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

Thread: Get out your guns in Burien

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Buri...-95165019.html

    BURIEN, Wash. - Fed up with burglars in their neighborhood, Burien residents decide to get creative. They posted signs throughout their neighborhood warning people to get out their guns.
    It's happening in south Burien, near SW 160th Street and 12th Avenue SW. Pass through this part of town andyou'll see posted neon colored signs, warning residents of burglars.
    "We were seeing an increase in breakins and we wanted to make sure people were aware of what's happening," says John Lee.
    Stacie Lee came up with the phrase for the sign "Get out your guns if you see any suspicious activity." She even wrote it in Spanish.
    "I don't want to run into somebody walking into our backdoor and that scares me,"shesays.
    It was meant to send a strong message to neighbors, andto the burglars too: Some homeowners who have guns are prepared to use them.
    "If I'm in my home with my wife and my dogs,I will protect my wife and my family," says John Lee.
    The King County Sheriff's Office says if the signs scare off burglars,great. But deputies issuea reminder.
    "You really have to know what you're doing. You have to know the self-defense laws in the state of Washington, what you can do, what you can't do, and we certainly don't want anyone with a vigilante attitude out there," saysSgt. John Urquhart.
    Sandra Ekland's home was burglarized, and so were two of her neighbors'.
    "It was very violating to know some strange person has been through your house and rummaged through your stuff," she says.
    What does she think of the signs?
    "I say whatever it takes," says Ekland.
    The Lees have posted 50 signs so far. Some neighbors asked them to post more. Some kindly asked to leave out the part about the guns.
    TheKing County Sheriff's Office says they're taking new steps to stop the burglaries, but declined to say what those were.


  2. #2
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    People encourage the signs, but they need to back it up with actual guns.




    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Leave out the part about guns eh? LOL

    Are you afraid you might hurt the burglars feelings?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    triehl27 wrote:
    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Buri...-95165019.html


    "You really have to know what you're doing. You have to know the self-defense laws in the state of Washington, what you can do, what you can't do, and we certainly don't want anyone with a vigilante attitude out there," saysSgt. John Urquhart.
    Why does it matter? What do they have to fear? Being a vigilante does not necessarily mean you're going to violate the law. It can mean doing your part as a citizen, to prevent and stop crime to the FULLEST extent of the law. So their is an abundance of burglaries in the city of Burien, and the deputies are more concerned with lecturing the law abiding citizens on what they "can" or "can not" do rather than giving their opinion on methods to work with the citizens to actually prevent these crimes?

  5. #5
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    I'm pretty sure that they're going off of the more common (correct?) view of vigilantism.

    From Dictionary.com: vig·i·lan·te1. a member of a vigilance committee. 2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
    I'm all for defending one's self on your property or anywhere else. But I'm also a constitutionalist, I'm very against the thought of vigilantism going by it's actual definition.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lynden, Washington, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    In my opinion the signage seems a bit "bland" but it's just my opinion.

    At the front window of my house is prominently displayed (close to the "NO SOLICITING" sign):

    "Forget 911/ (image of autoloader pistol)/ We call the morgue". I NEVER have issues, even with salespeople.

    I would probably have signs saying "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH TO BURGLARS"... something with teeth or at least 'virtual' teeth.

    But that's just me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote: [quote]triehl27 wrote: [quote]skiingislife725Wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that they're going off of the more common (correct?) view of vigilantism.

    From Dictionary.com: vig·i·lan·te1. a member of a vigilance committee. 2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
    I'm all for defending one's self on your property or anywhere else. But I'm also a constitutionalist, I'm very against the thought of vigilantism going by it's actual definition.
    I am a constitutionalist too and would have to disagree slightly. We are the law the law is ours to take into our own hands. The reliance on the modern day police force (which was not in place when the constitution was founded) is part of the problem. I have no problem with armed citizens patrolling their neighborhoods.

    Google "Are Cops Constitutional" it is a good read. I am not anti LEO and think they have a place in our society but it needs to be restructured and minimized.





    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)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the suggestion. I really, truly wish that the police force would simply do their job as they were originally intended to do. I am starting the academy in November, so I'll get to see more so how it operates from the inside, even though I've got several friends and relatives currently serving on the police force.

    I am proud to say, that once I am a police officer, I will be just as strong of a supporter of the United States Constitution, personal freedom, and liberty as I am today.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Leatherneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Des Moines, Washington, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Crashbox wrote:
    Forget 911/ (image of autoloader pistol)/ We call the morgue.
    That's awesome! I want one!

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

    Post imported post

    I originally read this thread title as "Get your guns out of Burien!" thinking it was an article written talking about citizens complaints of firearms or something.

  11. #11
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    To clarify, I didn't say let the police handle the burglers. As we've already seen, they are unable to do that effectively (low police force numbers, no actual need to protect, etc). I'm looking more at letting our legal system deal out the justice, because that's how our country is designed. If the burgler doesn't make it to court, so be it. But if they survive or they're breaking into your detached garage stealing a wrench (a no-shoot), then it isn't our job to be a vigilante. In fact, it's illegal by definition.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    What is a person called that exercises his rights to the very fullest extent of the law to bring criminals to justice? A person who organizes neighborhood watch programs, someone who lawfully conducts citizen's arrest whenever they're allowed to by law, someone who conducts surveillance to turn in to the police for evidence, someone who sets up "bait" for criminals (such as a bait car, etc), and thus catches them in the act on video, and then either calls for the police, or conducts a citizens arrest.

    By law, this person would still be acting within the law - just pushing it to the furthest extent that he can. Is this a vigilante or no? Just curious to hear opinions on this.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Show me the cite making ot illegal? Not that I am for being judge and jury, we are allowed to make arrests. And breaking into my garage detached or not is a felony.
    I feel we need to restore property rights back. The justce system as we know it now is a very different beast than what it was intended and often abused outright.

    I am not going to condemn a person for shooting anyone who broke into their property even it was just to steel a wrench. If the stakes were high for any personal crimes than I believe these crimes would be drastically reduced.

    Read the info some of it is a little angry at the current system but I checked the cites it provided and it all seemed to ccheck out. I learned more about the original intention and format of our justice system than if cops are constitutional.
    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)

  14. #14
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    I think that's just a responsible citizen, not a vigilante. Well minus the bait car. I don't like the idea of citizens or cop citizens manufacturing crime. I'd much rather they respond to actual crime instead of inviting it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lynden, Washington, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Leatherneck wrote:
    Crashbox wrote:
    Forget 911/ (image of autoloader pistol)/ We call the morgue.
    That's awesome! I want one!
    There was a small mom-and-pop outfit that made these signs, I think they're out of Oregon if they are still around. They had a booth set up at the NW Washington Fair a few years ago so I snagged it. They did have a website but their name escapes me.

    They had many other signs which were cool, too.

  16. #16
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Show me the cite making ot illegal?

    Being the judge and jury is illegal, that's what I mean and that's what the majority think of when they think "vigilantism". I'm not arguing about citizen's arrest or defending your home, that's just being a responsible citizen.

    And breaking into my garage detached or not is a felony.

    Your right, it's a class B felony. And it's technically ok to use lethal force to stop a felony. BUT, personally, I'm going to have trouble sleeping at night if I shot a teenager that, for example, off the top of my head, stole a scooter out of someone's garage using a screwdriver to start it. He's ok to shoot?

    I feel we need to restore property rights back.

    I totally agree. I think the kid who steals my wrench needs to go to jail for trespassing, 2nd degree burglary, and theft for violating my property rights.

    I am not going to condemn a person for shooting anyone who broke into their property even it was just to steel a wrench. If the stakes were high for any personal crimes than I believe these crimes would be drastically reduced.

    I haven't looked into the matter much myself, from a logical standpoint, I agree. I think punishments should be stronger. But I do remember reading about how in England a few hundred years prior, as men were being hung out in public for pickpocketing, others were pickpocketing in the crowd. lol Makes me think of a quote that went something like, "Never apply logic to illogical things."

  17. #17
    Regular Member USMC1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    I am going to add my .02 here, being that I have dealt with the use of "Deadly Force" my entire adult life (over 10 years in the USMC and over 20 years as a Correctional Officer in the state of Washington and another 2 years as a Correctional Officer in the state of Nevada) I know exactly what has to be happening in front of me for me to deploy "Deadly Force".I have had to deploy deadly forces both as a USMarine and as a Correctional Officer. A kid breaking into my garage to steel a wrench will not be fired upon,(by me)how ever if that same kid is in my front room uninvited, in the middle of the night and dose not obey my orders to lie face down on the floor, he runs a good chance of being shot (by me). The fact that the punishment dose not fit the crime is evident in the shear numbers we now have incarcerated. "IF" doing time was a bad thing, then people would not be do things to have to do time. I'll step off the soap box, for now.
    I am a Sheep Dog, ... Wolves Beware !

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    [quote]Aaron1124 wrote: [quote]triehl27 wrote:
    skiingislife725*Wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that they're going off of the more common (correct?) view of vigilantism.

    From Dictionary.com: vig·i·lan·te1. a member of a vigilance committee. 2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
    I'm all for defending one's self on your property or anywhere else. But I'm also a constitutionalist, I'm very against the thought of vigilantism going by it's actual definition.
    I am a constitutionalist too and would have to disagree slightly. We are the law the law is ours to take into our own hands. The reliance on the modern day police force (which was not in place when the constitution was founded) is part of the problem. I have no problem with armed citizens patrolling their neighborhoods.

    Google "Are Cops Constitutional" it is a good read. I am not anti LEO and think they have a place in our society but it needs to be restructured and minimized.




    *
    It doesn't sound like you and I are too far from the same thinking. And to think I come from a huge LEO family, but they all feel the same way.
    "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

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    A reminder that to use Deadly Force Lawfully in Washington State there is some criteria that needs to be considered as it applies.

    9A.16.010 Definitions

    (1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.
    9A.16.050 Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
    WPIC 16.02 Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self And Others

    It is a defense to a charge of [murder][manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of [the slayer] [the slayer's [husband][wife][parent][child][brother][sister]] [any person in the slayer's presence or company] when:

    (1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain [or others whom the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain] intended [to commit a felony][to inflict death or great personal injury];

    (2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and

    (3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident.

    The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
    Even though someone is breaking into a garage or out building as well into ones home one will have to be able to articulate the immediate threat to life or limb and your response was reasonable with your attorney present (basic statement and evidence offered at scene).

    Many use the Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy to articulate the situation to meet the criteria of the use of Deadly Force with their Attorneys assistance.

    This information should be considered in you working through these scenarios.
    When working through the scenario as this, plan out what supporting information do you have to support your actions.

    As to the story, do we not do this already as those of us who arm ourselves? It is not about drawing down on someone unless we have just cause of an immediate threat in imminent?

    • 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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    If I saw someone stealing from my tool shed or something, I'd probably taze him if he were in range. I wouldn't shoot him. Unless of course I felt as if he were an immediate threat to my life.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    If I saw someone stealing from my tool shed or something, I'd probably taze him if he were in range. I wouldn't shoot him. Unless of course I felt as if he were an immediate threat to my life.
    Stealing from your tool shed would mean the commission of one or more felonies, meaning you are free to use deadly force. See paragraph 2 below. Just don't shoot him in the back as he runs away and you're good.

    9A.16.050
    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Crashbox wrote:
    In my opinion the signage seems a bit "bland" but it's just my opinion.

    At the front window of my house is prominently displayed (close to the "NO SOLICITING" sign):

    "Forget 911/ (image of autoloader pistol)/ We call the morgue". I NEVER have issues, even with salespeople.

    I would probably have signs saying "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH TO BURGLARS"... something with teeth or at least 'virtual' teeth.

    But that's just me.
    Burglers and home invaders will be shot. Survivors will be shot again

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    If I saw someone stealing from my tool shed or something, I'd probably taze him if he were in range. I wouldn't shoot him. Unless of course I felt as if he were an immediate threat to my life.
    Stealing from your tool shed would mean the commission of one or more felonies, meaning you are free to use deadly force. See paragraph 2 below. Just don't shoot him in the back as he runs away and you're good.

    9A.16.050
    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
    Even if I may be justified by law, I'd rather use non lethal force. I wouldn't condemn others for exercising their rights by law, but if it were possible, I'd probably taze him and get my stuff back, and then keep him there for the police.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    I won't take the chance. Break into my house and you're going down. Simple.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    That's respectable. I certainly support citizens who make that decision.

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
  •