Almost Died Tonight

John Hardin · May 28, 2008

imported post

joeroket wrote:

seems from thier reciprocity law that Wa and Co should have reciprocity as it reads almost the same as ours does.

It looks to me like CO does require a fingerprint-based background check including mental health history.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?ID=2334

http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/Statutes/18-12-203.asp
http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/Statutes/18-12-205.asp

kparker · May 28, 2008

imported post

Denver has "home-rule" status (something which may not even exist in WA state law) and this has been interpreted as meaning that state preemption doesn't apply to them. I don't know why the voters of CO don't just amend their constitution to get rid of this; they've had other consitutional amendments pass recently. Just do it quick before any more CA refugees show up!

Stealth Potato · May 28, 2008

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Would I have been justified? I had two witnesses inside of the vehicle who could testify to the drunk driver hitting us multiple times trying to chase us and kill us. *sigh* Besides it's a moot point now.

Yikes! I'm glad you made it out okay, Lonnie. :shock:

I'm glad they caught the moron who did it. I know drunk drivers are dangerous, but I don't think I've ever heard of one doing this before!

ATCer · May 28, 2008

imported post

glad your okay! Even if Denver is being ignorant, at least it isn't the fed gov't getting involved.

uncoolperson · May 28, 2008

imported post

and here i was thinking my road rage incident (or better known as "it'd be nice to know i had a pistol on my side incident... but school and work says no") yesterday was frightening.

glad it worked itself out.

John Hardin · May 29, 2008

imported post

uncoolperson wrote:

and here i was thinking my road rage incident yesterday was frightening.

Not to hijack Lonnie's thread, but don't keep us in suspense!

uncoolperson · May 29, 2008

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

uncoolperson wrote:

and here i was thinking my road rage incident yesterday was frightening.

Click to expand...

Not to hijack Lonnie's thread, but don't keep us in suspense!

I really should have said almost there

got boxed in on an on-ramp by some angry driver (he didn't see the yield sign)... after a moment ofstopped traffic and some sign language he decided to move on,nothing happened but it sure looked like something was going to happen.

amlevin · May 29, 2008

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Would I have been justified? I had two witnesses inside of the vehicle who could testify to the drunk driver hitting us multiple times trying to chase us and kill us. *sigh* Besides it's a moot point now.

Take a moment and read RCW 9A.36.045.

The problem with shootinf from a moving vehicle is that the "background" changes all the time. Too much risk of injuring/killing an innocent.

Calling 911 and letting this play out was the best course. If you did not see a gun it would be difficult to make a case for shooting.

As for Colorado, I moved from there after a 10 year "sentence" imposed by the Company I worked for. The politic's were getting waaaaay to liberal. To make matters worse, they elected the former Denver prosecutor as governor. They can have colorado. There are other places for me to visit and enjoya lot more.

Bear 45/70 · May 29, 2008

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Would I have been justified? I had two witnesses inside of the vehicle who could testify to the drunk driver hitting us multiple times trying to chase us and kill us. *sigh* Besides it's a moot point now.

Click to expand...

Take a moment and read RCW 9A.36.045.

The problem with shootinf from a moving vehicle is that the "background" changes all the time. Too much risk of injuring/killing an innocent.

Calling 911 and letting this play out was the best course. If you did not see a gun it would be difficult to make a case for shooting.

As for Colorado, I moved from there after a 10 year "sentence" imposed by the Company I worked for. The politic's were getting waaaaay to liberal. To make matters worse, they elected the former Denver prosecutor as governor. They can have colorado. There are other places for me to visit and enjoya lot more.

I disagree. A car at 1 mph has more energy in it than your 9 mm or 45 bullet ever will. Cars are much, much deadlier that guns and bullets. Just look at the stats.

amlevin · May 29, 2008

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

amlevin wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Would I have been justified? I had two witnesses inside of the vehicle who could testify to the drunk driver hitting us multiple times trying to chase us and kill us. *sigh* Besides it's a moot point now.

Click to expand...

Take a moment and read RCW 9A.36.045.

The problem with shootinf from a moving vehicle is that the "background" changes all the time. Too much risk of injuring/killing an innocent.

Calling 911 and letting this play out was the best course. If you did not see a gun it would be difficult to make a case for shooting.

As for Colorado, I moved from there after a 10 year "sentence" imposed by the Company I worked for. The politic's were getting waaaaay to liberal. To make matters worse, they elected the former Denver prosecutor as governor. They can have colorado. There are other places for me to visit and enjoya lot more.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A car at 1 mph has more energy in it than your 9 mm or 45 bullet ever will. Cars are much, much deadlier that guns and bullets. Just look at the stats.

When subject to someone who wants to play bumper cars on the freeway you have some protection from the vehicle you are riding in but when one is shooting from within a car a bullet may travel into a neighborhood adjoining the highway could hit someone without that protection.

The reason the stat's are so skewed is that almost everyone owns and drives a car. A lesser percentage own guns.

Bear 45/70 · May 29, 2008

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

amlevin wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Would I have been justified? I had two witnesses inside of the vehicle who could testify to the drunk driver hitting us multiple times trying to chase us and kill us. *sigh* Besides it's a moot point now.

Click to expand...

Take a moment and read RCW 9A.36.045.

The problem with shootinf from a moving vehicle is that the "background" changes all the time. Too much risk of injuring/killing an innocent.

Calling 911 and letting this play out was the best course. If you did not see a gun it would be difficult to make a case for shooting.

As for Colorado, I moved from there after a 10 year "sentence" imposed by the Company I worked for. The politic's were getting waaaaay to liberal. To make matters worse, they elected the former Denver prosecutor as governor. They can have colorado. There are other places for me to visit and enjoya lot more.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A car at 1 mph has more energy in it than your 9 mm or 45 bullet ever will. Cars are much, much deadlier that guns and bullets. Just look at the stats.

Click to expand...

When subject to someone who wants to play bumper cars on the freeway you have some protection from the vehicle you are riding in but when one is shooting from within a car a bullet may travel into a neighborhood adjoining the highway could hit someone without that protection.

The reason the stat's are so skewed is that almost everyone owns and drives a car. A lesser percentage own guns.

Even in acars per 100,000compared to a gun per 100,000, cars make guns look like nothing when it comes to deaths and injuries, hell leave out drunks and cars are still more deadly. Then of course there are always swimming pools and kids. Pools are much deadlier for kids than guns and there are one hell of a lot more guns than pools.

asforme · May 29, 2008

imported post

amlevin wrote:

When subject to someone who wants to play bumper cars on the freeway you have some protection from the vehicle you are riding in but when one is shooting from within a car a bullet may travel into a neighborhood adjoining the highway could hit someone without that protection.

You have some protection in your car, but you also have the added danger of traveling at a high speed. Lets also consider, that a 2 ton car with dimentions of 4x7 feet or more has a much higher probability of hitting something and causing death than a stray bullet that is less than 1 square inch.

Mainsail · May 29, 2008

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

I would have been within my rights to use deadly force to stop the vehicular attack, except one thing, read the first paragraph.

Without independent witnesses (not the people in the car with you) who can testify about how it all went down, shooting in this circumstance could easily turn against you. Time lines are easily skewed.

“Officer, I rammed the car because a passenger was pointing a GUN at me!”

Bye bye gun rights. Be careful.

Bear 45/70 · May 29, 2008

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

I would have been within my rights to use deadly force to stop the vehicular attack, except one thing, read the first paragraph.

Click to expand...

Without independent witnesses (not the people in the car with you) who can testify about how it all went down, shooting in this circumstance could easily turn against you. Time lines are easily skewed.

“Officer, I rammed the car because a passenger was pointing a GUN at me!”

Bye bye gun rights. Be careful.

She was a drunk with a long record ofDUI driving. There is no way the cops would buy “Officer, I rammed the car because a passenger was pointing a GUN at me!”.

Gray Peterson · May 29, 2008

imported post

That's interesting, but there was no way I could have known until I had gotten home, after I had gotten her name.

Btw, the person who did that is named Breanna Shacole Madison. Take a look through court records over at courts.wa.gov and have fun. Laundry list. This woman is a real piece of work.

Mainsail · May 29, 2008

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

That's interesting, but there was no way I could have known until I had gotten home, after I had gotten her name.

Btw, the person who did that is named Breanna Shacole Madison. Take a look through court records over at courts.wa.gov and have fun.

1
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Seattle Municipal Ct
468259
04-04-2005
Criminal Non-Traffic

2
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Seattle Municipal Ct
490430
07-22-2006
Criminal Non-Traffic

3
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Seattle Municipal Ct
502483
03-16-2007
Criminal Traffic

4
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Seattle Municipal Ct
506263
05-22-2007
Criminal Non-Traffic

5
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
550007506
04-29-2005
Probable Cause

6
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
550067458
03-09-2005
Probable Cause

7
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
206046093
11-06-2006
Probable Cause

8
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
550050243
08-05-2005
Criminal Non-Traffic

9
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Island County Dist
C00013510
06-28-2004
Criminal Non-Traffic

10
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
C00670172
02-09-2007
Criminal Traffic

11
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
C00705325
01-02-2008
Criminal Traffic

12
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
C00738195
04-28-2008
Criminal Traffic

13
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-everett Div
I04055863
06-09-2004
Infraction Traffic

14
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
I05088903
05-04-2007
Infraction Traffic

15
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
I05158637
02-09-2007
Infraction Traffic

16
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
I05619529
01-02-2008
Infraction Traffic

17
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Sno Co-south Div
I05707561
04-28-2008
Infraction Traffic

18
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Everett Municipal
IN0063320
05-24-2004
Infraction Traffic

19
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Edmonds Municipal
IN0080988
06-26-2007
Infraction Traffic

20
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Everett Municipal
IN0089300
03-19-2008
Infraction Traffic

21
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
King County District
Y80092258
04-18-2008
Criminal Non-Traffic

22
Madison, Breanna Shacole
Defendant
Island Superior Ct
01-8-00210-1
12-14-2001
Juvenile Offender

Ajetpilot · May 29, 2008

imported post

How can you find out the disposition of those cases?

joeroket · May 29, 2008

imported post

I looked at the ones from South Dist and #10 is closed w/no docket info, 11 and 12 are still open with no docket info. She is, I think, in for a world of hurt ater this one. I see her spendng at least 2yrs in purdy.

kparker · May 29, 2008

imported post

I see her spendng at least 2yrs in purdy.

3 x attempted vehicular homicide, plus all the other stuff, only nets you 2 years?

TechnoWeenie · May 29, 2008

imported post

That's really a tough call.

If someone was INTENTIONALLY ramming me, they'd find out very quickly what a 4K# vehicle with a driver that's trained to use it can do.

A vehicle can be/is a deadly weapon, and that works both ways.

I've had the good fortune to experience my 'oh shit' moments on a track, and Lonnie, you've realized that the shit you see on TV and in the movies is COMPLETELY different than what actually happens when two vehicles impact each other on the roadway.

With the proper training, you can 'take out' vehicles 2-3x the size of your own vehicle, it's all in how the forces are applied.

I'm not an expert by any means, and don't claim to be, but I'm grateful for the experiences I've had, and the lessons taught to me in EVOC.

PIT's (which would be useful in this situation), J-turns (reverse 180's), even driving from the passenger seat, are skills that can easily be learned, and I feel the same way about those skills that I do with a firearm.. You may not need it, but you'd rather have it if you need it than not, and it's damn fun practicing

Almost Died Tonight

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member