"Assault victim fatally shoots assailant outside Westlake Center"
The man in the yellow shirt apparently focused in on the second man, saying, "I am going to kill you," ... He then began punching and kicking the second man until the man fell to the sidewalk.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 08, 2006 08:55 AM | Email This"He was down there, minding his own business. There is nothing to think he was anything but a random target," ...
The victim happened to have a concealed-weapons permit, Brown said, and he was carrying a handgun. He pulled out the gun and fired once, hitting his attacker in the abdomen
remember that trucker dragged from his rig & nearly killed during the LA riots? that's why we lawfully pack. no threats, no wild west, just a bee with a stinger. leave it alone and it leaves you alone.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 8, 2006 08:58 AMThis is EXACTLY why concealed carry permits are issued.
Now watch the Libs complain the CC Permits should be banned.
Something like this just happened to a friend in Western Colorado.... 60-ish couple go out to their truck to take a drive, and are attacked by a neighbor's dog. He has CC and defends wife by killing the mutt right in their own driveway.
Offending dog-owner-neighbor calls sheriff deputies. They take good guy's gun and cite him for animal cruelty. Colo lets you shoot dogs barking at, or frightening/running your livestock. But apparently doesn't allow people to protect themselves.
After Locals complained to actual Sheriff, he reverses charge to be on the dog owner. After all, why issue hundreds of CC permits? Use them to shoot space invaders?
Posted by: Keb on October 8, 2006 09:21 AMWhat else is new? The local rags are just pathetic mouthpeices of the Democrat party. They wil NEVER be fair or balanced. Best thing to do is cancel your subscription.
Posted by: pbj on October 8, 2006 10:39 AMNow, as for the layout of the ST editorial page: There is nothing liberal about it. Is MB overlooking their ringing endorsement of G.W. Bush for President in 2000? Only in 2004, when Bush's MO was clearly known did they finally endorse his opponent--and rightfully so, according to national public opinion.
In general the letters section merely reflects public opinion. In the most recent Newsweek Poll released Oct. 7, 2006, only 29% of respondents believe the Iraq war has made us safer. That Americans are correct in this thinking is backed by the Gov't's own National Intelligent Estimate! To say otherwise is just partisan spin. Bush's job approval rating sunk to a low of 33%. (That means 2 out of 3 people nationally do NOT approve of the job Bush has done.) And, should we NOT discuss troop casualties? Who does that help? No one except the terrorists. I, for one, want to know how many of our brave servicemen and women have been killed. Being mindful of their sacrifce is the least we can do if we are going to send them to war. You who would stifle dissent are the real threat to this great nation. God Bless America--and the REAL patriots who are standing up and saying NO MORE OF THIS!!
Posted by: Bob on October 8, 2006 10:42 AMHomicide 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.
---------------
With a little luck perps like this will get the idea that Seattle not a safe place to assault citizens and move to San Francisco where guns are banned.
Too bad the guy didn't target one of LENIN'S USEFUL IDIOTS for a good pummelling....instead of a Ted Nugent-loving NRA member! I wonder how David KLOWNstein would have responded to this maniac had KLOWNstein been the chosen target?
KLOWNstein would have started crying and curled up in the fetal position. KLOWNstein would have likely pulled a white hankie out of his khaki's and waved it furiously in hopes the maniac would recognize the France's National Slogan, "I SURRENDER"!
Sheesh....the guy "gut-shot" the maniac. OUCH!
Sadly, the maniac must have suffered a horrible death. Let's pray for his family.
After all, we are "Compassionate Conservatives" here at Sound Politics.....aren't we??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 8, 2006 11:01 AMThat doesn't preclude a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the assailant's survivors, who will probably crawl out from under a rock to whine about how he was mentally ill and had no real intent to harm anyone.
While no-duty-to-retreat is clear black-letter law in this state, we need to become the 16th state to enshrine this in statute law -- complete with civil immunity in any legitimate case of self defense.
A bill will be filed (again) in Olympia in January to accomplish this. Let's see how the Democrat-controlled legislature handles this one. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Adam Kline (D-37) refused to give the bill a hearing in the 2006 session.
Did they say this? Got a link?
Posted by: Bob on October 8, 2006 11:19 AMdetectives determined they did not have probable cause to book him into the King County Jail. The man was released. Police said they were withholding his name as a crime victim — of the assault.
So can we expect you, then, to retitle this post "Signs that your local media does (sic) NOT suffer from a liberal bias?"
I'm guessing that the answer is no, because that wouldn't suit your fraudulent right-wing agenda.
Posted by: ivan on October 8, 2006 12:07 PMivan is the fattest guy on the LEFT (of course).
ivan will not rest until Union members must give ivan and his ilk ALL their earnings so he can pretend to fight for them.
Posted by: dude on October 8, 2006 01:22 PMI am glad this guy could defend himself. Because it sure as heck looks like none of the anti-gun lobby was around to rescue him. If Norm Maleng presses any charges, it will be a total travesty!!
Posted by: Michele on October 8, 2006 01:34 PMMight help if you stayed on topic, or even the correct thread.
The guy who shot his attacker was NOT charged, witnesses to the attack confirmed his story.
Totally self defense, and you folks jump all over the place.
I am a solid Seattle red and I agree - self defense is legitimate. Remembedr the Black Panthers and all those rifles?
Totally OK. There will be no stir on this one from anyone except the gleegul snots on this post - all over the map with hostility galore.
Folks here are nuts.
Posted by: Jack on October 8, 2006 02:44 PM"It looked to me like he shot him in self-defense," said Linda Vu, who was across the street from the shooting, handing out fliers for political activist Lyndon LaRouche. "It's kind of crazy."
Something tells me Ms. Vu is an expert in crazy.
Posted by: wayne on October 8, 2006 02:48 PMI know I would have done the same (shot or beaten to death my attacker), I wonder if our dumbass journalist would have let himself continue to be assaulted or killed, just to make sure he didn't offend a tourist from Australia?
Posted by: H Moul on October 8, 2006 04:02 PM
i'm not ghoulishly gloating here. Early Grim Reaper has no fans with me. however, once in a blue moon--and--disproportionatley presented in media, good gun owners win over the evil violent among us. that's all. that's the point.
may both sides heal and may potential perps learn from this. life is about risks. YOUR risk to CHOOSE to screw with peaceful people. leave them alone. live & let live, or make your OWN bed.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 8, 2006 04:46 PMAnd the democrats want us to elect them to protect this country. Ha
Posted by: GS on October 8, 2006 04:56 PM
The report itself, in whole, is not biased-- but the Jones comment does not claim bias; it asks if anyone else sees a "starboard slant" (providing, of course, that one's perspective is facing aft.)
I've written a small boatload of news stories myself, mostly broadcast radio, and from the perspective of this sailor the theme of Martin's unbiased report clearly lists hard to... "the left."
And I doubt he even recognizes it.
Posted by: Handsome Lee on October 8, 2006 07:45 PMI know their old retorts about "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Actually, it is people with guns that kill people.
What the NRA doesn't seem capable of realizing is that while guns don't kill people, the ready availability of guns contributes heavily to this country's scandalous crime rate. Gun-related crime in this country per capita is greater than any other country, or combination of countries in the entire Western world!
If ownership of guns made us safer, we would be the most secure people on Earth because personal ownership of guns here is the most prevalent in the world; actually, we are the least safe!
The NRA believes every household should have a gun for family protection. Protection from whom? Well, duh, all those other people with guns! What a classical example of circular thinking!
When will the NRA and its wholly owned subsidiary, the GOP, wake up to the fact that the prevalence of guns is the most direct contributor to the prevalence of gun-related crime?
James A. Young
Seattle
--Letter to the Editor, Seattle PI, October 6 2006.
Good timing.
Posted by: Michael on October 8, 2006 08:31 PMThe letter by Mr. Young displays the profound historical ignorance of the anti-2nd amendment crowd.
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Supreme Court Justice Story 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
The prime reason for the 2nd amendment is so that the government should be always cognizant that the citizens hold the power, and are justified to use force against the government when the government usurps its Constitutional bounds.
Once guns are outlawed the government will have no reason to fear the people.
Posted by: JCM on October 8, 2006 09:22 PMHis point would be worth debating if it were his, but it's not. He quotes someone else, an idiot left wing Clinton flavored Kool-Aid drinker.
Michael, go back to elementary school and learn how to write and think for yourself.
Losers like Michael and James A. Young believe that all we have to do is pass another law and the perps will surrender their weapons and plead for mercy.
What a bunch of idiots, losers, and maroons.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 8, 2006 10:14 PMHappens sometimes...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 8, 2006 10:35 PMI remember a similar story from a couple years ago, where a UW freshman, high on drugs, jumped on some guy's hood, and the guy grabbed his gun out of the glove compartment and shot him to death. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/shot032.shtml
No charges were filed in that case, either, because we have a pro-gun prosecutor who interprets the WA State Constitution in the most liberal way possible (which I don't necessarily fault him for)
I understand all the gloating right wingers at SP have expressed about this case, and I can see why the shooter did what he did - but c'mon, guys: we don't live in a third world country. And since when was un-needed violence and death something to celebrate?
The notion that "upstanding citizens" should just start blowing away every drunk and mentally ill street hobo to make themselves feel better is just plain sick.
And un-Christian, I might add.
Posted by: Benjamin on October 8, 2006 11:30 PMSo, Jimmie - if it turns out the aggressor in this case had a long history of mental illness, are you still going to hold on to this "good vs. evil" cliche?
Posted by: Benjamin on October 8, 2006 11:35 PMEnd of story! End of the thug!
Posted by: Gs on October 9, 2006 12:09 AMTo a person that's already been knocked to the ground, feet ARE lethal weapons. Being kicked and stomped to death is a particularly nasty way to die. (Not to mention the assailant had already articulated his intent to kill the victim...)
BTW, there's absolutely nothing un-Christian about defending ones self, family or bystander from an assault.
Regards,
-John
The rules of use of lethal force have 3 points. Means, intent, capacity.
In this case the assailant had the means, hands and feet, intent the statement of "I am going to kill you," capacity he had started the assault and knocked the victim down.
Use of force allows a victim to stop the assailant if serious harm could result.
Lastly it is judged form the victims perspective, does the victim have reason to believe that the conditions are meant.
The victim has no knowledge of the history of the perp, only the assailants stated intent and the attack. I person on the ground being kicked is in immediate life threatening danger.
Which is why the SPD kicked him loose.
GOOD SHOOT!
Posted by: JCM on October 9, 2006 07:29 AMI beg to differ with you,
The psychotic just attacked the right man at the wrong time and now the psycho is no more.
Posted by: GS on October 9, 2006 10:05 AMTake home message: call gun-grabbers gun-grabbers, not liberals.
*This data comes from the General Social Survey. You can explore this data at: http://sda.berkeley.edu/
Posted by: McGinnes on October 9, 2006 10:08 AMan immediate and dangerous threat on one's life demands one's survival to fight back. gun, stick, brick, whatever. 20-20 hindsight is great--if--you're not the guy on the ground being assaulted and later die form internal bleeding & organ failures. yes--people die from fists and kicks in case you don't know.
some gun owners will overreact and some won't--but i'm willing to take that chance for my own protection. by in large, we don't have dodge cities where we have concealed laws. most people know that and comply.
i would instead ask trial lawyers and legislators-(not the legal gun owners) why they continue to release these unstable, dangerous people among us.
how about rioting hordes in your neighborhood or places you frequent burning cars after a sports championship? not unrealistic. happens often enough. look at recent history. LA riots after jury verdicts? WTO Seattle riots and anarchists? Katrina-like civil anarchy and looting/rioting? you could be caught unwittingly in the middle & very fast.
do you want to confront these people and reason with them? ask about their mental states? worried about THEIR feelings? or--do you want some effective means to protect YOUR family, friends, house or property?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 9, 2006 10:34 AMMentally unbalanced: check
On drugs: perhaps
Armed with deadly force: ?????
Did the assailant have a gun? A knife? What would a cop have to do to justify discharging his weapon like this citizen did?
Speaking of mentally unbalanced, the citizen is vouched for by a LaRouchite!
What if the citizen just spent 40 hours taking a self-defense course, time equivalent to what he's probably spent discharging his weapon at a shooting gallery?
He would have put the perp on the ground and a man would still be alive. Right to life indeed!
I respect gun rights but with rights come responsibilities. A man who does something like this and walks away patting himself on the back is a sick man.
Posted by: Not Amused by Right-Wing Bloodlust on October 9, 2006 11:04 AMRead my post #51 on use of force.
Have you ever been in a fight with a deranged individual?
I have. Several times.
Spent years on the fire department, and got involved in dealing with out of control mental patients. One particular incident involved a women 5'6" 130. It took 3 firefighters, 2 cops and 2 guys from the ambulance crew to subdue the patient. 7 on 1 and it was a close thing at that.
Someone in that state deciding to kick the crap out of you on street is a lethal threat. The victim was knocked down, 1 or 2 kicks to the head and we'd have a dead or seriously injured victim. The victim was in under immediate threat of death or serious injury. That makes use of lethal force in self-defense justified.
Posted by: JCM on October 9, 2006 11:46 AMI think most people who know how to use firearms also know when lethal force is necessary. People who assault and threaten to kill you are usually not joking around.
Posted by: Palouse on October 9, 2006 02:40 PM