Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Gorst man arrested for firing "Warning Shots"

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    Gorst man arrested for firing "Warning Shots"

    The Kitsap Sun

    GORST A 20-year-old Port Orchard man was booked into jail for reckless endangerment Friday after he fired off shots into the air during an argument with one of his roommate's family members and friends.

    Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/s...#ixzz27QlzAzul[/QUOTE]

    Read to the bottom of the article, the man arrested grabbed a shotgun after three individuals arrived at his residence and threatened his room-mate with a hammer, knife, and ball bat.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    The Kitsap Sun
    GORST A 20-year-old Port Orchard man was booked into jail for reckless endangerment Friday after he fired off shots into the air during an argument with one of his roommate's family members and friends.
    Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/s...#ixzz27QlzAzul
    Read to the bottom of the article, the man arrested grabbed a shotgun after three individuals arrived at his residence and threatened his room-mate with a hammer, knife, and ball bat.
    The story never said anything about being threatened with a hammer, knife or baseball bat

    The 21-year-old woman's ex-boyfriend, mother and mother's husband drove to the trailer to confront the 30-year-old man about the incident. The trio brought a hammer, knife and bat to the trailer to figure out who assaulted the 21-year-old female.
    The two men inside the trailer, the 30-year-old and also a 20-year-old man, came out of the house and told the group to leave. The five exchanged derogatory remarks before the 20-year-old went back into the trailer and grabbed a shotgun. He fired shots into the air while the trio got in their car to leave.
    Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/s...#ixzz27QmpNcHf
    The shots where fired when the 3 were getting in their vehicle to leave, stupid stupid stupid.
    He is sitting right where he needs to be as according to the reported story there was no imminent threat, it was not in self defense.
    Another drama queen blowing things our of proportion and lies to get revenge after being spurned.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    The story never said anything about being threatened with a hammer, knife or baseball bat
    "The 21-year-old woman's ex-boyfriend, mother and mother's husband drove to the trailer to confront the 30-year-old man about the incident. The trio brought a hammer, knife and bat to the trailer to figure out who assaulted the 21-year-old female.

    Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/sep/22/fight-over-false-allegations-in-gorst-leads-to/#ixzz27QrrhNCX"



    The shots where fired when the 3 were getting in their vehicle to leave, stupid stupid stupid.
    He is sitting right where he needs to be as according to the reported story there was no imminent threat, it was not in self defense.
    Another drama queen blowing things our of proportion and lies to get revenge after being spurned.
    The article says h "He fired shots into the air while the trio got in their car to leave."

    That could just as easily mean that the three decided they didn't want to assault people with a knife hammer and bat after he fired a warning shot at them. considering the brevity of the report their article does not nessecarily mean he fired while they were retreating, but that they retreated as a result of the deployment of the shotgun
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 09-24-2012 at 07:20 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    ...The article says "He fired shots into the air while the trio got in their car to leave."...
    And we know the media is ALWAYS accurate!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    was this on the 4th of July?

    Really, anytime you discharge your gun to police will arrest you. Let them and argue your case in court; trying to talk you way out if it will just give them ammo (pardon the pun) for court to use against you.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    As I understand it, the prosecution's reasoning is that if he had time to fire warning shots in the air, then he was not in imminent danger. Therefore the discharge of the weapon was not justified, nor was it self-defense. Which brings us to the charge against him. What goes up must come down.

    It may sound silly on the face of it, but you usually will get in less trouble for killing someone who is attacking you than you will for firing a warning shot.

    Self-defense is lawful when justified. If you're not defending yourself, you aren't justified in pulling the trigger.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    As I understand it, the prosecution's reasoning is that if he had time to fire warning shots in the air, then he was not in imminent danger. Therefore the discharge of the weapon was not justified, nor was it self-defense. Which brings us to the charge against him. What goes up must come down.

    It may sound silly on the face of it, but you usually will get in less trouble for killing someone who is attacking you than you will for firing a warning shot.

    Self-defense is lawful when justified. If you're not defending yourself, you aren't justified in pulling the trigger.
    I understand the argument, but under the circumstances I don't think the best interests of justice are served. I mean he was in a scenario in which the shooter was not involved in the incident, yet a bunch of people show up with melee weapons and his 4 month old daughter (well that's according to an unverified comment on the comment section, but the article itself mentioned an infant in the trailer) is with him, and this mob is showing up demanding answers like that, I don't think it was wise to shoot in the air, but no one was hurt in the end and it did send the three armed people fleeing. so while it's illegal under the letter of the law, I think that it is a waste of county money to prosecute him
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    As I understand it, the prosecution's reasoning is that if he had time to fire warning shots in the air, then he was not in imminent danger. Therefore the discharge of the weapon was not justified, nor was it self-defense. Which brings us to the charge against him. What goes up must come down.

    It may sound silly on the face of it, but you usually will get in less trouble for killing someone who is attacking you than you will for firing a warning shot.

    Self-defense is lawful when justified. If you're not defending yourself, you aren't justified in pulling the trigger.
    I agree with the "What goes up must come down". However, shotgun pellets do not have enough velocity to penitrate the skin on the way down.

    As for firing a warning shot, that was stupid. Ammo can be exspensive.
    Clerk: Is that a weapon?
    Me: No, it is my tool.
    Clerk:
    Me: A tool that takes some time to master!
    Clerk:
    Me: Have a nice day!

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I am also of the opinion that is you deploy a firearm, you should already be justified in using it. The firearms presence in and of itself is enough of a warning.

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    The story never said anything about being threatened with a hammer, knife or baseball bat
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    "The 21-year-old woman's ex-boyfriend, mother and mother's husband drove to the trailer to confront the 30-year-old man about the incident. The trio brought a hammer, knife and bat to the trailer to figure out who assaulted the 21-year-old female.
    The article says h "He fired shots into the air while the trio got in their car to leave."

    That could just as easily mean that the three decided they didn't want to assault people with a knife hammer and bat after he fired a warning shot at them. considering the brevity of the report their article does not nessecarily mean he fired while they were retreating, but that they retreated as a result of the deployment of the shotgun
    There still is no statement of them threatening the two at the trailer with anything, it does say they brought them and you are just assuming they displayed or used them as a threat.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    There still is no statement of them threatening the two at the trailer with anything, it does say they brought them and you are just assuming they displayed or used them as a threat.
    I have RAS to suspect they displayed said tools, now remember RAS is "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"

    So if the bat, knife and hammer were never used to threaten anyone, then the two people in the trailer would have been unlikely to see those weapons. Now when talking to the police, it's unlikely the trio would've said "we have a hammer, ball bat, and knife in the car" I can rationally infer they'd say nothing about it.

    So It was probably the shooter and his roomate who said they had the bat, hammer and knife, if the bat, hammer, and knife stayed in the car or in the trunk, then the shooter would never have seen it and thus couldn't say if they had it. The news media had to have known about it, it's unlikely they'd completely make that up, and a woman purporting to be one of the three on the message boards admits they did have a hammer but it stayed in the car, well then how would it have been mentioned in the news article?

    No it is completely reasonable to infer such weapons were displayed against the 30 year old at least. because if they weren't involved in anyway why would the papers say they were? the news paper wouldn't know anything if those implements had remained in the trunk of the car.

    Now I understand this is a big assumption, the Kitsap Sun has done shoddy journalism before, but I can't see specific references to specific implements that can and are used as weapons being made in the paper if they were never deployed.

    But if you feel my reasoning is weak or shoddy please feel free to comment (i'm being sincere about that, not snarky or a smart ass)
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I have RAS to suspect they displayed said tools, now remember RAS is "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"

    So if the bat, knife and hammer were never used to threaten anyone, then the two people in the trailer would have been unlikely to see those weapons. Now when talking to the police, it's unlikely the trio would've said "we have a hammer, ball bat, and knife in the car" I can rationally infer they'd say nothing about it.

    So It was probably the shooter and his roomate who said they had the bat, hammer and knife, if the bat, hammer, and knife stayed in the car or in the trunk, then the shooter would never have seen it and thus couldn't say if they had it. The news media had to have known about it, it's unlikely they'd completely make that up, and a woman purporting to be one of the three on the message boards admits they did have a hammer but it stayed in the car, well then how would it have been mentioned in the news article?

    No it is completely reasonable to infer such weapons were displayed against the 30 year old at least. because if they weren't involved in anyway why would the papers say they were? the news paper wouldn't know anything if those implements had remained in the trunk of the car.

    Now I understand this is a big assumption, the Kitsap Sun has done shoddy journalism before, but I can't see specific references to specific implements that can and are used as weapons being made in the paper if they were never deployed.

    But if you feel my reasoning is weak or shoddy please feel free to comment (i'm being sincere about that, not snarky or a smart ass)
    It appears you are working off "circumstantial and assumptions" as we have been talking about the story as written do to it is all the information we have, nothing in the article mentioned they were displayed or used just that they had them.
    Just because I carry a firearm and a knife does not mean if I was engaged into an disagreement or argument that I threatened someone. What did they do with these items to be a threat?

    Articulable fact is about actions, statements that can be cited not as you have put, "unlikely, I can rationally infer, probably" when have nothing to do with articulating facts they are just assumptions and nothing else.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    It appears you are working off "circumstantial and assumptions" as we have been talking about the story as written do to it is all the information we have, nothing in the article mentioned they were displayed or used just that they had them.
    Just because I carry a firearm and a knife does not mean if I was engaged into an disagreement or argument that I threatened someone. What did they do with these items to be a threat?

    Articulable fact is about actions, statements that can be cited not as you have put, "unlikely, I can rationally infer, probably" when have nothing to do with articulating facts they are just assumptions and nothing else.
    Got it, I'll be eagerly awaiting the time I can request the police reports, it doesn't make sense to me any other way. But I guess you're right though.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    "...drove to the trailer..."

    Nothing more needs to be said.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Got it, I'll be eagerly awaiting the time I can request the police reports, it doesn't make sense to me any other way. But I guess you're right though.
    Eagerly awaiting the time you can request a police report???? What is stopping you now from a Public Records Request? Several on here including myself have done it and received the documents to include video and audio.
    Are you under the impression you are not able to until in law enforcement or the legal profession? Silly Wabbit!
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Eagerly awaiting the time you can request a police report???? What is stopping you now from a Public Records Request? Several on here including myself have done it and received the documents to include video and audio.
    Are you under the impression you are not able to until in law enforcement or the legal profession? Silly Wabbit!
    I was under the impression that it was secret during an investigation and released once the police had finished an investigation...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I was under the impression that it was secret during an investigation and released once the police had finished an investigation...
    They are easy to fill out, file it and find out. Granted they can restrict dissemination for a period of investigation while I have yet to have an issue and if you do then just put in another one.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I was under the impression that it was secret during an investigation and released once the police had finished an investigation...
    Not only after they have finished an investigation but until such time as the case is considered "closed". But some information is generally available under a records act request. This usually amounts to a a police abstract report.

    This actually protects a defendant, who would have access to most of the records via discovery, and the state so that a records act request does not interfere with the discovery process.

    Of course, these are exemptions that must be plead by the agency; they are not required to withhold. Some will, some won't.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-25-2012 at 12:39 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •