From: timf@eskimo.com (Timothy R. Flanagan)
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:45:01 GMT


In article <4126@phred.UUCP> harryb@phred.UUCP writes:
:In article 11930@eskimo.com, timf@eskimo.com (Timothy R. Flanagan) writes:
:>I never displayed a weapon.  That is against the law.
:
:NOT!
:
:There are many scenarios in which it is NOT against the law to display
:a weapon.

Well, sure.  But the "scenario" under discussion does not happen to be
one of those.

:>It is called
:>"brandishing".
:
:NOT!
:
:There are both Washington State statutes and local (King County,
:Seattle, other political subdivisions) ordinances governing "Displaying
:a Weapon" modelled upon (usually word for word) the State statute.  The
:word "brandishing" or any word even remotely close to it is not part of
:those statutes. If you believe this to be incorrect, please cite the
:Washington State statute, or King County or City (your specific city
:where you work as a Communication Specialist will do, or any other in
:Washington) ordinance on "Brandishing".

You are correct.  The word "brandishing" does not occur in the
statues.  I guess this is just a convenient term that people use to
mean "Revised Code of Washington Title 9: 41.270 Weapons apparently
capable of producing bodily harm--Unlawful carrying or handling--
Penalty--Exception."  If anyone is actually interested in the text of this
section, let me know and I will post it.

I probably should have qualified my statement thusly:
"This is *commonly* called 'brandishing'."
Sorry about the imprecision.

:> Also, I am not an officer.  As I indicated, I work
:>for King County Police.  I am a Communications Specialist.  I answer
:>the phone, screan requests for emergency (police, fire & medical)
:>response, and dispense what the training manual calls "police advice".
:
:Could you enlighten us on what constitutes "police advice"?  That
:manual should probably contain a caution about presenting misinformed
:opinion gleaned from "Top Cop", "Bad Boys", and "Rescue 911" as fact
:(which I am sure you would never do in your official capacity,
:right? :-)

What are you asking here?  I don't understand the reference to the TV
programs.  It seems intended to cast some sort of shadow on my
credibility, but to what end?  What, exactly, is the point?
I choose to refrain from responding to this question until you have
clarified your intentions.

:>I am not a commissioned officer, I do not wear a uniform, and I do not
:>"impersonate" police officers.  I am just an ordinary private citizen.
:
:You probably shouldn't give up your day job.

Excuse me?  I'm confused.  That *is* my day job (until I'm assigned to
graveyard shift, of course, at which point it becomes my "night job:-)
Again, what does this statement mean, or even imply?  It isn't clear.

:>I also agree with your statements.  Carrying a deadly weapon is a
:>tremendous responsibility,
:
:In spirit, I agree.  However, "tremendous" is subjective, so we may not
:completely agree.

Again, what is the purpose of this statement, other than to affirm that
we very likely hold different opinions on this subject (probably a truism,
and irrelevant even if it *did* require explicit declaration)?
So what are you saying?  As I read your post, I grow increasingly
suspicious of its purpose, and your motives.  Either I am completely
misinterpreting (or fabricating) a subtext in your post,
or you are trying to discredit me.  If the first is true, I apologize
for my skepticism and my guarded tone.  If the second is true, go
for it, but you've really got to make sure that the sarcasm delivers
the blow you intend, rather than simply confusing your audience.
I am not personally inclined to engage in a flame-war at this time,
and will probably decline your challenge.
-- 
Timothy R. Flanagan				
ACLU  EFF  NRA
tim@reed.edu  
timf@eskimo.celestial.com
Newsgroups: fluke.general,seattle.general