LkWd_Don
Regular Member
The article does say that the body was in the street.
Not a good situation for the shooter, as what scenario can he provide to show that he or his property was being violated by someone who is in the street?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Prowler shot, killed at Vancouver Washington home
- Thread starter bwboley
- Start date
The article does say that the body was in the street.
Not a good situation for the shooter, as what scenario can he provide to show that he or his property was being violated by someone who is in the street?
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
justifiable homicide does not require your property be violated. only that you or a third party are in immediate risk of death or grave injury.
so he goes to talk to the guy prowling his block, and the guy starts beating him now it's a self defense scenario. even though I in my not-really-an-expert opinion would advise you not to get involved if you can avoid it, there is nonetheless no law against walking to someone on the street to talk to them.
I'm still holding my "official" opinion on this incident, although Nick brought up an interesting point, the ME says bullets wounds were the front of the chest. but the "not-interested" witness said the shots were fired as the kid was disengaging from the fight...
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Ah those magic words "He said the shooting was in self-defense." The Affirmative Defense, now it lays in the hands of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before they can charge him.
He was arrested on suspicion and released on bail, but appears no charges have been filed "Doucette, who was arrested on suspicion of second-degree murder, was released from the Clark County Jail Thursday on $250,000 bail."
Evidence is now coming to light that eye witness testimony is not accurate which does happen.
He was arrested on suspicion and released on bail, but appears no charges have been filed "Doucette, who was arrested on suspicion of second-degree murder, was released from the Clark County Jail Thursday on $250,000 bail."
Evidence is now coming to light that eye witness testimony is not accurate which does happen.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
And you are more then welcome to sit in jail as he is until information is uncovered.:lol:
Police in general do not release information on investigations and the majority of information that makes it out to the public comes from the people involved or witnesses
The things that don't add up, is that there has been a lack of information and likely from the "Shut Up and Asked For Your Attorney" mantra.
There is more information this morning about the incident http://www.kptv.com/story/20761307/major-crimes-team-investigating-shooting-at-vancouver-home
Better a few days in jail than a life time in prison.
Ask yourself why police union lawyers advise them not to talk to their brethren.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Better a few days in jail than a life time in prison.
Ask yourself why police union lawyers advise them not to talk to their brethren.
Likely he would not have spent even that long in jail until charges were to be filed
Yes one they have the initial information of who what where and when, then the details are discussed afterwards.
FrayedString
Regular Member
If you don't want to get involved: why not call the police and then observe the situation from a safe vantage point and maybe try to get some video or pictures of the situation which could later be used as evidence to apprehend them. Warning them that the police are coming only gives them a bigger head-start on getting away without being caught. Now if you see the situation escalating from a car prowl to the point that they're kicking down your neighbors front door then that's a different story. But otherwise why not advise the dispatcher that the suspect is currently on-site and in the process of the prowl; and provide any updates you can as to the direction they go when they leave etc. Seems like that would do a lot more good than shouting out "Hey, the cops are on their way! You better get out of here and make a clean getaway before they show up!"
I agree getting involved with someone who is prowling a car that is not yours is probably not a wise move legally. However, I have a personal moral conflict with the "we are not police, so don't get involved" mentality. What I mean to say is, I wish we lived in a world where you could stick up for your neighbors rights, as well as your own, without the legal system coming down on you like an avalanche.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
There are many things that we can not predict, we can not assume... are there more attackers? Is this person locked out of their own car? Is the person high on PCP? Are you being lured into the street? Etc.... Which is why in the scenario in this story I recommend not leaving the home....not getting close enough to have a scuffle in the street. The accused in the Vancouver scenario just got home from work at 4 am, being tired at the end of a workday (and out of shape looking at the pictures in the Columbian) contribute to the factors. A gun does not make one bullet proof, it does not make one stronger than the other... I certainly hope this is a self-defense case, I certainly hope that this is a 'good' shoot, but 'hope' has no power. As a trained armed security guard it's interesting that none of the stories state Doucette made a claim of self-defense, as BigDave has pointed out, in Washington, this is the smart thing to do when you have to defend yourself.
MamaLiberty's story is one of many to consider... http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Several times I have left my home to investigate things on my property. I have even left to investigate things in my neighborhood. There are times, manners, places where it is prudent. I have even gone into my own back yard via my back door to find a police officer looking for a suspect...I was armed at the time....in my hand. The officer quickly explained what was going on and I went back inside. I have gone and talked with people in my neighborhood that do not belong, I am sure some of them were scared off.... As I get older, I consider more scenarios and how easy it is for things to go wrong. I take greater caution and think harder based upon my experiences. I am not sure that Doucette did in this case, although I hope it works out in his favor.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
it depends, mostly I'd stay uninvolved. but on the other hand my next door neighbors are an elderly couple, and the wife has medical conditions and can't leave the house often, husband still works. so if suspicious people were hanging around the neighbor's house when the husband was gone at work.
I'd definitely confront them. and probably bring my gun along since home invaders may be armed and dangerous.
I'm not the self appointed, self-deputized block patrolman, but as far as I have a good relationship with my neighbors and they've always been good to me, if I think that the neighbor's wife who's ill and hardly able to move is in danger, I'm certainly not waiting for cops to come rope off the murder scene if I can do something about it.
but if it's someone stealing car stereos and I can report their movements from a distance, I probably wouldn't involve myself, unless they're stealing my stereo...
golddigger14s
Activist Member
That's kind of what I was getting at with fewer words. My main point was that I would not play COP and go outside my home, and confront a possible threat. I don't own/carry weapons to start a fight, but I will protect myself/family if needed.
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
it depends, mostly I'd stay uninvolved. but on the other hand my next door neighbors are an elderly couple, and the wife has medical conditions and can't leave the house often, husband still works. so if suspicious people were hanging around the neighbor's house when the husband was gone at work.
I'd definitely confront them. and probably bring my gun along since home invaders may be armed and dangerous.
I'm not the self appointed, self-deputized block patrolman, but as far as I have a good relationship with my neighbors and they've always been good to me, if I think that the neighbor's wife who's ill and hardly able to move is in danger, I'm certainly not waiting for cops to come rope off the murder scene if I can do something about it.
but if it's someone stealing car stereos and I can report their movements from a distance, I probably wouldn't involve myself, unless they're stealing my stereo...
Eric, It is my humble OPINION that you would do a much better service to your self and neighbors, by making the 911 call and give them description, location, activity of the suspicious person. Then maybe call the neighbor and apprise them of your actions, particularly that the police have been notified and to not open the door for anyone. Then if and that is a big IF the "prowler" attempts entry, shout out a warning that "I AM ARMED AND WILL SHOOT IF NECESSARY" meanwhile keeping behind a secure barrier.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Likely he would not have spent even that long in jail until charges were to be filed
Yes one they have the initial information of who what where and when, then the details are discussed afterwards.
Police are instructed not to talk. Why would I?
Now if you want to lower the broad statement of talking to just pointing out a few pertinent details, you may have a point. But you are playing with fire and your life and way too many people are sent to prison for talking to the states street warriors.
sirpuma
Regular Member
Actually incorrect. As WA residents we have the legal right to use force, up to and including lethal force to stop a felony in progress.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
sirpuma
Regular Member
Just because he was shot in the chest and died doesn't mean he dropped dead on the spot. Many shooting victims move quite a ways from where they were actually shot at.
sirpuma
Regular Member
One of the many reasons we have such high crime rates in this country is because citizens tend to take the attitude of hiding when crime is taking place. Criminals really don't have much to fear from citizens who call the cops because more often than not they have done their crime and gotten away long before the cops show up to write their report. As open carriers we are a deterrent to crime by our mere presence. At some point when confronting a criminal about their activity they will cross the line into the range of "felony". While we have the right to defend ourselves we also have the right to stop a felony in progress. Why do people wish to permit crime and encourage criminals by not stopping crime when they witness it.
I commend the "accused" for getting involved to stop crime in his neighborhood. Were I in his shoes I would have done the same thing. At to whether or not the shooting was justified I won't comment as I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances. The only real thing known was they fought and the "victim" was shot in the chest. I haven't seen anything to indicate he was armed or advancing on the "accused".
I commend the "accused" for getting involved to stop crime in his neighborhood. Were I in his shoes I would have done the same thing. At to whether or not the shooting was justified I won't comment as I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances. The only real thing known was they fought and the "victim" was shot in the chest. I haven't seen anything to indicate he was armed or advancing on the "accused".
LkWd_Don
Regular Member
But again, we are talking a prowler, not a rapist caught in the act, not an armed robber, and the reports aren't saying anything about the prowler being armed.
Yes, he may have been shot, and then dragged himself into the street.
I will say it again, I find the scenarios that would protect the shooter very limited in this case, and I am sure there are many here who would tell you that they think I would be one of the first going to jail if I ever have to shoot someone.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Yeah you go ahead and pull that trigger and find out what reasonable, not more then necessary force really means.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
The demeaning of property astounds me. Thievery of your hard owned goods is a rape of your labor and person. Would I personally shoot someone for minor thievery, nope, but I am not going to be sympathetic with a law abiding citizen who reacted to the invasion of himself and property regardless of arbitrary values put on it by others.
sirpuma
Regular Member
You assume much. I know just when and how much force to use. We have no obligation to back down and hide like cowards, but you do have that choice.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
I was going off your post and what you were responding to when I made my comment "Yeah you go ahead and pull that trigger and find out what reasonable, not more then necessary force really means."
The RCW you are citing is the one that pertains to Homicide and skip over The Lawful Use of Force and Definitions that apply through out the chapter.
RCW 9A.16.050(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.
Take note of "upon the slayer". "upon", "dwelling", "place of abode", "which he or she is".
I have not suggested a response here as we can see with other news reports in the past, current and likely future will be full of bias and lacks accurate information.
When it comes to someone attempting to steal my property of that of a neighbor or one I can about, I would confront them while law enforcement is being summon, if attacked then appropriate force to defend myself would follow.
I see the RCW's as a progression of force that maintains necessary force or reasonable force applies. It would range from verbal, threat or warning, physical force and if it reached a point to where a threat of life or limb was reached then deadly force then and only then I would use my firearm, it is a tool of last resort.
I see some still with an attitude of "How Can I legally Introduce My Firearm Into A Situation" then The only time to legally use my firearm is when my life or a life of another is in imminent threat of life or limb.
Look at your own past, ever been beat up before, knocked down, hit by someone, threatened, wronged, disrespected? Now how many times did you actually feel your life was in danger? likely most will answer none and very few can say yes, so seriously answer honestly to yourself, how many times? Why should it be any different now since you are carrying a firearm, were you truly in fear for your life or that of another?
There may be a time in our life where you must employ your firearm but make it the last choice.
RCW 9A.16.010 Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.
(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force — When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
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.