If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[VinnieBoomBah]

I understand many of us in this forum have different points of view and normally I would have provided a link to any news item I mentioned. But in my opinion there is a pattern of hubris towards any thoughts (or news item) not shared by some in this thread.
So I thought "why bother?" People know how Google works if they care to find it.

But since you requested.

KING 5 Seattle

KING 5 News (NBC Seattle) Seattle Leading Local News: Weather, Traffic, Sports & More See Seattle through new lens with our flagship YouTube series, Local Lens Seattle! [KING 5 Media Group, a TEGNA company]

www.king5.com

Purity spiral - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Koda]

"Solely"? No, my personal opinion is that that wasn't his only or even main motivation, but I have no hard evidence to support my opinion so I shan't be sharing it here and will happily change my opinion should more information prove me wrong

Its ok to express opinions though, its clear he screwed up and discussing why would be valuable to others.
I can imagine with his armed security training he suffered a bad case of Dunning Kruger effect here, is probably the most likely reason he impulsively jumped in (or whatever character flaw influenced his choice to intervene). Many people create hard rules that fit actions in a box, kind of like getting a green light and thinking its your right to go now, he saw a gun and stepped on the gas so to speak without looking both ways.

 

[Alexx1401]

It appears those who predicted early in this discussion, that judging by the actions of the shooter, this may not be his first rodeo are correct...

I think it is safe to assume the individual is tilted in that direction


"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

I wondered how long it would take for info like this to start to come out. It was easy to see he sat around fantasizing about doing just what he did. This time he finally hit the big time. He wanted fame and attention? Well he will get both now. Sad that so many here have this same fantasy. Just have to hope those who do never get a chance to also show how it always ends.

 

[Alexx1401]

An NPR story from today:

King County prosecutors on Monday charged 51-year-old Aaron Brown Myers of Redmond with second degree murder in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old boy outside of a Renton sporting goods store Wednesday.

Officials say Myers shot the boy, identified in court documents only as H.R., seven times following a confrontation in the parking lot of the Big 5 Sporting Goods store on Grady Way. The boy, who friends say was attempting to return a malfunctioning airsoft gun to the store, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Myers also faces a second degree assault charge in connection with his alleged attempt to apprehend another teen during the confrontation, which was caught on surveillance video.
Myers approached the boys after seeing an airsoft gun in one's pocket and assuming they intended to commit an armed robbery, "despite the fact that he is not a member of law enforcement and thus has not been trained in how to safely prevent crime," according to charging documents.

The teens complied with Myers' commands, "putting their hands in the air and placing the airsoft pistol he'd seen on the ground, and telling him it was just a 'BB gun,'" prosecutors wrote.
Myers had pinned one boy, identified in documents as B.A., to the ground. At some point, H.R. attempted to back away from the confrontation, his hands still in the air. That's when officials say Myers fired multiple shots at H.R., hitting him once in the side and six times in the back.
Myers told police he "shot [his] firearm, hitting H.R.," according to court documents.

"Rather than calling 911 or waiting for any evidence at all that could confirm or deny his assumption, he claimed he had a 'duty to intervene' and did so. The defendant exited his vehicle, pointed his own very real firearm at the three teenagers, and rapidly approached them," court records state.
Myers was detained by officers at the scene.

Court records indicate that several nearby law enforcement officers saw and heard parts of the confrontation leading up to H.R.'s death. It's unclear from court records whether they made an attempt to intervene prior to the shooting.

Prosecutors set Myers' bail at $2 million, citing "the likelihood that the defendant will fail to appear in response to a summons and that he may commit a violent offense."

Court documents also reference an incident in March 2022, during which Myers "followed a person carrying a metal object that he believed to be a gun from one store, through another store, and away from the second store, all because he may need to 'intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' the person." In that instance, law enforcement officers intervened before anyone was hurt.

Sadly even after this we are going to see several people with a "hero fantasy" trying to defend this clown and make excuses for him. Meanwhile he will make a great poster child for the ones who don't want me to carry a gun

 

[Yarome]

.... trying to defend this clown and make excuses for him.

I have no idea what thread you're reading, but I haven't seen one single post saying this was a "good shoot". On the other hand, I've read just about everyone clearly state that, in the grand scheme, he messed up.

Some people simply recognize that while the end result may be wrong that doesn't mean that everything leading up to it was also wrong. You can do all the right things, but make one poor decision somewhere along the way and it can have very unintended and even tragic results. When things like that happen, and mistakes are made, that also doesn't mean a person is inherently evil and they did so by design and with full intent.

Reality is almost never all black or all white.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I have no idea what thread you're reading, but I haven't seen one single post saying this was a "good shoot". On the other hand, I've read just about everyone clearly state that, in the grand scheme, he messed up.

Some people simply recognize that while the end result may be wrong that doesn't mean that everything leading up to it was also wrong. You can do all the right things, but make one poor decision somewhere along the way and it can have very unintended and even tragic results. When things like that happen, and mistakes are made, that also doesn't mean a person is inherently evil and they did so by design and with full intent.

Reality is almost never all black or all white.

lol, the thing he did wrong was getting out of his car and assaulting them and everything after that was just increasing degrees of wrong. He did nothing right and saying that he had 'good intentions he just made some mistakes' IS defending him

 

[Koda]

lol, the thing he did wrong was getting out of his car and assaulting them and everything after that was just increasing degrees of wrong. He did nothing right and saying that he had 'good intentions he just made some mistakes' IS defending him

No its not.
This disconnect of opinion is so odd to me especially in this forum. Complete disregard of the evidence of a gun in hand is odd from members of a gun forum.

Its like all of a sudden its completely normal for people to walk around with drawn guns in hand. Nothing to see there... nobody in todays time would do a shooting spree nope.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

No its not.
This disconnect of opinion is so odd to me especially in this forum. Complete disregard of the evidence of a gun in hand is odd from members of a gun forum.

Its like all of a sudden its completely normal for people to walk around with drawn guns in hand. Nothing to see there... nobody in todays time would do a shooting spree nope.

It's not, that is why he should have called to police and stayed in his car giving accurate information for the officers. Or called but gotten out of his car and followed at an inconspicuous distance should an actual violent crime happen, or called and gone to the dojo to protect his child (that would have been my choice)
We have already established that it is unlikely that he would have been able to correctly determine their ages (a prerequisite for the crime of Minor In Possession) and we know for a fact that he was unable to determine if they were real firearms or toys. Where the disconnect is happening is if violently assaulting teanages for a non violint crime they *might* be committing or a violent crime you imagine they are about to commit is ok

 

[Koda]

We have already established that it is unlikely that he would have been able to correctly determine their ages (a prerequisite for the crime of Minor In Possession) and we know for a fact that he was unable to determine if they were real firearms or toys.

Thats a fair point and the kind of dialog that helps find resoultions in duscussions like this.

Where the disconnect is happening is if violently assaulting teanages for a non violint crime they *might* be committing or a violent crime you imagine they are about to commit is ok

Theres no disconnect here, everyone agrees with this.

 

[Yarome]

Its like all of a sudden its completely normal for people to walk around with drawn guns in hand. Nothing to see there... nobody in todays time would do a shooting spree nope.

What's even funnier, and a bit ironic. It's coming from some of the same people that were not long ago condemning that airmans stupidity for opening the door to a LEO with a gun in his hand. Even though he was in lawful possession within his own home and presented no aggression toward the officer, supposedly it was his own fault he got killed.

Feelings trump facts.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Theres no disconnect here, everyone agrees with this.

So you agree that he had absolutely no legal, moral or ethical right to violently assault them?

 

[Member 24198]

A couple of random thoughts:
1) Even though the "kids" were teenagers, was it readily apparent that they are still kids and not legally allowed to own/carry a handgun?
2) Had the kids been armed, after some dude takes one of your friends to the ground at gun point, when does it make it a self defense case for the teenagers? In Potland ten years back, a black kid got shot at a max station. The media came out in fury over some poor black kid getting shot. It turns out him and his friends were trying to rob a 20 year old and his GF. 20 year old was illegally carrying a gun, but all charges were dropped.
3) The forum just destroyed the cop that shot the USAF Airman for having a gun in hand answering the door, and overwhelmingly agree the cop was not justified in shooting.
4) I don't have any information on if the guy was purposefully making contradictory statements, but if you just shot someone, your stress levels will be through the roof and your ability to make accurate statements can to to crap. Don't talk to the police without legal counsel.

 

[Yarome]

We have already established that it is unlikely that he would have been able to correctly determine their ages (a prerequisite for the crime of Minor In Possession)

No... "we" haven't. Bringing up that point earlier and expressing a personal opinion doesn't "establish" anything. The only thing established is that he had no proof they were underage. For some more than others, It IS likely that most can readily tell the difference between an over 21 and a clearly under 21... by 4 years. It's certainly not foolproof but there is a massive amount of physical development and maturity that occurs during those years.

Not to mention that proof was not required. The only bar required to be met when making that kind of a judgment call is reasonable presumptive suspicion that they were underage.

 

[Koda]

So you agree that he had absolutely no legal, moral or ethical right to violently assault them?

Agree, assault them no. Thats where he went overboard and is going to cost him. I dont see anything worng with him confronting them, but not the way he did...

 

[Yarome]

2) Had the kids been armed, after some dude takes one of your friends to the ground at gun point, when does it make it a self defense case for the teenagers?

That is a good question. It's far off topic for this thread and not worth doing into depth over, but not even a couple weeks ago I was watching an analysis by a couple of defense attorneys that specialize in 2A cases around the question, "If a LEO pulla his firearm on you, when is it legal to shoot in self defense?" They brought up some very valid argument that it sometimes IS perfectly legal to shoot.

 

[Member 24198]

Yep! For decades there have been cases where an LEO drops someone who does just that with a toy.

"Dropped" you say.

 

[Alexx1401]

Speaking of idiots Hunter just got nailed on all counts. Wonder if Daddy will tell us all how great the justice system is again

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

No... "we" haven't. Bringing up that point earlier and expressing a personal opinion doesn't "establish" anything. The only thing established is that he had no proof they were underage. For some more than others, It IS likely that most can readily tell the difference between an over 21 and a clearly under 21... by 4 years. It's certainly not foolproof but there is a massive amount of physical development and maturity that occurs during those years.

Not to mention that proof was not required. The only bar required to be met when making that kind of a judgment call is reasonable presumptive suspicion that they were underage.

No "we" as in this forum, 'we' as in @Koda and myself

If you carry do NOT be this idiot

Lesson I learned is don't bring an air soft gun to a gun fight.

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[Koda]

That is a good question. It's far off topic for this thread and not worth doing into depth over, but not even a couple weeks ago I was watching an analysis by a couple of defense attorneys that specialize in 2A cases around the question, "If a LEO pulla his firearm on you, when is it legal to shoot in self defense?" They brought up some very valid argument that it sometimes IS perfectly legal to shoot.

Ive read of one actual case law where an armed citizen was acquitted or not charged shooting back at an officer, who was wrong. I cant recall the rest, it was so obscure i just thought it interesting.

In mall cops case, the kids would have been justified in defending themselves with equal force. Iirc, even if they were illegally carrying a real gun. ( hypothetically)

 

[bradsteen]

"Dropped" you say.

Like a Sig.