If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Koda]

Isn't it though? He had the gun in his hand, but in no other way was acting as if something was going down. Just carrying it (into the store where he got it from). Stupid way to carry a gun sure (even a fake one), but not in and of itself enough to establish criminal intent.

Its not an equal analogy but that trend back then did land some open carry coffee drinkers with charges so its not unreasonable to think they were a threat.

 

[Koda]

So what else were the 3 teenagers doing to justify presumeing malice over stupidity?

I think we have covered this at least two times now. Its not unreasonable to think teens carrying a gun in hand into a store which is illegal, about to commit a crime.

 

[Catfishmoon]

IE., Which seems the better fit?

A. I need to return/exchange my airsoft so I'm going to walk into the store with what most onlookers will likely assume is a handgun in my hand. My buddy is going to walk up to the return desk, reach under his shirt and draw what looks like a handgun out of his waistband to present it for return/repair.

B. We're going to rob the place. I want everyone immediately intimidated by seeing a "gun" in my hand.. and my buddy is carrying his in the preferred method of "bad actors" so it's readily accessible to draw as an additional intimidation factor when everything kicks off.

I choose option A as the most likely.

I don't think that a lot of 17 year olds have the point of recognition, that as they are returning a defective airsoft pistol to the place of purchase, that there are complete strangers who may mistake it for a firearm and decide they have a legal right to accost them with their own firearm if they view it. I don't think the average 17 year old understands all of the dangers they face from bad guys, let alone realizes the consequences of a miscalculation by a supposed good guy.

We may never see it factually reported in the future as this case fades with time, but the proof would be if there is any record of him having purchased an airsoft pistol at a Big 5 Store. I suspect that info will eventually end up in a police file.

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


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.

I think you are correct if that firearm replica is being represented as real and is being used in a crime. But at the point of this encounter, had any crime occurred?
Walking into a gun store (Big 5) where you purchased an airsoft pistol, with it in your hand to return or exchange it, may be careless, but to my knowledge it is not illegal.

I guess this is the sort of situation where an individual who has the ability pays a large sum of money to an experienced trial attorney in the hope they can portray it to the jury favorably. But my guess is Washington State self defense laws are not in his favor and local law enforcement will be on the side of the deceased.

In most of this discussion I think we have overlooked the permanent cost to the individuals and families involved. One family lost a son, two teenagers who were with him will now go through life having witnessed their friend shot.
The shooter's own teenage son was reported as inside a neighboring business at the time of this incident, imagine coming outside to this and the effect on the rest of his life, along with the rest of his family. If the shooter worked as a security guard he probably has limited financial resources, but they now face many years of potential civil lawsuits from all the other families involved.

This is the type of scenario that a responsible gun owner really wants to avoid.

 

[Catfishmoon]

I wouldn't be surprised to find local 2A attorney and YouTube personality Washington Gun Law channel doing a segment on this incident in the near future because of all the local coverage and discussion in the firearm community. It would be interesting to learn the thoughts of a lawyer who specializes in both the second amendment and the self-defense laws of Washington State.

 

[Alexx1401]

I wouldn't be surprised to find local 2A attorney and YouTube personality Washington Gun Law channel doing a segment on this incident in the near future because of all the local coverage and discussion in the firearm community. It would be interesting to learn the thoughts of a lawyer who specializes in both the second amendment and the self-defense laws of Washington State.

If that guy does do one on it he will be saying something along the lines of "don't be this moron". If he does the people desperately trying to find an out for this guy due to them having the same fantasy will ignore that too.

 

[Yarome]

I choose option A as the most likely.


But at the point of this encounter, had any crime occurred?
Walking into a gun store (Big 5) where you purchased an airsoft pistol, with it in your hand to return or exchange it, may be careless, but to my knowledge it is not illegal.

I understand human nature to want to default to assuming the very best of someone, especially when a tragedy has befallen them, but I guess I tend to take a very pragmatic view of things, regardless.

It may be true all three were completely innocent, good natured and stupid as a rock youths that simply didn't stop to think of the potential consequences of their actions. Carrying a play gun in your waistband doesn't just "happen", but might have just been because it seemed like a convenient place to carry it from the car into the store... because that's what they do in the movies.

(Of course, in the movies, it's typically "bad guys" that carry their guns like that, but let's ignore that small detail.)

On the other hand, they were 17-ish. An age category known to be high risk for criminal or gang related activity. It's just as likely, to me, that the youths were not exactly all that innocent and were purposely using airsoft guns in an attempt to live out some kind of wanna-be thug life fantasy. Carrying it in his waistband was his "norm" to amp his own bravado and/or use it as a means of intimidation if those around him had seen it and believed he was "strapped'. "Street cred" is real.

Carrying a toy/airsoft in your waistband isn't 'normal' practice when you aren't actively participating in an airsoft match. Even for a youth. It's also not a natural place to carry any object you are taking into a store to return.

By the show of hands, who in their lifetime has ever tucked any object inside their pants to carry it from their car to the store they plan to return it to? Maybe that's a common American thing I'm just not aware of(?)

I'm just saying... there might just be a bit of a FAFO element to it all. I mean... I'm one that isn't at all ruling out the possibility that they were in fact planning to rob the place. I've seen no evidence that indicated they actually had bought their airsofts there nor that either of the toys were indeed malfunctioning as claimed. Nothing that corroborates their story, and we likely never will.

I don't know which is true, but when facts are not known, discounting any other possibility in favor of the narrative that best fits what I "want" to believe(?) Let alone venomously making an entire argument based on a fundamental narrative which I can't possibly know to be true(?) I just don't get it.


The, did they commit any crime question:
Again, that's skipping to the end of the book, but ultimately they were committing no crime. Agreed. Does that matter? Not in the least. For all intents and purposes, a teenager (a prohibited person) carrying what genuinely appears to be a handgun in their hand in public will absolutely be presumed to be committing a crime pending further investigation.

There is not a single LEO that would see that and say, "well, they are clearly underage so it's gotta be a toy and as long as they aren't pointing it at anyone or acting aggressively... that's perfectly fine." That's simply not reality and not gonna happen. They will be detained and treated exactly as if it was a real firearm... until determined otherwise.

 

[Yarome]

If that guy does do one on it he will be saying something along the lines of "don't be this moron". If he does the people desperately trying to find an out for this guy due to them having the same fantasy will ignore that too.

 

[bradsteen]

Some strong opinions and good points in this thread. Curious if any other behaviors were exhibited by the teens that made him think they were going to rob the place. It definitely sounds sketchy to me for a couple adolescents (nearly adults) to have gun-like items shoved in their pants as they go to enter a place of business. Also wondering if the kids have priors, which you'd think we would have heard about by now.

 

[thekingoftroy]

I understand human nature to want to default to assuming the very best of someone, especially when a tragedy has befallen them, but I guess I tend to take a very pragmatic view of things, regardless.

It may be true all three were completely innocent, good natured and stupid as a rock youths that simply didn't stop to think of the potential consequences of their actions. Carrying a play gun in your waistband doesn't just "happen", but might have just been because it seemed like a convenient place to carry it from the car into the store... because that's what they do in the movies.

(Of course, in the movies, it's typically "bad guys" that carry their guns like that, but let's ignore that small detail.)

On the other hand, they were 17-ish. An age category known to be high risk for criminal or gang related activity. It's just as likely, to me, that the youths were not exactly all that innocent and were purposely using airsoft guns in an attempt to live out some kind of wanna-be thug life fantasy. Carrying it in his waistband was his "norm" to amp his own bravado and/or use it as a means of intimidation if those around him had seen it and believed he was "strapped'. "Street cred" is real.

Carrying a toy/airsoft in your waistband isn't 'normal' practice when you aren't actively participating in an airsoft match. Even for a youth. It's also not a natural place to carry any object you are taking into a store to return.

By the show of hands, who in their lifetime has ever tucked any object inside their pants to carry it from their car to the store they plan to return it to? Maybe that's a common American thing I'm just not aware of(?)

I'm just saying... there might just be a bit of a FAFO element to it all. I mean... I'm one that isn't at all ruling out the possibility that they were in fact planning to rob the place. I've seen no evidence that indicated they actually had bought their airsofts there nor that either of the toys were indeed malfunctioning as claimed. Nothing that corroborates their story, and we likely never will.

I don't know which is true, but when facts are not known, discounting any other possibility in favor of the narrative that best fits what I "want" to believe(?) Let alone venomously making an entire argument based on a fundamental narrative which I can't possibly know to be true(?) I just don't get it.


The, did they commit any crime question:
Again, that's skipping to the end of the book, but ultimately they were committing no crime. Agreed. Does that matter? Not in the least. For all intents and purposes, a teenager (a prohibited person) carrying what genuinely appears to be a handgun in their hand in public will absolutely be presumed to be committing a crime pending further investigation.

There is not a single LEO that would see that and say, "well, they are clearly underage so it's gotta be a toy and as long as they aren't pointing it at anyone or acting aggressively... that's perfectly fine." That's simply not reality and not gonna happen. They will be detained and treated exactly as if it was a real firearm... until determined otherwise.

When I was a cop I was in this exact situation. I was working a Super Bowl Sunday and got a report of a man with a gun in a strip mall. The reporting party said that they saw a young male stick a handgun in his pants and start walking towards a very popular kids hangout. I was close enough that I intercepted him before he made it inside. Proned him out at gunpoint and detained him.

Turned out he had just purchased the realistic looking air soft gun (Beretta 92) at a hobby store in the strip mall. Tossed the box in the trash, tucked the gun in his pants and was walking to find his girlfriend.

Any reasonable person who didn't see the interaction at the hobby store or him tossing the box in the trash would just see a guy placing a gun in is waistband and walk towards a place very populated with children. Calling the police was a reasonable response. Shooting the subject would not be a reasonable response.

 

[Camelfilter]

When I was a cop I was in this exact situation. I was working a Super Bowl Sunday and got a report of a man with a gun in a strip mall. The reporting party said that they saw a young male stick a handgun in his pants and start walking towards a very popular kids hangout. I was close enough that I intercepted him before he made it inside. Proned him out at gunpoint and detained him.

Turned out he had just purchased the realistic looking air soft gun (Beretta 92) at a hobby store in the strip mall. Tossed the box in the trash, tucked the gun in his pants and was walking to find his girlfriend.

Any reasonable person who didn't see the interaction at the hobby store or him tossing the box in the trash would just see a guy placing a gun in is waistband and walk towards a place very populated with children. Calling the police was a reasonable response. Shooting the subject would not be a reasonable response.

If he didn't comply & reached for it?

 

[RobMa]

"51-year-old suspect assumed the victim was about to commit armed robbery"

KOMO + Renton + King county = far left slant

Entire article reeks of it regardless of what happened...

 

[thekingoftroy]

If he didn't comply & reached for it?

He would have been shot.

 

[Koda]

He would have been shot.

And thats what happened in this story, he appeared to reach for it.

Your story actually validated intervention.

 

[thekingoftroy]

And thats what happened in this story, he appeared to reach for it.

Your story actually validated intervention.

I was in more than one of these situations in 20 years. Right or wrong the issue boils down to reasonable belief. If he had a "reasonable" belief that there was a violent crime about to be committed and a "reasonable" belief that someone was reaching for a weapon and his life or someone else's life was in imminent danger he could be found not guilty.

Now statements provided to the police that conflict with other evidence isn't helpful in his case. But at least in a police officers case there is a reason why they do not conduct an interview right away. People who have been in a traumatic event do not alway remember details in a linear timeline and often leave out important details because they don't remember them right away.

Not saying that this guy had any of those issues and am not defending his actions. I'm trying to look at it objectively given the only details are coming from a news outlet.

 

[Koda]

I was in more than one of these situations in 20 years. Right or wrong the issue boils down to reasonable belief. If he had a "reasonable" belief that there was a violent crime about to be committed and a "reasonable" belief that someone was reaching for a weapon and his life or someone else's life was in imminent danger he could be found not guilty.

Now statements provided to the police that conflict with other evidence isn't helpful in his case. But at least in a police officers case there is a reason why they do not conduct an interview right away. People who have been in a traumatic event do not alway remember details in a linear timeline and often leave out important details because they don't remember them right away.

Not saying that this guy had any of those issues and am not defending his actions. I'm trying to look at it objectively given the only details are coming from a news outlet.

Exactly 100% agree, and that is all I'm trying to say too. I don't understand how others here are not seeing the full story and leaving out the evidence of the other gun. You detained a guy for the same exact thing, it is not an unreasonable action. The media is not going to publish any evidence that supports the armed citizen either.
Im baffled at this threads confusion especially in a forum dedicated to pro gun self defense.

 

[RVTECH]

Im baffled at this threads confusion especially in a forum dedicated to pro gun self defense.

I am still baffled why not only did he not call 911, but with LEOs already in the parking lot and as previously reported 'were able to respond in seconds after the shooting' which indicates to me he knew they were there and could have got their attention pretty easily it seems.

Also isn't there a difference between verifiable 'self defense' when one is being threatened with the 'attacker' displaying the elements of intent, capability and opportunity - and that in this case where Meyers precipitated (and probably aggravated) the situation by approaching the teens who were NOT initially threatening him? - OR anyone else at the time?

It seems to me he is carrying a big part of the burden with this given all he has is 'assumption' and 'thought' they were going to rob the store.

Also what if (hypothetical situation) the teens had simply ignored him and walked away? They had no legal bounds to comply with anything Meyers commanded them to do as he is not an LEO.

 

[Koda]

I am still baffled why not only did he not call 911, but with LEOs already in the parking lot and as previously reported 'were able to respond in seconds after the shooting' which indicates to me he knew they were there and could have got their attention pretty easily it seems.

Also isn't there a difference between verifiable 'self defense' when one is being threatened with the 'attacker' displaying the elements of intent, capability and opportunity - and that in this case where Meyers precipitated (and probably aggravated) the situation by approaching the teens who were NOT initially threatening him? - OR anyone else at the time?

It seems to me he is carrying a big part of the burden with this given all he has is 'assumption' and 'thought' they were going to rob the store.

I have not read anywhere, yet, that he did in fact know there were officers immediately nearby.

We have covered the assumption of a crime topic here a few times its going circular. Some think its unreasonable to assume a guy walking into a store with a gun in hand is about to commit a crime, some do not think that assumption is unreasonable. The thread doesn't have a consensus on that topic.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I have not read anywhere, yet, that he did in fact know there were officers immediately nearby.

We have covered the assumption of a crime topic here a few times its going circular. Some think its unreasonable to assume a guy walking into a store with a gun in hand is about to commit a crime, some do not think that assumption is unreasonable. The thread doesn't have a consensus on that topic.

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

 

[Koda]

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

We haven't clarified that answer.
To add to the confusion the side here that believes the answer is no is basing that on the mistake of the guy with the gun in hand as a bad guy. To me, thats a totally separate incident once the second gun was presented. Thats based on my understanding of separate charges, two events can happen simultaneously (short version).

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

We haven't clarified that answer.
To add to the confusion the side here that believes the answer is no is basing that on the mistake of the guy with the gun in hand as a bad guy. To me, thats a totally separate incident once the second gun was presented. Thats based on my understanding of separate charges, two events can happen simultaneously (short version).

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