Send us Tips

Seattle Police respond to “person with gun” dispatch at Green Lake Park

What do you think? (29 Comments) August 22, 2011 at 1:50PM

Seattle Police responded to Green Lake Park yesterday morning (Sunday, August 21, 2011) following a “person with a gun” dispatch to West Green Lake Way N at N 63rd St.

The incident is being discussed on OpenCarry.org, a ”pro-gun Internet community focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.”

OpenCarry.org forum user “jsanchez” started a thread yesterday titled “Taken down at gun point at Greenlake today.”

Jsanchez says that, following a walk around the lake, he was waiting for his wife at Green Lake Park. He saw a woman on the phone, and suspected that she may be calling police.

“Sure enough,” jsanchez writes, “5 minutes later 2 Seattle Police cars show up and the lady runs over to talk to them and points in my direction.”

You can read the rest of jsanchez’s account here.

Washington Revised Code § 9.41.270 relates to “weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling.” It reads:

(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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]

 

Author:
Location: Green Lake Park, South Green Lake, West Green Lake
What do you think? (29 Comments)
  • Ben Lukoff

    Interesting. Sounds like this is the sticking point: “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.”

    If it was holstered, there could be a reasonable question whether it “warrant[ed] alarm for the safety of other persons.” I’m sure that’s what he will be arguing. (I am not a lawyer.)

    I would be willing to bet most people don’t realize open carry is legal, though. If the woman who called 911 was one of them, she may very well have thought her alarm was warranted. Interesting case.

    • Anonymous

      If it’s holstered, there is no reasonable question… WA courts have already ruled that the act of simply carrying a gun cannot be considered a basis for alarm.

      • Will

        Do you have a case number for those rulings? I like having all my bases covered, especially sense I’ll be open carrying an AK-47 :).

        • Will

          Actually I found it, it’s State v. Gregory Casad. “It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.”

    • http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ John Hardin

      I would be willing to bet most people don’t realize open carry is legal, though. If the woman who called 911 was one of them, she may very well have thought her alarm was warranted.

      In that case it should be the 911 dispatcher’s duty to ask “What is he doing? Is he acting belligerently? Is he threatening people? Is the gun in his hand?” and if the response is “It’s in a holster and he’s just walking around” then they should inform the caller that open carry is legal and the person is breaking no law.

  • http://profiles.google.com/max.kingsbury Max Kingsbury

    The first two posts by the poster:

    TLDR version: A concerned citizen called the police reporting him, and the police responded. He was disarmed peacefully, convinced the police that he was in compliance with the law, re-armed himself, and completed his walk around the lake.

    Post 1:
    “I had just completed a walk around Greenlake and was waiting for my wife to arrive, when I saw a lady on the phone, and I thought she was calling police. Sure enough 5 minutes later 2 Seattle Police cars show up and the lady runs over to talk to them and points in my direction. The officers park there cars and the fat one tries to make a tatical approach, aka trying to sneak up, but he was wider then the tree he was trying to hide behind. So he peaks around the tree to see me and I wave at him, don’t you hate it when you lose the element of surprise. So he orders me to put my hands on top of my head and dont move. His partner is at my 2 o’clock has his gun out and at the low ready. I put my hands on my head and wait for him to take my gun. He cant get my gun out of my level 3 holster so he ends up taking my belt half way off. They ask me if I have any other weapons on me, I say yes and tell them I have a second gun in my front pocket, they remove that off me. 

    Now they have all my guns and they put their guns away and now the conversation begins. Them, do you have a cpl and may I see it? Me, what cad supported probable cause do you have to stop me? More to follow….”
    Post 2:
    “So I informed the officers that they had violated my civil rights, freedom of movement. I presented them a copy of their departments trainning memo, all two pages, and i told them they were in violation of RCW 9A 80 010. Gross misdermenor when police deprive citizen of civil rights. I explained that the two conditions to arrest me, one, gun in hand, two , making threats had not been met. Another officer arrived, I guess their supervisor, I showed him the paper work also. They tried to use SMC 18.12 no guns in park against me, but I informed them that it had been overtuned in King County Superior Court. They called there Lt. Then they locked my guns in my car across the street, and told me for officer safety to retrieve them after they leave. I did and went for a walk around Greenlake with my wife. My wife said the lady that called was embarressed when the police spoke with her when wrapping things up. An incident # was generated and it is 11-274592. The officers involved were Shilipeyar #5183, Kamalu #5990, and Hargraves #2974. The youngest officer was Kamalu, who by the way was the officer that responded to the shooting at Folklife a couple of years ago, so I was told by the supervisor.
    On a seperate note, not more than 24 hours earlier I was at the South West Precincts picnic, walked all over the place, talked to officers and Chief Diez. I just want to thank all the members of Washington Open Carry for teaching me what to do in situration like this. Thank you very much.”

  • Ben Johnson

    Fool

    • Teddy2

      That’s your response? What are you in in Junior High?

      • Ben Johnson

        Yes

        • Teddy2

          Thanks. Good to know. At least you’re unable to vote.

    • Teddy2

      That’s your response? What are you in in Junior High?

  • http://TheRealEdwin.com TheRealEdwin

    Open carry is quite common outside of Seattle. Just moved here and was exploring the areas around the city and noticed more than a few people open carrying. We’re just going to have to get used to this as it gets more and more common.

    • David Hamilton

      Who are you kidding?  Open carry is not common any where.  I have lived in TX, CO, and MT.  You rarely see any openly carried guns in any of those states.

      • Teddy2

        I have lived in both CO and TX. I’ve seen people openly carrying weapons. There is an interesting FBI report that came out a few years ago which showed that states with concelled carry laws have fewer violent crimes and assaults.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Crawford/1518874604 Wayne Crawford

        In at least one of those states, open carry is illegal. In another state, the largest city makes open carry illegal. I’ll allow you to do the law work on that yourself.

        • Teddy2

          Why don’t you just make your case instead of playing games?

          • Teddy2

            Hi Blake. There is an interesting FBI report that came out a few years ago which showed that states with concelled carry laws have fewer violent crimes and assaults. This is a report put out by the FBI not the NRA. Try to open your mind.

      • guest

        Hi, Montana native here.  Open carry is very common in Montana.  I’ve see it a lot in Arizona as well.

  • http://www.jrotech.com/ Jeff Rodenburg

    This is an interesting situation, and not an easy call for anyone involved.  I’m inferring my opinions from what’s been written in the above links, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.

    We have:
    1) an onlooker who has called the police, notifying them that someone around Green Lake was openly carrying a firearm;
    2) a citizen who, while carrying a firearm, believed they were doing so within the law and their rights;
    3) Seattle Police, who have no idea what they’re encountering with someone around Green Lake possessing a firearm.

    So, let’s put into context the information that’s been presented.

    A guy with a firearm watches a woman on her cell phone, and “guesses” she is calling police? Not buying it. Anyone paying attention in that manner is a little too wired in.

    The individual with the firearm happens to possess all the legal documentation to support his right to carry a firearm? Maybe it’s the nature of firearms and ownership/possession, but if you’re packing that stuff around, I have a hard time believing you are “out for a nice stroll around Green Lake.”

    The thing is, I actually feel the guy was in the right — he may be legally carrying a firearm (I don’t know the law in this scenario, and believe there can be a rush to judgment about people who are responsibly exercising their rights under the law.)  And until the laws are crystal clear, I don’t perceive my sense of comfortableness to supersede another individual’s rights.

    That said, I don’t believe this guy was just enjoying time at the Lake.  While the story is made to sound like the guy was minding his own business, he certainly wasn’t above “showing off”. He was aware enough that he had his firearm visible to the public, and he obviously expected the SPD to arrive.  I can’t speak to this situation, but there’s a maturity and responsibility element to citizenry that seems to be lost nowadays.

    I empathize the position the guy is in — guilty on assumption, and the SPD frankly doesn’t have a good track record with these things.  However, they have safety in mind and have no idea what type of person they’re encountering.  I wish the guy didn’t feel threatened by the police, but I would be more concerned if the police didn’t investigate the situation.

    • http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ John Hardin

      A guy with a firearm watches a woman on her cell phone, and “guesses” she is calling police? Not buying it. Anyone paying attention in that manner is a little too wired in.

      Those who open carry are well aware that they are subject to negative attention by the public and the police. If someone who is open carrying notices someone else on a cell phone while staring at them or repeatedly glancing their way, it’s not unreasonable to assume they are calling 911.

      The individual with the firearm happens to possess all the legal documentation to support his right to carry a firearm? Maybe it’s the nature of firearms and ownership/possession, but if you’re packing that stuff around, I have a hard time believing you are “out for a nice stroll around Green Lake.”

      “Packing that stuff around” is a prudent response to a history of harassment by law enforcement officers for engaging in a peaceable, lawful activity that some of them happen to dislike. If you open carry it’s recommended that you carry a copy of the relevant state laws, a copy of the training bulletins for the jurisdiction you’re in (the police know it’s a lawful activity and still they harass open carriers), and a voice recorder, in case you are approached by the police and things don’t go well.

      And until the laws are crystal clear

      In what way are the laws unclear? There is no prohibition of open carry, the state preempts local restrictions, and the State Supreme Court acknowledges that simply carrying a sidearm openly does not violate the law.

      I don’t perceive my sense of comfortableness to supersede another individual’s rights.

      Thank you. That’s all open carriers want.

      That said, I don’t believe this guy was just enjoying time at the Lake.

      Why not?

      he certainly wasn’t above “showing off”.

      Simply carrying openly isn’t “showing off”.

      he obviously expected the SPD to arrive

      Someone open carrying sees someone else talking on a cell phone while glancing their way or staring at them. What would you assume? As for carrying the legal documentation, that’s simply prudent preparation for an encounter with poorly-trained police officers.

      However, they [the SPD] have safety in mind and have no idea what type of person they’re encountering.

      The problem is that they immediately approached him, apparently with guns drawn, and detained and disarmed him without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that he had done, or was preparing to do, anything illegal. The 911 dispatcher should have asked the caller what he was doing, and when she said “He’s just walking around” should have said “Ma’am, that’s perfectly legal”. The officers should have simply observed him for a few minutes to see what he was doing, and if he was doing nothing that warranted suspicion of illegal activities, they should either have told the caller that he’s not doing anything wrong, or they should have approached him without drawing their sidearms and simply talked to him.

  • Mike Perry

    What’s interesting is the fast response time: five minutes. I’ve been at Green Lake on two occasions when something actually dangerous was happening. The response time in the first case was about 20 minutes, at which point three police cars arrived simultaneously. In the second case, I was the one who’d called 911, and the police never arrived. After about ten minutes, the knife thrower left and ten minutes after that I called 911 and cancelled my report. 

    The first case occurred at the north end of Green Lake when a large guy pushing around his belongings in a shopping cart had an angry exchange with the staff of a cafe, shouting obscenities and the like. It was rush hour, so I wasn’t surprised that it took so long for dispatch to put three cars on the scene. The guy was big and obviously out of control. Three cops were needed.

    The second case happened at the SW corner of the Green Lake. A guy was throwing knives at a tree about 10 feet from the paved path, putting small kids nearby at risk. I politely asked him to move elsewhere. He refused and became irrational, so I warned him I was calling 911 and backed away. When he came toward me, a guy much larger than he who’d seen what I was doing intercepted him and persuaded him to back off. I stayed on the scene to be able to point out the guy to the police. When he left, I waited an few minutes and then cancelled my call. As far as I know, he’s never come back.

    Note that in both cases, the person reported was actually behaving dangerously. Both were belligerent and bad tempered. One was openly using (not just displaying) knives. The other was emotionally out of control. Unlike this rather ordinary case of open carry, there was reason to be alarmed and call the police.

    I suspect, for all their antics, the police knew this guy was harmless. That’s why they came so quickly and merely as a pair. Someone who intends harm isn’t going to display their gun until they actually began to use it. They need the advantage of surprise.

    People who’re out in public really need to learned to judge by the circumstances rather than what someone is carrying. Look at the person rather than what they are carrying Incidents like this merely waste the time of police.

  • bada bing

    In my opinion, if open carry laws exist, and we don’t want to scare the public/waste police & 911 time, etc etc etc…. Let’s advertise this! Let the citizens KNOW that this is a law & this is what it looks like (holstered) when a person carrys a gun under this law. That way it prevents all the b s….. not to mention possibly a scary situation for all involved. Just my two cents.

    • Glock30owner

      Open Carry is protected by the State Constitution. There is no “Law” that allows it. The problem lies in that most people could not care about what the state’s constitution says.

      • joesparky

        More important is that there is NO LAW in Washington making the actions of the person taking a walk with his firearm holstered ILLEGAL!

    • JoeSparky

      Generally, laws exist to prohibit certain actions. Acts are either legal or not legal. There is no middle ground here. There is no law in Washington State making the actions of the holstered firearm NOT legal so by definition his actions are LEGAL.
      Since the officers have no Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that he is about to, engaged in, or just committed a crime (the standard the officers must met to initiate a NON-Consensual encounter) then the should have done nothing more than observe his actions and then LEFT HIM ALONE! If they wanted to have a Consensual encounter with him they should have left their own weapons holstered!

  • Anonymous

    Being a gun owner myself, and one that
    carries a concealed weapon more often than not, I have two somewhat conflicting
    views on this:

    1. According to the law, the guy was in the right. The woman should feel
    foolish as she obviously cannot properly identify a serious threat and SPD
    should be ashamed for not knowing the law.

    2. Why open carry in the city though? In the mountains or on the farm it is
    fine, but in Seattle one can just as easily conceal a handgun. Sure it is your
    right, but it tends to make others around you uncomfortable and gets you
    noticed…neither of which I want at anytime and especially, when carrying.

    Bottom line, both the NRA and the
    anti-gun NIMBYs have lost all common sense.

    • Glock30owner

      I’m uncomfortable with you speaking you mind in my presence. Please hide your opinions.