20 Replies to "WEST SEATTLE CRIME WATCH: Rock suspect out; more business vandalism"

• Dm September 12, 2019 (9:00 pm)

  What does conditional release mean? For two different offenses?

  • E.J. September 15, 2019 (1:45 pm)

    There are a few standard “conditions” imposed on defendants not being held on bail, including that they must make all future court appearances and commit no new criminal law violations. Some defendants are released with additional conditions (in a case like this, it could be “don’t come within 500 feet of the business”). A court can also refer a defendant to CCAP which requires a defendant to phone in a certain number of days per week (CCAP basic) or actually physically check in a certain number of days (enhanced CCAP). 

• 1994 September 12, 2019 (9:23 pm)

  Disorderly conduct seems to be a pattern for this guy. I hope the court can order him to receive mental health treatment. He needs to learn self control and stop being a danger to the rest of us.

  • B.W. September 13, 2019 (9:49 am)

    The court can order people to go through mental health treatment,  but it doesn’t mean they have to show up. And guess what, most just tell the judge that they will, show up maybe once. 

• Mj September 12, 2019 (10:35 pm)

  This is BS, he caused significant damage and scared countless people.  Why is he not being held accountable and be made to pay restitution?  I wish the court could order hard labor to make a person think twice before committing a crime.

  • WSB September 12, 2019 (10:52 pm)

    Restitution is addressed in the sentencing phase. You can’t be sentenced until you’re convicted.You can’t be convicted unless you’re charged. This person is at the start of the process.

  • Jort September 13, 2019 (10:50 am)

    Hard labor?! Sheesh — some people have really weird revenge fantasies about criminals.

• Calires September 12, 2019 (10:46 pm)

  Maybe I’m reading the Code on Conditional Release incorrectly, but I can’t imagine how this would be appropriate for a case where people were injured by the perpetrator’s violent actions.   https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.09.096  Maybe if it would have been 4 a.m. and the place was empty, but this guy could see that people were present and decided to attack anyway.  

  • CAM September 12, 2019 (10:57 pm)

    Nobody stuck around to report their injuries if I recall correctly. The injuries that were described would most likely fall under misdemeanor level charges as well. The charge for the damage could be something like malicious mischief, but that is not automatically a felony and the nation as a whole is moving away from holding people in custody on monetary bail for misdemeanor charges. None of that is specific to this case, but it’s just some context to compare to. This isn’t unusual for here or anywhere else really. 

    • Carlires September 13, 2019 (12:21 am)

      I actually agree with the move away from holding people on bail for some misdemeanor charges.  In this case, if he’d thrown the rocks through the window when the place was closed and empty, and it’s “just” property damage (still a messed up thing to do), I could see it being a misdemeanor, but doing it during business hours when people are obviously present would indicate that the intention was to harm people.  Someone who is looking to hurt others and is undeterred by doing so in the presence of many witnesses doesn’t seem like a good candidate for release.   I realize that the law isn’t situational, but I read these stories and wonder when one of these walking red flags will do damage on a large scale and everyone will be asking why didn’t someone do something.

    • jlee September 13, 2019 (12:51 pm)

      Wrong!SFD treated one victim at the scene. And to imply no one stuck around is totally false. SPD did not take statements but did gather contact info for the prosecutors to follow up!only after SPD indicated they needed no more did victims leave.But this was a barrage attack with deadly weapons in the immediate vacinity of numerous victims, and surely should rise to a greater charge!

• Bradley September 13, 2019 (1:18 am)

  The very fact that customers were present, in the line of fire of his potentially-deadly rock weapons, and were clearly visible to the attacker, felony assault should have been the charge here. 

• KD September 13, 2019 (1:28 am)

  !!!!!  NOBODY messes with My Family Doctor!!! That was terrible, so sorry, must be a very angry pitiful person to attack a beautiful planter and a place that heals and helps (like what the vandal needs.. help and healing). I will call the office (and the lovely staff) and ask if I can contribute to a new planter. Dr. Harrington is top notch best!  (Btw; there must be security cams somewhere alongside or across from you with all the other businesses plus the SFD Station down the block. Footage?)

• Airwolf September 13, 2019 (10:31 am)

  Not to be rude or anything, and totally support mental health issues. But why do some commenters jump to the “mental health” justification for criminal activity so quickly after an event? do the commenters have evidence of this? it just seems like this reasoning is being used a lot as a hypothesis for the behavior.

  • Reallytho September 13, 2019 (11:39 am)

    He could have just been high but there are so many repeat offenders suffering from mental health problems that it is natural to assume this was the case. Also I know first hand the mentally ill are often released conditionally or the case is dismissed altogether due to the fact that they are “mentally ill” when the crime is committed. It only gets serious when rape and murder are the charges. 

    • WSB September 13, 2019 (12:09 pm)

      Whether someone is mentally ill or not generally comes up at a later stage of the process – whether someone is competent to stand trial, for example. This case is nowhere near that stage of the process. Also, if this were being prosecuted as a city case (looks more like it’s going through the higher-level county prosecution at this point), the city has a Mental Health Court – I’ve covered cases there, including Ryan Cox years ago. It does NOT mean case dismissed.
      https://www.seattle.gov/courts/programs-and-services/specialized-courts/mental-health-court

    • CAM September 13, 2019 (1:52 pm)

      Reallytho, none of that is really true or based on reality. 

      • Reallytho September 15, 2019 (12:35 am)

        I said I know first hand and I do. 

        • CAM September 15, 2019 (6:41 am)

          Ok, well just on a base level, statistically the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have no mental illness. This idea that the mentally ill, or even substance addicted, are overwhelmingly responsible for crime is wrong and has no statistical basis. Maybe you think people with mental illness aren’t treated harshly enough when they commit a crime but that doesn’t make your assumptions true. In fact, having a mental health problem makes a person more likely to be a Victim, not a perpetrator, of crime.Also, I don’t know where you’d find it, but you can look up the statistics on the number of people in the city that are prosecuted for simple misdemeanors like trespassing (something a person with a mental health or addiction problem is more likely to be convicted of than any violent crime) and your other hypothesis that the mentally ill are only prosecuted for rape and murder falls on it’s face.Maybe you have experience first hand in the system and you are frustrated and don’t like the way it works but don’t misrepresent it so that other people form inaccurate and false beliefs. That’s how we get to people believing ridiculous things. 

• rico September 15, 2019 (8:38 am)

  Cam, do you have insights to counter what realtho is saying he/she/etc.  knows firsthand?  Because from what I see downtown everyday and more and more often here in West Seattle it is clear realtho is correct. Why would you try to discredit that reality?

Sorry, comment time is over.