Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Shots fired by two drunk idiots with CPLs...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    The important thing to remember is that they were likely idiots to begin with. The alcohol may have been lubricant but it wasn't the engine!

    http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2009/05/31/shots-fired-4/
    On 5/31/09, at approximately 2:45 a.m., offficers were patrolling the area near S. Main St. and 2nd Ave Ext S. as part of the nightclub emphasis patrol, when they heard two gunshots coming from the south and west. The officers drove to the 200 block of 2nd Ave S. and observed three males emerging from the alley to the east of the large parking lot. The officers noted the men’s appearance and continued to check the area. A citizen approached them and explained that he had also heard the shots, adding that he had seen the same men quickly exiting the alley just after he heard the shots.
    Based on their contact with the citizen, and their own observations, the officers contacted the men at S Washington Street and 2nd Ave S. At that time, they found that two of the men were carrying loaded semi-automatic pistols. Though both men hold valid concealed pistol permits, one of them did not have his permit with him. Further investigation revealed that there were two spent 9mm casings in the alley just about where the officers and the citizen had placed the men. However, neither the officers nor the citizen actually saw the shots being fired. The recovered pistols were 9mm.
    There were no victims found at the time of this report, and it did not appear that the rounds struck anything. The officers placed the pistols into evidence and recovered the spent casings. The officers also checked the pistols to make sure that they were not stolen.
    The officers transported both of the men who were armed men to the precinct where they were interviewed and later released. One of the men stated that he and his friends had been threatened by a group of unknown males, earlier as they were driving by in a car. He saw that one of the men was brandishing what he believed to be a shotgun, so he responded by producing his pistol and firing two rounds into the air to “scare them off.”
    Officers requested that the man who did not have his permit with him be charged with the permit violation. The other man, the man who fired the shots, has not been charged at this time. All three men had been drinking at an area nightclub before the incident. They had left the club at closing time and remained in the area. It is unknown if they were armed while inside the club or not.

  2. #2
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Talk about BONEHEADED things to do.....


    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Wow...not enough info. And some say open carriers are a liability.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member fatalhubris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    renton wa
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    more ammo for mayor 5 cents

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    The important thing to remember is that they were likely idiots to begin with. The alcohol may have been lubricant but it wasn't the engine!

    http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2009/05/31/shots-fired-4/
    On 5/31/09, at approximately 2:45 a.m., offficers were patrolling the area near S. Main St. and 2nd Ave Ext S. as part of the nightclub emphasis patrol, when they heard two gunshots coming from the south and west. The officers drove to the 200 block of 2nd Ave S. and observed three males emerging from the alley to the east of the large parking lot. The officers noted the men’s appearance and continued to check the area. A citizen approached them and explained that he had also heard the shots, adding that he had seen the same men quickly exiting the alley just after he heard the shots.
    Based on their contact with the citizen, and their own observations, the officers contacted the men at S Washington Street and 2nd Ave S. At that time, they found that two of the men were carrying loaded semi-automatic pistols. Though both men hold valid concealed pistol permits, one of them did not have his permit with him. Further investigation revealed that there were two spent 9mm casings in the alley just about where the officers and the citizen had placed the men. However, neither the officers nor the citizen actually saw the shots being fired. The recovered pistols were 9mm.
    There were no victims found at the time of this report, and it did not appear that the rounds struck anything. The officers placed the pistols into evidence and recovered the spent casings. The officers also checked the pistols to make sure that they were not stolen.
    The officers transported both of the men who were armed men to the precinct where they were interviewed and later released. One of the men stated that he and his friends had been threatened by a group of unknown males, earlier as they were driving by in a car. He saw that one of the men was brandishing what he believed to be a shotgun, so he responded by producing his pistol and firing two rounds into the air to “scare them off.”
    Officers requested that the man who did not have his permit with him be charged with the permit violation. The other man, the man who fired the shots, has not been charged at this time. All three men had been drinking at an area nightclub before the incident. They had left the club at closing time and remained in the area. It is unknown if they were armed while inside the club or not.


    If the story is accurate, sounds like a couple of goofs with a gun to me.

    Good on the citizen witness, too.

    Always laudable when somebody takes the time and effort to report details relevant toa firearm discharge in public...



  6. #6
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Also, while it was a stupid thing to do, if the article is accurate, the shooter admitted what he did.

    This part isn't very clear to me though:

    "One of the men stated that he and his friends had been threatened by a group of unknown males, earlier as they were driving by in a car. He saw that one of the men was brandishing what he believed to be a shotgun, so he responded by producing his pistol and firing two rounds into the air to “scare them off.” "


    If this happened earlier, did they go looking for the guys with the shotgun?
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  7. #7
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry, but if one is threatened with a shotgun, the proper response is not to expend valuable ammunition and time by discharging rounds into the air that can put innocent people at risk, but to aim and fire at the person behind said shotgun as quickly as possible. It doesn't add up.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    I'm sorry, but if one is threatened with a shotgun, the proper response is not to expend valuable ammunition and time by discharging rounds into the air that can put innocent people at risk, but to aim and fire at the person behind said shotgun as quickly as possible. It doesn't add up.
    +1

    Don't forget that a-l-c-o-h-o-l was involved...

    Goofs with a gun, I say...

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Idiot behaviorbeing the keyphrase in this case.

    1) Drinking and or being under the influencewhile being armed (probably)

    2) Firing "warning shots" at unknown assailants (doubtful)

    3) Carrying their firearms while in a nightclub (probably)

    Too many questions not answered, but they were probably being idiots and should be charged accordingly. As usual, there could be circumstances that just haven't been prov-en yet, but the inclusion of alcohol into this scenario puts everything against them.

    Let the idiocy of others be a lesson to all. STILL we ban non-drinkers from sitting in the bar section of a restaurant, but don't make it illegal to actually consume alcohol while armed. This is Bass Ackward IMO.


    Let sober people carry where they may, and punish the behavior who do not embrace the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

  10. #10
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    STILL we ban non-drinkers from sitting in the bar section of a restaurant,

    Where does this happen? I have never seen it.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  11. #11
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    You may not have seen it, but it is the law in WA, as any area designated 21 and over by the liquor control board is off limits to carry. Several times I have had to tell servers that, no, we cannot sit in the bar because I am packing. They usually just say, "Oh, OK" and put us on the other list. If someone is carrying and in a bar, they are in violation of the law. I happen not to agree, but that's the way it is, at least for now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I think FMCDH means:

    * We ban carry in bars, even by those who aren't drinking, but

    * we don't ban drinking by those who are carrying.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Idiot behaviorbeing the keyphrase in this case.

    2) Firing "warning shots" at unknown assailants (doubtful)

    I dont know, i saw a big ass roach down there the other day, maybe it was self defense

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Let sober people carry where they may, and punish the behavior who do not embrace the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
    +1

    I read a story about an off dutyChicago cop who was driving drunk and killed a bicyclist last week. Reference was made to a CPD policy that forbade off duty officers from being drunk and armed.

    That's a pretty good policy, I'd say. Would be a good law for armed LACs, too.

    Armed LAC, drunk and armed? Go to jail. I have no doubt we will get to that state someday. Who could possibly object?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Armed LAC, drunk and armed? Go to jail. I have no doubt we will get to that state someday. Who could possibly object?
    Why not stick to punishing people who have actually hurt someone or put them at significant risk (like firing shots wildly into the air... in the city)?

    I've been semi-intoxicated and armed. (I don't get seriously drunk, but very occasionally, I get a decent buzz going.) Should I go to jail?

    Again, alcohol is not the problem here; the idiot's are. Alcohol is an oil that makes the idiot engine function more efficiently, but you still have to be an idiot first for it to work it's magic!

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Armed LAC, drunk and armed? Go to jail. I have no doubt we will get to that state someday. Who could possibly object?
    Why not stick to punishing people who have actually hurt someone or put them at significant risk (like firing shots wildly into the air... in the city)?

    I've been semi-intoxicated and armed. (I don't get seriously drunk, but very occasionally, I get a decent buzz going.) Should I go to jail?


    I wouldpropose that anyone with a BAC over, say, .13 should be prohibited from carrying a gun, OC or CC.

    Carry a gun and .13 would mean go to jail.

    I'd have no problem with that. Would you?




    P.S. There is research that shows inebriated persons tend to underestimate how much alcohol they've drunk and how intoxicated they really are.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    grishnav wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Armed LAC, drunk and armed? Go to jail. I have no doubt we will get to that state someday. Who could possibly object?
    Why not stick to punishing people who have actually hurt someone or put them at significant risk (like firing shots wildly into the air... in the city)?

    I've been semi-intoxicated and armed. (I don't get seriously drunk, but very occasionally, I get a decent buzz going.) Should I go to jail?


    I wouldpropose that anyone with a BAC over, say, .13 should be prohibited from carrying a gun, OC or CC.
    I would propose that doing much of anything with a BAC over .13 is stupid for most people, but I absolutely would not do violence to that person unless they were threatening/actively doing violence to me. (Tangentialy, how about a person with a serious non-impairing medical problem, such as a functioning alcoholic, who's hardly drunk and perfectly rational at .13?)

    Remember, "prohibited" = "send big, burly men in silly costumes with guns, body armor, and backup to commit violence against a person for engaging in an activity."

    Sorry. You're highly unlikely to convince me that doing violence to somebody who's not hurting anyone is the right thing to do, no matter how absurd the situation you may paint.


    Carry a gun and .13 would mean go to jail.

    I'd have no problem with that. Would you?
    Yes. What good does it do to steal a man from his family and friends, remove his productive capacity from society, and then indeed burden society with his upkeep, if he's not really frickin' dangerous to society? Sheese!

    And if he actually does hurt someone, how is it that burdening that someone with his upkeep is better than having him make restitution to the person he harmed?


    P.S. There is research that shows inebriated persons tend to underestimate how much alcohol they've drunk and how intoxicated they really are.
    And there's an entire corpus of research that suggests that alcohol's impairment of judgment is largely overstated; that in reality, for most people, really pretty small; and that for the most part, being drunk is a "social excuse" for acting in socially unacceptable ways, rather than an actual inability to make good decisions. I.e., you're a moron to begin with, but you wouldn't have any friends or be able to hold down a job if you always acted like a moron, so you behave because of those social pressures. When you get drunk, you act like a little retard not because you have no ability to make good decisions, but because you know people will forgive you for making poor decisions which they otherwise wouldn't have, ie. the social pressures are gone, you're pre-existing inability to independently make good decisions, aka. the fact that you're a moron, is now un-checked.

    If you have good decision making capability independent of societal pressures, then you pretty much do just fine.

    If you lock up your gun before you go drink, and get s-faced drunk, what's to stop you from going, getting your gun, unlocking it (if you bothered to lock it in the first place), loading it, and doing whatever you would have done anyway? I mean, if you're good judgement is indeed impaired, then there is nothing stopping you!

    Oh, wait. You're good judgement isn't completely impaired. It might not be impaired at all, and in that case, it might actually be preferable to carry on your person to reduce the chance of it getting stolen. It might that it's partially impaired and that the steps necessary to go and unlock it gives you enough time to reconsider. It might be significantly impaired, in which case, better leave it at home. Or maybe you just shouldn't own guns (or just shouldn't drink), because you'll leave the bar, go home, get the gun, go back to the bar and find the guy you wanna hurt (or the thing you wanna shoot up) and do it anyway.

    But none of that is for me to decide for you and send men with guns after you to force you to comply. It's up to you to make good choices for you and your life, and until your choices hurt someone else, those choices are nobody else's business.

    Bottom line: Some people shouldn't drink; some people shouldn't own guns.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Bottom line: Some people shouldn't drink; some people shouldn't own guns.
    So you are saying that it is OK to go out every night, get wiped out drunk and drive home as long as you never get in a wreck. In some ways I agree with that but the inner demons in me say that something should be done before he kills someone which he is ecxtremely likely to do. Not absolute bu likely.

    Then you say that it is OK to deprive someone of the 2A rights stated in the constitution. There is no right in the constitution to get drunk but there is the right to own guns so you can't put the two in the same category.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    There is no right in the constitution to get drunk but there is the right to own guns so you can't put the two in the same category.
    Read the Ninth.
    It is a right "retained by the people." the purpose of the Ninth is to explain that just because there are rights enumerated (just acknowledged, not given) that does not mean we don't have other rights not mentioned in the Bill or Rights.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Bottom line: Some people shouldn't drink; some people shouldn't own guns.
    So you are saying that it is OK to go out every night, get wiped out drunk and drive home as long as you never get in a wreck. In some ways I agree with that but the inner demons in me say that something should be done before he kills someone which he is ecxtremely likely to do. Not absolute bu likely.
    I don't think it's OK. I think it's incredibly stupid. Probably a decent reason to pull a driver's license (as an alternative to trespass, since they road's aren't privately owned). Not to mention jacking up insurance rates.

    I think it's a stupid reason to throw some one in a jail cell, though.

    Then you say that it is OK to deprive someone of the 2A rights stated in the constitution.
    I never said such a thing. I challenge you to find it. Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you are intentionally misunderstanding what I said.

    There is no right in the constitution to get drunk but there is the right to own guns so you can't put the two in the same category.
    Sure I can: The right to get drunk and the right to keep and bear arms are in the same category. See wut I did thar?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Bottom line: Some people shouldn't drink; some people shouldn't own guns.
    So you are saying that it is OK to go out every night, get wiped out drunk and drive home as long as you never get in a wreck. In some ways I agree with that but the inner demons in me say that something should be done before he kills someone which he is ecxtremely likely to do. Not absolute bu likely.

    I don't think it's OK. I think it's incredibly stupid. Probably a decent reason to pull a driver's license (as an alternative to trespass, since they road's aren't privately owned). Not to mention jacking up insurance rates.

    I think it's a stupid reason to throw some one in a jail cell, though.
    Then you say that it is OK to deprive someone of the 2A rights stated in the constitution.

    I never said such a thing. I challenge you to find it. Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you are intentionally misunderstanding what I said.
    See the bold underlined italics quote above.

    There is no right in the constitution to get drunk but there is the right to own guns so you can't put the two in the same category.
    Sure I can: The right to get drunk and the right to keep and bear arms are in the same category. See wut I did thar?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    grishnav wrote:
    Bottom line: Some people shouldn't drink; some people shouldn't own guns.
    See the bold underlined italics quote above.
    See the bold underlined italics quote above.
    Wow. First of all, way to mess up the quoting.

    Unlike you (apparently), when I say shouldn't, I don't mean "government people should use violence against that person to prevent them from..." I mean, well, you know, just exactly what I said: they shouldn't! As in should not. Like, you shouldn't jump off a bridge, you shouldn't shoot yourself in the head, and you definitely should not troll on the interwebs. Shouldn't. As in should refrain from. How it is you've confused the two is beyond me...

    So, do you get it now? No?

    Maybe it'll help if I rephrase:

    Bottom line: Some people should choose not to drink; some people should choose not to own guns.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Much better. There is great debate on here on who should be allowed to have guns. Some say that there should be no restriction on anyone and others are much more selective. You see how easy it is to call someone stupid and ignorant because they don't agree with your interpretation. The simple term arms is among those than few can agree on. I am of the minority opinion on this board that there are some people that should be denied access to firearms. I am also of the opinion that if you are $###faced drunk and trying to drive home you should be locked up at least until you are sober whether you have had a wreck or not.

    But then there are lots of people that should not drink at all or have guns and know it therefore do not. Then there are those in the same way except continue to do both. I/we cannot be the judge for them until they prove othrewise.

    Much like the man telling the woman to take her computer back to the store for a refund. She asked what reason, he said "Tell then you are too stupid to use a computer". Maybe sometimes we need to tell more people that and they need to listen.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I am also of the opinion that if you are $###faced drunk and trying to drive home you should be locked up at least until you are sober whether you have had a wreck or not.
    Why not cart them home, tow their car home (or to a lot), and charge them them for towing, storage (if they use the lot), and "cab fair"? Oh, and call their insurance company and let them know what an irresponsible ass they are shielding from liability.

    Why do they need to be locked up? Why do they need to be charged with a crime? What good do those things bring about?

  25. #25
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Regardless of the punishment or the underling politics about who should and who should not be allowed to own/carry a firearm, I have to assume that the vast majority of us agree on a basic principle, one we all agree on every time we have an OC picnic....

    Alcohol and Firearms DO NOT MIX!

    That being said, they chose to drink, they chose to carry their firearms while drinking (or soon after) and in so doing their actions may have endangered the lives of others because they did something they normally wouldn't (and you have to assume that since they still had valid CPLs) and never had done before.

    Maybe a few years of being disarmed (not prison) would help them see the error of the culmination of their choices. Yes? No? Fair?

    And if they had actually hurt an innocent person by the culmination of those choices....I say we call it what it would have been, Murder, and thrown the book at them.

    Personally, I want to hear the rest of the story. :?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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