Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Teacher killed in Tacoma elementary school shooting, Local SeattlePI.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member Mech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    I'll add to the database
    http://www.kirotv.com/news/22681951/detail.html?hpt=T2

    Seriously, what the hell is going on??
    Weapon Free Zone is starting to look like an increasingly worse idea....

  3. #3
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Another murder-suicide in a gun free zone. Calls to further restrict law abiding gun owners in 5, 4, 3, . . . . Someone needs to teach these guys - - suicide then murder.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    Another murder-suicide in a gun free zone. Calls to further restrict law abiding gun owners in 5, 4, 3, . . . . Someone needs to teach these guys - - suicide then murder.
    I totally agree. If the media would start reporting these as suicide-murders instead of murder-suicides, then eventually some of these idiots might get confused and reverse the order.

    Q13 mentioned something on-air this morning that there may be another related victim at another location, but I haven't heard or seen anything more on that.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    Another murder-suicide in a gun free zone. Calls to further restrict law abiding gun owners in 5, 4, 3, . . . . Someone needs to teach these guys - - suicide then murder.
    Isn't it great? Look at the Oregon case where a school teacher wanted to carry a pistol to protect herself against her ex. Permission denied of course. For some reason they feel that there is a magical force field that keeps people safe in schools.

    I guess if someone wants to target someone what better place than one they know their victim will be totally unable to defend themselves?

    At least Pierce County Deputies took care of business and there won't be any "not guilty by reason of mental defect" verdict.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    This school 1/2 block from my house.....

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Let's see:

    1) School Zone, Gun Free, Very Safe........................................CHECK!

    2) Restraining Order, Paperwork, Very Safe.............................CHECK!

    3)Restraining Order, Right to posses a firearm revoked.........CHECK!

    4)Illegal Airsoft guns confiscated in Tacoma............................CHECK!



    = Solution by the left (antis) reduced gun violence................

    CHECK
    !


    NOT
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    • 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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Beaverton, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Let's see:

    1) School Zone, Gun Free, Very Safe........................................CHECK!

    2) Restraining Order, Paperwork, Very Safe.............................CHECK!

    3)Restraining Order, Right to posses a firearm revoked.........CHECK!

    4)Illegal Airsoft guns confiscated in Tacoma............................CHECK!



    = Solution by the left (antis) reduced gun violence................

    CHECK
    !


    NOT
    Wait, criminals don't obey the signs and laws?

  10. #10
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Teac...-85496097.html

    I think I'm really irritating the anti-gun advocates over here... Anyone want to add to the comments?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Beaverton, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I'd reply on that news website but I hate making accounts for them all. Those anti gunners got under my skin! A teacher carrying is not going to shoot their student for cheating on a test! Jesus Christ man! What the heck is with these people???? They seem to think that anybody that has a gun is going to just shoot something/somebody when they get mad! Guess what, I argue with my GF and my Dad and my friends all the time, even while I might be packing a gun! But I never once have thought about pulling it out! They seem to think we are all crazy people. I remember somebody commenting a while back about national parks being gun free, because people would just shoot at animals and trees. I thought, then that person shouldn't be carrying a gun! I laugh at their stupidity....

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Teac...-85496097.html

    I think I'm really irritating the anti-gun advocates over here... Anyone want to add to the comments?
    Way to go Spider! You're really pinning them down, holding them accountable for their words.

    I'd jump in but my BB won't let me put in comments.


    I am the person responsible for myself, my wife and my son. I take that VERY seriously.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    Dave, we can carry on school grounds. However, you must be picking up or dropping off a student or leave the firearm in your locked vehicle.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    red_rocker said on February 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM
    Yeah, Swatspider. Something else I've been quick to jump up on the soapbox with all along: Canadian citizens don't have to deal with this issue. Why is that? It's because they don't (and won't) let guns proliferate their society in the first place. Canada, Japan, Korea, and other countries I've been to seem pretty mellow. Why is that? It's because nobody feels in any danger. It's too late to do anything about the US because we let the danger and paranoia proliferate in the first place. Oh, but make no mistake, we feel FEAR. It controls us. The "right to keep and bear arms" is why we're defensive, living in fear, in paranoia, ready to lash out. Ready to defend ourselves and kill, and keep on killing because it's our constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms and use them to kill people.


    swatspyder said on February 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM
    (red_rocker said on February 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM) Blah Blah Blah... Too many characters for my message... ---------------------------------------- Well for instance, Canada is protected by the U.S.A. Second, Canada has less citizens than ALL OF CALIFORNIA, and they still have people being BEATEN, STABBED, and MURDERED with BLUNT OBJECTS. Third, AFAIK, Korea requires males to serve in the military at some point in their life, where they learn to shoot and carry firearms. Fourth, my point is, EVEN IF YOU REMOVE FIREARMS FROM THE WORLD... There is still knives, baseball bats, fists, legs and whatever else you can think of that can be used to kill someone. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was put in place as a last resort to PROTECT everyone in the U.S.A. from the GOVERNMENT. But today, we have individuals who are injuring and killing people out there. And besides, cars kill more people than guns. Why are we still driving?...



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Beaverton, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    MAX (the trimet train in oregon) also kills more people a year than guns do.

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    Dave, we can carry on school grounds. However, you must be picking up or dropping off a student or leave the firearm in your locked vehicle.
    Are we playing with semantics here? it is for picking up and dropping off students only, try going into the school or walking around the grounds.

    As in this situation a Teacher nor you can carry a firearm into their classroom for protection.
    • 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.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Thanks, Dave. I was going to remark on that.

    Teachers are the key issue here, and the teachers can't carry because they're doing more than just picking up or dropping off.

    If we trust these adults with our children's educations (and to not molest them, while I'm at it) then it's downright foolish to not trust them to take responsibility for their safety in the classroom.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    Dave, we can carry on school grounds. However, you must be picking up or dropping off a student or leave the firearm in your locked vehicle.
    Are we playing with semantics here? it is for picking up and dropping off students only, try going into the school or walking around the grounds.

    As in this situation a Teacher nor you can carry a firearm into their classroom for protection.
    Correct, not attempting to play semantics. You said school grounds, not in a school building. The law definately distinguishes between the two.

    (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:


    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

    (6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.

    Live Free or Die!

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    So, differentiating between "school grounds" and "school buildings" in a discussion about what the law ought to be (rather than what it is) isn't playing the semantics game?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Seattle Gun Rights Examiner weighs in here:



    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=55



    Let's think good thoughts about this young lady, and her family.





  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    So, differentiating between "school grounds" and "school buildings" in a discussion about what the law ought to be (rather than what it is) isn't playing the semantics game?
    No, semantics is word selection. I did not choose the word, the law did and distinguishes two different legal scenarios. The reason I bring this up is that I routinely pick up/drop off my daughters in after school sporting events on the grounds of the school. I CC on the school grounds near the softball field and tennis courts, etc. Having spoken with a LEO about this scenario, he agrees that this is an acceptable view. (of course other LEO might not)

    Now as far as how the law should be, YES a CPL holder should be able to carry into the building; whether they be a parent, teacher or other lawful CPL holder. Yes the teacher should of been able to defend herself. I would love to find out that this teacher (God rest her soul)did have her CPL and had it locked in her car per the law.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Beaverton, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I guess my comment didn't get approved on the king5 site...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    I don't get it. I don't always agree with the threshhold that is needed to get a restraining/no contact order, but IF you have one against you, and then break it, what sense in the world does it make to allow the person to post bail? The guy just showed he has no problem breaking the order, but for $10k he can be set free to break it again?! Our justice system is broken to hell

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    Dave, we can carry on school grounds. However, you must be picking up or dropping off a student or leave the firearm in your locked vehicle.
    Are we playing with semantics here? it is for picking up and dropping off students only, try going into the school or walking around the grounds.

    As in this situation a Teacher nor you can carry a firearm into their classroom for protection.
    Correct, not attempting to play semantics. You said school grounds, not in a school building. The law definately distinguishes between the two.

    (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:


    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

    (6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.
    The law says "public or private elementary or secondary school premises" what do you think premises means?


    Premises are land and buildings together considered as a property.

    This usage arose from property owners finding the word in their title deeds, where it originally correctly meant "the aforementioned; what this document is about", from Latin prae-missus = "placed before".

    In this sense, the word is always used in the plural, but singular in construction. Note that a single house or a single other piece of property is "premises", not a "premise", although the word "premises" is plural in form as in "The equipment is located on the customer's premises" and never "The equipment is located on the customer's premise".
    And by law you are allowed to pick up and drop off students, as to pushing the issue of entering a school building armed, you may well find yourself in front of a judge arguing your points.
    Concerning the original topic how would this apply?

    • 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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Beaverton, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    I think this is another reason that legally armed citizens should be able to carry on school grounds.

    It may not have changed the out come but one would of had the tools available to them in this time of need.

    Likely this was a relationship gone bad and waiting to see if a restraining order was in place.
    It should be well known by now that restraining orders are only after the fact in prosecuting the offender, it is not proactive as being armed for ones self defense.
    Dave, we can carry on school grounds. However, you must be picking up or dropping off a student or leave the firearm in your locked vehicle.
    Are we playing with semantics here? it is for picking up and dropping off students only, try going into the school or walking around the grounds.

    As in this situation a Teacher nor you can carry a firearm into their classroom for protection.
    Correct, not attempting to play semantics. You said school grounds, not in a school building. The law definately distinguishes between the two.

    (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:


    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

    (6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.
    The law says "public or private elementary or secondary school premises" what do you think premises means?


    Premises are land and buildings together considered as a property.

    This usage arose from property owners finding the word in their title deeds, where it originally correctly meant "the aforementioned; what this document is about", from Latin prae-missus = "placed before".

    In this sense, the word is always used in the plural, but singular in construction. Note that a single house or a single other piece of property is "premises", not a "premise", although the word "premises" is plural in form as in "The equipment is located on the customer's premises" and never "The equipment is located on the customer's premise".
    And by law you are allowed to pick up and drop off students, as to pushing the issue of entering a school building armed, you may well find yourself in front of a judge arguing your points.
    Concerning the original topic how would this apply?
    I believe he is just saying that you can carry while dropping off or picking up student vs actually going into the building. I guess you could still carry in the school though, as long as you are picking up. Like if you go to get them out early, you would have to go to the office. But that may be interpreted differently by a judge/jury.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

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
  •