Unlawfully disarmed?

[hatt]

Oh, come on. Of course not. But I've seen worse happen for less reason.

So exercising your rights in a legal fashion is "reason" for something to "happen?"

 

[cyphertext]

He clearly went out in public, weapon in hand, with camera rolling. That is enough to tell me he was trying to stir something up, and was looking to be confronted. He got what he was looking for. That's not exercising one's rights, it is trying to stir up trouble. I'm surprised it ended so well for him.

Does his motive matter? Was the firearm in his hand, because I can't tell that from the video? A video that he made describing the incident said that the firearm was on a sling, down by his right side. Was he doing anything illegal at the time of the stop? Up until he walked back into the parking lot, had he committed a crime?

 

[cyphertext]

I got this "off the internet."
As a general rule, a person may legally open-carry in Washington state in any place it is legal to possess a loaded handgun, as long as it does not manifest "an intent to intimidate another or [warrant] alarm for the safety of other persons."
I suspect the "warrant alarm" part was an issue here, even if it wasn't articulated in the video. Since I didn't get a look at our guy, I won't say if that could be a consideration...but he certainly "alarmed" someone enough to call the cops, and "alarmed" the cops sufficiently to cause them to surround him with guns drawn. It's all well and good to apply a blanket "It's his right" to the situation, but we don't have all the facts.

I can agree with this... as we don't know how the rifle was slung. I know some will disagree with me, but to me a firearm slung across the chest in the low ready causes much more alarm than one on the back.

 

[GerSan69]

We'll never have all the facts in any case. You'll never be able to voice an opinion on any matter. Even on cases you're involved in personally.

Puleeeze. Spare us the sarcasm.
There are caveats in WA gun laws that are ambiguous enough that our "hero" can be stopped - "alarming" behavior is all it takes. He could simply be walking down the street with a firearm and stare at somebody a little too long and they could reasonably say they were "alarmed." Was that the reason he was stopped? Did somebody call the cops or were they simply out looking for people to mess with (and by the tone of your posts, it's a good bet you think it's the latter)? Was he passing by their favorite doughnut shop?
The video, and any post in support of it, is coming from the gun owner's side of things. It doesn't include a whit of information that tells how this guy came to the attention of the cops. Not one single thing. It's not a complete story. So assume away, but without all the facts, a reasonable assessment can not be done.
Look, I fully support an armed citizenry, and have for many years. I'm not a fan of OC, but it's for tactical reasons, not because I think it's wrong. Other than that, hey, do what you want, just don't cause me any grief. What does tick me off, because it makes everyone look bad and therefore, can cause me grief, are people who have this "in your face" method of doing things. It's rude, it's arrogant, and it's not going to win anyone over. All the "in your face" method is accomplishing is galvanizing opposition. Look around. Give us one instance where one of these OC "demonstrations" caused even one person to come over to the side of lawful gun owners. I'll be very surprised if anyone can. That's what I think this guy was up to, but that's just an opinion that I guess I shouldn't have....

 

[HayesGreener]

One thing that seems to be missed in these discussions is that the officer ALWAYS has the right to secure his safety and the safety of others while trying to find out what is going on, which can include securing any weapons at the scene. The guy was obviously trying to draw attention to himself. Somebody called 911. The dispatch probably went something like, "Man with a gun, at such and such a location", which is usually about how much you have when you roll up on the call. He got exactly the reaction he was looking for and the officers actions were not unreasonable.

 

[hatt]

Puleeeze. Spare us the sarcasm.
There are caveats in WA gun laws that are ambiguous enough that our "hero" can be stopped - "alarming" behavior is all it takes. He could simply be walking down the street with a firearm and stare at somebody a little too long and they could reasonably say they were "alarmed." Was that the reason he was stopped? Did somebody call the cops or were they simply out looking for people to mess with (and by the tone of your posts, it's a good bet you think it's the latter)? Was he passing by their favorite doughnut shop?
The video, and any post in support of it, is coming from the gun owner's side of things. It doesn't include a whit of information that tells how this guy came to the attention of the cops. Not one single thing. It's not a complete story. So assume away, but without all the facts, a reasonable assessment can not be done.
Look, I fully support an armed citizenry, and have for many years. I'm not a fan of OC, but it's for tactical reasons, not because I think it's wrong. Other than that, hey, do what you want, just don't cause me any grief. What does tick me off, because it makes everyone look bad and therefore, can cause me grief, are people who have this "in your face" method of doing things. It's rude, it's arrogant, and it's not going to win anyone over. All the "in your face" method is accomplishing is galvanizing opposition. Look around. Give us one instance where one of these OC "demonstrations" caused even one person to come over to the side of lawful gun owners. I'll be very surprised if anyone can. That's what I think this guy was up to, but that's just an opinion that I guess I shouldn't have....

If you spent a little of that energy calling out bad cops instead of blasting those paying your salary and defending the indefensible we wouldn't have much to talk about on this front. I hate to break it to you. It's going to become even harder to defend your crooked buddies. Even the law and order folks are starting to see what's going on.

 

[handejector]

A couple of things are wrong with this thread-

First-
it starts with a bare link.
The Rules mention that-

The following topics are restricted on this Board:
General NEWS links- very rarely. If you need every news story about every subject every day, hit one or all of the news boards.
Reasonable news links about our military, first responders, or guns might be acceptable.
News concerning political gun issues is acceptable in the 2nd Amendment forum.
This forum does not function as the Internet Newsboard Index.
Bare Links starting threads without comment or discussion won't survive.
Don't post a bare link and say "You gotta see this!".
Tell us WHY we need to see it with at least a sentence or two. Provide enough comment to explain what the link is about.
I should know what it is about before I click it.
News links may be deleted at the sole discretion of the Staff. If your link is gone, it is gone- period.

Second-
It is not really within the scope of the 2A forum.
We actually tell you what that is here-
Sticky: READ this > HOW to use the 2A Forum
Since nobody has read it, I'll quote it here:

Note the subtitle of this forum is "2nd Amendment Issues & Discussion".

Ideally, we should see nothing here that does not pertain directly to protection of or expansion of 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
That means this forum is about LEGISLATION and responses from legislators or the actions of legislators or about carry permit laws and issues.

/\ Read that AGAIN /\
Ask yourself if your thread fits one of those topics!
We are having to move too many threads.

LINKS:
Don't post a bare link and say "You gotta see this!".
Tell me WHY I gotta see this with a paragraph or two.
That is the start of a discussion.
Posting a bare link is merely creating an internet index.
Any link posted should pertain directly to protection of or expansion of 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
If your link gets deleted, you either failed to describe its value, or it does not meet our standards.



This is NOT:
This is not where you post general political discussion and comments on OTHER issues not related to the 2A. Other issues are the economy, Obamacare, libs in general, tinfoil and black choppers, how to start a revolution, etc, etc. Keep it focused on the 2A issues.

This is not for the latest news about some scumbag shooting someone or getting arrested with a gun.

This is not where you post your latest AR or AK.

This is not for discussing gun and ammo prices or availability.

This is not where you post which movie stars or talking heads are currently bashing the 2nd Amendment.

This is not where you moan about liberalism or the changes in our culture.

This is not for the latest news on a gunowner using a gun lawfully for self dense, unless it is simply an OUTSTANDING situation that we can use in the halls of Congress.

This is not where you will fix everything wrong with our society.

What we SHOULD do here:
ALERT people to upcoming restrictive legislation at ANY level of government, and discuss and promote methods to fight it.

ALERT people to upcoming legislation (if any) that is supportive of gun rights, ownership, and usage or carry.

INFORM people on methods of being proactive in the fight, including encouragement to join the NRA or donate to it.

INFORM people on methods of fighting abuse of our rights. An example is the thread running about a newspaper publishing names and addresses of permit holders in New York. While that is legal, we all know it is meant to cause distress to those permit holders.

INFORM people on which legislators are pro gun and anti gun.

Post real and accurate data that would be useful in the fight.

In the coming months, we will have plenty to talk about that is spot-on for this forum. Let's keep the clutter down, and stay focused on the object.

I'll also remind you to heed the rules for this board. You can find them at the top of this forum.
Especially note these two-
5. Do NOT even think about implying, wishing, or stating ANY kind of harm or misfortune should befall ANY elected government official.
If you want to talk to the Secret Service, just call them up and leave me out of the middle.


6. Derogatory, Flippant, or Crude names for any government official will NOT be tolerated.
Respect the OFFICE, if not the holder.
That means the President of the United States will be referred to as the President, or by the accepted usage of his last name or initials- 'Obama' or 'BHO'. Other government officials will be afforded the same courtesy.