• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Armed man shot...

WOD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
224
Location
Onalaska WA
Just another Birking? They can't say he raised his weapon, and they also cannot say the guy they shot was the shooter from the other location. Soooo, let's just shoot anybody who is armed just in case... and hope we shot the right guy. I smell fish!
 

HeesBonafide

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
152
Location
, ,
I wonder how long they gave him between ordering him to drop it and when they pulled

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-involved-shooting-Pritchard-Island-Park-165115486.html

Apparently the police didn't know if he had fired or raised his gun to do so before they opened fire. I wonder how long they gave him between ordering him to drop it and when they pulled the trigger?

In the case of my brother, there was not order given, no delay in shooting and because of that, he was shot because the officer thought he had a gun...which turned out to be his wallet.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-involved-shooting-Pritchard-Island-Park-165115486.html

Apparently the police didn't know if he had fired or raised his gun to do so before they opened fire. I wonder how long they gave him between ordering him to drop it and when they pulled the trigger?

That is NOT what the article said. It said they did not immediately release that information.

You do us no favors with inflaming suppositions that would appear to draw out anti LEO responses. The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
That is NOT The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.

What???? And go against tradition? Don't you know that the favorite pastime on internet forums is "jumping to conclusion(s)?

images
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
That is NOT what the article said. It said they did not immediately release that information.

You do us no favors with inflaming suppositions that would appear to draw out anti LEO responses. The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.

What???? And go against tradition? Don't you know that the favorite pastime on internet forums is "jumping to conclusion(s)?

images

We are not a traditional forum and are most definitely not internet forums. We deal in facts and post responsibly - yes?

That is what makes us different - Vive la différence.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
That is NOT what the article said. It said they did not immediately release that information.

You do us no favors with inflaming suppositions that would appear to draw out anti LEO responses. The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.

And you do us no favors by assuming malice where there wasn't any. Perhaps it reflects your own motives?

The article said police could not say. Words have meanings, as any journalist is well aware. Could not is a peculiar choice of wording, if the police simply refused to comment.

We are not a traditional forum and are most definitely not internet forums. We deal in facts and post responsibly - yes?

That is what makes us different - Vive la différence.

Motivational bias. You did it to me, but know your motivations were just even if you made an error. You don't know that about me, so you assume I was posting misinformation or propaganda. Shame on you for doing exactly what you object to.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
That is NOT what the article said. It said they did not immediately release that information.

You do us no favors with inflaming suppositions that would appear to draw out anti LEO responses. The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.

This is what the article says:

"Police say the officer encountered an armed man in the park. Officers ordered the suspect to drop his gun and then shots were fired and the suspect was hit. Police could not immediately say if the suspect fired a weapon or raised his gun."
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
This is what the article says:

"Police say the officer encountered an armed man in the park. Officers ordered the suspect to drop his gun and then shots were fired and the suspect was hit. Police could not immediately say if the suspect fired a weapon or raised his gun."

...and that contradicts Grapeshot's post how?

Come on Guys Grapeshot is a great moderator and I notice puts a concerted effort on not using his power as a moderator to enforce personal opinion.

He simply could have just locked up the thread or read the OP the riot act instead, he his trying to make sure we stay within the guidelines. While discussing local issues.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
That is NOT what the article said. It said they did not immediately release that information.
The above in red is a direct quote from the original article to which the OP linked. It was later updated/modified to the present verbiage. I stand by my statement.

You do us no favors with inflaming suppositions that would appear to draw out anti LEO responses. The responsible thing to do is to watch and wait for details.

And you do us no favors by assuming malice where there wasn't any. Perhaps it reflects your own motives?
Obviously there is no "malice" expressed. Suggesting that I have ulterior motives is a high insult.

The article said police could not say. Words have meanings, as any journalist is well aware. Could not is a peculiar choice of wording, if the police simply refused to comment.
Yes words have meanings and "did not immediately release" does not equate to "refused."

Motivational bias. You did it to me, but know your motivations were just even if you made an error. You don't know that about me, so you assume I was posting misinformation or propaganda. Shame on you for doing exactly what you object to.
You further insult me. I do not know your motivation. Mine is simple - to see that this forum addresses facts not things not in evidence. What-if scenarios may have their place, but hardly so with an going investigation.

Some of my response is embedded above in green.

Gentlemen - I have no problem with differing opinions posted responsibly w/o personal insults/attacks. I do have a problem when this rule is ignored. Anyone ignoring that may have their post deleted or edited and other sanctions imposed.

My original comment on this thread was intended to quell any distortion of facts and as a caution to not inflame emotions on what could be an already volatile case. I will continue to operate on that basis.

This has been blown out of proportion, apparently by a few that think they are not subject to moderation unless they agree with it. Sorry, but that is not how it works. Highjacking a thread to express disagreement with moderation will be responded to on the forum for the benefit of all.

Let it end here w/o further adieu and return to the case at hand.
 

WOD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
224
Location
Onalaska WA
Soooo...... *crickets chirping* ....... I'm guessing by the lack of follow up, that this hasn't been explained yet? Is still under investigation? No formal statement has been issued? Nobody cares anymore? Shooter was the same guy who got shot - case closed?

I didn't see any updates to the original story, and my popcorn is running out....
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Soooo...... *crickets chirping* ....... I'm guessing by the lack of follow up, that this hasn't been explained yet? Is still under investigation? No formal statement has been issued? Nobody cares anymore? Shooter was the same guy who got shot - case closed?

I didn't see any updates to the original story, and my popcorn is running out....

There's a good chance there is some audio from a "dash cam" and until it's reviewed nobody at SPD is going to say squat. If there is no audio then they'll be saying even less.

There's a good chance that this "investigation" will be conducted under the purview of DOJ's "Monitor".

Get another bag of Orville Redenbacher, toss it in the Microwave and then keep munching. Someday we'll hear the official "Real Story".
 
Top