Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Gun Grab - Use of Force

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Gun Grab - Use of Force

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    In the State of Washington, this would constitute attempted theft of a firearm or robbery. Both of which are felonies and so it would be legal to not only unholster but to execute the idiot.

    Please read you state laws before taking any action.
    What are the correct reactive actions in the scenario that a gun grab is attempted against you?

    Respective RCWs below.

    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9A.56.300
    (1) A person is guilty of theft of a firearm if he or she commits a theft of any firearm.
    (2) This section applies regardless of the value of the firearm taken in the theft.
    (3) Each firearm taken in the theft under this section is a separate offense.
    (4) The definition of "theft" and the defense allowed against the prosecution for theft under RCW 9A.56.020 shall apply to the crime of theft of a firearm.
    (5) As used in this section, "firearm" means any firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010.
    (6) Theft of a firearm is a class B felony.
    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
    Use of Force: RCW 9A.16.020
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 08-17-2012 at 06:52 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    why start a new thread?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    why start a new thread?
    State specific laws.

    A state specific response was given (quoted) in the other thread and I am curious about what other Washingtonians thought given the laws of our state.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    why start a new thread?

    thread post count.........

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    aren't policemen taught that someone trying to grab your gun is going to use it on you? That would constitute a deadly threat and police guys are taught to use the appropriate force, nicht wahr?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Venya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Olalla, WA
    Posts
    33
    Under ROE in effect in Afghanistan in 2006 (I know it's been modified endlessly since then), someone grabbing your rifle was absolutely cause for use of force--depending on the circumstances, deadly force. Now, I suppose, you're supposed to ask them nicely to stop playing with your weapon, or at least buy you a drink first.

    Trying to shoot someone already close enough to make a grab for my pistol would not be my preferred option.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.


    While I understand that this could go either way in court. I would argue that any attempt to commit a felony against me or in my presence would justify them winning the Darwin Award.

    It would seem that you would be safer, legally, if you slayed someone who attempts gun grab against another citizen in your presence.
    I know I would find you, not guilty, of shooting some gun grabbing bastard.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Venya View Post
    Under ROE in effect in Afghanistan in 2006 (I know it's been modified endlessly since then), someone grabbing your rifle was absolutely cause for use of force--depending on the circumstances, deadly force. Now, I suppose, you're supposed to ask them nicely to stop playing with your weapon, or at least buy you a drink first.

    Trying to shoot someone already close enough to make a grab for my pistol would not be my preferred option.
    While it may not be a preferred option, I believe we are addressing the legal issues here not the tactical issues.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    The use of force to deadly force by citizens range from verbal, to physical and then to deadly force which are covered in RCW 9A.16.010, 020, 040 and 050.

    The Courts or Jury will be looking at to what degree you "employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him] [her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident."
    Note WPIC 17.04 Lawful Force—Actual Danger Not Necessary which can be found here http://government.westlaw.com/linked...?SP=wcrji-1000

    In the OP post where someone is trying to go for your firearm one still needs to be able to articulate the threat. For example if it was a 5 year old thinking it was a toy there would be no threat versus an adult male that you do not know or do and you feel they are attempting to take your firearm thus posing a imminent threat.

    I feel that some have some hesitation on this issue and feel it derives from well I introduced the gun as it is in my possession, if so then asked yourself this, would it be any different if someone came toward you in a threatening manner and grabbed another weapon near you and to threaten you?

    The posting below is from the Criminal Jury Instructions and gives some insight from the courts.
    Washington Practice Series TM
    Database Updated November 2011

    Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
    2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair

    Part IV. Defenses
    WPIC CHAPTER 16. Justifiable Homicide

    WPIC 16.02 Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others

    It is a defense to a charge of [murder] [manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction.
    Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of [the slayer] [the slayer's [husband] [wife] [registered domestic partner] [parent] [child] [brother] [sister]] [any person in the slayer's presence or company] when:
    1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain [or others whom the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain] intended [to commit a felony] [to inflict death or great personal injury];
    2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and
    3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him] [her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident.
    The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.


    NOTE ON USE

    Use this instruction in any homicide case in which this defense is an issue supported by the evidence. Use bracketed material as applicable.
    Use WPIC 25.01, Homicide—Definition, with this instruction. Use WPIC 2.04.01, Great Personal Injury—Definition, and WPIC 2.09, Felony—Designation of, as applicable with this instruction. If there is an issue whether the defendant was the aggressor, use WPIC 16.04, Aggressor—Defense of Self and Others.
    If resistance to a felony is involved, see WPIC 16.03, Justifiable Homicide—Resistance to Felony.
    Do not use this instruction if the deadly force was used to defend against a non-violent felony, such as forgery, bribery, perjury, or the like.
    When the offense charged is attempted murder, use this instruction, rather than WPIC 17.02, Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property.
    If a case involves a registered domestic partnership, and if it becomes necessary to define the term for jurors, an instruction can be drafted using language from RCW Chapter 26.60.

    COMMENT

    Generally. The instruction is based upon RCW 9A.16.050(1).
    All facts and circumstances. The instruction's third numbered paragraph, referring to all facts and circumstances, is based upon State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984). In Allery, the Supreme Court held that if there is evidence of self-defense, the jury must be instructed “to consider the conditions as they appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances known to the slayer at the time and prior to the incident.” State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d at 595. Also see State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 804 P.2d 577 (1991); State v. Bell, 60 Wn.App. 561, 805 P.2d 815 (Div. 2 1991).
    In a case involving allegations of ongoing abuse, the jury is to inquire whether the defendant acted reasonably, given the defendant's experience of abuse by the victim. State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 239, 850 P.2d 495, 22 A.L.R.5th 921 (1993).
    Burden of proof. The paragraph referring to the burden of proof is based upon State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 656 P.2d 1064 (1983). In McCullum, the court held that the State has the burden of proving the absence of self-defense in a prosecution for first degree murder. McCullum continues to be cited with approval on this point. E.g., State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1, 10, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996). For a detailed discussion see the Introduction to Part IV—Defenses. In State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238, 53 P.3d 26 (2002), the court held that a defendant had a burden of producing “some evidence” to establish the killing occurred under circumstances where there was a defense of life and also to produce “some evidence” that he or she had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or imminent danger, before the defendant is deemed entitled to raise a self-defense claim. However, this must be read in conjunction with McCullum, where the court explained that there only needs to be some evidence admitted, from whatever source, which tends to prove the killing was done in self-defense. State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d at 487.
    Withdrawal. As a general rule, one who is the aggressor or who provokes an altercation in which another is killed cannot invoke the right of self-defense to justify or excuse the homicide. However, the right of self-defense is revived as to the aggressor or the provoker if that person in good faith withdraws from the combat at such time and in such a manner as to clearly apprise the other person that he or she was desisting or intended to desist from further aggressive action. See State v. Craig, 82 Wn.2d 777, 514 P.2d 151 (1973); State v. Wilson, 26 Wn.2d 468, 174 P.2d 553 (1946). In State v. Dennison, 115 Wn.2d 609, 801 P.2d 193 (1990), the Washington Supreme Court found that the trial court correctly refused the defendant's proposed self-defense instruction in a prosecution for felony murder because the defendant did not drop his gun or surrender and did not “clearly manifest a good faith intention to withdraw from the burglary or remove the decedent's fear.” State v. Dennison, 115 Wn.2d at 618.
    Felony murder. A claim of self-defense in felony murder prosecutions presents special problems for instructing the jury. In State v. Dennison, 115 Wn.2d 609, 801 P.2d 193 (1990), the Supreme Court held that because a defendant is strictly responsible for death caused while fleeing from first degree burglary, the trial court properly refused the defendant's proposed self-defense instruction because the burglary was still in progress at the time that the defendant was fleeing from scene. In State v. Bolar, 118 Wn.App. 490, 78 P.2d 1012 (Div. 1 2003), the court, discussing Dennison, seemed to hold that self-defense is not available as a matter of law when the felony murder is based on burglary. In State v. Ferguson, 131 Wn.App. 855, 129 P.3d 856 (Div. 2 2006), the Court of Appeals held that when the felony murder charge is predicated on assault, the defendant may claim self-defense but only if he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. Thus, the Ferguson court concluded that only WPIC 16.02 can be given in a felony murder prosecution and that WPIC 17.02 can “never” be given. It appears that, in determining whether the jury should be instructed on self-defense, the court should carefully analyze the facts presented at trial and the elements of the predicate felony alleged.
    Defense of others. A person has a right to use such force to defend another as the person may use in defending himself or herself. The right to resort to the use of force in defending another is to be judged by the facts and circumstances appearing to the defender at the time. Thus, an individual is justified in using force to defend another if that individual reasonably believes that the person to be protected is the innocent party and in danger, even if, in fact, the person being defended was the aggressor. See State v. Penn, 89 Wn.2d 63, 568 P.2d 797 (1977); State v. Fischer, 23 Wn.App. 756, 598 P.2d 742 (Div. 2 1979); State v. Bernardy, 25 Wn.App. 146, 605 P.2d 791 (Div. 1 1980).
    RCW 9A.16.050(1) states in part that homicide is justifiable when committed “in the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company.” It has been held that under this statutory language, a homicide committed in the defense of another is not justifiable, unless the person being defended was present at the time of homicide. See State v. Trevino, 10 Wn.App. 89, 516 P.2d 779 (Div. 3 1973) (homicide allegedly in defense of the defendant's wife and children was not justifiable because neither the wife nor the children were present at the time of the shooting).
    Imminent danger. The phrase “the slayer reasonably believed that” is included in the second numbered paragraph in light of the holding of the court in State v. LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 913 P.2d 369 (1996) (overruled on other grounds in State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 217 P.3d 756 (2009)) and State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533, 973 P.2d 1049 (1999), that the former version could be misunderstood to require actual imminent danger. See also WPIC 16.07, Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary, and its Comment.


    “Imminence does not require an actual physical assault. A threat, or its equivalent, can support self-defense when there is a reasonable belief that the threat will be carried out. Especially in abusive relationships, patterns of behavior become apparent which can signal the next abusive episode.”

    State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d at 241 (citations omitted). While “immediate harm” means “occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss of time: made or done at once,” “imminent harm” means “ready to take place: near at hand: … hanging threateningly over one's head.” In an abusive situation, “[t]hat the triggering behavior and the abusive episode are divided by time does not necessarily negate the reasonableness of the defendant's perception of imminent harm.” 121 Wn.2d at 241.
    Multiple assailants. There is no requirement that the defendant's fear be caused by only the person slain. His self-defense is lawful if based on reasonable fear of imminent harm from either the person slain, or others whom the defendant also reasonably feared. State v. Harris, 122 Wn.App. 547, 90 P.3d 1133 (Div. 2 2004); State v. Irons, 101 Wn.App. 544, 550, 4 P.3d 174 (Div. 1 2000).
    Great personal injury. When given in conjunction with this instruction in a case involving the use of force against an unarmed assailant, the definition of “great personal injury” must contain the subjective element, as set forth in WPIC 2.04.01, Great Personal Injury—Definition. State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997). Practitioners should carefully note that “great personal injury” is distinct from “great bodily harm.” See the discussion of these terms in the Comment to WPIC 2.04.01. The term “great bodily harm” should not be used with this instruction. State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 475 n.3.
    Attempted murder. This instruction, rather than WPIC 17.02, Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property, should be used when the charged offense is attempted murder. “[T]he important issue is the defendant's mental state in committing the crime, not whether the victim in fact died.” State v. Cowen, 87 Wn.App. 45, 53, 939 P.2d 1249 (Div. 1 1997).
    Domestic partners. In 2009, the Legislature amended RCW Chapter 9A.16 to indicate that the chapter's references to spouses are to be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partners. RCW 9A.16.900; Laws of 2009, Chapter 521, § 22 (effective December 3, 2009, based on voter approval of Referendum Measure 71). The pattern instruction has been updated accordingly.
    Other. The statute states in part that the defense is applicable “when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony.” For purposes of the defense, the use of deadly force appears to be limited to the resistance of violent felonies that threaten human life or may result in great personal injury. See State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240, 287 P.2d 345 (1955) (adultery is not a crime that imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens personal injury). No self-defense instruction should be given when deadly force is used to repel an unlawful trespass that does not amount to a felony, because such force is excessive as a matter of law. State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 589 P.2d 799 (1979).
    For a discussion of non-violent felonies that would not justify the use of deadly force, see the Comment to WPIC 16.03, Justifiable Homicide—Resistance to Felony.
    In State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 721 P.2d 902 (1986), the Washington Supreme Court refused to adopt the doctrine of “imperfect” self-defense. The court found that the trial court did not err in refusing an instruction that stated that “the use of force is not done with unlawful intent to kill where the person believes in good faith that he or she is acting in self-defense even though the person's belief is unreasonable.” State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d at 188. Also see State v. Bell, 60 Wn.App. 561, 805 P.2d 815 (Div. 2 1991). For cases relating to a defendant's reasonable belief as a justification for acting in self-defense, see the Comments to WPIC 16.04, Aggressor—Defense of Self and Others and WPIC 17.02, Lawful Force—Defense of Self and Others.
    [Current as of February 1, 2010.]

    Westlaw. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

    11 WAPRAC WPIC 16.02
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    A lot of different questions and answers could be given here.

    Why is someone trying to take my weapon away from me?

    Is this person a criminal wanting to do me harm?

    Does this person not know the laws when it comes to OC in WA, so he/she thinks I am doing something ilegal and is tring to be a helpful citizen and disarm me?

    One could answer in many ways depending on the follow up questions.

    however, here is how is my opinion on this matter.

    If someone tried to disarm me, my first reaction would be to pull away. My second action would be to locate my target while placing my hand on my weapon. Third I would watch the target to see the next reaction. If the target does not attempt any further action, I would then advise the subject to stop and do not move while my weapon was still holstered. While I continued to watch the person, I would have a bystander call 911 and wait for the police to arive.

    If the target was to keep trying to disarm me, I would unholster, tell target to stop and do not move, if the target kept coming, I would attempt to stop the threat. I would then have any bystanders call 911 and wait for the police to arrive.
    Clerk: Is that a weapon?
    Me: No, it is my tool.
    Clerk:
    Me: A tool that takes some time to master!
    Clerk:
    Me: Have a nice day!

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Venya View Post
    Now, I suppose, you're supposed to ask them nicely to stop playing with your weapon, or at least buy you a drink first.

    Only in San Francisco.
    "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?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaOps View Post
    If someone tried to disarm me, my first reaction would be to pull away. My second action would be to locate my target while placing my hand on my weapon. Third I would watch the target to see the next reaction. If the target does not attempt any further action, I would then advise the subject to stop and do not move while my weapon was still holstered. While I continued to watch the person, I would have a bystander call 911 and wait for the police to arrive.

    If the target was to keep trying to disarm me, I would unholster, tell target to stop and do not move, if the target kept coming, I would attempt to stop the threat. I would then have any bystanders call 911 and wait for the police to arrive.
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    There is no good reason to grab a lawfully carried gun except as a prelude to an attack or as part of a robbery. It's possible the grabber thinks he's defending himself, perhaps he's from California. However, the fact remains that the carrier isn't breaking the law, but the grabber is. Self-defense must be justified and lawful, after all. A self-defense effort based on a sincere belief that holding a book in your hand is a crime will result in an assault conviction. Grabbing a lawfully carried gun is no different.

    And if someone tries to grab your gun, you have no way to know what their intention is. They could be planning your death, they could be planning to steal your wallet, they could be planning to hold you at gunpoint until police arrive, or they may want to throw your gun into the bushes. Or for that matter, they may be suicidal and you're convenient. No way to know.
    Last edited by Difdi; 08-20-2012 at 02:14 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Well RCW 9A.16.050 Section 2 says homicide is justifiable " In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is." now if someone is trying to disarm you that's arguably theft of a firearm as defined in RCW 9A.56.300 which is classed as a class B Felony under the wording of the law it appears you're covered
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well RCW 9A.16.050 Section 2 says homicide is justifiable " In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is." now if someone is trying to disarm you that's arguably theft of a firearm as defined in RCW 9A.56.300 which is classed as a class B Felony under the wording of the law it appears you're covered
    That was my original argument that spurred the creation of this thread.

    "Reasonable" though would dictate that we not shoot a child over this.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well RCW 9A.16.050 Section 2 says homicide is justifiable " In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is." now if someone is trying to disarm you that's arguably theft of a firearm as defined in RCW 9A.56.300 which is classed as a class B Felony under the wording of the law it appears you're covered
    Yes this is what he law says and this is what the Jury Instructions say that you will be judged on, "3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him] [her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident."

    Seldom is anything just cut and dry, black and white, and so on.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    Just because it may be justifiable by law, doesn't mean that we afe safe from being sued by the family members. If the person was trying to grab your gun and did not succeed and in turn you just shot that person not knowing the intentions, well that could be a long large lawsuit waiting to happen.

    Like I said befoe, if one trys to take my weapon I will first YELL as loud as I can "STOP DO NOT MOVE"! What that does is it attracts attention, and in turn gives you witnesses. Now if the attacker stops, you have the people around you call 911. Again what that does is it involves people. Also if you need a witness, you will have more than one. If you don't yell and get people involved, you may not have any witnesses, and if someone did see it but didn't call it in for you, then they can not be tracked down to be a witness.

    Pretty much same goes for the attacker if they keep coming at you. Instead this time they are either wounded or dead. The only thing you need to do is make sure you aquire your target and you have a clea shot. Also make sure that nobody else has the chance of getting hit by a bullet. That couls tun into a lawsuit as well.

    So much to worry about even if you have done everything by law to potect yourself.
    Clerk: Is that a weapon?
    Me: No, it is my tool.
    Clerk:
    Me: A tool that takes some time to master!
    Clerk:
    Me: Have a nice day!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    My knee jerk reaction is based on training - I do carry a pistol (as a primary means of defense) but I am also a proponent of knives. As an Ocer I wear my sidearm in a thigh-rig, I always carry a secondary weapon (at least one blade) which is always an Emerson Karambit with the "Wave" feature in my strong side front pocket. I've gone through the scenario many times in my mind - if I feel any tugging on the pistol in my SERPA thigh-rig I will deploy my Emerson blade and look to asses the situation . . . if it's a kid then nothing happens, if it's an adult male then I go into "retain the lethal weapon" mode. Blades can be less than lethal, and once a threat is removed I would have every intention (and Boy Scout First Aid Training) to tend to the wounded.
    Really it's a matter of Rules of Engagement/Escalation of Force. Variables such as time of day/part of town play into all of this.

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Yes this is what he law says and this is what the Jury Instructions say that you will be judged on, "3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him] [her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident."

    Seldom is anything just cut and dry, black and white, and so on.
    If someone reaches for your guy and you gain control of your weapon and he is continuing to beat on you or wrestle you for it, I would believe deadly force is reasonable.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Yes this is what he law says and this is what the Jury Instructions say that you will be judged on, "3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him] [her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident."

    Seldom is anything just cut and dry, black and white, and so on.
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If someone reaches for your guy and you gain control of your weapon and he is continuing to beat on you or wrestle you for it, I would believe deadly force is reasonable.
    No argument there if they are of like size, strength and ability or have there be a likelihood of succeeding though if that person was a 98lb weakling, crippled using a walker that has no ability in gaining control then not so much. This is why I emphasized employed such force and means as a reasonable prudent person would.....
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If someone reaches for your guy...
    How did the TSA wander into this topic?

Posting Permissions

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