Wednesday, April 16, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 10 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

2 Gonzaga students on probation for having guns

By Associated Press


SPOKANE, Wash. >> Gonzaga University has agreed to review its weapons policy as two students who used a pistol to drive an intruder from their apartment appeal their probation for having guns in their university-owned accommodation.

"As a Jesuit institution dedicated to thoughtful evaluation of complex social issues," Gonzaga will use the incident to re-examine its policy, President Thayne McCulloh said in a weekend statement.

The university informed the students, Erik Fagan, 21, and Daniel McIntosh, 23, over the weekend they were on probation and could be suspended or expelled for any more violations of the Spokane university's code of conduct, The Spokesman-Review reported.

Gonzaga should consider student safety above all else, said their lawyer, Dean Chuang.

"We're glad that it didn't have to end in tragedy for them to consider changing the policy there," Chuang said. "Our boys were armed and stopped a home invasion here."

A homeless man came to their door Oct. 24 demanding money and trying to force his way inside.

Fagan offered the man a blanket and a can of food but refused to hand over any cash, he said. The man became agitated and combative.

Fagan shouted for McIntosh, who came downstairs holding a loaded 10 mm Glock pistol.

"I draw on him," McIntosh said. "As soon as he sees me, he decides he doesn't want to deal with me. So he takes off."

The men called police and campus security. Fagan has a concealed weapons permit, he said.

Campus security returned the next day and confiscated McIntosh's Glock and Fagan's shotgun, which he uses for hunting and sport shooting.

The men say their guns were seized illegally and are seeking to have them returned.

They say they are glad they weren't expelled, but they are appealing their probation because they don't want the sanction on their school records.

Students are not allowed to have guns in their homes if they live on campus or in a university-owned apartment. The university discipline board on Friday found Fagan and McIntosh responsible for two violations: possessing weapons on school grounds and putting others in danger by the use of weapons.

The man who went to their door, John M. Taylor, 29, is a six-time felon, said police spokeswoman Monique Cotton. His crimes have included riot with a deadly weapon, possession of a controlled substance and unlawful imprisonment.

Officers responding to an initial report of a residential burglary, found him in the area, Cotton said. He was jailed on an arrest warrant from the state Department of Corrections, she said. Typically that means a person under department supervision has violated terms of release. Taylor was no longer on the jail roster Monday.

Calls to the Department of Corrections were not immediately returned on Monday and there was no answer at the Spokane County Public Defender office, which might represent Taylor.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 10 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
cojef wrote:
A tough call? An institution has rules and regulations that they enforce for the common good. A reprimand is in order with firearms returned with instructions to secure them in their home, not t the institution. Campus security is responsible for their safety and thus firearms have no business in a dormitory environment, especially in a religious school.
on November 11,2013 | 08:56AM
honokai wrote:
If campus security is responsible for their safety, shouldn't campus security be placed on probation for allowing them to become victims?
on November 11,2013 | 09:13AM
allie wrote:
might be a phony story planted by the gun lobby
on November 11,2013 | 09:44AM
SueH wrote:
Excellent point honokai!
on November 11,2013 | 09:53AM
allie wrote:
keep guns out of the dorm . Please dump these troublemaker students.
on November 11,2013 | 09:44AM
2NDC wrote:
Seriously allie? Would the situation be any different had the students chased off the intruder with a Louisville Slugger baseball bat? Nowhere in the article does it say that the students were "trouble makers". They simply defended their home from a would be intruder, and now they're being punished.
on November 11,2013 | 02:54PM
SueH wrote:
"As a Jesuit institution dedicated to thoughtful evaluation of complex social issues....." maybe the administration should take its collective pin head out of the sand and be grateful these men averted a more dangerous situation.
on November 11,2013 | 09:57AM
st1d wrote:
you alone are responsible for your personal safety and that of your family.

police departments and campus security do not have a duty to protect you from harm from any other individual.

in this instance, a firearm owned by a law abiding citizen prevented the owner and room mate from being the victim of a violent crime.

don't count on the police or campus security for anything more than recording the crime after the fact. way after the fact.

on November 11,2013 | 01:36PM
RetiredWorking wrote:
st1d says "you alone are responsible for your personal safety and that of your family. police departments and campus security do not have a duty to protect you from harm from any other individual". Really? I always thought the police were there to protect me and my family. std, are you a member of the NRA?
on November 12,2013 | 03:18AM
st1d wrote:
the supreme court of the united states has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual from harm from another indivicual. the cases were brought to the supreme court by police departments seeking to avoid the duty to protect individuals from harm. search the supreme court decisions for the truth.

the reality is that you alone are responsible for your personal safety and that of your family.

on November 12,2013 | 07:58AM
Breaking News
Wassup Wit Dat!
Vain Reminder

Court Sense
Musings on Shamburger

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 1

Hoops Talk
Aloha Shamburger

Political Radar

Political Radar