Federal Way Discount guns

imported post

All you did was ask him WTF he was doing? Dude...you should've rocked him. Justified IMHO. Was the wife there too? If so, she should've pulled on him. That would've gotten the LEO's attention.After thatyou could own a gun shop because he was an idiot.

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

So the other day i was in there with my wife looking around, THere were 2 King county Deputies in there as well doing the same,

I had my back turned to the door and was admiring a gun i was about to ask to see when one of the employee's grabbed my gun in my serpa. I spun around holding back breaking his nose for doing something so stupid and dangerous.
[snip]
I promptly left after that as i was so upset that the cops did nothing about it and he just didnt understand why i was so upset with him for taking the actions he did.

[snip]

Click to expand...

That employee could have been charged with theft of a firearm, which is a Class B Felony in this state. I would have pushed the officers to do so, ifthe store waswithin their jurisdiction.(He's probably prosecutable under RCW 9.41.270for attempting to draw a firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place which warrant alarm for the safety of other persons. (This is only a Gross Misdemeanor.)



RCW 9A.56.300: Theft of a firearm

1) A person is guilty of theft of a firearm if he or she commits a theft of any firearm.

(2) This section applies regardless of the value of the firearm taken in the theft.

(3) Each firearm taken in the theft under this section is a separate offense.

(4) The definition of "theft" and the defense allowed against the prosecution for theft under RCW9A.56.020 shall apply to the crime of theft of a firearm.

(5) As used in this section, "firearm" means any firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010.

(6) Theft of a firearm is a class B felony.

RCW9A.56.020

(1) "Theft" means:

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or
[snip]

It's apparent that the employee was wrongfully exerting unauthorized control over your property, which was a firearm.

imported post

I think attempted theft of a firearm would have been an appropriate charge for the LEO that was present to arrest under. That would be classified as a class C felony.

imported post

gonna have to find a new place to buy my first pistol then. IMO you would have been justified in at least breaking his fingers/wrist

imported post

I think you did a good job. You excercised good discretion. It's really easy to jump and say "oh I would have broken his nose." You would have to prove that he intended to take your firearm AND deprive you of it. I think assaulting him, or drawing, would have been a bad thing to do because it would have on the news and it would have made gun owners look bad because you know how the news would spin it.

"Gun owner breaks gun store employees nose for touching his firearm."

Anyways, I live in FW. I drive to Renton to buy my guns for a reason. I hate that gun store.

imported post

Kildars wrote:

You would have to prove that he intended to take your firearm AND deprive you of it.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean? If someone intends to "take your firearm", then it follows that he also intends to "deprive you of it".

Furthermore, what could possibly substantiate or reify this intent any more than him grabbing at the gun?

Some years back I had my wallet snatched in Prague (this was before I carried a firearm, and I still kept my wallet in my back pocket). Actually, I should say "almost snatched", because the best part of the story was the look on the guy's face when my wallet (and his arm) reached the end of my wallet chain. (He literally stood there motionless, staring dumbfounded at my wallet, until I yanked the chain and my wallet back :lol. At any rate, the point of the story is that, as in the OPs case, my retention device ultimately prevented any crime from being successfully accomplished, but to suggest that there is any doubt as to the intent of the crime is ludicrous. Or would you suggest that the pickpocket didn't actually intend to "deprive me of" my wallet? :quirky

One need not be expected to understand the motivations of a criminal in order to defend oneself against his criminal actions. There's plenty of time to figure out "why" once the crime has been prevented.

imported post

Heh, does seem silly to have prove they want to deprive you of something when they are trying to take something.

I'm still dumbfounded by this case. That guy is seriously lucky that jarhead was cool enough not to shoot him or retaliate in some other way. Justified though he might have been, it's good that the least amount of physical harm was done. Though I hope that at the very least the guy is not working there anymore.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Kildars wrote:

You would have to prove that he intended to take your firearm AND deprive you of it.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean? If someone intends to "take your firearm", then it follows that he also intends to "deprive you of it".

Click to expand...

Actually no. I can take something just to look at it. You pick things up in stores all the time without intent to deprive the owner of it. If he was just trying to look at your gun (which is pretty stupid) it's not theft. It's only theft if he was trying to take it and deprive you of it. [and generally deprive of permanently is in most state statutes]

Furthermore, what could possibly substantiate or reify this intent any more than him grabbing at the gun?

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that his intent was to steal the gun from him.

Some years back I had my wallet snatched in Prague (this was before I carried a firearm, and I still kept my wallet in my back pocket). Actually, I should say "almost snatched", because the best part of the story was the look on the guy's face when my wallet (and his arm) reached the end of my wallet chain. (He literally stood there motionless, staring dumbfounded at my wallet, until I yanked the chain and my wallet back :lol. At any rate, the point of the story is that, as in the OPs case, my retention device ultimately prevented any crime from being successfully accomplished, but to suggest that there is any doubt as to the intent of the crime is ludicrous. Or would you suggest that the pickpocket didn't actually intend to "deprive me of" my wallet? :quirky

Click to expand...

That's a totally different circumstance. Do you honestly think the gun owner was trying to STEAL his gun in a gun store?

One need not be expected to understand the motivations of a criminal in order to defend oneself against his criminal actions. There's plenty of time to figure out "why" once the crime has been prevented.

Click to expand...

Have fun with that line of thinking in court. You need to figure out why, or the persons intent, before you take action. Especially before you use lethal force.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me. I'm going to school for Criminal Justice but I've only started my third year.

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Have fun with that line of thinking in court. You need to figure out why, or the persons intent, before you take action. Especially before you use lethal force.

Click to expand...

Someone in school for their third year ought to realize that motivation and intent are totally unrelated concepts. If I am being mugged, how am I to know if the mugger is doing it for gang initiation, or just to buy a 40 (not a .40 )? To suggest that his motivation is relevant in defending yourself against an imminent threat to life and limb is absurd.

Kildars wrote:

Then again, I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me. I'm going to school for Criminal Justice but I've only started my third year.

Click to expand...

What makes this appeal to authority all the more insulting is that it's prefaced with the self-effacing "I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me".

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Actually no. I can take something just to look at it. You pick things up in stores all the time without intent to deprive the owner of it

Click to expand...

You missed my point. If the pickpocket in Prague only wanted to look at my wallet, then surely he would have asked.

Also, theft is not the issue here. In most states, lethal force (or much force at all) is never an appropriate response to mere theft. The issue at hand is battery and attempting to commit assault with a deadly weapon. Imagine a person grabs your gun and kills your with it, and drops it smoking next to your corpse while you're still bleeding out. He may not have "permanently deprived you" of the gun itself or thus technically have stolen it at all, but he certainly engaged in actions worthy of being defended against.

Finally, a word as to motivations. Someone working in a gun shop ought to know better than to go for an OCed gun. The fact that this gentlemen didn't know better suggests that, whatever his motivations actually were, they weren't well reasoned. Honestly, I really feel that a person with motivations so suspect is lucky he wasn't shot outright. As a juror I wouldn't be able to convict for such an act of self-defense.

imported post

Someone in school for their third year ought to realize that motivation and intent are totally unrelated concepts. If I am being mugged, how am I to know if the mugger is doing it for gang initiation, or just to buy a 40 (not a .40 )? To suggest that his motivation is relevant in defending yourself against an imminent threat to life and limb is absurd

Click to expand...

Wrong. You're taking the extreme trying to prove your point. He did not get mugged in the store. You getting robbed is totally different than him reaching for your gun. Clearly, in that situation, you do not need to know why he's doing it. However, if someone was just walking towards you, even in a threatening manner you could not pull out your firearm and shoot them.

What makes this appeal to authority all the more insulting is that it's prefaced with the self-effacing "I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me".

Click to expand...

No. I say that because this is a public forum and I do not want people to think it's legal advice.

Click to expand...

imported post

You missed my point. If the pickpocket in Prague only wanted to look at my wallet, then surely he would have asked.

Also, theft is not the issue here. In most states, lethal force (or much force at all) is never an appropriate response to mere theft. The issue at hand is battery and attempting to commit assault with a deadly weapon. Imagine a person grabs your gun and kills your with it, and drops it smoking next to your corpse while you're still bleeding out. He may not have "permanently deprived you" of the gun itself or thus technically have stolen it at all, but he certainly engaged in actions worthy of being defended against.

Click to expand...

You have to think about the situation. I'm sure the gun store employee was carrying as well. There were two deputies in there and it was in a public place. No rational person would think that he was trying to a) steal your firearm or b) shoot you down with it.

Finally, a word as to motivations. Someone working in a gun shop ought to know better than to go for an OCed gun. The fact that this gentlemen didn't know better suggests that, whatever his motivations actually were, they weren't well reasoned. Honestly, I really feel that a person with motivations so suspect is lucky he wasn't shot outright. As a juror I wouldn't be able to convict for such an act of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's actually completely idiotic to reach for someones gun. I'm just arguing it's not theft of a firearm. I think that he reacted fine, considering the situation, because like I stated before this would have been spun by the liberal media to show just how "crazy" us gun owners really are.

imported post

Kildars wrote:

You getting robbed is totally different than him reaching for your gun.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? Because this sure isn't self-evident to myself.

I'm dying to hear your explanation...

Kildars wrote:

However, if someone was just walking towards you, even in a threatening manner you could not pull out your firearm and shoot them.

Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree. Now, to get back to the topic at hand: gun grabs... :quirky

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Kildars wrote:

You getting robbed is totally different than him reaching for your gun.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? Because this sure isn't self-evident to myself.

I'm dying to hear your explanation...

Click to expand...

You think that a mugging is the same as this gun store employee reaching for his gun?

imported post

What does his being a gun store employee have to do with anything, pray tell?

Since a gun shop employee has no more business stealing your gun than does Joe Criminal, I fail to see why one must be expected to trust that his motivations are ultra-kindly.

Gun store employee or not, if the guy was interested in engaging in safe, non-boundary-crossing behavior, then he wouldn't be trying to steal firearms. :quirky

The employee made an excuse after he was caught, but it was clearly B.S. Thus we are left to determine what his real motivations were. Stealing a gun seems like a fair bet.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

What does his being a gun store employee have to do with anything, pray tell?

Since a gun shop employee has no more business stealing your gun than does Joe Criminal, I fail to see how one should be supposed to trust that his motivations are ultra-kindly.

Gun store employee or not, if the guy was interested in engaging is safe, non-boundary-crossing behavior, then he wouldn't be trying to steal firearms. :quirky

The employee made an excuse after he was caught, but it was clearly B.S. Thus we are left to determine what his real motivations were. Stealing a gun seems like a fair bet.

Click to expand...

That's your problem. You don't know it's BS. YOU THINK it's BS. There is a clear difference. Can you prove his motivations? Yes, him being a gun store employee does play a part. It would be very hard to prove that a) he was intending steal his gun right off his hip especially with two deputies there or b) that he was intending to shoot him with the gun because he was carrying himself.

You're just looking for any reason to either draw and/or assault someone.

imported post

I'm glad we agree. Now, to get back to the topic at hand: gun grabs... :quirky

Click to expand...

So then you agree that intent and motivations do matter?

imported post

Kildars wrote:

You're just looking for any reason to either draw and/or assault someone.

Click to expand...

lol, whatever gave you this idea? When did I say what I would do in this situation?

I'm merely defending a hypothetical act of defense against this silly little criminal-wannabe.

I, myself, would merely have demanded that the police arrest him and I would insist that I am pressing charges for battery.

FWIW I agree that the situation turned out well, and I don't think the OP should have reacted violently. However, I maintain that pretty much any act of defense against the employee's action could be justified (unless the OP really truly knew that the employee was no threat), and that Mr. Employee really is trying out for the Darwin Award.

imported post

Kildars wrote:

I'm glad we agree. Now, to get back to the topic at hand: gun grabs... :quirky

Click to expand...

So then you agree that intent and motivations do matter?

Click to expand...

I never said they don't matter, I said they were not the same thing.

And I do maintain that once intent has been established, motivation is hardly relevant to the exercise of self-defense.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Kildars wrote:

You're just looking for any reason to either draw and/or assault someone.

Click to expand...

lol, whatever gave you this idea? When did I say what I would do in this situation?

I'm merely defending a hypothetical act of defense against this silly little criminal-wannabe.

I, myself, would merely have demanded that the police arrest him and I would insist that I am pressing charges for battery.

FWIW I agree that the situation turned out well, and I don't think the OP should have reacted violently. However, I maintain that pretty much any act of defense against the employee's action could be justified (unless the OP really truly knew that the employee was no threat), and that Mr. Employee really is trying out for the Darwin Award.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you didn't say that but 90% of the people in this thread were like, "you should have just knocked him out" "broke his nose" "shot him." I think we need to remember that gun owners already have a bad stereotype against us and we need to use really good discretion and only use physical force when absolutely necessary because if you didn't use your gun, but you are a gun owner, they news would spin it for us "crazy gun owners"

I don't think it would have been justified, we'll have to just agree to disagree.