Riding The Bus In Seattle

Metalhead47 · Nov 18, 2010

And in all this Monday-morning QBing woulda-shoulda-coulda, let's not forget that the biggest "shoulda" is the driver should have acted. Since there was obviously not an armed citizen on the bus, the driver was in the best position, and had the best tools, to de-escalate or transfer the attention of the thug. This wasn't just some "Best to stay out of it" fight between two punks, this was a predator verbally assaulting an elderly disabled man for half an hour before physically assaulting him. I dunno about Metro busses, but all CT busses have a great big fire extinguisher right next to the front door. I've considered using it as a weapon more than once (but not much more thankfully). Even if the driver didn't have the cohones to stand up & do something, there's a silent alarm for a reason. He could have had cops on that bus within a few minutes.

Hammer · Nov 18, 2010

This whole news story really pissed me off, too.
I'd have to look around for the quote, but it goes something like
"the end of a society is near when it fails to provide for the vulnerable" and the qualifier is that the vulnerable are those who cannot defend themselves, i.e. the elderly, disabled, children, unborn, etc. Not those who don't feel like it, or can't stomache it, but those who just plain CAN'T
Makes me want to go ride the #7 with a trenchcoat & big floppy hat. Don't make a lot of noise, don't attract attention (tho a white man alone on that bus at night is attention all by itself) and don't let the defenseless go unheard.
I won't get into the what would I do...

Beretta92FSLady · Nov 18, 2010

The second the trigger is pulled, you are the perp and he is the victim, when the police show up, until you prove otherwise through a statement, witness statements, if any witnesses are present, are compared to yours. My partner and I were laying in bed last night talking about this incident. She felt that she would rather be in legal jeopardy than watch a perp commit an assault and possible murder against a disabled person...I couldn't agree more. It just turns my stomach watching people walk around the victim as he lay on the ground, just going about their business. I want to believe in humanity and that people around me would help, but there have been too many instances where people have been beaten and murdered while around crowds of people. I remember years ago when I first moved to Seattle, walking down by Pike Place Market. There were two gentlemen, one was older, the other younger, and the younger guy was kicking the hell out of the older guy..hundreds of people around...how it caught my attention, the car in front of me was stopped and the driver had his video recorder out, he was filming the beating.

cbpeck · Nov 18, 2010

Chris.R.Anderson said:
Some states don't have that problem, you are allowed LETHAL force just to detain a felon like this guy. Maybe we ought to look into copying those style of laws for Washington.

Not sure what state you're referring to.

While the animal's behavior was egregious, I don't think you could get away with saying, "I shot him in the back as he was running because I believe he's a felon." Cops show up and they don't have a clue what happened, other than "the guy with the gun shot that guy over there after he punched this guy." I wouldn't trust the witnesses.

I don't think shoot to detain is all that great of a plan. It seems to go right up there with intentionally shooting someone in the leg rather than center mass. Sounds good the first time you hear it, for about 5 seconds, then the attraction starts to fade.

BigDave · Nov 18, 2010

I concur with many thoughts on this issue and do not really want just to repeat what has been said.

One item of concern that comes to mind in this if one choose to draw their weapon in the defense of another, as in this case a disabled mentally challenged man being threatened by a younger physical man or considerable larger size and strength fully meets the use of force.
Now what comes of a little concern, someone intervenes of sizable strength and stature of the POS the use of force changes from person intervening to the POS and now the use of deadly force may be out of play as we must respond with reasonable force and not more then necessary.

Each of us will have to determine to what level of force could be used and articulated to law enforcement or the jury of how the law applied at that moment in time.

Personally I feel that my approach would be close to engaging the POS verbally and physically if need be to block him and have someone call 911.

jt59 · Nov 18, 2010

We need this clarity to our rules...it would sort out a lot of this discussion

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0228.htm#About

BigDave · Nov 18, 2010

jt59 said:
We need this clarity to our rules...it would sort out a lot of this discussion

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0228.htm#About

You do know what you posted is for 2009 Montana Legislature and this is Washington for clarification.

Here is the one for Washington State.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 17.02
WPIC 17.02 Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=WCCJI-1000
The link you will have to navigate to the pattern jury instructions and then defenses

amlevin · Nov 18, 2010

Where is Paul Kersey when we need him most?

Can you remember what happened next?

Darn, ruined a good newspaper.

Don't think this guy will go on to be arrested another 50 times.

tombrewster421 · Nov 18, 2010

BigDave said:
You do know what you posted is for 2009 Montana Legislature and this is Washington for clarification.

Here is the one for Washington State.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 17.02
WPIC 17.02 Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property

I think he was trying to say that our laws in WA SHOULD read the way they do in Montana because it more clearly explains what is allowed.

devildoc5 · Nov 18, 2010

Dont' forget though that the minute you did do something to negate this (especially if the suspect ended up dead) you would be accused of "killing an innocent African-American who was trying to get his life back together..."

Thus is the state of society currently...

Beretta92FSLady · Nov 18, 2010

devildoc5 said:
Dont' forget though that the minute you did do something to negate this (especially if the suspect ended up dead) you would be accused of "killing an innocent African-American who was trying to get his life back together..."

Thus is the state of society currently...

The papers forgetting to point out that scumbags come in all shades...it's not a black issue, more like a scumbag pos who needs to be set straight on appropriate civil behavior. He targeted the weak one on the bus, that's for sure...there was another man sitting on the left-hand side of the recording, the pos didn't want a piece of him.

amzbrady · Nov 18, 2010

Didnt an open carrier step in and draw to help someone, just recently and post his story here? I think it was in Bremerton??? I briefly looked for the story to link here. He had wound up fighting his own charges in court for doing the right thing. I think this is why more dont get involved. Selfish, yes. Willing to possibly lose your firearm and CPL for someone else? I would hope in the heat of the moment, that I would not have to draw and be able to de-escalate the situation without a firearm and be able to stop something from happening. I dont know if I would draw, thats one I am saving for myself or my family. I really just hope I am not ever faced with that situation.

jt59 · Nov 19, 2010

BigDave said:
You do know what you posted is for 2009 Montana Legislature and this is Washington for clarification.

Here is the one for Washington State.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 17.02
WPIC 17.02 Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property

Of Course, Silly!

I especially like this part and would like to see it incorporated into our WA codes

Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

Section 2. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

xxx.jakk.xxx · Nov 19, 2010

RCW 9A.16.050 said:
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.

amzbrady said:
Didnt an open carrier step in and draw to help someone, just recently and post his story here? I think it was in Bremerton??? I briefly looked for the story to link here. He had wound up fighting his own charges in court for doing the right thing. I think this is why more dont get involved. Selfish, yes. Willing to possibly lose your firearm and CPL for someone else? I would hope in the heat of the moment, that I would not have to draw and be able to de-escalate the situation without a firearm and be able to stop something from happening. I dont know if I would draw, thats one I am saving for myself or my family. I really just hope I am not ever faced with that situation.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81126-Kirkland-altercation-amp-charges

BigDave · Nov 19, 2010

jt59 said:
Of Course, Silly!

I especially like this part and would like to see it incorporated into our WA codes

Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

Section 2. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon. (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

Actually, I think they are, just worded differently but with the same concept in mind.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/...0.10&service=Find&spa=wcrji-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.01. In Washington State it is know as WPIC 17.05 Lawful Force—No Duty To Retreat
It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force.
[The law does not impose a duty to retreat.][Notwithstanding the requirement that lawful force be “not more than is necessary,” the law does not impose a duty to retreat. Retreat should not be considered by you as a “reasonably effective alternative.”]

2. This is just written a little different the our RCW 9A.16.020 (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

This type of discussion should appear in a thread for how you would prefer the laws be changed instead of taking away from the topic itself as it just adds to confusion on the subject when someone just glancing through the thread and picks up information that will lead to a misunderstanding.

jt59 · Nov 19, 2010

BigDave said:
[/LIST]
Actually, I think they are, just worded differently but with the same concept in mind.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/...0.10&service=Find&spa=wcrji-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.01. In Washington State it is know as WPIC 17.05 Lawful Force—No Duty To Retreat
2. This is just written a little different the our RCW 9A.16.020 (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

Decided by some prosecutor, later....if the force was "more" than necessary, ie: Kirkland "not in my town" and not until a video was produced

QUOTE]

Like I said, I like the clarity and a plain reading of the MT law:

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, (Can I see the video again?) the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

P.S. Dave- check you link above, it doesn't seem to work....)

BigDave · Nov 19, 2010

jt59 said:
P.S. Dave- check you link above, it doesn't seem to work....)

Unfortnately the link expires for what ever reason

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=WCCJI-1000
The link you will have to navigate to the pattern jury instructions and then defenses

jt59 · Nov 19, 2010

Interesting link...

Also, although it is a jury instruction, I wonder how does it play into the duty to retreat and one's ability to step into the fray (and defense) of the guy on the bus by drawing a weapon to make him sit down and shut up (and being reasonably in fear of bodily injury to self and others), given the open threat made on the video by the perp....and does the level of assualt qualify (threatened as well as delivered) for the threshold of force "not more than is neccessary"

Part XII. Anticipatory Offenses
WPIC CHAPTER 100. Attempt

WPIC 100.01 Attempt—Definition

A person commits the crime of attempted __________ when, with intent to commit that crime, he or she does any act that is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
NOTE ON USE

This instruction may be used whenever an attempt to commit a crime is in issue, whether it is an attempt charge filed under RCW 9A.28.020 or the attempt is submitted as an included offense. See the Comment below. For a discussion of when to use this instruction instead of WPIC 100.02, Attempt—Elements, see the Comment below.
Give instructions defining the crime charged to have been attempted. Use WPIC 10.01, Intent—Definition, and WPIC 100.05, Attempt—Substantial Step—Definition

Beretta92FSLady · Nov 19, 2010

With regard to the incident on the bus, there is no speculation that the attacker was significantly stronger than the victim. As well as the attacker verbalizing what he was going to do, and he was obviously out of control, possibly under the influence of drugs or out of his mind.

If you confront the attacker to leave the victim alone, because at that point, with the threats and aggressive behavior the man is being victimized. The attacker turns to you, after you demand, not ask, that he leave the victim alone...one he focuses his aggression on you, remind him to back away, that you are armed...right that second the ball is in his court, if he pursues you he is saying that he intends to harm you and the risk of having your sidearm taken from you comes into play.

The perp might as well have been standing there with a baseball bat, telling the victim he was going to beat the crap out of him, the disparity of force is apparent, and definitely in the favor of the perp.

jt59 · Nov 19, 2010

Beretta92FSLady said:
With regard to the incident on the bus, there is no speculation that the attacker was significantly stronger than the victim. As well as the attacker verbalizing what he was going to do, and he was obviously out of control, possibly under the influence of drugs or out of his mind.

If you confront the attacker to leave the victim alone, because at that point, with the threats and aggressive behavior the man is being victimized. The attacker turns to you, after you demand, not ask, that he leave the victim alone...one he focuses his aggression on you, remind him to back away, that you are armed...right that second the ball is in his court, if he pursues you he is saying that he intends to harm you and the risk of having your sidearm taken from you comes into play.

The perp might as well have been standing there with a baseball bat, telling the victim he was going to beat the crap out of him, the disparity of force is apparent, and definitely in the favor of the perp.

It looks like it is at least a 2nd degree felony assault...notwithstanding the vic's injuries are more severe that can be observed in the video.

Riding The Bus In Seattle

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member