TACOMA, Wash. — A Tacoma man is accused of chasing down a car full of teenagers, threatening to kill them, robbing them at gunpoint and shooting one boy in the chest after a water balloon tossed from the teens’ car hit his vehicle, according to police and court records.
The case has drawn wide attention in western Washington because it began with juvenile mischief and ended in charges that now include attempted first-degree murder. Prosecutors say Majeed Guerry, 31, turned a brief prank into a violent roadside confrontation that left one teen seriously wounded and three others describing a night in which they believed they might all die. The shooting victim survived, but the criminal case has widened as investigators allege Guerry not only opened fire, but also threatened each teen in the car and robbed the group before walking away.
According to investigators, the confrontation started the night of Feb. 28 as four teenage boys drove through Tacoma throwing water balloons at passing vehicles. Police say one balloon struck Guerry’s car and sent water through an open window, getting him wet. Rather than continue driving, prosecutors allege, Guerry turned and chased the teens until he forced their vehicle into a dead-end gravel area in the 3200 block of South Tyler Street. That location, described in court papers as near the Tacoma dump, became the setting for the encounter that followed. By the time officers were called at about 9:14 p.m., one of the boys had already been shot and the group was reporting that the driver they had hit with a balloon had just robbed and terrorized them at gunpoint.
Police and prosecutors say Guerry got out of his car armed with a handgun and approached the passenger side of the teens’ vehicle. What came next, according to the probable cause affidavit and charging documents described in public reports, was not a brief argument but a rapid chain of escalating crimes. Investigators say Guerry demanded money and property, pointed the gun at all four boys and repeatedly threatened to kill them. One of the teens told police the suspect pressed the gun close enough that he could feel its cold metal against his temple. Another account said the muzzle was within less than a foot of the eventual victim’s chest before the shot was fired. The teens told police they tried to comply. One handed over $1 at first, prosecutors say, which only made Guerry angrier. When they then gave him about $100 in cash, authorities allege, he still did not stop.
Before the shooting, prosecutors say, Guerry struck the front-seat passenger in the face multiple times with the gun, grabbed him by the collar and continued threatening everyone in the car. The teenager later told investigators that Guerry said things like, “You think that’s funny?” and warned that he should kill all of them right there. Then, according to the affidavit, he fired into the boy’s chest from close range. Public reporting says the bullet entered the teen’s chest and exited through his armpit, narrowly missing a fatal path. The boy was rushed to a hospital with serious injuries, but authorities say he survived and was able to speak with investigators. That survival is one of the central facts shaping the case now. Had the bullet traveled slightly differently, prosecutors would likely be handling a homicide rather than an attempted-murder prosecution.
The public record also suggests the attack did not happen in confusion or panic. Investigators say the boys’ accounts were consistent with one another, and each described the shooting as intentional. That distinction matters because it appears to be one reason the charges grew more serious as the case developed. Earlier court coverage after Guerry’s first appearance said prosecutors were reserving the right to increase the case from assault to attempted murder. By March 25, local reporting said that charge had in fact been added, along with four counts of felony harassment based on threats to kill. In effect, the case moved from a violent assault and robbery prosecution into something broader: a claim that Guerry made a conscious decision to execute, or nearly execute, one of the boys after already robbing and threatening the group.
Detectives built the case through surveillance, technology and the victims’ identifications. Public reports say investigators used surveillance cameras, license plate reader data and cellphone records to identify a silver Kia K5 believed to have been used in the crime. They also tracked the suspect’s movements after the shooting. Police said Guerry went to a local casino soon after the attack, and video there allegedly showed him wearing clothing that matched the teenagers’ description. All four boys later identified him in photo lineups, according to local coverage. Authorities arrested him March 20 in Puyallup. A woman taken into custody with him was later released after questioning. Police have said the handgun used in the shooting has not yet been recovered, leaving one major piece of physical evidence still missing even as the case against Guerry has otherwise become more detailed.
The legal posture has shifted quickly over the past week. Guerry has pleaded not guilty in the case, according to local reporting. Prosecutors say he is barred from possessing firearms because of prior felony convictions, and they have described him as a danger to the community if released. He now faces charges that public reports have listed as attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, four counts of first-degree robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm and multiple counts of felony harassment. One earlier report also said he was booked on unlawful imprisonment. The exact final charging language may continue to evolve, but the direction of the case is clear. Rather than treating the incident as an enraged overreaction, prosecutors are framing it as a deliberate armed confrontation in which Guerry trapped a car of minors, terrorized them and then shot one at point-blank range.
The setting helps explain why the case has hit so hard locally. Water balloons, pranks and aimless nighttime drives are familiar parts of adolescence, even when they cross the line into recklessness or vandalism. Gunpoint robberies and attempted murders are not. That contrast has made the story feel especially stark. The boys’ behavior, by the public account, was foolish and immature. The response, prosecutors say, was life-changing violence. The space between those two things is where most of the public outrage now sits. This was not a fight that built over hours or an organized retaliation against known rivals. It was, according to the charging papers, a sudden choice by an armed adult to answer a childish prank with threats, robbery and a bullet.
At the same time, the case may force a courtroom to sort through questions of sequence and intent in unusually fine detail. Prosecutors will likely focus on the dead-end chase, the repeated threats, the gun pressed to the teen’s body and the close-range shot. The defense may try to challenge identification, witness memory or whether the shooting was meant to kill. But several of the core facts appear difficult to move around. One boy was shot at close range. The other teens say they were robbed and threatened. Investigators say cameras and records placed Guerry where he should not have been and linked him to the vehicle involved. Even without the gun, the prosecution appears to have what it needs to argue that this was not a warning shot, a scuffle gone wrong or a chaotic accident after mutual aggression. It was, in their telling, a controlled and one-sided act of armed retaliation.
For Tacoma, the case also lands inside a broader public anxiety about how quickly everyday encounters can become gun violence. Road rage, neighborhood disputes and minor provocations have all become flashpoints in recent years, but this incident stands out because the alleged trigger was so juvenile and so slight. A car got wet. A man got angry. A teenager ended up in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest. That sequence is what gives the story its disturbing force. It suggests not only volatility, but a total collapse of proportion between offense and response. In court, that imbalance is likely to shape how prosecutors talk about danger, pretrial release and punishment if Guerry is convicted.
As of Thursday, Guerry remained in custody, the victim had survived his injuries and detectives were still investigating. The next major public step is expected Monday, March 30, when the case returns to court and prosecutors may further define how they intend to pursue one of Tacoma’s most jarring attempted-killing cases of the year.