Just before 2:00 a.m. on February 17, an “obviously intoxicated” man approached a police officer on Blanchard St in Belltown “asking questions about carrying a gun in his pants,” according to a police report. The man, according to police, “stated since having a gun in his pants would be legal if he had a Concealed Pistol License, he was going to get a gun with 16 rounds and go ‘Columbine.'”

Shortly thereafter, the cop saw the man and a second suspect at a doorway “where transients routinely sleep” on the 220 block of 1st Ave, where the first suspect “began to lunge in and out of the doorway” and that “his leg was back in a kicking motion,” the officer wrote. The second suspect “was jumping up and down, yelling, and smiling in an encouraging manner towards [the first suspect’s] actions.”

“I immediately suspected [the first suspect] was kicking a transient,” writes the arresting officer, who then ran to the scene and “observed [the first suspect] with his left hand on the wall of the doorway supporting himself and his right leg back in the air, preparing to kick the transient victim lying in the doorway.”

The first suspect was arrested for assault, and the second suspect was arrested for assault, encouraging the first suspect and “doing nothing to stop the assault.”

9 replies on “Man Says He Will “Go Columbine,” Then Kicks Transient”

  2. Are you the same intern who posted about the butter fight?

    Also, I wonder how much you can threaten a shooting spree in front of a cop without being arrested. Apparently quite a lot.

  3. Okay, so the second suspect was arrested for assault, encouraging the first suspect and “doing nothing to stop the assault.”

    The security guys at Westlake Station did nothing to stop an assault, and that’s okay. (??)

  4. @3: I suspect that the second suspect’s arrest had more to do with the first accusation than the second.

    There’s generally no obligation to intervene in a fight. However, his encouragement could act as a threat to the victim, and therefore be assault. Under that understanding, the accusation that he didn’t intervene would operate as support for the claim that he threatened the victim by way of the primary assailant.

Comments are closed.