• 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.

Kirkland altercation & charges

T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Citizen said:
I hate to sound overly suspicious, but this whole thing sounds fishy.

Why would someone be seeking advice by e-mail after having retained an attorney? He does not mention that he distrusts his attorney, or is looking for another.

What sort of activist is this guy? Gun rights? Privacy? Police Accountability? Domestic Violence Prevention? Smaller Hooks for Game Fish?

What sort of "earlier" threats was the writer afraid were going to be acted on? None are mentioned.
Click to expand...

I know the person in question. I have seen the video of the confrontation, and know why he's asking. In short, he's scared because Kirkland PD don't have the best intentions in his eyes, and he's not sure he can get an unbiased jury in the Kirkland area. He's seeking reassurance that it's the best course of action to proceed with defending rather than seeking a plea bargain. They have taken away his gun, and are pursuing charges despite the fact he clearly acted in self-defense (as in, watching the video, he's outmatched 5 to 1 and they're saying "you wanna brawl, put the camera down" and stuff like that). The prosecutor does not seem interested in seeing the video which very clearly shows this is a self-defense claim, preferring to seek charges.

Consider your reaction and "I'm not sure". How would you feel if other second amendment and article 1 section 24 supporters were questioning whether you acted in self-defense? Basically, there's nothing fishy, he's just scared and in a vulnerable place right now, for acting in a manner that looks to me to be 100% self-defense.

Was just talking to him about this, and here's his words:
I'm just so scared. Government has always scared me. When I was a kid, I grew up in a very corrupt town. Police used their power to rob retailers in the area and there was no recourse for normal folks. I grew up in a town where violence was an everyday thing. I've run my whole life and managed to stay away from trouble -- no drugs, no crimes, not even a big fan of alcohol because I've seen rational people do stupid things while drunk...

and now, here I am going face to face with one of my biggest fears after defending myself from a previous threat.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
If it goes to trial, the prosecutor will have difficulty keeping the video out of the courtroom. The jury will surely see it then.
 
Last edited:
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Dave_pro2a said:
IMHO, for the Seattle area, that is John Brown. That's exactly because he handles the highest profile cases (Ted Bundy, Sen. Ted Stevens, Martin Pang, etc.).
Click to expand...

The people you mentioned all were convicted. He handles the high profile cases because he wants the publicity and then charges high fees. He is rated only "Average" as an attorney but gets lots of publicity (must have been the ponytail). Did you note that he was disciplined not because he "sold his soul", but for overcharging.

Go with JHB if you want but there are better attorneys available in the Seattle Area.
 
O

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
Dave_pro2a said:
Every attorney, by definition, is a scum sucking, bottom feeder.* Some get caught with their hand in the jar, some don't, but they are all unethical or they would be in a different line of work, period.

Pick the one that will put the best scare into the DA and roll the dice. IMHO, for the Seattle area, that is John Brown. That's exactly because he handles the highest profile cases (Ted Bundy, Sen. Ted Stevens, Martin Pang, etc.).

Personally I don't care if he sold his soul to the devil at some point in the past, and regularly sacrifices chickens. I would want the attorney most likely to make the charges go away.

Getting someone like Gerry Spence, Johnnie Cochran or Alan Dershowitz is simply unrealistic. They are nationally renowed figures: generally not available, and not affordable. But JHB is the big fish in our small local pond, and can be had by any common Joe with modest means. The local DAs know his name, and generally want to avoid him in court imho.

But lawyers are like shoes. Find the one that you're comfortable with and stick with it. Do your own due diligence. The OP asked for advice and I just offered what I thought was the best route to take ;) It sounds like the guy screwed up on many levels, and came on the radar of a prick DA. That's a bad combo.

*My apologies to scum sucking, bottom feeding fish. I don't mean to disparage thier good name and description by the comparison of them to lawyers. It's just an "if the shoe fits..." kind of comparison. I could have also said "parasitic leeches that have virtually zero redeemable qualities ;)
Click to expand...

Wow!

Dave, I thought you and I saw eye to eye on many issues, and that you weren't one of the instigators who takes threads in a negative, hostile direction.

I guess I was wrong.
 
R

RayeHawk

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
36
Location
Seattleish, Washington, USA
Thanks to those of you who are helpful. :eek:)

And to the person who says "sounds fishy" . . . well, I'd bet LOTS of things "smell fishy" to you.

That's why *I* "Trust, but verify."

I prefer to not cast people in an evil light until I've done some due diligence.
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
This is one of the dangers when one interjects themselves into a situation and in doing so can make it worse or better depending upon many factors.
In this case it placed a good samaritan into a bad position, of being to close and into a threatening confrontation.

Once you drew your firearm in what is described as a creditable imminent threat.

The video from what has been reported will assist in their actions as being lawful.

3 Factors of Self Defense;
  • Ability- there were two of them, all male, stronger and capable of presenting a deadly threat and carrying it out.
  • Opportunity- there is nothing between you and them preventing them from carrying out a threat.
  • Jeopardy- with threatening statements and maneuvering to attack

Once the threat was over (putting their firearm back in the holster) they should have left the immediate area and called 911 as who was now in danger the good samaritan or the woman being slapped.

We need to be careful that we do not take a use of force situation into a deadly force one.

Some Prosecutors will let it run it's course and do not accept a plea just to make this go away, the evidence they have will be seen in due time and hopefully will be dismissed before a trial.
Do not be in a hurry to settle as this can have lasting effects on their ability to ever carry or own a firearm again.

Education into the self defense and the lawful use of deadly weapons has no replacement.
Yep you guessed it, seek professional training as it is insurance against something like this occurring to you.
 
Last edited:
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
amzbrady said:
Wheres the video, I didnt see a link posted?
Click to expand...

1974.gif
 
T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
Sure seems on the face of it like a situation where the system has mindlessly decided that the person with the gun must be the bad guy. Outrageous and troubling.

I do see one interesting thing here, very minor perhaps, but interesting... at this point, Kirkland still has laws on the books in violation of state preemption. They're actively working on bringing the relevant portions (KMC Title 11) into line with state law but as of now Kirkland purports to ban guns in parks.

And yet I notice that there is no mention of charges for violating those municipal codes... only the .270 charge. This is in no way intended to minimize the anguish of the victim this this case or the outrage we should all feel if the story we've been told is accurate. I guess I'm just trying to look on the bright side, if there is one.

I think and hope they will have a very hard time proving .270 -- the "in a manner" and "at a time and place" and "warrants alarm" etc.

Having to actually use a weapon outside our homes is just a terrible, terrible eventuality. Even if we're totally in the right, no one wins.
 
Last edited:
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
Tawnos said:
...manifests an attempt to intimidate...
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you also read part c)

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
Click to expand...

The defendant was, according to his/her statements, protecting another against the use of unlawful force and protecting himself against said use. A two-fer, as it were.
 
T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
heresolong said:
Unless, of course, you also read part c)



The defendant was, according to his/her statements, protecting another against the use of unlawful force and protecting himself against said use. A two-fer, as it were.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was simply trying to point out that he wasn't charged for the manner, time, place, etc - something we often focus on due to open carry.
 
T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
From the little I know of Kirkland PD, I think there are some training and attitude issues that need to be addressed.

For example on a police ride-along last year the officer told me that if saw an open carrier, that person would be staring at the business end of his rifle because open carrying is "not socially accepted" and that gives him the duty to treat the carrier as an immediate threat.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
tai4de2 said:
From the little I know of Kirkland PD, I think there are some training and attitude issues that need to be addressed.

For example on a police ride-along last year the officer told me that if saw an open carrier, that person would be staring at the business end of his rifle because open carrying is "not socially accepted" and that gives him the duty to treat the carrier as an immediate threat.
Click to expand...

Did this...ahem...officer give any Fourth Amendment analysis to support his planned tactics?

You see, I ask because without 4th Amendment reasonableness for the seizure, the cop is basically brandishing. If it is a seizure, it is governed by the 4th Amendment, or your Article I Section 7. If it is not a seizure, then the cop is brandishing.

I always wonder about people who resort to inventing policy, rather than just applying applicable existing policy. Are they just slow? Stupid? Forgetful? Don't care about the existing policy? Care more about their own disagreement than about the policy?
 
Last edited:
maclean

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Citizen said:
If it is not a seizure, then the cop is brandishing.
Click to expand...

"Brandishing" does not exist within the Revised Code of Washington.

9.41.270 has a specific exception for "Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty..."

What an officer who did such a thing would be doing is demonstrating a need for remedial training. Our "brandishing like" statute can not be applied to that officer, as written. There isn't a part of the statute that says "if the officer was doing it wrong this exception doesn't apply."

There might be other crimes which could apply, but "brandishing" ain't it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top