Man shot outside Everett McDonalds

bigdave55 said on July 27, 2010 at 3:16 PM

No update here but it is reported that things did not go as described and the panhandler was shot in the hip, buttocks and thigh as he walked away. Sounds like that old boy will be having plenty of time to think about his ways and likelihood of this not being a self defense shooting.

ramac7716 said on July 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

the statement is he tried to get to my gun on my hip by reach in i was scared for my life and pull my gun and fired. please help end of statement

mlloyd said on July 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Even the crazies understand having thier melon thumped. I would think that in this case, he'll probably not be acting like a azzhole at Mc Ds any time soon.

bigdave55 said on July 25, 2010 at 9:31 AM

If involved in a Self Defense shooting one can expect to be arrested until such time an investigation can occur. This does not happen all the time but does none the less. To protect yourself against the aftermath of a Self Defense shooting seek professional training not only in safe handling and the effective use of firearms but to learn about the laws, prevention, alternatives, dealing with the legal system and the aftermath. It should speak volumes for the 61YO to stay in place while awaiting for Police to arrive.

bobknows said on July 25, 2010 at 9:22 AM

"Protection" is one of the oldest forms of organized crime. To market "protection" they first have to stop good men from protecting ourselves. Mr. 61 year old man protected himself, and the blue gun thugs cannot allow self protection or their organized crime racket would be broken.

juliav said on July 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Because the 61-year-old did not submit to the attack, HE is arrested?

bigdave55 said on July 25, 2010 at 8:44 AM

The Troy Meades and this case is apples and oranges, Troy was acting in his capacity as an Officer and the RCW's differ from Officers and Joe Citizen. RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding. RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.

bigdave55 said on July 25, 2010 at 8:39 AM

billy12345 you need to do your homework on self defense and how the burden of proof changes to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not. In short he is stating he shot him and it was in self defense which is known as an affirmative defense, the State has to prove he did not act in Self Defense.

billy12345 said on July 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM

bigdave55, it is up to the state to prove he committed the crime of assault 1. It is up to the shooter to prove that he did it in self defense. You have the law on this a little wrong. After a not-guilty the jury then hears arguments as to why or why not is was self-defense and then deliberates more on these facts. Go back to Troy Meades case. He was found not guilty but the jury did not find that it was self defense because the facts to back up the requirements just were not there.

bigdave55 said on July 25, 2010 at 6:30 AM

I do not see why they arrested him, after the action he stayed where he was at and waited for Police to arrive. It is unknown from this story if he called 911 or not and then his claim of self defense which places the burden of proof lies upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in Self Defense.

bobknows said on July 25, 2010 at 6:21 AM

Why was he arrested and tossed into a jail? It was obvious self defense. Oh, yea, the pigs are all about arresting men. Arrest first and ask questions later. Never mind that jail is a serious trauma for a man who has already been attacked and traumatized. The first requirement of the "protection" racket is to prevent good men from protecting ourselves. Organized crime marches on. The blue gun thugs are making a bad situation worse, and are not "protecting" anyone. They are wasting thousands of dollars of OUR money making a bad situation worse. Our elected politicians need to CUT THEIR BUDGETS and get them off our backs.

bigdave55 said on July 25, 2010 at 6:13 AM

State law does allow for the use of a firearm to protect yourself during the commission of a felony and the last I looked robbery is a felony. This is not to say it should be every time but there seems to be a couple of elements here that cannot be over looked. Known panhandler with mental trouble and the shooter normal routine involved going into McDonald's and then returning to his truck where he claims he protected himself to prevent a strong armed robbery. A defensive firearm is a tool of last resort or when there is no time to avoid grievous bodily harm or death. The Claim of Self Defense requires the State to prove otherwise and beyond a reasonable doubt, not suspicion.

rigidprinciples said on July 25, 2010 at 6:01 AM

IMHO, 61 years is long enough. Can you imagine after living 61 years on this planet, and then you defend yourself, and they incarcerate you ? He should've shot the cops too.

daisydog said on July 25, 2010 at 4:28 AM

Firearms safety lesson #1: Learn the following phrase: "I feared for my life, and fired in his direction." Use proper shooting technique: Aim center of mass, pause, exhale, gentle trigger squeeze.....

eightwrong said on July 25, 2010 at 1:38 AM

@jimmy29, you have a long career ahead of you as a news reporter, or maybe a layer.

pugetsound said on July 24, 2010 at 11:59 PM

This article is pure garbage. Having to reread it three or four times to find out "who-did-what?" is ridiculous.

jimmy29s said on July 24, 2010 at 10:57 PM

why is it that people complain about typo's when it happens to everyone even news reporter and yeah they can't post the names until the people involved until the family members say its OK or the cops have contacted all the family members in some cases if you watch the news often you should know this it happens all the time when there a shooting because if the person shot dies king5 could get sued for releasing the names without the family members or layers of the family involved say its ok

clear2copy said on July 24, 2010 at 9:58 PM

sorry kow.. grabbing the wallet and cell phone aren't immediate threats to life or limb.. there was no suggestion that the shooter felt in immediate danger of his life. If the items were grabbed and the thief was attempting to pull back and leave with the items.. then the shooting would be punitive..not defensive. Which is NOT reason to use deadly force. We'll see for sure if the prosecutor files on this. which I'm guessing will happen.

akrandy said on July 24, 2010 at 9:44 PM

mitchell99: All you have to do to be a "reporter" nowdays is write from the FAR FAR LEFT!!

eightwrong said on July 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM

I love the comment section way more than the news. :)

repetivity said on July 24, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I love how you sheeple are quick to persecute the 61 year old because it suits your needs. If the exact same situation were to recur but the shooter was a cop you same people would be screaming about how this "investigation" is unjustified. Oh, and the "shooter" would be getting paid for being at home instead of in jail.

sevendeadlysins said on July 24, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Alright so I have to say I am not surprised this happened at all. I lived a few blocks down from this exact place. This area particular is not safe to be in at all really. I mean for god sakes I lived right next door to a murderer! Even the KFC near by I had similar issues of a man trying to harass me for money so I gave him some afraid he'd shoot me. Pan handlers can be aggressive some times, especially there.

justice2 said on July 24, 2010 at 6:57 PM

WTH Liberterius.....you are ok with this but continously defend red squirrel???? Doesn't make sense! If he wanted to kill him he could have.....he was definitely defending himself!

the_commando said on July 24, 2010 at 6:48 PM

BTW, I teach self-defense in both physical and legal perspectives. None of my students got arrested for assault. Have they beat the cr@p out of bullies? Yep, dozens of them. BTW, my martial arts style is called "Rex Kwon Do."

kungfu_jeff said on July 24, 2010 at 6:37 PM

All the old man has to say is...."I was in fear for my life, officer." That's all she wrote. But tell me, old man. That's what you told the cops, right? Right?

dasindog said on July 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Good lord, awful writing, both men are introduced as being "regulars" and both are continued to be referred to as "regular" WTF, just say, call one Jared and the other Bobknows.

mitchell99 said on July 24, 2010 at 5:09 PM

This article is so poorly written that I couldn't tell who the shooter was and who the victim was until I went back and re-read it a couple of times. Is this what passes for journalism these days? Doesn't King 5 employ any proof readers?

dayngerous said on July 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM

The guy was being harassed, he walked away, his harasser followed him and reached into the car after him. That's a threat, period. Pull the gun, remove the threat. Wait for cops. Unless it turns out his possession of the gun was illegal, it looks to me as though he did nothing wrong.

charlesyfarley said on July 24, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Posted by SeatecAstronomy at 7/24/2010 5:18 p.m. The "thugs" running around loose are self-appointed vigilantes who would be perfect characters in "The Ox-Bow Incident." If you haven't read it, do so. My favorite part is where the Colonel locks his son outside his house, goes into his library and blows his brains out rather than face justice for the lynching of three innocent men. But never mind the propensity of gun nuts to attempt deliberate homicide at the drop of a hat. What concerns me is that the same imbecilic, idiotic, inane impulses that drive people to shoot first and ask questions later also drives some people to comment first, in abject ignorance of all but the most basic facts. Hey, why bother having courts and a justice system when we have maniacal gun nuts aching to blast "thugs?" Who needs laws? Who needs fair trials? Nobody who drinks tea, that's for sure.

underserf said on July 24, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Street justice, yep, all the more reason to arm everybody. Would not, oh, say 3 out of 10 armed citizens nearby decided this old geez was gonna go San Ysidro on the fast food patrons? A few carefully placed CCPs coulda eliminated the need for that pesky, expensive, pointless trial. Unless we've elevated the value of a cell phone to the equivalent of a horse in the Old West, this guy is a murderer and should have been taken out like any other. Life < property, the American Way? That makes for interesting penalties for BP execs.

holykow said on July 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM

C2C: No Duty To Retreat. Look it up. Looking only at what has been presented so far, man reaches into his vehicle for assumed purposes. The shooter has the right to respond with deadly force if they feel their life was in danger. Someone that was just harassing me out the door of a business and to my vehicle and then reaches into the vehicle to do ....**right there**. That moment is where it is reasonable for that man to assume that his personal space had been violated to the point where he feels that his life has been put into question. It is that moment where this changed from harassment to assault. He was under attack at that time and it is highly likely that his response will be found reasonable. More to come on it, but prima facia, looks more than reasonable. hk

kungfu_jeff said on July 24, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Don't mess with old guys! They know how to use firearms! Wuhahahahahahahaha! (But I didn't say when to use firearms though.)

clear2copy said on July 24, 2010 at 2:52 PM

no holykow..NOT a good shoot, by any means.

kidrickrockford said on July 24, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Another confusing story Key Questions Who is the (The Man) Whats his Name? Refering to)??? Who is the other man, whats his name????? Who the hell is the victim and who is the shooter?? And right now this story makes me feel like a victim that wishes he was a shooter:) K

skippythedog said on July 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

yup...reach into my window at me and you will meet my buddy Sig. He's .45 like me.

holykow said on July 24, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Good shoot. If you attempt to get into my vehicle, safety becomes an issue and I will shoot you. Plain and simple. Do not harrass me and follow me to my car and do not try to steal my stuff and you will NOT get shot. Your choice. The man could not have interepreted the transient's actions in any way but hostile. He deserved what he got and this man will walk, no matter the outcome of the wounded thief. hk

liberterius said on July 24, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Sounds like Hobo got a serious case of the Mac Attack! Too bad he wasn't shot in the head.

mediawatch said on July 24, 2010 at 1:30 PM

FINALLY!! An NRA picture-perfect example of how carrying a handgun prevented yet another egregious harassment incident by a persistent street beggar! There, put that in your illegal glass pipes and smoke it you liberal ding bats! If that man had NOT had his trusty sidearm handy he would have been harassed and potentially would have lost his insurance-covered, free Nokia cell phone.