well that's weird. wonder how he got her to do that

i'm starving.

@1 - If he ended up hitting her, I can almost guarantee that he'd been psychologically abusing her for the entire duration of their relationship. It probably didn't take much persuasion on his part to convince her to do it.

fucking classic.

sounds like my ex-brother in law. except we took his hunting rifles away 1st thing when he cracked.

Both chilling and heartrending. Does Seattle's criminal justice and social services network follow anything like the Duluth Model for domestic violence situations?

Or...she was being threatened by an abuser who, for some rediculous reason, has permits to carry concealed weapons. I might recant to save myself from getting shot too.

man that is something else

@4 - evidently not.

This guy reminds me of an angry kid I knew way back when, the last time I spoke to him was over a decade ago, as I was pulling him off the ex-girlfriend he was beating. Thankfully, she pressed charges and by thirdhand accounts he seems to have gotten his shit more-or-less together as a result. I keep my distance from him, anyway, because I still don't trust him.

According to Golob it's "inhumane" to warehouse these types. It's actually inhumane to the general public to have drooling lunatics collecting firearms and yelling at them on street corners. The types that blame Reagan for setting them all free are the same ones who'd blow a gasket if if you tried to put them back where where they belong.

Rather than being threatened into recanting her testimony, I'm guessing that he was subsequently on better behavior, her wounds healed, and the only thing remaining was the prospect of testifying against her boyfriend. At the time, it probably seemed easier to just make it all go away than to actually go through with it. I'm sure that's a very common scenario, and even more so when the couple is married, kids are involved, etc.

@5
Prosection for domestic violence takes away your right to posses firearms pending and during prosecution. A conviction, or being found innocent by reason of insanity takes that right away outright. Had she prosecuted, 6 people who are dead today might be alive today. I blame her for this.

Heartbreaking.

I'm a 911 dispatcher and I hear these types of calls regularly. I hear what these victims are suffering - as they are experiencing it. And it simply breaks my heart to read about this outcome for the female victim. Domestic violence is so sickening.

So here's one person who could have made a move toward prevention of further violence out of the guy, and she lied in order to avoid doing so. That's sad.

Well that was a revolting read. @11 is correct.

You blame HER for this? You blame a disempowered domestic violence survivor for a mentally ill man's killing rampage four years later? I blame the criminal justice system. And the state for gutting social service programs. And anti-gun control lunatics who think a guy's right to carry a gun trumps anyone else's right to have a damn cup of coffee on a Wednesday morning without being SHOT.

@11: I hate to blame a victim, but she subsequently lied to police. You are right. If he would have been convicted of the felony, he would have had to surrender his guns and would have had to get some sort of treatment for his anger problems.

@10 I don't blame her, she was just an early victim. But, I doubt his behavior improved for more than a week and a half. My heart goes out to all abuse victims, but there is no denying it- they put up with stuff like this endlessly.

Yes, 11, 14 and 17. I'm sure she wasn't the least bit fearful that if she prosecuted him and failed (or even succeeded) he'd come back and try to kill her.

This is a horrible tragedy, but she's a victim here, not a perpetrator.

As the parent of a child with mental health issues, I wish people would quit saying this guy was "mentally ill", at least until there is further evidence to support that statement. Was he hearing voices? Did he have delusional beliefs that pushed him into violent behavior? Or was he just another angry, abusive, gun-loving man who knew exactly what he was doing? I also find it curious, in a disturbing way, that those who knew him say that his issues escalated in the last five years, which corresponds to the beginning of the last presidential election season. Based on his father's Facebook page, there were ideas floating around in his family about "socialism" and "liberals" that may underpin his rage-filled act against society. But that doesn't make him mentally ill, and it's unfair to those who struggle every day to live a better life despite a debilitating illness to use that label to explain his actions.

Seriously - what a bunch of cowards to blame this woman. Yes, she played a role but seriously blame the girls when the boys go wrong. Grow the fuck up. Will a girl be responsible if you go off the deep end and does not stop you? There is a whole lot of blame to go around here. Look to the parents, (who knows, maybe they were abusive), work our way down, around and put a lot of blame on him. A whole lot goes into these mental health issues. Don't be so simple minded. And if you have any idea how awful it can be to testify against someone for a non DV offense then you would certainly understand the situation of DV victims. The only way to get out of testifying is to recant once the prosecutor takes on a case. And plenty of people who have DV convictions get guns by the way. Holy fucking shit blaming her is just dumb.

All that has really been said so far is that he became violently angry in recent years...which does not necessarily equal mentally ill, but he needed help nonetheless. And I will refrain from blaming the DV victim but I hope this is a lesson to future DV victims to not recant and to be brave enough to pursue a conviction.

#20 Thank you! It is doubtful this guy’s issues started in the last few years and maybe he was mentally ill, but who knows. For some reason the guy’s sister in New Zealand started looking for attorneys yesterday to defend the family from law suits. That was fast. It is really unfortunate that they guys siblings think there is a need to do this but it does raise some questions.

I can't blame the DV victim. I spent years working with them. Unless you've been there, then you have no idea of the physical, emotional, and psychological abuse they suffer. Most believe that their life is dependent upon their backing down. And for some that still does not save them. Having stood among the families and friends who have buried their daughter/ sister / friend you will have to take my word for it. I'll tell you that the last one we laid to rest was but 22 years old. Point blank in the face. DOA on arrival.

A person who believes themselves above the law can't be controlled. You can take the weapons, but he can find the replacement.

All who attempt to blame her on this thread make me very sad. I hope you never find yourself in her shoes.

Seems like there's too much jumping to conclusions.

A person can be violent "crazy" and still have an agenda...like a gangster.

He knew these people, I think, what were the interpersonal issues.

How did he support himself...was he part of any other criminal activity. What about the other players...drugs...money...romantic relationships and so on.

We're only looking at the surface...have no idea what was going on in a group of people who had history going back years.

@1 i made a huge pizza from not one but two frozen packets of dough from Whole Foods. Basil, oregano, crushed red peppers -- it was delicious man.

was she 31 at the time?

@ 11 - aside from what everyone else has said, victims of crimes do not decide whether or not a crime is prosecuted - it's up to the prosecuting attorney. When a victim recants testimony, that may make it more difficult for the prosecutor to prove their case, but it is still their decision whether or not they are going to prosecute the case.

My god, are our domestic violence laws that week in this state? Other states I know don't rely on the victim/partner to press charges, the state presses charges. Domestic abuse victims frequently recant their testimony which is why many states enacted tougher domestic violence laws in which an abuser can still be prosecuted, especially if there is physical evidence supporting violence. How many other domestic violence cases like this are dismissed? Why don't courts order psych evaluations of both parties in domestic cases like this? And certainly order suspects to not be allowed to possess guns.

As a person who owns and carries a firearm, I hope nobody thinks that criminalizing firearm ownership is the answer. That being said, with his history of DV, this man had no business owning a firearm, sadly someone willing to commit acts such as this probably won't have a problem illegally obtaining a gun.

@28: The victim in this case not only recanted but made claims that would throw reasonable doubt to a jury (claimed no assaults had ever occurred, claimed a nosebleed instead of assault, claimed not to have called police, and claimed minimal damage). There is no way a jury would convict even with a police officer testifying to the contrary.

There is no constitutional way to restrict an individuals right to possess firearms without due process. If there was no crime or charges pending, then the only other way to restrict firearms would be an involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital (Ref RCW 9.41.040). Domestic violence meets the requirements to order an involuntary commitment, but usually domestic violence offenders are handled through the criminal justice system instead of the mental health system. Perhaps because of these murders both should be applied simultaneously. Another option would be to revise the law so that firearms are restricted when someone is simply charged with a violent offense until they can prove themselves competent to possess them. It would be tough to sell on its constitutionality unless firearms were considered a privileged granted to people by the state.

@20 crazy is as crazy does.

@20 crazy is as crazy does

Since cities can't have more restrictive gun laws than the state, I propose that the city of Seattle start handing out free handguns to anyone in WA with an address outside of Seattle (preferably with a hostpry of arrests for violent acts) until the rest of the state politicians are willing to bring some sanity to the gun laws, like closing private party sale loopholes and at least requiring a permit for concealed carry (I also think mandatory safety training would be reasonable).

@33 - know how I know you don't know the state's laws?

Seattle is falling the fuck apart.

http://www.myspace.com/hippiesinflames/p…
Ian Stawicki with members of Christian Death and Mau Mau, in LA a year ago

How would any of the above 37 suggest we harness our gun control? I suggest very stringent gun control. For home protection a shot gun is perfect. Indoor dogs are also great for protection. Beyond that there is no need for small arms.

@30, really? You sound pretty convincing, I guess just because you sound so sure of yourself (I'm talking about the first paragraph), but I served on a jury a couple years ago and I'd like to think that we would have seen through the obviously-false recantation here with all those details documented by the policeman. Are the other states @28 mentions really unable to get prosecutions in cases like this?

It would be ridiculous to blame this woman for Wednesday's murders. However, we do have some systems for dealing with people like Stawiki, and this is very specific example of one person -- likely under extreme duress -- actively circumventing those systems. Don't blame her for the murders. But if you think he should have been prevented from continuing to hurt people, blame her for preventing that from happening at least once when it should have. It sounds like she had a good excuse, as she probably believed that if she didn't send her false statement to the police, she was going to die.

This is not blaming the victim for the crime that was perpetrated against her; it's blaming the victim for preventing the rest of us from stopping the perpetrator from committing more of the same.

It's sad that she may now be thinking, "What would be different if I hadn't lied to cover up Ian's past violence?" but it's a legitimate question to ask. He might have killed her, or he might have been locked away where he couldn't hurt more people.

21. She was scared, and had every reason to be, and made a decision out of desperation to return her life to normal, a decision she thought at the time was the right one. But it wasn't, and it was a cowardly one at that, and one that ultimately cost six people their lives.

Is *she* a coward? Well, if she is we all are because I'm sure we all have made similar decisions in our lives. But this is a stark reminder that our choices have repercussions that don't just reach beyond here and now, but beyond ourselves and those directly involved.

If anyone is in this position again, they need to move forward and be willing to drop the hammer on those they love when those they love hurt them. Because if they don't things could end up much worse.

@42 -- And if only he'd been run down by a car that day, we wouldn't be mourning the loss of these people right now. Damn those Seattle drivers for not hitting him. They ultimately cost 6 people their lives. Also, curse God for the lack of lightning strikes that might have prevented this tragedy.

That's not a particularly smart rebuttal.

He had a punched ticket to a likely prison sentence (or mental health institution stay) plus likely revocation of his gun privileges, and that girl let him off the hook for no practical reason. A random car accident or a lightning strike is not anywhere close to a relevant comparison.

@31 (and 32)...what does that even mean?

Guns guns guns.

Yes, the bar for involuntary semi-incarceration to mental institutions SHOULD be high.

But the bar for denying guns should be LOW.

Instability + firearms = what happened.

How difficult is this to understand?

Locking somebody up is bad... denying some whackjob his guns... a good thing.
The NRA fuckers will of course disagree, since this is part of that well-ordered militia in the Second Amendment.

I was in an abusive relationship for years. We went to court for a domestic violence and assault case. I also lied for him. I also told the lawyers a false account of what really happened because men like Ian, angry men, scare the shit out of their girlfriends. This article is directly insulting this woman. She was a victim of domestic violence which is a complex topic to say the least. I know the city is enraged and we want to point fingers but pointing a finger at this woman is unfair and I'm assuming, deeply hurtful for her. Although it does create a clear layout of his shitty, idiotic and temper tantrum character.

This is THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE thing ever. Do you think this woman who was in a terrible abusive relationship might be in an incredibly fragile state right now?
Do you think blaming the victim of domestic violence sends us all back many many years?
What the **** is wrong with you?!?

@48: GTC: The fact that she was once the victim of domestic violence is not good reason to refrain from blaming her for things for which she was responsible. I don't see anyone here blaming her for the violence Stawiki inflicted upon her, which is what your "blaming the victim of domestic violence" statement implies. We're blaming her for lying to the police in order to prevent a known-violent man from being dealt with. It just so happens that the man went on to commit more violence, culmitating in multiple murders.

It surely would have been difficult for her to allow us to lock that guy up years ago. It surely is difficult for her to face the fact that making that difficult choice might have prevented further violence.

@45 it means that someone is judged crazy by the crazy acts they commit. In this case, I was reacting to comment @20, in which someone said there wasn't evidence to suggest that the guy was mentally ill, which I thought was interesting, because in my opinion, shooting a bunch of innocent folks over the course of the afternoon and then killing yourself solidly qualifies you for crazy.

It's easy to think you'd have the guts to press charges on someone who is violent, owns a gun, and who has built up a lot of emotions towards you-- but I imagine you'd be weighing 2 scenarios in each hand: one, you ignite all his anger/emotions to focus on you and spark a more horrific disaster than the one you just experienced; two, you nicely duck away and let his anger cool, heal, fester, grow or otherwise be dealt with someway away from your person. As much as I wish people would take the first hand-- that's a wish for my own safety, not theirs. You can't blame someone for making a decision that most likely kept them alive. Stawiki's motive for shooting people in that cafe could have been as simple as being angry for being removed from the cafe earlier that week-- whatever is was, it obviously didn't take much to inspire him. Which one of you who blames the girlfriend would have been stupid enough to knowingly make this man extremely angry at you? The girlfriend dodged a bullet. Good on her. I'm sorry it is easier to shift the blame than to admit no one knows how to safely deal with someone who refuses to deal with themselves. And if you aren't currently risking your own life to keep other people safe, you are a hypocrite for blaming someone else for not doing it. And if you are risking your life to keep others safe-- you truly understand what a selfless act is-- and that it's not selfless to wish it on others.

@51, AmberGris wrote, "You can't blame someone for making a decision that most likely kept them alive." While taken literally, this is false, I generally agree with what I think you meant, which is that we shouldn't do so. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion unless we've established that this woman's false report to the police most likely kept her alive. I don't think we have.

"it is easier to shift the blame than to admit no one knows how to safely deal with someone who refuses to deal with themselves" That's probably true. But again, it's irellevant. I don't read any blame-shifting here, just acknowlegement that breakdowns in our system of dealing with violent people included this woman lying to police in order to prevent the earlier prosecution for violent crime that this now-murderer committed.

Gomez -- You're not particularly smart. Unless you've dealt firsthand with abusive relationships and the lies inherent to them, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Saying things like "that girl let him off the hook for no practical reason" makes you sound beyond ignorant. Someone who's been beaten into submission and had her life threatened thinks in terms of self-preservation, not whatever standard of practicality you're referring to. And you have such intimate knowledge of this man's life that you're certain there was nobody else in it with evidence of his violent outbursts sufficient to put him away, so it makes perfect sense to single out and blame this woman -- not girl -- who he beat up and threatened?

I'm honestly confused about the "don't say (x person) is crazy/mentally ill" thing. Like @50, I'd say that senseless murder isn't mentally healthy , so what the fuck? It's not implying that all mentally ill people are maniacs with guns, just that all maniacs with guns are clearly not sane: logic, what can't it do?

@54, the problem with simply saying the man was mentally ill is that we don't have a diagnosis. We don't know if he was schizophrenic, had bipolar disorder, or had antisocial personality disorder. Simply saying 'mentally ill' associates him with the millions of people who deal with mental illness and never harm another person. When you talk about logic and subsets, you're correct; you're also not right, because we're not dealing with logic here.

PhilM, you have been shifting blame onto this woman from jump street. Quote:

"But if you think he should have been prevented from continuing to hurt people, blame her for preventing that from happening at least once when it should have. It sounds like she had a good excuse, as she probably believed that if she didn't send her false statement to the police, she was going to die.

This is not blaming the victim for the crime that was perpetrated against her; it's blaming the victim for preventing the rest of us from stopping the perpetrator from committing more of the same."

In one breath, you blame her for not testifying because that would have allowed the system to take his guns, and maybe lock him up. Who knows, maybe some treatment would even have occurred, and--Hey, why not?-- maybe it would even have helped. But in your *previous* statement, the one right before blaming her, you say that she probably believed she would die if she did so.

So: Do you expect her to be a martyr? To give her life so that others could then act against Stawicki? Go back and read 24, please.

Ughhhhhhhh

Do not generalize logic and rationality to people who essentially have PTSD (as most long-term DV victims display symptoms of). I find it a shame that so many people seem unable to remove themselves from their own sane perspectives (which they routinely take for granted) and understand how life is experienced in a *fundamentally* different way for someone who is psychologically abused and controlled. To blame her is the most narrow, simplistic, and immoral scapegoating I've seen in a while.

Also, there's nothing wrong with calling him mentally ill. He was mentally ill. That's all the information we have, but it's pretty clear that's accurate; his diagnosis is really not that relevant.

I was falsely accused of DV to take the fall for DV done to me. Times must have changed. I was too scared and ashamed to speak up for myself after being pumped full of mind-numbing pills, having ended up involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for 44 days ("if you stay for 14 days you can come back home") and jail for 33 days, facing felony charges and six years in prison, for getting my ass handed to me. This stuff is hard, much harder than it appears if you've never seen it. To friends saying 'call me when you're done with your relationship', later on, because being a friend is too hard for them to bother. I ended up with two years probation and one conviction of trespass through mental health court (if I had done regular court it would be much stiffer penalties). Now this is affecting my chance for home-birth because midwives are wary of mental health stuff.
Anyway, go volunteer at a DV shelter or crisis clinic, then talk about what other people are going through. I also helped a friend through pressing DV charges on a guy with guns. He did the treatment and all that, and now he's messaging her years later saying she owes him $4,000 dollars for all of that stuff. This stuff comes back.

@11 et al. A conviction for domestic violence would not have prevented this. It only would have prevented the shooter from legally purchasing a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. It is very easy to purchase firearms from private owners (and at gun shows as well, I believe) without any background check, registration or paperwork of any kind. Once I tried to buy a hunting rifle from a chain sporting goods store. When it came time to fill out the paperwork the clerk took a pen and drew a line through the "No" column on all the background questions, then told me to sign. When I insisted on reading the questions he got pissed and said I was a good little sheep, so I walked out. So a DV conviction might not have even prevented the guy from buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer. The debate on guns is over. The NRA won. These types of shootings are a part of life in America now. Get used to it or move to another country.

You can't accurately comment unless you actually knew them both. Relationships are complicated.
I knew them both. I'm the one who called the police that night.

You can't accurately comment unless you actually knew them both. Relationships are complicated.
I knew them both. I'm the one who called the police that night.