Police ticket man who wore gun in store (Didn't break the law, but someone was "alarmed")

[shadowrider]

A man who was seen in a Vancouver supermarket with a handgun visible in a holster — prompting a call to 911 on Friday — was ticketed and released with a court date, police said.

Shortly after 4 p.m., officers were sent to the Albertsons store at 5000 E. Fourth Plain Blvd., said Sgt. Greg Raquer with the Vancouver Police Department.

When officers approached the man who wore the gun he was cooperative. The loaded gun’s holster had two ammo magazines attached to it, said Officer Ilia Botvinnik.

--snip--

That law says: “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.”

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/mar/19/police-ticket-man-who-wore-gun-in-store/

[shadowrider]

1. Amazing

The sight of a guy with a gun on his hip causes alarm, so, they call guys who...TA DAA..wear guns on their hip.

[MineralMan]

2. Let's try a mind experiment, shall we?

Scenario 1: White guy with a military-style haircut walks through the Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Scenario 2: Young black many with low pants and a skin-tight t-shirt with a rapper's face on it walks through the Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Scenario 3: Skinny white guy with a long beard and wild hair, dressed in dirty, holey jeans and a marijuana t-shirt walks through Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Scenario 4: Young hispanic guy wearing chinos and a red plaid shirt, bearing a tattoo on his forehead walks through Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Question: Is your reaction identical in each of these situations. Answer honestly.

Food for Thought: Your reaction would probably depend a great deal on who you are, wouldn't it?

[shadowrider]

3. It's holstered and visible

so no problem. Honest, law-abiding citizens do that. I'm more scared of ALL of the above scenarios if they were hiding them.

[MineralMan]

4. Right. I believe you. I do.

[shraby]

5. Hidden or in plain sight, the fact remains that

guns are meant for one thing, and it isn't for decoration.

[shadowrider]

6. Bad guys have them and aren't afraid to use them

I have one to help me even the odds.

[depakid]

23. So called "good guys" use them, too

To settle arguments, shoot their families, wives or girlfriends or teach their employers and coworkers a lesson.

[Euromutt]

26. "So called" by whom?

People who commit killings in the circumstances you describe have one thing in common: they place a higher value on maintaining their self-image (aka "protecting/redeeming their honor," "saving face" or any term to that effect) than they do on human life. Given the non-existence of paranormal abilities to read minds, this is not a prosecutable criminal offense, and the only reliable way we have of knowing with certainty that this is the case (unfortunately) is when they actually try to kill someone, but I think reasonable people should be able to agree that when someone is willing to kill another rather than suffer his ego to be bruised, that person is not a "good guy." Indeed, given that such people evidently possess the willingness to commit an unlawful killing for so trivial a reason is, in and of itself, an indication that the person in question was not "law-abiding" even before he pulled the trigger (or drove the knife home, or otherwise inflicted physical injury upon the offending party).

Take Charles Parsons, that guy who shot his ex-wife (not that he thought of her as his ex-wife) in Federal Way, WA last Wednesday. He didn't "just happen" to have the gun with him; he didn't kill his wife in "a fit of rage." He planned this with malice aforethought; he'd decided before he went to the session that it would produce one of two outcomes: either his ex-wife would agree to come back to him, or he'd kill her right there and then. He brought the gun to the meeting for the premeditated purpose of killing her if she didn't do what he wanted. If he hadn't had (or been able to acquire) a gun, he'd have brought a knife. If you're inclined to scoff at that assessment, remember that Nicole Simpson Brown and Ron Goldman weren't murdered with a firearm.

Unfortunately, the price of having a constitutional provision that a person will not be deprived of liberty without due process means that we can't lock people up for crimes they are at high risk of committing, but have not yet actually committed. The fact is that domestic and workplace murders are actually depressingly predictable But is it really surprising in a society that is as litigious as the United States, that in the wake of a domestic or workplace killing, nobody is prepared to state "we should have seen this coming"? Instead, everyone who could and did see it coming regurgitates the claim that "nobody could have predicted this" (in a frenzy of retrospective ass-covering) until it's been said so often that it's become "common knowledge" that this kind of murder comes "out of the blue," "without warning."

The gun control lobby is all too happy to embrace and propagate this bullshit ("myth" is too polite a word for it), because it allows them to claim that these deaths could--indeed, it is implied, would--have been averted if only the perp hadn't had access to a firearm. By focusing on the how, they hope to gloss over the fact that they're willfully ignoring the why, which is really what we need to focus on if we want to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

[PavePusher]

10. Cracking walnuts with the butt?

What are you implying?

You seem to be saying that all gun carriers are simply a crime waiting to happen. Please clear this up if I'm making the wrong assumption.

[shraby]

13. I said nothing of the sort..guns are made for killing

living things. The place for them is in a locked gun cabinet, not out riding around on someone's hip. I come from a long line of hunters who hunt not for sport, but for a few meals when the game is in season. Guns are dangerous and I was taught to always assume they are loaded and if handled need inspected to visually verify they have no shells in the chamber.
I would certainly be extremely uncomfortable around someone carrying a gun on his/her hip for show. It tells me that they are either not too bright or are intent on intimidation of the people in the vicinity. Chances are, sooner or later someone will get hurt.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Open carry is explicitly legal in Washington. What his motives are for doing so are irrelevant

I would not do it myself, but that is for him to decide.

Now "brandishing" IS illegal, but there was no indication in the linked article that he did so.

[X_Digger]

17. Only one in five gun owners hunt..

While I understand your position, you are definitely in the minority among gun owners.

[PavePusher]

21. Does carrying for defensive purposes make me...

"not too bright or... intent on intimidation of the people in the vicinity"?

Have you any factual evidence to back up your claim?

P.S. The Second Amendment has little to do with hunting. I have a number of firearms. One I carry nearly daily. None have ever "killed living things" while in my control. (5 of them are WWII era surplus, I don't know specifics on how they were used back then.) Are they defective, or am I just a responsible gun-owner?

[PavePusher]

33. I get no answer...

a ma grande suprise...

(sarcasm off)

[eqfan592]

30. Sorry, but that's a fairly ignorant viewpoint.

Pure and simple.

[proteus_lives]

12. And your point is?

[SteveM]

24. And what is that "fact?" Can you identify and explain the significance of this? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

7. A tattoo on his forehead ?

Is this a traditional Moko , or perhaps something designating the avenue of his domicile and penchant for games of skill and chance ?

[MineralMan]

8. I didn't get close enough to tell, you know.

[PavePusher]

9. For me, no problem.

But I'm only a middle-age, open carrying white guy in the Air Force in Arizona, so my opinion probably doesn't count.

Now, if they constantly kept their hand on the gun, seemed nervous or exciteable (yeah, I know, wholly subjective to the observer), constantly turned the gun-hip towards observers/companions/passersby... different story.

If they were merely searching through the fruit bins, trying to get the unbruised apples... I'd probably have to clear leather on them, those apples are MINE, damnit!

But seriously, part of the O.C. theme is: legal is legal, innocent until proven guilty. Observe. Evaluate. Report only if an articulateable, legal danger is present.

Just be careful around those apples...

[Abq_Sarah]

14. My response would be the same

If they were wearing a properly holstered firearm, I'm not going to give them a second look.

[X_Digger]

16. Depends more on attitude than appearance

You've described three of the five guys that I go shooting with, for the most part. (Darrel doesn't wear baggy pants but he does sport serious dreds & rasta gear; and Felipe doesn't have a gang tattoo on his forehead, but he has a bitchin tiger coming out of his right biceps and I've seen him wearing those really pointy cowboy boots on occasion.)

[Euromutt]

18. Let's refer to the jurisprudence instead

Instead of conjuring up hypothetical scenarios, we can simply point out that case law in Washington state unequivocally establishes that the mere act of carrying a holstered handgun does not "warrant alarm for the safety of other persons" and is therefore not a violation of RCW 9.41.270 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270).

Sergeant Raquer and Officer Botvinnik of the Vancouver PD care, very simply, wrong; no ifs, but or hypothetical "what ifs" about it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. If it's in a holster I'll presume them to be a police officer.

[SteveM]

25. I'd be concerned about all of them: It's illegal to open-carry in Texas.

[SsevenN]

27. This is a serious answer...

Scenario 1: White guy with a military-style haircut walks through the Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Is his body language consistant with what you'd expect to see from a shopper? If so, not a problem.

Scenario 2: Young black many with low pants and a skin-tight t-shirt with a rapper's face on it walks through the Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Is his body language consistant with what you'd expect to see from a shopper? If so, not a problem.

Scenario 3: Skinny white guy with a long beard and wild hair, dressed in dirty, holey jeans and a marijuana t-shirt walks through Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Is his body language consistant with what you'd expect to see from a shopper? If so, not a problem.

Scenario 4: Young hispanic guy wearing chinos and a red plaid shirt, bearing a tattoo on his forehead walks through Albertson's with a holstered handgun of some type visible.

Is his body language consistant with what you'd expect to see from a shopper? If so, not a problem.


I'm a skinny younger white guy, most of my pants have a 'bit' of bag to them, and I open carry occasionally. While I do make an attempt to 'clean up' if I'm OCing, sometimes I'll still have a 5 O'clock shadow, and might be missing the collared shirt.

I'd be the biggest hypocrite in the world if I started judging OC'rs by how they look.

[shadowrider]

28. When I went to buy my pistol

The guy next to me had rings in his bottom lip, top lip, eyebrow, 5 rings in each ear and his visible arms were completely tattooed to the wrist. He had a CCW and was purchasing a Springfield XD. Should he have been denied because of how he looked? I think not.

Helluva nice guy by the way.

[SsevenN]

29. Exactly

While profiling will, unfortunatley remain a tool used by humans till the end of time. It's a morally reprehensible proccess that I try not to engage in.

[PavePusher]

32. Accurate profiling...

works on much more data than simple fashion sense.

It is a valid and useful tool when used appropriately but, just as with firearms, is not an infallible magic talisman.

[proteus_lives]

11. What a bunch of assholes.

[oneshooter]

19. Strange, a lot of the comments point to open carry in Texas

There is no open carry in Texas, hasn't been since 1870 or so.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

22. Vancouver PD needs to review the case law

It was decided a long time ago in Washington state courts that the simple carrying of a holstered handgun does not reasonably "warrant alarm for the safety of other persons." Officer Botvinnik was wrong to ticket the guy, and Sgt Raquer is wrong to try to defend that action.

As an aside, I have to wonder whether Officer Ilia Botvinnik is any relation to Mikhail Botvinnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik).

[Hoopla Phil]

31. Did the guy getting the ticket have to sign it? In Texas if you are issued

a citation you have to sign it. The signature is not an admission of guilt but a promise to pay a fine or appear in court to challenge it. If this ticket had to have a signature he should have refused to sign it. Simply state that you do not agree to pay a fine or appear in court so as a matter of conscious you cannot sign it. The officer would then have to arrest you or let you go. I don't think the officer knew what to do but wanted to do "something" so he issued a ticket so his/her superiors would have to deal with it later.