• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle case raises issue about felons and guns

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
I think everyone should have a right to protect themselves with whatever means they so choose. If we release someone from prison, it should mean that they've paid their debt to society. Otherwise, why the heck are we letting them out?

I have always wondered about that. Unless a their crime was against society their debt should not be paid to society. I have always felt that if they commit a crime against someone then that debt should be paid to that someone. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.
 

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
One of my best friends is a convicted felon. He was 19 or 20 when he was arrested for stealing from a lawyer that hired him to set up a modern computer network. During that time he went ahead and ordered some stuff for himself to sell. He was convicted and spent about a year in a "bootcamp" style prison.

I can honestly say my friend is no longer the "boy" he once was. In fact, I would have never known until he told me that he was a convicted felon. My friend and I went to a gun show with my inventation. At the show I was rustling through all the cool guns looking for the best feel and best price. My friend on the other hand just stood back watched. He never once touched a single firearm. He felt that he couldn't even handle a gun. The reason being is that he had a moral convition that he might be breaking the law. He has also turned down many inventations to go shooting with me and another friend. Nobody would have known except for us. He still insisted that that would be breaking the law as well. My friend, to me, is no longer a convicted felon. In my mind, he is an averaged citizen. He is grown now with a wife and kid. How does he defend from a intruder with the intent of doing harm to his family? If he has a right to life, then he must also have the right to defend with any means.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I would be okay with that for the most part as long as it was for crimes like theft, rape, assault, murder or fraud.

If someone commits a "victimless crime" and happens to have a gun on them it shouldn't apply.

Good idea in theory, however what about people like Mr Kirby in Vancouver for example?

His crime (apparently) had "victims" who were "alarmed and feared for their safety" because of his "actions while carrying a gun" (read as they didn't like the gun but said he was "visually threatening them with his gun and rapid movements")
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
Yeah, I have two friends who are "felons" in that they were each convicted more than twenty years ago for possession of marijuana. I trust them both implicitly - if TSHTF, they are some of the ones I'd want backing me - or whom I would be backing. IMNSHO they should have every right to have arms for self defense. Sadly the two different states they are from do not appear to feel the same way. :(
 

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Good idea in theory, however what about people like Mr Kirby in Vancouver for example?

His crime (apparently) had "victims" who were "alarmed and feared for their safety" because of his "actions while carrying a gun" (read as they didn't like the gun but said he was "visually threatening them with his gun and rapid movements")
The crime that Kirby is charged with is not a violent felony that I talked about below.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
no not necessarily.

However it is not TOO far of a stretch to be able to get people for this RCW:

RCW 9a.46.110
Stalking.


(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:

(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and

(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and

(c) The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

(2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person; and

(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person.

(3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendant is a licensed private investigator acting within the capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165 RCW.

(4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. "Contact" includes, in addition to any other form of contact or communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the person.

(5)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who stalks another person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(b) A person who stalks another is guilty of a class C felony if any of the following applies: (i) The stalker has previously been convicted in this state or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a protective order; (ii) the stalking violates any protective order protecting the person being stalked; (iii) the stalker has previously been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under this section for stalking another person; (iv) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in *RCW 9.94A.602, while stalking the person; (v)(A) the stalker's victim is or was a law enforcement officer; judge; juror; attorney; victim advocate; legislator; community corrections' officer; an employee, contract staff person, or volunteer of a correctional agency; or an employee of the child protective, child welfare, or adult protective services division within the department of social and health services; and (B) the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim for an act the victim performed during the course of official duties or to influence the victim's performance of official duties; or (vi) the stalker's victim is a current, former, or prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim as a result of the victim's testimony or potential testimony.

Specifically pertaining to subsection 1 c ii as well as 2 a and b and also 5 b iv

Just playing Devil's advocate here. It honestly is not too far of a stretch if you think about it....
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
One of my best friends is a convicted felon. He was 19 or 20 when he was arrested for stealing from a lawyer that hired him to set up a modern computer network. During that time he went ahead and ordered some stuff for himself to sell. He was convicted and spent about a year in a "bootcamp" style prison.

I can honestly say my friend is no longer the "boy" he once was. In fact, I would have never known until he told me that he was a convicted felon. My friend and I went to a gun show with my inventation. At the show I was rustling through all the cool guns looking for the best feel and best price. My friend on the other hand just stood back watched. He never once touched a single firearm. He felt that he couldn't even handle a gun. The reason being is that he had a moral convition that he might be breaking the law. He has also turned down many inventations to go shooting with me and another friend. Nobody would have known except for us. He still insisted that that would be breaking the law as well. My friend, to me, is no longer a convicted felon. In my mind, he is an averaged citizen. He is grown now with a wife and kid. How does he defend from a intruder with the intent of doing harm to his family? If he has a right to life, then he must also have the right to defend with any means.

- He should apply to have his rights restored, i believe under certain circumstances this is allowed under current law. Character witnesses may help (not sure never been through it). Depending on how long it's been, and how is record has been since, it could be possible. As a personal note, and as i believe, if one is good enough to be out, then one is good enough to have their rights fully intact.

Bat
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
This!

Bob has hit the nail squarely on the proverbial head. I have always said the only way to prevent repeat offenders is to remove the possibility. Any other felony that they serve their time and get out, the get their 2A rights back.


I would love to see the legislature amend the criminal code so that anyone who commits a crime with a gun gets life without parole. Not for violations of gun possession laws themselves, but for burglary, robbery, any kind of physical assault, homicide; any crime where there is violence or the threat of violence.

With freedom comes responsibility. The 2nd Amendment affords us great freedom. Society should have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses that freedom.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Error in thinking...

The power is in the hands of the people. The jury makes this decision not the state.


I never want the State to have that much power. It sounds good in theory but the ease of abuse is too great. Our freedom is afforded to individuals and we should each be judged as individuals not by a one size fits all zero tolerance policy. I think that's the price of freedom. Sometimes you get crap but most of the time you get beauty.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I would love to see the legislature amend the criminal code so that anyone who commits a crime with a gun gets life without parole. Not for violations of gun possession laws themselves, but for burglary, robbery, any kind of physical assault, homicide; any crime where there is violence or the threat of violence.

With freedom comes responsibility. The 2nd Amendment affords us great freedom. Society should have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses that freedom.

But not a knife? If you kill someone with a knife, they are just as dead as if you used a gun.

Or a vehicle? If you kill someone with a vehicle, they are just as dead as if you used a gun.

What an anti-gun bias, to think that criminals that kill with one weapon (a gun) are inherently more dangerous/evil/worthy of a life sentence than criminals that kill with a different weapon (a knife, a car, a baseball bat, et cetera).

And what about all the people (like me, and maybe you, and most other people on this board) that might be involved in a self defense shooting -- where an anti-gun DA tries to make a case. Suddenly a good person is facing a LIFE sentence, and the COMPULSION to plea bargain is vastly more coercive.

Bah, screw the logic. Guns are bad, M'Kay. Those who use them deserve to rot in a cell forever. [/sarcasm]
 
Last edited:

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
And what about all the people (like me, and maybe you, and most other people on this board) that might be involved in a self defense shooting -- where an anti-gun DA tries to make a case. Suddenly a good person is facing a LIFE sentence, and the COMPULSION to plea bargain is vastly more coercive.
No self defense incident is going to come anywhere close to a murder charge; manslaughter at most. For that reason, I didn't include manslaughter in my proposal.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
No self defense incident is going to come anywhere close to a murder charge; manslaughter at most.

You are naive, or are being intentionally wrong. This scenerio has happened in other states recently, and it can/will happen in Washington.

And nice way to skirt the question:

Why fixate on guns as being the ONLY tool, that if used in a crime the perpetrator deserves to rot in prison for life.

Why not cars? Cars are a VERY deadly weapon.

Why not knives? They are a very deadly weapon.

Et cetera.

Or, and here's a revolutionary idea, why not focus on the person + the act and not the tool used. i.e. a murderer should serve a long sentence REGARDLESS of the tool he used to commit the murder.

Likewise a habitual offender should serve a long sentence, no matter what tool he used to commit his crimes.

But that kind of common sense perspective is at odds with the ANTI-GUN type of menatility that you have... that a gun crime is somehow INHERENTLY more deserving of punishment, 'cause guns are more bad m'kay.'

Unless you can offer some other reasonable argument, I have to just assume you're being a Sara Brady supporter on this issue. Seriously, explain your reasoning, I'm curious.

And the real solution to felons with guns is to 1) repeal the GCA of 1968 and 2) recognize the inalienable Second Amendment right of each free person.
 
Last edited:

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Why not cars? Cars are a VERY deadly weapon.
You're embarrassing yourself with such an inane statement! How many times has someone intentionally sought to hurt or kill another person with a car? Very rare.

What about cans of green beans? If you have real good aim and throw just right, you can hit someone in the temple and kill them. Your argument reduces to absurdity real quick.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
You're embarrassing yourself with such an inane statement! How many times has someone intentionally sought to hurt or kill another person with a car? Very rare.

What about cans of green beans? If you have real good aim and throw just right, you can hit someone in the temple and kill them. Your argument reduces to absurdity real quick.


Are you serious? Do you watch the news? Do you go outside of your house and/or office?

It seems half the time that there's an LEO involved shooting, they cite as the justification that a vehicle was being used as a weapon which forced the office to fire in self defense. Maybe you missed the most recent local incident in Everett.

And you obviously don't think this happened http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Sep-22-Thu-2005/news/27249780.html

A car jumped a curb and plowed into a group of pedestrians on the Strip Wednesday, killing one and injuring 13 in what Las Vegas police said was an intentional act.

There was also that fancy Nantucket restaraunt where a socialite intentionally drove a car into dinners.

I believe this should also count http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/23/2016844/woman-23-charged-in-facebook-feud.html She is charged with murder after all, and the weapon must have been the car. She had a target, she took aim, and then went full speed ahead.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22481451/detail.html

http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/09/car_used_as_weapon_in_north_sa.html
A Syracuse man is facing a felony charge after police accused him Thursday of intentionally running into another man with his SUV, police said

And it's not just America either http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/five-dead-in-car-attack/story-e6freon6-1225705569275

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100702/OTT_crash_100702/20100702/?hub=OttawaHome

I have seen many such incidences like this on the news over the years. I won't waste my time pasting more links.

You are an utter fail Bob, with a twisted anti-gun agenda.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
No self defense incident is going to come anywhere close to a murder charge; manslaughter at most. For that reason, I didn't include manslaughter in my proposal.

I will cite only one case as a reply to this totally idiotic statement.

Only 1 very famous case... out of many, many, many cases that occur every year when anti-gun DAs with higher political aspirations charge good people with murder, after a self defense incident. Typically in places like CA, NY, NJ.

Bernie Goetz.
 

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Are you serious? Do you watch the news? Do you go outside of your house and/or office?
I still maintain that it's a very rare occurrence. For example, how many cases in Seattle in the last year of intentional car violence? Compared to gun violence?

And it's too bad you're not mature enough to refrain from questioning my motives or insulting me. The power of your ideas and arguments are not strong enough, so you attack me personally. Sad.
 

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
I will cite only one case as a reply to this totally idiotic statement.

Only 1 very famous case... out of many, many, many cases that occur every year when anti-gun DAs with higher political aspirations charge good people with murder, after a self defense incident. Typically in places like CA, NY, NJ.

Bernie Goetz.
REALLY??? I don't know any reasonable person on the planet who actually believes Goetz acted in self defense! And that's the single best incident you can come up with?!? From 20+ years ago?!? That is truly funny - thanks for the laugh!
 
Top