posting 911 caller's personal info online. You can see how these rabid hoplohpobes interpreted that, despite zero credible arrests for any supposed threats made. Shades of Sherry Appleton anyone? http://aattp.org/open-carry-texas-t...hreatens-to-release-their-private-info-video/

Now, I don't condone "doxxing" or trying to stir up organized hate campaigns, I view something like that as promoting transparency and helping to hold people accountable. If you are willing to call up the police, use up public taxpayer resources and make a report which could get someone arrested, hurt or killed then you should be prepared to have your name publicly known.

There are many legitimate purposes for posting this info:

-It helps establish a list of people known to do it that others can search for and compare to see if there are a small few number of trouble-makers trying to abuse the system.
-It helps establish a paper trail in case things go bad and the police don't retain the call and info.
-It encourages outreach and civic discourse among social media. Maybe an acquaintance of the person would see it and reach out to them.
-It serves as an extra disincentive for anyone who considers embellishing or exaggerating so they only use 911 for when actual crimes are being committed.
-If we compile a list for all of WA we can share that info with each law enforcement jurisdiction to help them match up troublemakers from different jurisdictions that they might not be aware of who are trying to game the system from city to city, or from county to county.
etc
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
One does not need a legitimate purpose for posting public records to the public.

I provide informational material that include public records to the public. Gov't officials have tried to get me to stop, claiming that they would sue me, have me arrested, etc. But I know the law and their attempts to quell my 1st amendment rights just fuels them even more.

With elected officials, the bar is so high regarding what information you can provide and even with conclusions and accusations against them that one really has to go over the top for any actionable thing to be possible. They stepped into the public arena so when they complain I just suggest that they quit because I'm not going to quit.
 

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
The trick is to use extreme legal ramifications against these people that abuse 911 against lawful activities, sue the crap out of them


§ 256.35 Statewide emergency services number
§ 256.35(10) Penalties.
(a) Any person who intentionally dials the telephone number "911" to report an emergency, knowing that the fact situation which he or she reports does not exist, shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $600 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both for the first offense and is guilty of a Class H felony for any other offense committed within 4 years after the first offense.
Did you guys even read the article... while the headline related it to "swating" (attention grabbing headline)... the organizations aren't recommending calling with any false information. They're recommending you call and report a man with a gun and that you feel unsafe and would like police presence. If that advice is followed, it's up to police to decide how to respond (if at all). There's no suit or defamation there.

Don't overreact to every headline. It's playing into the anti's hands.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
Did you guys even read the article... while the headline related it to "swating" (attention grabbing headline)... the organizations aren't recommending calling with any false information. They're recommending you call and report a man with a gun and that you feel unsafe and would like police presence. If that advice is followed, it's up to police to decide how to respond (if at all). There's no suit or defamation there.

Don't overreact to every headline. It's playing into the anti's hands.
Put it in context.

This comes on the heels of what inspired it and probably actually IS it with a little lipstick to clean it up:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172130667

On top of that I'll reference something from State v Casad, which even though is an unpublished opinion, still shows good legal bright-lines.:
Fourth, the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would
warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on
individuals’ reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle
barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have
commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down
the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react
with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate
to reasonable alarm. We agree.
It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the
street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.
Feel uncomfortable? Unsure? Too bad. Don't call 911 unless you have a crime to report. You might get someone killed. In America we err on the side of innocent until proven guilty and we like the old phrase "better to let 10 guilty go free rather than one innocent suffer." Given how quickly cops may kill someone if given the wrong idea by some hoplophobe over the phone we need to come down like a ton of bricks on any attempt to organize this type of suspicious (when taken in full context) activity.

It's not as if this is happening in a vacuum. We need more resolutions along THESE lines: http://articles.courant.com/2013-09...130917_1_your-town-news-bank-staff-cavan-lane
GLASTONBURY — A man who became alarmed when he saw a man carrying a gun inside the TD Bank at 2461 Main St. last Thursday afternoon was himself charged with breach of peace because he shook up bank staff.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Did you guys even read the article... while the headline related it to "swating" (attention grabbing headline)... the organizations aren't recommending calling with any false information. They're recommending you call and report a man with a gun and that you feel unsafe and would like police presence. If that advice is followed, it's up to police to decide how to respond (if at all). There's no suit or defamation there.

Don't overreact to every headline. It's playing into the anti's hands.
Since cops have shown up and killed people when others have simply called for help. Its still attempted murder.
 
Top