Olympia Teacher Brings Gun To School

[kengrubb]

Does the law prohibit a cap & ball pistol?

It would seem that it does.

9.41.280 says any firearm, and the definition in 9.41.010 of "firearm" or "antique firearm" would seem to include it.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010

 

[kengrubb]

I would carry a pistol everywhere in that city!

Everett ain't that bad. Hilltop area of Tacoma and Tri-cities are probably the most violent areas in the state. But neither even begins to compare to someplace like Baltimore, MD or Washington, DC.


With that said, I'm on the uber-yuppie Eastside, in Bellevue, and I carry a gun everywhere. Never know, might run into some outta town ijit rather than the usual brand of latte-swilling, gangster wannabees.

Authorities said a group of about 15 teenagers pulled a woman from her car and beat her Thursday afternoon near Mariner High School in Everett.

I feel for the woman, but Washington is a very Shall Issue state. If she didn't have a gun, it was likely by choice--unless she's a felon.

I bet that was in an unarmed victim zone as well. I hate this country.

I don't much care for many of the current laws, but it's actually perfectly legal for a Concealed Pistol License holder in Washington state to carry to school while picking up or dropping off a child. From what I can tell, the woman could have legally been carrying at either attack. She chose not to carry.

Doesn't matter that they were "kids". They were 15, 17 and 18 and likely as big as the woman. Three on one is kinda a magic number to justify deadly force, but it's certainly not a legal requirement anywhere. Washington state has one of the better, if not best, use of force statutes and caselaw behind it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Ok, that wasn't supposed to be funny when I wrote it. I suppose the Army is pretty dangerous too, but we have guns.

Didn't some general make that point a couple of years back? Seems to me I recall reading about some anti-gun general who made the snide comment that "People who want to carry guns should join the Army, we have them."

 

[ec-10]

I read some of the comments in the link provided by 44Brent. GOD what a nation of grown children we have become!

If I had any kids they would be home schooled.

I work with a guy who is 64. When he was in grade school he and his friend used to hunt rabbits on the walk to school. He says that they would leave the rabbits at the back door of the school and their rifles were hung on the coat hooks in the classroom. I think I was born about 30 years too late. :banghead:

 

[strambo]

She knowingly and willfully broke the law
Why should she be immune just because we don't agree with that law?
What has she done to change that law before it interfered with what she wanted to do?

Civil disobedience is what she did...we peasants don't really have much power to change these things. She knowingly broke the law because she knowingly has a violent scumbag husband (hopefully "ex"). Maybe she has a defense under the competing harms or "lesser of 2 evils" type laws. The only thing she did "stupid" was talk. Making the decision to protect yourself against a known threat regardless of the un-constitutional law isn't stupid in my book.

Sadly, for her continued job prospects it might have been better if she tried to touch a student where she shouldn't have. I've heard of it taking those scumbag teachers 6 months to a year to get fired. Pretty messed up where a victimless non-crime (it shouldn't be anyway) is seen as more serious, or at least dealt with more swiftly, than sexual harrassment of students.

 

[Molon Labe]

The government has worked very hard to guarantee every teacher is unarmed.

That's right... there's a government guarantee schools are defenseless and teachers are unarmed. What more could a criminal ask for?

 

[Molon Labe]

She knowingly and willfully broke the law

Some laws need to be broken.

 

[Green Lantern]

^ Indeed, in the eyes of God and any RATIONAL man, she was justified.

Up till the point she told the blabbermouth that got her busted, that is...stupid!

 

[RioShooter]

Best reason for Jury nullification!

Damn right! I wish more jurors knew they had that option.

 

[joab]

Some laws need to be broken.

Civil disobedience is what she did...we peasants don't really have much power to change these things. She knowingly broke the law because she knowingly has a violent scumbag husband (hopefully "ex"). Maybe she has a defense under the competing harms or "lesser of 2 evils" type laws.

Then stand up a face the jury with that defense, not some "I didn't know any better" high schooler defense.

Civil disobedience is when you defy the law on principle not when you make excuses for your actions after you get caught.

 

[strambo]

I'd hope she wouldn't use the "I didn't know better" defense, in the article she said she knew it was wrong (well, "right", but legally wrong ), but thought the reprocussion would be a scolding and having to put it in her car. She should have looked up the statute to know the worst case scenario first. In Oregon, it would be legal I believe...just get her fired.

 

[Mr. James]

Well said, joab. She made a deliberate decision to ignore an unjust law (a decision I fully support). Having done so, she should be willing to face the music. I should think given the domestic unpleasantness and protective order, her attorney could make her a most attractive defendant.

Of course, her teaching career is well-done toast.

Hey, maybe NOW will organize a legal defense fund for her . . . NOT.

 

[calzoom]

Joab, Ouote:Of course she should be prosecuted.

Her circumstances should be taken into consideration and she should be given the appropriate sentence if convicted.
In my mind it should be the lightest sentence possible.

She should be able to use the affirmative defense of mitigating circumstances and be given a slap on the wrist at most

Wait a minute! YOU want her prosecuted. NO you want her slapped on the wrist. NO you want......What the hell do you want????? This is the kind of double standard that is sinking America!

YOU want someone else to take em to the wood shed but you don't want em to get a whippin.......GIVE ME A BREAK...you have to be smarter than this...

 

[mike101]

Molon Labe Is Right

Some laws do need to be broken. Were I a teacher, I'd carry a gun to school every damn day. I would not tell a soul about it. The only way anyone would know, is if I had to use it to defend the kids against some loonie. Then, I would have to wade through a sea of grateful, former anti-gun parents to leave the building.

I am likeing the signature I use more every day.

 

[joab]

Wait a minute! YOU want her prosecuted. NO you want her slapped on the wrist. NO you want......What the hell do you want????? This is the kind of double standard that is sinking America!

Here we go again another newbie spewing insults before he even learns to use the quote function

Of course she should be prosecuted.

Her circumstances should be taken into consideration and she should be given the appropriate sentence if convicted.
In my mind it should be the lightest sentence possible.

She should be able to use the affirmative defense of mitigating circumstances and be given a slap on the wrist at most

Just what is so damn hard to understand.
1)She violated the law she should be prosecuted.
2)There are mitigating circumstances that she should be able to use in her defense
3)There are different levels of sentencing depending on many different circumstances. Her circumstance would, to me, dictate she get a light sentence, but not a pass, if convicted.

A figurative slap on the wrist sentence can only come after prosecution of some sort, even you have to be smart enough to figure that out.

 

[kengrubb]

Didn't some general make that point a couple of years back? Seems to me I recall reading about some anti-gun general who made the snide comment that "People who want to carry guns should join the Army, we have them."

That was Gen. Wesley Clark when he was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004.

I believe the quote was "assault weapons" and not "guns". The AWB was coming up on expiration at that time, and he was endorsing it's renewal.

 

[ccw9mm]

This is unfortunate she will probaly lose her job and her certification to teach. As it stands now school zones are unarmed victim zones.

Yup. Can't see Washington changing anytime soon. Given what's been happening recently with shootings, it wouldn't surprise me if she were doing this to help protect her students in a way she knew how, despite the laws. Who's to say. A bit of a "Kevorkian" style defense, perhaps. A lot of good it would do here. She's about to be filleted, like as not.

In principle, I'm all for packing teachers, so long as their skilled/trained and not mere schlubs without control. The one good thing that could come out of the recent school shootings is, IMO, the rewriting of basic carry laws to open up school premises to legal carry. It's about the only thing that can stop an armed assault in progress.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

If she didn't have a gun, it was likely by choice--unless she's a felon.

Especially if she's a felon. It's usually a lot easier and quicker for a criminal to obtain a firearm.......