Seattle woman who shot man at bus stop won't be charged

[FourTeeFive]

While I don't agree with the woman's handling of the situation, it is nice to see the law on the side of the gun owner in this case.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412796_bus01.html

Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Last updated 1:14 p.m. PT
Woman who shot man at bus stop won't be charged
Prosecutors say she acted in self-defense

By SCOTT SUNDE
SPECIAL TO SEATTLEPI.COM

A woman who shot a man in the chest in downtown Seattle in April was acting in self-defense and won't be charged with a crime, King County prosecutors said Tuesday.

The 48-year-old man was shot in the chest but rushed to Harborview Medical Center and survived his wounds.

The shooting took place after a bump on a Metro bus escalated into angry words, obscene gestures, and, finally, the man charging the woman even though she showed she had a gun.

Prosecutors said in the statement that that Sara Brereton, 31, "acted in defense of herself, her children and her partner" by using her legally licensed pistol.

Prosecutors gave this account of what happened:

Brereton, her partner and four children got on a Metro bus on the afternoon of April 25. Emmanuel Salters was already on the bus.

Salters moved to the front of bus near Brereton and stood next to her. The man swayed back and forth, then fell into Brereton.

She pushed him away and said "excuse me." The two began arguing and swearing.

She and her family got off the bus at Third Avenue and Seneca Street. Salters stayed on. Brereton and some of her family made obscene gestures at him. He demanded to get off the bus.

He walked toward Brereton asking, "What did you say?"

She told him to get away. When he was within 20 feet, she displayed her pistol.

But Salters kept coming, getting to within a foot or two of her. He started spitting at her.

Brereton shot him once in the chest.

Seattlepi.com reported in April that an FBI agent who happened to be on the scene took Brereton into custody until police arrived. She was jailed for two days, then released.

Prosecutors say she cooperated with police. Witnesses backed up her version of events and what a Metro surveillance camera caught on video.

Salters gave a different version of events, saying he didn't charge Brereton but was running to catch another bus.

Prosecutors concluded that she acted within the law.

The statement released Tuesday said that "there is strong evidence in this case that she reasonably believed under the facts and circumstances known to her at the time that Salters was about to injure her. Salters was a stranger, who in an angry state, charged at her. He did not stop when she displayed her gun. Instead he continued to advance on her, getting within one or two feet. She waited to fire until the last possible moment before she could have been assaulted herself. Although she may have made obscene gestures, she did not initiate the physical confrontation. However, Mr. Salters did by charging at her."

Prosecutors said she didn't use unnecessary force and brandished her weapon to stop Salters.

"Under state law, Brereton has no duty to retreat. She can reasonably take into account her inability to use her gun to defend herself if Salters got close enough to physically assault her and be concerned that she could lose the gun in a struggle."
Scott Sunde can be reached at 206-448-8331 or [email protected]

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Good, But . . .

I don't support her "verbal and gesture" escalation.

Falls under the heading of "asking for trouble."

I am actually surprised that they didn't pursue the "mutual conflict" angle, and I'm sure there are jurisdictions where she'd have had some 'splainin' to do beyond "feared for my life."

Overall, good call by the prosecutor but, in general, I don't think you can count on that kind of even-handed treatment by a DA or his staff.

As the AG on this, even if I dropped any prosecution, I would send her back for mandatory re-training in self defense and situational awareness matters. If she gets the idea that it's okay to provoke people and then "defend herself" when they get violent, she will eventually lose that gamble with the DA.

 

[ClayInTX]

Arfin,
I agree with you.

She lucked out. This sort of thing does us no good. The anti-gunners can use this to point out that "the gun nuts have pushed the government too far and SOMETHING needs to be done about it".

 

[Rodd]

This woman has a bit of history brandishing a weapon according to the Seattle Times:

"Prosecutors said the woman has prior convictions for firearm brandishing and assault in Utah in 1996 and 1997. She has no record of crime here, and a public defender told the judge the woman has lived here for about a decade."

It seems to me that she escalated the confrontation. There is more to this story than is being reported, I'm sure, particularly when you consider how liberal most big city DA's are and how Seattle is one of the most liberal of west coast cities.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Prosecutors said the woman has prior convictions for firearm brandishing and assault in Utah in 1996 and 1997.

Some people maybe should not be carrying guns?

It seems to me that she escalated the confrontation.

That seems absolute and Arfin is right that she was undoubtedly asking for trouble. However, asking for trouble does not negate one's right to self defense.

With that said, I am not sure from the story what the justification was for the use of lethal force. Are they counting spitting as an assault that might be likely to cause serious bodily injury or death?

 

[Speedo66]

This smells.

Sounds like if he touched her it would have been a hate crime. Maybe in that local talking trash to her might have been too.

So she can say anything she wants, but didn't touch him. Sounds like he didn't touch her either, but it's OK if she shoots him for getting close. She admittedly says things to piss him off, them shoots him when he responds? If she has a history of this, why was she able to get a permit?

If I were him I'd be shopping for a civil lawyer, suing her and the agency that granted her a permit.

 

[david_the_greek]

Yeah, it's definitely stupid that this woman decided to escalate and aggravate the guy in the article. Not a smart move, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. I'm not saying he wouldn't have attacked, but did he threaten her? I feel threatened all the time while downtown in Detroit, but do I shoot every shady individual asking for change? (You haven't seem me in the news yet so obviously not!!!). Also, around my parts I was under the impression it was illegal to carry on public transport...

 

[Zoogster]

This is not a good example because things could have easily gone either way.
The prosecutor just chose to act in a way that was to her benefit.

A man stumbled and she took offense. Some hostile words followed by both parties. At some point things calmed down in intensity. Then she gets off the bus and rather than let it go they chose to look at the guy still on the bus and start taunting and provoking him.
That sounds not only like bad judgment but cowardly as well as the escalation appears to have been due to him being stuck on the bus after they got off. So they became even worse than while on the bus next to him.


She both continued and escalated the situation after getting off the bus. In some jurisdictions committing an act a reasonable person would expect to result in violence in retaliation can be a crime.

She then used a firearm against an unarmed man, which while it can be deemed appropriate due to a disparity of force, that is not automatic in any way.
If she continued to provoke an altercation that resulted in a physical fight she would be a mutual combatant.
The same can be applied to shooting, which would make the action a felony crime outside of self defense.



So she lucked out that with all the aspects in play she was not at a minimum charged and had to spend thousands at trial to be acquitted.
Had she been a man I can say with almost certainty she would have had to go to court (especially since that would have likely removed a disparity of force making entire use of the firearm illegal, but even if there still was a disparity of force due to the provocation and escalation.)

 

[704338]

Regarding Speedo66:

I can't say I agree with her part in the matter but if someone were to charge at you and your family yelling and spitting on/at you. What choice do you have to make?

And about the brandishing charges.. I myself have already had to do some contact pulling in regards to brandishing. One time my firearm appeared out of my shirt as I exited my vehicle. Authorities arrived on scene and I explained the situation. Another I displayed my firearm in hopes of deescalating a situation, which it did. Authorities were called and charges were pressed but after them actually listening to my story they were dropped.

You can't always judge a person by their charges. But sometimes you can.

 

[Atroxus]

I think it is a bit dodgy that someone is claiming she got her CCW with prior firearms and assault convictions. If I recall correctly the application for the permit I filled out stated that conviction in this state or any other for a felony rendered one inelligible for CC. So I am not sure that I buy that she was convicted of assault. Charged maybe, but I am pretty sure that an assault conviction would have shown up on the background check and made her inelligible to carry concealed, or even handle a firearm in this state.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Does anyone here think both sides in the dispute learned a valuable lesson?

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm pretty sure she will think twice before she mouths off to someone again. This is why we emphasize the importance of living a lifestyle unlikely to draw violence in the first place.

Ayoob talks about the importance of being honest when you are telling your story. (Through your lawyer.) If, in the process of the encounter, you called someone a dirty SOB, it might not look good, but it will look worse if you lie and it comes out later. In this case supporting evidence corroborated her story. The thing that saves her here is that the aggressor went out of his way to leave the bus to come at her. It might have been much more gray otherwise.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

geniusiknowit Does anyone here think both sides in the dispute learned a valuable lesson?


No, I don't. He got off the bus to pursue this woman who had her children with her. He literally dropped everything to harass someone. He sounds disturbed to me. She didn't help things, flipping him the bird, but you're dealing with someone very dangerous if that is all it takes to set them off.

 

[Cosmoline]

But Salters kept coming, getting to within a foot or two of her. He started spitting at her.

So he continues to move in after he sees the weapon and he's SPITTING(?!) at her? That's pretty bizarre behavior. The fellow must have been mentally deranged, which likely had a role in the decision not to prosecute. When your victim is a screaming, spitting nutcase that's just not going to go well with the jurors.

 

[enkindler]

She obviously made some extremely bad choices on that day but I would like to note that the test for if deadly force is justified in this state is purely that a reasonable person would think the other person had the ability to cause harm, opportunity to cause harm, and that there was an immediate jeopardy.

The reason we have Concealed weapons permits in this state is due to our strong self protection rights which are spelled out in our state constitution.

Section 24:

Right to Bear Arms.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Washington has been a "shall issue" state for almost 50 years (1961) and as much as our outgoing mayor hates it the right to carry in Washington is truly a right and not a privilege as in other states.

Here is a list of crimes that you cannot be convicted of.

1) Have no felony convictions.
2) Have no convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another on or after July 1, 1993:

* Assault IV
* Coercion
* Stalking
* Reckless Endangerment
* Criminal Trespass in the first degree
* Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

Being a right and not a privilege there is no way for a judge to force her to take training etc.

I understand the disgust an average person has with the way she handled this situation and I personally would never imagine escalating the situation like she did; however she was fully within her rights to use deadly force.

If there had been any question about her legal standing I can promise you she would have gone to court in this county.

 

[enkindler]

I should also point out that in the state of Washington if you are charged with a crime that is found to be a case of self defense in the trial the state must compensate you for your legal fees and time.

 

[Atroxus]

I should also point out that in the state of Washington if you are charged with a crime that is found to be a case of self defense in the trial the state must compensate you for your legal fees and time.

Ya thats one of my favorite gun laws here. I think it makes prosecutors a little less eager to prosecute for self-defense type issues if they think they might lose. Now if only we could get the state to adopt castle doctrine I think our gun laws would be pretty close to perfect.

 

[ganymede]

I live in utah, we're an open carry state, if she got charged with brandishing here, she must have done something really stupid. The DA in these parts doesn't prosecute for that type of thing very easily. for example, a few months ago two guys came home found an intruder in their house and pulled their weapons. the intruder ran, they chased him for over a block through a residential salt lake neighborhood firing shots at him as he ran. the man who fired a gun was charged with discharging a firearm in city limits. it should have been reckless endangerment at the very least

 

[ChefKristian]

If she had killed him, perhaps it would be a different story...

She escalated the situation by using obscene gestures towards the man... Yes he could have just brushed it off and went on his way, but he was provoked nonetheless... She should NOT have beckoned a reaction from him knowing full well that she had a gun with her...

She was not carrying for self-defense in this case... she used the gun to back up her pompous actions...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

She was not carrying for self-defense in this case... she used the gun to back up her pompous actions...

Unless you are claiming premeditation, you can't really claim she wasn't carrying for self defense. I don't see where she used the gun to backup her pompous actions (like none of us here have every flipped off anyone). She wasn't brandishing while flipping off the guy or while on the bus.

It would appear that she only produced the gun when her poor choice of words and actions got her into trouble and the guy came after her. Then she produced the gun.

 

[Zoogster]

It would appear that she only produced the gun when her poor choice of words and actions got her into trouble and the guy came after her. Then she produced the gun.

Which is an area with great discretion in how a prosecutor chooses to interpret it.
An action which a reasonable person would expect to illicit violence takes one from innocent victim to mutual combatant. No different than challenging someone to a fist fight and then pulling a gun when you start losing or things take a direction you do not like.

So is taunting him as she did something a reasonable person may expect to result in such actions?
Who decides that? A jury if charged.

Also the man was not "charging" for an immediate violent attack as implied here. He was not spitting at her while running at her. It sounds more like he ran up to her and then once close enough to spit right on her stopped and spit at her.
Her reaction was then to shoot him.

So after escalating and provoking a situation, which resulted in someone getting in her face and spitting on her she shot them. She then managed to get the shooting considered self defense and avoid charges.

Certainly not a result readers of the story should expect if they are involved in any similar situation.

 

[Fryerpower]

That seems absolute and Arfin is right that she was undoubtedly asking for trouble. However, asking for trouble does not negate one's right to self defense.

It is no longer self defense if you provoked the fight, IMHO.

This is coming from a guy who has a handgun permit and actively carries.

-Jim

 

[SSN Vet]

There's a whole breed of sassy, don't take not crap from no-one, high and mighty women out there who will shoot their mouth off rapid fire at every opportunity....

If you wonder where they get it from, just ponder what Ms. Brereton's little darling children learned from the experience.

When I worked in Detroit many years ago, I saw a lot of them..

Lesson learned,

Stay far far away from these "ladies" ...

Good news is... There is a judgement day and such will receive perfect justice on that day... so I don't need to worry about defending my dignity with these sorts today.

 

[ChefKristian]

An action which a reasonable person would expect to illicit violence takes one from innocent victim to mutual combatant. No different than challenging someone to a fist fight and then pulling a gun when you start losing or things take a direction you do not like.

..............................

So after escalating and provoking a situation, which resulted in someone getting in her face and spitting on her she shot them. She then managed to get the shooting considered self defense and avoid charges.

Exactly... ALSO, what kind of example was she setting for her children??? They were taunting him as well, and then they see their mother shoot him when the situation that SHE caused was escalated... So in the children's eyes, it is ok to pick a fight, then shoot the person who is retaliating to your taunts...

 

[Speedo66]

Regarding Speedo66:

I can't say I agree with her part in the matter but if someone were to charge at you and your family yelling and spitting on/at you. What choice do you have to make?

And about the brandishing charges.. I myself have already had to do some contact pulling in regards to brandishing. One time my firearm appeared out of my shirt as I exited my vehicle. Authorities arrived on scene and I explained the situation. Another I displayed my firearm in hopes of deescalating a situation, which it did. Authorities were called and charges were pressed but after them actually listening to my story they were dropped.

You can't always judge a person by their charges. But sometimes you can.

You can "charge" at a person, but if you don't swing or make contact, you haven't done anything. Spitting is not a capital crime, seems he was using that to answer her words and keep from hitting her. People get in each others faces all the time and only words are exchanged.

My opinion is based on what we've read. She escalated this thing, and then over reacted with deadly physical force.

On the other hand I have to stop and remember that this is a newspaper account, and not necessarily a reliable source of accurate information.

Unfortunately it has been my experience that many women now feel so empowered that they think they can say or do anything they want (curse, throw the finger, etc.) and there will be no consequences. They want to talk like men, but forget that men often hold back from saying everything they want because it may lead to a physical confrontation.

Some women let their mouths put them into situations their physical strength can't back up. And this sounds like just one of those situations.

Seems like at least she should have been charged with mopery.