Ceasefire WA rewards police chief who lost Glock

[David W. Gay]

The Criminal is to Blame

I'm with Jammer on this one - unless the gun was in plan view, and the article states it wasn't, it is hypocritical of us to blame the victim for this crime, despite the fact the victim is, himself, a hypocrit.

I do not think it is unreasonalbe to leave a firearm secured, and out of sight, in a locked vehicle. I have to do it on a regular basis do to the nature of carry laws. I am not going to leave my gun at home every time I go out simply because I might go somewhere where CC is not allowed. That would pretty much be every day. Instead, I secure my firearm, out of sight, in my vehicle.

Now, on another note, the article states that it is unknown whether or not the thief knew the car was a police vehicle. Come on, it was a Crown Vic, of course the thief knew it was police car! As Mr. Roberts pointed out, "...even plain cop cars aren't exactly subtle.". At least, every time I see one, marked or not, that's what I assume. And I slow down if necessary.

In any case - Carry On!

 

[Car Knocker]

I am not going to leave my gun at home every time I go out simply because I might go somewhere where CC is not allowed. That would pretty much be every day. Instead, I secure my firearm, out of sight, in my vehicle.

This is why they make lockboxes that can be bolted or cable-locked securely to a car. Even a good bicycle lock through the trigger guard and a seat bracket is better than just leaving a gun loose for someone to take.

My personal view on leaving a firearm in a car is this: Given how easily it is the break into a car and the frequency of auto burglaries, leaving a gun locked in a console or glovebox or even worse - stashed under the seat - is not secure storage. Not even close. I can't imagine the guilt I would feel at arming a criminal if my gun was stolen out of the glovebox and used to harm or kill someone. That's just my personal value system.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jammer Six-

Your posts are starting to edge closer and closer to becoming ad hominem attacks. That is unfortunate.

Chief Kerlikowske is likely somewhat recognizable around town, so is it unreasonable to think that a criminal observed him pulling "something black" from his hip and placing it in his car? The lucky opportunistic criminal could be thinking, "Was that a police radio, a wallet, or hopefully a gun?"

If the news report had rather said, "A highly-skilled criminal obtained his home address, bypassed his sophisticated electronic security measures, and utilized top-notch safecracking skills to gain entry to his gunsafe"...then I would feel enormous sympathy for the man. As it stands now, the Chief of Police did not exercise reasonable and prudent care in preventing his valuable duty weapon from being stolen. It's not like he was going someplace where they're not going to let him enter due to the pistol.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Jammer Six]

Blue Jay, it's not ad hominem.

You're blaming the victim, and I'm pointing it out.

If the shoe fits, wear it. This pair looks like it was made for you.

Blaming the victim for the decisions of a criminal is beneath contempt.

I hope none of you ever have the lesson driven home.

It does't matter if the car was a mini van, a marked cruiser or an unmarked Crown Vic. It doesn't matter who owned it. If it was recognizable as a cop car, that indicates a particularly aggressive thief, to me.

It stuns me that no matter what, you are determined to make this the fault of the VICTIM.

It is beneath contempt.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jammer Six-

Why did Seattle Chief of Police Kerlikowske voluntarily choose to relinquish control of his duty weapon? Why hasn't he addressed this? Both he and the thief have some answering to do.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[DRZinn]

Pointing out irresponsibility is not the same as "blaming the victim."

If I leave cash on my doorstep (to use an extreme example), and someone steals it, I'm not at fault, but it was a pretty damn stupid place to leave cash.

If a good-looking woman walks though South Central LA wearing revealing clothing, and gets raped, she's not at fault, but it was a pretty damn stupid place to display her body.

If a Chief of Police leaves his duty weapon in a car, and it gets stolen, he's not at fault, but it was a pretty damn stupid place to leave a gun.

 

[Jammer Six]

No, he was not stupid.

A locked car is a locked car. The weapon was not in plain view- the only way thief found it was to break into the car.

People leave weapons in cars all the time. Every day.

A legal action followed by a crime is a legal action, but the crime remains the crime.

I pity you all. It must hurt to think like that, you must spend a lot of time angry at the world, and confused why it doesn't work the way you expect it to.

Crimes are the responsibility of the criminal. Not the victim.

Her dress didn't invite the rape, his department issued car didn't invite the theft.

 

[DRZinn]

I pity you all. It must hurt to think like that, you must spend a lot of time angry at the world, and confused why it doesn't work the way you expect it to.

You're getting very tiresome. And you're projecting. I know how the world works, which is why I don't leave valuable items in unsecured places.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jammer Six-

A locked vehicle is NOT sufficient to protect a firearm from theft. This is the same reason why a reasonable person wouldn't store a small bag of diamonds in a car either. A simple "smash and grab" burglary lasts merely seconds, and Seattle Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske knows that. One needs internal steel lockboxes or cable locks firmly affixed to the vehicle at a very minimum. My post #28 outlines the differences.

Why did he voluntarily choose to relinquish control of his duty weapon while going shopping with his wife? I'm getting the feeling that Chief of Police Kerlikowske is someone who is simply "into" political power and doesn't even particularly enjoy the hobby of firearms. As the top law enforcement officer in his department, he also has a duty to prevent crime...in which he failed.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Jammer Six]

Apparently, you didn't read the article.

It wasn't his duty weapon. I've pointed that out, and it's in the cited story.

Locking a car most certainly is sufficient. It is the law here in Washington. I know several people who regularly store weapons in locked cars.

If you think more is required, do more.

It doesn't excuse the actions of a criminal.

Blaming the victim is beneath contempt.

 

[Jeff]

A locked car is not the same thing as a locked house. A locked car still sits on public property, when the owner of the car leaves to go inside the store or restaurant or whatever. A locked house sits on your own property-- or the property of a restricted association.

By leaving a loaded weapon in a car, locked or unlocked, that sits on public property, you are acting negligent by leaving a dangerous weapon in a PUBLIC PLACE.

And no one is excusing the criminal. Labeling him the dirtbag that he is doesn't need to be said. Pointing out the negligence of the officer, in this case the police chief, does.

 

[Old Dog]

Sigh. Negligence? If the car was locked and the firearm was out of sight, I don't think so. Just this very morning, I had to leave my pistol in my locked vehicle -- on public property (gasp!). Certainly, I would have preferred not to do so, but, being in a law enforcement profession, I obeyed the law by not carrying a firearm in a prohibited place.

Y'all are being awfully harsh on Jammer Six. I understand where he's coming from. I may not have much respect for SPD's chief, but I'm not gonna tar and feather him because he chose not to carry his Glock with him that day and left it in his vehicle. I'll criticize him for his politics or his lack of effectiveness, but not for doing something many of us have to do on a daily basis (assuming we are trying to observe the letter of the laws).

As the top law enforcement officer in his department, he also has a duty to prevent crime...in which he failed.

Geez, he's just a freakin' administrator. It's funny, too, how often on THR most people claim that the job of the police is NOT to prevent crime, and most here also acknowledge that police CANNOT prevent crime.

Anyway, who's to say the good chief wasn't packin' another gun that day, just didn't want to carry his big ol' plastic pistol around with him while toting his wife's shopping bags?

 

[Jammer Six]

I may not have much respect for SPD's chief, but I'm not gonna tar and feather him because he chose not to carry his Glock with him that day and left it in his vehicle. I'll criticize him for his politics or his lack of effectiveness, but not for doing something many of us have to do on a daily basis (assuming we are trying to observe the letter of the laws).

Exactly.

There are so many REAL, GOOD reasons to fire him...

Most of the people I know keep weapons in their cars. At least two rarely take them into their houses, because they have nice, locking cars to store them in.

Think that that is insufficient is naive, to say the least. (And I'm saying the least because I'm polite. There are much better descriptions.)

It wasn't his duty weapon. Doesn't matter.
He wasn't carrying it. Doesn't matter.
It was a city car. Doesn't matter.
He was shopping with his wife. Doesn't matter.
He's anti-gun. Doesn't matter.
It was his day off. Doesn't matter.

There is one thing, and one thing only, that matters.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "a locked car is not the same thing as a locked house."

They most certainly ARE the same, as far as theft is concerned. Legally and morally, there is no difference.

I am appalled at the idea that there is a difference, and genuinely sorry for any children you are teaching that concept to. They deserved better. I am pleased that we are so different.

It was a crime. Committed by a criminal.

 

[Highland Ranger]

No; it was negligence committed by the Chief.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

May I Throw Some More Fuel In The Fire?

Not to put too fine a point on the Second Amendment, but "Keep" is all too often ignored when we discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "Keep" should be as free from infringement as "Bear". There should never be a law specifying how one should store their arms. It would be unconstitutional. That said, however, common sense should certainly play a role, as well as negligence. It is no different as to how we USE our arms. Use is not protected by the Second Amendment and we certainly do not have the right to use arms as we please.

Let's go back to "Keep". Could leaving a gun on the seat of an unlocked car be considered protected by the Second Amendment? It is being left in your property. No one has the right to enter your property and remove(steal) a piece of your property. It should be the same for a piece of government property stolen from a government vehicle.

The thief is culpable here, completely. Regardless of the idiotic act of the officer leaving the gun in a situation for it to be easily stolen, the thief could have broken a window or slimjimmed the door open and made off with the gun anyway. Since the thief had the opportunity to reach into the cruiser unseen, breaking a window or using a slimjim is just as possible. And, there is the expectation of not having your property stolen. It takes a thief to ignore that expectation.

That said, I still think the officer was negligent for leaving the gun "unattended" on the seat of the cruiser. But, this should not become the death knell to "Keep". It should be a lesson to the officer and everyone else. That lesson is that not everyone out there is honest. Don't give the dishonest any easy pickins. Keep it holstered when not in use.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jammer Six-

While the law in Washington may say that a locked car is sufficient, I'd say the vast majority of THR members would vote that's a patently ineffective and highly dangerous way to secure a firearm. Seattle Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske (pictured below) should have done the right thing and kept his pistol on his hip when he went shopping with his wife...rather than leaving it where it could be easily stolen. That is downright irresponsible.

​

The reason a house is different from a car is that a person must cross a property line, defeat a lock, potentially defeat an electronic security system, and potentially defeat a locked safe on the premises. In my case, all of those layers of protection apply. With a car, someone can stand on the curb and smash a rock through the window and the crime will be completed within thirty seconds. That is precisely the reason why it is not prudent to store firearms in cars...not to mention the entire car can be flatbedded away if a sophisticated criminal was casing Chief Kerlikowske.

As an aside, your projection is really starting to spiral out of control. First you started projecting onto people with a difference of opinion...now you've moved onto these people along with any children with whom they might have contact? Sheesh.

Posted by Jammer Six
"...I have no idea where you get the idea that "a locked car is not the same thing as a locked house." They most certainly ARE the same, as far as theft is concerned. Legally and morally, there is no difference. I am appalled at the idea that there is a difference, and genuinely sorry for any children you are teaching that concept to. They deserved better...."

Nobody on this thread is cutting the criminal who stole the weapon ANY slack and most are illustrating how Chief Kerlikowske could have easily taken steps to prevent this theft in the first place. The criminal should feel the full weight of the law and Chief Kerlikowske should be explaining his reckless behavior. He is an armed public figure in Seattle and must take extra steps to secure his pistols which would become dangerous in the wrong hands.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Jammer Six]

Seattle Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske (pictured below) should have done the right thing and kept his pistol on his hip when he went shopping with his wife...rather than leaving it where it could be easily stolen. That is downright irresponsible.

How many weapons should he carry?

Apparently, you didn't read the article, and just looked at the picture.

It wasn't his duty weapon. Got that?

It was another weapon. That means that he has at least two weapons.

How many should he carry to be responsible, all of them? What if he owns fourteen of them? Does he have to carry all of them?

The mind boggles...

The reason a house is different from a car is that a person must cross a property line, defeat a lock, potentially defeat an electronic security system, and potentially defeat a locked safe on the premises. In my case, all of those layers of protection apply.

None of those are any moral or legal difference where theft is concerned.

Theft is theft, in a car, in a house or at a school.

The rest is hyberbole, and pitiful.

Nobody on this thread is cutting the criminal who stole the weapon ANY slack and most are illustrating how Chief Kerlikowske could have easily taken steps to prevent this theft in the first place. The criminal should feel the full weight of the law and Chief Kerlikowske should be explaining his reckless behavior. He is an armed public figure in Seattle and must take extra steps to secure his pistols which would become dangerous in the wrong hands.

Chief Kerlikowske did nothing wrong.

Nothing.

He is the victim. He complied with every Washington law, and all SPD regulations.

His only "crime" is political- he disagrees with you on gun rights.

The rest is arm waving.

First you started projecting onto people with a difference of opinion...now you've moved onto these people along with any children with whom they might have contact?

Of course. You didn't understand that, did you?

 

[Old Dog]

Aw, Jammer Six, I think you're jousting at windmills trying to get 'em to understand. What I find hypocritical is this sort of statement:

He is an armed public figure in Seattle and must take extra steps to secure his pistols which would become dangerous in the wrong hands.

Since so many THR members try so hard, so often, to tell us that cops and public figures are simply citizens like the rest of us ... they should have no special consideration, no special privileges ... but let 'em make one mistake, and boy howdy, the vultures are circling ... I guess THR members believe cops should be normal citizens unless they screw up ... in which case, we jump all over 'em, pour the barbeque sauce on 'em, and turn the gas up ...

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Old Dog-

It's simple, really. People know Seattle Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske by sight in that town and they know he is armed. He doesn't have the anonymity of a regular police officer. As a very recognizable public figure known to carry a weapon, he has to take precautions to ensure his sidearms don't wind up in the wrong hands.

Is that clearer for you?

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jammer Six-

Chief of Police Kerlikowske should carry only as many weapons as he can safely and responsibly manage. Two weapons is apparently one too many for him.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Jammer Six]

Aw, Jammer Six, I think you're jousting at windmills trying to get 'em to understand.

I think you're right, Old Dog.

Windmills have always pissed me off.

I refuse to let Chief Kerlikowske be hung for being a victim.

Then we couldn't hang him for the things he deserves being hung for.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Since so many THR members try so hard, so often, to tell us that cops and public figures are simply citizens like the rest of us ... they should have no special consideration, no special privileges ... but let 'em make one mistake, and boy howdy, the vultures are circling ... I guess THR members believe cops should be normal citizens unless they screw up ... in which case, we jump all over 'em, pour the barbeque sauce on 'em, and turn the gas up ...

You mean the cop in this case? The one who is working with Ceasefire WA to take YOUR guns away because you are too irresponsible to be trusted with them?

Most of the people I know keep weapons in their cars. At least two rarely take them into their houses, because they have nice, locking cars to store them in.

If somebody wants to store their firearms in a locked box composed of glass and fiberglass then I guess that is their business. It will save the thief the trouble of bringing his own gun to break into the house with and you know you won't lack for excitement if you have to see who is messing with your car in the middle of the night either.

 

[Jammer Six]

The one who is working with Ceasefire WA to take YOUR guns away because you are too irresponsible to be trusted with them?

He was not irresponsible. He complied with all laws and regulations.

It was a crime. His political views have no bearing on that.

Oppose his political views, but bringing his status as a victim in is pathetic.

If somebody wants to store their firearms in a locked box composed of glass and fiberglass then I guess that is their business.

Yes, it is, as long as it is legal.

Which it is.

What is so completely hypocritical is that the antis say we are irresponsible because we own weapons, and we rant about it being our right.

But when Chief Kerlikowski exercises HIS rights, as he sees fit, within the letter of the law, everything changes.

It was a crime.

No wonder they call us gun nuts.

 

[c_yeager]

He was not irrepsonsible. He complied with all laws and regulations.

Perhaps he complied with the absolute minimal standard of the law, although I have yet to see him actually being quoted as saying that he actually locked the vehicle, it was undamaged in the break-in.

Either way, the theft does make the man a hypocrite in mind of this direct quote ""It's important to me to do whatever I can to keep illegal guns
out of our communities."

This is what he said, words straight from the mouth of a man who chose only to follow the bear minimum of security standards for his own firearms. He does however feel that it is perfectly fine to levy controlls on every other gun owner in the world, some of which actually include "safe storage" laws to prevent thefts. Oddly enough the chief himself doesnt seem to agree that the victim doesnt bear responsiblity, except of course, when he is the victim.

source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58016

But when Chief Kerlikowski exercises HIS rights, as he sees fit, within the letter of the law, everything changes.

Except that this man has stated clearly and plainly that the letter of the law is *not* adequate when it comes to guns, he has expressed very strongly that more steps must be taken, perhaps he should be leading the way? No, he would rather we were on the tip of this sword, he will happily stand behind it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Jammer, you have seven posts that all say the same thing. I think we understand your point and your feelings on the matter. Do you have something new to add or do you intend to keep restating your disagreement every time someone posts?

And for the record, I think the belief that because you complied with the minimum standards demanded by the law you have somehow discharged your responsibility to society is pathetic. I value both my weapons and my neighbors more than that; but I recognize that not every one feels that way. Just because I am under no legal obligation to make it harder on thieves to steal my firearms doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. Every gun out there in the hands of a criminal is one more reason the antis will use to deprive you of your firearm rights.

And you miss my point, repeatedly even, which is that the Chief is hypocrite of the highest order. He campaigns to remove firearms from people like me and yet I hold myself to a higher standard than he does.