FOLLOWUP: Man who shot domestic-violence suspect at Lincoln Park released from custody

We’ve obtained more information from Seattle Police as they continue investigating the Sunday shooting in Lincoln Park.

(WSB photo, Sunday)

As we first reported Sunday morning, the shooting sent a 27-year-old man to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the hip. Police initially told us he was shot by someone trying to break up a domestic-violence assault, and today they’ve provided more details:

They say the assault, involving a man and pregnant woman who are in a relationship, began in a car in the Lincoln Park north lot. The woman escaped from the car and ran into the park asking for help. The 30-year-old man who helped her “shielded and protected the woman as the suspect advanced on them,” according to SPD spokesperson Officer Eric Muñoz, who continued, “The man shot the suspect once in the hip while protecting himself and the DV victim.” Police recovered the gun and one fired shell casing. They say the assault suspect was not armed. He remains in the hospital for medical treatment but is under arrest for second-degree assault and unlawful imprisonment. The man who shot him “was initially placed under arrest while officers investigated,” Officer Muñoz said, adding: “After being transported to SPD Headquarters and interviewed by detectives, he was released from police custody.” As we noted in our Sunday report, that man is an SPD lieutenant’s son; SPD says the lieutenant was not involved in the incident. The woman who was assaulted was taken to a hospital in stable condition but police have no current information on her condition. SPD says this case has been assigned to detectives with the Domestic Violence Unit.

Beth July 22, 2024 (6:18 pm)

Heroes walk Lincoln Park. 💪🏼

Rob July 22, 2024 (6:35 pm)

Nice

BlueButterfly July 22, 2024 (6:43 pm)

That man putting himself in between the pregnant woman and the suspect is a true hero. Who knows if she would have survived had he not been there to intervene.

Alki resident July 22, 2024 (7:12 pm)

To the lady who is the victim in this situation. Please maintain and keep a protective order on this suspect. He will do this again and again, I hope you have a great support system and I hope your baby is ok. Praying for your safety.

Not all heroes wear capes July 22, 2024 (7:39 pm)

He deserves a medal.

WSresident July 22, 2024 (8:09 pm)

Thank you to the person who protected this woman, however he felt necessary. Too many women die at the hands of violent men and a lot of times, there is a chance for people to intervene and they don’t. I hope this woman can get away from this man and have a peaceful life with her new baby.

CAM July 22, 2024 (9:13 pm)

I’m adding this here rather than the other post because I am guessing this is where most people will come. This (in image and at the link) is the definition of self-defense under clause (3). And self-defense is a defense to a criminal charge during a trial. The standard for finding someone not guilty by self defense specifically indicates that the use of force “is not more than is necessary.” The police are the only people who have statements from the people involved and all the rush to defense of the man with a gun is a little disturbing without even any basic details to base your opinion on. As it stands, the information released by the police suggests the person was shot while he “advanced” on the shooter and the victim. I’m not seeing anything yet that would make me as a hypothetical juror think this was a necessary degree of force. It’s possible the police are not releasing all the details.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

Manny July 22, 2024 (9:36 pm)

Hey keyboard jockey lawyer, you can read the article. A man(Who can kill a woman with his bare hands and happens all the time) was assaulting a woman in public. When the man with a legal carry permit stepped in to help, the man that was already assaulting a female went to attack him so he defended himself and the female as needed with no one around to help him if the attacker was high on something and tried killing him. They always say, better to fight for your life in court than a hospital bed. Some people dont have time to fist fight random lunatics and care for they’re safety.
Echo July 22, 2024 (9:42 pm)

CAM – You are likely right that the police have not released all the details, but you might be missing the fact that this gent was aiding a pregnant lady begging for assistance and put himself between her and her attacker. Depending on your stance, he was protecting her life, her unborn child’s life, not just his own – and hypothetically very justified in the use of deadly force to protect another’s life – or potential serious bodily harm. We also have no details on the size of the attacker compared to the good samaritan shooter – could be a big discrepancy there that would also warrant his legitimate fear. But, let’s not kid ourselves, probably not hurting his chancing of this being determined a good shoot by the fact that his father is a Lt. in the SPD.
NotALawyer July 22, 2024 (9:50 pm)

Let’s review some other RCWs that are perhaps more applicable than the use of force criteria for peace officers,https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050I will also add that it’s foolish to read an RCW and make a lay interpretation. The law has relatively little to do with statutes as written and much more to do with the precedent set by prior adjudication. A search of lexisnexus would be far more informative than a google search for potentially relevant RCWs.Personally, I find it hard to imagine that even in Washington state that a jury would hate guns so much that they’d overlook the fact the man who did the shooting intervened to stop a man beating a pregnant woman screaming “help”. Further, I find it troubling that there is a decent sized cohort of people posting on west Seattle blog who seem to hate guns so much that they’re not really concerned about the woman being beaten or perhaps even killed, and feel the real problem here is guns.
- CAM July 22, 2024 (11:32 pm)
  
  Please use the link provided. That RCW I shared is not about use of force solely by police officers, it is for anyone.
Danimal July 22, 2024 (10:00 pm)

Continue stirring up trouble all you want. The facts are, that the police determined his use of force was warranted, and therefore they released him. Odds are the city Prosecutor agrees. You conveniently ignored that human hands, arms, legs, and feet, can be used as deadly weapons, especially by individuals under the influence of drugs, or by individuals trained in inflicting grievous bodily harm. The potential for death or grievous bodily harm absolutely justifies the use of deadly force in self defense or defense of others, under Washington law. Your, and others’, political beliefs and hand-wringing, are irrelevant under the statutes of the laws of Washington State.
- CAM July 22, 2024 (11:35 pm)
  
  No. The police haven’t made that determination and it doesn’t say that anywhere. They released him because he is not yet charged with a crime. He can be charged with a crime any time before the statute of limitations runs out. I’m not saying they should charge him with a crime. I’m saying maybe you wait until you have all the information before you start building statues of the man.
Seattlite July 22, 2024 (10:03 pm)

Since you were not a witness and do not have the facts, you cannot make a judgement on what took place during the altercation between the three people involved. Period.
- CAM July 22, 2024 (11:36 pm)
  
  I have the same exact information everyone in this comment section does. I didn’t make a judgment. I made a statement about the lack of information that everyone else was using to jump to conclusions.
- Jort July 22, 2024 (11:41 pm)
  
  You know, I see a lot of people on the other side of this argument who also weren’t witnesses and also do not have the facts. Should they withhold judgment, also? “Period?”
  - Seattlite July 23, 2024 (6:46 am)
    
    How do you make a judgement without verified facts and evidence?
    - Jort July 23, 2024 (12:03 pm)
      
      Cam can view the same narratives and reports as everybody else and come to their own conclusions. Cam doesn’t need to be shushed and scolded with declarative orders and commands that they somehow “cannot make a judgement … Period.” Everyone in this thread is making judgments. Everyone in this thread also has the exact same information from which to base those judgments. Cam, you … everybody. Nobody has the exclusive insight into what has happened, and nobody needs to be commanded to shut up. “Period.”
  - Junction Dweller July 23, 2024 (8:21 am)
    
    But then they might not feel the rush of feeding their confirmation bias.
  - Seattlite July 23, 2024 (1:13 pm)
    
    Jort…Your last comment did not have a “reply.” I am replying to your last comment that ignores the fundamentals of facts being the basis of forming a judgement in an altercation such as the said altercation described in the WSBlog. For instance, if I do not have all of the facts that answer these questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, than I will withhold my judgement until those questions are answered.
WestSide73 July 22, 2024 (10:06 pm)

Really, a man attacking a pregnant woman, then receiving a non life threatening injury due to their actions and continued advancement is not a probable reason to be in fear? What are your requirements for yes of self defense?
Loli July 22, 2024 (10:12 pm)

Cam, you’re what’s wrong with seattle. “All the rush to the defense of the man with a gun”? Yes, the man who put himself between a pregnant woman and her boyfriend who was physically assaulting her, an eyewitness stated the boyfriend was choking her. There’s some “ basic details” for you. Do you know how many women are killed by domestic violence? Should the good Samaritan have called 911 and waited for no one to arrive? Maybe neither the female victim nor the Samaritan would be here today. I’m thankful that HERO was there yesterday and did not hesitate. If my sister, mother, daughter, friend was in that situation I hope someone would put themselves in harms way to protect them. I hope you’re not the guy in the crowd.
Actual Lawyer July 22, 2024 (11:10 pm)

Real lawyer here. This is a textbook case of defense of others. It’s a basic defense covered in your first year criminal law class. Cam – Please consider this a wake up call for how political leanings can affect your internal bias.
- Scarlett July 23, 2024 (6:46 am)
  
  It’s not a textbook case because the investigation is still in progress and we don’t have a complete understanding of what happened.
- ChuckNorris July 23, 2024 (7:26 am)
  
  Thank you Sir!
  - Blbl July 23, 2024 (9:31 am)
    
    An actual lawyer knows there’s no such thing as a “textbook case”. Every scenario is different and depends on the full set of facts, which we don’t know. Thank you, Cam, for being the voice of reason and objectivity. It is not legal to use lethal force against a non- lethal threat. And ChuckNorris, why did you say “Sir”? Only men can be actual lawyers?
    - Daniel July 23, 2024 (10:26 am)
      
      The bar for lethal force is not “lethal threat”. It is “great personal injury”, as defined in RCW https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.16.050 – it’s also worth pointing out that choking someone is a lethal threat anyways.
    - joelarborheights July 23, 2024 (11:16 am)
      
      BLBL – Except this does not appear to be a ‘non-lethal’ threat. According to the information provided so far the woman and bystander where both threatened and in immediate danger. Lethal force can mean other things besides a gun. Stop implying that you can only shoot in self defense if someone is shooting at you.
    - Blbl July 23, 2024 (12:11 pm)
      
      Joelarborheights, Washington law does not allow you to use more force than necessary to defend yourself or someone else. We have no idea if shooting an unarmed person is more force than necessary in this case. It seems like most people here have already decided it wasn’t. I simply think that’s inappropriate because none of us were there.
    - Actual Lawyer July 23, 2024 (2:07 pm)
      
      Respectfully Blbl, you’re wrong. I don’t have time to give a full overview of WA case law so this will be my last comment here.Defense of others is essentially imputed self defense. Case law in WA is well settled in this area. The prosecution has the burden of proof to overcome a claim of self defense. Self defense may be justified by apparent danger to the person claiming the benefit of the defense, as opposed to actual danger. That is to say, the test is if the actions were reasonable for the person to take when put in their own shoes and with the knowledge that the person had at the time (which is crucially NOT the complete facts and circumstances of the situation).Also crucially, attacking someone with your hands can be considered lethal force or leading to great personal injury. For example, a comparatively large man choking and then pursuing a pregnant woman.I suppose there is a non-zero chance that there are additional facts that may illuminate how defending a pregnant woman running and calling for help while being pursued by an attacker who does not stop his advance when warned is not valid defense of others. But, then again, there is also a non-zero chance of Thor crossing the multiverse and sweeping me away to Asgard as well…What seems more probable is this is a great example of how unconscious bias affects us all. I would suspect you support robust gun control methods to curtail violent crime. I tend to agree with you. But I also concede that there are instances when use of a gun (whether I think someone should be walking around a park with one or not) are legally justified. In sum, rather than engage in an exercise of cognitive dissonance about why you are “right,” I would encourage you to be introspective about the fact that everyone (including both of us) can have unconscious, internal biases that cloud our judgement about certain categories of people and actions. And I respectfully encourage to you consider the probability that this is one of them for you.
    - Blbl July 23, 2024 (5:41 pm)
      
      Thanks, Actual Lawyer. You say that I am wrong, but your crim law 2L summary didn’t contradict anything I said. It is not legal in Washington to use lethal force against a non-lethal threat. Your response just explains how an unarmed man can still be a lethal threat. I don’t disagree that that’s possible, we just don’t know if that is the case here.
    - Daniel July 23, 2024 (9:58 pm)
      
      “It is not legal in Washington to use lethal force against a non-lethal threat.” Please read the above linked state law out of RCW which directly contradicts you. The bar is not “lethal threat”. It is “great personal injury”.
    - joelarborheights July 23, 2024 (7:55 pm)
      
      BLBL, this wasn’t a non-lethal threat, that is the point several are making but you are not hearing it. ‘Lethal’ does NOT have to include a gun or weapon it can be other threat of harm. I don’t understand why you keep pushing this idea.
  - AN July 23, 2024 (12:49 pm)
    
    “Sir”? Because only men are lawyers? Oy…
Andrea July 23, 2024 (5:19 pm)

from what i read, the shooter was entirely with in his rights per number 3) of the RCW. And seriously? .. perhaps if the attacker was killed, it might have been an overreaction, but he wasnt…. So i really have no sympathy for spouse abusers. People dont have to put up with that kind of of behaviour, and the guy who stepped in deserves a medal.

Face Palm July 22, 2024 (9:40 pm)

You are correct in that you do not have all the facts, but as you’ve just told us all you are not an impartial “future jurist.” Your rush to argue your anti-gun agenda in a real-life case while going around (intentional pun) half-cocked is actually offensive. Guilty before proven innocent, is that how you think it works, Perry Mason? Yes, how about you let the cops (and possibly one day a real jury panel of peers who are vetted to make sure they aren’t pushing their agenda) do their job and leave it at that? You have no idea what actually happened, nor do 99% of the responders here, including me.

CAM July 22, 2024 (11:39 pm)

Reading my statement above would show you the definition of impartial. I literally said that I had seen no information “yet” that would lead me to believe the necessary action was to shoot someone. I also said that the police are the only people with all the information. I didn’t say anyone should or shouldn’t be charged with a crime. The point of my comment was that everyone needs to take a step back from the hero worship.
- mygoodness July 23, 2024 (7:42 am)
  
  I think Cam is trying to lower the temperature a bit here. We can swing the wrong way: we can encourage people to get and shoot guns who have no business doing so. While I agree that anyone posting a direct, deadly threat to someone risks being shot in self defense, and that our laws ensure that defending shooter is protected – I don’t think Cam is being unreasonable by wanting to know more of the facts. I think many, like me, are triggered by the concept of DV, but we should allow and respect due process. The whole “got em! he’s a hero!” is kinda creepy. This is a sad, solemn situation not a touchdown celebration. Also, the fact that this person is the son of a SPD Lt shouldn’t give them a free pass in any way. I applaud anyone who defends anyone in danger, but I also appreciate the fact that Cam may not want a bunch of gun-toting vigilantes running around his neighborhood. Let’s be thoughtful about what we encourage. And let’s continue to support SPDs efforts to hire some real effing, sizeable police forces in this town.
- joelarborheights July 23, 2024 (7:56 am)
  
  Your statement was the opposite of impartial. You implied that given the limited information you would vote to ‘convict’ of something if you were on a jury. Sorry but the only thing we can agree on is that the police have access to more information then we do. Your not a lawyer and just citing the RCW does not suddenly transfer the burden of proof to the citizen who defended the pregnant woman. What a shallow argument you’ve made, the absence of evidence (or information we have) specifically proves NOTHING!
- Eric1 July 23, 2024 (8:10 am)
  
  Cam. You are arguing in circles. Even the police don’t have all the information as they weren’t there either. Perhaps in some my misogynistic world, others shouldn’t interfere with keeping the woman in their place. However, in my world, if anyone sees me beating my wife, feel free to put a round in me. Heck, if you see me beating a pregnant woman, put one between my legs and let me suffer and think about it for the rest of my life.
  - CAM July 23, 2024 (11:28 pm)
    
    I’m glad to know that you read through what I actually said and then applied your feelings to it and decided that I’m misogynistic and I support people being assaulted (any people). That marks the first time anyone has ever had either of those thoughts about me (or expressed them out loud).
- Jay July 23, 2024 (8:27 am)
  
  While this does seem like a clear case of self defense, I do partially agree that people are getting too excited about guns and shooting. I carry a knife for self defense because you aren’t going to stab an innocent bystander 300ft away through the trees if you miss with a knife. If an unarmed man is approaching I’d rather fight them than discharge a firearm in a popular wooded park in the middle of a sunny day. It sounds like the abuser was in between the shooter and the parking lot, which is a dangerous situation for a gun. The last thing you want is a stray bullet to splatter a toddler’s brain across a sidewalk while you’re defending against an unarmed attacker.

Jim July 22, 2024 (10:26 pm)

Glad to see the community following Rob Saka’s advice and “stepping up”

Josh July 23, 2024 (7:53 am)

To think this has anything to do with what Rob Saka wants is weird. And if what Rob Saka wants is vigilanteism then another reason why he shouldn’t be in office.
- uncle loco July 23, 2024 (4:29 pm)
  
  This wasn’t vigilanteism.

ltfd July 22, 2024 (10:28 pm)

Clean shooting.

Brian Hughes July 23, 2024 (6:36 am)

This time, in this situation, with these people, the outcome was positive in that those who needed protection were protected (for now) and the violent person wasn’t killed, although I’m not exactly sure why not… was it a decision? Anyway… nice work! This is a good example of what a pistol can do in the hands of the right person. But I’m so interested to know what it was really like for the guy who intervened. Did he have training? Did his dad teach him and/or share stories and anecdotes from life on the police force? Did he think at all, or just act in the moment? How is he doing now? For all involved, this was a traumatic event. Asking these questions because the presence of the pistol was only one factor in this event. For those reading this and thinking that it was the gun that saved the day (so now you’re going to get one), I’d caution you to dive deep into the fact that you will likely never use it in this way and, if you ever did, you would need to instantly assess the situation, take action, and be right about all of it. After the fact, others will have the benefit of hindsight and distance to superimpose their own stories about what you could have or should have done and, like in this case, your actions better have been perfect. I’m not anti-gun, but too many people treat pistols like fashion accessories. My point is this requires perfection, and many of us aren’t up to it, no matter what the gun lobby wants us to think.

Brian July 23, 2024 (8:16 am)

Oh cool so now we’ve got good guys with guns and bad guys with guns but the bullets all feel the same.

T Rex July 23, 2024 (9:39 am)

Good guy scenario:The good guy, trained and carrying legally fired ONCE and stopped a “man” from physically hurting a PREGNANT woman, fired ONE TIME and took care of the situation and possibly helped save this woman and the child he she was carrying. Bad guy scenario:The bad guys arm themselves with illegal guns they have no idea how to use, fire into crowds, or hanging out of a car firing randomly, AND for pretty much any reason that may get them recognized by their group of loser friends in an attempt to move up on their slimy so-called food chain of a community of bad guys. All the while killing whoever is in the way. BIG DIFFERENCE but you are correct, the bullets still feel the same, just for different reasons. The reasons are what count here. I would rather they had NOT found her body.
- Jeff July 23, 2024 (9:58 am)
  
  T-Rex nothing on earth is this binary. Especially with guns. You need nuance.

jedidiahperkins July 23, 2024 (9:06 am)

I think the only thing I have learned from this situation is that an unarmed attacker can be disabled with a single bullet instead of unloading an entire clip into them.

And that a lot of people don’t know state and local gun laws.

Jim July 24, 2024 (10:54 am)

A “clip” is used for loading a firearm or magazine. The word you’re looking for is magazine

Scarlett July 23, 2024 (9:08 am)

I’ll wait until I hear more details from the investigation before forming an opinion as to whether it was a justified shooting even though initially it appears to be such. Too many are too quick to rush to judgment and dispense with due process when it is advantageous. Those accusing others of bias might want to turn the mirror ’round and take a look at how it might be prematurely molding their own conclusions.

Jeff July 23, 2024 (9:57 am)

People with guns don’t get to make judgement calls without knowing the facts. This is how bad stuff happened. While sometimes it can be “good” it’s not always the easy or what happens. Rash decisions with a gun never should be made. Use other weapons or methods.

Alki resident July 23, 2024 (10:48 am)

All of us who’ve been beaten and abused by sociopaths could only have dreamed of having someone come save us like this guy did. Some of us survived. Let that sink in.

anonyme July 23, 2024 (12:39 pm)

Thank you for saying this. Another survivor here. The only point I might differ on is the assumption that all abusers are sociopaths. They’re not necessarily, but both society and the law largely ignore violence against women. Laws may have changed, but attitudes have not.
- Alki resident July 23, 2024 (2:43 pm)
  
  Correct. In my case he was a sociopath which I didn’t know what that was at the time but certainly do now. They like to get you alone and not only control you but finish you off without witnesses. I hope someone reading this right now realizes their life matters and they can get out and move on with their life. Thank you for reaching out and I hope you’re having a great life now.

Highland Finder July 23, 2024 (10:39 pm)

Thank you WSB for referring to the individuals as “a man” and “a pregnant woman” rather than “a man and a female” as some of the commenters did. Regardless of how someone chooses to identify themselves, a female refers to animals and plants (a mare is a female horse, etc). Why do humans with penises still get to be men but one with a vagina is a sub-human “female”? At least be consistent: male and female, or man and woman,

B July 25, 2024 (7:25 pm)

Hello. I see quite a few comments here and was wondering if there is anyone who witnessed the event occurring? There is much more to this story and I am trying to collect more information if anyone has any. Thank you.

Sorry, comment time is over.