tombrewster421
Regular Member
It's right in front of Safeway, next to a hair cutting place. The Country Rose Cafe is on the other side of the building. It's a small Starbucks with no drive through so this should be fun!
-
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.
-
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.
Harrassed by 4 sheriffs in STARBUCKS!
- Thread starter tombrewster421
- Start date
It's right in front of Safeway, next to a hair cutting place. The Country Rose Cafe is on the other side of the building. It's a small Starbucks with no drive through so this should be fun!
tombrewster421
Regular Member
That's what I was thinking.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Here's the kicker. THE sheriff goes to my church and has even spoken there.[/QUOTE]
Gogodawgs letter is the right way, if no lawsuit is contemplated. We've learned the hard way over and over that phone calls and in-person visits can get swept under the rug.
A hard-hitting formal complaint that includes all relevant points of law means they have to take notice of it. Plus, it creates a paper-trail in case of repeat performances by the police.
Also, one or more of these cops may already have several notes in his personnel file. A good supervisor is going to want to deal with it, and giving him everything in writing gives him the protection and cover to deal with it. I'll explain what kind of notes might already be in the personnel files in my next post.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
BIG church so he would probably just say "who are you?".
Deleted_User
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 807
I know right where this is. Let's have coffee in Spanaway.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Gogodawgs letter is the right way, if no lawsuit is contemplated. We've learned the hard way over and over that phone calls and in-person visits can get swept under the rug.
A hard-hitting formal complaint that includes all relevant points of law means they have to take notice of it. Plus, it creates a paper-trail in case of repeat performances by the police.
Also, one or more of these cops may already have several notes in his personnel file. A good supervisor is going to want to deal with it, and giving him everything in writing gives him the protection and cover to deal with it. I'll explain what kind of notes might already be in the personnel files in my next post.[/QUOTE]
I believe we should all send the letters via Registered Mail with proof of reciept. No sweeping under the rug on this one.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
The audio makes my blood boil. This is lawsuit-ready material.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Heart Attacks and Stomach Aches
I'm surprised you couldn't hear my heart beating in the recording. I had a major stomach ache afterwards also. I didn't even finish my whole lunch which is hard for me to do. I've never had a "consentual encounter"(detainment) affect me so much.
I'm surprised you couldn't hear my heart beating in the recording. I had a major stomach ache afterwards also. I didn't even finish my whole lunch which is hard for me to do. I've never had a "consentual encounter"(detainment) affect me so much.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
If only that were possible for me. I probably won't be able to sleep because I'll be stuck here.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Well, I'll be there tomorrow so I guess I can ask then.
GreatWhiteLlama
Regular Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is a great start.
I would like to suggest a few changes.
Let me get to my main concern first. The OPers encounter was not about the 2nd Amendment. It was about the 4th Amendment (search and seizure). I would shift the emphasis. I would beat the crap out of the 4th Amendment violations for their own sake. If you obtain cop compliance for not violating 4A rights for OCers, you leave in place their inclination to violate 4A on all non-OCers they encounter.
Imagine if the OPer was detained and ID'd because he was black. Or, a teenager. Or,...
You see what I mean; they would still be 4A violations. The 2A is secondary. The violations were 4A violations, not 2A violations. The 2A just started it.
So, include enough 2A information to prove OC was not RAS and no justification for a detention. Then hammer the 4A violations for themselves. My point is to make it a 4A complaint.
My next point is to make it a complaint. A First Amendment "right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Start by stating that it is a complaint.
Then state the general nature of the complaint in one or two sentences.
Then state the relevant facts--a general narrative works; just be sure to omit nothing critical to understanding the event. This section is where you reference the recording.
Then state why it was wrong. This is the legal analysis section.
Then state the redress you want. What is it you want the cops to do about it? I might suggest:
1) A proper internal affairs investigation of each officer involved.
2) With findings in writing back to you about each officer involved. You see, this is not just a group activity. Each cop did his own thing; they were not one mind like the Borg or something. There were potentially (5?) separate violators involved. This is what makes the issue so egregious. This wasn't just one cop; this was five cops all on the same track. Thus, the general atmosphere in that department must be that it is acceptable to violate 4A rights.
3) An explanation of what corrective actions were and will be taken to ensure the 4A violations do not recurr. (This helps prevent them from wiggling out of the 4A issues while claiming the officers have been trained up on 2A. Who cares? It wasn't particularly a 2A issue in the first place.)
Realize you are not going to be able to write it word for word perfectly the first time through. I gave you an outline above. Next, is the rough draft. And then, the revisions start. Even the pro's do it this way. Even Antonin Scalia writes and edits and revises his Supreme Court opinions several times.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Before sending the complaint, in whatever form, it would be helpful to first obtain an audio recording of 1) the first cops call for his buddies, to find out what he said, and 2) audio of the dispatchers radio traffic to the buddies, calling them to assist, and 3) any other audio having to do with this event.
And, since cops use those little in-car computers to send text messages to each other, try to get those, too. Those can be very, very revealing. Especially what they say to each other after the event.
And, since cops use those little in-car computers to send text messages to each other, try to get those, too. Those can be very, very revealing. Especially what they say to each other after the event.
Last edited:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
You know the recording is 8 minutes right. maybe you can listen to 30 seconds a day for 16 working days (you should have the weekends off).
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes'
This has been my FB status all day, how appropriate.
This has been my FB status all day, how appropriate.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Tom I just listened to the tape and that makes my blood boil. I have to say you did a great job with the so called Sheriffs Officers. I think if you had pushed it too far you may have been arrested and the tape may have been destroyed/lost. After all if violating your Constitutional rights did not seem to bother them erasing a tape surely would not be a big deal to them. So in my opinion giving up your ID and ending up with the tape was the best move you could have made, good job. Now you need to follow thru so that this means something a copy of the tape along with the Letter GOGO posted sent to the Sheriff would be a good start. I hope to shake you hand someday soon.
jt59
Regular Member
Also sent....
Administrative Chief Rob Maasko goes to my church...but he's out of the loop on this one I think.
Deleted_User
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 807
Deleted_User
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 807
Sending E-mail shortly
Vancouver down, PCSD to go?
It's sad. Should we direct them to the Wisconsin thread so they learn something?
Vancouver down, PCSD to go?
It's sad. Should we direct them to the Wisconsin thread so they learn something?
Tawnos
Regular Member
Transcribed audio of the first half (my comments in red):
Officer 1: Okay, so we don't make this any [unintelligible], let's take this outside please.
Tom: No thank you.
1: Well, you're going to have to identify yourself to us.
T: Why do I need to identify myself?
1: Because I don't know who you are, and you're carrying a gun.
T: My name is Thomas Brewster. At this point, even if Washington had a stop & identify statute, you would have already satisfied the Hiibel standard.
1: I still don't know who you are.
T: I just told you who I am.
1: Okay, well, let's go.
T: No.
2: Look, then, show us some ID who just proves who you are.
T: Open carry is legal in (interrupted) Washington.
2: (interrupting) We don't know if you're a felon.
T: I'm not a felon, and (interrupted) unless you have ...
2: (interrupting) We don't know that.
T: ...Unless you have Reasonable, Articulable suspicion to detain me, you don't need to request ID. You have no right. Now you've informed them that you are aware of the Terry standard. If qualified immunity were not already out the door from the get-go, it should have been at this point.
2: Who says we don't have a right?
T: The state of... the constitution of the state of Washington says you don't have the right to ask me for ID unless there's reasonable suspicion. I know my rights and I am standing up for them.
2: Okay, what do you want to do?
1: Well, I don't know who he is, so we're going to have to detain him. At this point you had already been detained. This statement is all the more incriminating.
1: I need you to stand up, sir.
Sounds like Officer 3?: Here's the situation, okay, I understand open carry is legal. Open foot, insert mouth. You've now admitted that you are detaining a citizen for something known to be legal.
T: Yes.
3: But, we are simply asking to ID you so we can verify that you are not a felon. We don't know you, okay? This is not harassment, it is simply something we are trying to handle in a very civilized manner.
1: And if you're okay, then we're out of here.
T: Walking up to a person in public and just randomly asking them for ID... You don't know who anybody is, and regardless of (interrupted)
2: (interrupting) Look, we don't want to jerk you around, we don't want to do that, but we are where we're at right now. We're into this thing now, okay. We're asking you simply (interrupted) to...
T: (interrupting) We wouldn't have gotten into it if he hadn't approached me.
2: ... that's okay, he's by himself, he's in this area, he doesn't know who you are. Let's face it, four lakewood cops were just killed in a coffee shop (interrupted)
T: (interrupting) I know that. And if I were there, I could have stopped the guy.
2: Okay, and maybe we would have wanted you to do that. Okay, and that's good, you're a good law abiding citizen. Okay, but he doesn't know who you are, I don't blame him for what he did. I would have done the same thing because we just don't know people, we can't read your mind. If you're a good guy, then that's great, just continue to be a good guy with us. We're in this now, we're committed to it. We don't want to screw with you. All we're asking is for you to show us some ID, we're going to run ya, and if then you're fine, we're gonna leave you alone and thank you very much for your cooperation. Another officer has admitted he would have harassed you and detained you for not breaking the law.
T: I will very slowly reach for my ID then.
2: I believe that's what you're going to be doing. Subtext: because I didn't give you a choice. This is an illegal detainment.[/red]
1: And we appreciate your cooperation, okay?
2: Okay, and if everything's fine, we'll thank you very much for your help, all right, can you understand where we're coming from?
T: A little bit, can you understand where I'm coming from?
2: Yeah, I do. And at the end of this, if everything's all right I'm going to offer you my hand and hopefully you'll shake my hand and we'll walk away people who can hopefully try to hold up the rights of this country. He CLEARLY has no idea what the "rights of this country" are.
T: mm hmm
2: I'm with you on that. I'm a patriot just like you are. Okay? No one wants to jerk a man like you around. Nobody, but we have to, we also have to not only protect and serve you, we have to protect and serve everybody Not according to the supreme court, unless by "everybody" he means "society's laws as a whole." Sometimes it puts us into these delicate situations and we don't have a choice. He had an easy choice: tell the other officer that he was in the wrong, apologize for bothering you, and leaving. It's tough, put yourselves in our shoes.
T: I don't think anybody else would think it's delicate because I'm in here every day that I'm working in the area. People here know me.
2: I haven't been here, and you know, I haven't been in this starbucks in a very very long time. You know.
1: It's unfortunate, we do get calls occasionally for the exact same situation, where someone does feel intimidated. So, when we see it, we contact them. Like I said, we're not trying to hassle anybody.
2: Yeah, we're not, we're not. We come to work every day to fight for the same rules you're standing up for right now. It's what makes us Americans. It's what makes us who we are.
Officer 1: Okay, so we don't make this any [unintelligible], let's take this outside please.
Tom: No thank you.
1: Well, you're going to have to identify yourself to us.
T: Why do I need to identify myself?
1: Because I don't know who you are, and you're carrying a gun.
T: My name is Thomas Brewster. At this point, even if Washington had a stop & identify statute, you would have already satisfied the Hiibel standard.
1: I still don't know who you are.
T: I just told you who I am.
1: Okay, well, let's go.
T: No.
2: Look, then, show us some ID who just proves who you are.
T: Open carry is legal in (interrupted) Washington.
2: (interrupting) We don't know if you're a felon.
T: I'm not a felon, and (interrupted) unless you have ...
2: (interrupting) We don't know that.
T: ...Unless you have Reasonable, Articulable suspicion to detain me, you don't need to request ID. You have no right. Now you've informed them that you are aware of the Terry standard. If qualified immunity were not already out the door from the get-go, it should have been at this point.
2: Who says we don't have a right?
T: The state of... the constitution of the state of Washington says you don't have the right to ask me for ID unless there's reasonable suspicion. I know my rights and I am standing up for them.
2: Okay, what do you want to do?
1: Well, I don't know who he is, so we're going to have to detain him. At this point you had already been detained. This statement is all the more incriminating.
1: I need you to stand up, sir.
Sounds like Officer 3?: Here's the situation, okay, I understand open carry is legal. Open foot, insert mouth. You've now admitted that you are detaining a citizen for something known to be legal.
T: Yes.
3: But, we are simply asking to ID you so we can verify that you are not a felon. We don't know you, okay? This is not harassment, it is simply something we are trying to handle in a very civilized manner.
1: And if you're okay, then we're out of here.
T: Walking up to a person in public and just randomly asking them for ID... You don't know who anybody is, and regardless of (interrupted)
2: (interrupting) Look, we don't want to jerk you around, we don't want to do that, but we are where we're at right now. We're into this thing now, okay. We're asking you simply (interrupted) to...
T: (interrupting) We wouldn't have gotten into it if he hadn't approached me.
2: ... that's okay, he's by himself, he's in this area, he doesn't know who you are. Let's face it, four lakewood cops were just killed in a coffee shop (interrupted)
T: (interrupting) I know that. And if I were there, I could have stopped the guy.
2: Okay, and maybe we would have wanted you to do that. Okay, and that's good, you're a good law abiding citizen. Okay, but he doesn't know who you are, I don't blame him for what he did. I would have done the same thing because we just don't know people, we can't read your mind. If you're a good guy, then that's great, just continue to be a good guy with us. We're in this now, we're committed to it. We don't want to screw with you. All we're asking is for you to show us some ID, we're going to run ya, and if then you're fine, we're gonna leave you alone and thank you very much for your cooperation. Another officer has admitted he would have harassed you and detained you for not breaking the law.
T: I will very slowly reach for my ID then.
2: I believe that's what you're going to be doing. Subtext: because I didn't give you a choice. This is an illegal detainment.[/red]
1: And we appreciate your cooperation, okay?
2: Okay, and if everything's fine, we'll thank you very much for your help, all right, can you understand where we're coming from?
T: A little bit, can you understand where I'm coming from?
2: Yeah, I do. And at the end of this, if everything's all right I'm going to offer you my hand and hopefully you'll shake my hand and we'll walk away people who can hopefully try to hold up the rights of this country. He CLEARLY has no idea what the "rights of this country" are.
T: mm hmm
2: I'm with you on that. I'm a patriot just like you are. Okay? No one wants to jerk a man like you around. Nobody, but we have to, we also have to not only protect and serve you, we have to protect and serve everybody Not according to the supreme court, unless by "everybody" he means "society's laws as a whole." Sometimes it puts us into these delicate situations and we don't have a choice. He had an easy choice: tell the other officer that he was in the wrong, apologize for bothering you, and leaving. It's tough, put yourselves in our shoes.
T: I don't think anybody else would think it's delicate because I'm in here every day that I'm working in the area. People here know me.
2: I haven't been here, and you know, I haven't been in this starbucks in a very very long time. You know.
1: It's unfortunate, we do get calls occasionally for the exact same situation, where someone does feel intimidated. So, when we see it, we contact them. Like I said, we're not trying to hassle anybody.
2: Yeah, we're not, we're not. We come to work every day to fight for the same rules you're standing up for right now. It's what makes us Americans. It's what makes us who we are.