Guard shoots boy, 15, at FDA office in Bothell

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by c776560
reply to post by kimish
 


You do know that, by stating that you miss the guys point?
He was just pointing out that the guard was FOLLOWING the law.

Yet, you have to drag in personal opinions of what and why you think a fifteen year old should be shot.
Was this in Europe, your comment would be hated to death, or your comment would be different.
Please see from different perspectives as people are run down by cars every day and no shootings occur like this one and we are merely discussing the law and the justification of the actions of the guard.

If you have more opinions like these, please head over to Stormfront, create an anti-teen forum and ramble about that kids shouldn't be skatin' on the sidewalk no more.


Are we not entitled to our own opinions and our rights to express ourselves? And we are not in Europe so... Maybe you should relax and wash the sand out of your vagina and quit trolling, just a suggestion.
Maybe you should also stay on topic instead of trolling the thread and disrupting conversation.

@OP. This is a very touchy case indeed and I can see it going either way. Or maybe it will be swept under the rug and we'll hear nothing about it again? Regardless, I'm anxious to see how all of this plays out. Something definitely stinks about it.
edit on 10-2-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Except this is not a blog, you are just fueling more to the white and black discussion as mentioned by the original poster who pointed out,



If you wish me to be more exact let me know. I hate being dragged into some of these discussions as people like to attack me forexplaining the law and refusing to condemn an action that was lawful and justified.


Again, this is not ATS - My blog. Don't be ignorant and refrain from using personal attacks as this will just make your argument less credible.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You should know me better than that.

Not liking a law is EVERY reason to ignore it. Civil Disobedience is the duty of the rational American. As a free man, I live under enough authority already.

Regardless, RE: professional courtesy....i couldn't agree more. And your point is well taken.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Wow. There sure is a lot of speculation these last couple of pages. This issue seems to have gone away as far as the local news media is concerned. I've tried to keep up since it happened near me and this is a summary using the latest information, as well as comments on the papers' articles. I'm using the Seattle Times, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, and KOMO-TV as sources.

The 15 year old apparently took his mother's car without permission and drove to the school, which is an "alternative" high school next door to the FDA facility, separated by a fence.

The kids at the school apparently take breaks, go off of school property next to the FDA building (but on public property) and smoke, i.e.: Hang out.

The kids have been warned not to enter FDA property, but this kid parked in the FDA parking lot, which attracted the attention of more than one rent-a-cop guard.

At first the kid ran away from the guards, but then he returned, hopped in the car, and attempted to drive away. This is when the guard was hit, as the car was backing up. Reports of others indicate it was a glancing blow and that, apparently, a side view mirror was knocked off the car.

That's when the guard(s) opened fire. The guards also managed to get the license plate number.

The kid drove off, committed a hit&run and drove back to his parent's house with a wound to his foot and some minor facial lacerations. The local police department went to the house, arrested him, and took him to the hospital, where he was soon released and taken into police custody.

That's what we have so far. I regularly am on the local news sites. If anything turns up I'll report back.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



Wait....they were shooting at a car driving away from them next to a school???



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


yes, they did. and again it looks like you're gearing up to apply 20/20 hindsight to a situation you weren't there for. you've asserted all along that the guards should've thought more about it before they fired on the car, and you've injected things like 'hes a teenager and probably a bad driver.' as justification. so look at the facts, not suppositions, the guards had available to them at the time: they'd approached this individual, within their mandated patrol area, once and he fled. he then reappeared and they attempted to approach again, at which point he jumped in a vehicle and struck one of the guards before attempting to flee. at that point they have a valid reason to fear for their safety and the safety of others because the driver has already shown blatant disregard for life and society by striking an individual with his vehicle and attempting to flee. they were fully justified in shooting. just because you seem to have a negative opinion of private contract security doesn't change the facts.

and fyi, where i'm at, armed private security guards have full arrest authority, granted to them by the state criminal justice services branch, to arrest, detain, and investigate any crime from jaywalking to murder that occur within their patrol area.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


yes, they did. and again it looks like you're gearing up to apply 20/20 hindsight to a situation you weren't there for. you've asserted all along that the guards should've thought more about it before they fired on the car, and you've injected things like 'hes a teenager and probably a bad driver.' as justification. so look at the facts, not suppositions, the guards had available to them at the time: they'd approached this individual, within their mandated patrol area, once and he fled. he then reappeared and they attempted to approach again, at which point he jumped in a vehicle and struck one of the guards before attempting to flee. at that point they have a valid reason to fear for their safety and the safety of others because the driver has already shown blatant disregard for life and society by striking an individual with his vehicle and attempting to flee. they were fully justified in shooting. just because you seem to have a negative opinion of private contract security doesn't change the facts.

and fyi, where i'm at, armed private security guards have full arrest authority, granted to them by the state criminal justice services branch, to arrest, detain, and investigate any crime from jaywalking to murder that occur within their patrol area.



Then lets look at facts:

- He was backing up, and struck an officer. He wasn't maliciously aiming for him

- The guard was running towards him

- the blow was "glancing", meaning that the guard didn't really get hit

- we charge more for teen drivers because they do not drive very well. Running after one in a car driving in reverse towards you is stupid by any measure.

I have a negative opinion of anyone enforcing laws, in general. If i park my car in a parking lot, and someone wants to approach me, I don't have to stand and wait for them. No matter how much they scream for me to stop. If they are a POLICE officer, I will. If they aren't, they likely will be ignored. I have the opinion that the kid, in his action of sitting in a parking lot, was not doing anything wrong. I also think that if we are to honestly believe that a security guard can enforce you stopping to talk to him with the threat of death, we are so far from liberty that we are hopelessly lost.

Even more, that I have to argue with people about this tells me that I am screwed, as I am surrounded by voters who have become docile sheep.

A facility with armed security patrolling the perimeter has absolutely no business near a school. Again, I cannot believe that I have to even point this out.

The entire story is absurd beyond belief. Right down to, and including, characterizing the officer getting hit by a car that is backing up as "the driver trying to run him over". Were it a traffic accident, the guard would be at fault. A driver going in reverse has right of way (at least, in every traffic accident I have ever seen reported on).



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by schuyler
 


Wait....they were shooting at a car driving away from them next to a school???


Correct. This is one of those "alternative" high schools designed to take students who have "trouble adjusting" to a normal classroom environment. Although OP claimed this was a rural environment, it's actuallly a business-park type area with lots of large buildings all around. The school district likely rented space in one of these buildings to house the alternative school. It's not like a normal school zone with a lot of yellow busses and marked crosswalks around.

Also, we don't know exactly when shots were fired. It could have been when the car was still backing up. The facts around this part of the incident are still pretty murky.


A facility with armed security patrolling the perimeter has absolutely no business near a school. Again, I cannot believe that I have to even point this out.


Edit to add: Bear in mind that the FDA was probably there long before the school. It's not as if the FDA built a building next to your favorite neighborhood elementary school and installed armed guards. I agre with much of the rest of what you are saying, however.
edit on 2/10/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


your entire problem is that you're trying to apply facts known AFTER the incident to judgments made DURING the incident. lets look at the facts DURING the situation instead of AFTER the situation

fact: the officer has no idea what his intent is when he's inside his vehicle because he's refused to speak to them. all the officer knows is that the individual has put his vehicle into gear and is moving towards him.

fact: the guard was running? what possible difference does this make? because he was running he looked more menacing? okay cool. so by your definition, when the kid ran the first time, he immediately became more menacing to the guards because he was running.

fact: glancing blow? for real? so you know how fast the kid was backing up? you keep implying the kid was panicked. okay take that further. panicked, untrained drivers mash the accelerator because they don't know what else to do, so he was potentially moving fast enough to inflict damage. this comment is utterly absurd. thats like telling me getting a through and through gunshot wound to the calf doesn't really count as getting shot because it didn't hit any bone or vital organs.

fact: the driver refused to cooperate with the guards when they approached him, so they had no idea how old he was, and dont feed me any lines about how you can tell someone's age by looking at them. sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.

you can have all the opinions you want, it doesn't change what the law is. if you park on private property, you have the right to ignore that property owner or their agent's orders to leave the property. they have the right to tow your vehicle. if you park on property that is patrolled by guards that have been trained and certified to detain and arrest individuals on their property, but because of your OPINION you choose to ignore their lawfully issued orders, whatever happens after that is your own fault. just because you don't like it doesn't change it. yes, a security guard on his legally defined patrol who is granted the authority by the state to make arrests and detentions within his patrol area has every right to detain you if he has probable cause. don't like it? don't park on his patrol area. doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me cognizant of how the law works dude.

as for flipping your lid because there's a site with armed guards near a school....thats comical man. there's a police station less than a mile from a high school, alternative school, and elementary school. oh em gee the horror they have guns near a school!



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


Lets look at the simple fact that someone fleeing a security guard is not reason to discharge a firearm next door to a school. "Iminent threat" means the car is driving towards you, not away from you.

To shoot after the fact is not self defense, it is revenge.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


as for flipping your lid because there's a site with armed guards near a school....thats comical man. there's a police station less than a mile from a high school, alternative school, and elementary school. oh em gee the horror they have guns near a school!



To point out, police stations have commissioned officers inside. Officers who are trained, and accountable for that training.

Security guards are not (typically) commissioned officers.

There is a different standard for both, and you cannot blur the line between the two. Paul Blart is not a police officer.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
true story. except where I'm at, armed guards have to attend an academy, pass background checks, and do the same weapons qualification that the police department runs (point of fact, the weapons training is conducted by the PD). so no, they don't have a blanket commission to operate across the entire county or state, but they do have full authority and training to conduct police actions within their area of responsibility. are they cops? not when they're at home, no. in their AOR? yep, sure are.

are all guards held to this standard? no, of course not. but since we know nothing about what training these guards have undergone, its really not fair to paint them as yahoos on the loose. they're guarding a federal building, I'm willing to bet they're trained to a higher degree than your average Securitas unarmed guard.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


you're ignoring what Excathedra pointed out to you. if there is a justifiable reason to believe that the fleeing individual poses a threat to society if allowed to freely continue his/her flight, then you're justified in firing in an attempt to stop the flight.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 



I am not ignoring it. I just disagree with it. This wasn't somebody who had tried to harm anyone, by the accounts I am reading. It was someone who was hanging out, didn't want to be talked to, and tried to drive away. The hitting someone was incidental.

Also, since I am not on a jury, I am able to take into account the posting by Schuyler discussing the guards being perceived as yahoos on the loose by others in the community.

Apparently they are serious about guarding an FDA facility. They are willing to shoot someone who is simply driving away from them instead of staying to be questioned.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


cool man. keep spinning the story and ignoring facts because they don't fit in with your own personal belief system. carry on dood!



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


I am not ignoring facts. I listed what I found pertinent. Spinning is what you are doing when you state I am ignoring facts.

I reject the majority of notions in this nation of "law enforcement". I have rather radical views on what "free" means, and what "liberty" is.

In general I believe that we have a situation where too many folks don't mind ceding their freedom to authority, and living like timid lambs.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I have a small bit of additional information on the incident. The local news media have no fresh stories on it.


Several students who go to the nearby Secondary Academy for Success (SAS) saw the incident. They say the boy was recently kicked out of school, but showed up on campus Friday morning. He was chased away by campus security. That’s when he ended up in the FDA parking lot.

A witness said he heard two gunshots, and then saw about 15 kids duck for cover and scatter.

“I just stood there at first and then I was thinking about running behind a parked car,” said Syndi, one of the students who saw it happen.

Another student called it “blatantly stupid” for the teen to go there because students have been told the FDA parking lot is off limits.


The article from King-5 news is here. The rest of the article summarizes what we already know. It DOES explain why the kid was somewhere other than the school parking lot.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


nice. I see you're taking my signature to heart. if it resonates with one person, then all the effort of putting in there was worth it



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


I get the feeling that you are a "last word" sort of guy. If so, please don't allow this last post rob you of your desire.

I will happily cop to being a moron. But my convictions are my convictions. Not likely to be changed by a discussion with some random dude on a forum.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


A question and no offense is intended...

You have stated you willingly ignore laws you dont agree with. Out of curiosiity does that same standard apply to others back towards you?

Back on topic...

Your post about the kid and driving is only 1 part of the larger incident. Had nothing occurred prior to the kid backing up then the argument about crappy driving would posssibly carry more weight. However, you are ignoring all of the events, as well as history of the situation (which has been ongoing according to the article prior to this incident), leading up to the shots fired portion.

The incident must be viewed in its entirety, from A to Z.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join