The family didn't say he was violent--- they said he was angry.

From a KOMO news story:

As the years went by, Ian Stawicki was becoming more and more volatile and argumentative - but he never harmed anyone or threatened his family, says his father.

"He wasn't getting more and more violent. He was getting easier to get mad," says his father

redhook is, apparently, also an expert in the mental health and crime prevention fields and has first-hand knowledge of how easy it is to have someone committed involuntarily based on the 20/20 foresight he was lucky enough to be born with.

I'm waiting for a subject to be discussed that he isn't an expert at.

but they said that "they could see this coming"

if you could see him murdering 5 people, i would consider that violent... and why would they have tried to get the CPL he was issued over turned if he was just angry and not violent?

alot of people are pissed off and angry, but arent considered violent... if you can see someone murdering 5 people, that is a red flag and should be dealt with immeadiately...

hell, im angry sometimes, and own guns, but would never consider shooting anyone because i was "mad" at them... i wouldnt even consider punching them because i was mad at them... because im not violent...

ive never said i was an expert at anything Dan, and i dont respond to every single post on here, there is plenty i dont say anything on....


should i change that for you so you can actually be right about what you just said?

You don't need to say it.

If that's confusing to you, I can explain in greater detail............but I probably won't.

JUST RELEASED!!!!

SEATTLE —
KIRO 7 uncovered evidence Thursday that revealed Ian Stawicki, the gunman in the May 30 Seattle shootings, was no stranger to violence, guns or the law.

When Seattle police arrested him in 2008, officers filled out a form for the court objecting to his release. According to those documents, officers said releasing him would threaten public safety.

Instead of keeping him locked up, the Seattle City Attorney dismissed all the charges, and it wasn’t the first time.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-law/seattle-shooter-had-permits-6-handguns/nPJSd/

do i get an appology?


of course not, that would be stupid of me to think that...

here, heres all of it, incase some are just rolling their eyes and not opening the link...


SEATTLE —
KIRO 7 uncovered evidence Thursday that revealed Ian Stawicki, the gunman in the May 30 Seattle shootings, was no stranger to violence, guns or the law.

When Seattle police arrested him in 2008, officers filled out a form for the court objecting to his release. According to those documents, officers said releasing him would threaten public safety.

Instead of keeping him locked up, the Seattle City Attorney dismissed all the charges, and it wasn’t the first time.

In February 2008, Stawicki’s girlfriend at the time was granted a no-contact order against him after “he broke the rear window of the victim’s vehicle, prevented the victim from calling 911 and assaulted her, giving her a bloody nose in the process,” according to court documents. “Stawicki (then) armed himself with a (.45 caliber) handgun and led police on a K9 track through Discovery Park.”

Stawicki was charged with assault, interfering with reporting domestic violence and coercion.

Despite police concerns about his weapon use and a witness that told officers “over the past month, the suspect has grown violent,” according to court documents, all charges were dismissed. The City Attorney said Thursday that was because his girlfriend stopped cooperating in the case.

“He definitely had that propensity for anger and was often tied up in knots with his nervous energy,” said Sandra Roulette, Stawicki’s ex-girlfriend’s mother.

Roulette told KIRO 7 her daughter left town after seeing what her former live-in boyfriend did on Wednesday.

“What Ian did is unthinkable and horrific, but the Ian that I saw on occasion was also – had this other dimension to him,” Roulette said. “He was a kind and thoughtful person. I didn’t see this potential for violence, although I certainly knew that he was angry and had a particular world view that not many people could agree with.”

She said her daughter lived with Stawicki for years, but the day he punched her in the face with a phone book in 2008 was the last day they were together.

“I was so angry with him and supported her for not wanting to be around him,” Roulette said. “I helped her move away. I’m very thankful he didn’t hurt her. I am so grateful he did not hurt her yesterday.”

KIRO Team 7 Investigators learned Stawicki’s run-ins with police started well before the domestic assault on Roulette’s daughter.

In 1989, he was arrested in Seattle for carrying a “slide-out locking blade,” according to court documents. Charges of carrying a concealed weapon were dropped.

In Kittitas County in 2010, Stawicki was charged with assaulting his brother. Charges were dropped then, too.

Despite those arrests for violence and weapons issues, without any convictions, Stawicki was allowed to keep his concealed weapons permit. Records show that at the time he opened fire inside the Racer Café on Wednesday, he legally held permits for three .45 caliber handguns and three more 9 millimeter handguns.

Roulette said he was always armed.

“He saw the world as a potentially dangerous place -- an unfriendly place where bad things happened -- and he felt like he needed to be protected, so he was armed and ready to take care of things himself, protect himself if need be,” she said.

Another common theme that ran through all the police reports: Stawicki constantly listed himself as homeless or unemployed.

So it wasn't his family's fault........It is the Seattle City Attorney that should be held responsible for this.

That's not going to fit with the Mayors push against gun violence.

Again it just goes to show, we don't need more laws. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.

Get over yourself, man. If you had been here two weeks ago saying this guy should be locked up, then you would really be something. Saying he should have been locked up AFTER the fact really doesn't get us anywhere, does it?

Nobody owes YOU an apology............but the Seattle City Attorney might owe the families of the victims an apology.

Right on Dan S.

I love listening to the politicians/city officials automatically touting the evils of guns when it turns out that they had the opportunity to intervene to prevent this years ago.

Even going as far as ignoring the police departments written recommendations.

owing me an apology is due to the fact you told me i was full of [Bleeeeep!] saying he was violent...

then, i show you otherwise...

and you still dont, like i said, it would have been stupid of me to think that, so i didnt.. and dont...

JG i fully agree about the laws, but without funding, they cannot be enforced more, with the same amount of people they have now... its not possible, they need more cops to stop it... and they cant pay for it...

EVERYONE that knew of his nature is at fault, a quick call to the local police department saying you are worried about someone, and are worried about public safety with said person, 99% of the time an officer would contact said person to see what was up... and yes, i know from personal expierience... the SCA is not responsible for monitoring someone, and looking at their patterns and behavior, in this situation, his friends and family took that role... and they failed...

The Seattle City Attorney is responsible for enforcing the laws currently on the books.

When he chose to release this person, with no charges filed, he becomes responsible.

If charges were filed, they would have had the ability to, at least, remove the weapons that this person possessed at the time.

I will give you the same advice that I and others have given you too many times to count........However I doubt that you will listen:

Here it goes.......

Redhook..........your problem stems from the fact that you speak from a stand point of absolute knowledge and then back track later.

This is the same problem that has plagued you on every forum you have ever been on.

Maybe sit back and self reflect a little prior to responding to this post.

Just an idea.

The correct term now is CPL.
and I'm with 2Many......everyone who passes background check should be issued a carry license......FREE! The idea is to curb crime, not pay for Suzzie Q's 8th kid (or some other "worthy" fkn cause).

im not back tracking Randy, i said he was violent an hour before that report even came out...

also, i dont say everything i type as fact, its read and taken that way... things im not sure about i say "i think", and still get hammered as im saying it as fact...

like i have told you a hundred times, and you have even said yourself to people, you cant tell peoples tones, body expressions, facial expressions, joking/seriousness on the internet...

maybe people should take the time to read what i say, and think about it, before jumping all over me like im some inbred dickweed...

im not doing anything wrong by talking... i dont follow people around here, or anywhere for that matter, only using their responses to slam them...

all im saying is that maybe im not the person people think i am, because IN PERSON, everyone ive met likes me... and if they dont, its because of something the read off the internet that they didnt interpret correctly, or something they heard from someone else that doesnt even know me...

I was speaking in general.

Not necessarily just about this thread.

And you still don't get it.

I am done even trying to give you any advice.

Carry on........because I know you will.

RedHook.......how many folks need to tell you to just silence yourself? Listen up......you are talking (typing) WAY too much. get it? STOP! Try waiting until there are at least three or four posts since your last response. You are like a hyperactive ADD kid......no offense intended, but try to recall how many people have tried to tell you the same thing.

once again........STOP!

Redhook,

You said ". . . maybe people should take the time to read what i say, and think about it, before jumping all over me like im some inbred dickweed..."

What you don't seem to understand (which suggests you have difficulty with comprehension) is that people here actually do take the time to read what you say, and then we think about it, before we jump all over you like you're some inbred dickweed... because that is what you read like you are. If in fact you aren't like that, every reader here is misunderstanding what and how you write, which isn't very likely. Therefore, what is most likely is that is how you appear on the internet. But like BD said, we don't expect you to get it, because you continuously demonstrate that you don't get it. Since you don't get it, that is extremely strong evidence that you're not as bright as you think you are, and that you are as dim as forum members here have concluded you are.

Sg

No, they don't take the time to read what I say before responding. They respond on assumption, and previous opinion. I don't get what people are saying, it's not making sense. I am taking it as people saying I can't speak about a subject, because no one cares what I have to say about it. If that is the case, then that is something I have to think about obviously. You basically calling me an inbred dickweed, which i read from your statement, I really don't appreciate that you talk about my family that way. It's not nice, and you shouldn't talk about people's dead family members in that way. Hurting people intentionally, and insulting them for the pleasure of getting them mad, is retarded.


but your gonna just read what i just typed as some bullsh!t i dont know what im talking about...

Redhook,

Finally, you're absolutely right. I shouldn't have written anything that might be derogatory about your family, whom I know nothing about. I should have limited my remark to you personally. You write like someone who has serious learning disabilities and therefore is not very bright. It's not possible to know at this point whether your parents bear any responsibility for this. I'm sorry I didn't get it right the first time. But no, I make no assumptions about you. My comments about and to you are based entirely on the way you present yourself in this forum. Present yourself as an intelligent person and I will respond as if you are. Meanwhile . . .

Sg

No problem Salmo. If you insist that I take the time to make sure that I perfectly punctuate and be grammatically correct to help you read better, I guess I will do you a favor, and help you out. The problem is, I was right about something, and I still, still, get told I am full of sh!t. How does that work? Seriously, I am really intreagued by the thought process of that, and would like to learn it. Do I really need to talk with full on intelect, and correct everything, so that people will actually take what I say as fact, instead of reading it otherwise, then have another reason to call me a "know it all" ?

Point blank Salmo, you don't know me, you just read some BS off the Internet. I wouldn't use that as a basis for forming an opinion about someone, people might not like it.