It was three years ago today that we just happened to take the same bus, and a short time later, I shot you in the chest. I was with my family, taking a bus ride to the library, thinking about Chocolati dark chocolate truffles, and you were with a friend. My family and I got off the bus because you were being a jerk to us—whether it was because we are female, because we are lesbian, because we are nothing more than a family of fags to you, the "why" really doesn't matter. I thought you stayed on the bus. But I heard you scream "bitch" as I stood at a stoplight, and so I turned around, and you were running toward me. I warned you that I was armed, and you didn't want to listen. I remember the muffled sound of my gun going off and your shoulders curling in from the impact. I remember us looking at each other and your face shifting from rage to utter fear as you struggled to draw in a breath but couldn't. You went down to the ground so slowly, and we kept eye contact the whole time. The ambulance whisked you away to Harborview, and I was whisked away in a police cruiser. I sat in isolation all weekend, alone, hoping my wife and kids were safe, hoping that you were not dead. Before court on Monday morning, the woman in the cell next to me told me that the news had just stated you were alive. I took a deep breath then cried—I was relieved and thankful that you survived. Please, stop attacking females. Meeting you changed me. Did it change you? I hope. Be safe, be well, cherish life—I will do the same.
—Anonymous
Submit your unsigned confession or accusation
here.
Please remember to change the names of the innocent and guilty. One submission will be published in the paper and online every week.
2
Dear F'n creeps of the world, you are male, female, black, brown, yellow, red, white, straight and gay. Please stop being creeps, it makes life suck at times for us non-creeps and some of your bad behavior will get you shot if you don't knock it off!
Signed the Non-Creeps
Signed the Non-Creeps
3
I think it's fair to say that being shot probably did change this guy, although there's no tellin' how.
4
I remember this story, too, as one of the only legitimate self-defense with a gun stories I've ever heard.
5
Seattle Times reports: "Prosecutors said the woman has prior convictions for firearm brandishing and assault in Utah in 1996 and 1997."
So maybe some personal anger issues she needs to address?
So maybe some personal anger issues she needs to address?
6
It doesn't sound like she has anger problems to me, it sounds like she has been through a lot in her life and still cares a great deal about other people. It's hard when you care so much and still have self respect. It must suck getting put in a position where you have to fire a gun. I'm no pro gun fanatic, but it sounds like this situation in particular the gun was used properly (I read the court report). Love and light anon, glad you are okay and the man did not die.
7
5: If someone is charging at you and screaming at you, after harassing you and after ignoring your warnings, your prior record only matters to sniveling little shits trying to find any excuse to justify a gay-bashing.
8
I'll bet that dude wished he hadn't consumed so much COCAINE and MALT LIQUOR. As to the person who shot him, multiple gun brandishing issues - scary people on public transportation!
9
It was self defense. She was being harassed, she was trying to protect her family and she was probably scared shitless. Three years later, the fact that she actually carried a gun might be more taxing for her that for the jerk.
All that said:
When will you all crazy americans understand that CIVILIANS SHOULDN'T OWN, CARRY OR KNOW HOW TO FIRE WEAPONS??? The fact that you're all armed generates the violence itself. It's barbaric, unintelligent, childish and dangerous.
Do picture yourselves in Norway, Sweden, Iceland for god´s sake carrying a gun like some cowboy. You´d probably go to jail for threatening national decorum.
All that said:
When will you all crazy americans understand that CIVILIANS SHOULDN'T OWN, CARRY OR KNOW HOW TO FIRE WEAPONS??? The fact that you're all armed generates the violence itself. It's barbaric, unintelligent, childish and dangerous.
Do picture yourselves in Norway, Sweden, Iceland for god´s sake carrying a gun like some cowboy. You´d probably go to jail for threatening national decorum.
10
Sticks & stones & all that...
Everyone here: If an Occupy protester got shot for verbally abusing a person wearing an "ELECT ROMNEY" button - would your views on the attempted homocide be any different?
Everyone here: If an Occupy protester got shot for verbally abusing a person wearing an "ELECT ROMNEY" button - would your views on the attempted homocide be any different?
11
@9
Responsible use of violence is the cornerstone of any democracy. Knowledge of how to perform violence is absolutely necessary to prevent the myriad abuses that may befall the common man.
In short, you're a fucking pussy. Incidentally, in Finland, another Scandinavian nation for you geographically disinclined, gun ownership is ubiquitous--much like Canada, incidentally. From these examples we may concur that gun ownership has no necessary relevance to rate of murder.
Did I mention how much of a leaking, unwashed, hairy pussy you are yet? You smell like rotten bluefish. I much doubt even curry could conceal your absolutely foul aroma. I bet it hangs like sleeve of wizard.
You should douche, you douche.
Responsible use of violence is the cornerstone of any democracy. Knowledge of how to perform violence is absolutely necessary to prevent the myriad abuses that may befall the common man.
In short, you're a fucking pussy. Incidentally, in Finland, another Scandinavian nation for you geographically disinclined, gun ownership is ubiquitous--much like Canada, incidentally. From these examples we may concur that gun ownership has no necessary relevance to rate of murder.
Did I mention how much of a leaking, unwashed, hairy pussy you are yet? You smell like rotten bluefish. I much doubt even curry could conceal your absolutely foul aroma. I bet it hangs like sleeve of wizard.
You should douche, you douche.
12
I am less graphically in agreement with you, 11. Anyone who dares to call themself "American" and has a problem with my .357 really isn't nor know the meaning of the word.
Instead of yammering about my taking away my ability to protect myself (I do believe it was our forefathers intent to arm themselves against the Government they were forced to give birth to so that their tax dollars were impletmented as they saw fit by their votes) how about insisting that grown adults be held responsible for their actions?
Instead of yammering about my taking away my ability to protect myself (I do believe it was our forefathers intent to arm themselves against the Government they were forced to give birth to so that their tax dollars were impletmented as they saw fit by their votes) how about insisting that grown adults be held responsible for their actions?
13
Anonymous first gave warning, and did in fact have the option of drilling this asshole right beteen the eyes but instead only used enough force to neutralize the threat.
Well done. That's what responsible gun owners do.
Sleep well. I know I would.
Well done. That's what responsible gun owners do.
Sleep well. I know I would.
14
@10: are you actually trying to equate wearing a Romney button with charging at a stranger while screaming obscenities? You need to work on your allegorical skills.
15
11: Any argument you might have had is overshadowed for me by your equation of what perceive as cowardice with pussy. Not ok. You come across like a jerk.
If you were following me down a street ranting about hairy, unwashed, rotten bluefish pussy, I'd shoot you with no regrets.
If you were following me down a street ranting about hairy, unwashed, rotten bluefish pussy, I'd shoot you with no regrets.
16
@12, I call myself "American" and do not think people should be carrying around guns. I'm also a veteran.
18
She defended her family from an eminent physical threat. I see no problem with her actions.
@ #10 - you think this was political? I didn't see anything about her screaming "Income Equality, Bitch!" before pulling the trigger. Hmm, perhaps you just jump at every opportunity to make a confusing attempt at discrediting the occupy movement by assuming that all lesbians are involved because you don't like lesbians or others you think are dirty liberals or whatnot. That's a big ole confusing bunch of conflagration you got going on there.
@ #11 - really? Big stinky infected puss is the go to insult here??? Are you in the 5th grade? I mean, it's ok if you just don't personally enjoy the clam burger, and having a little non-vitriolic fun with euphemisms about the ham wallet/ pink taco/ etc. is no biggie, but it's not ok to do what you did there. You equate what you perceive as some sort of ultimate weakness ( which is in fact, just another person's opinion and you have no clue to the strength the person does or does not possess) with what you apparently feel is the inherently weak and putrid female reproductive organ . I love my guns, all my lgbt and hetero friends, and my vagina, so you give me mental gas. Though you do sound like a hell of a descriptive story teller.
@ #10 - you think this was political? I didn't see anything about her screaming "Income Equality, Bitch!" before pulling the trigger. Hmm, perhaps you just jump at every opportunity to make a confusing attempt at discrediting the occupy movement by assuming that all lesbians are involved because you don't like lesbians or others you think are dirty liberals or whatnot. That's a big ole confusing bunch of conflagration you got going on there.
@ #11 - really? Big stinky infected puss is the go to insult here??? Are you in the 5th grade? I mean, it's ok if you just don't personally enjoy the clam burger, and having a little non-vitriolic fun with euphemisms about the ham wallet/ pink taco/ etc. is no biggie, but it's not ok to do what you did there. You equate what you perceive as some sort of ultimate weakness ( which is in fact, just another person's opinion and you have no clue to the strength the person does or does not possess) with what you apparently feel is the inherently weak and putrid female reproductive organ . I love my guns, all my lgbt and hetero friends, and my vagina, so you give me mental gas. Though you do sound like a hell of a descriptive story teller.
20
Oh, good old gun control arguments.
Anon was responsible, used her weapon properly, and may have saved her own life or that of her family members'. She may have pissed this guy off more, but I still doubt he'll charge at another woman like that again.
In any reasonable person's eyes, that's kickass.
@11: It's shitty that you're insulting someone because they oppose weapons which kill thousands of people every year, many of them on accident. And it's juvenile that you're using female genitalia as an insulting word. If you have a strong opinion on something, be smarter about voicing it.
Anon was responsible, used her weapon properly, and may have saved her own life or that of her family members'. She may have pissed this guy off more, but I still doubt he'll charge at another woman like that again.
In any reasonable person's eyes, that's kickass.
@11: It's shitty that you're insulting someone because they oppose weapons which kill thousands of people every year, many of them on accident. And it's juvenile that you're using female genitalia as an insulting word. If you have a strong opinion on something, be smarter about voicing it.
21
God, can you imagien? A histerical lesbian waving a gun at you... This is not a person to expect rational thinking from...
23
@14:
I was comparing verbal abuse with verbal abuse. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
My not-so-subtle implication was that folks here were jumping to this woman's defense because she is a lesbian, and not because her violent actions were in any way justifiable.
I was comparing verbal abuse with verbal abuse. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
My not-so-subtle implication was that folks here were jumping to this woman's defense because she is a lesbian, and not because her violent actions were in any way justifiable.
24
@11:
FYI - Finland is a Nordic country, but not technically a part of Scandinavia. If you weren't aware: there are a number of significant cultural differences between Finns and Scandinavians.
FYI - Finland is a Nordic country, but not technically a part of Scandinavia. If you weren't aware: there are a number of significant cultural differences between Finns and Scandinavians.
25
@11 u mad bro?
Why be a dick just 'cause you don't agree with somebody? And why go so cartoonishly far with the calling the person a pussy thing? I know, I know, all people who aren't gun fans are criminally effeminate, right? That stupid shit's really weird and it really makes you sound like a misogynist. That doesn't at all make anybody very inclined to acknowledge your argument. Don't post stuff like that anymore. You're fucking up the internet.
@10 Harrassing a person who backs a candidate of whom you're not a fan iiiiisssss sssiiimmilaaarrr to gaaaaayyy baaasshhiiingg annnddd aatttteemmptiiinggg asssaaaullllttt, riiiiiggghtt? Dumb argument. Gay bashing, hurling verbal abuse at a person in front of her child, and inflicting violence upon that person will probably earn you a bullet if you're misfortunate enough to pick on an armed citizen.
Even if you're being a dick to a republican, I can't imagine you ought to expect to get shot. Unless that republican is Ted Nugent or one of his million retarded accolytes. In which case you ought to decapitate him before he busts a cap in you.
Why be a dick just 'cause you don't agree with somebody? And why go so cartoonishly far with the calling the person a pussy thing? I know, I know, all people who aren't gun fans are criminally effeminate, right? That stupid shit's really weird and it really makes you sound like a misogynist. That doesn't at all make anybody very inclined to acknowledge your argument. Don't post stuff like that anymore. You're fucking up the internet.
@10 Harrassing a person who backs a candidate of whom you're not a fan iiiiisssss sssiiimmilaaarrr to gaaaaayyy baaasshhiiingg annnddd aatttteemmptiiinggg asssaaaullllttt, riiiiiggghtt? Dumb argument. Gay bashing, hurling verbal abuse at a person in front of her child, and inflicting violence upon that person will probably earn you a bullet if you're misfortunate enough to pick on an armed citizen.
Even if you're being a dick to a republican, I can't imagine you ought to expect to get shot. Unless that republican is Ted Nugent or one of his million retarded accolytes. In which case you ought to decapitate him before he busts a cap in you.
26
Can someone post a link to some information from the shooting? I'm not from Seattle and don't know where to start looking but would be interested to see what the papers said at the time (or since then). Thanks!
27
@26 - how about trying google? I googled "seattle 2009 woman shoots man" and came right to the story in about 10 seconds.
28
From the PI:
"The woman said something critical of his behavior and an argument ensued, passengers told police."
So, basically, she started something on a bus with a clearly psycho rider, and then shot him.
"The woman said something critical of his behavior and an argument ensued, passengers told police."
So, basically, she started something on a bus with a clearly psycho rider, and then shot him.
29
@ 26, instead of being an insufferable shit like @ 27, here you go:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
30
I Anonymous = Sara Brereton. She was never charged.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43697…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43697…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
31
@28
Even in your own quote, she said something critical of his behavior. That implies his behavior came first. How is it that you interpret this as "she started something?"
Even in your own quote, she said something critical of his behavior. That implies his behavior came first. How is it that you interpret this as "she started something?"
33
When I was in high school in SW Washington, which is as redneck as it gets on this side of the mountains, there was one out gay kid in the entire school. Nobody fucked with him, not even the gay-hating jocks. He had a reputation that if you fucked with him, he'd gut you like a fish with a razor.
There's something to be said for bashing back.
There's something to be said for bashing back.
34
@10
That pretty much depends. If it was a purely political interaction, no, I sure as hell wouldn't support violence.
On the other hand, if the situation was actually similar - the anti-Romney person got sufficiently heated that the Romney supporter got off a bus early with their family, and then the anti-Romney person followed them off the bus and ran screaming at them, calling them names?
I'd certainly be far more open to believing acting in self-defense was warranted.
That pretty much depends. If it was a purely political interaction, no, I sure as hell wouldn't support violence.
On the other hand, if the situation was actually similar - the anti-Romney person got sufficiently heated that the Romney supporter got off a bus early with their family, and then the anti-Romney person followed them off the bus and ran screaming at them, calling them names?
I'd certainly be far more open to believing acting in self-defense was warranted.
35
@32
Sorry, nice try. The woman actually did what "non stand your ground" requires - she got off the bus with her family and distanced herself from the situation.
Was she supposed to run away, abandoning her wife and children, once the guy started literally running after her?
Sorry, nice try. The woman actually did what "non stand your ground" requires - she got off the bus with her family and distanced herself from the situation.
Was she supposed to run away, abandoning her wife and children, once the guy started literally running after her?
37
I get the WIS vs Fnarf and Everyone vs Seattleblues rivalries but lately I've watched regular commenters being downright nasty to each other. Not in a fun way either. Come on guys/gals you can have a rational debate.
If anyone in the Seattle city limits needs one, let me know and I will come by with a free hug just for you. (no loitering or groping please)
If anyone in the Seattle city limits needs one, let me know and I will come by with a free hug just for you. (no loitering or groping please)
38
I just read most of the comments from the old stranger recap. Wow. That’s a lot of people who didn't read or didn't understand the story as it was written. Perhaps they had a different news reel in their heads.
Whole thing sucks. Wonder if that guy ever got the mental health help he seems to have needed. Wonder if Sara ever mellowed and matured…
Whole thing sucks. Wonder if that guy ever got the mental health help he seems to have needed. Wonder if Sara ever mellowed and matured…
39
Generally speaking, the government likes to keep its monopoly on violence, and, generally speaking, it's good that they do. The government, however, cannot be everywhere at all times so they have to license citizens to perform violence within tightly restricted circumstances. This, apparently, was one of those circumstances.
For my part, I support all of that - the general monopoly on violence held by the government, the government's license to citizens to commit violence, and the narrow restrictions on that license.
That said, this I Anonymous wasn't about the violence, or who is allowed to use it, but about how violence - particularly life-threatening gun violence - changes people. The people on both sides of the gun, as well as the witnesses, the families, and the community. It is life changing. It completely shifts your perspective by grounding it in reality. It is no longer a metaphor. Anyone who has been close to it can never refer to it glibly ever again.
For my part, I support all of that - the general monopoly on violence held by the government, the government's license to citizens to commit violence, and the narrow restrictions on that license.
That said, this I Anonymous wasn't about the violence, or who is allowed to use it, but about how violence - particularly life-threatening gun violence - changes people. The people on both sides of the gun, as well as the witnesses, the families, and the community. It is life changing. It completely shifts your perspective by grounding it in reality. It is no longer a metaphor. Anyone who has been close to it can never refer to it glibly ever again.
40
I like this little story. It reminds people of two things; Don't threaten people with violence and know self-defence. Also, anyone could be armed so don't pick a fight over a seat on the bus.
41
@37 perhaps we need more slog happies. Let's get everyone buzzed and convivial and watch an old movie that most people can agree on.
42
@9 being a 5'4 100 lb female myself, I'd rather have a gun. Unless you understand the fear of walking home by yourself, or being overpowered by damn near everyone, I think you should speak for yourself.
Gun rights are something I am very glad to have in the world as I know it.
Gun rights are something I am very glad to have in the world as I know it.
43
@5 I can imagine that a similar situation in Utah, with or without the shooting, would've been seen as her fault. Because you know, she's "different" and female. Yay Seattle for equal justice.
~~~~~
If the minimum standard for provocation in Seattle is based on the John Williams example, I'm surprised the streets don't run red.
~~~~~
If the minimum standard for provocation in Seattle is based on the John Williams example, I'm surprised the streets don't run red.
47
@28 You should go back and read the original articles on the subject. It's quite clear he was harassing her and her family because their lesbians, and she told him to back off.
He tried to gay bash her and her family, and took a bullet for his trouble. The world would be a better place if that happened to ever gay basher.
He tried to gay bash her and her family, and took a bullet for his trouble. The world would be a better place if that happened to ever gay basher.
48
Great, even in 2009, Seattle Times was full of shit. http://tinyurl.com/d6vnxz
And so were its commenters. http://tinyurl.com/7z6g29c
And so were its commenters. http://tinyurl.com/7z6g29c
49
@11: Seriously. Dude. Please stop with the gendered insults already. The vivid and prurient details of this particular example make you look like you just wandered in from some cess pit of an MRA site like the Spearhead.
This story is a good example of why I, as a small boned lady, am also an armed small boned lady. And she did everything right, at the time and I think her reaction after the fact, and today, is and was also appropriate. Grokking the enormity of what happened and what could have happened has changed her.
This story is a good example of why I, as a small boned lady, am also an armed small boned lady. And she did everything right, at the time and I think her reaction after the fact, and today, is and was also appropriate. Grokking the enormity of what happened and what could have happened has changed her.
50
@47: The orginal stories certainly do not make it clear who initiated things. There are a lot of conflicting stories, and both people sound a bit unbalanced.
51
@37 I completely agree. The general level of slog commenter assholery is increasing lately. @27 is a prime example.
@5 In most scenarios I'd agree with you that two prior gun wielding incidents indicates that said person should not be carrying a gun in public. However, seeing as how those occurrences took place in Utah I'm willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt.
@5 In most scenarios I'd agree with you that two prior gun wielding incidents indicates that said person should not be carrying a gun in public. However, seeing as how those occurrences took place in Utah I'm willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt.
52
@5: Surely it's impossible for someone to be threatened and assaulted more than once in her life.
53
@51: "The general level of slog commenter assholery is increasing lately."
I just wish the Slog would invest more time into pruning the useless, unconstructive trolls that only serve to shit-stir.
I just wish the Slog would invest more time into pruning the useless, unconstructive trolls that only serve to shit-stir.
54
Good for you, I applaud your aim! Nobody should ever get in trouble for shooting someone under similar circumstances... BLAST! That'll make him think... I hope he's debilitated to the point that he can never attack again, either verbally or physically. Don't feel bad, you did what you had to to protect your family.
55
She got into it with some crazy guy on a bus. Is that smart?
She has a history of past "issues" with public gun display.
All in all, not a clear thinking person.
She has a history of past "issues" with public gun display.
All in all, not a clear thinking person.
56
Sad that we should need to use deadly force in our everyday lives but a reality and I applaud that woman keeping her partner and kids safe. Gun owners are overwhelmingly decent people and simply want to guard against this kind of random threat and those threats are all too common. You'd think Tuba players and hairdressers could expect to walk the streets without being beaten to death.
57
He followed her off the bus. He charged at her. She shot a clearly dangerous bigot. Good for her.
59
I'm an old-fashioned old poop who is struggling to reconcile his religion and traditional values with the changing landscape of modern sexual morays, but I am also a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I don't think that the Founders meant for it to only apply to white Christian men. To those of you who are lesbian/gay (whatever, I honestly don't know how you prefer to be addressed), I may disagree with some of your politics, but I pledge that I will never treat any of you on a personal level with anything less than the courtesy, respect and dignity you naturally deserve as human beings. On the flip side of that, I also hope that you can extend enough grace to understand how difficult these things are for old farts like me who are culturally and spiritually troubled by what we see. Somehow, we all have to figure out how to not get on one anothers' last nerve. Understanding is a two-way street, calling for a litte compassion from all parties.
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated for her as a right to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man.
More...
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated for her as a right to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man.
60
I'm an old-fashioned old poop who is struggling to reconcile his religion and traditional values with the changing landscape of modern sexual morays, but I am also a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I don't think that the Founders meant for it to only apply to white Christian men. To those of you who are lesbian/gay (whatever, I honestly don't know how you prefer to be addressed), I may disagree with some of your politics, but I pledge that I will never treat any of you on a personal level with anything less than the courtesy, respect and dignity you naturally deserve as human beings. On the flip side of that, I also hope that you can extend enough grace to understand how difficult these things are for old farts like me who are culturally and spiritually troubled by what we see. Somehow, we all have to figure out how to not get on one anothers' last nerve. Understanding is a two-way street, calling for a litte compassion from all parties.
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated as a right for her to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man. It was absolutely the correct response.
Anybody who would criticize her decision to A) carry a gun in the first place, and B) actually use it when it became necessary, is without standing in the matter, and that person's opinions aren't worth a popcorn fart in a stiff wind because they weren't there, and they weren't the ones facing a life or death decision in a split second. They are of the philosophy that a woman lying dead in an alley somewhere, strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow more noble than her rapist found dead in that same alley with two gunshot wounds to the chest and one in the head. Such people are moral cowards, and they are not to be taken seriously.
More...
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated as a right for her to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man. It was absolutely the correct response.
Anybody who would criticize her decision to A) carry a gun in the first place, and B) actually use it when it became necessary, is without standing in the matter, and that person's opinions aren't worth a popcorn fart in a stiff wind because they weren't there, and they weren't the ones facing a life or death decision in a split second. They are of the philosophy that a woman lying dead in an alley somewhere, strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow more noble than her rapist found dead in that same alley with two gunshot wounds to the chest and one in the head. Such people are moral cowards, and they are not to be taken seriously.
61
I am thankful everyday for what you did that day to protect me and our children. Since that day our lives have changed in good ways and bad ways. I'm glad we are here to enjoy more of the good days together as a happy lesbian couple/family. You are my hero! I love you always and forever my sweet sweet Princess. Love your Queen. ~R
62
Best quote from the original stranger post on this story;
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"as a bed wetting, passive-aggressive liberal, I have no idea on what position I should take on gun-toting lesbians."
personally, I think there may be a market for realistic looking "water pistols" that shoot mace / pepper spray.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"as a bed wetting, passive-aggressive liberal, I have no idea on what position I should take on gun-toting lesbians."
personally, I think there may be a market for realistic looking "water pistols" that shoot mace / pepper spray.
63
This is a tragic situation. But not quite as tragic as the pregnant couple engaging in pda on the bus in last week's I Anon.
64
I also just Googled the original story. A follow-up indicated that prosecutors declined to press charges against Anon; she was carrying a licensed gun and her version of the story was backed-up by several fellow passengers.
Further, she stayed to wait for police after the incident and fully cooperated. State law in Washington says that a licensed handgun owner mayu shoot in self defense if he/she believes they or their familiy is in danger. She gave him warning to stay back and get away and he continued to charge her anyway.
The fact that she was not prosecuted and was acting in her opwn self-defense was enough for me. No, I don't like people carrying guns, yes I do not care if they do so legally, know how to handle them and act responsibly with their use.
Google the death of a friend of mine named Julio Rivera, who was killed by gay bashers in Jackson Heights (NYC) in 1990. I often wonder if his young life would not have been cut short, had he had something to protect himself. His attackers ripped his skull open with the claw end of a hammer and watched his brains spill onto the sidewalk.
Further, she stayed to wait for police after the incident and fully cooperated. State law in Washington says that a licensed handgun owner mayu shoot in self defense if he/she believes they or their familiy is in danger. She gave him warning to stay back and get away and he continued to charge her anyway.
The fact that she was not prosecuted and was acting in her opwn self-defense was enough for me. No, I don't like people carrying guns, yes I do not care if they do so legally, know how to handle them and act responsibly with their use.
Google the death of a friend of mine named Julio Rivera, who was killed by gay bashers in Jackson Heights (NYC) in 1990. I often wonder if his young life would not have been cut short, had he had something to protect himself. His attackers ripped his skull open with the claw end of a hammer and watched his brains spill onto the sidewalk.
65
Sure, if someone chases you off a bus, at that point, maybe self-defense is justifiable.
But, folks, rather than use COMMON FUCKING SENSE and *not* get into verbal confrontations on public buses with the kind of CRAZIES, people with what some folks call "COMMON SENSE" avoid even talking to the kind of CRAZIES that ride public buses.
Seriously, it's just common sense, you don't chat it up with the schizophrenics that live on public transportation.
It shows a complete lack of common sense to become involved in and / or participate in a discussion of any type with some bus crazy. It shows a complete lack of common sense to not AVOID and IGNORE such crazy people.
This person (who happened to be a Lesbian, but that's irrelevant) should have simply not interacted with the CRAZY BUS PERSON in the first place.
But as it happens, at least if the newspaper stories are correct, this lady (whom it seems is a Lesbian, though that's irrelevant) has prior history whipping out the firearms and waving them around...
...And that's what happened.
First she makes the mistake of getting into a snit with a fucking BUS CRAZY, she allows it to get out of hand (most likely she is actually responsible for blowing it up by talking to this nutter in the first place), and than she does what she's done before, whips out a piece and this time the person she points it at doesn't back down.
He's a BUS CRAZY, remember?
And so she fires away...
This is one crazy Lesbian (not that being gay has much to do with this) who likes to wave around guns. I'd say she's a loose cannon.
But, folks, rather than use COMMON FUCKING SENSE and *not* get into verbal confrontations on public buses with the kind of CRAZIES, people with what some folks call "COMMON SENSE" avoid even talking to the kind of CRAZIES that ride public buses.
Seriously, it's just common sense, you don't chat it up with the schizophrenics that live on public transportation.
It shows a complete lack of common sense to become involved in and / or participate in a discussion of any type with some bus crazy. It shows a complete lack of common sense to not AVOID and IGNORE such crazy people.
This person (who happened to be a Lesbian, but that's irrelevant) should have simply not interacted with the CRAZY BUS PERSON in the first place.
But as it happens, at least if the newspaper stories are correct, this lady (whom it seems is a Lesbian, though that's irrelevant) has prior history whipping out the firearms and waving them around...
...And that's what happened.
First she makes the mistake of getting into a snit with a fucking BUS CRAZY, she allows it to get out of hand (most likely she is actually responsible for blowing it up by talking to this nutter in the first place), and than she does what she's done before, whips out a piece and this time the person she points it at doesn't back down.
He's a BUS CRAZY, remember?
And so she fires away...
This is one crazy Lesbian (not that being gay has much to do with this) who likes to wave around guns. I'd say she's a loose cannon.
67
65: Re-read it. Then take a literacy class and re-read it again. She left the bus when he was harassing her. That's the OPPOSITE of engaging a crazy guy on the bus. So she did practice the common sense that seems to be so championed among people who lack it.
I know that you want really, really badly to be able to blame the victim here. But you have to remember: picturing events a certain way in your head doesn't cause them to have actually occurred that way.
It looks like you don't get to blame the lesbian this time (not that being a lesbian is the reason you're so desperate to blame her, I'm sure).
I know that you want really, really badly to be able to blame the victim here. But you have to remember: picturing events a certain way in your head doesn't cause them to have actually occurred that way.
It looks like you don't get to blame the lesbian this time (not that being a lesbian is the reason you're so desperate to blame her, I'm sure).
71
Here's my understanding of the current laws in the State of Washington:
- You have the right to carry a concealed weapon
- You have the right to start some shit with a stranger on the bus
- If the stranger approaches you, you have the right to threaten him with a deadly weapon
- If the stranger does not cower in fear and run away at sight of your mighty & powerful weapon, you have the right to murder the motherfucker right there on the street
I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with all this.
- You have the right to carry a concealed weapon
- You have the right to start some shit with a stranger on the bus
- If the stranger approaches you, you have the right to threaten him with a deadly weapon
- If the stranger does not cower in fear and run away at sight of your mighty & powerful weapon, you have the right to murder the motherfucker right there on the street
I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with all this.
72
@71: Your understanding of both Washington State law and the incident under discussion is woefully inadequate.
73
If I had heard that the guy survived, after I shot him in self-defense, I'd be crying tears of rage, not relief. He should have been killed when she shot him. Now he can sue her.
Stupid system.
People: shoot to kill, not maim!
Stupid system.
People: shoot to kill, not maim!
74
@73 shooting for center of mass is the best idea when one is faced with a charging attacker. A second fatal shot once he'd fallen and was no longer a threat may have brought charges of murder.
75
For your consideration:
Did this guy touch her? No.
Did he have a weapon? No.
He yelled. He spit. He "charged".
She shot him.
Was her life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You all cheer her decision.
SPD Officer Birk attempts to stop a "chronic inebriate" with a open knife on a sidewalk in potential violation of RCW 9.41.270 (Unlawful carrying of weapons)
Birk, in full uniform, givers mulitple commands at gun point for the man to drop the knife. He doesn't.
Birk shoots him.
Was his life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You call him a murderer.
Did this guy touch her? No.
Did he have a weapon? No.
He yelled. He spit. He "charged".
She shot him.
Was her life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You all cheer her decision.
SPD Officer Birk attempts to stop a "chronic inebriate" with a open knife on a sidewalk in potential violation of RCW 9.41.270 (Unlawful carrying of weapons)
Birk, in full uniform, givers mulitple commands at gun point for the man to drop the knife. He doesn't.
Birk shoots him.
Was his life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You call him a murderer.
76
@71:
Here is my understanding of the incident (according the Times & Slog archives):
- Anon was carrying a concealed weapon
- Anon started a verbal altercation with the victim while on the bus, and taunted him with an obscene gesture after leaving the bus
- Anon was approached by the victim and, "displayed a licensed hand gun she was carrying" while warning the victim to stay away
- The victim continued to approach Anon, so she shot him in the chest (note: normal people believe that shooting a man in the chest would constitute an attempt to take his life)
According to the Slog, Anon was not charged with a crime because, "She can reasonably take into account her inability to use her gun to defend herself if [victim] got close enough to physically assault her and be concerned that she could lose the gun in a struggle. As a result, her firing of the gun once to stop [victim] was not an unreasonable amount of force under state law."
In other words: if a person gets within two feet of someone holding a handgun, the psycho who feels inadequate enough to carry a deadly weapon on his/her person has the right to murder the motherfucker (even if no actual physical contact is ever initiated) because there is a possibility that the sociopath might lose control of said deadly weapon in a hypothetical ensuing struggle... and this is all the fault of the person who did not feel the need to go everywhere with a murder weapon hidden in his/her handbag.
Here is my understanding of the incident (according the Times & Slog archives):
- Anon was carrying a concealed weapon
- Anon started a verbal altercation with the victim while on the bus, and taunted him with an obscene gesture after leaving the bus
- Anon was approached by the victim and, "displayed a licensed hand gun she was carrying" while warning the victim to stay away
- The victim continued to approach Anon, so she shot him in the chest (note: normal people believe that shooting a man in the chest would constitute an attempt to take his life)
According to the Slog, Anon was not charged with a crime because, "She can reasonably take into account her inability to use her gun to defend herself if [victim] got close enough to physically assault her and be concerned that she could lose the gun in a struggle. As a result, her firing of the gun once to stop [victim] was not an unreasonable amount of force under state law."
In other words: if a person gets within two feet of someone holding a handgun, the psycho who feels inadequate enough to carry a deadly weapon on his/her person has the right to murder the motherfucker (even if no actual physical contact is ever initiated) because there is a possibility that the sociopath might lose control of said deadly weapon in a hypothetical ensuing struggle... and this is all the fault of the person who did not feel the need to go everywhere with a murder weapon hidden in his/her handbag.
78
Love the story, hate the ugly, judgemental comments. But hey, the guns, the crazies, the ugly comments - this is America, right?
79
@ 75 Officer Burk is a murderer. How can you justify shooting a deaf, drunk man in the back (5 times); carrying a knife that was within the legal statutes, whittling a piece of wood? the video clearly shows Williams in a world all his own, minding his own business.
80
@75
Birk was a trained fit young man with a plethora of less than deadly options he could choose to deal with a much older, much smaller, out of shape, inebriated, handicapped man with a three inch folder.
From: Calling back up. Baton. Taser, Pepper spray. (Shit. Russian arm tie. I'm pretty sure they still teach that to cops.)
Anyway. Williams was an old handicapped man who was over 15 feet away when the confrontation started with BIRK in pursuit. Birk controlled the situation.
John Williams was shot four times in HIS SIDE. He was turning away when the shots were fired. NOT charging.
Speaking as somebody who trained with LEO's for nearly two decades, I can tell you this simple fact: Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting.
Even if it was the worst case and it was a older handicapped deranged man staggering towards Birk? If it was me? If I was a cop, and I couldn't disarm him without shooting him? Then I am one fucking totally incompetent cop. I should be fired anyway.
I have no idea what the LR situation was. But Birk WAS either a fucking murderer. Or totally incompetent.
Birk was a trained fit young man with a plethora of less than deadly options he could choose to deal with a much older, much smaller, out of shape, inebriated, handicapped man with a three inch folder.
From: Calling back up. Baton. Taser, Pepper spray. (Shit. Russian arm tie. I'm pretty sure they still teach that to cops.)
Anyway. Williams was an old handicapped man who was over 15 feet away when the confrontation started with BIRK in pursuit. Birk controlled the situation.
John Williams was shot four times in HIS SIDE. He was turning away when the shots were fired. NOT charging.
Speaking as somebody who trained with LEO's for nearly two decades, I can tell you this simple fact: Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting.
Even if it was the worst case and it was a older handicapped deranged man staggering towards Birk? If it was me? If I was a cop, and I couldn't disarm him without shooting him? Then I am one fucking totally incompetent cop. I should be fired anyway.
I have no idea what the LR situation was. But Birk WAS either a fucking murderer. Or totally incompetent.
81
Looks like this is the shootee. Looks like an upstanding citizen.
https://www.facebook.com/emmanuel.salter…
https://www.facebook.com/emmanuel.salter…
84
I caught a lot of crap over the past few years regarding a perceived callousness, and a perceived sensitivity to the shooting. There are some that think no human should take life, nor injure another human, regardless of whether there is a real, or a perceived threat. Then there are others who believe that I should feel zero guilt for what I did, that I should have just holstered my sidearm and went about my day with my wife and children, while a human being lay shot at Seneca, bleeding to death, and in need of desperate help.
Personally, the shooting had an immense impact on me and my family as well, who had been there leading up-to, and during the incident. We are not the only ones who had experienced the weight of this; there is the man that was shot, his family, and his friends who received the terrible news that he had been shot, and is in emergency surgery.
There is a small part of me that when thinking about the incident is filled with anger that such a beautiful day that I was spending with my wife and children came too such an abrupt stop, with me in jail, and a man rushed to the ER on the brink of death.
Talk about a moment of contrast. One minute you are holding your spouse’s hand, and watching your kids bounce around, eager to get to the library, then the next minute (it seems) you are sitting in an interview room wondering if a man you never met, and had just shot, is alive, and if your wife, and children are safe.
Then there is the larger part of me that for some time would wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the terrible injury that I inflicted on another human being—a son, husband?, father?, etc.—and that larger portion of me is pained by, and has to live with the terribleness of that day—just as he does. Maybe I am wrong about this, is it possible that he does not care, that I care too much about what had happened?—one could never care to much about human life.
Do not get me wrong, I am not clinging to the incident in a "poor pity me" moment. Just writing from the heart, which is what people ought to do, particularly following situations like the one that had occurred.
At the time, in the moment, I believed my actions were necessary that day. Today, I believe action was necessary; but to say that I would do it again the same—considering the fact that I cannot seem to reconcile what I did (not why I did)—I would do again what I felt in the moment I needed to do. How's that for an answer!
The first year I would wake in the middle of the night from dreams of me being the one shot. There was a lot of contemplation that has gone into the incident of that day, and I have seen my-self there, looking down the barrel of my own handgun, and the trigger being pulled. It is a terrifying thing to imagine being so close to the end, and that is merely an abstract peek into the moment, but I believe I have a abstract idea of what he was going through on his end, feeling the impact of the shot, laying on the ground as I stood over him, reaching out to the world for help, struggling to breath. I looked in his eyes, and I seen utter fear.
I seen a man laying in the middle of the street passing, and there was no person there, not even me, who was willing to walk up, and render aid—I screamed to my wife to call an ambulance, but just stood there struck by the unfolding of such a violent moment. I seen myself, a man running up to me aggressively, swearing at me, not heeding my calls to Stop, and there was no person there who was willing to intervene to stop him from doing whatever it was he was going to do, so I intervened.
I hope that he does not cause females to fear him anymore, as he caused us to fear him that day. I hope he loves, and cherishes every female in his life—every person in his life.
I hope that he is well, and that he cherishes every moment of his valuable life, because he has received a second chance at not just life, but living life to the best of his ability.
I am sorry for shooting you.
More...
Personally, the shooting had an immense impact on me and my family as well, who had been there leading up-to, and during the incident. We are not the only ones who had experienced the weight of this; there is the man that was shot, his family, and his friends who received the terrible news that he had been shot, and is in emergency surgery.
There is a small part of me that when thinking about the incident is filled with anger that such a beautiful day that I was spending with my wife and children came too such an abrupt stop, with me in jail, and a man rushed to the ER on the brink of death.
Talk about a moment of contrast. One minute you are holding your spouse’s hand, and watching your kids bounce around, eager to get to the library, then the next minute (it seems) you are sitting in an interview room wondering if a man you never met, and had just shot, is alive, and if your wife, and children are safe.
Then there is the larger part of me that for some time would wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the terrible injury that I inflicted on another human being—a son, husband?, father?, etc.—and that larger portion of me is pained by, and has to live with the terribleness of that day—just as he does. Maybe I am wrong about this, is it possible that he does not care, that I care too much about what had happened?—one could never care to much about human life.
Do not get me wrong, I am not clinging to the incident in a "poor pity me" moment. Just writing from the heart, which is what people ought to do, particularly following situations like the one that had occurred.
At the time, in the moment, I believed my actions were necessary that day. Today, I believe action was necessary; but to say that I would do it again the same—considering the fact that I cannot seem to reconcile what I did (not why I did)—I would do again what I felt in the moment I needed to do. How's that for an answer!
The first year I would wake in the middle of the night from dreams of me being the one shot. There was a lot of contemplation that has gone into the incident of that day, and I have seen my-self there, looking down the barrel of my own handgun, and the trigger being pulled. It is a terrifying thing to imagine being so close to the end, and that is merely an abstract peek into the moment, but I believe I have a abstract idea of what he was going through on his end, feeling the impact of the shot, laying on the ground as I stood over him, reaching out to the world for help, struggling to breath. I looked in his eyes, and I seen utter fear.
I seen a man laying in the middle of the street passing, and there was no person there, not even me, who was willing to walk up, and render aid—I screamed to my wife to call an ambulance, but just stood there struck by the unfolding of such a violent moment. I seen myself, a man running up to me aggressively, swearing at me, not heeding my calls to Stop, and there was no person there who was willing to intervene to stop him from doing whatever it was he was going to do, so I intervened.
I hope that he does not cause females to fear him anymore, as he caused us to fear him that day. I hope he loves, and cherishes every female in his life—every person in his life.
I hope that he is well, and that he cherishes every moment of his valuable life, because he has received a second chance at not just life, but living life to the best of his ability.
I am sorry for shooting you.
85
I go with the commenter above who speculated this was a fake letter - real incident but fake letter. Cause, if it wasn't a fake letter, why would this person want to stir up and replay this very unfortunate incident several years later? What possibly could be her motivation? Seems a little weird to me and I would question her reasons.
My other point would be, wtf are civilians carrying guns around for in the first place in society? This story could have very easily resulted in the death of a human. He was shot in the chest at close range and could have died. No going back and bringing a person back to life when that happens. And for what? Because he was running towards her in a threatening manner? Who knows, but not likely he would actually have physically attacked her, but say he did, is that worth killing him over? America has the craziest, most barbaric gun laws in the modern world. There is no escape from karma, either on an individual or nation basis. Cause in the end, you always get what you deserve....
My other point would be, wtf are civilians carrying guns around for in the first place in society? This story could have very easily resulted in the death of a human. He was shot in the chest at close range and could have died. No going back and bringing a person back to life when that happens. And for what? Because he was running towards her in a threatening manner? Who knows, but not likely he would actually have physically attacked her, but say he did, is that worth killing him over? America has the craziest, most barbaric gun laws in the modern world. There is no escape from karma, either on an individual or nation basis. Cause in the end, you always get what you deserve....
87
@84/LW, thanks for your openness. I hope you continue to heal from this traumatic incident. I hope that the love of your partner and children give you strength. Be well.
88
@80
"Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting."
Exactly my point. If that is so, then so could have the IA writer. Her bus dude had no weapon at all.
"Baton, taser, pepper spray, Russian arm tie"
Against a knife? You can't be serious. Knives are deadly weapons. While you're trying to put someone in a Russian Arm Tie, he'll be spilling your guts with his "three inch folder". Even someone like JTW can muster up enough strength for one quick thrust. Would you be willing to bet your life that he can't?
Not saying Birk handled it perfectly or even that well. I'd like to think I wouldn't have fired, at least that quickly and it sounds like you think the same. Just amusing that most (but not all) commenters on this forum are so quick to defend the IA writer and just as quick to condemn Birk.
"Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting."
Exactly my point. If that is so, then so could have the IA writer. Her bus dude had no weapon at all.
"Baton, taser, pepper spray, Russian arm tie"
Against a knife? You can't be serious. Knives are deadly weapons. While you're trying to put someone in a Russian Arm Tie, he'll be spilling your guts with his "three inch folder". Even someone like JTW can muster up enough strength for one quick thrust. Would you be willing to bet your life that he can't?
Not saying Birk handled it perfectly or even that well. I'd like to think I wouldn't have fired, at least that quickly and it sounds like you think the same. Just amusing that most (but not all) commenters on this forum are so quick to defend the IA writer and just as quick to condemn Birk.
89
A white person shot a black person
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial.
It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin.
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial.
It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin.
90
"A white person shot a black person
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial."
You're a fucking idiot. Brereton lived, at the time, in public housing, it was outlined in one of the papers. She was rich?
Have you looked at Salters Facebook? He is living on Lake Washington in a waterfront condo.
"It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin."
Yea, the prosecutor was tripping over herself to proclaim it was self-defense, that's why it took something like nine months to find that the shooting was self-defense.
Read the fucking paper before you spout off crap as if you know what the hell you are talking about.
BTW, you should read up on Zimmerman. Apparently there were witnesses to the incident that places Martin on top of Zimmerman. Oh, and Zimmerman had two black eyes, a fractured nose, and two gashes on the backside of his head.
You are obviously anti-gun.
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial."
You're a fucking idiot. Brereton lived, at the time, in public housing, it was outlined in one of the papers. She was rich?
Have you looked at Salters Facebook? He is living on Lake Washington in a waterfront condo.
"It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin."
Yea, the prosecutor was tripping over herself to proclaim it was self-defense, that's why it took something like nine months to find that the shooting was self-defense.
Read the fucking paper before you spout off crap as if you know what the hell you are talking about.
BTW, you should read up on Zimmerman. Apparently there were witnesses to the incident that places Martin on top of Zimmerman. Oh, and Zimmerman had two black eyes, a fractured nose, and two gashes on the backside of his head.
You are obviously anti-gun.
91
@90, Martin had the right to stand HIS ground against someone stalking him. Zimmerman doesn't get to create a threatening situation and then kill when he's getting the worse end of it. Zimmerman stalked Martin, got out of his car, and killed Martin. Those are the facts.
Moreover, there's a certain history in the South of black people being murdered by white people. And there's a history in Sanford of white people assaulting black people. So Martin had plenty of reason to think that HIS life was in danger.
Moreover, there's a certain history in the South of black people being murdered by white people. And there's a history in Sanford of white people assaulting black people. So Martin had plenty of reason to think that HIS life was in danger.
92
@90 So, uh, you think Zimmerman never should have been arrested then?
Because that's what the Zimmerman/Martin case is about - Zimmerman claimed self defense and was never arrested (until public opinion intervened).
So, I think your point is, the Trayvon Martin case IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE?
Hypocrisy makes strange bedfellows.
Because that's what the Zimmerman/Martin case is about - Zimmerman claimed self defense and was never arrested (until public opinion intervened).
So, I think your point is, the Trayvon Martin case IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE?
Hypocrisy makes strange bedfellows.
93
@92
Zimmerman ought not have been arrested given the evidence. The evidence, which has been released by the prosecution, shows Zimmerman with head trauma, a fractured nose, and two black eyes; and a witness that describes Martin on top of Zimmerman.
As i stated previously: there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact, period! If you have something to refute that, feel free to link us up here. I should mention that Zimmerman getting out of his truck and simply following a person is not an act of aggression.
BTW, I disagree with your assertion that self-defense shootings, and arrests ought to be driven by public opinion. I prefer to stick with the Law, it's a safer bet.
Cases of self-defense that are not refutable ought not be sent through court. Brereton for example, there were a dozen or so witnesses that backed up her statements (mind you, people she didn't know from Adam).
Zimmerman ought not have been arrested given the evidence. The evidence, which has been released by the prosecution, shows Zimmerman with head trauma, a fractured nose, and two black eyes; and a witness that describes Martin on top of Zimmerman.
As i stated previously: there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact, period! If you have something to refute that, feel free to link us up here. I should mention that Zimmerman getting out of his truck and simply following a person is not an act of aggression.
BTW, I disagree with your assertion that self-defense shootings, and arrests ought to be driven by public opinion. I prefer to stick with the Law, it's a safer bet.
Cases of self-defense that are not refutable ought not be sent through court. Brereton for example, there were a dozen or so witnesses that backed up her statements (mind you, people she didn't know from Adam).
94
@11. Hey dumbass - as a Canadian, I can assure you that gun ownership is anything but "ubiquitous" here. Nor do we want it to be, since fuck-wit, dumbass, douchebag assholes tend to be the ones who are carrying them and shooting innocent civilians. So please keep your gun-toting, misogynistic bullshit to yourself -> nobody asked for your fucking opinion.
@LW - great piece. I'm sorry you had to go through that and I hope you came through it relatively intact.
@LW - great piece. I'm sorry you had to go through that and I hope you came through it relatively intact.
More I, Anonymous
RSS
Twitter
Comments (94) RSS