If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[VinnieBoomBah]

This isnt about preventing a suspected crime, it turned into a self defense case when the second gun was discovered. This case will come down to if its reasonable to believe someone with a gun in hand is a credible lethal threat. There was an altercation over a gun, and another gun was presented after the first one was secured.

Nah, it's about starting a crime by thinking you are the dang Loan Ranger or something. The case will come down to WTF he got out of his car and accosted children just walking down the sidewalk.

 

[Alexx1401]

IMHO we can speculate from dawn to dusk but, the fact of the matter is that he should have dialed 911 and reported. Cops right there already even though he didn't know, could have saved a life and him landing in the Hoosegow possibly for the rest of his life! Jacked up situation all around!

You are seeing people who fantasize about being a hero here. That is why they desperately want to find an "out" for this fool. They want to believe they may some day get the chance to play hero and all we can hope for is they never do as it basically will never work out well for the rest of us.

 

[lucusloc]

This isnt about preventing a suspected crime, it turned into a self defense case when the second gun was discovered. This case will come down to if its reasonable to believe someone with a gun in hand is a credible lethal threat. There was an altercation over a gun, and another gun was presented after the first one was secured.

But the dude charging at the teens could be seen as the aggressor, which means he may not have a self defense claim at all. Just think; if he saw someone with a CHL and a pistol on their hip entering the store, would he have reasonable cause to confront them with deadly force just because he could see a gun? The only real question here is "was it reasonable to believe a crime was in progress and/or that lives were in danger when he acted?" I am going to go with a solid "no" on that, unless some details in the story take a massive change in direction.

 

[Alexx1401]

Nah, it's about starting a crime by thinking you are the dang Loan Ranger or something. The case will come down to WTF he got out of his car and accosted children just walking down the sidewalk.

YEP! He made the fatal mistake of trying to talk his way out of it which just dug his grave deeper and gives the people who want to take guns another poster child to point to. They will use him to say this is why none of us should be able to carry and a LOT of people who don't will agree and vote along that line.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

YEP! He made the fatal mistake of trying to talk his way out of it which just dug his grave deeper and gives the people who want to take guns another poster child to point to. They will use him to say this is why none of us should be able to carry and a LOT of people who don't will agree and vote along that line.

In all honesty, if he (and his fan club) were the only data point I can't say I would blame them

But also in agreement with this

unless some details in the story take a massive change in direction.

 

[Alexx1401]

In all honesty, if he (and his fan club) were the only data point I can't say I would blame them

But also in agreement with this

Sadly a LOT of people don't even own a gun. Many who own one will not carry. A lot of both sides are kind of either way on allowing carry. Then some fool like this goes off. Those people read this, then read and listen to all the people telling them this is why we should not carry. This gets a lot of those who before hand really did not care to decide the other side is right. No one should carry. Its why this kind of idiocy pisses me off so bad. It just feeds the people who want to punish me.

 

[Koda]

You are seeing people who fantasize about being a hero here. That is why they desperately want to find an "out" for this fool. They want to believe they may some day get the chance to play hero and all we can hope for is they never do as it basically will never work out well for the rest of us.

To clarify not once in this thread have I defended the mall cops actions or tried to find an "out" for him.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

He's toast

Docs: Armed man thought teens were about to rob Renton business before deadly shooting; teens weren't armed

An off-duty armed security guard shot and killed a teen who he thought had a gun and was about to rob a Renton sporting goods store, detectives said. According to court documents, the teen didn't even have a real gun on him.

www.fox13seattle.com

In Washington state, a citizen's arrest can be conducted to detain someone you see committing a misdemeanor or felony, like when store employees restrain a shoplifter. Private citizens don't have the authority to detain someone or take them to jail for believing a crime COULD be committed. If a person detains someone they didn't see commit a crime, it could be considered false imprisonment.

 

[Koda]

But the dude charging at the teens could be seen as the aggressor, which means he may not have a self defense claim at all. Just think; if he saw someone with a CHL and a pistol on their hip entering the store, would he have reasonable cause to confront them with deadly force just because he could see a gun? The only real question here is "was it reasonable to believe a crime was in progress and/or that lives were in danger when he acted?" I am going to go with a solid "no" on that, unless some details in the story take a massive change in direction.

Except the kids gun wasnt holstered.

 

[Koda]

Private citizens don't have the authority to detain someone or take them to jail for believing a crime COULD be committed. If a person detains someone they didn't see commit a crime, it could be considered false imprisonment.

Is it legal in Wa. for teenagers to walk around with a gun in hand?

 

[lucusloc]

Except the kids gun wasnt holstered.

So? Naked waistband carry is stupid, not illegal. And the kid waving around the gun was also not an active threat to anyone, even if that action was stupid too. There is nothing in the story that indicated that these kids were an immediate and active threat to anyone, which is the threshold needed to establish a self defense claim. Again, this guy is the aggressor here, unless the reported facts of the case have been wildly misrepresented.

 

[Koda]

So? Naked waistband carry is stupid, not illegal. And the kid waving around the gun was also not an active threat to anyone, even if that action was stupid too. There is nothing in the story that indicated that these kids were an immediate and active threat to anyone, which is the threshold needed to establish a self defense claim. Again, this guy is the aggressor here, unless the reported facts of the case have been wildly misrepresented.

The situation was diffused once the first kid dropped the gun. The self defense claim was when another gun was presented in the middle of the altercation.

 

[lucusloc]

The situation was diffused once the first kid dropped the gun. The self defense claim was when another gun was presented in the middle of the altercation.

I think you would be hard pressed to define that as a separate altercation. He is still the one charging in and creating the situation, and I see little justification for that action as there is not a lot of room for him to presume deadly intent on the part of the kids. Stupidity sure, but last I checked we don't get to claim self defense from stupidity, barring some very specific and contrived circumstances which do not seem applicable here.

 

[Koda]

I think you would be hard pressed to define that as a separate altercation. He is still the one charging in and creating the situation, and I see little justification for that action as there is not a lot of room for him to presume deadly intent on the part of the kids. Stupidity sure, but last I checked we don't get to claim self defense from stupidity, barring some very specific and contrived circumstances which do not seem applicable here.

Thats a fair opinion and probably what sinks his trial.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Thats a fair opinion and probably what sinks his trial.

Going out on a limb here, but I bet his social maida post might come back to haunt him as well

 

[Yarome]

Intervening in what?

According to multiple stories in the local Seattle press, the teenagers "were going to the store to exchange or return a malfunctioning airsoft gun".

Intervening in a situation where a teen has an apparent handgun in his hand and it is "reasonable" to assume he is prohibited to be in possession.

Not in the situation in it's entirety or the overall intentions. That would have been unknowable and ultimately rely solely on the teens "claims".... after the fact.

It doesn't matter how many "multiple stories" report the same claim that the teens were going to the store to exchange or return a malfunctioning airsoft gun. How many times it's reported doesn't make it any more true.

The point being, no one knows that claim to be factual. Another reasonable explanation is that they were, in fact, intending to rob the place with toy guns that looked real. Once it went south it would also be completely reasonable to expect the teens to present an innocent explanation for their actions to avoid incriminating themselves... and appear the victims. "Bad actor 101".

There are some elements in their story that can easily appear to be inconsistent with what most might consider "reasonable behavior".

IE., Which seems the better fit?

A. I need to return/exchange my airsoft so I'm going to walk into the store with what most onlookers will likely assume is a handgun in my hand. My buddy is going to walk up to the return desk, reach under his shirt and draw what looks like a handgun out of his waistband to present it for return/repair.

B. We're going to rob the place. I want everyone immediately intimidated by seeing a "gun" in my hand.. and my buddy is carrying his in the preferred method of "bad actors" so it's readily accessible to draw as an additional intimidation factor when everything kicks off.

The fact that the sporting goods store happens to sell airsofts is irrelevant, IMHO. Just like walking into a LGS that exclusively sells firearms, if I walk in with a handgun at the ready in my hand or walk up to the counter and, unannounced, draw a firearm out of my waistband... I'm highly likely to end up looking down the dark hole of someone elses smoke maker... and bless the stars if they exhibit restraint and don't drop me where I stand.

Food for thought...

 

[lucusloc]

Thats a fair opinion and probably what sinks his trial.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up unless things are not as reported. That is still a possibility, and I will personally apologize to the guy if it turns out the reporters lied to us all in their article and he actually had a reasonable belief that these kids posed a deadly threat. But I will not be holding my breath on that, and if the fact are as reported I want this guy put away if only so we can point out that a CHL is not a "get out of jail free" card for homicide (as it is so often portrayed).

 

[Koda]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up unless things are not as reported. That is still a possibility, and I will personally apologize to the guy if it turns out the reporters lied to us all in their article and he actually had a reasonable belief that these kids posed a deadly threat. But I will not be holding my breath on that, and if the fact are as reported I want this guy put away if only so we can point out that a CHL is not a "get out of jail free" card for homicide (as it is so often portrayed).

I disagree it sums it up. The media did not initially report there was another gun involved.

 

[lucusloc]

I disagree it sums it up. The media did not initially report there was another gun involved.

I meant in regards to "was it reasonable for him to start the altercation in the first place?" If it was not then the follow on details are largely irrelevant, as none of that would have happened if not for his initial action. Remember, all self defense claims have to start with a presumption of innocence. If he does not have that at the start he cannot claim it in the middle or at the end.

 

[Koda]

I meant in regards to "was it reasonable for him to start the altercation in the first place?" If it was not then the follow on details are largely irrelevant, as none of that would have happened if not for his initial action. Remember, all self defense claims have to start with a presumption of innocence. If he does not have that at the start he cannot claim it in the middle or at the end.

I respect your opinion but disagree it is unreasonable to try to prevent a store from being robbed or shot up.