Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[gogoDawgs]

Yeah the fact that he was ready to record it shows he was looking for a fight with the officers.
(so someone who has an I-Phone and is scared is looking for a fight? Like the guy who was kicked by the Seattle PD for being Hispanic?)
But now he gets his 15 minutes of fame
(No, Tom is not looking for fame, he is looking for what is right)
Good for him.
(why the condescention?)
You are still missing the whole point.(nope, I understand your point perfectly)
Cooperate and they will just go away (Sounds like Jim Crow laws to me.)
Save the fight for Olympia where they may listen and they do know the laws (or their interns do) (We do spend time with Olympia and every city/county in the state. I have spoken in Olympia, Tacoma, Pierce Co. have you?)

Why argue with the cops when it infuriates the law makers? (Why stand up for yourself? Cops never make mistakes?)Why not go to the place where it might make sense?
Why not cooperate and then go down to the county city building and make a stand with the leaders? ( I have and will continue too, how about you?)
If you have a problem in a store,do you argue with the clerk or just call for the manager,the person in charge? (Not related.)

I go to the manager because the minion can't do anything anyway.

And just think,then you could still file a lawsuit.

Again he has just pissed off the PCS and they will screw with whoever they can that has a gun (so you admit the PCS will intimidate one in 19 citizens who carry a gun? Perhaps they will intimidate blacks, hispanics, etc as well?)

Good work to the tough guy (ah, the name calling)

Why do you not think the 4th amendment is important?

 

[riverrat373]

Why do you not think the 4th amendment is important?

But this issue is not about the 4th amendment.

 

[gogoDawgs]

But this issue is not about the 4th amendment.

Yes it is. The police do not have the right to detain a citizen when no crime is afoot.

 

[riverrat373]

They did not detain him. They asked him for ID.

 

[gogoDawgs]

They did not detain him. They asked him for ID.

Nope. The officer never asked for ID, he demanded ID. There is no stop and identify statute in Washington.

After calling 3 of his buddies, it is a detainment per SCOTUS decisions regarding escalation of force. A reasonable person would not of felt free to go.

 

[riverrat373]

Nope. The officer never asked for ID, he demanded ID. There is no stop and identify statute in Washington.

After calling 3 of his buddies, it is a detainment per SCOTUS decisions regarding escalation of force. A reasonable person would not of felt free to go.

I listened to the audio and I did not hear anyone say, "I demand to see your ID".

 

[gogoDawgs]

I listened to the audio and I did not hear anyone say, "I demand to see your ID".

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.

 

[riverrat373]

I guess both of us are beating a dead horse. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. If you don't want to show ID when a police officer asks, don't. I, on the other hand, will. It's my Constitutional right!

 

[gogoDawgs]

I guess both of us are beating a dead horse. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. If you don't want to show ID when a police officer asks, don't. I, on the other hand, will. It's my Constitutional right!

Actually I agree with you. You are welcome to give your ID and speak with an officer.

However, I will defend the entire constitution, not just the parts that are conveinent.

 

[meanmike58]

I'm not saying he wasn't within his rights, all I'm saying is that most police types I have come across don't give two sh*ts about your rights, all they care about is respect.

Contemt of cop will get you nailed faster than comminting a real crime.

You have to remember that they became cops in the first place because they have emotional issues and feelings of inadaquicy.

 

[gogoDawgs]

By the way, after having a sheriff's deputy from another county listen to the audio he agreed with the 4th amendment violation and the tactics used by the PCSO as illegal. He is a neutral party 150 miles away. Officers have a right via 'social contact' to ask for what ever they choose. However, we do not live in a police state but a free republic and the citizen has the right to verbally resist an officers questions.

 

[John Brown]

Actually I agree with you. You are welcome to give your ID and speak with an officer.

However, I will defend the entire constitution, not just the parts that are conveinent.

You are my hero.

Now when you want to snap back to the real world....let us know.

I'm done with this nonsense.

 

[riverrat373]

However, I will defend the entire constitution, not just the parts that are conveinent.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."

...Sun Tzu

 

[Wenis]

I've listened to the audio and my first question is, did the officer give permission to be audio recorded? In Washington State, audio recording requires consent by the recorder and the recorded. And I don't believe that officer gave consent, at least in the recording or the posts I've read so far. I know this because I went to talk to a lawyer for the very reason of a police interaction while open carrying.

While rights are important to stand up for, if you want to just give a verbal name, the officers have the right to detain you for up to 3 days to figure out who you are. What do you gain by sitting in a cell for three days? If you want to be a anal about being violated, perhaps you should sit in a cell. If you're acting in such a way with a police officer, do you think that officer will extend himself in a rapid manner to identify you? I know I wouldn't.

And those officers were very polite and patient with you.

 

[R-Rizzo]

While rights are important to stand up for, if you want to just give a verbal name, the officers have the right to detain you for up to 3 days to figure out who you are. What do you gain by sitting in a cell for three days? If you want to be a anal about being violated, perhaps you should sit in a cell. If you're acting in such a way with a police officer, do you think that officer will extend himself in a rapid manner to identify you? I know I wouldn't.

And those officers were very polite and patient with you.

Do you by chance have an RCW for reference?

 

[Bhowe]

All I can say is yes, I respect the job they do...BUT, they to it by choice, and I am really tired of LE acting like they are to be treated like royalty, or you will be thrown in the back of their car.

I too would have been a chump and said 'yes sir, here is my ID sir', but if someone would have done this to someone like my old man (just an example) I would raise some major he11. Might just email myself.

 

[Bhowe]

I've listened to the audio and my first question is, did the officer give permission to be audio recorded? In Washington State, audio recording requires consent by the recorder and the recorded. And I don't believe that officer gave consent, at least in the recording or the posts I've read so far. I know this because I went to talk to a lawyer for the very reason of a police interaction while open carrying.

While rights are important to stand up for, if you want to just give a verbal name, the officers have the right to detain you for up to 3 days to figure out who you are. What do you gain by sitting in a cell for three days? If you want to be a anal about being violated, perhaps you should sit in a cell. If you're acting in such a way with a police officer, do you think that officer will extend himself in a rapid manner to identify you? I know I wouldn't.

And those officers were very polite and patient with you.

I assume the audio was from 1 of 2 places. A: Security system at the Starbucks, or B: A private individual recording. When you enter the store, if there is monitering in place, they are required to display a sign which says what type of monitering is in place. If it is a private individual with something like a camera phone, there are rights in place to protect them as well. I would assume the same rights that protect the media when they are chasing people down, camera in hand, who obviously do not want to be recorded.

 

[Stumps]

Open carriers seem to be attention seekers. While I am not against the idea I find it odd that they seem to enjoy provoking incidents with the police. Not aggressively, but more passively aggressive. I know a lot of guys in law enforcement, good guys. One thing I notice in all the people I know in law enforcement, not one of them open carries off duty in public. If the cops all have it wrong and are so evil I am wondering why more people here do not apply and do it right. It is easy to snipe from behind the keyboard. You may truly only open carry to defend yourself and deter attacks, but how about cutting the guys that respond when you call for help some slack.

Being asked for ID is not being detained or being denied a right, it is merely being asked a question.

 

[R-Rizzo]

Being asked for ID is not being detained or being denied a right, it is merely being asked a question.

There in lies the "Rub". If you are not being detained, and merely being asked a question, then you have every right not to answer the question or really acknowledge the LEO in anyway shape or form.

 

[Stumps]

There in lies the "Rub". If you are not being detained, and merely being asked a question, then you have every right not to answer the question or really acknowledge the LEO in anyway shape or form.

Did I miss the part where he was arrested and or charged with any crime? As for calling in additional officers, contact was made with an uncooperative and armed individual. It would seem as though the initial contact officer was merely playing it safe. Was the open carrier drawn down on, cuffed or struck? I fail to see where any harm was done.

I do not think that there is any way to bridge the gap between the 2 factions here. There are those of us that want to go unnoticed, we carry concealed. And there are those that want all the world to know the have a gun, and they end up on TV.

I do have one piece of advice to the open carry guys, use a holster with at least one or two levels of retention. I recently stood behind a guy in a Spanaway gas station carrying a full size Glock in a Bladetech paddle holster with no retention devices. Had I wanted to take his gun it would have been mine. The guy did not even seem to know there was anyone standing behind him. You need to always be aware of your surroundings, even more so when you open carry.