Vancouver OC Arrest

[Jeff Hayes]

Can someone tell me where "trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" appears in the RCW?

That was my thought as well.

 

[sirpuma]

So who all did not catch that he was OCing a RIFLE? While I understand the isn't much legal difference between OC with a handgun and a rifle, carrying a loaded (or unloaded) AR15 slung at low ready in Vancouver is going to start all kinds of trouble.

 

[BigDave]

Carrying a rifle in public versus in a rally (where public may well expect to see them being carried) may cause alarm and where things can go afoul, in this case it did.

Combining the mall and school shootings where a single or a few people have killed and harmed several people and created a fear into today's society.

When it comes to a private business banning firearms in their business or property is just as everyone in here can restrict access to their homes with someone walking up their walkway with a rifle slung over their shoulders.
One can tell someone to leave their property with any interaction more then telling them to leave, you don't then it is trespass.

While this youngman had good intentions but has done more harm to those who carry a pistol or revolver openly by carrying a rifle and may well meet the restrictions in;

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

as viewed by a jury of your peers, remember not everyone want the freedom of rights we seek.

 

[rapgood]

Can someone tell me where "trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" appears in the RCW?

Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.

So who all did not catch that he was OCing a RIFLE? While I understand the isn't much legal difference between OC with a handgun and a rifle, carrying a loaded (or unloaded) AR15 slung at low ready in Vancouver is going to start all kinds of trouble.

Display of a rifle is a tricky beast. In State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 121 (1994), Spencer was convicted for carrying a rifle (AK-47) in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.”

Carrying a rifle in public versus in a rally (where public may well expect to see them being carried) may cause alarm and where things can go afoul, in this case it did.

Combining the mall and school shootings where a single or a few people have killed and harmed several people and created a fear into today's society.

When it comes to a private business banning firearms in their business or property is just as everyone in here can restrict access to their homes with someone walking up their walkway with a rifle slung over their shoulders.
One can tell someone to leave their property with any interaction more then telling them to leave, you don't then it is trespass.

While this youngman had good intentions but has done more harm to those who carry a pistol or revolver openly by carrying a rifle and may well meet the restrictions in [RCW 9.41.270(1)].

I agree, provided only that he had the weapon "at ready." Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.

 

[deanf]

Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.

But that's not how we do it at OCDO-WA. Come on, this isn't your first rodeo.

At OCDO-WA, we gather only one side of the story, dismiss out-of-hand all attempt to tell the other side, and from there we proceed!

 

[rapgood]

But that's not how we do it at OCDO-WA. Come on, this isn't your first rodeo.

At OCDO-WA, we gather only one side of the story, dismiss out-of-hand all attempt to tell the other side, and from there we proceed![/COLOR]

Ooops! Bad Rob! No biscuit!

 

[BigDave]

Carrying a rifle in public versus in a rally (where public may well expect to see them being carried) may cause alarm and where things can go afoul, in this case it did.

Combining the mall and school shootings where a single or a few people have killed and harmed several people and created a fear into today's society.

When it comes to a private business banning firearms in their business or property is just as everyone in here can restrict access to their homes with someone walking up their walkway with a rifle slung over their shoulders.
One can tell someone to leave their property with any interaction more then telling them to leave, you don't then it is trespass.

While this youngman had good intentions but has done more harm to those who carry a pistol or revolver openly by carrying a rifle and may well meet the restrictions in;

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

as viewed by a jury of your peers, remember not everyone want the freedom of rights we seek.

Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.


Display of a rifle is a tricky beast. In State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 121 (1994), Spencer was convicted for carrying a rifle (AK-47) in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.”


I agree, provided only that he had the weapon "at ready." Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.

Thus the very reason I posted, RCW 9.41.270 concerning what warrants alarm for the safety of other person is subjective to whoever you talk with it seems to be a varying part of the law.

We can talk to our family and friends and end up with different variations of what justifies fear which solely depends upon their knowledge, background and/or experience. This can and does sway the hard line many want to hold to on what justifies fear and what does not.

Personally I would take notice of someone carrying a rifle around a market area while others would be scared and of course those who wish to restrict possession and those maybe the ones deciding your faith if the need so arises.

 

[rapgood]

Thus the very reason I posted, RCW 9.41.270 concerning what warrants alarm for the safety of other person is subjective to whoever you talk with it seems to be a varying part of the law.

We can talk to our family and friends and end up with different variations of what justifies fear which solely depends upon their knowledge, background and/or experience. This can and does sway the hard line many want to hold to on what justifies fear and what does not.

Personally I would take notice of someone carrying a rifle around a market area while others would be scared and of course those who wish to restrict possession and those maybe the ones deciding your faith if the need so arises.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?

 

[BigDave]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?

I would prefer your view on this and there is no argument there but when a jury is asked to view all circumstances of a case that would involve this topic, is it not left up to them to decide?
No doubt it would be over turned later but still plays an active part of the process.

Take Josh's bout with open carry conviction from a couple years ago in front of a jury which the prosecution insisted (Josh's request was for a Judge), while he was legal to be armed and had a legal right to be where he was, through the course of prosecution he was found guilty and his appeal failed which is unknown exactly why (possibly was not filed in time), still today I do not know if the Judge has ever wrote the opinion, last I checked was around a year ago.

 

[rapgood]

I would prefer your view on this and there is no argument there but when a jury is asked to view all circumstances of a case that would involve this topic, is it not left up to them to decide?
No doubt it would be over turned later but still plays an active part of the process.

Take Josh's bout with open carry conviction from a couple years ago in front of a jury which the prosecution insisted (Josh's request was for a Judge), while he was legal to be armed and had a legal right to be where he was, through the course of prosecution he was found guilty and his appeal failed which is unknown exactly why (possibly was not filed in time), still today I do not know if the Judge has ever wrote the opinion, last I checked was around a year ago.

I agree that it is impossible to predict what the 6 (or 12)-headed monster will do. And, yes, there is a good chance that an adverse verdict would quickly be headed to an appeal. That said, appellate courts are very reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, so other errors (typically, bad rulings by the judge) or a constitutional violation would have to be argued to have the best chance of defeating a conviction.

What is critical in this type of scenario is that proper jury instructions are given apprising the jury of the "reasonable person" standard and how to apply it. With the proper instructions, if the facts are properly established during the trial, a jury's hands can be "bound" to ensure that they give the proper verdict regardless of their personal beliefs. And, yes, as you aptly point out, the jury's deliberations should, and likely would, involve this topic.

 

[kparker]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?

With all due respect, Rob, that is precisely a subjective test. We don't actually have that model "reasonable person" that we can re-run the scenario with and observe how they react; it's a useful conceptual fiction that we use to try to get our minds into the proper frame, but ultimately we're all just conjecturing on the answer and if that's not subjective I don't know what would be.

 

[rapgood]

With all due respect, Rob, that is precisely a subjective test. We don't actually have that model "reasonable person" that we can re-run the scenario with and observe how they react; it's a useful conceptual fiction that we use to try to get our minds into the proper frame, but ultimately we're all just conjecturing on the answer and if that's not subjective I don't know what would be.

Well, while it appears to be subjective, Spencer tells us that the term "warrants alarm" is subject to the reasonable person standard and the law holds that to be an objective standard. This is not my opinion. Rather, it is the opinion of the courts.

 

[kparker]

Well, while it appears to be subjective, Spencer tells us...

Oops, tricked again! Yes, as a technical legal term, you are correct.

But I do think it's useful to re-point out that, like such things as "reasonable expectation of privacy", the legal-language meaning of "objective" has no necessary connection with the ordinary-English meaning. I fall into this trap far too often...

 

[KBCraig]

So who all did not catch that he was OCing a RIFLE? While I understand the isn't much legal difference between OC with a handgun and a rifle, carrying a loaded (or unloaded) AR15 slung at low ready in Vancouver is going to start all kinds of trouble.

I may have missed it... where is it stated he was carrying at low ready?

 

[decklin]

I may have missed it... where is it stated he was carrying at low ready?

It doesn't say he was carrying at the low ready. That's just people using terminology they don't understand.
In the video he specifically says his rifle was slung across his chest and he wasn't touching it. That is not low ready.

 

[deanf]

Defense fund:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/on-the-move-with-mack-worley-defense-fund

 

[rapgood]

Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.

According to the court docket, he was charged with criminal trespass 2 and unlawful display.

 

[slapmonkay]

According to the court docket, he was charged with criminal trespass 2 and unlawful display.

Good to know. Thanks.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?

Well spencer carried his rifle on a sling, the ruling seem to focus on the fact is was an AK build rifle with a visibly inserted magazine.... Am I wrong to think that was the actual problem the court found with spencer?

 

[papa bear]

it seem one of the issue are he tried to get back to his car, on property that had ran him off. wonder why he didn't mention that in his video. maybe it didn't happen.

i would like to see follow up to this