Got accused of Reckless Endangerment by an LEO...

[WCrawford]

Do you have anything like this in Washington? (b)(2) being the relevant section.

39-17-309. Civil rights intimidation. —

(a) The general assembly finds and declares that it is the right of every person regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion or national origin, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment and bodily injury caused by the activities of groups and individuals. It is not the intent of this section to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the constitution of the United States. The general assembly recognizes the constitutional right of every citizen to harbor and express beliefs on any subject whatsoever and to associate with others who share similar beliefs. The general assembly further finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups for the purpose of inciting and provoking damage to property and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected, poses a threat to public order and safety, and should be subject to criminal sanctions.

(b) A person commits the offense of intimidating others from exercising civil rights who:

(1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(3) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee; or

(4) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

(c) It is an offense for a person to wear a mask or disguise with the intent to violate subsection (b).

(d) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class D felony. A violation of subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) The penalties provided in this section for intimidating others from exercising civil rights do not preclude victims from seeking any other remedies, criminal or civil, otherwise available under law.

 

[sirtirithon]

Ice Skating Party

"Spokane Open Carriers... Bringin' the heat to the ice!"

 

[Ajetpilot]

"Spokane Open Carriers... Bringin' the heat to the ice!"

 

[ak56]

Would that not be considered reckless endangerment?!? :lol:

But if you got on the sled voluntarily, it would be a consensual encounter.

 

[country.hacker]

Wow, what a great response, thank you so much everyone. Exactly why I wanted to post this here, there's a ton of great info.

Have you spoken to your wife about a possible interaction, detainment, arrest? If not, now is a good time to do so....

Great idea, we'll be discussing for sure.

After talking with your wife, I would recommend.... not talking to the police. "Am I being detained? Am I under arrest?" And then return to skating or walk away.

Definitely doing this next time, when I've not got other obligations on my mind.

Important question: did you get a recording of the conversation?

Unfortunately not, my phone was in the car and I don't have a personal sound recorder. It's on my birthday wish list.

I have instructed family to get out their cell phones and record the interaction as well....

Excellent idea, thanks!

As a "special deputy", normally they are only authorized to use that "authority" when accompanied by a fully commissioned officer.

Interesting. I guess I can find out by calling the Parks and Rec and asking?

BTW, I am in no way trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation or make fun of op's situation. I really do feel action is needed in this matter.

No offense taken, I'm much too laid back a guy to get insulted over a couple of jokes. There's a time for laughter as well as a time for serious business after all.

So with this train of thought you cant skate while CC'ing either because if you fell your gun still "MIGHT" go off.... That's some great logic on his part....

Yeah, I don't really feel like it was ever about public safety, as he didn't even know if my gun was loaded or not.

File a complaint for this ahole's abusive language. He committed the crime of disorderly conduct, under WA statutes, in his action.

Wow, great info, I'll totally reference this in my complaint. I assume a letter is the proper way to do this, addressed to the county sheriff? Or should I call the Sheriff's office and state that I want to file a complaint, ask them what the procedure is?

Ice Skating Party
"Spokane Open Carriers... Bringin' the heat to the ice!"

Ahahahaha!


Seriously guys, thanks for all the info. Am in the process of writing my official complaint letter, will be contacting the Sheriff's office in the morning. I'll let you know what they say, and I'd love to go back there with half-a-dozen other OCers equipped with video cameras and see if this guy tries to confront me again.

 

[Vandal]

I would be very surprised if he actually was a SCSO deputy. Sheriff Ozzie usually keeps his guys on a pretty short leash and I haven't had an issue with any SCSO deputy. File a complain and do so quickly, call the Sheriff himself. He's a personable guy and takes complaints seriously. it would hold extra weight since he is pushing the town hall style violence forums right now.

 

[NavyMike]

Spokane County Sheriff Complaint procedure

Assuming he actually was a SCSO Deputy, try this link:

www.spokanecounty.org/sheriff/content.aspx?c=2008

Quote:

Complaint Form
If you have a concern about how you were treated by a Sheriff's Office employee please contact the Office of Professional Standards. You may call 477-4754, between 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. M - F or print and fill out the Complaint Form and mail it to:

Spokane County Sheriff
Office of Professional Standards
1100 W Mallon Av
Spokane, WA 99260

 

[amlevin]

Do you have anything like this in Washington? (b)(2) being the relevant section.

39-17-309. Civil rights intimidation. —

(a) The general assembly finds and declares that it is the right of every person regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion or national origin, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment and bodily injury caused by the activities of groups and individuals. It is not the intent of this section to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the constitution of the United States. The general assembly recognizes the constitutional right of every citizen to harbor and express beliefs on any subject whatsoever and to associate with others who share similar beliefs. The general assembly further finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups for the purpose of inciting and provoking damage to property and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected, poses a threat to public order and safety, and should be subject to criminal sanctions.

(b) A person commits the offense of intimidating others from exercising civil rights who:

(1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(3) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee; or

(4) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

(c) It is an offense for a person to wear a mask or disguise with the intent to violate subsection (b).

(d) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class D felony. A violation of subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) The penalties provided in this section for intimidating others from exercising civil rights do not preclude victims from seeking any other remedies, criminal or civil, otherwise available under law.

Our "Coercion" statute is pretty much like this. Our's pretty much makes it a crime to threaten anyone with harm, financial injury, etc, to keep them from going about a lawful activity.

All we need is a Prosecutor to actually use it and file charges against some of these officers that go beyond the scope of their job.

 

[bushwacker]

That's a bit of a stretch. Since when can a holstered gun, without a hand on it, be "pointed at anyone" in such a manner that it could warrant any such charge? If this were the case most shoulder holsters, something used by a lot of police officers, would be outlawed.

I agree that there are some out there that are "chicken$h!t" but I doubt that they are that stupid.

yeah it's a bit of a stretch, like we said it would be chickensh*t, but I wouldn't put tooo much stock in their intelligence factor to not do that cause, this site,news and the internet is loaded with stupid boners they've pulled.

 

[amlevin]

yeah it's a bit of a stretch, like we said it would be chickensh*t, but I wouldn't put tooo much stock in their intelligence factor to not do that cause, this site,news and the internet is loaded with stupid boners they've pulled.

Yes, I too have seen, heard, and read about stupid acts. Accusing one of endangering someone just because their holstered gun was inadvertently pointed at someone hasn't been one. Some LEO's may be a little over the top in some of their actions but I can't see any of them looking forward to the laughter this would bring from their peers, the Prosecutor, or the Court if it made it that far.

 

[Luke]

Am I being detained? Am I a under arrest?

Skate away.

Assuming the person is a LEO and not a security guard, what if they answer yes to the first one? Are they legally obligated to tell you why you're being detained? I know they have to have RAS, but do they actually have to tell the detainee what their RAS is? Just curious.

 

[G20-IWB24/7]

Assuming the person is a LEO and not a security guard, what if they answer yes to the first one? Are they legally obligated to tell you why you're being detained? I know they have to have RAS, but do they actually have to tell the detainee what their RAS is? Just curious.

Once that question is asked, (at least MY personal opinion on the matter) that puts the offending officer on notice that they are dealing with someone who actually knows the correct terminology (and subsequently) and rights/laws/RCW's etc... versus some crackhead on the street screaming "I know my rights." (as they rarely do...)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Assuming the person is a LEO and not a security guard, what if they answer yes to the first one? Are they legally obligated to tell you why you're being detained? I know they have to have RAS, but do they actually have to tell the detainee what their RAS is? Just curious.

RAS= Reasonable Articulable Suspicion engaged in unlawful activity.

Yes in my opinion they do have to state it. I would continue to ask for it ask if I am free to leave if they cannot give it, if they still detain you, you are now under arrest in my opinion and would just invoke the 5th and ask to speak to my lawyer.

 

[amlevin]

RAS= Reasonable Articulable Suspicion engaged in unlawful activity.

Yes in my opinion they do have to state it. I would continue to ask for it ask if I am free to leave if they cannot give it, if they still detain you, you are now under arrest in my opinion and would just invoke the 5th and ask to speak to my lawyer.

But what if they merely respond for you to put your hands behind your back and they cuff you before stating their reason? Consider the situation of a traffic stop. How many have been approached, asked for License, Registration, and Proof of Insurance. When the officer returns he might say "can you please step out of the car". You ask "why" and they continue to say "Please Step out of the car". If you refuse, want to bet you'll be getting out real soon? And they won't respond to your first question until you are in 'cuffs. Of course the reason they went through this is a traffic (or possibly other) warrant. Some officers might say "you have a warrant" and others don't want to give the person a fighting head start so they only advise when they are cuffed. Of course any resistance adds an extra charge.

I guess it just is a matter of how much time you have on your hands as to how "right" you want to be at the moment. Sometimes it might be better to deal with it after the fact with a complaint that might develop into either charges against the officer or a lawsuit.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Big difference between a traffic stop and being stopped walking down the street.

 

[amzbrady]

I have to wonder? Why are there TWO security gaurds at an ice skating rink? Are ice skating rinks so dangerous now that they need TWO security gaurds? If so, why would one go there UNARMED?
Good job on diffusing the situation. I think you made the best choice, in keeping your wife in mind.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Big difference between a traffic stop and being stopped walking down the street.

Yep.

And in Amlevin's scenario whether it is a traffic incident or not, you are under arrest when the cuffs are put on in my opinion. So now you talk to a lawyer and let them figure it out, I will never "cooperate" with an LEO ever again. I may not resist but they are not our friends in encounters, ever.

 

[amlevin]

Yep.

And in Amlevin's scenario whether it is a traffic incident or not, you are under arrest when the cuffs are put on in my opinion. So now you talk to a lawyer and let them figure it out, I will never "cooperate" with an LEO ever again. I may not resist but they are not our friends in encounters, ever.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that yes, the officer has to have a "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" to stop you. There doesn't appear to be any clear "time" as to when he has to "Articulate" this to you. The officer may well feel he has the RAS even though you don't. I don't see anything in my readings that says he has to tell you what it is immediately, he just has to have it. This is why I think one should be real careful before they "stonewall" an officer.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The point I was trying to illustrate is that yes, the officer has to have a "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" to stop you. There doesn't appear to be any clear "time" as to when he has to "Articulate" this to you. The officer may well feel he has the RAS even though you don't. I don't see anything in my readings that says he has to tell you what it is immediately, he just has to have it. This is why I think one should be real careful before they "stonewall" an officer.

I would disagree. If they are intruding into my affairs they better be able to articulate to me why.

I will never "cooperate" ever again been down that road didn't work out well for me sometimes so I will not take the chance of not knowing what is on the officers mind, knowing that they will often lie to you to get what they want. Let the courts figure it out later, you are better off if you request RAS, and take a stand for what is right.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

IF you are carrying without ID and on foot the Officer can not demand you ID yourself unless you are being arrested sp in my opinion he has to tell you you are under arrest to get you to ID yourself.

I did not say the Officer could not ask you for ID anytime he wanted to. My standard reply for an ID request is Officer what crime do you suspect me of commiting that then forces them to tell you no crime or say a crime. Of course they can always jump you, cuff you and never say a word to you until you rights are given.