-
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.
-
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.
Man shoots possible carjacker/prowler in Everett
- Thread starter iampam
- Start date
iampam
Regular Member
Oh, here is more info from King5:
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Everett-Police-investigating-shooting-99173169.html
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Everett-Police-investigating-shooting-99173169.html
44Brent
Regular Member
Self Defense Prohibited in Everett
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012442339_everettshot25m.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.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012442339_everettshot25m.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.
amzbrady
Regular Member
would have been a good time to have a tazer...
DCKilla
Regular Member
Any criminal would have left the scene. He obviously thought he was in danger.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
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.
amzbrady
Regular Member
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Does anyone else find it ironic that a man named Goetz is saying police don't think it was a self-defense shooting?
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
I believe my assesement is accurate.
Bob Warden said:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ons-and-guns&p=1314090&viewfull=1#post1314090
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
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.
Last edited:
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
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.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
devildoc5
Regular Member
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......
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......
amlevin
Regular Member
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.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
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.
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:
gsx1138
Regular Member
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.
It would really prove my point if this man gets convicted about allowing the State too much power.
skiingislife725
Regular Member
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.