Folklife shooting suspect pleads guilty

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

ElJefe1911 wrote:

So since neither of the papers tell the whole truth, what is the truth? I also don't see how Snoho Co should take any blame unless it is documented in a court of law this person had been committed. If you were to deny him the right to buy a gun based on one mans untrained opinion of his mental state you create a very slippery slope.

Click to expand...

We will never know the actual truth, the Nickles people don't want you to know. This incident is allowing them to pursue the illegal anti gun program.

Click to expand...

Seriously... Where in the hell do you come up withthis crap? You are the first person to jump someone if they don't site specific evidence for their statements yet you spout conspiracies like they are facts. Who specifically are these Nickles people and what do they not want me to know? This gomer got exactly what he deserved. People like this make all of us look like complete fools.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

We will never know the actual truth, the Nickles people don't want you to know. This incident is allowing them to pursue the illegal anti gun program.

Click to expand...

Why does every incidenthave to be a sinister plot or coverup in your world Bear?

Once in a while you need to just accept reality for what it is, instead of cooking up a "grand scheme" that must be the motivation behind every incident.

imported post

ElJefe1911 wrote:

Seriously... Where in the hell do you come up withthis crap? You are the first person to jump someone if they don't site specific evidence for their statements yet you spout conspiracies like they are facts. Who specifically are these Nickles people and what do they not want me to know? This gomer got exactly what he deserved. People like this make all of us look like complete fools.

Click to expand...

He's a nutjob conspiracy theorist who is usually wrong about the information he posts, and hurts your cause more than he helps it.

Ignore him.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

ElJefe1911 wrote:

So since neither of the papers tell the whole truth, what is the truth? I also don't see how Snoho Co should take any blame unless it is documented in a court of law this person had been committed. If you were to deny him the right to buy a gun based on one mans untrained opinion of his mental state you create a very slippery slope.

Click to expand...

We will never know the actual truth, the Nickles people don't want you to know. This incident is allowing them to pursue the illegal anti gun program.

Click to expand...

No fan of Mayor Twinkie, but he has nothing to do with a decision that originates in the King County Prosecutor's Office.

Click to expand...

If you actuallybelieve that then I really feel sorry for you.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

If you actuallybelieve that then I really feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Bear, I know more about the workings of the politics between the County and the City than you are ever likely to know.

The King County Prosecutor's Office has and does routinely tell the City of Seattle to pack sand.

Mayor Twinkie has no pull with the County prosecutor, and in fact it is likely an unharmonious relationship.

This asshole brought a gun to a fistfight, and saw the writing on the wall so he took a deal.

Go take your pills.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

If you actuallybelieve that then I really feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Bear, I know more about the workings of the politics between the County and the City than you are ever likely to know.

The King County Prosecutor's Office has and does routinely tell the City of Seattle to pack sand.

Mayor Twinkie has no pull with the County prosecutor, and in fact it is likely an unharmonious relationship.

This @#$% brought a gun to a fistfight, and saw the writing on the wall so he took a deal.

Go take your pills.

Click to expand...

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

I actually have to agree with TT here, JL. Agent47 said he remembered this guy from when he tried to come into the shop and purchase a handgun and nearly hit his own mother. A47 also reported that his check came back clean, but that he didn't feel comfortable making the sale and the manager supported his decision. When he informed SnoCo SD of the situation, I would think they should have delved a little deeper into his background, since it was obvious he wasn't mentally stable and was trying to purchase a firearm.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see your concern, but if there was no documented history, how could SnoCo find anything out about him?
(SNIP)

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but somehow the papers came up with the phrase "history of mental illness" and this, at least to me, implies there's some sort of documentation that could have been found with suffiecient investigation.

Would it not be a violation of his rights to deny him a gun purchase based on one man's opinion of him? Seems to go against the grain of all that we hold sacred here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, upon reflection, that one person's opinion should not deny him the right to own or purchase a gun, but I do think that the opinion of a gun shop owner saying that a person seemed mentally unstable deserves investigation. Now, if that investigation uncovers something that bars said person from owning a gun, then justice was served; if it doesn't, then it was prudent investigation and nothing needs come of it.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

Click to expand...

Why not go look at the case documents, which are public information?

Rampant speculation and diatribes about political coverups would evaporate at that point is why, and then your sound bites lose value.

Seriously - sometimes folks who carry guns are idiots, just like folks who don't.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

If you actuallybelieve that then I really feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Bear, I know more about the workings of the politics between the County and the City than you are ever likely to know.

The King County Prosecutor's Office has and does routinely tell the City of Seattle to pack sand.

Mayor Twinkie has no pull with the County prosecutor, and in fact it is likely an unharmonious relationship.

This @#$% brought a gun to a fistfight, and saw the writing on the wall so he took a deal.

Go take your pills.

Click to expand...

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

Click to expand...

Where does it say the other guy is an antigunner? Also show me where it was reported that the other guy started the fight because he saw the gun. If you have no facts then state it as your opinion or stop posting. You keep coming off like a paranoid wacko. It is hard enough to get people to take us seriously with out your unsubstantiated delusions.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

Click to expand...

Why not go look at the case documents, which are public information?

Rampant speculation and diatribes about political coverups would evaporate at that point is why, and then your sound bites lose value.

Seriously - sometimes folks who carry guns are idiots, just like folks who don't.

Click to expand...

I recognize my total distrust of the legal system and their ability to be fair. However I live across the sound and going and checking the records is truly not something I feel iswithin my budget and time concerns. However, do you really believe that the prosecutors office is above political pressure?

imported post

ElJefe1911 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

If you actuallybelieve that then I really feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Bear, I know more about the workings of the politics between the County and the City than you are ever likely to know.

The King County Prosecutor's Office has and does routinely tell the City of Seattle to pack sand.

Mayor Twinkie has no pull with the County prosecutor, and in fact it is likely an unharmonious relationship.

This @#$% brought a gun to a fistfight, and saw the writing on the wall so he took a deal.

Go take your pills.

Click to expand...

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

Click to expand...

Where does it say the other guy is an antigunner? Also show me where it was reported that the other guy started the fight because he saw the gun. If you have no facts then state it as your opinion or stop posting. You keep coming off like a paranoid wacko. It is hard enough to get people to take us seriously with out your unsubstantiated delusions.

Click to expand...

The original reports when this happened said the other guy saw Grainger's gun and started a scuffle about it. If that is what happened before the twist thing around started, sure sounds like Grainger got screwed as he didn't start the fight.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

The part everyone misses is did he go there intending to get in a fist fight and did he actually start the fight. Most antigunner, when they feel they are on their own turf are physically aggressive. It hasn't been made clear who really started the fight. If it was because the other moron saw the gun then this is a major screw job (that's what was reported in the past and hinted at now), regardless if he should have had a gun or not.

Click to expand...

Why not go look at the case documents, which are public information?

Rampant speculation and diatribes about political coverups would evaporate at that point is why, and then your sound bites lose value.

Seriously - sometimes folks who carry guns are idiots, just like folks who don't.

Click to expand...

I recognize my total distrust of the legal system and their ability to be fair. However I live across the sound and going and checking the records is truly not something I feel iswithin my budget and time concerns. However, do you really believe that the prosecutors office is above political pressure?

Click to expand...

No - the Office of the Prosecutor in King County is certainly subject to political pressure - but not from the likes of Mayor Twinkie.

That is why the Prosecutor, and now the Sheriff, are elected.

The political pressure they suffer comes from Sims - another asshole to be sure, but not the same sort of asshole you find in Mayor Twinkie.

For a short primer on the subject, this is why Sheriff's Deputies who work Metro constantly *DO* police work the Seattle boys would like to do but are discouraged from doing.

Of all the offices in this part of the State to distrust, I think Dan has his part down pretty well.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

I actually have to agree with TT here, JL. Agent47 said he remembered this guy from when he tried to come into the shop and purchase a handgun and nearly hit his own mother. A47 also reported that his check came back clean, but that he didn't feel comfortable making the sale and the manager supported his decision. When he informed SnoCo SD of the situation, I would think they should have delved a little deeper into his background, since it was obvious he wasn't mentally stable and was trying to purchase a firearm.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see your concern, but if there was no documented history, how could SnoCo find anything out about him?
(SNIP)

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but somehow the papers came up with the phrase "history of mental illness" and this, at least to me, implies there's some sort of documentation that could have been found with suffiecient investigation.

Would it not be a violation of his rights to deny him a gun purchase based on one man's opinion of him? Seems to go against the grain of all that we hold sacred here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, upon reflection, that one person's opinion should not deny him the right to own or purchase a gun, but I do think that the opinion of a gun shop owner saying that a person seemed mentally unstable deserves investigation. Now, if that investigation uncovers something that bars said person from owning a gun, then justice was served; if it doesn't, then it was prudent investigation and nothing needs come of it.

Click to expand...

The only problem I could see with what you are saying would be the time line for him getting the gun and permit and then having some documentation on any mental issues. He could have received his permit up to 5 years ago and he could have had the gun well before that. I would guess the question would be is there any procedure in place to go retrieve a permit from the person after they are determined to be mentally defective. As far as the opinion of a gun shop owner going toward starting and investigation, I can't think of anyone that is going to step on that landmine. With the attitude of people being that they will sue anyone for anything now. I wouldn't risk my shop on being sued for violating someones civil rights.

imported post

ElJefe1911 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Yes, I agree, upon reflection, that one person's opinion should not deny him the right to own or purchase a gun, but I do think that the opinion of a gun shop owner saying that a person seemed mentally unstable deserves investigation. Now, if that investigation uncovers something that bars said person from owning a gun, then justice was served; if it doesn't, then it was prudent investigation and nothing needs come of it.

Click to expand...

The only problem I could see with what you are saying would be the time line for him getting the gun and permit and then having some documentation on any mental issues. He could have received his permit up to 5 years ago and he could have had the gun well before that. I would guess the question would be is there any procedure in place to go retrieve a permit from the person after they are determined to be mentally defective. As far as the opinion of a gun shop owner going toward starting and investigation, I can't think of anyone that is going to step on that landmine. With the attitude of people being that they will sue anyone for anything now. I wouldn't risk my shop on being sued for violating someones civil rights.

Click to expand...

In light of the gun shop info, what should have happened at the time he was attempting to purchase the gun was; the employee or shop owner should have called the Police to come out and check on this guy. I'm not sure that anything could have been done, but at least an attempt to evaluate him would have been prudent. I could certainly condone stalling the sale of a gun until an Officer arrived.

Certain guidelines must be met for an Officer to involuntarily commit a person for a mental evalution, and it sounds as if he probably wouldn't have qualified. The decision is however Officer discretion, and we can only speculate as to what may have happened. As we all know, this could only temporarily keep anyone from getting hold of a firearm if they really want one.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

ElJefe1911 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Yes, I agree, upon reflection, that one person's opinion should not deny him the right to own or purchase a gun, but I do think that the opinion of a gun shop owner saying that a person seemed mentally unstable deserves investigation. Now, if that investigation uncovers something that bars said person from owning a gun, then justice was served; if it doesn't, then it was prudent investigation and nothing needs come of it.

Click to expand...

The only problem I could see with what you are saying would be the time line for him getting the gun and permit and then having some documentation on any mental issues. He could have received his permit up to 5 years ago and he could have had the gun well before that. I would guess the question would be is there any procedure in place to go retrieve a permit from the person after they are determined to be mentally defective. As far as the opinion of a gun shop owner going toward starting and investigation, I can't think of anyone that is going to step on that landmine. With the attitude of people being that they will sue anyone for anything now. I wouldn't risk my shop on being sued for violating someones civil rights.

Click to expand...

In light of the gun shop info, what should have happened at the time he was attempting to purchase the gun was; the employee or shop owner should have called the Police to come out and check on this guy. I'm not sure that anything could have been done, but at least an attempt to evaluate him would have been prudent. I could certainly condone stalling the sale of a gun until an Officer arrived.

Certain guidelines must be met for an Officer to involuntarily commit a person for a mental evaluation, and it sounds as if he probably wouldn't have qualified. The decision is however Officer discretion, and we can only speculate as to what may have happened. As we all know, this could only temporarily keep anyone from getting hold of a firearm if they really want one.

Click to expand...

While I completely agree with what you are saying I can only imagine what would happen in that instance. Lets say that I called you and you came out because I felt a customer was not mentally stable and felt you should check him out. If you came out and contacted him and decided you could not do anything about it legally it would cause a giant problem. Now, lets speculate that he was a member of an online chat room that is progun. Once he posted that he had just tried to buy a gun from his local gun shop and the antigun owner and jackbooted police had tried to violate he second amendment rights to own a handgun, everyone else on said chat would recommend that that person sue said owner and oppressive government for enough money to start their own country where they can do what ever they want. The shop would be boycotted and everyone would start buying guns from out of state shops that were cheaper and progun. That would remove millions from the tax base of Washington state and cause the downfall of the entire government infrastructure. I personally couldn't sleep knowing that I could some how cause the downfall of the government. What would Bear have to complain about?

Seriously though. This could lead to a huge problem with people being delayed based on the uneducated opinions of sales people. It would also lead to opening up owners of those stores to litigation. I am even less qualified to make those determinations then you are.

For those unsure, the first part was a joke and the last part is only my opinion.

Jeff

imported post

ElJefe1911 wrote:

Seriously though. This could lead to a huge problem with people being delayed based on the uneducated opinions of sales people. It would also lead to opening up owners of those stores to litigation. I am even less qualified to make those determinations then you are.

Jeff

Click to expand...

What is the difference between a store employee or owner calling on someone in their shop acting strangely, and joe average calling on someone on the street acting strangely? Both will warrant a response, and the determination will be made by the Officer as to their mental fitness. Remember the golden standard; what would a reasonable person do in this situation.

imported post

The issue that I can see would be that if I call on someone in the streets I am a random anonymous caller that is unknown to the person I called about. If I am an owner or employee of a shop and I call on a customer in the store It is not a stretch for that person to determine who called and caused this hassle for them. The concern being that if this person does not meet your standards of detainment you leave and I am now left with a mentally unstable individual that has a convenient target for their delusional anger. I go from being a concerned citizen to becoming a target. I completely agree with you and have called on customers and had them arrested inside and outside of stores I have worked in the past. It has not always stopped them from coming back. As you know the local PD response times can be a bit slow at times.

Jeff

imported post

Two things:

1. If a privately-owned retailer decides not to do business with a customer, that's completely their perogative, as long as the reason isn't one of the small class of "suspect" categories (e.g. race, gender, etc.)

2. IIRC, the shooter's mental-health issues were primarily as a minor, and just like criminal issues were not part of his adult record. Can anyone confirm this?

imported post

Nobody can even confirm the issues he had with the retailer are true and correct, we have only the word of a former employee on a web board.

One could, and I have, inquire with the current employees - but again it is a "he said" issue that did not come up in the court procedings.

His permit was legal at the time he possessed it, but that really is not the issue.

His *actions* while in possession of a firearm were what he was charged for.