"Excuse me sir, why are you carrying a gun?"

[nemo]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...00-to-man-who-wore-gun-in-park-219466731.html

Well, IMHO, 15K is far too little. From three feet away seems almost close enough for an adequate hand-to-hand response, if the victim is trained in trained in such; otherwise, things seem to have worked out almost satisfactorily.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

I was lucky enough to have had a witness, not seen by the LEO, who saw the entire incident. It would have been difficult and we would have been in court for a long time, if things had gone south.
The LEO put himself in harms way because, 1. he was a bully and felt invincible, 2. he was a bully and completely underestimated his opponent, 3. he was a bully and feels he is above the law.
I would not have drawn my weapon, the situation was beyond that. I have been in this situation before and it did not go as well for the aggressor.

On a side note: officer allen bass of the bellingham police department is still employed by b'ham. officer allen bass has not changed his tactics, he is still a bully and is currently harassing people.
This person has not intimidated me and I openly carry everywhere I go, and I do it with great confidence.

pi$$ me off, pay the consequences.

 

[nemo]

I was lucky enough to have had a witness, not seen by the LEO, who saw the entire incident. It would have been difficult and we would have been in court for a long time, if things had gone south.
The LEO put himself in harms way because, 1. he was a bully and felt invincible, 2. he was a bully and completely underestimated his opponent, 3. he was a bully and feels he is above the law.
I would not have drawn my weapon, the situation was beyond that. I have been in this situation before and it did not go as well for the aggressor.
On a side note: officer allen bass of the bellingham police department is still employed by b'ham. officer allen bass has not changed his tactics, he is still a bully and is currently harassing people.
This person has not intimidated me and I openly carry everywhere I go, and I do it with great confidence.
pi$$ me off, pay the consequences.

A witness certainly helps.

I entirely agree with NavyLCDR, above, re the LEO response to justice being done to one of their own. My own situation was nowhere near as dramatic as yours, and I can only dream about what would be done to thugs, with or without badges, in a rational world.

Cops are not your friend. Other cops complain about cop-bashing (I would sympathize with them, if I knew any), but they never address such thugs as alan bass and the thousands of others like him.

 

[Ajetpilot]

On a side note: officer allen bass of the bellingham police department is still employed by b'ham. officer allen bass has not changed his tactics, he is still a bully and is currently harassing people.
pi$$ me off, pay the consequences.

Not capitalized. I love it!

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Not capitalized. I love it!

A small non-violent protest to those whom I have no respect. Not many catch that Pilot.

 

[FTG-05]

A witness certainly helps.

I entirely agree with NavyLCDR, above, re the LEO response to justice being done to one of their own. My own situation was nowhere near as dramatic as yours, and I can only dream about what would be done to thugs, with or without badges, in a rational world.

Cops are not your friend. Other cops complain about cop-bashing (I would sympathize with them, if I knew any), but they never address such thugs as alan bass and the thousands of others like him.

I'll stop bashing when cops get rid of the "thin blue line".

Cops like the Canton cop, and MSG's cop (bass) should have have been dealt with by other cops, not by the courts and certainly not because a video got out into the wild.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Wow. I hope he was disciplined for that. That could have gotten him lawfully shot.

Isn't there only a single state that allows that? Personality I agree but the law still protects LEOs to a greater degree than citizens. Law needs changing but people are too passive to demand it gets done.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

 

[Difdi]

Isn't there only a single state that allows that? Personality I agree but the law still protects LEOs to a greater degree than citizens. Law needs changing but people are too passive to demand it gets done.

Actually, LEOs have less ability under the law to use force than private citizens do. The problem is, prosecutors refuse to charge them with many of the crimes they commit. By the letter and spirit of the law, if a cop can do it and get away with it (whatever 'it' might be) by claiming he feared for his life, then any citizen could as well. But prosecutors give cops enormous benefit of the doubt, while holding non-cops strictly liable.

 

[Contrarian]

Seeing/not seeing

I never get asked why, just "Is that real?". I have been tempted to reply "Yes it is, but it has been getting bigger since I started using those blue pills."

A few years back a child did ask me if my beard was real, he didn't even notice the handgun. Certain times of the year I have been mistaken for Santa.

Old joke:

Lady and her six-year old are in the car, going to the park on a hot summer day.
Car passes them on the right- girl stands up through the sunroof and flashes them. (.) (.)

Boy looks astounded - "Mom ! Did you see that lady?"

Embarrassed Mom says yes indeed she did.

Boy replies, "But Mom ! She didn't have her seat belt on !"

 

[FMJ 911]

Well I carry a Handgun because it's a pain carting around my 17th century Pirate Cannon! HA!

 

[nemo]

Isn't there only a single state that allows that? Personality I agree but the law still protects LEOs to a greater degree than citizens. Law needs changing but people are too passive to demand it gets done.

IANAL, but recall the broad brushes of a related thread from long ago (even longer than last week). It used to be universal, across these 57 states, to allow resistance to false arrest, but the states have removed that allowance over time (I have no idea, so don't ask; probably about the time that the commies started infiltrating, i.e., the 20's, but that is just a guess). The thought was, of course, to get things settled in court, all nice and proper, instead of fighting it out on the streets. IIRC, there are a few states that still have such laws on the books (Virginia is one, unless you want to point out that Virginia is a commonwealth, not a state), but I am pretty sure that those laws remain only because no one remembers that they are still there, and I am VERY sure that I would not want to be the first test case; one would certainly bump up against the pro-cop attitudes of the court, lawyers, and other cops already mentioned.

And if you think that THAT is fuzzy, let's have a nice, long, discussion of when a cop has reasonable suspicion!

 

[Freedom1Man]

IANAL, but recall the broad brushes of a related thread from long ago (even longer than last week). It used to be universal, across these 57 states, to allow resistance to false arrest, but the states have removed that allowance over time (I have no idea, so don't ask; probably about the time that the commies started infiltrating, i.e., the 20's, but that is just a guess). The thought was, of course, to get things settled in court, all nice and proper, instead of fighting it out on the streets. IIRC, there are a few states that still have such laws on the books (Virginia is one, unless you want to point out that Virginia is a commonwealth, not a state), but I am pretty sure that those laws remain only because no one remembers that they are still there, and I am VERY sure that I would not want to be the first test case; one would certainly bump up against the pro-cop attitudes of the court, lawyers, and other cops already mentioned.

And if you think that THAT is fuzzy, let's have a nice, long, discussion of when a cop has reasonable suspicion!

Um 57 states?

Don't you mean 60?

 

[O_Kellogg]

Um 57 states?

Don't you mean 60?

Whaaa ?!?!

Did Michigan finally throw out Detroit?


OK

 

[nemo]

Um 57 states?

Hey: if it enough for the teleprompter in chief, it is enough for me.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Hey: if it enough for the teleprompter in chief, it is enough for me.

He had visited 57 had one more go to and was not going to visit two others, Alaska was one of the ones he was not going to visit.

 

[rapgood]

I now regard LEO's far more carefully than other civilians, as they are far more dangerous.

Yep! They are! And it appears that here in Washington, they can shoot just about anyone they want to in the back and do so with impunity. See RCW 9A.16.020(1).

Actually, LEOs have less ability under the law to use force than private citizens do. The problem is, prosecutors refuse to charge them with many of the crimes they commit. By the letter and spirit of the law, if a cop can do it and get away with it (whatever 'it' might be) by claiming he feared for his life, then any citizen could as well. But prosecutors give cops enormous benefit of the doubt, while holding non-cops strictly liable.

Actually, as noted above, I believe that LEOs have greater ability under the law to use force than do private citizens. Most prosecutors have their noses implanted deeply in the rear orifices of LEOs and, as you accurately point out, won't charge them. It has been my experience that Ian Goodhew of the King County Prosecutor's Office may well be one such shining example.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ignoring what the law is supposed to do (limit the powers of authority)

and thier own note in RCW 9A.16.040
[h=2]Notes:[/h]

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

 

[Difdi]

Actually, as noted above, I believe that LEOs have greater ability under the law to use force than do private citizens. Most prosecutors have their noses implanted deeply in the rear orifices of LEOs and, as you accurately point out, won't charge them. It has been my experience that Ian Goodhew of the King County Prosecutor's Office may well be one such shining example.

Well, sure. Going by the letter and spirit of the law, police officers have less ability to lawfully use force than private citizens do. But if you're going to talk about unlawful use of force, then I have to point out that the mafia is also usually more heavily armed than private citizens. Doesn't make them right, though.

 

[rapgood]

Ignoring what the law is supposed to do (limit the powers of authority)

and thier own note in RCW 9A.16.040
[h=2]Notes:[/h]

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
--Lewis Carroll: The Hunting of the Snark

My point being: Although the legislature says it's so, doesn't necessarily make it so (even if they were to say it thrice). In practice, the dual standard works the opposite of what is stated in the legislative history. Any private citizen who shoots a drunken First Nations woodcarver is not going to get the "pass" on prosecution by the King County Prosecutor that Birk got, even if the prosecutor can't prove "malice" on the part of the private citizen. So, while the standard may technically be higher for when a LEO may use deadly force, the standard for prosecuting that LEO for a killing is substantially higher than that for prosecuting a private citizen.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
--Lewis Carroll: The Hunting of the Snark

My point being: Although the legislature says it's so, doesn't necessarily make it so (even if they were to say it thrice). In practice, the dual standard works the opposite of what is stated in the legislative history. Any private citizen who shoots a drunken First Nations woodcarver is not going to get the "pass" on prosecution by the King County Prosecutor that Birk got, even if the prosecutor can't prove "malice" on the part of the private citizen. So, while the standard may technically be higher for when a LEO may use deadly force, the standard for prosecuting that LEO for a killing is substantially higher than that for prosecuting a private citizen.

Yep some animals are more special than others......