Hatchet-wielding man shot dead by 60 year old man with concealed permit

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frozocrone**

http://ktla.com/2016/03/13/hatchet-wielding-masked-man-killed-by-7-eleven-customer-in-seattle-area/

A man wielding a hatchet inside a 7-Eleven store in the Seattle area was shot and killed early Sunday morning by a customer who had a concealed carry permit, KTLA sister station KCPQ reported.

The incident began around 5:45 a.m. when the masked men entered the convenience store and -- without saying a word -- started swinging a hatchet toward a customer, according to the Seattle-based television station.

He then attacked the store's 58-year-old clerk before the customer took out a pistol and shot him, the King County Sheriff's Office told the station.

The unidentified attacker, described only as a man in his 40s, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The clerk suffered minor injuries to the stomach.

“Fortunately, because of this customer with his weapon, this could have been a lot worse,” sheriff’s Sgt. Cindi West told the station. “The clerk could be the one laying there dead on the floor right now.”

The customer, a 60-year-old Seattle resident, visits the store daily and was drinking his morning coffee when the incident started, according to investigators.

The attacker's name would be released at a later date, pending the completion of an autopsy, the station reported.

Thought this was interesting to bring up alongside the Pro-Gun owner having their toddler fire a gun in the backseat of their car. Proper safety precautions?

Thoughts? I'm still for no guns (UK no firearm society might influence that) but it's awesome to see stuff like this that prevent loss of innocent life.

**Ahtman**

Well now that we have two threads about gun rights sitting next to each other we can really get down to brass tacks.

**djones520**

Ahtman wrote:
Well now that we have two threads about gun rights sitting next to each other we can really get down to brass tacks.

Would it be OT if we didn't have that?

I was debating the idea of opening a thread about the active shooter at a police department yesterday. I wasn't sure if OT could handle Trump, Gun Control, and Police all on the front page though.

**Nostromodamus**

Glad the customer and clerk were ok. Right person, right place, right time.

**SilverMK2**

Wonder why the attacker didn't just use a gun like everyone else?

**Sinful Hero**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Wonder why the attacker didn't just use a gun like everyone else?

Could be several reasons- disqualified due to background/mental health issues, too expensive, or even just hates guns in general.

**jmurph**

I hope they don't release the customer's name. I can't imagine anything good would come of it. Good for him for protecting someone else, though, even if the cost was high.

**jhe90**

Clear case of a justified use of force.

He had a hatchet, hostile.
Shooter was in the right.

**Sigvatr**

Good job on the shooter, thanks for making the world a better place.

**oldravenman3025**

Good shoot. One less for the taxpayer having to provide freebies for over the course of 7-15 years.

**Skinnereal**

If the customer did not have a gun, he still might have been able to take him down.
The gun was a quick and easy way to do it, but if he had a concealed carry permit, why was that? Who gets to have one of these, in the Seattle area? Was he ex-military, with training in more than just firearms? In theory, there is a lot in a 7-Eleven that can be used to slow or stop someone waving a hatchet.

In this case, well done to him.
Next time, could it be done differently, without the gun?

**whembly**

Skinnereal wrote:
If the customer did not have a gun, he still might have been able to take him down.
The gun was a quick and easy way to do it, but if he had a concealed carry permit, why was that?

Why not?

Who gets to have one of these, in the Seattle area? Was he ex-military, with training in more than just firearms?

He simply fulfilled the state's requirement to obtain a CCW permit.

In theory, there is a lot in a 7-Eleven that can be used to slow or stop someone waving a hatchet.

What? Throw canned goods? Yeah, that's a good way to get seriously hurt.

In this case, well done to him.
Next time, could it be done differently, without the gun?

Not w/o putting yourself at risk.

Having a gun is a great equalizer as it puts this carrier in position to resolve the conflict w/o putting himself directly in harms way. Not everyone can be Bruce Lee.

**Breotan**

Skinnereal wrote:
If the customer did not have a gun, he still might have been able to take him down. <snip> In theory, there is a lot in a 7-Eleven that can be used to slow or stop someone waving a hatchet.

Really? A 60 year old, unarmed, against a younger man with a hatchet? You can't be serious.

Skinnereal wrote:
Next time, could it be done differently, without the gun?

What, exactly would you suggest be done? Remember, we're talking about a 60 year old man up against a much younger, violent offender with a hatchet. How would the 60 year old have been able to subdue the younger man without putting himself in danger of serious injury or death?

Skinnereal wrote:
The gun was a quick and easy way to do it, but if he had a concealed carry permit, why was that? Who gets to have one of these, in the Seattle area? Was he ex-military, with training in more than just firearms?

Washington State is a "shall issue" State. That means, unless there is something that prevents you from firearms ownership (such as a felony conviction) the State has to issue a permit if you request one. It may seem strange to someone who isn't American but in this country firearms ownership is a civil right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Seattle Times also reported on this.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/hatchet-wielding-man-fatally-shot-in-7-eleven-had-served-time-in-prison-for-assault/

The hatchet-wielding man fatally shot by a customer at a South King County 7-Eleven store on Sunday morning has been identified as Steven Blacktongue, 43, a felon who had served time for assault and a drug offense.

The article has some more background on Blacktongue's arrest record.

Blacktongue served time in a state prison from April 2006 to September 2012 after being convicted in King County of first-degree assault and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. After his release, he was placed on community supervision until March 6, 2014.

He previously was placed on community supervision, but not incarcerated, from January 1997 until October 2003, after being convicted of third-degree assault and an unspecified misdemeanor.

**Nostromodamus**

Damn, meth again. This is such a growing problem, even in the quite rural area I live in. Makes people crazy, and seemingly oblivious to pain. I've read magazine articles where police/civilians have had to use their firearm against people under the influence of meth and they only dropped after a CNS hit.

**Breotan**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Wonder why the attacker didn't just use a gun like everyone else?

Prior felony convictions would have shown up on the background check. Also, you don't get your rights restored automatically after you've served your sentence. You need to fill out paperwork and submit it to the State and I doubt this guy did any of that.

**Nostromodamus**

Breotan wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Wonder why the attacker didn't just use a gun like everyone else?

Prior felony convictions would have shown up on the background check. Also, you don't get your rights restored automatically after you've served your sentence. You need to fill out paperwork and submit it to the State and I doubt this guy did any of that.

Well he wouldn't need to aquire one legally.

Most likely he developed this meth habit which turned him fething bonkers and the next thing you know he shows up somewhere swinging a hatchet. There's no rationale to that. Meth addiction turns people into raving lunatics.

**feeder**

Nostromodamus wrote:
Breotan wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Wonder why the attacker didn't just use a gun like everyone else?

Prior felony convictions would have shown up on the background check. Also, you don't get your rights restored automatically after you've served your sentence. You need to fill out paperwork and submit it to the State and I doubt this guy did any of that.

Well he wouldn't need to aquire one legally.

Most likely he developed this meth habit which turned him fething bonkers and the next thing you know he shows up somewhere swinging a hatchet. There's no rationale to that. Meth turns people into raving lunatics.

This. It's really too bad he didn't get help before he snapped and was killed. I hope the shooter is okay.
How bad was life that using meth seemed like the better option? I had a co-worker who was a recovering crackhead and even he said "hell no" to meth.

**Sigvatr**

Skinnereal wrote:

In this case, well done to him.
Next time, could it be done differently, without the gun?

Yeah....no. We're entering movie territory here. The gun was the perfect solution - a quick, easy kill from distance. There literally is zero downside on how this turned out.

Unless you're a trained fighter, you should never, ever even get /close/ to someone with a weapon, whatever kind of weapon that is. Run, run, run, run, run. As with most people, you will end up getting in close, your reflexes kick in tryng to dodge and you end up in a terrible situtation, hurting yourself or even risking your life. Stuff like throwing something at the attacker will only yield to even more rage and the less you can predict someone, the worse.

**Desubot**

Yeeeaah dont think i would ever want to get close to a person swinging a hatchet or any other sharp or blunt object.

**Breotan**

feeder wrote:
This. It's really too bad he didn't get help before he snapped and was killed.

Meth addicts rarely get help on their own.

feeder wrote:
How bad was life that using meth seemed like the better option?

People don't do meth because it seems like a better option. They do it because they're chasing that perfect high and their old drug of choice no longer provides it.

**xKillGorex**

Fair play, good to hear that a bigger mess was stopped for once, buy that man a beer.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Desubot wrote:
Yeeeaah dont think i would ever want to get close to a person swinging a hatchet or any other sharp or blunt object.

You might if you were on meth. I have a distant family member who is a meth head, and he once started a fight with a guy carrying a katana. He has a really interesting scar on his neck now.

**Desubot**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Yeeeaah dont think i would ever want to get close to a person swinging a hatchet or any other sharp or blunt object.

You might if you were on meth. I have a distant family member who is a meth head, and he once started a fight with a guy carrying a katana. He has a really interesting scar on his neck now.

Good thing im not on meth