Posts Tagged ‘firearms’

I read a letter to the editor in the Spokesman-Review today that was pretty interesting.   Kayela Robertson of the Spokane Valley made the point that her twenty-year-old husband cannot legally carry a handgun in this state despite the fact that he has served in the U.S. Army.  See letter.   Kayela writes: “At 18 years old, he signed away his life to the Army, yet, due to his age, he can’t legally…carry around a pistol for protection.”  Generally speaking, under RCW 9.41.240, a person under 21 can only carry a pistol if they are in their own home, on their own property, or at their own place of business. The legislature enacted this law in 1994, and at the time their reasoning was as follows: “The legislature finds that the increasing violence in our society causes great concern for the immediate health and safety of our citizens and our social institutions. Youth violence is increasing at an alarming rate and young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are at the highest risk of being perpetrators and victims of violence. Additionally, random violence, including homicide and the use of firearms, has dramatically increased over the last decade.”

The idea of younger people with firearms is always an interesting question in court.  In rural areas, firearm possession and use is looked at as part of growing up.  In more urban areas, a young person or a teenager with a firearm is looked at suspiciously, as if the youth in question might have motives related to gang membership.  I have written in the past about possession of weapons by youth in the past.  (See post).   Our society seems to be of two minds when it comes to youth and firearms.  As an attorney who has defended younger people caught with handguns, I never know how the judge or jury will react.  A lot of the perception comes from how a person is raised to look at firearms.

What do people think about Kayela’s point?  I saw that her letter was online, but did not see any comments posted on the Spokesman-Review’s site.  In Idaho, it appears that 18-year-olds can possess handguns.  Should our laws be changed?  Should an exception be made for veterans that are 19 or 2O years old?  Many veterans face adjustment issues when they return to the civilian world?  Is that a fair consideration?

Kino Michael Gomez is accused of first degree murder for shooting Tom Pfaeffle at a motel in Twisp, Washington on July 17th, 2009.   Judging by news reports the prosecutor and the defense lawyer agree on the following facts:   Gomez checked into room 7 of the motel.  Pfaeffle checked into room 8.  The two men did not know each other.   Later in the evening at 10 p.m., Pfaeffle mistakenly tried to entered room 7.  In response, Gomez shot Pfaeffle who died shortly thereafter.  The major disputed fact is how far did Pfaeffle go in trying to enter Gomez’s motel room.  Was the door open or shut?

According to the July 22nd, 2009 Omak-Chronicle, the  Prosecutor stated “the evidence shows the door was not open.”  The Seattle Times in a July 21st story quoted police as stating that Pfaeffle was shot “when he apparently put his room key into the wrong door Friday night. He was hit in the chest by a bullet fired through the closed door.”  In another story Twisp Police Chief Rick Balam was quoted as saying “There’s absolutely no question the door was closed when the shots were fired.”

Most people I talked to seemed to form a strong opinion as to the guilt of Kino Michael Gomez based on reading these law enforcement statements in the media.  Most people asked: “What kind of maniac would shoot through a closed door, just because someone unsuccessfully jiggled the door handle?”   The people posting comments on the internet also formed an opinion as to Gomez’s guilt based on the comments of the police that the suspect shot through a closed door.

“Assuming the man that fired the shots had a ‘legal’ right to own a gun, he has no excuse to fire random shots through a hotel door… at ANYONE.”  See Link.

“Why did he fire THRU the door-after he barred the door. It isnt like someone broke in- Who the fck fires thru a door because they think they are being robbed?”  See Link.

“A man paranoid enough to shoot through a closed door of a motel was probably up to no good to begin with.”  See Link.

“I realize people make mistakes, but this is inexcuseable. YOU DON’T FIRE A GUN THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR.”   See Link.

So does the evidence really show that Kino Michael Gomez shot through a closed door?   The Methow Valley News sent a reporter to the scene to to take photographs of the door which are posted online here and here.

Hmmmmmm.  It is not exactly as Twisp Police Chief Rick Balam described it.  He after all stated “There’s absolutely no question the door was closed when the shots were fired.”   Based on my experience prosecuting and defending homicide cases, the photographic evidence is more consistent with Kino Michael Gomez’s statement to the police.   Kino Michael Gomez was interviewed by Officer Ty Sheehan of the Twisp Police Department, and Gomez stated that “he had been concerned about the lack of a deadbolt on the door and had wedged a chair against the doorknob.”   Gomez told the police ” he awoke to the sound of someone trying to get into the room and had seen the door open and ‘a full silhouette’ of someone in his room.”  See story in Methow Valley News.   Gomez stated that he responded “like it was automatic,” shooting toward the door.

After I looked at the photographs, it appeared that the bullet hit the door frame, and based on the angle of the bullet, the door must have been half way open.

The good reporting of the Methow Valley News has raised a lot of questions in this case.  Good for them for doing their own reporting rather than simply repeating what the police said. The defense attorney Michael Haas is doing a thorough job of raising the right questions too, and  apparently sent his own investigators out to the scene of the shooting.  They had to act quickly because the motel was attempting to repair everything a.s.a.p.

Under Washington law, a person can use deadly force in self-defense if they believe they were in reasonable fear.   If a person claims that they used force against a perceived intruder, it would certainly be relevant how far the perceived intrusion went.  Dave Workman, author of Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities, wrote an opinion piece on this case just after the incident.  See Link.  Like most of us at first, he understood the incident to involve shooting through a door that was closed.  I wonder if he has further insights based on Mr. Gomez’s version of events and the photographs and other recent developments.

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds in the weeks to come.  I don’t envy the defense lawyer or the prosecutor in this case.  I have never met the defense lawyer on this case, but I know the prosecutor a little.   The best prosecutors on cases like this are tough, but also keep an open mind as to new developing facts that could change their mind.   I believes that describes this prosecutor.

What does every one else think about this case?  Can Kino Michael Gomez get a fair trial in Okanogan County?  Has anyone else noticed the racial overtones about some of the internet news comments out there?   I discussed in a blog post last month about friends and family of Amanda Knox who posted a internet site to support the defense of Amanda.  Should Kino Michael Gomez’s family also consider a similar campaign?   I also wrote in a blog post last month about the bearing of arms in public places.  What are the societal costs of an armed populace?

Am I the only one who read in the Spokesman-Review yesterday the AP story about the Louisville, Kentucky pastor who encouraged church-goers to appear for services bearing arms?  See story.  (Sometimes the Spokesman-Review moves their stories offline right away – if so, click here for MSNBC version).  You have to admit, this is a pretty easy way to get attention.  And apparently, the pastor drew in a bunch of newcomers to his church, which is always probably a goal.   Seeing as the bible predates modern firearms by a few millennia, the pastor had a lot to say about guns, including criticisms of the Obama administration.  The pastor seems a little nutty, but he poses an interesting question:  Is it still socially acceptable to bear a firearm just for the heck of it?  A lot of gun enthusiasts hunt, target practice, and keep guns for home defense, and a lot carry concealed weapons.  But what about just wearing one in open while walking down the street, or to the grocery store, or to the city park just for the heck of it?  What about carrying one slung over your shoulder?  I don’t really see this too often even in the rural Western towns of  Ferry and Okanogan County where I practice law.

If you want to read a really interesting article, check out an earlier Spokesman-Review article about a couple of Idaho teenagers who decided to carry guns with them every where they went.  The 18 year old brother would wear a 9mm on his hip.  (Note, in Washington you would have to be 21.) And, the 15 year old brother carried a .22 rifle.   With these weapons in hand, the two visited the public library, city parks, bible study etc.  Even in North Idaho, people called 911 when they saw the armed teens walking down the street.  “If you don’t exercise a right, eventually it will go away,” the older boy explained.  “I’d like to raise people’s awareness that it’s a right, and I hope to encourage others to exercise that right.”  A gentlemen from a veterans group explained: “It’s disturbing to see them in a library with guns.”   Really?

The pastor in Louisville mentioned that he thought up the idea of asking parishioners to bring guns to church after he spoke with people who expressed concerns about Barack Obama’s views on guns.  Are we going to see a lot of similar protests in the months to come?

This phenomenon of carrying guns in public places is a rural, Western-states thing.  Under Washington law, cities are free to come up with their own city ordinances in this subject, and many have.