At least 17 shots fired in rolling gun battle on Beacon Avenue

by KOMO Communities Staff
(Beacon Hill Blog news partners)

At least 17 shots were fired during a rolling gun battle between two vehicles Thursday evening on Beacon Avenue near Jefferson Park, sending a family of bicyclists running for cover and damaging cars parked along the street, police said.

Witnesses reported seeing the two vehicles–a cream-colored Ford Bronco and a gold Honda–rolling south on Beacon Avenue, exchanging gunfire as they passed the Jefferson Golf Course at around 8 p.m.

No one was injured in the shooting, but two vehicles parked on the street were struck by gunfire.

A family riding their bicycles on Beacon Avenue also had to run for cover to avoid being hit by bullets during the shootout.

Gang unit detectives responded to the scene, talked to witnesses and gathered evidence.

Investigators are still working to identify the suspected shooters.

16 thoughts on “At least 17 shots fired in rolling gun battle on Beacon Avenue”

  1. dont worry guys mcginn is planning more bike routs to end all this crime (which is a code word for blacks.)

  2. At least if they had better aim, we’d have two cars less of aholes.

  3. It is astounding that the city and the police have failed to get control of the violence and disgusting that even after the drive-by death in Madrona that this is not bigger news. There could have easily been another death yesterday.

  4. What’s the stretch? That the family ducking for cover could have actually been hit and killed, as has already multiple times this year? Or that this should be bigger news? If 17 shots were fired in Ballard, Queen Anne, Magnolia or any other neighborhood north of downtown during daylight hours in front of a large public park it would be all over the news.

  5. so weird that anytime a gun is fired in Seattle now it’s not the person with the gun being held accountable anymore… it’s the city; it’s the mayor.

    Theoretically any one of us reading this right now could go out and shoot someone and it wouldn’t be us pulling the trigger… it’d be the mayor. Ha!

    Truly Monstor is aptly named paving the way for people to pull the trigger since they’re not pulling the trigger… it’s the mayor!

  6. Thanks Dylan – I’ve been encountering the idea that we must choose between cops and bike lanes for the past couple of years, and never with any supporting evidence. Another wacky link I’ve encountered just recently: the idea that recent shootings are happening because South Seattle is overburdened with social service agencies. I hope folks will remember that all of us who aren’t caught up in crazy gang and drug business are frightened by the flying bullets. I bike with my child on Beacon Hill. Enough said on that, I think. There may be valid questions to ask about leadership — both from the mayor’s office and the police department. But, it’ll be easier take such questions seriously if they’re asked independently of absurd pairings like bike lanes and cops, social services and shooting, etc.

  7. if you whiny […] take that seriously you are dumber then i thought.then again most of you who blog here are white transplants escaping the suburbs and displacing the poor.

    [Editor’s note: Monster, we’ve warned you before about posting hate language epithets to the blog. From this point on such language will be removed from your posts, or the posts will be removed completely for violating the comment policy.]

  8. FWIW, Beacon Hill was “traditionally” (quotes, because the neighborhood’s really not all that old) Asian and Italian, and solidly middle-class. The housing stock on the hill, from whatever decade it was built, is generally high quality, indicating middle-class residents.

    For many Asians, Beacon Hill was a step up from the ID, the realization of the “American Dream”, where you could have a house and a garden.

    Monster may want to feel sorry for himself, but he at least needs to get his facts straight.

  9. Mike, the idea that the Southeast District is held down by social service agencies is one that I first encountered in the early 90’s, but still hear expressed. And I don’t buy it at all.

  10. @Brook: Yes, a classic NIMBY argument, I think. And, it appears, one fed by some developers and property owners who think they’ll be able to make more money from their property if social service agencies are pushed elsewhere. For what it’s worth, I think the latter is a legimate concern, but I think — in the interest of preserving diverse communities, and avoiding undue profit at the expense of those least able to pay — it’s one that must be balanced with the social costs of things like displacing low income people and interfering with social services.

  11. yeah but should all (obliviously not all for the nit picky) the cities social services be concentrated on two streets?

Comments are closed.