Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 116

Thread: Man shoots possible carjacker/prowler in Everett

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the Sticks, WA
    Posts
    18

    Man shoots possible carjacker/prowler in Everett

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/99172319.html

    The shooter, a 61-year-old Marysville man who owns the pickup, told police the shooting was in self-defense.

    "The information so far is that the person who was shot was actually trying to get into (the shooter's) truck to steal stuff while the shooter was inside the truck," Goetz said.

    The pickup owner fired one shot, police said.

    According to witness reports from the scene, the shooting victim ran through the parking lot after he was shot. He then stumbled into the nearby McDonald's restaurant and collapsed, moaning and groaning, witnesses said.

    Restaurant patrons were evacuated from the restaurant after the shooting.

    The shooter remained at the scene and waited for police to arrive.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the Sticks, WA
    Posts
    18
    Oh, here is more info from King5:
    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Ever...-99173169.html

    Police say at about 11:30 a.m., a 61-year-old man went into the McDonalds at Everett Ave. and Broadway to get something to eat, as he does every day.
    As he walked to the restaurant, a man that witnesses say is a transient who frequents the area began to harass him.
    As the man left the restaurant and got into his truck, the other man followed and continued to harass him, and at some point reached into the truck to try to grab a cell phone.
    The man pulled a gun and shot the victim in the torso. The victim stumbled into the McDonald's to get help.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Self Defense Prohibited in Everett

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ttshot25m.html

    A 61-year-old man was jailed Saturday afternoon after he allegedly shot a man who aggressively begged for money outside a McDonald's in downtown Everett, according to Everett police.

    The alleged shooter lives in Marysville and was a regular customer at the restaurant in the 2000 block of Everett Avenue. Police said he was asked for money on his way in just before 11:30 a.m., then went inside and ordered something to drink, and on his way out he was panhandled again.

    The beggar, a 41-year-old man carrying Kentucky identification, followed the Marysville man to his small pickup. The older man grabbed a handgun and fired one shot into the beggar's abdomen, police said.

    The Marysville man stayed at the scene and then was interviewed by detectives at a police station. Officers "were not satisfied this was self-defense," and booked him into jail for investigation of first-degree assault, said police Sgt. Robert Goetz.

    The shooting victim was in surgery Saturday afternoon and was in serious condition, Goetz said.

    Several people were in the McDonald's but didn't stay long enough to give witness statements. Everett police ask that they call a tip line at 425-257-8450.

    The pickup has been impounded.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    would have been a good time to have a tazer...
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Any criminal would have left the scene. He obviously thought he was in danger.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Bob Warden thinks that this 61 year old man should automatically face life in prison, because he used a firearm and is accused of committing a crime.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    well of course, the law abiding citizen should go to jail. The only way he would have actually been a victim is if the thief would have gotten away with the crime. Even if caught, the thief would have had extra rights given to him in his defense for his predicument that he is in, since life has dealt him a bad hand. He is entiteled to someone elses stuff. Everyone starts life with equal rights. Criminals however are able to take rights from the average citizen, giving them more rights, these are given to the criminals in the form of bonus rights, which average out to a 75% criminal rights and 25% law abiding citizen rights. These bonus rights entitle them to bonus priveledges like benifit of the doubt, free medical care when they are wrong by the law abiding citizen they are trying to rob, free representation, news stories favoring them to make the public feel sorry for them, (after all they were injured by the law abiding guy), oh, and a jury of their peers.
    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

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    SNIP Officers "were not satisfied this was self-defense," and booked him into jail for investigation of first-degree assault, said police Sgt. Robert Goetz.
    Does anyone else find it ironic that a man named Goetz is saying police don't think it was a self-defense shooting?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Dave,

    That is a misrepresentation of what Bob Warden talked about. The man is being charged with assault. Warden did not list assault in his idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Bob Warden thinks that this 61 year old man should automatically face life in prison, because he used a firearm and is accused of committing a crime.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Dave,

    That is a misrepresentation of what Bob Warden talked about. The man is being charged with assault. Warden did not list assault in his idea.
    I believe my assesement is accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Warden
    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.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1314090

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    I believe my assesement is accurate.



    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1314090
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Warden View Post
    Tomas:

    I think if the hypothetical 1-strike law was clear as to what crimes it applied, your admittedly valid concern would be addressed. If I were drafting the law, I would specifically list the crimes it applied to, and they would only be violent felonies involving intent. Off the top of my head: all degrees of murder, felony assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary.

    Or a misrespresentation of a developing idea...
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Or a misrespresentation of a developing idea...
    I disagree. Bob was very clear. This case (based on available facts) would meet his proposed threshold.

    I think if the hypothetical 1-strike law was clear as to what crimes it applied, your admittedly valid concern would be addressed. If I were drafting the law, I would specifically list the crimes it applied to, and they would only be violent felonies involving intent. Off the top of my head: all degrees of murder, felony assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary.
    1st degree assault is a felony in WA.

    I don't need to misrespresent ANYTHING Bob says. He digs his own hole with his anti-gun rhetoric and beliefs. He sure put forth a 'developing idea' that Sara Brady and Diane Fineswine (and their ilk) would love.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 07-25-2010 at 12:32 AM.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    I disagree. Bob was very clear. This case (based on available facts) would meet his proposed threshold.



    1st degree assault is a felony in WA.

    I don't need to misrespresent ANYTHING Bob says. He digs his own hole with his anti-gun rhetoric and beliefs. He sure put forth a 'developing idea' that Sara Brady and Diane Fineswine (and their ilk) would love.
    Agreed. I will wait for more information on this particular incident. I sure hope that the prosecutor is not charging someone who acted in self defense.

    I do think the idea presented is worthy of discussion and not ridicule.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    I disagree. Bob was very clear. This case (based on available facts) would meet his proposed threshold.



    1st degree assault is a felony in WA.

    I don't need to misrespresent ANYTHING Bob says. He digs his own hole with his anti-gun rhetoric and beliefs. He sure put forth a 'developing idea' that Sara Brady and Diane Fineswine (and their ilk) would love.
    1st Degree Assault is a Class A Felony, and is only brought up when the attacker assaults with a weapon. Washington doesn't have an "Assault with a deadly weapon" charge, or even an "armed robbery" charge.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Looks to me like the shooter made it clear to the one shot that he didn't want anything to do with him. Yet then the guy tries to get into, or reach into his vehicle? Looks pretty clear it was self defense to me. What else is the shooter suppose to assume? Would I have shot? Don't know wasn't there. Let's remember we are a stand your ground state we have no duty to retreat.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I think it should be pretty clear cut for the following reasons:

    Guy apparently told him to stop bugging him.

    other guy continued to bug him.

    Guy fired 1 shot and ONLY one shot at the guy and WAITED for the police to come and sort it out.

    Yup seems like its pretty clear cut defense to me....

    Why cant the cops see this?

    Now if the guy had unloaded a full mag and then got in his truck and driven to Denny's that might be a different story......

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Looks to me like the shooter made it clear to the one shot that he didn't want anything to do with him. Yet then the guy tries to get into, or reach into his vehicle? Looks pretty clear it was self defense to me. What else is the shooter suppose to assume? Would I have shot? Don't know wasn't there. Let's remember we are a stand your ground state we have no duty to retreat.
    The shooter still has to make the case that he was in fear for his life. It also has to be shown that the attacker has the ability to cause him great bodily harm or death. Did he have a weapon? Had he made threats? Or was he just annoying the shooter? In police statements they say that things just didn't add up.

    This incident illustrated the extreme importance of knowing the laws covering the use of Deadly Force in Self Defense. Shooting someone who is climbing into your vehicle and attempting to harm you should meet all the requirements to use deadly force. Shooting someone who is grabbing your wallet and cell phone from the seat might not.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    In what I have read thus far, it appears their is a high likelihood he acted within the law and did not invite it.
    He is well known for his routine according to the article and news reports as well as the panhandler that was shot being afflicted with mental illness.
    The shooter entered and left as he did any other day to sit in his truck, the panhandler went to confront him yet again at his vehicle and according to the shooter he reached in to take his wallet and phone and this is when he shot him in self defense.

    Once Self Defense is claimed the burden of proof now lays to the State is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense.
    If they cannot find a witness or evidence to prove it was not in self defense he will be out in no time.


    Dave_pro2a, let it go for crying out loud.
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-25-2010 at 12:19 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    I'd call this self defense. The man did everything to avoid a confrontation. The bum/hobo/transient is the aggressor and was obviously already within the 21 feet required to take down the old guy before he could draw his weapon. Sure the old guy was in a truck but I don't think there's any way to really know if he was being attacked other than to add the sum of the entire confrontation together which equals one shot hobo.

    It would really prove my point if this man gets convicted about allowing the State too much power.

  20. #20
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400
    I'm more with amlevin on this one. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim deadly force was justified when someone goes for your cell phone. Obviously there could be more to the story than that, but that seems to be all of the information given at this point. This is one of the exact reasons I carry OC...on top of being good for crazy dogs at the dog park or just making yourself look better in court because you had more options on the force continuum.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by skiingislife725 View Post
    I'm more with amlevin on this one. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim deadly force was justified when someone goes for your cell phone. Obviously there could be more to the story than that, but that seems to be all of the information given at this point. This is one of the exact reasons I carry OC...on top of being good for crazy dogs at the dog park or just making yourself look better in court because you had more options on the force continuum.
    Who's to say that he wasnt reaching for the firearm.....
    Sad that the guy has to go through all this but on the good side Everett has one less POS to worry about.

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The shooter still has to make the case that he was in fear for his life. It also has to be shown that the attacker has the ability to cause him great bodily harm or death. Did he have a weapon? Had he made threats? Or was he just annoying the shooter? In police statements they say that things just didn't add up.

    This incident illustrated the extreme importance of knowing the laws covering the use of Deadly Force in Self Defense. Shooting someone who is climbing into your vehicle and attempting to harm you should meet all the requirements to use deadly force. Shooting someone who is grabbing your wallet and cell phone from the seat might not.
    To add to this discussion note that there does not need to be actual danger but as you indicate he needs to be able to articulate what brought him up to his choice to use the firearm in Self Defense.

    Washington Practice Series TM
    Current through the Third Edition

    Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
    2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair

    Part IV. Defenses
    WPIC CHAPTER 16. Justifiable Homicide

    WPIC 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary

    A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of great personal injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger.
    Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable.
    NOTE ON USE

    Use this instruction with WPIC 16.02, Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others, and WPIC 16.03, Resistance to Felony, when appropriate.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    To add to this discussion note that there does not need to be actual danger but as you indicate he needs to be able to articulate what brought him up to his choice to use the firearm in Self Defense.
    BigDave hit the nail on the head. In this state, according to the law we are pretty well protected. You don't HAVE to be in grave danger of bodily harm, you only have to BELIEVE you are.

    As to the test of "reasonableness", the jury is supposed to look at from the perspective of the person at the time it happened. Not from an "after the fact, with all the information, and interview transcript of what the suspect's intent was" perspective.

    If the old man had made it clear he was giving handouts, the guy continued to pester him, acted aggressively, possibly making verbal threats, then reached in to the truck either through the window or a door and tried to start taking things by force. It is very reasonable for the old man to be in fear, and therefore justified legally in his response.

    The news articles are woefully short on information. A lot of the dimwits making comments on the news sites focus on what was being taken - a cell phone and wallet. That is not the issue, the issue is HOW it was being taken.

    If I pick up your cell phone out of the grocery cart while you back is turned, that is THEFT and a misdemeanor (unless the value of property is over $750). You would have no reasonable fear of being injured, and if you turned around as I took it, absent any threatening acts on my part you would be hard pressed to make a case for shooting me.

    The minute force is used such as physically taking the property from another person (struggling over it, trying to yank out of my hand, etc.) or threat of force such as "You better give it up old man or else!" it becomes ROBBERY. Robbery starts as a class B felony and goes up from the there. The value of what is being taken is irrelevant, it is the manner in which the criminal acts.

    I could be carrying a bag of dog crap to the garbage can, you might think it was gold nuggets, threaten me and then struggle to take it away and at that point under our state's law, lethal force becomes an option if I think I may be seriously hurt.

    Age and disparity of size may become an issue, but it isn't cut and dry. I am 47 years old, in reasonable condition, but am considerably overweight as well as having recurring back, neck, and shoulder problems from previous injuries. I am in no condition to scrap hand to hand like the good ole days when I was in the Marine Corps. At the time I get into any physical altercation with anyone short of a frail considerably older than I person, I am going to be seriously concerned about being seriously injured.

    I hope at some point we get the WHOLE story. I also hope the old man sticks to his guns (assuming it is legit) and doesn't feel pressured into pleading down to something under threat of prosecution, has his day in court and is vindicated.

    As far as people who prey on others, I think it is time for society to stop being so lenient. The criminals are getting WAY too many "second chances" and very few are learning from those chances or changing their ways.

    If the government doesn't do something about it, and sooner rather than later, more and more people are going to be pushed into feeling they have to do it themselves. Then we will have real problems.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    This is why, folks, you don't talk to cops after wards. Let your lawyer do your talking for you, except "It was in self defense" and go no further.

    I realize that this may seem gouche, but I have a membership in an organization called Arms Citizen's Legal Defense Network for a reason.

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    From a news report:

    "But the pickup owner's story didn't add up, as detectives continued to investigate, and the truck owner was eventually arrested and booked into jail on suspicion of first-degree assault."

    The police evidently have more information than any of us. Perhaps we should wait for a public anouncement of their findings before we decide whether or not it was Self Defense?
    Last edited by amlevin; 07-25-2010 at 04:21 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •