If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Koda]

So me and two friends are walking into the same store, the guy in front of me has the exact same airsoft pistol with the exact same problem in his hand the exact same way. Dudley Dowrong pops up and starts shouting the exact same orders and my friend in front tosses the airsoft pistol down in exactly the same way as the kid did. Our 3rd friend doesn't have a gun, toy or otherwise, but I'm packing so I draw and perform a prefect Mozambique Drill and Dudley is now adjusting to room temperature. Should I be the one to go to prison for murder because I "had a second gun" and it's a totally separate incident once I draw my gun?

Please don't say "that's different" without a detailed explanation of what makes it different

If I understand correctly, your second gun is real, you draw it in defense and kill the "intervener" who wrongly suspects your trying to rob/shoot up the place?. That would be one single incident/fight/charge. Wa prosecutors probably would feel otherwise but in my take that you would be justified in self defense against a deadly threat.

I avoid analogies but will try. A guy is robbing a store at gunpoint. Tactical Commando interveins and holds him at gunpoint, shoots him whatever.... but in the melee another lawfully armed customer drew a gun on the bad guy and Commando guy sees that and thinks hes an accomplice and shoots him dead. Turns out the dead guy is unrelated to the bad guy. If charges are pressed, thats a separate incident and in my understanding (which can be wrong) the trial will come down to was it reasonable to assume he was an accomplice posing a threat and will have nothing to do with the first guy or the reason the whole thing started.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

If I understand correctly, your second gun is real, you draw it in defense and kill the "intervener" who wrongly suspects your trying to rob/shoot up the place?. That would be one single incident/fight/charge. Wa prosecutors probably would feel otherwise but in my take that you would be justified in self defense against a deadly threat.

I avoid analogies but will try. A guy is robbing a store at gunpoint. Tactical Commando interveins and holds him at gunpoint, shoots him whatever.... but in the melee another lawfully armed customer drew a gun on the bad guy and Commando guy sees that and thinks hes an accomplice and shoots him dead. Turns out the dead guy is unrelated to the bad guy. If charges are pressed, thats a separate incident and in my understanding (which can be wrong) the trial will come down to was it reasonable to assume he was an accomplice posing a threat and will have nothing to do with the first guy or the reason the whole thing started.

So if I would be justified shooting Dudley, how can Duddley also be justified in shooting me? And he wasn't an "intervener" because that implies that there was something happening other than three friends walking into a store.

I stopped reading your analogy when I got to the word "robbing" because that is an actual crime in progress and has no relevance to what we are discussing here where there was no crime in progress

Also they released the murdered boys name and photo.

 

[Certaindeaf]

So if I would be justified shooting Dudley, how can Duddley also be justified in shooting me? And he wasn't an "intervener" because that implies that there was something happening other than three friends walking into a store.

I stopped reading your analogy when I got to the word "robbing" because that is an actual crime in progress and has no relevance to what we are discussing here where there was no crime in progress

Also they released the murdered boys name and photo.

Not robbing. In the instance you are referring death of another and or self is imminent, as described. The robbery is incidental by definition.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Not robbing. In the instance you are referring death of another and or self is imminent, as described. The robbery is incidental by definition.

In his analogy he wrote 'robbing' which is an actual crimes in progress and not the topic here. The incident I am referring to is the one that really happened were there was no crime in progress

 

[Koda]

So if I would be justified shooting Dudley, how can Duddley also be justified in shooting me? And he wasn't an "intervener" because that implies that there was something happening other than three friends walking into a store.

I stopped reading your analogy when I got to the word "robbing" because that is an actual crime in progress and has no relevance to what we are discussing here where there was no crime in progress

Also they released the murdered boys name and photo.

This is why I avoid analogies. I'm not certain I understand yours.... if you were carrying your replica in hand and refused to drop it would it be reasonable for Dudley to assume you were robbing the place.
Here's maybe a closer analogy... about a yearish ago a kid robbed a taqueria with a fake gun. An armed citizen shot him dead. Discussion in this forum was a majority of support for self defense justified regardless of the fake gun. Virtually everyone agreed, its not anyone's job to discern if a gun, is a firearm. Now suddenly with this story, half the group believes is unreasonable to assume a fake gun is real. What gives?
My understanding of the law is that use of force is justified only if its reasonable to believe there is a threat, not if the threat is real. I don't know of any law in any state that demands anyone prove the threat is legitimate before defending themselves. Detaining someone without reasonable evidence is not what happened here, the kid had a gun in hand.

 

[Koda]

In his analogy he wrote 'robbing' which is an actual crimes in progress and not the topic here. The incident I am referring to is the one that really happened were there was no crime in progress

It was an analogy, it was meant to put the focus only on the second person which was relevant to the topic here.

The fact that there was no actual crime in progress is whats in debate here. I'm not aware of any state with any law that says one has to be proven first in order to defend yourself (or others), it just has to be reasonable to believe there is a crime or threat and the replica gun in hand is one element of evidence.

And once again, it was the guy reaching for the second gun thats got the mall cop in trouble here. The gun in hand guy was already subdued right or wrong that incident was over.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This is why I avoid analogies. I'm not certain I understand yours.... if you were carrying your replica in hand and refused to drop it would it be reasonable for Dudley to assume you were robbing the place.
Here's maybe a closer analogy... about a yearish ago a kid robbed a taqueria with a fake gun. An armed citizen shot him dead. Discussion in this forum was a majority of support for self defense justified regardless of the fake gun. Virtually everyone agreed, its not anyone's job to discern if a gun, is a firearm. Now suddenly with this story, half the group believes is unreasonable to assume a fake gun is real. What gives?
My understanding of the law is that use of force is justified only if its reasonable to believe there is a threat, not if the threat is real. I don't know of any law in any state that demands anyone prove the threat is legitimate before defending themselves. Detaining someone without reasonable evidence is not what happened here, the kid had a gun in hand.

Maybe you should avoid them because you are bad at them! Your new not-an-analogy is also flawed because it is to is about an actual crime in progress. And what's not to understand with mine? It is 100% the same as what actually happened except instead of 3 teenagers with 2 toy guns it was 3 middle age men with one toy and one real gun and a different outcome

Also you keep saying he 'reached for his gun' and according to the police after reviewing the video he "slightly lowered his right arm" What got the mall cop in trouble was jumping out of his car and assaulting three teenagers walking on the sidewalk when he should have called 911, maybe moved to a more tactical position, and waited until AN ACTUAL CRIME was being commited

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

At some point, there's probably going to be a discussion about why he was so eager and ready to believe that these particular three teenagers were a threat and a danger and I can't help but believe that his social media posts are going to become a problem for him and he's going really wish he lived in a state where Mr. "I fought the tree and the tree won" was his governor

 

[Koda]

Maybe you should avoid them because you are bad at them! Your new not-an-analogy is also flawed because it is to is about an actual crime in progress. And what's not to understand with mine? It is 100% the same as what actually happened except instead of 3 teenagers with 2 toy guns it was 3 middle age men with one toy and one real gun and a different outcome

Also you keep saying he 'reached for his gun' and according to the police after reviewing the video he "slightly lowered his right arm" What got the mall cop in trouble was jumping out of his car and assaulting three teenagers walking on the sidewalk when he should have called 911, maybe moved to a more tactical position, and waited until AN ACTUAL CRIME was being commited

Well of course the media is only going to say the police's version.

So how did the mall cop know the other kid had a gun in his waistband?

Trust me your analogy is not all clear.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

So how did the mall cop know the other kid had a gun in his waistband?

He used his eyes?

 

[Koda]

He used his eyes?

And how would he have seen it if the guy only "lowered his arm"?

 

[Alexx1401]

He would have been shot.

Yep! For decades there have been cases where an LEO drops someone who does just that with a toy. BIG difference is when its an LEO the public does scream for the Cop to be charged normally it goes no where. When one of the CC holders with a fantasy they are going to be a hero does it? They do get hung out to dry. So morel to the story is if you are not an LEO call one and stay out of the way. For those with the fantasy that they will be hero and want to step in? Well enjoy destroying your life, after all you did ask for it.

 

[Yarome]

The disagreement is not if it's unreasonable to assume things, it's if it is legal under WA state law to take the actions that he did and based on the information we have at this time the answer to that is no.
That someone might "feel" he should get a pass based on whatever reason is irrelevant

If you read @Koda 's post, he very plainly said that there is disagreement in that regard. However, I'm with him and fail to understand how it's so apparently confusing to some. It is incorrect that WA state law does not allow intervention when reasonable presumptive cause exists. Simply repeating "no it doesn't" over and over doesn't change the law. Explain to us "how" it does not.

Not even talking about if the kid was going to rob the place or not (which would still hold true), but to keep it as basic as possible. There was presumptive cause to believe that the teen with an apparent handgun in his hand was committing a crime simple by... having what very clearly appeared to be a real handgun in his hand.

WA state law prohibits underage individuals from possessing a handgun. Full stop. That's not opinion and there were no exigent circumstances noted. Not a single party in the case has disputed that the youth did in fact have what appeared to be a real firearm in his hand.

I bolded cause above because a citizen may not act under presumptive suspicion. Only a LEO can do that. A citizen must witness a presumed offense while a LEO only has to satisfy reasonable suspicion.


This is the point where it get's a little bit trickier and the separate incident thing kicks in.

Legally, he was only able to detain the individual with the gun. If the 2 others stopped when he yelled stop, that was by their own choice to assume the guy meant them too. The man "may" have, specifically, also ordered the other 2 to stop(?) The reported details are unclear on that, and if he did, then he would have been outside his legal authority, but that also would not constitute an imminent threat, in and of itself.

That is not to say that from the man's perspective that reasonable presumptive suspicion by association wouldn't lead him to believe that one or both of the kids friends might also be carrying. He didn't have legal authority to act on it, but it does not mean reasonable suspicion does not exist simply because he lacks that authority.. and "sets the stage' for what followed.

"In a separate incident", a youth, where presumptive suspicion existed... appeared to start to reach. The elevated the presumptive suspicion to reasonable cause to believe the youth was reaching for a gun and posed an imminent threat. At least, that's what appears to have been the case since the man immediately fired his weapon in what he believed was self defense.

You can play these games trying to split hairs trying to claim, "but isn't the man the aggressor because he had his gun out?" If you're going to go down that road then doesn't it also hold true that if a LEO pulls his gun on you, he is the aggressor, poses an imminent threat and you are legally justified to shoot him? Seriously?

The man was acting under legal authority, under WA State law, as a citizen to detain a person where due reasonable cause existed. The same way a LEO is acting under legal authority when he is justified to detain a person.


All the other questions about if I agree with what happened, how it went down, or how I might have handled it different is kinda moot. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda, IMHO.

I do know one thing with pretty great confidence. If the guns were real, the youths had a history as bad actors, and/or evidence came forward that they did in fact plan to rob the place... this discussion would have ended a LONG time ago. It's the "feelings" that seem to be delving much more deeply into discussion than is generally typical.

It's a very interesting mental exercise though. As for the actual details of the case that have come out so far, they are at best... crap, contradictory... and not "fitting the narrative" I don't expect we'll ever really learn much more about what really happened. Maybe during the guys trial(?) I kinda doubt that will make the news either though.

The only final thought. Is the guy gonna be convicted? Ya betcha!

 

[Catfishmoon]

For a more educated opinion, the local 2A YouTube attorney has now posted a video regarding his views on this incident.
His thoughts do not appear to support any legal standing on the part of the shooter.

View: https://youtu.be/Nprnk73wfww?si=6PSMb_IIDLiSs4mu

 

[Yarome]

In his analogy he wrote 'robbing' which is an actual crimes in progress and not the topic here. The incident I am referring to is the one that really happened were there was no crime in progress

@Koda When you're being gaslighted into a separate discussion to convolute the issue at hand.. that has been carefully constructed to elicit only a single desired determination... simply to fuel debate for the sake of debating... it is imperative that you stay within the confines of the construct you have been presented.

Deviation from the confines of that construct is not allowed!

 

[Koda]

His thoughts do not appear to support any legal standing on the part of the shooter.

His thoughts also entirely left out the other gun and other person. Hes also flat out wrong, the mall cop did not shoot the first guy who complied.

 

[Certaindeaf]

For a more educated opinion, the local 2A YouTube attorney has now posted a video regarding his views on this incident.
His thoughts do not appear to support any legal standing on the part of the shooter.

View: https://youtu.be/Nprnk73wfww?si=6PSMb_IIDLiSs4mu

Certainly didn't click on that lip flapper.
A simple litmus test would be what would he say had the guns been loaded firearms.
All guns are real and they are all loaded unless somehow proven otherwise and it hasn't left your sight since that proving.

 

[Koda]

A simple litmus test would be what would he say had the guns been loaded firearms.

gol darn you just summed up 10 pages of what Ive been trying to say in one sentence.

 

[Yarome]

His thoughts also entirely left out the other gun and other person. Hes also flat out wrong, the mall cop did not shoot the first guy who complied.

There are so many versions going around in the news outlets... I'm not surprised. I didn't watch yet, but I can image.

One account, the video showed both kids dropped their guns. One says the mans firearm was pointed at the ground when approaching. Another says his gun was pointed directly at the youths.

All of those accounts were reported as coming from a police officer involved in the investigation. I'm no genius, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say... someone's got their facts wrong.

 

[HA556]

Certainly didn't click on that lip flapper.

Yeah, I can't stand that guy either! After hearing him run his mouth one time, it was enough to avoid any video from him from then on!