Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Bus Shooting Verdict

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    I wonder if it had been a male shooter how this would have played out.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/41279...tml?source=rss

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

    Post imported post

    I second the thought. The escalation of the situation was not smart. She is very lucky. On the other hand, the statement from the court on the fact that the fear of having the gun taken away from her was part of the justification in shooting the "attacker" is very interesting......

  3. #3
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    I think it was acompletelyrighteous shootgiven the court account of what happened.

    She was an idiotfor escalating the confrontation and for lettingthose with herdo likewise, but you cant always microcontrol every action that a child does. Facts are facts, and the facts are that she had no duty to retreat, and Salters had no right toassault her, regardless of howobnoxious she and those with her were being.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    +1 For self defense.

    Prosecutors said in the statement that that Sara Brereton, 31, "acted in defense of herself, her children and her partner" by using "her legally licensed handgun."

    Doesn't the prosecutor know we don't have to "license" firearms, hmmm he must have meant her CPL.

    I wonder too if a straight white male would have got the same verdict. Not that I am against what other people do, it's just that justice often favors certain "classes" of people.
    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)

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post


    I wonder too if a straight white male would have got the same verdict. Not that I am against what other people do, it's just that justice often favors certain "classes" of people.
    When taking into consideration of Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy this will play out differently for male, female, disabled, strong and so on.

    When changing the issue of size, strength, ability, immediate threat to one changes dramatically thus the use of force or deadly force as well.

    So to answer that question in my view, Yes it would be different and rightfully so.
    • 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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    I wonder too if a straight white male would have got the same verdict. Not that I am against what other people do, it's just that justice often favors certain "classes" of people.
    When taking into consideration of Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy this will play out differently for male, female, disabled, strong and so on.

    When changing the issue of size, strength, ability, immediate threat to one changes dramatically thus the use of force or deadly force as well.

    So to answer that question in my view, Yes it would be different and rightfully so.
    I would disagree. I have taken on larger guys than myself and won I also have have gotten the crap beat out of me by smaller guys, can you cite the law that size would make a difference?

    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)

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I wonder too if a straight white male would have got the same verdict. Not that I am against what other people do, it's just that justice often favors certain "classes" of people.
    When taking into consideration of Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy this will play out differently for male, female, disabled, strong and so on.

    When changing the issue of size, strength, ability, immediate threat to one changes dramatically thus the use of force or deadly force as well.

    So to answer that question in my view, Yes it would be different and rightfully so.
    I would disagree. I have taken on larger guys than myself and won I also have have gotten the crap beat out of me by smaller guys, can you cite the law that size would make a difference?
    Here is a link written by Massad Ayoob that explains Disparity of Force better then I, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_77824400/

    As you can see nothing is cut and dry when considering Disparity of Force as you will need to be able to articulate what you knew at that point in time to justify your actions.

    I highly suggest everyone to attend Massad LFI-1 Class on the Judicious Use of Deadly Force as he visits Washington. http://www.ayoob.com/df.html
    The Firearms Academy of Seattle sponsors him and is a great school to boot.

    • 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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    It is interesting that it seems to be a sliding scale. For instance if the assaulter was another female.

    The way this went down is very borderline. I remember reading something that pertained to escalation by use of verbal or physical means shifting fault. Sound familiar?

  9. #9
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    A sliding scale is a good way to address this issue.

    It will depend upon how well you can articulate what occurred and that it will fall into the realm of the The Reasonable Man Doctrine which will be determine by a Jury or Judge if it goes to trial.

    The blending of ability, opportunity and jeopardy with strength, weapon, size, ability, numbers, heath, disability, destructive arts are all considerations that compile into disparity of force and it will not be the same for you versus me or another.

    Get the training....It is an investment in the well being and financial security of yourself and family.
    • 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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I wonder too if a straight white male would have got the same verdict. Not that I am against what other people do, it's just that justice often favors certain "classes" of people.
    When taking into consideration of Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy this will play out differently for male, female, disabled, strong and so on.

    When changing the issue of size, strength, ability, immediate threat to one changes dramatically thus the use of force or deadly force as well.

    So to answer that question in my view, Yes it would be different and rightfully so.
    I would disagree. I have taken on larger guys than myself and won I also have have gotten the crap beat out of me by smaller guys, can you cite the law that size would make a difference?
    Disparity of Force has been used in the past to determine if lethal force is necessary. There is no law for it but rather it is opinion that is looked at anytime there is a fairly large difference in size.

    There was a case in Sno Co. a number of years back were a fairly small guy, about 150lbs or so, left a club to wait in the car to get away from a potential altercation. The aggressor, weighing around 300lbs, followed him to the car and a struggle ensued through the car window. The smaller guy pulled out a pistol and fired it, twice I think it was, while he was being pulled out of the car window. The aggressor died and it was ruled justifiable due to size disparity by the prosecutor.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    2 years ago in Puyallup, WA where an altercation ensued outside a mini mart on Meridian and ended inside a vehicle where the perp punched the window out of the drivers side and gun was drawn, shot and killed the assaulter.

    There was a young man in the car the perp was known to be a threat to others in previous assaults and with witnesses the one that shot in self defense was not charged as he was in fear for his life.

    Here is what the prosecutor response was http://www.thenewstribune.com/documents/cruz.PDF

    • 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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    I also have mixed feelings on this shoot but for an unmentioned (I think) reason.

    Self defense does not come into play if the shooter instigated the fracas. ie - I can not call you a blanky blank - leave the immediate area, have the person follow me wanting a come back, escalationand I then shoot him claiming self defense. No.

    Saying that "Although she may have made obscene gestures, she did not initiate the physical confrontation." is certainly straying into a gray and nebulous area.

    Having said that, as several have mentioned, several other factors came into play, disparity of force, fear of being attacked.

    My .02 judgement is - - - - -Looks like mama's got a mouth (andteaching her kidshow)and thinks carrying a gun is her Plan B backup. Bad combo.

    She got a pass this time - and both are damn lucky he survived.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Hendo wrote:
    I also have mixed feelings on this shoot but for an unmentioned (I think) reason.

    Self defense does not come into play if the shooter instigated the fracas. ie - I can not call you a blanky blank - leave the immediate area, have the person follow me wanting a come back, escalationand I then shoot him claiming self defense. No.

    Saying that "Although she may have made obscene gestures, she did not initiate the physical confrontation." is certainly straying into a gray and nebulous area.

    Having said that, as several have mentioned, several other factors came into play, disparity of force, fear of being attacked.

    My .02 judgement is - - - - -Looks like mama's got a mouth (andteaching her kidshow)and thinks carrying a gun is her Plan B backup. Bad combo.

    She got a pass this time - and both are damn lucky he survived.
    I believe this is her second pass.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Hendo wrote:
    I also have mixed feelings on this shoot but for an unmentioned (I think) reason.

    Self defense does not come into play if the shooter instigated the fracas. ie - I can not call you a blanky blank - leave the immediate area, have the person follow me wanting a come back, escalationand I then shoot him claiming self defense. No.

    Saying that "Although she may have made obscene gestures, she did not initiate the physical confrontation." is certainly straying into a gray and nebulous area.

    Having said that, as several have mentioned, several other factors came into play, disparity of force, fear of being attacked.

    My .02 judgement is - - - - -Looks like mama's got a mouth (andteaching her kidshow)and thinks carrying a gun is her Plan B backup. Bad combo.

    She got a pass this time - and both are damn lucky he survived.
    State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Mo. Ct. App.

    1986) (insulting or inflammatory language is not sufficient provocation to

    justify an assault against the speaker; language does not make the speaker

    an aggressor when he resists an assault made by the person addressed);



    Additionally, (my notes in italics) from State of Washington v. Johnny Lee Riley, Jr (Wa 1999). :
    If words alone, and in

    particular insulting words alone, could justify the "victim" (victim of the words, Sanders) in using force

    in response and preclude the speaker (Brereton) from self-defense, principles of self-

    defense would be distorted. The right of self-defense would be rendered

    essentially meaningless because even if the "victim" (Sanders) responded with deadly

    force (gross bodily injury is generally equivalent), the speaker (Brereton) could not lawfully defend with force and would instead

    be faced with the risk of suffering injury or a criminal conviction.

    In addition, such a rule would effectively permit violence by a "victim" of

    mere words (would justify pressing an attack despite only being cursed at), contrary to the underpinnings of the initial aggressor

    doctrine.

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    ....like my grandfather always said your rights end at the beginning of my nose....


    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Tawnos,

    I appreciate your response and cites. I am more envisioning a less black and white situation- which I think is more probable.

    For example (and I will exaggerate a bit for this point - hmm possibly), maybe like this bus incident, somebody accidently bumps someone else, words are exchanged, in a parting volley on leaving the bus,the person bumped let's loose with a large volume of curse words and one finger salutes with theattached kids joining in - just not willing to let it go and getting in the last ego word. The person being insulted turns around and 'confronts" the insulter. Escalation and a bullet.

    Who was the instigator?

    I am not so much focusing on the justification for the attack by the person insulted as described in your cites (I believe). I don't see any justification. On the other hand - I judge that the person that "continued" the conflict is on shaky ground for self defense.

    Asis sometimes the casethis is not black and white - victim and attacker. I think there is plenty of responsibility to go around.

    BTW I could not find the RCW for instigating a conflict and not being able to use self defense as an excuse. Anyone know where it can be found? I read it somewhere and can't retrace my steps. Thx


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

    Post imported post

    Hendo wrote:
    Tawnos,

    I appreciate your response and cites. I am more envisioning a less black and white situation- which I think is more probable.

    For example (and I will exaggerate a bit for this point - hmm possibly), maybe like this bus incident, somebody accidently bumps someone else, words are exchanged, in a parting volley on leaving the bus,the person bumped let's loose with a large volume of curse words and one finger salutes with theattached kids joining in - just not willing to let it go and getting in the last ego word. The person being insulted turns around and 'confronts" the insulter. Escalation and a bullet.

    Who was the instigator?

    I am not so much focusing on the justification for the attack by the person insulted as described in your cites (I believe). I don't see any justification. On the other hand - I judge that the person that "continued" the conflict is on shaky ground for self defense.

    Asis sometimes the casethis is not black and white - victim and attacker. I think there is plenty of responsibility to go around.

    BTW I could not find the RCW for instigating a conflict and not being able to use self defense as an excuse. Anyone know where it can be found? I read it somewhere and can't retrace my steps. Thx
    The guy who was so enraged he couldn't let it go and forced the bus driver to stop so he can get off the bus and then rush the potty mouth.
    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)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Hendo,

    The three most important things that would be considered for each of the individuals would be:

    !. Time 2. Temper 3. Intent.

    The final determination of each of these points for each individual would weigh heavily in the decision process for filing of charges.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Hendo wrote:
    Tawnos,

    I appreciate your response and cites. I am more envisioning a less black and white situation- which I think is more probable.

    For example (and I will exaggerate a bit for this point - hmm possibly), maybe like this bus incident, somebody accidently bumps someone else, words are exchanged, in a parting volley on leaving the bus,the person bumped let's loose with a large volume of curse words and one finger salutes with theattached kids joining in - just not willing to let it go and getting in the last ego word. The person being insulted turns around and 'confronts" the insulter. Escalation and a bullet.

    Who was the instigator?

    I am not so much focusing on the justification for the attack by the person insulted as described in your cites (I believe). I don't see any justification. On the other hand - I judge that the person that "continued" the conflict is on shaky ground for self defense.

    Asis sometimes the casethis is not black and white - victim and attacker. I think there is plenty of responsibility to go around.

    BTW I could not find the RCW for instigating a conflict and not being able to use self defense as an excuse. Anyone know where it can be found? I read it somewhere and can't retrace my steps. Thx
    She and her kids were possibly committing disorderly conduct:
    RCW 9A.84.030Disorderly conduct.
    (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

    (a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

    However, that does not change the first aggressor doctrine. Prior to the guy stopping the bus and charging, it was simply a group of arseholes yelling at each other. When he escalated from mere cursing to physical confrontation, he became the aggressor. So long as none of her or her kids' words were "I'm going to kick your ass" or any other physical threat, they are merely inflammatory or insulting, not assaultive.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Yes, yes and yes to all three comments. I agree. The man was in the wrong.

    I guess the main point I am offering is that IMO this woman absolutely contributed to the escalation if not instigation (still disturbs me about the kids joining in) and is no behaviour for someone carrying a weapon. Almost a bit of "make my day" - now I have an excuse to draw.

    We who carry CC or OC have additional responsibility and whenthis isabusedthis canbe theoutcome. Sorry - preaching to the choir - I know.

    Trigger Dr - can you briefly expand on your 3 factors?


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Time...was this in the heat of the moment or a pre planned event

    Temper...How did this start..a joke gone bad, a personal insult, a direct verbal attack etc.

    Intent....once again pre planned, or escalated to instigate more response

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    The question I have is, what would anyone on here do if they were on the bus with their chilren, and significant other, and a man walked to the front of the bus, and began leaning into your kids, and sticking his but in your face, and kicking your spouse?

    I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you would have been a respectful, pleasant human being, and not have done anything, including stopping your spouse from giving the attacker (salters) the finger.

    The situation that unfolded might have made a lot more sense if you were the one being engaged by what appeared to be a man out of control, and harrassing a family.

    WhatI would like to see is the full details of what occurred, and not a newspaper clipping that is written in Seattle, and bias towards firearms in the first place. it is interesting that Salters engage what was obviously a lesbian couple with their children, since, from what I understand, the women were sitting together on the bus.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Interesting comment. Curious as to which post you are responding toand who the "you" or "your" you might be referring to. General or specific.

    ie - "...your kids..."" ...you would have been..."



  24. #24
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    jamesjackson wrote:
    The question I have is, what would anyone on here do if they were on the bus with their children, and significant other, and a man walked to the front of the bus, and began leaning into your kids, and sticking his but in your face, and kicking your spouse?

    I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you would have been a respectful, pleasant human being, and not have done anything, including stopping your spouse from giving the attacker (salters) the finger.

    The situation that unfolded might have made a lot more sense if you were the one being engaged by what appeared to be a man out of control, and harassing a family.

    WhatI would like to see is the full details of what occurred, and not a newspaper clipping that is written in Seattle, and bias towards firearms in the first place. it is interesting that Salters engage what was obviously a lesbian couple with their children, since, from what I understand, the women were sitting together on the bus.
    Well, given the last scenario as stated, the proper way to handle it would have been to ask the bus driver to stop the bus and contact the police to have the man removed or arrested for assault.

    But then, your being very vague about what you mean by "kicking". Is the man in your scenario simply perceived to be rude by bumping anothers legs or feet with his own, or was he laying into the other woman with a full on kick to the chest?

    Both situations do not dictate the same response.





  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Skok Rez, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    For clarification and maybe correct a misunderstanding of law that I have. But isn't there a "Fighting Words" justification for striking someone. An example being if someone called a man of color a ******? Isn't the man of color justified for striking them? Although I am pretty sure the reverse is not true. I have no defense if I strike someone simply for calling me a peckerwood, cracker, honky or whatever the current racial slur for European descendants is. Am I correct that "some" words justify a physical attack even though they are unlikely to physically endanger the person being demeaned? Or is that misinformation. Anyone know can you cite examples?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •