Posted on 05/29/2025 8:29:39 PM PDT by hiho hiho
SEATTLE — A legally armed civilian shot and killed a 16-year-old boy Wednesday night after the teen allegedly opened fire on two people in downtown Seattle, according to police.
The shooting happened just after 10 p.m. near First Avenue and Union Street. Police said the teen shot two people before he encountered a 57-year-old man licensed to carry a firearm, who then shot the teen.
“One individual produced a weapon, fired on the two individuals and then began to flee the scene,” said Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes. “When he did, he encountered a private citizen that was licensed to carry and that private citizen fired his weapon, striking the suspect.”
The teen, along with both shooting victims, was taken to Harborview Medical Center, where the 16-year-old later died. One of the victims has since been released from the hospital, while the other remains in satisfactory condition, police said.
Barnes said the teen’s weapon was recovered at the scene. The 57-year-old man who opened fire is cooperating with the investigation and is not currently considered a suspect.
Detectives are still working to determine what led up to the shooting and whether the victims and the suspect knew each other.
“We need people to have cooler heads to prevail,” Barnes said. “People who are carrying weapons — just know that our officers are out here, we are doing proactive patrols.”
KING 5 law enforcement analyst John Urquhart says the case is likely being viewed through the lens of Washington’s self-defense laws.
“Washington is what they call a ‘no duty to retreat’ state,” Urquhart said. “Other states call it ‘stand your ground.’ The idea is exactly the same — when a person is confronted by a bad guy, he is not required to back away or run away.”
Urquhart added that the timing and proximity of the shooting will be key in determining whether the use of deadly force was legally justified.
“Did he intervene when the suspect was running away and a block away — or when the suspect was still on scene and clearly armed?” he said. “The fact that the citizen was not arrested, was not booked, is not being described as a suspect, leads me to believe Seattle police see this as a legal and justified use of force. But again, they don’t make the final decision — the prosecutor’s office does.”
one less of them...
There is no need to wonder.
The police chief in every Democrat-run large city prefers ordinary citizens to be completely disarmed.
And political authorities benefit from a defenseless population terrorized by violent armed criminals. It causes people to beg the government for harsh repressive measures and to grant the officials new powers and controls.
...and will probably shoot the defending person.
Removed from the gene pool and removed from masses - another POS low IQ, violent feral.
Sleeping with the fishes is a metaphor for being tied up and tossed into a river or lake.
Thus saving the law abiding populace from hundreds of future violent crimes. Give the guy a medal and a box of ammunition
OMG! Does the Mayor know about this?
The world saw how Seattle PD protected the Christians from antifa.
Yes, but they are still not omnipresent.
Since they cannot be everywhere, the best thing to have is an armed citizen.
Yep. And as the article says - it is up to a prosecutor to make the charges. Get some young buck wanting to make a name for himself. Use some words like “too many people to quick to use a gun”, etc.
Below is an excerpt from the Washington State Laws on Justifiable Homicide. I believe that some of these laws have “changed” Not that the actual laws have been changed, but have been “changed” by case law. While the “law” states that homicide is justifiable to prevent a felony against a person (to me that means stealing my car), case law says it is not okay to kill someone over a car.
Anyway - here is the law. Note the “note” at the end. Citizens that aren’t cops have MORE leeway in the state.
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding — Good faith standard.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
.....
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a “threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
....
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given, provided the officer meets the good faith standard of this section.
(3) A public officer covered by subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
NOTE:
Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [ 1986 c 209 s 3.]
I wouldn’t say a damn thing unless it was approved by my attorney.
CC
Judge can’t overturn that good work. Nice job.
“A legally armed CITIZEN...”
“...Urquhart added that the timing and proximity of the shooting will be key in determining whether the use of deadly force was legally justified.....”
I fully expect that this armed citizen will be charged with a crime that will either put him in jail or strip him of his concealed carry license. The justice system in this state is not about justice, it is about cowering to criminals, and then putting them in a revolving judicial door so they can go out and commit more crimes. The armed citizen is a threat to those who make their living in that revolving door.
That quote jumped out at me, too! Maddingly vague feel-good sound bite for the press! Signifying nothing!
Regards,
It’s a public service justified shooting.
Coulter’s Law applies.
PSH - Public Service Homicide
“We need people to have cooler heads to prevail,” Barnes said. “People who are carrying weapons — just know that our officers are out here, we are doing proactive patrols.”
…hahahaha
If the older man reasonably perceives that he or someone near by has a credible fear of serious injury or death, then he is allowed to use deadly force.
On the other hand, if the older man ran after the shooter and tried to stop him, or ordered him to surrender his gun, then a jury is going to get involved, and the verdict is less certain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.