Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
At no point am I saying ‘I will trespass and be aggressive to the landowner’ what I would do is irrelevant. If a landowner chooses to murder a person who does what you are suggesting - that’s murder and they need to take responsibility for murder. And we should discussing the murdering taking responsibility for their actions.
You are riding on my place without permission, you bitch about being told not to ride here..
You start a fight? You will probably die there.
And if you go on property and dont follow instructions,you risk the chance of something bad happening. Not really that hard to stay off others property. But keep blaming the property owner lol. Instead of the trespasser. .
Bingo, he doesnt get it.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
Not showing off, just the way it is.
Funny old laws in Texas.
Don't carry wire cutters into a county that you don't live in.
Don't be in a pasture that isn't yours.
The first one is a real law. The second one is great advice.
Get what? That murder isn’t good.
That stating ‘you will probably die there’ is such immature posturing. As if physical strength and murder is what makes your strong. That the actions of the dead victim should be what is held to account and not the person who pulled the trigger.
All this John Wayne posturing and property valued more than human life is so just… sad really. Like that’s the society you perpetuate and celebrate to participate in… just sad.
If someone came to my house to steal my bike and the only option I had was either lose the bike or murder them (legally with stand your ground or whatever). I would lose the bike.
But maybe I just don’t ’get it’. Murder may be within your morality, just not in mine. And to me the person that pulls the trigger is whole behave MUST be held to account.
OK now do if someone came to your house and your choice was between letting them kick your skull in (unarmed!!!) or pulling the trigger and going home to your wife and kids, which one are you picking?
Still haven't looked up the definition of murder but I guess such details don't matter in Utopia.
Sounds like that scenario fits exactly what I said earlier, where if it’s imminent danger of death or a life altering injury that you can not escape from then murder may be the appropriate choice.
If you pulled your gun specifically as a threat and they attacked you and you killed them. I Blame you as you escalated a non violent situation when you could have de-escalated it. YOU are responsible for how YOU react to a situation. YOU should be held accountable for how you responded to a non violent situation. If you chose to threaten death by pulling out a gun then YOU escalated a non violent situation to a life threatening situation.
Then blamed the victim you murdered to protect ‘property’ as you made the moral choice of property being above human life.
I don’t care what the legal definition of murder is. To me killing someone when there’s other potential choice - like running away, de escalation, hiding in a cupboard etc etc - is morally indistinguishable to murder. But that’s my morals around human life and they may be different your morals and the legal definition of ‘murder’
You may be reaching just a bit by using the word “murder”. There’s been very few details released and it’s entirely possible that by the time a firearm was used, it was in self defense.
The only thing that I believe is ‘fact’ in this so far is that the vast majority of the posters here rightfully wish that this incident hadn’t escalated to the point of violence, and that no potential claim of self defense were even needed and that we all wish that different decisions were made so that a young man would have his dad still.
You dont get, that the whole situation started by being somewhere illegal. Ever heard the saying dont pick a fight,the other person might kick your ass. Well they chose to trespass and something bad happened which could have been avoided. by. Staying off the property. Read slowly.
I dont know the details in this case but don't fight cops or you will probably die. They automatically think you are going for their gun.
As far as letting a thief steal your tv. The second you decide to break in a home you have to know you could die. If someone is in my house, with my family inside, they gave up their right to live. You have to know that if you decide to enter someone's home to steal or who knows what the home owner can't assume you're just there to take a few things and leave or how armed or unarmed you are. You would say I chose material things over a life, you are wrong, the criminal chose material things over life. Unfortunately there needs to be severe consequences and to set an example to make people think twice. It's so easily avoided if you are not a criminal.
Bingo, the criminal sets the tone. Dont break the law,chances are good nothing bad will happen.
I am placing as much blame as anybody on the guard. I don’t think you understand the laws regarding JH. You are not required to be in fear of your life. You’re also clueless when it comes to Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws. You absolutely can kill someone breaking into you house to steal aTV under them.
I suggest you not carry or use a firearm in self defense until you brush up on them. The guard should have.
Does your logic apply if you didn’t start the fight. It also wasn’t the guards place. Big difference. This one never gets handed to a civil jury. Stamp it.
His logic is stay off his property. And when told to leave. Leave.
From the article, on federal land. Some on here noted the importance of the power facility. Has anyone considered the heightened security alert we are on since the Israel massacre? This alone starts an interaction at a higher level. If I had bad intentions, I'd probably want to seem inconspicuous and in that area I'd do that by being on a bike. So the security guard is already at heightened state of protection. Riders probably hadn't considered this and just thought guard was being overly dickish and altercation started. Anybody ever hear the golden rule? The guy that has the money makes the rules. In this case the guy that has a gun makes the rules. None of us know what happened leading up to this very tragic end. We should however take away from this, as a Dad, never put you child in this kind of danger. If someone with a gun tells you to leave. Your responsibility to keep your child (yes I know he was 18 and a young man) safe supercedes everything. Just humbly say we will leave and then actually leave. Live to fight another day. This seems so avoidable. None here are without fault.
TM
A better logic is to call the cops if they don’t and have them charged. It wasn’t his property. Not the same law or standard. I suspect his job protocol requires the same. If they ask you to leave at wal-mart what happens?
Pit Row
Leave, simple. Why make stuff difficult, especially being in the wrong.
Cops don't care about trespassing laws, they show up hours later.
Maybe the guard had arrest powers?
Most people overlooking this. We are under the highest threat level since the perpetual orange alert Bush-era. I wouldn't be surprised if recently there was internal discussion between the feds, power company, and security company to step up enforcement of no trespassing on the property.
They may have been on heightened alert about something, but the shooting happened a week before Hamas attacked Israel.
Domestic threat has been heightened since way before anything happened in Israel.
From January
The family of the father and son have filed a wrongful death lawsuit:
https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/family-man-killed-security-guard-mead-files-wrongful-death-suit/293-e1e887ac-ac05-4581-be34-05ef75508930
Washington justified use of force law for those who are bored:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16
The guy may have told the guard to pound salt when when he asked them to leave. The law does not provide for you to end up deaded because of it. The decision was made at some point to use deadly force. It's likely to cost the power company 8 figures because the guard was so good at his job. I am sure they won't raise your power bill too much to make up for it.
If the guard shot them over words you are right. There appears to be more to the story, though:
"The Spokane County Sheriff's Office says the two were trespassing on federal land and witnesses saw them attack the guard before the shooting.The guard who fired the shots has not been charged."
I never suggested or suspected that to be the case. Chances are I am still right. I don't believe if the riders attacked the guard as is being pushed here we would be seeing a lawsuit. If that is the case I am not seeing any defense for the guard under Washington law. The only way any use of force would have been justified was in the commission of a felony.
Regardless he was not charged criminally yet. We are dealing with wrongful death laws currently.
Thanks for the correction. I didn't see this thread that long ago. I thought it was a recent event. I guess we're about a month down the road now. What I do know, is that there usually are many offramps before a bad ending and for some reason nobody chose to de-escalate the situation. I view it like being on the highway riding a motorcycle and playing chicken with a car. It doesn't matter who is right when you're dead. And as a parent, no matter how old your kid, you have a job to protect your kid. If someone has a gun, you may not like how you're being treated, but you get yourself and your kid out of the dangerous situation. Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, if you don't do that, you bear some responsibility. But that's just me, I think to myself if that were me and it was my kid that ended up dead, I don't know how I could live with myself.
TM
Not true.
"RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force—When lawful. The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases: (1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction; (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody; (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;"
If he felt the force necessary was to protect his person. We don't know what his thinking was.
Post a reply to: Washington Rider Shot and Killed