Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Possibly OT? laws and self defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member Coyote_VS_ACME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bummertown
    Posts
    37

    Possibly OT? laws and self defense

    I have been checking out the site "Rationality Rebooted" from time time and I often see this mentioned in a self defense situation with say, multiple perps. business owner / homeowner is targeted by multiple perps wherein one looses his turn on the mortal coil and the others flee. However, the perps when caught can be charged with the death of the other perp because they were jointly comitting a crime.

    My question is if there is something similar in WA state.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    It is called a felony murder law.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I'm not a lawyer, so maybe Rapgood could weigh in here but it sounds like you're describing the "felony murder rule" However I am not a lawyer so you should ask a lawyer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

    United States[edit source | editbeta]
    As of August 2008, 46 states in the United States have a felony murder rule,[9] under which felony murder is generally first degree murder. In 24 of those states, it is a capital offense.[9] When the government seeks to impose the death penalty on someone convicted of felony murder, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted so as to impose additional limitations on the state power. The death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant is merely a minor participant and did not actually kill or intend to kill. However, the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the underlying felony and "exhibits extreme indifference to human life".
    The Model Penal Code does not include the felony murder rule, but allows the commission of a felony to raise a presumption of extreme indifference to the value of human life.[10][11] Thus, the felony murder rule is effectively used as a rule of evidence.
    Most states recognize the merger doctrine, which holds that a criminal assault cannot serve as the predicate felony for the felony murder rule.[12]
    By individual jurisdiction
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Maryland[13]
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    District of Columbia
    Federal
    Last edited by Alpine; 08-20-2013 at 08:12 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    RCW 9A.32.030
    Murder in the first degree.


    (1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:

    (a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

    (b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person; or

    (c) He or she commits or attempts to commit the crime of either (1) robbery in the first or second degree, (2) rape in the first or second degree, (3) burglary in the first degree, (4) arson in the first or second degree, or (5) kidnapping in the first or second degree, and in the course of or in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants: Except that in any prosecution under this subdivision (1)(c) in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, it is a defense that the defendant:

    (i) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission thereof; and

    (ii) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article, or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury; and

    (iii) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article, or substance; and

    (iv) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.

    (2) Murder in the first degree is a class A felony.

    [1990 c 200 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.32.030 .]

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    I know I have seen on the news here in WA where a home owner killed a BG during a home invasion, and the accomplice is charged with murder as an accessory.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    As others have noted above, it is the "felony murder rule." And the answer to the OP's question is, "Yes."
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Coyote_VS_ACME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bummertown
    Posts
    37
    Thanks all 8-)

Posting Permissions

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