Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground?

1sgDavo said:

I am new to this forum, for the most part I like what I read. I really was hoping to learn something from this thread, but I did not learn anything new to me. I would be great if we had a Castle doctrine like Texas, I really believe that I should have the ability to use force to protect my property. I earned it, it is mine and no one else can have it without my permission. If you wait for the cops, they "are to busy" to investigate property crimes, there for if they find it by accident you may get it back. Any way, to much bickering, does not make for a good forum of information. Every ones penis is a pixal on the internet. Just saying. :banana:

Click to expand...

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.

[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:

what people don't understand is that washington state does in fact have a stand your ground law as well as a castle doctrine.they are both included in the same law and they are just not called "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine".

RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

RCW 9A.16.050


Unless I miss my guess, Ii would say that anyplace you are legally allowed to be while carrying a firearm, if somebody attempts to commit a felony in your presence or attempt to cause bodily harm to you, a family member or eve a 3rd party, you are within your rights to use lethal force with no expectation to retreat. That would be "stand your ground"

As far as "castle doctrine", if you are in your home and somebody tries to commit a felony, you are within your rights to again use lethal force. This would include protection of property as long as the crime being commited was a felony such as a burglary.

However, I would suggest that the use of lethal force should be carefully considered. If Rapgood or any other lawyer on these forums would chime in on my statements here, that would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:

what people don't understand is that washington state does in fact have a stand your ground law as well as a castle doctrine.they are both included in the same law and they are just not called "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine".

RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

RCW 9A.16.050

Unless I miss my guess, Ii would say that anyplace you are legally allowed to be while carrying a firearm, if somebody attempts to commit a felony in your presence or attempt to cause bodily harm to you, a family member or eve a 3rd party, you are within your rights to use lethal force with no expectation to retreat. That would be "stand your ground"

As far as "castle doctrine", if you are in your home and somebody tries to commit a felony, you are within your rights to again use lethal force. This would include protection of property as long as the crime being commited was a felony such as a burglary.

However, I would suggest that the use of lethal force should be carefully considered. If Rapgood or any other lawyer on these forums would chime in on my statements here, that would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

BigDave said:

If you are suggesting one can just use deadly force when witnessing a felony that would be Wrong, it must be justifiable in RCW 9A.16.010(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.

Stand Your Ground in Washington State is the use of lawful force (necessary and reasonable) to defend oneself or another where you have a legal right to be.
Castle Doctrine is also the use of lawful force (necessary and reasonable) to defend yourself or others in your home.

Both are based on the threat level, if it arises only to blocking their advancement, to placing your hands on them, to striking or kicking, to lethal force.
Use of lawful force is often described as equal to the threat where a simple laying your hands on can stop the threat, where pulling a firearm would be excessive. There are those times where a firearm is the only choice depending on the threat.

Several discuss on here as to being able to protect their property, yes the law provides for that with lawful force (necessary and reasonable), however it seems some want to jump right to lethal force regardless if there is actually a threat level, do not fall into that line of thinking, it can cost you your freedom.

Click to expand...

1245A Defender said:

Ok I am making an,, "Im sorry" to you...

I got all but hurt because you complained about my puncutuation instead of the value of my words,
I get mad sometimes because folks get off on the wrong things, they waste the band width.

I am sorry I said mean things to you.

I still have your card,
I am still impressed with our meeting.

I am tired now, and I will stop writing....................................................................................................................................................................really,,,,, I cant stop making these...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Click to expand...

• TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE YELLING. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT WRITING IN ALL CAPS.
• using no punctuation and refusing to capitalize the beginning of a sentence also makes you look foolish
• You should not...type the way that you talk.........there should not be a ton of long pauses represented with.......a bunch of periods and commas......that's what commas and periods are for...............just one at a time........

Vigil said:

I rarely post, but I'd thought I would login specifically to point out that writing like this makes you look bad. It makes everyone here look bad, because the posts you make on an activist board reflect on your fellow activists. Same basic idea as when employers require that you behave yourself while you are in company uniform, even if you aren't on the job. Bad behavior reflects poorly on the company, as well as the individual who is misbehaving.

Libertarian/conservative/non-MSNBC viewers need to get their act together when we post online. We aren't going to impress anyone when we write like moderately-literate monkeys.

• TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE YELLING. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT WRITING IN ALL CAPS.
• using no punctuation and refusing to capitalize the beginning of a sentence also makes you look foolish
• You should not...type the way that you talk.........there should not be a ton of long pauses represented with.......a bunch of periods and commas......that's what commas and periods are for...............just one at a time........

Misspellings and the occasional mistake are one thing, but people that support the right and responsibility to carry around a gun openly should probably be able to express their ideas with a modicum of professionalism and intelligence.

Click to expand...

Flopsweat said:

There's also nothing wrong with encouraging proper punctuation. 1234's gibberish writing style certainly does reinforce certain stereotypes. It's hard to take someone seriously when they write like a 6 year old. It's the literary equivalent of wearing a clown suit. Of course you can do what you like, but at the end of the day you're still making us look bad. It's not exactly suit and tie around here, but for Pete's sake, put on a shirt.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Nothing wrong with constructive criticism. Heavens knows I have had a lot over the years, when I first joined I had run on sentences and a wall of text, and I still am constantly learning.

I disagree that anyone's style makes "us" look bad, it may just make them look bad. I refuse to have the flock or herd mentality, I am an individual my words, my point of view, my style are mine alone. And yours are yours alone.

But if I were to follow the logic presented here I could in turn say what makes people look bad is turning on their own because they don't like how they write instead of their viewpoints.

Click to expand...

Flopsweat said:

Touché

May not, but usually does. You yourself admit that you've improved your sentence structure over time. For the record I have no issue with the way you write. Also, I think I made it pretty clear that I don't expect anyone to conform; Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't form a coherent sentence. It's not a huge deal, and I'm not going to let it derail this thread, but hasn't your GF/wife/SO ever looked at you and said "Are you going out in that?" The same applies here - we're in public.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

LOL....."are you going out in that?" is translated in male speak as "you are not going out in that".

Yes I agree it's good to have constructive criticism, it has helped me a lot. I would just prefer that it be fairly positive in nature....because as you pointed out the public is seeing how we criticize too.

Click to expand...