This reminds me of this tread
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ing-Hospital-Policy&highlight=public+hospital
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ing-Hospital-Policy&highlight=public+hospital
-
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.
Lemmo or Rapgood (lawyers especially, or LE) question
- Thread starter hermannr
- Start date
hermannr
Regular Member
I do believe my problem is solved...haven't see the new ordinance yet, but then Tonasket hasn't had a city council meeting since our agreement was reached. BTW: most of my correspondence with Tonasket was via snail mail. The Tonasket City Clerk was the only one that I sent an email to.
Tonasket's problem was a bit different than the Valley Hospital problem in that the City of Seattle and their parks ban had not been stomped on yet with finality when the Valley Hospital thread started. Maybe Valley Hospital should be contacted again. You might want to point out RCW 9.41.300(1)(c) if they have an inpatient mental health facility.
I wrote the Chair of the BOD of the Okanogan Hospital district #4, the administrator of NVH, the Tonasket city clerk, and the Tonasket Mayor. Each email was a bit different, but I did point out RCW 9.41.290, RCW 9.41.300, RCW 9.41.810, RCW 9A.80.010 RCW 70.44.010 and RCW 70.44.060 (Powers and duties) and the Chan V Seattle court decision to the head administrator and the Mayor. I basically asked them if it was worth it to fight the state legislature.
Everyone here knows RCW 9.41 so I won't go into them, but RCW 70.44.010 states that a public hospital district is a municipal corporation and as such is subject to state law, and RCW 9.70.44.060 does not put control of firearms in their perview.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
What about Birk? keep in mind that not only did SPD conduct a review, but an inquest jury was called and a death inquest was conducted in which average citizens who couldn't come up with a better excuse not to be there were seated to listen to both sides of the argument, one of which was presented by an attorney the Williams family had hired, and that jury couldn't find Birk clearly guilty. (I believe the Inquest was a coroners inquest conducted under RCW 36.24.20 although King County does have a charter government so maybe it's not) remember 4 of 8 jurors ruled that Williams was an imminent threat. also the jury for the inquest board was pulled out of the same pool as trial jurors would, if you can't get a jury to agree on a proceeding with NO criminal penalties then it would be a waste of the county's time and money to prosecute, becuase when you add criminal liability my guess is Birk would be cuising straight to aquittal (and then SVG would be complaining about juries I'm sure, probably will bring up an idea to have "free market" jurors or whatever. The average citizens would be conspiring with the government to let birk go free :bangheadif brought to trial.
Seattle police covered nothing up, the reports and dash cam video are publically available, King County covered nothing up, they brought birk to inquest in a public venue, using jurors randomly pulled from the community, and with the jurors decision the King County PA decided it was unlikely he could win at trial (meaning he can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt) This is exactly how the system is supposed to work
This is not government shielding an officer, this was the proper decision to make regarding the circumstances under current law.
Oh yes they did cover something up. I watched that from afar and read the inquest transcript. A number of us noticed that noooobody asked the crucial question: whether Birk had RAS to seize the native American in the first place. Without RAS, the cop had no justification to demand the woodcarver encounter him, no justification to demand he drop a closed knife, no justification to force himself on the woodcarver at all. And, certainly no justification to shoot him.
Birk got away with manslaughter at best, murder at worst.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
A few of us said that over and over, and it is spot on.
hermannr
Regular Member
Back to the OP:
Letter dated 26 Nov 2012, from the Okanogan Health District #4 Board Chair...says in Part:
"Thank you for bring this issue to light...After review with the legal counsel the signage has been removed....the person in charge of compliance is aware now and will make sure that security policy is in compliance."
Sincerly,
Letter dated 26 Nov 2012, from the Okanogan Health District #4 Board Chair...says in Part:
"Thank you for bring this issue to light...After review with the legal counsel the signage has been removed....the person in charge of compliance is aware now and will make sure that security policy is in compliance."
Sincerly,
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Wow good going Hermannr a big pat on the back.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Now how did that happen!,
Taking the first step and following through. Hopefully this is a kick start for others to get involved and seek similar actions when called for, one big attaboy....
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I second that or 3rd that.......I concur!
hermannr
Regular Member
I also want to give credit to the Hospital Board and Administration...that they actually want to do what is correct and lawful, not just what someone's own idea of public safety may involve.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Speaks of your Character, you are a good man.
We know though that it only came about because of your actions.