Welcome to America, where you can brandish a firearm at “illegals” and be notably intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle (but “not to the point of being unable to drive”, which makes it all fine) after following them to their place of work, and get off with a citation. Then, because you’re terrified of losing your firearms potent symbols of manhood, you go back to their employer’s house and kill their employer, then go back home and kill yourself with a different handgun (presumably, he was out of bullets in the first gun after murdering a man by shooting him multiple times for the crime of hiring Latinos).
10 Likes
Holy shit! “A judgement call that didn’t work out?” Letting a drunk (but not that drunk?) dude point a gun at people, and give him a stern talking to, then let him drive away, that "judgement call? " Not sure the other case cited in tbe article, “racked a shotgun and pressed it against his wifes back, but he didn’t fire” is any better. WTF is it with cops? If he were black or brown, i would guess tbe outcome would have been somewhat different…
15 Likes
*sighs
This IS America.
12 Likes
remember, safety first–
12 Likes
If only there were a national organization whose stated mission is to teach firearm safety.
11 Likes
I thought the US had that, and it would be called “military service”?
Do I need to /s?
I better /s, don’t I.
/s
2 Likes
They cite that case as an example where the person was arrested. In contrast to this case.
As in those cases people were arrested for felonies whereas this guy was cited but not arrested for a misdemeanour.
Which undermines the Sheriff’s claim that arresting him for a misdemeanour wouldn’t have changed anything since he could have been arrested for a felony and had his weapons taken away pending trial.
It’s one of those wonderful situations where you have a specific law he could be charged under, i.e. RCW.9.41.270
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
and a more general one, i.e. 9A.36.021 (c ) assault with a deadly weapon.
(1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first degree:
[snip]
(c ) Assaults another with a deadly weapon;
Which does the officer choose?
Answer: whichever he feels like at the time depending on whether he wants the alleged perp to be in real trouble vs. “I can’t be bothered with the paperwork”/“He’s just a good 'ole boy who’s letting off a bit of steam”.
Or alternatively, the officer may be taken in by the frankly staggering number of alleged lawyers’ websites claiming that assault under Washington State law requires physical contact.
Which appears to be flat out wrong.
But saying “My officer is an idiot who doesn’t know the law” or “My officerwas too lazy/bigoted to arrest the criminal” doesn’t sound as good as “We make life and death decisions every day. Sometimes we get it wrong.”
The latter is so much more macho.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
