Drive-by Shooting Two Nights Ago, At The House

WalkingWolf · Nov 13, 2012

BigDave said:
The few that have spoke up and criticized her for not moving once she explained she financially was unable to should by all means put up the cash so she can or shut up!
Not everyone has the resources to move away from less desirable living conditions but to choose being homeless over some type of housing is ridiculous.

I live in Yakima, Drive By Shooting occur pretty often we just had 5 different shootings with one being killed at the transits center in a 7 day period, should they all get up and move? Yakima would essentially be empty (not such a bad thing) and where would they go and live? another city where likely with lower income areas and start the process all over again.

As to returning fire in the circumstances Beretta92FSLady asked, Use of Force including Deadly Force has many factors as with any force issue.
Not more then reasonable and necessary force and viewed by a prudent person knowing what you knew at the time.
As I pointed out earlier, did you actually see the gunman shoot and hit the neighbor? or just appeared to be that way or even likely it might have been.
When you seen the gunman did he/she posing a threat to life and limb? Was the vehicle stationary or leaving the area? From your position and missed your shots would it endanger others that were not involved?
Personally, make sure the kids are safe and well often staying with children during this time is more important then stepping out to look and see what's going on but not the only response.

If I witnessed the actual shooting and the threat was imminent, I was already in a position to defend myself or another and had a clear shot I would consider it, but that is a lot of if's.

While I live over a thousand miles away, I have donated to Catholic Charities that would help her. YOU on the other hand live in the same state and can personally help her. YOU put up or shut up!

Beretta92FSLady · Nov 13, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
While I live over a thousand miles away, I have donated to Catholic Charities that would help her. YOU on the other hand live in the same state and can personally help her. YOU put up or shut up!

OMG.

I have contacted some charity organizations. Things will work themselves out.

BigDave · Nov 13, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
While I live over a thousand miles away, I have donated to Catholic Charities that would help her. YOU on the other hand live in the same state and can personally help her. YOU put up or shut up!

Exactly how I thought you would respond and it did not surprised me.

:lol:

WalkingWolf · Nov 13, 2012

BigDave said:
Exactly how I thought you would respond and it did not surprised me. :lol:

So what exactly are you going to do to help her?

rapgood · Nov 13, 2012

Citizen said:
Separately, are you saying TvG foreclosed citizens using deadly force to stop fleeing dangerous felons? I do not recall that; please quote if you are claiming that. Lets wrap this up because I've already deleted that post for other reasons.

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects." Tenn. v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (U.S. 1985)

The Supes made it clear that only officers may use deadly force to stop fleeing felons who pose an immediate threat of harm, but not otherwise, and there is no provision in Garner permitting a non-LEO from doing so.

BigDave · Nov 13, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
So what exactly are you going to do to help her?

What can I do to help her? These are her choices and being an adult chooses how to respond to her needs and environment.
I was not dictating what she needed or had to do.

WalkingWolf said:
You are wasting your time, I kinda had some respect for her until now. To prove a political point she will not move her children to safety. And use the man she campaigned for and probably voted, for relief. Just to prove a point. Why in the hell did she even come to the forums for advice, or solace? And then scorn the good advice that has come to her.
As misguided as she is her children do not deserve this!

Clearly you have a bigger issue with her then this thread, get over yourself.

rapgood · Nov 13, 2012

BigDave said:
We have seen in this forum where people have stated deadly force is authorized for someone stealing personal items or even a felony in front of them, while force is authorized it is not a free get out of jail card for using deadly force.

Correct. But authorized only where the slayer or family or (fill in the blank of someone close to the slayer) is threatened with imminent harm.

rapgood · Nov 13, 2012

rapgood said:
The Supes made it clear that only officers may use deadly force to stop fleeing felons who pose an immediate threat of harm, but not otherwise, and there is no provision in Garner permitting a non-LEO from doing so.

The maxim of law is "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ('the express mention of one thing excludes all others')." Hence, WRT fleeing felons, the right to use deadly force is limited to LEO.

WalkingWolf · Nov 13, 2012

BigDave said:
What can I do to help her? These are her choices and being an adult chooses how to respond to her needs and environment.
I was not dictating what she needed or had to do.

Clearly you have a bigger issue with her then this thread, get over yourself.

Hyperbole much, get over yourself, you brought up people getting personally involved. Yet you do not do so yourself.:uhoh:

Citizen · Nov 13, 2012

rapgood said:
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects." Tenn. v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (U.S. 1985)

The Supes made it clear that only officers may use deadly force to stop fleeing felons who pose an immediate threat of harm, but not otherwise, and there is no provision in Garner permitting a non-LEO from doing so.

Thanks. I understand your point.

I don't see where Garner expressly excludes citizens using force to stop/apprehend fleeing dangerous felons. I don't see where Garner says only cops may. Also, it only makes sense that the Supes didn't expressly prohibit citizens because citizens were not part of the context of the question before the court. The case before the court was about a cop and state statute.

----------

Edited to Add: I just saw your comment about the mention of one thing excluding the others. I don't think that applies to court opinions; at least not to the extent you are using it. Court appellate opinions only address the question before the court. Applying the maxim would mean the courts occupy whole fields of law whenever they write an opinion, erasing anything they don't expressly keep. The maxim applies to statutory law and regulation as far as I know. And, perhaps appellate opinions on a narrower scale; but surely not the extent you would apply it.

For any readers who missed the original post before it was deleted, I'm not saying there is authorization somewhere for Washington citizens to use lethal force to stop/apprehend a fleeing dangerous felon. I am literally only saying that Garner does not prohibit it.

Trigger Dr · Nov 13, 2012

It is very obvious that most of you do not know Berettalady. If you did, your comments would have taken an entirely different track. She is no stranger to guns, gunshots, defensive shooting, and probably has a much better understanding of the aftermath of a defensive shooting that the majority of you.
She ask a civil question about a subject that has merit on this forum, and the majority of the answers were not topic specific, but a rant on how she was not being responsible to her family. Pretty broad brush for not knowing ALL the circumstances of her life style.
Sara, I appologize for the insensitive remarks of the others. PM Me if there are any options that you think I may be able to help.

WalkingWolf · Nov 13, 2012

Trigger Dr said:
It is very obvious that most of you do not know Berettalady. If you did, your comments would have taken an entirely different track. She is no stranger to guns, gunshots, defensive shooting, and probably has a much better understanding of the aftermath of a defensive shooting that the majority of you.
She ask a civil question about a subject that has merit on this forum, and the majority of the answers were not topic specific, but a rant on how she was not being responsible to her family. Pretty broad brush for not knowing ALL the circumstances of her life style.
Sara, I appologize for the insensitive remarks of the others. PM Me if there are any options that you think I may be able to help.

One thing almost everybody on this site knows about BL is she is capable of speaking for herself...

gogodawgs · Nov 13, 2012

Trigger Dr said:
It is very obvious that most of you do not know Berettalady. If you did, your comments would have taken an entirely different track. She is no stranger to guns, gunshots, defensive shooting, and probably has a much better understanding of the aftermath of a defensive shooting that the majority of you.
She ask a civil question about a subject that has merit on this forum, and the majority of the answers were not topic specific, but a rant on how she was not being responsible to her family. Pretty broad brush for not knowing ALL the circumstances of her life style.
Sara, I appologize for the insensitive remarks of the others. PM Me if there are any options that you think I may be able to help.

+1

Trigger Dr · Nov 13, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
One thing almost everybody on this site knows about BL is she is capable of speaking for herself...

And apparently you are capable of speaking for everyone else HUH?

WalkingWolf · Nov 13, 2012

Trigger Dr said:
And apparently you are capable of speaking for everyone else HUH?

Didn't say that, what I said was that BL was very capable of speaking for herself. Don't make fecal matter up please.

rapgood · Nov 13, 2012

Citizen said:
Edited to Add: I just saw your comment about the mention of one thing excluding the others. I don't think that applies to court opinions; at least not to the extent you are using it. Court appellate opinions only address the question before the court. Applying the maxim would mean the courts occupy whole fields of law whenever they write an opinion, erasing anything they don't expressly keep. The maxim applies to statutory law and regulation as far as I know. And, perhaps appellate opinions on a narrower scale; but surely not the extent you would apply it.

Your argument is sexy and the DOJ unsuccessfully used a similar one in opposition to my Rule 56 motion. As such, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The maxim is used in statutory construction (I am a strict constructionist and have successfully argued the maxim in both U.S. District Courts and in the 9th Circuit). In addition to lower appellate courts, I believe that the maxim is used by the Supes in limiting contexts similar to Garner.

Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 677 (2007)
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 576 (2007)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65, 152 L. Ed. 2d 90, 122 S. Ct. 1043 (2002)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 81, 153 L. Ed. 2d 82, 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002)
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003)

Citizen · Nov 13, 2012

rapgood said:
Your argument is sexy and the DOJ unsuccessfully used a similar one in opposition to my Rule 56 motion. As such, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The maxim is used in statutory construction (I am a strict constructionist and have successfully argued the maxim in both U.S. District Courts and in the 9th Circuit). In addition to lower appellate courts, I believe that the maxim is used by the Supes in limiting contexts similar to Garner.

Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 677 (2007)
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 576 (2007)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65, 152 L. Ed. 2d 90, 122 S. Ct. 1043 (2002)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 81, 153 L. Ed. 2d 82, 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002)
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003)

Wow. Point taken.

But, you understand that if you are right, the courts re-write power away from citizens every time they hold something for police without also including citizens? Omigosh. Just---I'm speechless.

rapgood · Nov 13, 2012

Citizen said:
Wow. Point taken.

But, you understand that if you are right, the courts re-write power away from citizens every time they hold something for police without also including citizens? Omigosh. Just---I'm speechless.

Courts give LEO authority all the time and to the exclusion of the citizenry. The term is "legislating from the bench" and is generally forbidden (yet, many of them do it all the time). Here in Washington, we elect every judge (except federal judges), including our Supreme Court. This tends to minimize judicial legislation and makes the judges accountable to Washington's citizens.

Similarly, juries have the power to judge the law as well as the facts. Most judges don't like them to, and most give specific instructions to the jury that they must apply the law as it is given to them by the judge. However, even a Washington Supreme Court Justice acknowledges this power. As retired Washington state Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe wrote in his article "Jury Nullification: Empowering the Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government": "Jury nullification remains the law of the land in every American jurisdiction."

Justice Goodloe instructed juries, and encouraged other judges to instruct juries, about jury nullification as a matter of right.

amlevin · Nov 14, 2012

I wonder if B92FSL has given any thought to how her "uber liberal" compatriot's approach to Justice might well be a contributory factor to her "incident".

Rather than jailing these bozo's for a long time it's always "they had bad childhood's and need some compassion". Probation, Suspended Sentences, Rehab, and the like for crimes that clearly call for serious jail time certainly aren't promoted by the "Conservatives".

OC for ME · Nov 14, 2012

OC for ME said:
Ask a lawyer.

My unqualified opinion is, no, unless you reasonably believe that the "perp(s)" are shooting at your portion of the four unit house. Video surveilance of the front of the house is a excellent recommendation.

Good luck and be safe.

Bumping myself.....is this "legal." I will clarify the video surveilance recommendation; considering that you live in a apartment, it seems, a video camera recoding through a window facing the front street if you have a window facing the street. Video evidence could be useful in increasing police scrutiny or at a minimum lead police to apprehending the perp(s).

Drive-by Shooting Two Nights Ago, At The House

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member