Shooter at DC Shipyard

[newyorkguy]

I don't think the police can put someone in jail without arresting them. I don't think the police can arrest someone without filing a charge against them.

The way I understand it is, once the police have charged the suspect they may keep them in custody (jail) for 48 hours while the prosecutor decides what to do. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute than the suspect is brought before a judge for an formal reading of the charges known as the arraignment. I suspect he was never arraigned.

It looks to me like the police did their part. They arrested him, Mirandized him, gathered evidence and got a confession. They then had Alexi jailed and forwarded the case file to Municipal Court.

What happened after that I guess we don't know. Don't forget it only seems unusual because of what Alexis did the other day.

 

[Travis]

LEO's apprehend, DA's charge and prosecute.

No fault on the part of the LEA in this case.

On enforcing existing laws -

It's one of the most frustrating parts of actually knowing how prosecutions are conducted wrt criminal firearms possession or use.

Locally, time and again convicted felons in possession are never charged under the strict federal statutes unless the Feds initiated the investigation in the first place and the actor is part of a targeted criminal group - lone bad guys get a pass - and in many cases if the actor in question is on probation or parole they're simply remanded to custody w/o a separate criminal indictment for the firearms violation.

There has been a maximum enforcement program called Project Exile that has worked in other jurisdictions, but when it was implemented in Oakland California it was rejected quickly by city hall because of complaints from city residents, "It's racist law enforcement!" all the standard "how dare you send my Johnny to jail just because he was carrying a gun..." ********.

I can't remember the author's name OTT, but there was a law journal article studying California's mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements for firearms possession or use during the commission of a crime, and it was determined that judges would hand down a lighter sentence on the underlying criminal charge in order to drop the total time served down to near what the criminal charge w/o the gun enhancement would be - and of course the sentences are served concurrently...

Even here at JREF when the subject of gun control came up after Sandy Hook, I wrote a post about how I'd go about restructuring gun laws across the board and the part that many other posters had an issue with was the part requiring strict mandatory minimum prison sentences (consecutive only) for criminal possession or negligent use or storage of firearms.
I just don't understand how the general consensus can be that a bad actor with a firearm shouldn't face a heavy penalty, but some guy up in Alaska or Idaho that never had anything more serious than a parking citation should stand on one foot, hold his tongue and spell rhinoceros before they purchase a firearm (and of course the firearm shouldn't be too small, too big or black and scary looking)

Well I'd be in favor of that.

And I can say that one reason gun violations don't turn into prison sentences is because many DA's try to keep room in the prisons for all the offenders getting mandatory drug sentences.

If we redefine mentally ill, this can all be worked out.

"Do you want to buy a gun?"
"Yep."
"Sorry, that makes you unfit to buy one."

(Full credit to Joseph Heller.)

I have long advocated that wanting a gun should disqualify you from getting one in the same way that wanting to be a leader should disqualify you from being a leader.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I don't think the police can put someone in jail without arresting them. I don't think the police can arrest someone without filing a charge against them.

Police don't file charges, prosecutors do. Police make arrests and collect evidence.

The way I understand it is, once the police have charged the suspect they may keep them in custody (jail) for 48 hours while the prosecutor decides what to do. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute than the suspect is brought before a judge for an formal reading of the charges known as the arraignment. I suspect he was never arraigned.

The police can detain someone for up to 48 hours without them being charged with a crime. Once a person is charge with a crime, they can be held until the disposition of their case unless a judge allows them to post bail (which almost always happens).

It looks to me like the police did their part. They arrested him, Mirandized him, gathered evidence and got a confession. They then had Alexi jailed and forwarded the case file to Municipal Court.

What happened after that I guess we don't know. Don't forget it only seems unusual because of what Alexis did the other day.

According to a CNN report on Wednesday (admittedly not the most reliable of sources), the police did not notify the city attorney, who would have acted as the prosecutor in this case, so that charges were not filed.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/20/man-arrested-11-months-ago-sit/

He's been in jail a couple of times, for more than a week, without actual charges, and under house arrest for a long time, without actual charges being filed.

 

[newyorkguy]

Police don't file charges, prosecutors do.

Right. I should have said, "Police filed a criminal complaint."

According to a CNN report on Wednesday (admittedly not the most reliable of sources), the police did not notify the city attorney, who would have acted as the prosecutor in this case, so that charges were not filed.

I think that's probably based on the Seattle city attorney's office maintaining they "have no record of this."

But the police did an investigation. LTC8K6 posted a link to it and it's fairly extensive. Several different officers were involved. Police conducted a search of the crime scene and the suspect's residence. They recovered physical evidence (a gun and shell casings). They interviewed the car owner (whose tires were shot out). They contacted Alexis' father in New York City. They filed a criminal complaint and on the basis of that complaint Alexis was jailed.

After they did all that, why wouldn't they do the easiest part? Notify the city attorney. I think the Seattle prosecutor's office is just passing the buck and I hope they get called on it.

I'm a working guy. I identify with the cops, not the prosecutors.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/07/how-long-can-you-be-held-without-charges.html

48 to 72 hours, normally.

 

[newyorkguy]

Actually to pursue this further, there are two versions being reported, of why Alexis was arrested, jailed and then was released without trial.

Seattle PD says the case was referred to the Seattle Municipal Court for prosecution, but a court spokesperson says they never received the case. In addition, spokespeople for both the Municipal Court and the City Attorney's office said that, typically, such a case would be referred to the City Attorney's office. But according to the City Attorney's office, they did not receive a referral for Alexis' case. Because of this, the Times reports, when Alexis appeared in court the next month, the charges were dropped.

Link

Police said in a news release Monday they referred the case to Seattle Municipal Court — although it is the City Attorney’s Office, not the court, that handles misdemeanor charging decisions. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office said Monday that it never received a police report documenting the malicious mischief.

“Thus, we didn’t review it for possible charges,” spokeswoman Kimberly Mills said in an email.

The malicious-mischief case appears in a public database maintained by King County District Court, which handles misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases. An entry, however, states that the file was deleted a year later, on June 7, 2005, and there are no records available for viewing.

After his arrest, Alexis made a first appearance in court on June 4, 2004, handled by the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, said Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for the office. At the hearing, Alexis was released on his personal recognizance with conditions, Donohoe said.

Alexis appeared in court again three days later but was released when no charges were referred by Seattle police to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which normally handles felony charging decisions.

Seattle police did not provide further explanation Monday.

Link

 

[marplots]

I have long advocated that wanting a gun should disqualify you from getting one in the same way that wanting to be a leader should disqualify you from being a leader.

Some choose to pursue guns; others have guns thrust upon them.

 

[Wolrab]

Interesting article here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

In a study by Mother Jones under the FBI definition of a mass shooting, of the last 63 mass shootings none have been stopped by a civilian CCW.

However, there are six recorded instances of what appear to have been the start of a mass shooting that were stopped by a civilian CCW with either no deaths or too few to count as mass shootings.

I find the argument of more CCW means fewer mass or other shootings interesting as it is based on so little evidence and lots of assumptions. My biggest issue with it is that it is assumed (by the linked article and many others) that law abiding and ex military means good guy. It does not.

The MJ article seems to neglect to mention how many of the shooting venues were gun free zones. Kind of hard to shoot a bad guy if you don't have access to your gun.

 

[Nessie]

The MJ article seems to neglect to mention how many of the shooting venues were gun free zones. Kind of hard to shoot a bad guy if you don't have access to your gun.

Considering how may armed people there were at the Washington Naval Yard, yet it is called a gun free zone, it is hard to figure out what exactly counts as a gun free zone.

Columbine, Ft Hood and Penn State all had armed guards/police detailed to that place. Indeed considering all police are armed yet mass shootings go on regularly it is hard to understand this idea of gun free zones.

In any case, are gun shows not technically gun free zones as no one is allowed in carrying a loaded gun?

 

[BenBurch]

Considering how may armed people there were at the Washington Naval Yard, yet it is called a gun free zone, it is hard to figure out what exactly counts as a gun free zone.

Columbine, Ft Hood and Penn State all had armed guards/police detailed to that place. Indeed considering all police are armed yet mass shootings go on regularly it is hard to understand this idea of gun free zones.

In any case, are gun shows not technically gun free zones as no one is allowed in carrying a loaded gun?

They exist only to allow police to arrest anybody found with a gun in those places.

Nobody except room-temperature-IQ right-wingers think that the purpose was to reliably exclude guns.

 

[triforcharity]

Considering how may armed people there were at the Washington Naval Yard, yet it is called a gun free zone, it is hard to figure out what exactly counts as a gun free zone.

Columbine, Ft Hood and Penn State all had armed guards/police detailed to that place. Indeed considering all police are armed yet mass shootings go on regularly it is hard to understand this idea of gun free zones.

GFZ means nobody but LE can carry a gun. And I'm not sure where you're getting this information from that many people on a military base here in the US are armed. In fact, very few.

I live about 20 miles or so from a major military base. Now, not the size of the WNY, but fairly big, and multi-mission. In fact, their biggest mission is nuclear detonation monitoring worldwide. Pretty important and sensitive mission for national security.

I drive there on occasion for grocery shopping. I've been all over that base. Wanna guess how many of the service members are armed?

About 15 out of about 4500. Two at the main gate, two at the south gate, about 4 at the truck entrance, and about 7 out and about on patrol. That's it.

In any case, are gun shows not technically gun free zones as no one is allowed in carrying a loaded gun?

No. Typically, they ask you to leave your guns in your car, but if you're a vendor, no issues. It just depends on the place and state. I carry there on a regular basis. There's no metal detectors, no searches, nothing.

 

[quadraginta]

Don't go out into the Great Outdoors much, do you?
Camo has become standard hunting and hiking gear (a couple of people I know whose hobby is wildlife photography wears camo gear for the same reason hunters do:less chance the animal will notice you and run away).

<snip>

And orange vests?

 

[Nessie]

GFZ means nobody but LE can carry a gun. And I'm not sure where you're getting this information from that many people on a military base here in the US are armed. In fact, very few.

I live about 20 miles or so from a major military base. Now, not the size of the WNY, but fairly big, and multi-mission. In fact, their biggest mission is nuclear detonation monitoring worldwide. Pretty important and sensitive mission for national security.

I drive there on occasion for grocery shopping. I've been all over that base. Wanna guess how many of the service members are armed?

About 15 out of about 4500. Two at the main gate, two at the south gate, about 4 at the truck entrance, and about 7 out and about on patrol. That's it.

It would be interesting to see evidence as to whether having only a few armed or lots armed is safer in workplaces.

No. Typically, they ask you to leave your guns in your car, but if you're a vendor, no issues. It just depends on the place and state. I carry there on a regular basis. There's no metal detectors, no searches, nothing.

It would be interesting to see any evidence what the presence of lots of weapons has on instances of mass shootings.

 

[triforcharity]

Yep, because that is what I was addressing. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[WildCat]

The purpose of camouflage is to disrupt the identifiable "pattern" of the human body. This is highly effective in humans, because we're very familiar with the human body, and therefore very good at picking up its "pattern" unless it's concealed.

Wild animals are not familiar with the human body's pattern, thus wearing camouflage is pointless. It's even more pointless when you consider that very few animals rely primarily on sight for detecting predators.

Hunters in New Zealand normally wear high-visibility clothing to prevent them being shot by other hunters. This clothing in no way hampers their ability to surprise their prey.

Anyone who tells you they wear camouflage so they can sneak up on animals is an idiot.

There's so much wrong here! Wild animals in the USA are very familiar with the "pattern" of the human body and certainly identify us as predators. The North American continent has been inhabited by human hunters for at least 15,000 years, and probably longer than that. Animals that didn't identify humans as predators would have been hunted to extinction long ago.

Some game - birds in particular - have excellent color vision. Many, if not most, states do not require blaze orange for hunting birds as they do for deer. Ducks are commonly hunted from blinds for good reason. Turkeys are extremely wary of humans and for turkey hunters camouflage is a must.

Even American Indians used camouflage when hunting, fringing their clothing to break up their outlines and even disguising themselves as their prey. The latter method is not a good idea in the modern era for obvious reasons!

This isn't New Zealand, where wildlife experience with humans goes back only 7-800 years. Nor were our game animals imported using semi-domesticated stock.

 

[WildCat]

Considering how may armed people there were at the Washington Naval Yard, yet it is called a gun free zone, it is hard to figure out what exactly counts as a gun free zone.

Columbine, Ft Hood and Penn State all had armed guards/police detailed to that place. Indeed considering all police are armed yet mass shootings go on regularly it is hard to understand this idea of gun free zones.

In any case, are gun shows not technically gun free zones as no one is allowed in carrying a loaded gun?

A gun-free zone is one where no one except the police and politicians are allowed to carry guns.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There's so much wrong here! Wild animals in the USA are very familiar with the "pattern" of the human body and certainly identify us as predators. The North American continent has been inhabited by human hunters for at least 15,000 years, and probably longer than that. Animals that didn't identify humans as predators would have been hunted to extinction long ago.

Some game - birds in particular - have excellent color vision. Many, if not most, states do not require blaze orange for hunting birds as they do for deer. Ducks are commonly hunted from blinds for good reason. Turkeys are extremely wary of humans and for turkey hunters camouflage is a must.

Even American Indians used camouflage when hunting, fringing their clothing to break up their outlines and even disguising themselves as their prey. The latter method is not a good idea in the modern era for obvious reasons!

This isn't New Zealand, where wildlife experience with humans goes back only 7-800 years. Nor were our game animals imported using semi-domesticated stock.

Agree completely, in the UK you won't get near anything unless you are in Cammo. You need it for Rabbits, birds, Deer etc. An exception would be pheadsant or Grouse , these are driven towards the guns by a line of 'beaters' making noise and commotion in a line across the woods or moors forcing the birds towards a line of guns.
For obvious reasons the Beaters want to be seen by both the birds and the guns.

 

[Nessie]

A gun-free zone is one where no one except the police and politicians are allowed to carry guns.

What about security guards, people with permission of the premises owner, the premises owners themselves?

I presume if all teachers are armed schools will still be called gun free zones as only teachers and security and the police will be allowed to have guns.

So gun free zone still potentially allows for a lot of guns. Alexis knew that when he went to the Yard and he prepared for such. Mass shooters can alter tactics knowing where they go they may encounter a gun.

 

[WildCat]

What about security guards, people with permission of the premises owner, the premises owners themselves?

I presume if all teachers are armed schools will still be called gun free zones as only teachers and security and the police will be allowed to have guns.

So gun free zone still potentially allows for a lot of guns. Alexis knew that when he went to the Yard and he prepared for such. Mass shooters can alter tactics knowing where they go they may encounter a gun.

So according to you there's no such thing as a gun-free zone?

Yes, they do alter tactics. In the Navy Yard case the shooter went straight for the uniformed and openly armed security/police first - an easily identifiable threat to him and easily taken out with the element of surprise. Not so easy to identify which plainclothes person is carrying a concealed weapon.