Belligerent intruder barges into Seattle University law class
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Seattle University law students were shaken up Wednesday afternoon when a strange man barged into a lecture and began incoherently ranting.
The 38-year-old man walked into the classroom just after 1 p.m. and soon began making a scene.
"He told her, 'Keep teaching. Keep teaching. I want to learn,' " said student Yen Jones, who captured part of the incident on her cellphone camera.
Professor Madeline Kass also realized that something was wrong with the man.
"He's acting very strangely by dancing, jumping on the table, waving an ice cream cone around," she said.
The man was asked to leave, but ignored the request. Cell service in the basement classroom is spotty, so a student stood up to try for a better reception. That's when the intruder began to really frighten the students.
"The man yells 'Bam!'" Jones said. "And so she obviously she thought it was a gun, I think, so she squatted back down. I thought it was a gun at first."
Kass used the classroom's emergency button to call for help, but there are differing opinions about how long it took for campus security to arrive.
"We responded within one minute of getting the call in the dispatch center," said Randy Carroll, the school's interim public safety director.
Some students say it took longer than that.
"We definitely relied on our school to make us feel safe, and I know I didn't feel safe and I can tell you for most of my peers felt terrified in that moment," Jones said.
Kass said it took 2 to 5 minutes for security to arrive, but said the tense situation made it feel like longer.
"The context of everything going on lately in the news and things happening at schools was enough to make anyone wonder what was going to happen it was scary," she said.
The intruder, who has not been identified, slipped away from security guards but was arrested by Seattle police a short time later at nearby chapel.
He was booked into King County Jail on suspicion of trespassing. Police believe the man may be suffering from mental illness.
The 38-year-old man walked into the classroom just after 1 p.m. and soon began making a scene.
"He told her, 'Keep teaching. Keep teaching. I want to learn,' " said student Yen Jones, who captured part of the incident on her cellphone camera.
Professor Madeline Kass also realized that something was wrong with the man.
"He's acting very strangely by dancing, jumping on the table, waving an ice cream cone around," she said.
The man was asked to leave, but ignored the request. Cell service in the basement classroom is spotty, so a student stood up to try for a better reception. That's when the intruder began to really frighten the students.
"The man yells 'Bam!'" Jones said. "And so she obviously she thought it was a gun, I think, so she squatted back down. I thought it was a gun at first."
Kass used the classroom's emergency button to call for help, but there are differing opinions about how long it took for campus security to arrive.
"We responded within one minute of getting the call in the dispatch center," said Randy Carroll, the school's interim public safety director.
Some students say it took longer than that.
"We definitely relied on our school to make us feel safe, and I know I didn't feel safe and I can tell you for most of my peers felt terrified in that moment," Jones said.
Kass said it took 2 to 5 minutes for security to arrive, but said the tense situation made it feel like longer.
"The context of everything going on lately in the news and things happening at schools was enough to make anyone wonder what was going to happen it was scary," she said.
The intruder, who has not been identified, slipped away from security guards but was arrested by Seattle police a short time later at nearby chapel.
He was booked into King County Jail on suspicion of trespassing. Police believe the man may be suffering from mental illness.
Bizarre moment when time stood still? You realize, that in any moment of crisis, time will stand still.
Also 4-5 minute response time is fabulous. That beats response times from police in most cases. Take this as an early lesson. In the gravest situations, you have no one but yourself to depend on your survival. 60 seconds will seem like an eternity.
Even if it is something like running out of the room.Â
@Kraziken"Also 4-5 minute response time is fabulous"
It is.Â
And to the people waiting for that response, it seems a lifetime...
On March 1 my neighbor's house burned - at the time I thought it was 8-9 minutes. In reality, after thinking about it, it was more like 3-4 minutes - and in all they had 15 fire trucks there...absolutely marvelous response on their part.
Stress morphs reality...
I don't think there are many real men left anymore. A friend of a friend had his house broken into around 11am. This guy was just relaxing in bed after playing XBox all night. He hears noise outside his room so he goes to check it out. 2 perps are moving his tv out of his house. They take all the electronics. When they come into his room, he runs and jumps back in bed pretending to be asleep. So then they take his laptop too. To add to all of this, both of them cook breakfast and eat it on his dining table and decide to steal all the alcohol in the house on their way out.
wow---I watched the video and agreed the guy was having some mental stability issues. But after reading some of the seriously insane comments posted here, I can only conclude that the guy ranting and raving was simply acting out what many of you are doing in your mind (and online where you can go unchallenged except in print). A society as demented as the one that could produce so many hateful comments is sure to produce guys like him and worse (oh, yeah, it does in fact!) Glad all of you watching at home can post how brave you would have been or what everyone else in the class (and the world) did wrong. Pathetic!!!!!
@RandaWhatever, people like you would be the first to scream how this guy was an Anointed Disciple of the NRA if he HAD had a weapon and hurt someone. No one is buying it...
@NW-Economist @Randa Well, name one thing he did in that classroom that would legally prevent him from getting a gun from a private sale. Unbalanced, obviously...but the NRA says we should still allow him to purchase a gun without a check that might have stopped him.
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @RandaWay to take most of what I said out of context. Violent criminals often are comfortable and accept the risk of death more readily than shoplifters or speed-limit breakers. Is that clear enough for your senile mind?
Really? Was the VA tech shooter taken alive? How about the columbine kids? How about the Connecticut school shooter? Oops, guess you're wrong. You conveniently ignore facts that destroy your case. You also I pointed out the fact that they are both bullies and cowards, so they seek out ways to die that align with those traits, namely going to gun free zones, preying on the weak and then offing themselves when the authorities show up.Â
Until people like YOU accept that basic fact these terrible massacres will keep happening and the blood of the innocent is on your naive and stupid hands.Â
As to your little jab about Bush, nothing but a final and true showing of your libtarded mentality.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@Randa"When guns are involved that ups the ante and is often a situation where the criminal is committed to the perpetration of the act even if they think they'll die."
Are you saying that every mugger, burglar,every murderer, commits their crime NOT expecting to live?
Seriously? Wow.
Wow! That is a new level of absurd, even for this forum...
And you actually then destroy your entire argument in several areas...
First, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of criminals with guns have a death wish - most probably carry guns because they DON'T want to die.Â
Second, the statistical rate of the kind of mass murder you use as your center point is a miniscule proportion of all gun crimes. AND a number of THOSE shooters have been taken alive, often with no resistance to arrest. The Aurora shooter was standing at his car, wearing body armor, and surrendered meekly. Same with several other shooters in the past few years.Â
Third, if all those gun toting criminals really want to die, why don't they go into your home at a time and situation where they can be sure that you will be there, be armed, and ready to grant their wishes? And do so unarmed, or at most with a carving knife? Wouldn't that be an advantage to have a list of registered gun owners - so the suicidal criminals would have a better idea of who best to help them in their task?
Forth, you have just removed any argument in favor of the death penalty that claims it to be a "deterrent" to gun crimes.
Lastly, your use of "logic" in this way tempts me to wonder if you were once part of Bush's economic team leading up to the recession...but MY logic tells me that even Bush was smarter than that!
Â
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @RandaYou can't compare firearms laws to other laws like the straw man that so many gun control proponents often try, why? With other laws like booze laws, speed limits, etc., the criminal often plans on living after the crime is committed. When guns are involved that ups the ante and is often a situation where the criminal is committed to the perpetration of the act even if they think they'll die. This is why these psychos and cowards who shoot up schools and other places turn the guns on themselves when they hear police coming.
Laws only work on people who want to live.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@Randa"Criminals and the mentally ill will still get them regardless of if you mandate checks or not."
So...your entire argument is based on "Unless we can stop them completely, so why bother making it at least harder - and add penalties to those who willingly help them?"Â
Does that logic apply everywhere?Â
Are you opposed to stopping legal buyers of beer and spirits (over 21) buying them, hen turning around and selling them to underage kids? Â
That DOES seem to be what you are saying.Â
Should we eliminate laws that require a a bartender to not serve someone who is obviously drunk, and planning on driving when they leave the bar?Â
That DOES seem to be what you are saying.
Your entire premise is based on the concept that "we can't stop some of them, so we shouldn't even stop those we can...".
Would that apply to the fact that "some" terrorists have entered the country, so we shouldn't bother stopping the rest - and not bother to find and remove the ones who did...?
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @RandaCriminals and the mentally ill will still get them regardless of if you mandate checks or not. What part of what this criminal is saying don't you understand?Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qyoLuTjguJA#t=172s
So when you have people like that criminal who literally say they don't care about background checks or laws, what do you do? Wave a magic wand?Â
I got your back Mrs Jones.
I was going to sit here and comment on some of the ridiculous comments put forth by some really judgmental and what seems uneducated people.... but ill just go over some highlights....
"dmw2913".... really, wimps? let me come at you and act like that guy at a place where you are suppose to feel secure..... lets say your cell at county..... I bet you piss your pants and call an attorney start a law suit against me; how about them lawyers now?
"solo_contendere"... you must be hispanic.... HEY so im I, but its still spelled "contender" your comment its just plain simple minded.... and no, i dont rag on your comment because it was stupid, btw
"the tide".... oh dear, where do i begin, i wont, its just tooooo ignorant to bother with.Â
EA1968.... its called shock lady, its what you are describing with your comment in case you are curious.Â
there are just so many, sorry i cant get to all.
Donkey Kong.... that was actually funny.
if this man had a gun and shot it, not only would it have fueled further legislature/restriction on weapons but also not one of you would be posting "wimps" or any such comments; in fact you would be saying; "oh how scary; what a disaster; that school should have adequate measures in place for such events"Â
but instead we have judgment from people who have likely never been faced with any such event;  the fact remains that you dont know how you would react to something like this until you are faced with it.... most of you would probably be calling "attorneys" and seeking legal action or suing for emotional damages.... due to a little dribble of piss down your leg, maybe?
remember the VA Tech catastrophe or the more resent Sandy Hook shooting.... do any of you think maybe thats what crossed these kids minds.... i mean they are in law school, thus the assumption is that they are smart enough keep up with current events; something some of you are obviously lacking....Â
now what the hell have any of you done other than judge other?
"lawyered" :)
It looks like all the students and maybe the teacher were only thinking about themselves. I see nobody willing to protect anyone else. Yea, don't worry about anyone else, the government will save them, and you also. A roomful of wimps.
Overly dramatic much? This girl will be a highly excitable and annoying lawyer.
@solo_contendere Which, unfortunately, adds up to putting off both juries and jurists and alienating your client from them.Â
oh no,, black man ranting, scary scary. Come on, he wanted to rant. I don't think they should have been so scared.
@the tide Have you ever noticed that a black man will always look scarier compared to a white man ranting and raving the same identical way.Â
This should be a good teaching moment for a law class. They should write down what they saw and compare. I think they will get as many different answers as there are students in the class.
@Grumpa Gotta wonder why they didn't tackle him if they were so scared. He didn't flash any gun.
@the tide @GrumpaGuess you've never been to Israel before.
@OrcasThunderWow, amazing, you just ignore every instance where hard, linked facts prove you wrong and keep spouting your crap elsewhere.Â
@OrcasThunderYou really are an ostrich aren't you? Ever heard of 9-11? Ever heard of the millenium bomber?Â
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28028799/#.UTtldBxOTh4
You are crazy to think it can't happen here.Â
Israel is defending itself, as anyone with any semblance of an education in middle eastern affairs would know.Â
@NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @the tide @Grumpa That is a problem in Israel. Not here. Israel drops bombs on Palestinian apartment house, injuring and killing innocents who live there, justifying this bombing because they believe some terrorists are in one or more of the rooms.
You have, I believe, stated your objection to Obama having the "power to use drones to attack Americans on US soil" (proven to be untrue). And yet you will accept the Israeli's doing essentially the same thing, won't you?
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @the tide @GrumpaIsrael teaches us that if someone is acting crazy or extreme we don't tackle them since they could be a suicide bomber and that would make them trigger the bomb.Â
@NW-Economist@the tide@Grumpa"Israel"?
What does Israel have to do with a disruption in a Jesuit University in Seattle?Â
The thing that really scares me is all the tough guy attitudes below suggesting that this guy should have been shot. Idiots.Â
@lakeviewWhatever, you are such a flip-flopper, if this guy had had a firearm and had hurt or killed someone who knows what you'd be spouting right now, most likely some more rubbish about how evil the NRA is.Â
@NW-Economist @lakeview If he had made threats, then yes, put him down. But shooting random people that barge into a classroom holding an ice cream cone? C'mon dude, stop playing politics for just one second and think about it. You don't shoot people unless you are threatened. Â
@OrcasThunderStill waiting to see that part of the constitution...
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @lakeviewAnd you never pointed out the part of the constitution that protects the right to own slaves, you are a casual liar and when called out you scurry away.
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@lakeview "Just like saying "fire" in a crowded theater is a right?"
You never did say what you would do about the driver pointing a finger pistol at you...@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @lakeviewJust like saying "fire" in a crowded theater is a right? I don't think so. Context matters, nice try. Go retake your history class, you failed.Â
@NW-Economist @lakeview Saying "BAM!" is a 1st Amendment right.Â
You DO understand that here are a "few" other RIGHTS beyond the one to own a gun bigger than your original one?
So...if someone drives past to your car and points a cocked finger and does the "BAM!" hand gesture at you, you would feel justified in shooting him - while still operating your car at speed?
@lakeview @NW-EconomistHe was obviously nuts, and then he started saying "BAM!" which is an obvious reference to a firearm or a bomb. They had no way of knowing how crazy he was and if he'd hurt someone with a gun or bomb or if he was just looking for attention.
In nature we usually refer to animals too stupid to live as Darwin awards. You know, like an herbivore wandering into a hungry group of carnivores, etc.Â
Society can't be expected to suspend our collective and individual survival instincts, especially in the face of recent events, just to tolerate and support this guy's right to scare people and trespass where he's not supposed to be. It's not our job to roll over and let people in questionable states of mind onto private property and hope that they mean us no harm. You have a very surrendering mindset.Â
@NW-Economist @lakeview The NRA wants to thank you for buying into their propaganda and buying more guns. Since the gun company owners sit on the NRA council they're laughing their butts off at you. It's like Phillip Morris, happy that you want to smoke.
@NW-Economist As for slithering away, I don't have the time to sit and monitor the comments I post to news sites every day, unlike some others apparently do.
@NW-Economist I could cite U.S. v. Miller (1939), Lewis v. U.S. (1980)...Â
@the tide @NW-Economist @lakeviewActually... I'mma let you finish, but Obama has been the best gun salesman of all time.
@OrcasThunder @the tide @lakeviewWow, nothing huh? Guess you just casually lie about the constitution and when called on it slither away. Typical.Â
@138Â @NW-EconomistShow me a SCOTUS ruling prior to Heller where the court ruled that the individual right DIDN'T exist... I'm waiting... that's right, now shut up.Â
@NW-Economist That's completely untrue; we had substantial regulation of firearms prior to the Chicago and D.C. cases. The truth is actually quite the opposite of your assertion--gun rights activists finally had a majority on the Supreme Court that they thought would rule for their side.
@138Â @NW-EconomistThat was because in years past it was understood and never challenged. It's a testament to our culture and heritage that it took over 200 years before the slimy progressives managed to make a legitimate question out of something that was obvious to most of society for so long.
These rights didn't come from God, they came from our ancestors because those ancestors had fought to the death for their freedom. Show some respect for that or move to China.Â
@NW-Economist You are aware, of course, that in the (then) 220 year history of our country that the Heller decision was the first time the Supreme Court ever determined that the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to own firearms? And that the decision was not unanimous? But now you gun fanatics (and I am NOT anti-gun) treat the 2nd Amendment as if it came from the lips of God himself, not to mention the abhorrent revisionism that has resulted in the meme that the 2nd Amendment was to provide the "people" a means to overthrow the government.
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @the tide @lakeviewReally? Show me that part of the constitution, and not the 13th because that outlawed it.
@Lrry*x*K @NW-Economist @the tide I think it's a cultural thing...
@NW-Economist@the tide@lakeview"They sell a good product that we apparently need so much that the constitution specifically mentions it,"
It also mentions - and protects - the right to own human beings in bondage, including the right to separate families...for profit.
@Lrry*x*K @NW-Economist @the tideFine, look it up on any website you like, type in those two decisions and you can read the summary anywhere. The point is the courts have upheld the individual right several times now.
@NW-Economist @the tide well if copy & paste from Wikipedia is now called education, why not
@the tideActually you got it wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The court ruled that the decision means that the feds must respect every individuals right to bear arms, period, no strings attached.
2 years later this decision extended it to the states:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
Please educate yourself.Â
@NW-Economist @the tide @lakeview Gee, why don't you get the FACTS straight. The constitution is for arming a militia. That's why the Supreme court has struck it down for personal gun rights in the United States EVERY SINGLE TIME. In 2008 Roberts upheld it for the district of columbia and said his ruling shouldn't be applied to the continental United States. Facts, got that?
While you spout lies, you aren't sane enough to be even engaged. The NRA spread the lie that the 2nd amendment was for personal gun rights in the 1970's, and boy do they have a bunch of uneducated idiots who parrot them and ignore the FACTS.
@the tide @NW-Economist @lakeviewSo they profit? So what? They sell a good product that we apparently need so much that the constitution specifically mentions it, I don't see many other products mentioned in that document.
As far as smoking, I don't smoke and I think it's unhealthy, but that's my personal choice.Â