Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Dave Ross show today, "Self defense shooters pay high price for shooting someone."

  1. #1
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503

    Dave Ross show today, "Self defense shooters pay high price for shooting someone."

    I was listening to 97.3 fm this morning around 9am, I thought is was the Dave Ross Show, and they were talking about this young adult that shot someone at a party in self defense, while being beaten for a second time, in 15 minutes, and the high price, something like $250,000 spent to defend himself in court, and how this guy went bankrupt because of this.

    It seem like to me the media was painting a anti gun picture of self defense shooters, and why we shouldn't have people carry guns for self defense.

    Did anyone else hear this, this morning?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    I didn't hear it.

    The financial aftermath of a self defense shooting can cost $0, or apparently up to $250,000 (or more). Final costs probably depend variables like:

    1) how clear cut the circumstances are
    2) how biased and untruthful the investigating officers are
    3) how biased and crooked the prosecuting attorney is
    4) what the self defense shooter says to the police after the incident (i.e. exactly how he or she described their actions).
    5) whether or not the self defense shooter hires and attorney immediately to apply pressure on the DA to not file any charges
    6) etc.

    I'm guessing the case Dave Ross mentioned involves a young 20 something, at a young persons house party, late at night, where drinking was involved. Genius.

    Again... guns+ drinking+ late night house party+ other young ego/testosterone filled adult 'children' = FUBAR. Kind of a common story.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    116
    Ultimate outcome of case though? If multiple people were beating this person, he could have been beaten to death. I would rather bankrupt myself than die. Was he found not guilty?

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    I normally listen to John Carlson at that time but my reception in the machine shop was pretty bad on 97.7, so I did hear this today on the Dave Ross show.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Dave Ross is anti-gun. If you don't believe me, watch him on the recent PBS show with CR Douglas. The only people that should have a gun are people that "HE" trusts. Great litmus test.
    Last edited by dadada; 08-14-2012 at 08:19 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Venya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olalla, WA
    Posts
    33
    Keeping in mind that the potential civil lawsuit is a whole other issue once the criminal system is done with you...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Venya View Post
    Keeping in mind that the potential civil lawsuit is a whole other issue once the criminal system is done with you...
    Better broke than dead.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Venya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olalla, WA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Better broke than dead.
    No argument here, although bankruptcy would be powerfully irritating now that we're almost out of debt--and it wouldn't save us from the student loans.

  9. #9
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    WA Reimbursement for findings of not guilty by reason of self defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    I was listening to 97.3 fm this morning around 9am, I thought is was the Dave Ross Show, and they were talking about this young adult that shot someone at a party in self defense, while being beaten for a second time, in 15 minutes, and the high price, something like $250,000 spent to defend himself in court, and how this guy went bankrupt because of this.

    It seem like to me the media was painting a anti gun picture of self defense shooters, and why we shouldn't have people carry guns for self defense.

    Did anyone else hear this, this morning?

    I didn't hear the radio show; but, I would assume that if the case occured in Washington State and the adult in question was found not guilty by reason of self defense then the following would apply:


    RCW 9A.16.110

    Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

    (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.
    Last edited by NavyMike; 08-14-2012 at 10:44 PM.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  10. #10
    Regular Member ghosthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
    Posts
    280
    I copied it off the hunt Washington Forum:::

    Even in self-defense, can you afford to pull the trigger?

    As he sat in a holding cell, Bryce Fortier overheard a police officer say he would be charged with murder.

    "That can't be right," he thought. "It was self-defense."

    But on Halloween 2007, media reports confirmed what he could not believe. Prosecutors in Snohomish County had charged him with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Christopher Chandler.

    Nearly five years later, with criminal and civil proceedings behind him, Fortier and his father say they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They spent more than $250,000 trying to prove what Bryce Fortier had said all along: He pulled the trigger to save his life.

    "Even if you're right or justified, it's horrendously expensive," said his father, Andrew Fortier, 49, of Seattle. "The whole process was astronomically frustrating, god I can't even explain it. But then, at the end of the day, I knew that if I had to spend it I was going to spend it."

    'They were killing me dad'

    Bryce Fortier was 21 years old when he decided to buy a firearm. He purchased a Taurus PT145 and got a Concealed Pistol License.

    "I carried fairly often, just because you never know what's going to happen," he said.

    Fortier, however, hadn't planned to bring his firearm to a Halloween house party in Mill Creek on October 27, 2007. He stopped at the get-together with an acquaintance and chose to bring the weapon inside rather than leave it unattended in his friend's vehicle, he said.

    "It was a perfect storm," his father said of the circumstances that would result in his son's arrest later that night.

    According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way. He claims he was blindsided as he approached the group of partygoers.

    "One of them hit me in the back of the head with a bottle and I went down," he said. "Then they just kind of circled around me ... and they basically just stomped me."

    Fortier said he was able to escape the first round of assault, but ended up on the ground again.

    "Each time I was getting hit it was just flashing white," he recalled. "I just remember thinking, 'They're not going to stop.'"

    It was in that moment that Fortier said he had to make a decision: "It was either see if they stop, or try and get out of this."

    Fearing for his life, Fortier chose the latter.

    "I put my pistol in the chest of the person who was on top of me and pulled the trigger."

    That person was Christopher Chandler, a student at Lake Washington Technical College. He also worked as a server in the dining room at Madison House Retirement Community in Kirkland.

    Chandler died on the sidewalk from a single gunshot wound.

    As police were en route, Fortier called his father.

    "He was very shaky and he said, 'Dad, dad, I just shot somebody. I can't believe it ... I didn't know what else to do. I was dying,'" Andrew Fortier recalled. "'They were killing me dad.'"

    Self-defense or murder?

    Witnesses, prosecutors and the media would paint a very different picture of the night Christopher Chandler was killed.

    Based on witness testimony that described Fortier as the aggressor, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Sherry King alleged that Fortier was not being assaulted at the time he shot Chandler. She argued that Fortier was angry about having been beat up earlier in the night.

    Pulling information from court documents, several media outlets at the time reported that Chandler was shot trying to break up a fight.

    While Fortier would be charged with second-degree murder, his defense attorney, Peter Mazzone, believed it was a clear case of self-defense.

    "When I first got the call to go and see him ... he was all bruised up and his face was swollen and he had black eyes and he was a mess," Mazzone said.

    No one could deny that Bryce Fortier had been beaten that night. A booking photo displayed at trial shows his right eye swollen shut, his upper lip bloodied and his face covered in abrasions.

    "I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind, after being presented with all the facts, that he was certainly in great danger of losing his life."

    But Mazzone would have to prove that at trial.

    A 'horrendously expensive' ordeal

    Andrew Fortier paid $25,000 to retain Peter Mazzone as his son's defense attorney, but was warned the cost could surpass $80,000.

    After hiring forensic experts, a private investigator, a crime reconstructionist and paying other court costs, Bryce Fortier's defense bill was well into six-figures.

    "$147,729.36," Andrew Fortier recalls. "I don't really think I spared a dime."

    A jury acquitted Bryce Fortier of murder and manslaughter. However, when asked to rule whether the shooting was justified, a procedural step that determines if a defendant should be reimbursed court costs, the jury did not agree that Fortier acted in self-defense.

    Mazzone could not explain the latter ruling, but suggested it could have been a symbolic gesture to the victim's family.

    Following the criminal trial, Bryce Fortier and the owner of the home where the shooting occurred were served with a civil suit brought on by the estate of Christopher Chandler.

    Fortier said he was sued for negligence and battery.

    "I was just trying to figure out what they wanted," he said. "At that point I had more debt than stuff."

    While Bryce would eventually be cleared of wrongdoing in the civil proceedings as well, it came at a cost of roughly $110,000.

    Having relied on his father to pay for his criminal defense, Fortier worked to pay for the civil side himself.

    Now, five years and $257,729.36 later, he is still paying for the split-second decision he made at that Halloween party.

    He still owes $75,000 in attorney fees.

    He tried to join the military, but said he could not come up with the roughly $6,000 needed to provide them with court documents that fully explain his second-degree murder charge.

    Fortier said he never expected it would be so hard, or so costly, to prove that he acted to save his own life.

    Mazzone said the cost of a good defense doesn't enter someone's mind when they pull the trigger to protect themselves.

    "I don't think anything goes through their mind expect defending themselves and wanting to live," he said. "I'm here to tell you that if you do that and if you defend yourself, your actions will be scrutinized very, very carefully and in most cases you'll end up charged with a crime."

    Had he not had his gun on him that night, Bryce Fortier believes he could be dead. Which is why, despite the aftermath, he still carries his pistol.

    If he ever finds himself in the same situation, he says he would pull the trigger again - even if he can't afford to.




    http://mynorthwest.com/11/722147/Eve...ll-the-trigger

  11. #11
    Regular Member ghosthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
    Posts
    280
    Here is the problem for me with this. When we decide to carry a gun everyday as I do and many on this forum I think you have to sit down and have a talk with yourself on what your obligations are and what will make you shoot.

    Here is the line from above that gets me......

    "According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way."

    No way would I do this if I were carring a gun. Let the homeowner tell them, I am not getting involved. No one from the story is being killed, I am not in danger, Why inject myself into it? The police are on the way.

    Sure he got off but it cost him. I think the juries alot of times say yeah not guilty of murder, but we will let him pay is for his own defense by finding that he wasn't in fear of his life or not self defense.

    A lot of these guys who get in this trouble could have walked away or stayed out of it. He was not walking down the street minding his own business and got attacked. He walked into already heated dispute.

    Stupid as far as I am concerned.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by ghosthunter View Post
    Here is the problem for me with this. When we decide to carry a gun everyday as I do and many on this forum I think you have to sit down and have a talk with yourself on what your obligations are and what will make you shoot.

    Here is the line from above that gets me......

    "According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way."

    No way would I do this if I were carring a gun. Let the homeowner tell them, I am not getting involved. No one from the story is being killed, I am not in danger, Why inject myself into it? The police are on the way.

    Sure he got off but it cost him. I think the juries alot of times say yeah not guilty of murder, but we will let him pay is for his own defense by finding that he wasn't in fear of his life or not self defense.

    A lot of these guys who get in this trouble could have walked away or stayed out of it. He was not walking down the street minding his own business and got attacked. He walked into already heated dispute.

    Stupid as far as I am concerned.

    I have to agree; especially after reading this. No way would i inject myself into a situation where I had no businees being in the first place.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by ghosthunter View Post
    Here is the problem for me with this. When we decide to carry a gun everyday as I do and many on this forum I think you have to sit down and have a talk with yourself on what your obligations are and what will make you shoot.

    Here is the line from above that gets me......

    "According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way."

    No way would I do this if I were carring a gun. Let the homeowner tell them, I am not getting involved. No one from the story is being killed, I am not in danger, Why inject myself into it? The police are on the way.

    Sure he got off but it cost him. I think the juries alot of times say yeah not guilty of murder, but we will let him pay is for his own defense by finding that he wasn't in fear of his life or not self defense.

    A lot of these guys who get in this trouble could have walked away or stayed out of it. He was not walking down the street minding his own business and got attacked. He walked into already heated dispute.

    Stupid as far as I am concerned.
    My personal opinion is that unless you are a LEO or Licensed Armed Security Guard, you carry a firearm for SELF Defense. Not to be an "enforcer" at an under-aged drinking party. Unless you're trained and paid to go looking for trouble you're wrong in doing so.

    Smarter people usually try to avoid situations like he found himself in, long before they occur. Even if you take away the gun, how smart is it to be an Adult at an under-aged booze bash? Could even be busted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, providing alcohol, etc.

    There's a lesson in this and it's not just about the carrying of a gun.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    My personal opinion is that unless you are a LEO or Licensed Armed Security Guard, you carry a firearm for SELF Defense. Not to be an "enforcer" at an under-aged drinking party. Unless you're trained and paid to go looking for trouble you're wrong in doing so.

    Smarter people usually try to avoid situations like he found himself in, long before they occur. Even if you take away the gun, how smart is it to be an Adult at an under-aged booze bash? Could even be busted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, providing alcohol, etc.

    There's a lesson in this and it's not just about the carrying of a gun.
    Agreed. But it does require a little forethought. There are quite a few things that you or I or anyone else might do without thinking about it, that in retrospect (or the eyes of a prosecutor) would look like going looking for trouble. Might actually BE going looking for trouble, which would be obvious if we stopped and thought about it.

    The problem is, if we stopped and had a good think about every single thing we did during the day, we'd never actually get through the day. We'd still be thinking about mid-morning stuff as the sun was setting. So the real question is, how do we know what the important stuff to think hard about is in advance?

    Generally, we can't except in hindsight.

  15. #15
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    I listened to the whole broadcast. IMHO I believe his down fall was after he left the party from the first beating, he returned.....

    I have the audio downloaded and will post it here soon.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    I listened to the whole broadcast. IMHO I believe his down fall was after he left the party from the first beating, he returned.....

    I have the audio downloaded and will post it here soon.
    +1

    Don't go back looking for vengeance.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Ross & Burbank

    "Self defense shooters pay high price for shooting someone."

    Audio File: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...downfile&id=84

  18. #18
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    And the reason for my never going to those kinds of parties when I was young, still don't.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    If I'm driving during the 9-12 time I listen to John Carlson on 97.7 then from 12-3 it's Dori Monson on 97.3. Ken Schram, Ross & Burbank and Ron & Don are all very left leaning to the point of often being revolting. I generally don't tune into them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    There are quite a few things that you or I or anyone else might do without thinking about it, that in retrospect (or the eyes of a prosecutor) would look like going looking for trouble.
    Thinking doesn't take all that much time or effort. I certainly would give lots of thought before I decided to go to an under-aged drinking party (as an adult) and certainly more thought about being an "enforcer".

    As for the rest of my "going about my day", I've carried since 1964. I came and went as I chose, and wherever I wanted. It certainly wasn't hard to realize that some things were best avoided, even when NOT armed. My philosophy is that trouble can come your way easy enough, you don't have to tempt it.

    Some examples are as simple as "if two or more people are fighting, and not attacking me, then it's not my fight. Call the cops (chances are they've already got a couple calls in this day and age).

    There are millions of possible scenarios so for the sake of simplicity, this guy screwed the pooch by getting involved as an "enforcer". He didn't have to pay a criminal or civil penalty but it was certainly expensive anyway. Maybe he should consider suing the person that enlisted his aid in being the enforcer for his legal expense. Wasn't that the Homeowner?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  21. #21
    Regular Member Venya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olalla, WA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    As for the rest of my "going about my day", I've carried since 1964. I came and went as I chose, and wherever I wanted. It certainly wasn't hard to realize that some things were best avoided, even when NOT armed. My philosophy is that trouble can come your way easy enough, you don't have to tempt it.
    Bingo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •