Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[gogoDawgs]

From what I gather, this guy recorded a police officer without consent and was arrested and charged on the RCW code listed above. He went to district court and made an appeal, which was denied and he remained charged with a crime. He took it to the state supreme court, was denied and remained charged with a crime. He then took it to a third court to which the charges were reversed and dismissed.

This guy was arrested, charged with a crime and went through three court cases until he could get the charge reversed. And yet the RCW code still reads the same way without an exception, and that was back in 1992.

I promise you will still be arrested and charged for recording an officer if you pull that crap, all while citing case law in the back of a crown vic.

If you think so, good for you. But stare decis says completely different.

While in public, in their official capacity public officials can be recorded without consent.

 

[Father of four]

From what I gather, this guy recorded a police officer without consent and was arrested and charged on the RCW code listed above. He went to district court and made an appeal, which was denied and he remained charged with a crime. He took it to the state supreme court, was denied and remained charged with a crime. He then took it to a third court to which the charges were reversed and dismissed.

This guy was arrested, charged with a crime and went through three court cases until he could get the charge reversed. And yet the RCW code still reads the same way without an exception, and that was back in 1992.

I promise you will still be arrested and charged for recording an officer if you pull that crap, all while citing case law in the back of a crown vic.

I think its a double standard. They get to do it to us but we cant do it to them. It is not fair. They get to prove we did or said something but we cant prove it about them. It aint right!

 

[gogoDawgs]

OK, I think that OCing is a right and should not be infringed.
I do think a LEO has the right to ask for your name so he/she can check you out if he sees you carrying, OC or Concealed. (Even when concealed people sometimes get a peek.)
I think being polite to an Officer is the best way to go. Being respectfully and polite to people is how I was raised.
I myself may not stay respectful with a rude Officer though. Respect is a two way street to me. If you disrespect me dont think you deserve my respect.
I am a grown man who is not a criminal. If I was OCing and LEO wanted to see my ID I would hand it over. I have nothing to hide.
BUT I do not think it's OK for the LEO's to ask for your ID just because you chose not to answer a question. Officers can and have used the "Show me your ID/Can I see your ID" just to mess with people or "Show them who is Boss". And then arrest a person for no good reason except for them not showing the Officer the respect he thinks he deserved.
To me its just like a judge being called "Your Honor". Yeah right. I have seen, read or heard about more then a few Judges that are not honorable and who do not deserve to be called "Your Honor".

I think the Guy and the Officers that were involved acted just fine. It to me was the guy's right to not want to be messed with. (He was detained.) He was not free to go. But it is also the right of the Officer to ask for a person to identify themselves and check to see if everything is alright.

I agree with your sentiment. However, Tom was not asked for his ID, it was required.

He was required to prove his innocence?

 

[Father of four]

I agree with your sentiment. However, Tom was not asked for his ID, it was required.

He was required to prove his innocence?

I myself have been very critical of Officers behavior. But yes we may need to prove our innocence sometimes.

 

[gogoDawgs]

I myself have been very critical of Officers behavior. But yes we may need to prove our innocence sometimes.

Then the Constitution is dead. The 4th amendment is dead.

 

[Father of four]

I still like to believe there are alot of Good LEO's out there who are doing their jobs the best they can. If I need to show them my ID or tell them my name, address and birthdate to prove to them I am a good guy then so be it.

 

[Father of four]

I guess I am just an idiot and thats how I see it.

 

[Wenis]

I think its a double standard. They get to do it to us but we cant do it to them. It is not fair. They get to prove we did or said something but we cant prove it about them. It aint right!

I completely agree, it is a double standard and should be changed. But as the law reads, I would not do it until the RCW code is amended.

I think that topic should be Tom Brewster's soap box. At least the publicity made the news. Some officers don't even know that you can open carry without a permit. It amazes me that those who have to enforce the laws do not fully know them.

 

[riverrat373]

I still like to believe there are alot of Good LEO's out there who are doing their jobs the best they can. If I need to show them my ID or tell them my name, address and birthdate to prove to them I am a good guy then so be it.

+1

 

[gogoDawgs]

I completely agree, it is a double standard and should be changed. But as the law reads, I would not do it until the RCW code is amended.

So you won't break any RCW?

Don't go outside if you have a cold then.

RCW 70.54.050
Exposing contagious disease — Penalty.

Every person who shall wilfully expose himself to another, or any animal affected with any contagious or infectious disease, in any public place or thoroughfare, except upon his or its necessary removal in a manner not dangerous to the public health; and every person so affected who shall expose any other person thereto without his knowledge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

 

[Wenis]

You would be a Huskies fan

 

[mjbskwim]

So you won't break any RCW?

Don't go outside if you have a cold then.

RCW 70.54.050
Exposing contagious disease — Penalty.

Every person who shall wilfully expose himself to another, or any animal affected with any contagious or infectious disease, in any public place or thoroughfare, except upon his or its necessary removal in a manner not dangerous to the public health; and every person so affected who shall expose any other person thereto without his knowledge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

My gawd man,go inside and put your tin foil hat on.
You are just ridiculous to read.

 

[mfoster]

Good morning and all respects to the Senior members and Members of this forum.
Before the Declaration of Independence was signed, men would meet and gather to discuss politics, issues, and what the King of England was doing to the new comers to North America. Now we can meet in a forum such as this. Every comment to this forum is "good" because it is your right of free speech, your opinion. I appreciate "gogoDawgs" legal approach. That has to be considered solid because it is the Law, the same law we and LEO have to follow. There was good comparison to Rosa Parks. In her case she realized that she was not going to be just be "asked for ID" and a little verbal harassment, she knew she would go to jail because at that time because it was the "law" for black people to sit in the back of the bus.
I appreciate and support all LEO because they do a hard job, not an easy job, and often find themselves in positions that we as private citizens would be in a real bad place if it happened to us. Look at the police officer who shot the Native American in Seattle about a month ago. What about the officer who got in physical confrontation with the young black female who tried to assault him earlier this year.
I do hate to compare, but Washington is not like Arizona in the sense that people are used to seeing guns in the open and carried as much openly.
But, Starbucks has been in some crossfire for allowing its customers to "open carry" as their personal preference. So in my opinion, LEO might expect to see a citizen exercising his or her right to open carry in a Starbucks.
We all feel bad about the good officers who lost their lives in the line of duty by a bad person doing a bad thing in a coffee shop in that general area. Details of which we all know. Do the LEO's feel a little nervous in that area because of that incident, maybe, I am not sure, but likely they think about it?
Do members of our Military look at people different, maybe of a certain ethnic background, after returning from an overseas combat zone, maybe?
The conservative side of me does not open carry in public places as not to draw attention to myself. When needed, I conceal carry, not unlike many members of this forum. Although it is the law, and I have spoken to Mr. Workman personally at the WAC shows and bought his book, I am still understanding open carry from legal perspectives. Open carry is not my first personal choice.
In my opinion, I do support open carry form a legal point and therefore a personal choice. As a "right" we can understand it, but maybe not agree that it is our personal choice.
Some members on this forum agree to show ID when asked by LEO's, some say legally I do not have to and I won't. Maybe is it that we support and cooperate with LEO's as they carry out their duties, and would show ID to them when asked because we have nothing to hide. Maybe we think only the "bad" guys have something to hide and do not want to be associated with that group. Maybe a mixture of some opinions land in the middle.
Was it wrong for a man to consider his legal right to open carry and refuse to show ID to a LEO without due process of law? Maybe that part of the debate in question. I applaud his character for standing up to what he thought was his legal right. Despite what we think is wrong in a courtesy to LEO when asked for ID, what was his legal right to refuse? What is the Starbucks's policy for Open Carry? What was going on at the business at the time? Did the man look confrontation or act that way? All of these things can be factors in try to for us to determine what should have been the best course of action.
Years ago, we let the government take away our legal right to certain firearms based on what was perceived as "bad". President Clinton signed it into law because gun owner's themselves could not agree what was a "good gun" and a "bad gun" or you do not need an 'Ak-47 to go hunting with a 30 round magazine'. Now compare that to today. Where are we now?
Thank you allowing me post my comments and opinions to this forum. If you read my comments and have a positive response, I would gladly like to entertain your opinion. If you disagree that is ok too because it is your "right" to do so, and I would still read your comments also.

 

[tattoo]

I walked away from that OCDO forum for the reason that they feel it is there right to be jerks. Sure you have the right, as is written on paper, to be a jerk, but I live my life with a different set of morals. Why Tom just didn't stand up like a man and show the LEO his ID is beyond me, he does say he has nothing to hide. This other forum (that Tom is a part of) LIVES to find controversy. And then its like a pack of dogs going after 1 bone. (a small pack) They do it to get into the spotlight. Some a LOT more than others. And toot there own horns about how freekin great they are (puke). They claim to be trying to normalize open carry in society. I think they have a few preachers there that want to see themselves on TV or have people tell them how great they are on the internet,
its like an internet cult. DO THINGS OUR WAY or we will bash you and tell you how wrong and stupid you are.
A lot of good apples there but the bad ones stink up the whole basket. JMHO

 

[revjen45]

Post #27: "It's harmless. I have nothing to hide."

The idea that refusal by a free American to consent to any intrusion upon his/her inalienable rights indicates mens rea is the pretext for any and all such intrusions.

That said, I recognize that the BOR has been null and void for a long time, so if the Kripos want to see your ID your rights are irrelevant and you had better produce your Reichspapieren.

 

[sweetbeard]

this thread is totally retarded.. an open carry advocate looking for a fight.. and a bunch of nerds sitting at a computer complaining...

fail thread.

 

[gogoDawgs]

‎"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." ~ B Franklin




‎'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes'
(Who watches the watchmen?)

 

[sweetbeard]

‎"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." ~ B Franklin




‎'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes'
(Who watches the watchmen?)

you do sir, you do...........

 

[riverrat373]

‎"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." ~ B Franklin




‎'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes'
(Who watches the watchmen?)

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy WITHOUT fighting is the acme of skill."

Sun Tzu

 

[A2theK]

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.

Exactly

I like it on the internet how the cops are always hush hush about their jobs, but on the street or at a party they throw it around like they are superheros or something.

For those of you who say "Do what they want they have a tough job" I want to see what you would say in 1938 if you were a Jew. That's right you'd be gone.

I want an ID check before you can buy groceries - Not just coffee - How about that commies?