Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Belltown Shooting: Two Bystand... | Grand Old Police Blotter »

Friday, July 28, 2006

Update: Shooting at Jewish Federation in Belltown

Posted by on July 28 at 21:58 PM

Federal and city officials—Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, FBI agent Laura Laughlin, and SPD Assistant Chief Nick Metz—held a press conference about the fatal shooting at (roughly) 8 pm this evening. The quartet was greeted by roughly a dozen impatient reporters. “It’s been a hell of a long day,” one reporter said. “I was covering Critical Mass and then got called down [to Belltown].”

“It’s a sad day,” began Mayor Nickels. “This is a crime of hate and there is no place for that in the city of Seattle.” Nickels and Police Chief Kerlikowske said the city was “taking steps to protect synagogues, temples, and mosques” to prevent any “retaliatory incidents. Everything we have now says this is an isolated incident.”

“Mosques,” one reporter asked. “Can we infer from this that the suspect was Muslim?”

“You could infer that,” Kerlikowske responded.

pressconf-200.jpg

Kerlikowske said the suspect walked through the front entrance of the Jewish Federation with a large-caliber semi-automatic handgun, asked to see a manager, and began firing. Four of the wounded have been identified: Cheryl Stumbo, Layla Bush, Carol Goldman, and Dayna Klein, a pregnant woman who is in satisfactory condition with a gunshot wound in her arm. The name of the deceased has not yet been released by the medical examiner’s office.

At 4:03 pm, the police were called, informed of the shots and that the suspect might be holding a hostage. At 4:05 the suspect spoke to officers on 911. (Reports are mixed—either the suspect or the victims initiated the call, but the gunman eventually ended up on the phone with police.) By 4:15, the suspect had given himself up, with no injury to himself or police.

The suspect, according to FBI agent Laura Laughlin, is male, between 30 and 40 years old and a U.S. citizen, not from Seattle. (KING 5 reports the suspect is Naveed Haq, a 30-year-old Pakistani man with a criminal background. According to KING 5, Haq is from the Pasco area and is a U.S. citizen, but it was not immediately known how long he has lived in the United States. Also unknown is what sort of criminal record he has. Officials are on the way to the Pasco to interview his family. The Seattle Times reports that a man got through security at the Jewish Federation and told staff members, “I’m a Muslim American; I’m angry at Israel,” then began shooting, according to Amy Wasser-Simpson, the vice president for planning and community services for the Jewish Federation.)

Laughlin said the shooting would be investigated as a hate crime. “You said all the victims were women,” a reporter asked Kerlikowski. “Is there any indication that the suspect was targeting women?”

Kerlikowske shook his head: “I think the majority of people inside were women.”

“Was there any warning or indication to the SPD that an incident like this would occur?” I asked, clicking on a rumor I heard from another reporter.

“There have been protests on both side of this issue, but nothing to indicate a crime of this magnitude would happen,” Kerlikowske said.

“Which issue? The Lebanon-Israel conflict?”

“Yes.”

“Is there any indication the suspect was inspired by the conflict in Lebanon?”

“I’m not going to address that.”

Assistant Chief Metz said the SPD had received a security alert the day before the shootings, indicating that security at synagogues should be buttressed.

“That was a general alert sent out by the FBI,” he said. “It was not specific to this kind of threat.”

scene-400.jpg


CommentsRSS icon

what does nickels mean by "this is a crime of hate and there is no place for that in the city of seattle"? i know what he means to mean, but there was a place for it. the place to kill jews was the jewish federation. it's real. it really happened. and i hate feel good moral platitudes dueling with reality. what he should say is "seattle is full of hate [or pasco is full of hate] and what are we going to do about it?!"

Seattle Times web site has tons of detail on the shooting and the shooter.

I will never understand why one shooting of five people can be considered a crime of "hate" and another shooting of five people not.

"I will never understand why one shooting of five people can be considered a crime of "hate" and another shooting of five people not."

Because it's a crime against a specific race or cultural group, the only intention, killing someone because they're white, black, jewish, muslim, just a representative, a sweeping generalization of a group they hate and wish to eliminate.

"Because it's a crime against a specific race or cultural group, the only intention, killing someone because they're white, black, jewish, muslim, just a representative, a sweeping generalization of a group they hate and wish to eliminate."

Should it matter if someone is killed because they are of a certain color, or just because they happened to be in the vicinity? Is one crime more egregious than the other? I don't think so. Violent crime is a thing of and driven by hate, period. When you start separating certain violent crimes as "hate crimes" and others not, you do injustice to victims as it implies that one party is more egregiously aggrieved than the other.

Violent crime is hateful. It should be punished based on what it is. That's all that should be said.

"Should it matter if someone is killed because of a certain color..."


But what if the motive for the killing is basically that he hates the group he thinks these people his victims represent.

Its like that asshat with the rave party. He hated ravers so he went shooting.

RURAL NORTHWEST: PLEASE STOP SENDING YOUR LOSER ANGRY FAT DUMBASSES WITH GUNS TO SEATTLE. WE DONT WANT THEM.

Bet conceal-and-carry permit applications go up around here soon....

hate crime means someone is attacking the individual and at the same time the group. the punishment for the attack on the individual is the same overall for a non-hate crime as it is for a hate crime. the difference is the additional potential legal penalty for the attack against the group (be it a religious group, racial group, gender, disability, or other protected class). if i were attacked for being jewish and had my arm broken, it would be more of an impact on me than if i were attacked randomly. it would hurt more. it would be more traumatic. what you're ignoring by dismissing the concept of hate crime is that every crime has a context, and part of that context is the victim.

Motive always is taken in account in defining a crime. Intent to kill separates a murder from an accident. Killing someone because of that person's skin color, religion or sexual orientation threatens everyone else who shares that characteristic. It's a crime intended to frighten everyone who shares that characteristic.

Yeah "hate crime" may be a bad name for what is a terrible thing, but there's a reason for treating these race/ethnicity/religous/sexual orientation crimes differently. If non muslims all ganged up on non-muslims, for example, we could just scared them all into leaving, but they would be hate crimes. We can't just let the majority/plurality scare away minorities, so we have to institute hate-crime laws.

Regardless of it being a hate crime or not I think we should look at the facts. A terrible thing happened in our city, and we need to help support the victims, and our home to help deal with this violence. Hate crime maybe, religious intent perhaps. But from what I have seen, Is that the more that people try to digest the reasoning behind the act or how it could have been pervented...they spend less time to help fix the problem at hand, I dont know...like Katrina for example.

Whatever. People need to stop shooting each other, period. Why is not important. What is.

America is founded on a simple concept. You can talk all the shit you want about anybody. But you can't shut up or use violence on anyone else.

If only the administration understood that.

a "regular" crime results from limited anger, sadism, or the desire for someone's property. a hate crime is political. it announces, through violence, to a specific community of people, "your activities and/or very presence are not welcome here."

A few years back a Chinese graduate student at the University of Iowa went beserk and shot six people, killing five, and then killed himself. He was disgruntled because he felt he was being discriminated against. A friend of mine's girlfriend who was working as a receptionist survived, but was left a quadroplegic, and another friend's father (a professor) was one of the people killed. All in all, it was quite a horrific day in Iowa City, and for me personally even though I was here in Seattle.

In the aftermath, trying to make sense of it is futile: Normal people, at least those who are not trained in psychology, can't see into the mind of someone who would do something like this.

This shooting reminds me of that shooting, because of the paralels: innocents killed by a party seeking vengence. I wish I had a tidy statement that explains it all, but unfortunately that doesn't exist. You can't explain hatred and vengence.

As far as hate crimes go, I think it's important to make the distinction when the crime is committed against a certain group that shares a common racial, religious or sexual identity, since these are the most commonly targeted groups.

Another mentally ill man from a financially comfortable family attacks a bunch of strangers. This isn't really a Jewish/Muslim thing. This is a bipolar thing. There was a similar incident in Santa Barbara, remember? Troubled young man from wealthy family goes nuts and kills people. Why don't we have better mental health care and better control of the mentally ill in this country? Why was this young man wandering the streets--un-cared-for--four months after he went bonkers and was waving his exposed penis and shouting at passersby in Kennewick's Columbia Center mall?

An excellent question, Jean, and one against which the majority of this society stops up its ears. The solution that "we" have come up with has been either to put troubled people in prison, or to dump them back on the streets with little help.

Jean,

I don't think ou pose a good question.

If anything, I think, as a society, taking the time to address these type of questions is why we repeatedly see this type of thing happening.

A man walks into a Jewish Cultural center and says, "I am a Muslim American and I am angry with Isreal" and begins shooting.

His motivation is perfectly clear.

Making excuses such as, "He's mentally Ill", or, "this is an example of why we need gun control", is totally unnaccdeptable.

How do you solve these kinds of problems? They should have shot this clown on sight when they apprehended him, instead of giving his cause the publicity it's about to get.

I don't think that I'd approve of the remedy Paul in Seattle suggests as we are trying to maintain our tradition of being a nation of law.

But it's pretty weird to make excuses for the killer -- he's "mentally ill" -- when he himself says that his purpose was political and hence in his own cultural terms, religious.

Seattle Man.

I admit it's harsh.

However, what's to be gained by trying to understand or "cure" this individual?

At what point is acting on Anti-semitism a mental ilnness?


I am saddened by what happened hate crime or not. It is sad that we have to be continually on a lert as a nation and as a people in general because others think this is the way to resolve conflict. I have many jewish friends and I have many black friends I have many white and hispanic frineds...any of the above would make me sad we are all people...with families and lives...My heart goes out to the injured and the family of the one whose life was cut short. I do not know what the answer is accept to pray.

This kind of hate is exactly why there is violence in the Middle East. If terrorists like Mr Haq stopped killing Jews in cold blood, the Middle East and all of civilization would be more peaceful.

Hey, don't let your preconceived notions get in the way of understanding anything.

This creep had a history of mental illness. His motive on the face of it was this Israeli business, but that's just a cover for his real problem: he was damaged goods. Waving your dick around in a shopping mall is not about Israel. Being unemployable at 30 is not about Israel.

Paul in Seattle and others:

If you want to address the problem of murder in our society - be it under the label of "hate crime", "crime of passion", or just cold-blooded killing - you have to understand its causes so society can take preventative steps against them. If you don't, all you end up doing is locking up or executing a bunch of people, which is just reaction - not prevention.

Fnarf,

How much of this guys past behavior is based on "mental Illness" and how much is based on a muslim society with absolutely zero respect for women?

For all you know, standing in a fountain marsturbating, while catcalling infidel women may be completely the norm in this freaks society.

Saying this guy has a documented past history of mental illness is a far reach. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have a history of mental problems, just legal ones.

If in fact theories, such as Sarubatio presents were at all valid, a warning signal for someone who should be institutionalized could be presented in the shooters past. If so, the real question is, you have someone who clearly presents a danger to society, has shown a history of mental problems, especially directed towaqrds women. If studying past muderers is used as a pevention. Then why was he not institutionalized in the first place?

So, we have now been studying criminal psychology for how long? Murders such as this continue to happen on a daily basis, it seems the "understanding criminal research" appears to not be too effective.

The killer demanded the United States stop supplying arms to Israel and then started shooting. It's mentally ill individuals like this who say Israel should not defend herself. America and Israel must keep hitting Lebanon until all the terrorists and their children are dead. Then we will have peace.

"Murders such as this continue to happen on a daily basis, it seems the "understanding criminal research" appears to not be too effective."

Really? Some whack job strolls into an office and starts shooting EVERY DAY? Wow, I knew I was sort of out of it, but I didn't realize that we had such a problem on our hands.

This is a terrible event, involving a person who, if not "off his meds", certainly should be on some meds. We used to have a mental care system in this country that would help these people, or at least warehouse them. Thank our lovely Ronald Reagan (may he burn in hell) for ending that.

But by all means, let's be as reactionary and retarded as we can about this! It's much more fun, and that's the American Way

Well, of course you're going to get the reactionaries, masters in the world of simplistic, reductive arguments, usually involving an exaggerated notion of freewill. Of course to them the attack would be as simple as a muslim extremist attacking Israel. And of course the most obnoxious of them would claim this is reason enough to commit the similarily, and even more severe, sociopathic act of "killing all Lebanese children."

But, at least most people in Seattle can probably see that this is a case of a mentally ill man, full of delusion and paranoia, killing a bunch of people with the pretext of political action.

Sure, Hezbollah has a lot of nut jobs in their service. Just as Israel has Zionist extremists who assassinate their own prime ministers, and the United States has guys who kill a bunch of ravers because he's alientated, nuts, and probably can't get laid.

The world is full of nuts like a guy wagging his penis, and at a later time a gun, around. Most of the nation states in the world behave in a line crossing, psychopathic sorta way every day, only they usually do so with clear strategic and political goals.

This incident is the kind of thing that happens when some guy with some screws loose goes berzerk. Welcome to the world of mental illness. Things like this happen all the time- go to the DC area and watch the news sometime. Political pretenses are a dime a dozen in the world of dumb things people do. It's rather different than something like an abortion clinic bombing, where organizations like Operation Rescue actively encouraged nutjobs to commit acts of violence. No one incited this guy, so you basically have an isolated hate crime.

I don't think this kind of thing is even 100% preventable, to be honest. But it can be made less likely through better mental health services/coverage, more restrictions on firearms, and more security where it's needed.

I should add, before I'm accused of also making a reductive argument, that I do understand that religion and politics did have a contributing role in the incident. But only the kind of role any belief or ideology has in aiding acts of insane violence. It created a personalized justification for the act.

Stupis is an stupid does...

Oh, here we go, it's the republicans (Ronald Reagan)who is/are to blame.

Wow, speaking of reactionary.

"This incident is the kind of thing that happens when some guy with some screws loose goes berzerk. Welcome to the world of mental illness."


I dont agree with that. when someone walks into a a building has a gun in hand and and says "I am a Muslim American and I am angry with Isreal" and starts to shoot up the place, you call mental illness? Does anyone one know why people kill, does it matter? You can sit here all day and make the arguement, that crazy people are all over the world and have the capacity to kill...news flash so does eveyone else...for ANY reason. That kind of crap just pisses me off. What I see is when someone does something crazy; kidnap there child because she doesnt want him to have kidney surgery, shoot a bunch of jews in seattle or drown there damn child in a car..Socitey trys to chalk it up to mental illness. No I call it no right to be a mother and murder. Try to put a "insane" mask over it, your basically ignoring it.

Bravo Nick,

Well said

Paul Baby, you can't argue with the facts. Well, you probably can, but normal people can't.

Reagan (may he burn in hell) cut the funding for mental health services. Before that we hardly ever had homeless or crazies on the streets.

Stupid is as Stupid does,

You are delusional.

Addressing Homelssness, do your homework. Homelessness has been a problem in Seattle since day one. In fact, it's one of the first documented crimes in this city and we've never been able to solve it.

As to your wronful assumpstion that the Mental Health system was somehow crippled by the Regan Administration. Yopu may want to ummm, open a book sometime.

I would suggest that you look up the Mental Health Parity act of 1996. Which, inpart of it's many accomplishments, the law began requiring health plans to provide the same annual and lifetime spending caps for mental health benefits as they do for medical and surgical benefits.

The act became a law as of January 1998. With that in mind, your post is absolute rhetoric.

I'm not responding to any one person't comment on here. I just want to say that it saddens me that incidents like the shooting today continue to happen, whatever the reason. I keep waiting for signs that things are changing for the better, and I hope that people can look past the words used to describe what has happened (the world over) and feel compassion for all involved. Some may dismiss this as "polly-anna-ish," but I will continue to hold the light.

Posted by Josh: "It's mentally ill individuals like this who say Israel should not defend herself. America and Israel must keep hitting Lebanon until all the terrorists and their children are dead. Then we will have peace".

A guy who kills one person is mentally ill but a guy who wants to kill everybody is not.


As to your wronful assumpstion that the Mental Health system was somehow crippled by the Regan Administration. Yopu may want to ummm, open a book sometime.

You may want to use a spell check sometime.

Actually, Paul, the Mental Health Parity Act only covers those people who have health insurance, I believe. The Reagan cutting that SiaSd is talking about was a more general funding of places/funds that routinely give free care/services to the mentally ill, many of whom seem to be currently wandering the streets. And it was more than just mental health that he cut as far as social services go.

However, you are right - we've always had homeless and we've always had mental illness. I think funding just helps make sure that the mentally ill get better treatment, whether or not they have health insurance.

Socitey trys to chalk it up to mental illness. No I call it no right to be a mother and murder. Try to put a "insane" mask over it, your basically ignoring it.

Nonsense, as any mental health official will tell you. The whole case has mental disorder written all over it, in letters 100 feet high. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be punished- he should be, as much as the law will allow. But to pretend this guy was sane is insane. I'm not excusing the crime, but it's not the act of a rational political actor. And it's not ignoring it when I say he broke the law and should be punished. That's your own political agenda.

Oh, here we go, it's the republicans (Ronald Reagan)who is/are to blame.

Wow, speaking of reactionary.

I never blamed the republicans dude. Read my post again and pin point where I blamed republicans specifically. Unless, of course, "reactionary" now means Republican, in which case I take full responsibility.

Jenmoon,

Here's the Kicker, as a follow up, under Gov. Gary Locke, huge sums of Public funding were allocateted to mental healthcare in this state.

In the event that a person in this state, whether a resident or non, legal or illegal, does not have insurance and/or financial resources, there are more than enough services to address needs (http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/mentalhealth/)

The argument does not hold water. There simply is no lack of funding for mental health in the state of Washington.

SIASD (James S), you've mentioned I can't argue facts. I've provided facts, links, resources, etc...

Now susbstaitiatiate your post or retract it.

Now, why would I retract my comments? I only mentioned better mental health coverage as one of three, no make that four, factors. You think you knocked me down because of mental health laws in Washington? You didn't even scratch the surface of what I said. Try again.

Oh Paul, I'm so glad we have a 160-year-old person like you to assure us that Seattle has always had a homeless problem. Grandpa, Tell us about the good old days!

And perhaps it's because you have evidentially been buried in books (the elderly do love to read so!) but as someone above pointed out, mental health care has only become commonly available to the INSURED since 1996. As a presumed retiree, you may not realize NOT EVERYONE HAS INSURANCE. We have it slightly better in WA state than other places (because we keep the Retardlicans in check) but the situation is still grim.

Here's the deal, brainiac: In the 1970's, mental health professionals started to realize that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to institutionalize everyone, and to have some stricter standards (for instance, men used to be able to commit their wives for just about anything. Kept the ladies in their place. Bet you miss that, huh?) so they started experimenting with community-based mental health facilities.

Enter Mr. Morning in America - him of the frequent naps and deficient intellect, who finally made it OK to be a greedy bastard again. President senile and his band of selfish misfits decided "HEY! This is our chance to close all the mental hospitals and look progressive!" and then "Hey! Let's just close all these liberal, feel-good, tree-huggy community mental health centers!"

OK, there's a little bit of artistic license there (Reagan was actually much more of an evil bastard than I made out) but that's the basic story.

Would make a great book, wouldn't it? Maybe YOU should read it.

You know, it didn't occur to me until after I hit post, but maybe the reason so many conservatives have trouble recognizing mental illness is because they're crazy. Maybe it's the mad cow....

Well, Reagan was our first mentally ill president, drooling into his soup while Nancy consulted with the astrologers on how to run the government....

SIASD,

Clearly from your last post you admit that you are completely off base.

Wow Paul, I "admit" something without even knowing it? Are you some sort of psychic or something? You are truly a gem of many facets.

I know you're at sixes and sevens because I insulted your golden boy, and how hard it is for sheep like you to change their ways, but you really should look into the legacy of Ronnie (may he burn in hell) Reagan. Once Nancy finally dies - and it's about time, isn't it? - we will hopefully have some honest discussion about that bastard.

In the meantime, why don't you get yourself a psychic hotline or something?

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).