Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Public reaction to Port Orchard shooting supports shooter

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

    Post imported post

    Public reaction to Port Orchard shooting supports shooter

    "As a society, we are fed up with crime. Millions of Americans have bought guns for the first time in recent months, including many right here in Washington State. We’re at a new high for the number of concealed pistol licenses...

    "Legally – and this has been recognized by the State Supreme Court – there is no duty to retreat in Washington State. If you are attacked you have a right to fight back.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Public-reaction-to-Port-Orchard-shooting-reveals-distrust-of-system-misunderstanding-of-law

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/36norsy

  2. #2
    69Charger
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Interesting.
    JMHO
    I think he (the older guy) got carried away. The intruder was not a threat at the point when he ran out of the house. No question that this intruder was a threat inside the mans house.
    Trying to wound?
    I think he got caught up in this scary situation where the adrenalin was flowing and he had a terrible moment of shoot first and reason later.
    I wish him all the luck in the world. It is a sad situation.
    Dave

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    69Charger wrote:
    Interesting.
    JMHO
    I think he (the older guy) got carried away. The intruder was not a threat at the point when he ran out of the house. No question that this intruder was a threat inside the mans house.
    Trying to wound?
    I think he got caught up in this scary situation where the adrenalin was flowing and he had a terrible moment of shoot first and reason later.
    I wish him all the luck in the world. It is a sad situation.
    Dave
    Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?

    Why are people so surprised when a person who chooses to engage in home invasion get killed? They chose their path, they made their bed, and sometimes - not often enough - they have to lay in it.

    I think this guy's biggest mistake was talking to the cops. People say all kinds of stupid, incriminating, and otherwise self-damaging things in stressful situations. The cops take advantage of this fact far too often for my comfort.
    "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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?
    Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

    There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

    Just asking...



  5. #5
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?
    Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

    There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

    Just asking...

    This is the state where people can be convicted for the totality of the situation.

    Remember that guy who was caught on a hiking path with a knife, rope, condoms, etc. and he was charged and convicted with intent to rape?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law and, as far as I'm concerned, cannot cry 'foul' if your intended victim decides to meet you there. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'.

    I don't think the old man got "carried away" with his actions. I think he reacted well within expectations for a senior who was awakened at 3am to a potentially life-threatening situation.

    I don't know why he fought the guy to the door (maybe he couldn't get off a shot, maybe he tried to subdue the intruder verbally?). If I find someone in my house at 3am, someone who doesn't belong there, I'm not giving him the chance to play wrestlemania. If he jumps me or closes the distance before I have a chance to shoot (which is entirely possible) I'm going to fight just long enough to initiate the Attacker Neutralization Plan.

  7. #7
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    But you still can't shoot him when he's running away...

  8. #8
    69Charger
    Guest

    Post imported post

    If this was a young person, would shooting a fleeing perp be more or less justified?
    This one will be played out in court. We don't see the whole picture with this 1 written article.
    THAT, I am sure of.
    TO BE CONTINUED.
    Dave

  9. #9
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Sonny's Shooting: No Charges For Employees
    http://www.wyff4.com/news/23506255/detail.html
    The Seventh Circuit Solicitor will not pursue charges against Gaffney restaurant employees who opened fire on armed robbers over the weekend.
    One of the teen robbery suspects was shot and killed during the shootout that happened early Saturday morning at Sonny's BBQ Cafe, according to deputies. "You have an unfettered right to defend yourself," Trey Gowdy told News 4. "If you reasonably believe you are in danger of losing your life, you may use force up to and including deadly force," said Gowdy.
    When asked if the law applied even if the suspects were fleeing, Gowdy said, "How did the employees know they weren't going outside to get a bigger gun? If you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force.

    "The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office said that Michael Shaquille Davidson, 16, was one of three teenagers shot after robbing Sonny's Restaurant early Saturday morning. Investigators say the three teens were about to leave when two employees opened fire.
    "I just want to see justice for my cousin. He was shot down like a dog," said Alex Davidson.
    "From what I'm getting, they was running. They was leaving the store; running out of the store," said the teen's uncle and namesake, Michael Davidson. "So I mean, if they was running out of the store, why would you shoot them in the back?"

    In an interview that aired Sunday on WYFF News, several family members said they had heard that Davidson and the other two teens had been shot in the back.
    Cherokee County Coroner Dennis Fowler would not comment on whether Davidson was shot in the back or front after an autopsy Sunday, but he did confirm that the teen died of gunshot wounds.
    The sheriff's office said Sunday morning that they were still going over evidence and waiting for results of a ballistics test to determine exactly what happened inside the restaurant.
    Lloyd Ryan Jefferies, 18, is in the Cherokee County Detention Center charged with armed robbery, Gowdy confirmed.
    Calvin Smith Jr., 16, will be charged with the same crime when he's released from the hospital, deputies said.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    Sonny's Shooting: No Charges For Employees
    http://www.wyff4.com/news/23506255/detail.html
    The Seventh Circuit Solicitor will not pursue charges against Gaffney restaurant employees who opened fire on armed robbers over the weekend.
    One of the teen robbery suspects was shot and killed during the shootout that happened early Saturday morning at Sonny's BBQ Cafe, according to deputies. "You have an unfettered right to defend yourself," Trey Gowdy told News 4. "If you reasonably believe you are in danger of losing your life, you may use force up to and including deadly force," said Gowdy.
    When asked if the law applied even if the suspects were fleeing, Gowdy said, "How did the employees know they weren't going outside to get a bigger gun? If you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force.

    "The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office said that Michael Shaquille Davidson, 16, was one of three teenagers shot after robbing Sonny's Restaurant early Saturday morning. Investigators say the three teens were about to leave when two employees opened fire.
    "I just want to see justice for my cousin. He was shot down like a dog," said Alex Davidson.
    "From what I'm getting, they was running. They was leaving the store; running out of the store," said the teen's uncle and namesake, Michael Davidson. "So I mean, if they was running out of the store, why would you shoot them in the back?"

    In an interview that aired Sunday on WYFF News, several family members said they had heard that Davidson and the other two teens had been shot in the back.
    Cherokee County Coroner Dennis Fowler would not comment on whether Davidson was shot in the back or front after an autopsy Sunday, but he did confirm that the teen died of gunshot wounds.
    The sheriff's office said Sunday morning that they were still going over evidence and waiting for results of a ballistics test to determine exactly what happened inside the restaurant.
    Lloyd Ryan Jefferies, 18, is in the Cherokee County Detention Center charged with armed robbery, Gowdy confirmed.
    Calvin Smith Jr., 16, will be charged with the same crime when he's released from the hospital, deputies said.
    Very nice to read a story that involves the popular discussion on whether or not you would be justified in firing on someone who is fleeing. Well here's a real life scenario.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    Purely conjecture and making things up out of whole cloth, but what if the armed felons who were "about to leave" when the employees opened fire on them were simply running for cover so they could continue the firefight from there? Just because a person is "running away" does not mean the battle is over... (It sure as Hell isn't in a war zone!)

    This is ESPECIALLY true if the opponent is armed.


    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Facimus!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law
    No. Wrong. It's called due process. No matter how far outside the law you step, you still have constitutional protections. You might not like it, but it's there, and you can't deny it.

    A shooting is not due process.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    This is a wonderful example of the public not having all of the fact, but still willing to make up their minds about guilt or innocence.

    I wasn't there. I don't know all of the facts. If there was a crime on the part of the homeowner, I hope he is punished accordingly. If there wasn't, I hope he can get on with his life without much more disruption. Thankfully, I don't have to make that decision.

    Study the applicable 'use of force' laws as best you can (and frequently), and be prepared to make an informed split-second decision. I don't believe the whole "my adrenaline was pumping and I didn't know what I was doing..." argument. You will react the way you have trained and conditioned yourself to do so.



  14. #14
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    A shooting is not due process.
    Nor is a home invasion. The shooter will now have "due process". Let us hope it is just.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    I think this case demonstrates the importance of thinking through such an encounter before it happens (which may include competent training, and what we're doing here), and not saying anything without benefit of your lawyer's advice.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law
    No. Wrong. It's called due process. No matter how far outside the law you step, you still have constitutional protections. You might not like it, but it's there, and you can't deny it.

    A shooting is not due process.
    They were still on his property. I do not see anything out of line with these actions. It would be another story if the fled the property all together.

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Here is my take.

    The home owner had every right to protect himself and his home when someone entered uninvited in the middle of the night.

    It is clear he felt threatened enough to become combative with the intruder.

    A piece of evidence that is not known, was he already armed with the gun in hand or did he have to go pick it up and return to the conflict?

    If he was armed during the initial confrontation and drew the firearm while still in his home then fired he was likely well with in his rights, if he had to retrieve the firearm and then returned to engage him and then shot him as he ran then there would clearly be no immediate threat of life.

    Lacking the information of where the rounds where fired from in relation to where the burglar was is a most valuable bit of information we do not have.

    The time it takes to decide to shoot and pull the trigger takes approximately 1/3 of a second the same amount of time it would take to turn 180 degrees to run.

    The issue of him saying that he was trying to stop him and shooting at the ground to hit his legs, well was just plain stupid.

    We have had this discussion before on what or what not to say after a shooting but this is one thing that will do him a lot of harm to defend against.

    After a shooting one may try to enlist others to side with them and justify their actions to find comfort that they did the right thing, embellishment can kick you in the gonads.

    Was the elderly man correct in what he did? we will have to see how it runs the course.
    • 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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    In my opinion, and in all honesty, I really shouldn't make a judgment call without actually hearing the entire story from both sides. I do, however, feel the home owner still has a legal right to use deadly force, even if the intruder appears to be leaving the premises, *if* the homeowner feels his life is still in potential jeopardy.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    potential jeopardy
    Potential jeopardy isn't good enough.

    In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:
    The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
    The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
    The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
    The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
    The standards for the use of non-deadly force (bare hands and feet) and force used in the defense of property are usually similar.
    At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.
    From: Defending the Self-Defense Case.

  20. #20
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?
    Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

    There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

    Just asking...

    This is the state where people can be convicted for the totality of the situation.

    Remember that guy who was caught on a hiking path with a knife, rope, condoms, etc. and he was charged and convicted with intent to rape?
    Convicted just on intent. Sounds like Minority Report.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I had another thought about this as well; if you ever have to use your weapon in self defense, the first thing you should do is "shut up." The second thing is call a lawyer. It's worth going to jail for a night or two to keep yourself from possibly saying something the D.A. will surely use against you if they prosecute you.

    "I just used my gun in self-defense. I don't want to answer any further questions without a lawyer."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    It seems a lot of people are extremely paranoid. I'm not sure if they have good reason to be based off of past experiences, or what.. but the prosecutor's office isn't out to get you. They'll only investigate further if they truly believe you acted outside the boundaries of self defense. Never have I heard of someone from my jurisdiction, or surrounding jurisdictions, being prosecuted for defending their home with deadly force, and I have an email from the King County Prosecutor's Office stating that they've never prosecuted someone for rightfully defending their home.

    Some people act as if you defend your home with lethal force, the prosecutor is going to try to find any and everything they can to stack against you for prosecution. Maybe that's how the prosecutor's office is where you are, but certainly not here.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    It seems a lot of people are extremely paranoid. I'm not sure if they have good reason to be based off of past experiences, or what.. but the prosecutor's office isn't out to get you.
    BS. They're out to get whatever convictions they think they can win.
    "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

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Why would a prosecutor prosecute a 72 year old man whose home was broken into and to whom a struggle ensued with a young man with a criminal past?

    This is a very intriguing question, isn't it? To face a jury, the prosecutor my believe he can win or otherwise there is no need to even file charges.
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    ...but the prosecutor's office isn't out to get you. They'll only investigate further if they truly believe you acted outside the boundaries of self defense.
    I would hope so. They have a duty to be "out to get you" if they have evidence that supports the charge, especially if that evidence comes from the defendant's own mouth.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

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
  •