Abandoned Seattle Police Rifle Explained

“According to two sources with knowledge of the incident, it began when one officer was inside the secure parking garage at the West Precinct and unloaded his equipment from a police cruiser,” seattletimes.nwsource.com reports. “The officer placed the rifle on the trunk of a nearby patrol car. That officer, identified by sources as acting Sgt. Bill Collins, forgot about the rifle and walked off. [ED: as one does.] Another officer, identified as Lt. Deanna Nollette, then went into the garage and drove away in the patrol vehicle without realizing the rifle was on the trunk lid, the sources said.” And that’s why we can’t trust civilians with “assault rifles.”

comments

  1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    I believe the story, but it’s not an acceptable excuse and he should be suspended.

    1. avatar Chris Dumm says:

      +1

  2. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

    Someone should have grabbed it and saved it for a police buyback function.

  3. avatar Bob H says:

    I believe that the word “explained” in the title should be in quotes.

    1. avatar Derek says:

      Agreed.

  4. avatar Rob Crawford says:

    Maybe the solution is to require officers to supply their own firearms? I certainly wouldn’t leave that much of my own money where it could be lost or stolen.

    1. avatar fmonk says:

      Ditto.

  5. avatar Sean says:

    He is an “acting ” SGT? Yeah, I don’t think he gets those stripes now

  6. avatar sdog says:

    how did this guy walk past the trunk to the driver side door and not see the weapon on top of the boot

  7. avatar Frank says:

    At the cost of “assault rifles” citizens who pay for them with THEIR OWN MONEY are less likely to “forget them”. If the cop had paid for the firearm out of his own pocket, chances are likely this would not have happened. Even though we have the castle doctrine here in Washington, if we shoot someone, we have to explain it to a court. If our firearm shoots someone due to theft or negligence we still have to explain it to a court. In both cases all the cop has to do is explain it to a review board. That coes for the ammunition we train (more then the police) with.
    Just one Washington state citizens point of view. (One who does not trust the police to be able to hit the side of a wall from 5 feet away).

  8. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    “And that’s why we can’t trust civilians with “assault rifles.”And that’s why we can’t trust civilians with “assault rifles.””

    I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

    I do love it when I agree with Joe.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      Well, mike at least we have another example of a lack of logical thinking in your beliefs.

      You simultaneously agree with a contextual statement and yet can’t see how it has anything to do with the preceding context. Bravo.

      So it doesn’t matter why “civilians cannot be trusted” (in this case sarcasm about police stupidity) just as long as someone says it.

      “A sarcastic statement that I’ll be obtuse enough to pretend is a non sequitur ? Good enough for me!”

  9. avatar poppymann says:

    Sure he lost a rifle, but waht really pissed him off was the fact that he had his Venti Orange Mocha Frappacino on the roof.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email