Father of Café Racer shooter calls for better mental health care
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Walt Stawicki lives in a world of loss, yet still sometimes swears he sees Ian.
"He's not gonna show up, he's not gonna show up. It's always going to hurt when he's not here," he said.
Stawicki had total loss of control as he helplessly watched the video of a cafe turned crime scene in May. Five murders caused by his son, Ian.
And a sixth death, too, when Ian took his own life after the Café Racer shooting. Now after a week of helplessly watching more deaths, Stawicki wants a change.
"It is just to the point -- we've had enough," he said.
Stawicki says to stop what was done in Connecticut, and what was done in the U-district, tighter gun control isn't the only answer.
"We have to have a social solution for it," he said.
Stawicki tried to get his son help by going to agencies and nearly to the courts for assistance. He wants politicians to focus on the social and emotional growth of children and young adults.
Stawicki wants an honest and potentially painful conversation about mental health. He says weapons won't matter if people can't get the real help they need.
"If somebody wants to kill with 30 rounds in his magazine, he'll do it with 20 in it or he will learn how to do it with five round legal hunting clips," Stawicki said.
"He's not gonna show up, he's not gonna show up. It's always going to hurt when he's not here," he said.
Stawicki had total loss of control as he helplessly watched the video of a cafe turned crime scene in May. Five murders caused by his son, Ian.
And a sixth death, too, when Ian took his own life after the Café Racer shooting. Now after a week of helplessly watching more deaths, Stawicki wants a change.
"It is just to the point -- we've had enough," he said.
Stawicki says to stop what was done in Connecticut, and what was done in the U-district, tighter gun control isn't the only answer.
"We have to have a social solution for it," he said.
Stawicki tried to get his son help by going to agencies and nearly to the courts for assistance. He wants politicians to focus on the social and emotional growth of children and young adults.
Stawicki wants an honest and potentially painful conversation about mental health. He says weapons won't matter if people can't get the real help they need.
"If somebody wants to kill with 30 rounds in his magazine, he'll do it with 20 in it or he will learn how to do it with five round legal hunting clips," Stawicki said.
I truly sympathize with this man's plight, as with others in his position. His pain, anguish and frustration comes through easily.
However, if we don't learn to better identify those who have the makings of committing murder, AND make mandatory the incarceration of said people in order to keep them away from the rest of society - we'll continue to go down this road time and time again.
That being said - if we're NOT willing to take that necessary leap, and a mentally ill subject is under the care or guardianship of somebody (parent, relative, whatever) - that guardian should be held somewhat responsible for ensuring that person does not get out of hand, and that they have the responsibility to commit that person with a doctor's verification that they have the potential to be a danger.
I'm tired of hearing about how people have nowhere to turn.  We shouldn't have to live our sane lives, looking over our shoulders constantly, worrying about someone else's problems.
Like banning guns, this is not a simple, cut and dried issue. Ian Stawicki was not adjudicated mentally ill nor was he considered a threat to himself or others. This is not some dumb legal assessment that should be overlooked. This is an important distinction. It is illegal, under federal and state laws for someone adjudicated mentally ill to ever own or possess a gun. This right cannot be restored -- as opposed to some convicted felons. There is a standard that has to be met to determine when to take away someone's liberty and hold them against their will. It must not be "well, he seems to have some problems and he might do something one day."Â
Â
Such vague assessments, if used, can be used to hold anyone, any time, without otherwise good reason. This was used in the former Soviet Union to squelch and silence political dissidents and other people they did not like.Â
Â
If someone who does not want mental health treatment and otherwise poses no danger to themselves or others objects to or does not participate in treatment there is not much that can be done. If they do present a credible threat they can be held against their will. This is the only "legal" way a person can be detained for a crime they did not yet commit.
Â
That said, and in this instance, I know, personally, where King County, Harborview and the King County Designated Mental Health Professional (the guy who makes such decisions) have released people who were not only psychotic but had demonstrated such a danger due to lack of beds, funding or other resources.
Â
These things must be changed. Instead of spending > $120M on a monorail that never happened those funds could have been used to fund "less glamourous" things such has mental health care.
Â
Voters, however, the fickle bunch they are, do not want to spend money on such things. Elected officials seem to see that as a cash cow to be raided the next time there is a budget shortfall. As I type and many of you read this Congress is currently trying to reduce funding for such things in favor of maintaining tax cuts to the rich. attorneys general sued the federal government to prevent expansion of medicaid in their states -- including Washington. In Washington, codified in the RCW and WAC, community mental health care is required to be paid by medicaid.
Â
So long as there is no funding, no staffing and no political will to change the degree of treatment available to people the needed care and treatment is not going to happen, people will fall through the cracks and tragic events will continue to happen.
Â
i wish this article was more about actual mental health care reform instead of a thinly veiled gun control statement.Â
 @jowsuf "He says weapons won't matter if people can't get the real help they need. "If somebody wants to kill with 30 rounds in his magazine, he'll do it with 20 in it or he will learn how to do it with five round legal hunting clips," Stawicki said."
Â
If you go back and reread the article I believe you will find he is saying quite the opposite. He is calling for more emphasis on mental health and less on the weapon of choice.
God bless Mr. Stawicki for speaking out. And THANK YOU, KOMO for printing this article. It is time to find answers to the problems that cause tragedies like Cafe Racer and Newtown, Connecticutt. I don't care if I never read another unimportant quote from Harry Reid or Diane Feinstein, but I hope to see MANY more sensible, thought provoking articles like this one.
I knew when cuts were made to mental health that this type of incident was bound to happen. Putting a weapon in the hands of someone who is mentally ill is only going to have deadly consequences.
How dare we consider helping the mentally ill? Every one ... especially the media knows that the real problem is guns. If we get rid of guns, we won't have problems.
Â
Glad to see that SOME media is starting to look at the real problem, viable solutions, and not a knee-JERK reaction that won't solve the problem (so-called gun control)
No matter what law is discussed, the law does not prevent people from violating it. On the issue of mental health, this area does need to be addressed and worked. Decades ago, we had those horrific mental institutions where abuses, neglect, etc., were rampant. Staff shortages, doctors performing experiments, over population of patients, were the norm. That is why they were closed, unfortunately for those who really needed help were left to fend on their own.
 @WSims007 unfortunately, those institutions were NOT closed due to their obvious shortcomings. No, Reagan closed them solely as a cost-saving measure (so as to fund his other insane spending policies), turning many mentally ill people out onto the streets.
 @lazarusÂ
There were some that closed earlier, however, Reagan did put the nail in the coffin for what remained open. Saved money, but lost humanity, not a very good trade off.
"If somebody wants to kill with 30 rounds in his magazine, he'll do it with 20 in it or he will learn how to do it with five round legal hunting clips,"
I agree with this 100%!
 @DarkParty I agree with it 90%! They are magazines... not clips.
 @Scott Depends on the rifle. M1 Garand uses five round clips.
An involuntary committment law was defeated in Connecticut a few months back. The ACLU was instrumental in that defeat. The states (not the feds) need to revisit their mental health policies. We used to have hospitals for violent people who might hurt themselves or others and keep them off the streets. The operation had it's flaws but we didn't have whole cities plagued with mentally sick street people roaming around either. One of them pushed a woman in front of a bus in Seattle a few months back. Fortunately some man saved her. If we make it impossible to hospitalize these people their families can do nothing until they harm some innocent.
I guess no one here understands cause and effect. Â Although better mental health care is beneficial, IMO, it has as much bearing on mass-shootings as alcohol abuse help has on drunk driving. Yes, I am a gun owner. Â No, I am not against owning guns.
 @31F I totally disagree. Every single person who is helped through better mental health care is a step in the right direction. It's a step we absolutely have to take.
Â
You're right, even with the best mental health care in the world there are still going to be those who fall through the cracks just like there are always going to be those who drive drunk. But to just throw our hands up and say "why bother" because we can't help them all is not an option IMHO!
 @31F That's ridiculous. Mental illness isn't some bad habit, it's a real life medical concern. Shootings happen ONLY by people who have mental health issues. Preventive mental health care might be the best solution for reducing these incidents.Â
 @jowsuf "Shootings happen ONLY by people who have mental health issues", that is just not true.  Also, it seems as if they have illnesses after-the-fact.  The increased help is needed, but mental illness is not the cause to the effect.  Take away mental illness, and you will still have civilian deaths by guns. Â
Humm...have you ever met a 12 stepping recovering alcoholic?
Â
I've known several so far in my life. Not a single one has driven drunk since they started working their program. (Just to give you an idea, that's saying a LOT.)
Â
Yes, I am a gun owner. No, I am not against owning guns either.
Â
 @Commenter87643 That's partially my point.  Recovering alcoholics are strong and may not drink and drive.  I really don't know the numbers.  However, drunk driving still happens, nonetheless.  That is why I posed the comparison.
 @31F So what do -you- think the solution is?
Â
Btw, I do think that Walt Stawicki probably wished he could have his son locked up while he was unstable. Going to court regarding his son would give some indication of it.
Â
So if your analogy had included locking up people with DUI convictions that continue to drink...
This man has a lot of wisdom!
 @Commenter87643 Hopefully society as a whole is willing to learn from his life's lessons and not have to wait till we are all lose somebody to violence before we wake up.
I agree. Focusing on guns is missing the mark. We need to deal with the reality challenged even if it means more government spending. I can't believe I said that.
@Getov Mylon I agree totaly. The gun issue is an emotional bogey man and the party in power has seized it and will run with it. I deal with mentaly ill people everyday. They have everything they need at home to inflict mass casualties and all they have to do is search the internet. Almost all of the mentaly ill I deal with are very intelligent and can enact carnage without the help of guns. We are missing the mark.
Yes, we can start with immediately implementing the death penalty for all gun crimes, violent crimes and gang-related crimes. Then we can once again allow the use of corporal punishment in schools, because all we've done since 1980 is raise several generations of people w/ no use for rules, law and little regard for human life. Then we can eliminate all of the illegal immigrants from our country. Once we do all that, we'll have a pretty decent place to live again and we'll actually have enough money to take care of our mentally ill. Â
 @bagsofdirt It's not going to help if a killer has a legitimate insanity defense. And if you don't understand that, there's no help for you either.
 @bagsofdirt We'll have enough money to take care of you
 @bagsofdirt you chose an appropriate screen name.
Â