By Paul Daquilante • Staff Writer • 

Downtown shooter is a security officer; faces multiple charges

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .



Attention: gun grabbers!

This story illustrates exactly why we need the Second Amendment and why we must leave everything just as it is when it comes to guns. After all, if we tightened up the rules, good-guys-with-a-gun like Nathan A. Scates might have trouble acquiring the firearms and concealed carry permits needed so they can save us all when evil descends.

Here’s how I’m imagining everything unfolded when the firearms-qualified security guard unholstered his weapon and saved the day:

Tipsy from a couple Long Islands downed at McMinnville’s classiest imbibery, Officer Nathan A. Scates spies an especially fine-looking scrap of meat on a seemingly abandoned plate atop a McMenamins sidewalk table. Boy, that’s what mama called a patty! he thinks hungrily. After furtively snagging the fat hunk of meat and stuffing it into his mouth, Officer Scates discovers the plate from which he removed the food was not abandoned, after all. In fact, its owner is taking umbrage with the theft, alerting her companions to Officer Scates’ brazen act. Offended, the small group begins to follow Officer Scates up Third Street, their displeasure evident in their words.

Unable to explain this awful misunderstanding because his mouth is stuffed with stolen meat, Officer Scates gestures frantically with his hands, facing the angry trio and trying to wave off their apparent hostility. “It was only a meat patty,” he wants to say but all that emerges from his mouth are muffled grunts and bits of slobbery beef.

(Continued below...)


(...continued from above.)

The mob advances, their unkind words terrifying the hapless security officer. I know! he thinks. I’ll show them my gun so they see I’m really a good guy! By the time Officer Scates’ trembling hand unfastens his holster and removes his legally concealed Smith & Wesson, the tenor of the rioters’ words has darkened. Officer Scates thinks he hears horrible terms like ‘moron,’ ‘a-hole’ and maybe even ‘white trash.’ He wants to tell the advancing throng how good he really is but the meat is stuck in his throat and the crowd is looking like they want blood. Can’t they see I’m a good guy? thinks Officer Scates. Don’t they know I’m a security guard? I’m practically a cop!

Emboldened by his racing thoughts (and possibly the infusion of meat protein), Officer Scates decides to act. This is my chance to save the day! he thinks. I’ll be a hero! He can see the headlines now: Security guard takes down rioters in wine country. His hand shaking, Officer Scates fires his weapon multiple times into the ground. He doesn’t realize or care that he’s firing into concrete. He’s too busy stopping rampaging lawbreakers.

Fortunately, Officer Scates’ gunfire frightens off the looters and no innocent bystanders are harmed by flying shrapnel or ricocheting slugs. All the wine tasters downtown applaud his courageous actions. They feel much safer knowing Security Officer Nathan A. Scates is lawfully packing heat and is unafraid to use it! And Officer Scates can finally enjoy his meat.

Based on a true story — except for that last part.


Trafik, you use an example of one idiot and paint a picture with a pretty broad brush (like a mile wide brush, maybe to the point of idiocy). Or, you have a sick sense of satire. I'm not sure which...
If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Scates, if found guilty, will permanently lose his permit, as he well should, and will not be legally able to possess a firearm any more if any of these charges become proven felonies.


Trafik, well done. This i s a good piece of humor. I liked it v e r y much. Thank you


Airman_ I think this story is an illustration of the experience level of people that can (concealed no less) carry...and he likely has had more training than most.....Not sure "warning shots" into the concrete are SOP for law enforcement.
Clearly he was impaired...but the judgement is incredibly bad it's nearly comical.....He's lucky no one got killed or more seriously injured....My guess he will have a date in civil court as well....


The problem, Airman, is that it’s not just one.

Here are a couple recent local examples of good-guy gun owners who shouldn’t be:

As I’ve stated previously in this forum, I am familiar with firearms and I have demonstrated competency more than once — I have nothing against firearms themselves. But I do have a problem with morons having broad and easy access to firearms.

I take firearms ownership seriously — a no-fail mission, so to speak. Unlike other tools, I believe an instrument designed to efficiently kill should require its operator to demonstrate intelligence, competence, judgment and accountability before legal possession is granted. I estimate somewhere between a quarter and half of lawful firearms owners in the U.S. have no business owning or accessing guns. Anger management issue? No gun. Self-control problems? No gun. Maturity issues? No gun. Impulsive nature? No gun. Low I.Q.? No gun. At this point, I’d say “you get the drift,” but I’m pretty sure you don’t.

I believe it’s foolhardy to grant assumed competency, wringing our hands with regret only after the good-guy-with-a-gun pulls some doofus stunt. I believe an intelligent society should recognize that the “old rules” — for better or worse — don’t work anymore and that it might be time to reexamine the way we view this ubiquitous deadly weapon.


Airman, you are very kind. Trafik is an idiot. There, I said it. He jumped on this story like my cat on a bird. The orgasmic joy is apparent in each of the multiple posts. He is a specimen of those who aren't satisfied to let existing law run its course, but instead to exploit every criminal breach of responsibility to ratchet up the fight against our rights.


You just couldn't help yourself, could you, Rotwang? Stomped your foot and called names like a spoiled child. Clearly your self discipline and maturity entitle you to own firearms.

Oh wait. I forgot. Self discpline and maturity not required. Gotta love rube logic.


Seems that the subject of the story is the idiot....Trafik just added a little embellishment.....Where's your sense of humor Rot?


So in the past McMinnville and or 3rd Street Businesses spoke of additional security downtown. Is this correct or am I wrong? First question is was he working or on his own time? 2nd if he was on his own time with his CCL he shouldn't be drinking (assuming he was)or must realize what could happen when you put yourself in that environment in the first place. 3rd really? Taking food off a plate that doesn't belong to you, well that's obvious. 4th a CCL must never display his/her weapon. 5th there is no such thing as a warning shot. If you pull it, you make dang sure your life is in danger and not because someone is yelling at you. If he was that scared he could have ran like a gazelle. Most of these CCL classes don't require actual proof that you know anything about a weapon. A 2 hour class and sign here. This needs to change prior to issuing a CCL. He made a lot of mistakes and will now be held responsible. I know what the 2A is. I also know things have changed since then; ie maturity level, mental illness lack of actual knowledge ect, ect.


Parks--it's etc.
McMenamins new brand--"a steak good enough to steal."
What rights are you referring to, Rot?


Trafik, nice examples of two idiots with guns, but I do not see anywhere about either one of them being conceal carry permit holders. If you want to make an assumption as to whether, or not I "get the drift", you might want to stick to the facts of the conversation of the subject you brought up about Mr. Scates being a concealed carry permit holder. Do you "get the drift"? If Mr. Scates is proven guilty of what he is charged with, then he will get what he deserves, as he well knows, as any other conceal carry permit holder should well know. The permit holders I know do not fit within your estimated ownership statistics. But then, what do you know?


Hmmm, I thought my premise was clear. When I said "...acquiring the firearms..." in the opening sentence of my first post, I meant "getting the guns." The concealed-carry was an add-on. Hence, my mockery was targeting boobs with guns, whether or not they possessed concealed-carry permits. References throughout to "legally concealed" assumed a "legal possession" but I thought that was clear. I'll try to use simpler terms next time, Airman.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable