If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[VinnieBoomBah]

I respect your opinion but disagree it is unreasonable to try to prevent a store from being robbed or shot up.

It's not an 'opinion'. It's the law in WA that you can not shoot someone because they COULD commit a crime. If they had been in the store and actively robbing it the story would be different.

But they weren't and he just decided like they looked like they might. Under WA law that isn't enough

 

[MotoManGunner]

By all means anyone who wants to follow this fool to prison? Have at it. As I have long said this fantasy that many have they are going to be hero will never happen for them. What can and does happen is at best they get a shoot out started and someone other than the dobads get hit. Either by the hero's bullets or dobads bullets, or both. This guy is going to prison, anyone who wants to believe when they do this it will work out different? Hope you like living on the states dime for a good while because you are going to get to see how fun it is.
Now for those with this fantasy if they move to a place where this is far more likely to not get them in a jam? Then they may get to live it out but, living in a heavy blue area? Just not going to go the way they dream about and they will be used by people who want none of us to have guns as a poster child.

Or they get what happened to John Hurley...

 

[lucusloc]

I respect your opinion but disagree it is unreasonable to try to prevent a store from being robbed or shot up.

I never said it was. I said I don't think it was reasonable for him to presume that was what was going to happen before it did. There were lots of other reasonable situations it could have been as well, including the one reported in the original story. All he had when he charged in was kids being stupid. He presumed all the illegalities from there, without checking his preconceptions against other more benign possibilities. (Again, assuming everything reported is accurate).

Are there situations where it could be justified to shoot a stupid kid with a realistic airsoft gun? Absolutely, as you have no way of knowing if it is real or not. But that will entirely hinge on the reasonable perception that the kid is an active and deadly threat to you or someone else. As in present tense, not future tense. The guy was thinking future tense, but acting in the present tense, and that is what got him into this mess.

 

[Yarome]

IMHO we can speculate from dawn to dusk but, the fact of the matter is that he should have dialed 911 and reported. Cops right there already even though he didn't know, could have saved a life and him landing in the Hoosegow possibly for the rest of his life! Jacked up situation all around!

Yeah. That could be a hard call in the moment. He likely had no idea LEO's were in the near vicinity or any reason to believe that they would actually be the ones to receive the call from dispatch... if they were already involved in a high priority encounter.

The whole, "Cops are only minutes away when seconds matter" thing generally holds water. In a great many situations, an incident can be over long before you can even complete a 911 call. In the case where an immediate threat is perceived, I can understand why some folks might not consider that as their "step 1".

 

[Koda]

It's not an 'opinion'. It's the law in WA that you can not shoot someone because they COULD commit a crime. If they had been in the store and actively robbing it the story would be different.

But they weren't and he just decided like they looked like they might. Under WA law that isn't enough

I honestly don't know why so many here are entirely missing the story and timeline of events even as reported. Its lawful to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger, even if your wrong (airsoft replica). This is not a case about if they could commit a crime, this is a 100% self defense case the second the second gun was presented, and if it was reasonable to believe the second gun was real and a threat.

Now before anyone accuses me of defending the mall cop, I think his case is lost if it turns out its true the kids stated it was an airsoft gun. Though I am uncertain its reasonable to expect him to believe them in the middle of all that.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I honestly don't know why so many here are entirely missing the story and timeline of events even as reported. Its lawful to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger, even if your wrong (airsoft replica). This is not a case about if they could commit a crime, this is a 100% self defense case the second the second gun was presented, and if it was reasonable to believe the second gun was real and a threat.

Now before anyone accuses me of defending the mall cop, I think his case is lost if it turns out its true the kids stated it was an airsoft gun. Though I am uncertain its reasonable to expect him to believe them in the middle of all that.

The only reason his "life was in danger"(sic) was because he got out of his car and confronted them. He is the one that instigated the confrontation and you can't claim self defence for a fight you start and nothing in WA law, or even common sense, supports what he did
I know you say you aren't defending him, but continuing to call the airsoft toy a 'gun' and act like his life was in mortal danger is such an odd hill to pick to die on. The video confirms he lied to the cops, the kids complied with what he told them to do and the kid didn't reach for the airsoft pistol

 

[lucusloc]

The only reason his "life was in danger"(sic) was because he got out of his car and confronted them. He is the one that instigated the confrontation and you can't claim self defence for a fight you start and nothing in WA law, or even common sense, supports what he did
I know you say you aren't defending him, but continuing to call the airsoft toy a 'gun' and act like his life was in mortal danger is such an odd hill to pick to die on. The video confirms he lied to the cops, the kids complied with what he told them to do and the kid didn't reach for the airsoft pistol

And it does not even matter to boot, because there was not justification to even be there. Hell, the kids would have had a better self defense claim than he did, and that is even taking into account their own stupidity in handling real-looking toys. As I said before you do not get to claim innocence mid way through an altercation when you could not claim it at the start, and I just do not see how he has a reasonable claim at the start. And since there is no reasonable claim at the start it does not matter what other details and nuance he thinks he has mid way through, or even if he thinks "shoot, now my life is in danger!" because it would not have been if he had not started the situation in the first place.

Now (again again) things could be different if the details were different. If the kids rolled up on him, if the kids were making threatening gestures towards others with the fake guns, if if if. But he does not get those ifs, he gets what the situation actually was, and there is no there there for him to hide behind. He misread a situation, acted on bad intel that he cobbled together from his own imagination and killed an innocent kid over it. Pretty much end of story for him, and we should all use this situation to check our own preconceived biases and reevaluate how we would and should act in similar circumstances. No one likes to find out they are the villain when they think they are the hero.

 

[Yarome]

It's not an 'opinion'. It's the law in WA that you can not shoot someone because they COULD commit a crime. If they had been in the store and actively robbing it the story would be different.

But they weren't and he just decided like they looked like they might. Under WA law that isn't enough

That's not entirely accurate. There can be reasonable presumption.

IE., A guy walking toward the door of a school with an open firearm in his hand... there is reasonable presumption of an imminent threat and deadly force may be justified. A person doesn't have to WAIT until they enter the building and start killing kids before deadly force is justified.

Or, Just like in this case. A teen in illegal possession of a handgun in his hand is considered to already be in active commission of a crime... and heading toward the door of a store, there is a reasonable presumption of an imminent and deadly threat.

 

[lucusloc]

That's not entirely accurate. There can be reasonable presumption.

IE., A guy walking toward the door of a school with an open firearm in his hand... there is reasonable presumption of an imminent threat and deadly force may be justified. A person doesn't have to WAIT until they enter the building and start killing kids before deadly force is justified.

Or, Just like in this case. A teen in illegal possession of a handgun in his hand is considered to already be in active commission of a crime... and heading toward the door of a store, there is a reasonable presumption of an imminent and deadly threat.

And if that was a plain-cloths or RSO carrying in a firearm to their office? Sure you could argue they should have bagged it, but you still don't get to presume malice when none is on display. There has to be reasonable and articuable justification for the presumption of ill intent, and in pretty much every case that is going to be more than "has gun, must shoot!"

I think that is what everyone is missing here. Other than just the gun, was there any other indication that a robbery or other illegal action was about to happen? Because if it were just the gun then that is not enough to presume malice over stupidity (even if it is a real gun). That is absolutely justification to call 911 to report the stupidity, and maybe present the concern that that stupidity will translate into malice shortly, but absent other telling details that is not justification to act (Unless, possibly, you are willing to act on the presumption that it is just stupidity, tell them to put it away and accept the risk they will turn hostile and give you absolute justification to defend yourself. But you have to evaluate if you are willing to take that risk. As for me I think that is what we pay cops for, and they can deal with the stupid with better tools and legal protection.)

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

A teen in illegal possession of a handgun in his hand is considered to already be in active commission of a crime

He wasn't a 'teen in illegal blah bla blah" he was a teen walking on the sidewalk with his friends. The only presumption was in the shooters head, and I'm going bet the 'why he presumed that' will be a big issue at his trial

 

[L84Cabo]

Is it reasonable to assume a "realistic" gun is a real gun?

This is what the trial will come down to.

I believe it is. Cops do it all the time. Given what I've seen reported so far, I would say his initial reaction to seeing three kids walking with a realistic looking gun out in the open, and assuming they were going to cause harm, was reasonable. This could have just as easily been the start of a mass shooting.

It's what happened next after that initial contact that is probably going to be the determining factor. Hopefully there's some security video from the mall.

 

[Koda]

He wasn't a 'teen in illegal blah bla blah" he was a teen walking on the sidewalk with his friends.

I read he was walking into a store with a gun in hand.

but continuing to call the airsoft toy a 'gun' and act like his life was in mortal danger is such an odd hill to pick to die on.

Its not my hill but it has been supported in case law many times that a replica, or even a toy gun is reasonable to believe its a real gun. Its very odd that many here after all the cases discussed dont know this.

 

[Koda]

That's not entirely accurate. There can be reasonable presumption.

IE., A guy walking toward the door of a school with an open firearm in his hand... there is reasonable presumption of an imminent threat and deadly force may be justified. A person doesn't have to WAIT until they enter the building and start killing kids before deadly force is justified.

Or, Just like in this case. A teen in illegal possession of a handgun in his hand is considered to already be in active commission of a crime... and heading toward the door of a store, there is a reasonable presumption of an imminent and deadly threat.

100% accurate and worth repeating for this thread.

 

[Koda]

I believe it is. Cops do it all the time. Given what I've seen reported so far, I would say his initial reaction to seeing three kids walking with a realistic looking gun out in the open, and assuming they were going to cause harm, was reasonable. This could have just as easily been the start of a mass shooting.

It's what happened next after that initial contact that is probably going to be the determining factor. Hopefully there's some security video from the mall.

also 100% accurate and worth repeating.

Yesterday I read the mall cops story didn't align with other evidence, he claimed the victim reached for a gun. Yesterday the media didn't state the victim had a gun. Today I learned he did have a gun. That changes, everything.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Hopefully there's some security video from the mall.

There is and it contradicts the story he told the cops.

Or proves he lied to them, take your pick

 

[Yarome]

He wasn't a 'teen in illegal blah bla blah" he was a teen walking on the sidewalk with his friends. The only presumption was in the shooters head, and I'm going bet the 'why he presumed that' will be a big issue at his trial

Jumping to the last page in the book is irrelevant. But nice try!

Ultimately he was not, but that doesn't change the fact that there would have absolutely been reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed and a reasonable assumption that an imminent threat may exist. There is no question he would have been confronted and detained for further investigation.

There is no law that would prohibit intervention until the youths were actively engaged in robbing the place... as you contended. Period.

 

[L84Cabo]

also 100% accurate and worth repeating.

Yesterday I read the mall cops story didn't align with other evidence, he claimed the victim reached for a gun. Yesterday the media didn't state the victim had a gun. Today I learned he did have a gun. That changes, everything.

If the kid did reach for the gun, it begs the question, "why in the hell would the kid do that?"

Was it just a dumb panicked reaction, was he trying to disarm himself to show he wasn't a threat or something, or was he going to go against a real gun with an airsoft gun?

There seems to be a lot of dumb parents in this situation...multiple kids with multiple realistic looking guns out in public. How do parents not understand the risks of this with all the kids that have been shot with toy guns over the years?

Also, what is the law about carrying a concealed airsoft gun? Does anyone know? Does the law consider this a concealed weapon?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

If the kid did reach for the gun, it begs the question, "why in the hell would the kid do that?"

Per the police after they watched the video he didn't 'reach for the gun' He lowered his right arm but they didn't say he reached for it

 

[lucusloc]

There is no law that would prohibit intervention until the youths were actively engaged in robbing the place... as you contended. Period.

But there kinda is: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/if-you-carry-do-not-be-this-idiot.483813/post-3880194

 

[Koda]

But there kinda is: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/if-you-carry-do-not-be-this-idiot.483813/post-3880194

This is not a crime prevention case, this is only a self defense case.