| Author | Post |
|---|
911Boss
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:41 am |
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: He said he expects that every time I go out, he'll get a bunch of frantic calls from concerned citizens, but that he hopes that his dispatchers will handle the calls professionally and calm the callers down by explaining how open carry is completely legal. He said they'd still have to send an officer, but that they would instruct them to only observe rather than confront.
While I am glad he made this acknowledgment, I would reserve the right to actually see a change before accepting it.
Did he say how many calls they received in this incident? My guess is ONE. If they received ONE this time, what is his rationale for expecting multiple calls in the future?
As a side note, MIPD doesn't HAVE any dispatchers. They have contracted with Kirkland PD for dispatch services for the past several years. As of today, July 1, their 9-1-1 calls are received and dispatch services provided by NORCOM which is a combined dispatch center serving most of the eastside cities. These are the same folks who handle Bellevue and they seem to understand things so I am guessing that the call receivers already know what is what. Granted there was a recent Bellevue issue as well, but that comes back to how the cops react when they respond.
I get pretty tired of us 9-1-1 folks getting thrown under the bus by the "Have-badges" folks when they are called out on the behavior of one of their fellow officers. If those cops rolled up without lights, sirens, and screeching tires, you can count on the fact that they were given a basic "Suspicious Person" or "Area Check" type detail with nothing to suggest brandishing or waving a gun around.
We dispatch folk don't decide how the cops respond or what they do when they get there. That is on them, it is just so convenient to try and shift blame or responsibility to someone who isn't available to defend themself.
Did he have a repsonse or express any concern on the "I don't care" remark? That is a hell of an example for a Sgt. to provide. Regardless of everything else, if that is what he said (and if I was chief I would damn sure be having a conversation with him and the other two stooges) He would be back to the bottom of the ladder, walking a foot beat on the graveyard shift. Absolutley unacceptable for anyone with a badge to have that attitude, let alone share it with those they come across.
|
911Boss
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:48 am |
|
PS- Make the picnic on Sun 7/5, 7/19, 7/26, 8/9 or 8/16 I will be glad to attend and even "show off" by dual-wielding a couple of mid-size Glocks sporting 33 round magazines.
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:48 am by 911Boss
|
Vandal
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:50 am |
|
| I think Ya'll should invite the Chief! If he shows, then you will be golden.
|
deanf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 02:24 am |
|
i am all for making a fool of a few idiot officers.
That's not why we are here, and it won't do our cause any good. You won't have my support, but go ahead and do so if it makes you feel better.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:37 am |
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: So the police chief just called me and apologized profusely for the violation of my rights and stated that he has given all the information he has received including the training bulletin to all his officers and dispatchers and has directed the training officer to create his own bulletin for Mercer Island and hold training for all officers and dispatchers in the town.
He also said that he understands this is a constitutionally protected right and he wants to make sure everyone's constitutional rights are protected by his police force.
He said he expects that every time I go out, he'll get a bunch of frantic calls from concerned citizens, but that he hopes that his dispatchers will handle the calls professionally and calm the callers down by explaining how open carry is completely legal. He said they'd still have to send an officer, but that they would instruct them to only observe rather than confront.
Very good.
May I suggest sending him a follow up letter thanking him for his phone call, his intention to train the LEOs, etc. It documents that the call occurred.
Also, you might carry ahead with that FOIA request.
These will encourage the police to follow through since they know you are documenting things, laying the groundwork for harsher measures if the chief's promises and concern were empty.
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:14 am |
|
Citizen wrote: Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: So the police chief just called me and apologized profusely for the violation of my rights and stated that he has given all the information he has received including the training bulletin to all his officers and dispatchers and has directed the training officer to create his own bulletin for Mercer Island and hold training for all officers and dispatchers in the town.
He also said that he understands this is a constitutionally protected right and he wants to make sure everyone's constitutional rights are protected by his police force.
He said he expects that every time I go out, he'll get a bunch of frantic calls from concerned citizens, but that he hopes that his dispatchers will handle the calls professionally and calm the callers down by explaining how open carry is completely legal. He said they'd still have to send an officer, but that they would instruct them to only observe rather than confront.
Very good.
May I suggest sending him a follow up letter thanking him for his phone call, his intention to train the LEOs, etc. It documents that the call occurred.
Also, you might carry ahead with that FOIA request.
These will encourage the police to follow through since they know you are documenting things, laying the groundwork for harsher measures if the chief's promises and concern were empty.
Since my talk with the Chief was after I wrote my first letter, I will change it to reflect our conversation and my appreciation of his effort to get his officers trained to respect the rights of open carriers. I also will still be getting the information from the department and keeping it for my records just in case.
While I'm angry at those officers for behaving like thugs, I will allow them to be shamed in their own right without trying to make them look the fool. All we're doing is exercising our rights, and we're not exercising them to make other people look stupid, we're exercising them for our own defense.
As for the idea of inviting him to the barbecue... that's a great idea. I think I'll make it an open invite to all off duty officers (and the Chief of course) to do a kind of meat and greet.
|
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Olympia, WA |
| Posts: | 3075 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:40 am |
|
Good deal! Glad to see Chief Holmes has done the right thing. I think a written apology would be more in order, but those are hard to come by. I look forward to seeing their training bulletin.
|
5jeffro7
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:57 am |
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
As for the idea of inviting him to the barbecue... that's a great idea. I think I'll make it an open invite to all off duty officers (and the Chief of course) to do a kind of meat and greet.
O.K., maybe it's too much sun, or maybe it's the fact that my back has been adjusted & I'm getting more blood flow to my brain, but care to play a silly little "what if" game?
chief & some off duty officers show up at BBQ, Noel has to work, "people with guns" call goes out...noel responds & harasses chief ..not that he'd be THAT stupid...would he?
|
Dr. Fresh
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:33 am |
|
5jeffro7 wrote: Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
As for the idea of inviting him to the barbecue... that's a great idea. I think I'll make it an open invite to all off duty officers (and the Chief of course) to do a kind of meat and greet.
O.K., maybe it's too much sun, or maybe it's the fact that my back has been adjusted & I'm getting more blood flow to my brain, but care to play a silly little "what if" game?
chief & some off duty officers show up at BBQ, Noel has to work, "people with guns" call goes out...noel responds & harasses chief ..not that he'd be THAT stupid...would he?
I seriously doubt it.
Personally, I feel an apology isn't enough here.
|
sniknah
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:34 am |
|
| SUE THEM FOR ALL YOU CAN GET BRO!!!!!
|
John Hardin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:41 am |
|
Don't forget 18 USC 242 when you're listing the officers' infringements:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242
And, if all the officers had the "I don't care what the law is, we'll keep making your life difficult" attitude, 18 USC 241 (conspiracy) as well.
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:44 am by John Hardin
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:03 am |
|
John Hardin wrote: Don't forget 18 USC 242 when you're listing the officers' infringements:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242
And, if all the officers had the "I don't care what the law is, we'll keep making your life difficult" attitude, 18 USC 241 (conspiracy) as well.
Actually, if none of the others attempted to stop the actual infringement, the argument could be made that they supported the action and thereby were, in fact, conspiring with the actor, even though they themselves took no direct action.
From the DOJ page:
Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute.
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
(Emphasis mine)
|
phone guy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 184 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:07 am |
|
I like to let the Mayer know about this.
|
Metalhead47
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:54 am |
|
Hey chalk two here up for any Sunday for the BBQ
|
Sea_Chicken
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:53 am |
|
| Lets get a date for a bbq I'll try to make it.
|
ChuckUFarley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
deanf wrote: and if so could you get them for filing a false police report. (sic)
Probably not, unless you could prove that the caller lied about what happened.
RCW 9A.84.040
There are several elements of the crime of false reporting that need to be satisfied, few of which probably were in this situation.
Your right, i was just thinking if people start getting charged for filing a false report or reporting an emergency when there isnt one, that maybe people would be more cautious about calling and reporting a crime that isnt a crime at all. Like when they charge people who call 911 because their turkey got burned.
|
ChuckUFarley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: So the police chief just called me and apologized profusely for the violation of my rights and stated that he has given all the information he has received including the training bulletin to all his officers and dispatchers and has directed the training officer to create his own bulletin for Mercer Island and hold training for all officers and dispatchers in the town.
He also said that he understands this is a constitutionally protected right and he wants to make sure everyone's constitutional rights are protected by his police force.
He said he expects that every time I go out, he'll get a bunch of frantic calls from concerned citizens, but that he hopes that his dispatchers will handle the calls professionally and calm the callers down by explaining how open carry is completely legal. He said they'd still have to send an officer, but that they would instruct them to only observe rather than confront.
 Finally, I hope he takes these cops to task. I am encouraged that he called you it shows he is better then many of his counterparts. Kudos to him.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:51 pm |
|
I don't think an apology is enough. The cheif might be on board but that still doesn't excuse the actions of his officers. It isn't fair they can break the laws destroy somebody's fourth ammendment and then say oh sorry. Wich the offending officers never said.
I would in the very least like to see reports of harrassment filed on these officers. Look at the attitude they had. The only reason you weren't hauled off or had charges pressed on you were you were totally above board. Do any of us here think that if the OP had done anything wrong no matter how small the infraction, they would have dropped the charges if he said "I am sorry" no matter how profusely? And it is officers like this that promote this us vs. them feelings in our communities, even stating 'I don't care what the law says'.
I was told that negative reports go on the officers "jacket" and if he builds up to many he becomes a liability to his department. It also helps if someone has to defend themselves against some sort of abuse by this officer in court. If the defending attorney can show that this officer has a history of misconduct. Although we feel compelled as good human beings to forgive and forget, in not taking any actions we could be in fact enabling officers abusive behavior.
|
kwiebe
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:00 pm |
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: I don't think an apology is enough. The cheif might be on board but that still doesn't excuse the actions of his officers. It isn't fair they can break the laws destroy somebody's fourth ammendment and then say oh sorry. Wich the offending officers never said.
I would in the very least like to see reports of harrassment filed on these officers. Look at the attitude they had. The only reason you weren't hauled off or had charges pressed on you were you were totally above board. Do any of us here think that if the OP had done anything wrong no matter how small the infraction, they would have dropped the charges if he said "I am sorry" no matter how profusely? And it is officers like this that promote this us vs. them feelings in our communities, even stating 'I don't care what the law says'.
I was told that negative reports go on the officers "jacket" and if he builds up to many he becomes a liability to his department. It also helps if someone has to defend themselves against some sort of abuse by this officer in court. If the defending attorney can show that this officer has a history of misconduct. Although we feel compelled as good human beings to forgive and forget, in not taking any actions we could be in fact enabling officers abusive behavior.
I totally agree with this viewpoint. As things stand, the Chief's response hardly amounts to even a hand-slap, for what is a very serious case of misconduct and unprofessional behavior.
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
| I won't be able to have a BBQ on this Friday and my wife is going to get an early spot on the grass at the Bellevue downtown Park on Saturday. I think that the next three weeks will have me with previous commitments, not the least of which is the July 18th Willow Lake event. I think if we make a plan to have an August 1st or 2nd barbecue on Mercer Island at Luther Burbank Park, so that we can all head over to the I-90 bridge and watch the air show after we meet and eat, we can even all walk over to the I-90 bridge... open carrying all the way. Its about a 20 to 40 minute walk depending on your speed. With kids in tow, it's 40 minutes.
|
Current time is 10:54 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
