Seattle Couple facing Felony & Misdemeanor Charges of Assault for acting in self-defense

[WALawyer]

Notice how the Judge has removed the couples 2nd rights with out a jury trial, and they have yet to be found guilty of any thing, yet they no longer have the right or ability to defend them selves!

The law removed their 2A rights, not the judge. RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(v) prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone who is accused of a "serious offense" (this applies only to Elizabeth as she's charged with assault 1, a class A Felony). 18 USC 922(n) prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone under indictment "for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" (this applies to both Elizabeth and Marc since they have both been charged with a felony). The judge's order is just an extension of the law.

 

[Diamondback]

Yep, Douchenozzle Dan Satterburg, hard at work making the streets of Seattle safe for criminals and terrorists...

 

[Diamondback]

Kowalski: If that pus-bag had any balls he'd already have Ksarma what's-her-name booked for Inciting A Riot. That he doesn't shows you where he places his personal politics vis-a-vis the law in priorities...

 

[Eihn]

Kowalski: If that pus-bag had any balls he'd already have Ksarma what's-her-name booked for Inciting A Riot. That he doesn't shows you where he places his personal politics vis-a-vis the law in priorities...

Kshama Sawant is unfit for her position and engages in activities unbefitting of an individual in public office. She uses her position to push for open sedition and is generally intolerable.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Unbelievable! From all reports Marc Hokoana had been breaking up fights not starting them. Antifa rioters were sucker punching and pepper spraying Milo supporters all night. Marc had his red Trump hat stolen earlier in the evening by an Antifa rioter and was wearing a yellow hat. In the video below he is shown with a yellow bar over his head. The larger and stronger union thug is shown with a red bar over his head as he runs to attack Marc. After he took several blows without being able to fight back, his wife fired one shot in his defense.

 

[Diamondback]

I say, Satterburg should be charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

 

[Tony617]

But even concealed carry with a CPL is banned from school grounds and college campuses in Washington state. It is very easy to look up on line and see that school and collage campuses are no carry zones.

 

[Diamondback]

Depends on the institution... at my alma mater when I was there, Campus Security's Policy & Ops guy (who happened to be one of my range buddies) managed to make a case to his Director (another of same) that Legislative Preemption made it unenforceable so they chose to construe it as "be discreet--if you're found out It Goes or You Go, but as long as nobody finds out and throws a fit to us you're good. BTW, if you bust a cap in some scumbag trying to pull a Virginia Tech, we will have to escort you off campus for the day, but we'll be escorting you off campus for a steak and some beers!" (This was also around the time of the Appalachian Law School and Virginia Tech spree-kills.)

I trust you will forgive me for not stating WHICH institution this was, but I do have a stalker out there and to give that information would be like lighting a signal flare marking my location for the POS.

 

[nammac]

Depends on the institution... at my alma mater when I was there, Campus Security's Policy & Ops guy (who happened to be one of my range buddies) managed to make a case to his Director (another of same) that Legislative Preemption made it unenforceable so they chose to construe it as "be discreet--if you're found out It Goes or You Go, but as long as nobody finds out and throws a fit to us you're good. BTW, if you bust a cap in some scumbag trying to pull a Virginia Tech, we will have to escort you off campus for the day, but we'll be escorting you off campus for a steak and some beers!" (This was also around the time of the Appalachian Law School and Virginia Tech spree-kills.)

I trust you will forgive me for not stating WHICH institution this was, but I do have a stalker out there and to give that information would be like lighting a signal flare marking my location for the POS.

Is she cute? Your stalker I mean... ​

 

[Diamondback]

Is she cute? Your stalker I mean... ​

Um... NO, *HE's* not. He's my ex-GF's ex who doesn't know how to let go (yep, the one who we met because she hired me to provide Executive Protection services because of him!), and last I knew still harbored a grudge even many years after our mutual ex left my life.

Personal to A**hole Stalker out there: Old Ugly is still every bit as ready and waiting to be your Unwelcoming Committee now as it was then...

 

[nammac]

Um... NO, *HE's* not. He's my ex-GF's ex who doesn't know how to let go (yep, the one who we met because she hired me to provide Executive Protection services because of him!), and last I knew still harbored a grudge even many years after our mutual ex left my life.

Personal to A**hole Stalker out there: Old Ugly is still every bit as ready and waiting to be your Unwelcoming Committee now as it was then...

Ouch, not cool. Perhaps he just needs a Prozac refill...

 

[Camelfilter]

But even concealed carry with a CPL is banned from school grounds and college campuses in Washington state. It is very easy to look up on line and see that school and collage campuses are no carry zones.

I certainly could be mistaken, as I often am.

My simple understanding is that applies only to students, faculty & staff. Not to visitors.

Similar to public school no carry zones. A parent whom is a law abiding concealed carrier, may carry while on property to pick up there children (as an example), however not carry while on property if they are doing school business (meeting with staff/faculty).

Again as an example only, and my simple unconfirmed understanding.

The onus is on the individual in the particular circumstance to be clear what exactly the law is when they are doing something, particularly while carrying concealed.

For example, if we were to go voice our opinions or to show support at any rally or cause, I for darn sure would confirm ahead of time what our rights and responsibilities would be...before going.

 

[Tony617]

I certainly could be mistaken, as I often am.

My simple understanding is that applies only to students, faculty & staff. Not to visitors.

Similar to public school no carry zones. A parent whom is a law abiding concealed carrier, may carry while on property to pick up there children (as an example), however not carry while on property if they are doing school business (meeting with staff/faculty).

Again as an example only, and my simple unconfirmed understanding.

The onus is on the individual in the particular circumstance to be clear what exactly the law is when they are doing something, particularly while carrying concealed.

For example, if we were to go voice our opinions or to show support at any rally or cause, I for darn sure would confirm ahead of time what our rights and responsibilities would be...before going.

I guess there is a Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for the University of Washington:

Chapter 478–124, WAC 478–124–020: Conduct on campus code — Prohibited conduct.

 

[Camelfilter]

I guess there is a Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for the University of Washington:

Chapter 478–124, WAC 478–124–020: Conduct on campus code — Prohibited conduct.

That campus code appears to me to be similar to a standard employee policy for folks whom work at a company where weapons are not allowed. In those types of circumstances it's not against the law to carry concealed, however if found out one could be subject to trespass/termination (as it would be difficult to remain employed if you are trespassed).

Edit adding: it is Washington, though so college campus rules may be enforceable laws...dunno. Goes back to my thought on the onus of knowing the law is up to the individual in the particular circumstance.

 

[Runwithryan]

After reading this I'm thinking a state of Jefferson would be mighty nice right about now. A little piece of gun rights, a conservative haven between two liberal buns.

Who's with me?
JEFFERSON! JEFFERSON! JEFFERSON!

 

[whitney]

While i do not intend to derail this thread I believe there should be some interjection with regard to the campus policy on firearms.
This is a public university and as such subject to preemption.

I submit for your consideration the following snippets from RCW 9.41.300.

If you look at the Bold areas specifically you should deduce campus may not restrict you provided you are licensed pursuant to 9.41.070 or exempt pursuant to 9.41.060. The other exemptions do not apply to regular citizens.

Oh yeah!. there is Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

~Whitney


Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.
The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;
(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the *state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
(e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
(4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.
(5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.
(6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;
(b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or
(c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.
(7) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section does not apply to correctional personnel or community corrections officers, as long as they are employed as such, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a correctional employee or community corrections officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010.
(8) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.
(9) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.
(10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.
(11) Government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training must be training that correctional personnel and community corrections officers receive as part of their job requirement and reference to such training does not constitute a mandate that it be provided by the correctional facility.
(12) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(13) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250.
[ 2011 c 221 § 2; 2008 c 33 § 1. Prior: 2004 c 116 § 1; 2004 c 16 § 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 429; 1993 c 396 § 1; 1985 c 428 § 2.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: The "state liquor control board" was renamed the "state liquor and cannabis board" by 2015 c 70 § 3.
Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Severability—1985 c 428: See note following RCW 9.41.290.

 

[U8395279]

Seattle voters keep voting to protect the scum and support them. It's why Seattle is the way it is now. Of course the people in charge make sure the scum does not live in their neighborhood. That's again on the voters though. They keep electing the people who put the scum in their neighborhood and demand more taxes from them to support said scum. As Ben said "People get the Government they deserve".

In Seattle, it may even be accurate to call their leadership scum. Can all 4 of these men be lying about the Mayor?

<broken link removed>

.

 

[U8395279]

Assault 3 is a felony, not a misdemeanor. The word "misdemeanor" does not appear anywhere in the linked article.

Sorry, that was my mistake. I confused 3rd degree Assault with 4th degree Assault. It is only 4th degree Assault that is a misdemeanor. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree Assault are indeed all Felonies, as you pointed out. The only difference is that the 1st degree Assault charge the wife got is a class A felony, while the 3rd degree Assault charge the husband received is a class C felony. So if convicted, they would both become felons, and permanently lose their gun rights.

Sadly, my memory is no longer as sharp as it used to be.

 

[U8395279]

So we should give up our rights and let the fascist win?

If the District Attorneys and the the Courts in Seattle and Portland are siding with them, then what is our choice?

Those cities may be friendly to illegal immigrants, but they most definitely don't like people with guns. In both this case and also in the Michael Strickland case in Portland, the person with the firearm was considered by the authorities to be the bad person.

Our World appears to have gone upside down:


.

 

[nammac]

If the District Attorneys and the the Courts in Seattle and Portland are siding with them, then what is our choice?

Those cities may be friendly to illegal immigrants, but they most definitely don't like people with guns. In both this case and also in the Michael Strickland case in Portland, the person with the firearm was considered by the authorities to be the bad person.

Our World appears to have gone upside down:

View attachment 361302
.

Well that makes sense, considering the magnetic poles are in the process of a flip... Or so I've heard...