Spokane car theft suspect shot dead: Was it proper?

Well?

BigDave said:

Thankfully someone else gets it!

Some seem to think still, the RCW covers when a felony is being committed in their presence and it has to do with upon your person! while in his or her presence or upon a dwelling or place of abode while he or she is there, all of which creates an imminent threat to life or limb.



For the nay sayers when it comes to this topic, you may very well end up being the reason yourself or another who listens to you either lose your or their freedom and everything you or they own, simply because you are not comprehending.

NavyLCDR the next time I get over that way, I will buy the coffee.

Click to expand...

If a bad man with a gun makes me give him my wallet, is he commiting a felony?
If the man tries to take it with him, is he Still in the process of commiting a felony?
If I shoot the man in the back, am I trying to stop the felony?
Hint,, wallet has 2500 bucks in it!

NavyLCDR said:

Would you care to post the RCW that says it is legal to stop a person merely committing a felony upon the victim? One must carefully read the RCW:



Exactly WHO was the shooter defending? There was nobody present in the vehicle when it was stolen, thus there was no one to defend. I used to think differently myself, but I think it was actually Big Dave who convinced me that stopping a felony, by itself, does not justify homicide - homicide is only justified in defense of a person - not property.

Click to expand...

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.

If I own the car, and said car is being stolen, then the felony is being committed upon me.

Freedom1Man said:

If I own the car, and said car is being stolen, then the felony is being committed upon me.

Click to expand...

Exactly! How could it not mean that. My property is an extension of my life. I traded time (MY LIFE) for the money I paid for that property.

I have to side with BigDave and LT on this one.

Freedom1 I believe the phrase " in his or her presence" means that you can not go track the felon down after the fact you must be present during the commission of the felony not before or after.

"In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer" is a qualifier for "In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer"

I believe in legal jargon the comma between "In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer" and "in his or her presence" is in fact read as "AND" so what you really have in plain English is In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer and in his or her presence.

Dave this has gone too far, so in order to keep our adversarial relationship intact, "blow it out your ear", there we are back to normal, LOL

Make sure you read this properly. Some people are missing the breakup of the line and the meaning of the word "or"

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.

Well unless thhis affair results in an appelate or SCOWAS ruling stating that justifiable homicide is commited to stop a carjacking then I don't want to creatively interprept the statute to mean that if someone climbs in my PoS I can blow their ass off....


I find it amazing, if a cop had killed someone for this we'd be hearing at least 20 comments from 4 or 5 certain users about "thug pig costumed state agents birking some citizen in vioation of RCW yada yada violating our section 485 amendment right to whatever using force and imposing martial law and some sinister nazi type crap on our streets and we need to form a people's militia and bury our ham radios to protect freedom"

Ok maybe not thaaaattt extreme I mean I understand there was some sarcasm and hyperbole in what I said... still lets say that if a cop killed someone under these circumstances I have no doubt people wouldn't be as quick to defend the shooter if the shooter "refunded" some taxpayer money in the form of metals to the person driving away in the car...

Besides a police shooting in this case would've violated Garner v. Tennessee, and if an officer isn't justified in shooting him, I don't think a citizen will be found to be either.

Freedom1Man said:

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.
​

If I own the car, and said car is being stolen, then the felony is being committed upon me.

Click to expand...

It appears you are trying to break down the RCW with a desired outcome and it will never be understood correctly in doing so.

Through out Chapter 9A.16 the definition in .010 of Necessary and Reasonable applies that the amount of force was necessary and the amount of force used was reasonable, I am sure most have heard of the Reasonable Man Doctrine, if not do a little search on it.

There are requirements that must be met.
In Section 1 from the very beginning there is a requirement in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer and this must be present through out this entire section. Remember it says upon the Slayer, and in the commission of the felony.
When it says on your person it means your body or another with you, not your property or great personal injury that could be described as a disabling injury.

Same for Section 2, the requirements starting off it must be on your person not property but does allow for a felony being committed upon your dwelling or place of abode in which you are presently at. This has to do with arson, someone breaking in, crashing into the home to gain entry, busting a window to get in or someone gaining access to commit a felony upon you or another in the home, all still require the same level of force, that being necessary and reasonable.

Read through the RCW's and Jury Instructions as it will help give some incite and provide cites for them.

Use of force for the citizen is for self defense, not to become cops or vigilantes, you are not an enforcer or a gunslinger but a defender for yourself, family or those if you choose in your immediate vicinity.

I have sat down a couple of times and try to write out a guideline on when and how much force can be used, and well it is tough. I have been taught by some pretty great instructors and done research on my own and with others from attorneys and friends and the best way I can explain it, is look to yourself and ask, are you in fear for your life? will others do the same as you did knowing what you knew at the time and is it so serious that you will bet your life and your families life on your actions, as it may very be doing just that.

If you or 1245A Defender or anyone that want a serious conversation on this matter contact me in a PM, I have no longer have the patience for the 3 stooges to start their trolling activities.

SpyderTattoo said:

The thief knowingly puts his own life at risk. It would be safe for him to assume that sooner or later he will run across a victim that is armed.

Click to expand...

Well, unless the thief is a Liberal Democrat. Then it would be quite likely that he DIDN'T ever imagine anyone would ever be armed...

Difdi said:

Well, unless the thief is a Liberal Democrat. Then it would be quite likely that he DIDN'T ever imagine anyone would ever be armed...

Click to expand...

LOL, touche'

Interesting phrasing by the OP. Was it proper? Not legal.

I wouldn't have shot, that is my personal moral code and I value human life greatly.

I wasn't there though, and my default position is to judge the one defending property, no matter what arbitrary value put on the property, leniently. The thief put the value on his life, whether it be a 5 dollar item or a 20,000 dollar item. The thief committed the intrusion and invasion of someones person or effects, that invasion cannot be quantified by a dollar amount or whether or not the victim had insurance.

This is the problem with an overabundance of laws trying to define what we can or can't do. It's all boloney, we don't need all those laws.

What arrogance it is for some legislature, judge or prosecutor to "define" what is considered a felony to you on some arbitrary amount? 5 dollars to a poor person could mean a life saving meal, although it may be chump change to someone else. This is why we are suppose to have juries and a system of "common law" not this positive crap we have now.

Was the shooting "proper"?

Short answer, yes. The courts will argue the legality of it. But the question is "was it proper". I believe it was. Someone brought up the horse thieves getting hung deal. No they weren't hung because a man could die without his horse. Get that out of your head. Horse thieves were hung whether they stole a range cowboy's horse or some city dandy's. Usually they were hung by the town's folk or ranch hands. Horses and cattle were the most expensive personal property a man could have outside of land and they meant the ability to travel and work. Things that helped a man put food on the table. Stealing a mans horse directly correlates with stealing his car.

Personally I believe that the reason we have so much crime in our country is exactly because the people don't lynch car thieves/carjackers, rapists, child molesters and murderers. It's not just the certainty of punishment but also the severity of that punishment that helps prevent crime. If criminals understood that they had a 90% chance of getting killed while trying to rob the convenience store, they would be less likely to do it.

As far as this case goes we don't know if the thief tried to run the owner down after getting the vehicle out of the driveway. We don't know the exact circumstances that led to the owner pulling the trigger. But either way, per the law, we the people have the right to use force, up to and including lethal force, to stop a felony. You don't have to be shot, run over or violently raped in order to use that force. There doesn't have to be a solid, credible threat of great bodily harm or death to use that force. But if you see a felony in progress and you decide not to use force to stop it because you don't want to be responsible for taking a life, then you are enabling the crime to happen.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/mar/28/car-thief-unarmed-when-shot-police-say/

Gerlach told police that as the Suburban drove away, he saw the driver turn around and raise his arm. He saw what he thought was a gun and thought the thief was going to shoot at him, according to court records.

It looks like this guy is in thin ice.

Notice in the article they are quoting some if his Facebook posts, we all need to watch what we say in our blogs IMHO.

EMNofSeattle said:

Well unless thhis affair results in an appelate or SCOWAS ruling stating that justifiable homicide is commited to stop a carjacking then I don't want to creatively interprept the statute to mean that if someone climbs in my PoS I can blow their ass off....

Click to expand...

WHOA! Big difference between a carjacking and auto theft. If you are in your living room and your car is getting stolen, shooting the felon isn't wise. If you're in your vehicle and someone is trying to pull you out to steal your car (carjacking), justifiable force would be permitted since they are committing a felony against you.

NavyLCDR said:

Carjacking and theft of a vehicle are entirely two separate scenarios. Carjacking is forcefully taking an OCCUPIED vehicle from the person who is occupying it. Homicide is justified. Theft of a vehicle is the taking of an UNOCCUPIED vehicle. Homicide is not justified, but the use of force to affect a citizen's arrest would be.

Click to expand...

+1

Well....In Texas

I read a story, I will have to find it again, where a guy stole a plant off the front porch of someones house. The home owner shot the guy and no charges were filed....only in Texas

http://www.fark.com/comments/694432...ping-people-off-your-lawn-is-serious-business

http://www.ksat.com/news/Man-shot-w...plant/-/478452/8780548/-/1khqo2z/-/index.html

BigDave said:

It appears you are trying to break down the RCW with a desired outcome and it will never be understood correctly in doing so.

Through out Chapter 9A.16 the definition in .010 of Necessary and Reasonable applies that the amount of force was necessary and the amount of force used was reasonable, I am sure most have heard of the Reasonable Man Doctrine, if not do a little search on it.

SNIP

Click to expand...

I may yet PM you but I would rather have an open air discussion on this.

The law I cited talked about when it was legal to slay and for those who don't want to understand slay is another word for kill.

The section of law that I cited had nothing about "Necessary and Reasonable" force. You're referring to the non-felony crime section when it comes to "Necessary and Reasonable." I thought that car theft was still a felony.

RCW 9A.56.075
Taking motor vehicle without permission in the second degree.


(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.

(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony.

Click to expand...

Car theft is still a felony. I could check again but horse theft is a felony too.

sirpuma said:

Short answer, yes. The courts will argue the legality of it. But the question is "was it proper". I believe it was. Someone brought up the horse thieves getting hung deal. No they weren't hung because a man could die without his horse. Get that out of your head. Horse thieves were hung whether they stole a range cowboy's horse or some city dandy's. Usually they were hung by the town's folk or ranch hands. Horses and cattle were the most expensive personal property a man could have outside of land and they meant the ability to travel and work. Things that helped a man put food on the table. Stealing a mans horse directly correlates with stealing his car.

Personally I believe that the reason we have so much crime in our country is exactly because the people don't lynch car thieves/carjackers, rapists, child molesters and murderers. It's not just the certainty of punishment but also the severity of that punishment that helps prevent crime. If criminals understood that they had a 90% chance of getting killed while trying to rob the convenience store, they would be less likely to do it.

As far as this case goes we don't know if the thief tried to run the owner down after getting the vehicle out of the driveway. We don't know the exact circumstances that led to the owner pulling the trigger. But either way, per the law, we the people have the right to use force, up to and including lethal force, to stop a felony. You don't have to be shot, run over or violently raped in order to use that force. There doesn't have to be a solid, credible threat of great bodily harm or death to use that force. But if you see a felony in progress and you decide not to use force to stop it because you don't want to be responsible for taking a life, then you are enabling the crime to happen.

Click to expand...

Some good points. That is why I find it intriguing to discuss the subjective term of "proper" over the legality of it.

The wild west had a rise in crime and homicides after government came in. The government that told a society we have set the rules you must comply. Funny how the "anarchist" west was more civilized before "civilization" moved in. For many of the same reasons you just pointed out. People thought twice about doing things because there was no arbitrary/subjective price put on the value of what you could get shot at for stealing.

Freedom1Man said:

I may yet PM you but I would rather have an open air discussion on this.

The law I cited talked about when it was legal to slay and for those who don't want to understand slay is another word for kill.

The section of law that I cited had nothing about "Necessary and Reasonable" force. You're referring to the non-felony crime section when it comes to "Necessary and Reasonable." I thought that car theft was still a felony.

Car theft is still a felony. I could check again but horse theft is a felony too.

Click to expand...

Clearly you still reject the idea that "upon the slayer" is "upon the person", not property which is limited to your home or place of abode in section 2.


I offered the PM so when or if you reach an epiphany on this very subject, you could share or not, being of your choice.

This very subject is not about what I or you would like it to be, it is about the law and keeping yourself, your family safe before, during and after an incident.

While we still here about idealist attitudes and it should be this way and that way is all great in it's own context, but ask yourself how many of you can really afford the cost and struggle to push such issues through the legal system to SCOTUS to effect change? Most will be building blocks in support to effect change but how well can you support this change sitting in jail for making choices that likely will take away from your family that depend upon you for their daily needs?

Well,,

1245A Defender said:

If a bad man with a gun makes me give him my wallet, is he commiting a felony?
If the man tries to take it with him, is he Still in the process of commiting a felony?
If I shoot the man in the back, am I trying to stop the felony?
Hint,, wallet has 2500 bucks in it!

Click to expand...

Still wishing some folks would try to answer these short points.

Jeff Hayes said:

I have to side with BigDave and LT on this one.

Freedom1 I believe the phrase " in his or her presence" means that you can not go track the felon down after the fact you must be present during the commission of the felony not before or after.

"In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer" is a qualifier for "In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer"

I believe in legal jargon the comma between "In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer" and "in his or her presence" is in fact read as "AND" so what you really have in plain English is In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer and in his or her presence.

Dave this has gone too far, so in order to keep our adversarial relationship intact, "blow it out your ear", there we are back to normal, LOL

Click to expand...

Seems the words in the law back me up.

sirpuma said:

Short answer, yes. The courts will argue the legality of it. But the question is "was it proper". I believe it was. Someone brought up the horse thieves getting hung deal. No they weren't hung because a man could die without his horse. Get that out of your head. Horse thieves were hung whether they stole a range cowboy's horse or some city dandy's. Usually they were hung by the town's folk or ranch hands. Horses and cattle were the most expensive personal property a man could have outside of land and they meant the ability to travel and work. Things that helped a man put food on the table. Stealing a mans horse directly correlates with stealing his car.

Personally I believe that the reason we have so much crime in our country is exactly because the people don't lynch car thieves/carjackers, rapists, child molesters and murderers. It's not just the certainty of punishment but also the severity of that punishment that helps prevent crime. If criminals understood that they had a 90% chance of getting killed while trying to rob the convenience store, they would be less likely to do it.

As far as this case goes we don't know if the thief tried to run the owner down after getting the vehicle out of the driveway. We don't know the exact circumstances that led to the owner pulling the trigger. But either way, per the law, we the people have the right to use force, up to and including lethal force, to stop a felony. You don't have to be shot, run over or violently raped in order to use that force. There doesn't have to be a solid, credible threat of great bodily harm or death to use that force. But if you see a felony in progress and you decide not to use force to stop it because you don't want to be responsible for taking a life, then you are enabling the crime to happen.

Click to expand...

I quote this bcauseI think it is true,,, and sad. We coddle and protect the wicked law breakers, robbers, rapers and all other
types of felons.
They should be thinking that the law abiding citzen is both ready and willing to use leathal force to protect, property,
cars, tvs and wallets, where ever they are, all the time,,, and I mean Right NOW!!!

Freedom1Man said:

I may yet PM you but I would rather have an open air discussion on this.

The law I cited talked about when it was legal to slay and for those who don't want to understand slay is another word for kill.

The section of law that I cited had nothing about "Necessary and Reasonable" force. You're referring to the non-felony crime section when it comes to "Necessary and Reasonable." I thought that car theft was still a felony.


Car theft is still a felony. I could check again but horse theft is a felony too.

Click to expand...

If the govenment is so ready to make almost any law,, a felony to be used against the law abiding citizen,,
they should be ready to understand that We law abiding citizens should, could and can react to criminals,
by using force, up to and including leathal force to Stop felonious criminal activity against us!

sudden valley gunner said:

Some good points. That is why I find it intriguing to discuss the subjective term of "proper" over the legality of it.

The wild west had a rise in crime and homicides after government came in. The government that told a society we have set the rules you must comply. Funny how the "anarchist" west was more civilized before "civilization" moved in. For many of the same reasons you just pointed out. People thought twice about doing things because there was no arbitrary/subjective price put on the value of what you could get shot at for stealing.[/QUOTE]

I really do believe this is true. Criminals should be on notice, We Are Mad As HeII, And Were NOT Going To Take It Anymore!!!

Click to expand...

1245A Defender said:

1. If a bad man with a gun makes me give him my wallet, is he commiting a felony?
2. If the man tries to take it with him, is he Still in the process of commiting a felony?
3. If I shoot the man in the back, am I trying to stop the felony?
4. Hint,, wallet has 2500 bucks in it!

Click to expand...

The issue differs between the use of deadly force and lawful force.
Deadly Force requires that it be upon your person or place of abode, a property crime rising to the level of a felony allows one to use lawful force.

1. Yes as a clear and present threat against your person is imminent.
2. Yes but with out a imminent threat to your person
3. Yes but not with the authority of law.
4. Only matters in charges if filed by prosecutors.

You and a few others seem to ignore the issue of "upon the slayer" in an attempt to blur the lines of self defense.

I will keep saying that the use of force in Washington State provides for necessary and reasonable force be used to stop the threat, if the threat is about stealing a piece of property the law force can be used, if your person or place of abode is threatened then Deadly Force is authorized.

Go about your belief's that deadly force is authorized in protecting property other then your place of abode and I am sure we will be reading about you in the papers someday and not in a good light.


I am sure the gun man holds some of the same ideology a few here subscribe to, don't be one of them.