Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Question about Assault and Carrying.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    33

    Question about Assault and Carrying.

    I hope this is the right place to ask this question:

    To what extent are you obligated to take a beating from anyone in Washington state?

    Let's say you are at the store buying something. Someone doesn't like you, or whatever you are doing and mouths off you to. An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

    DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

    However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I cant help but be curious about this type of situation.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    As a rule of thumb, never do anything that requires you are armed. Conversely, never do anything because you happen to be armed.

    If you have 'fu, too' issues, I'd suggest you resolve them before deciding to leave the house again. That is unless you like paying lawyers lots of money.

    Getting an 'attitude' that because you are armed you have the right, ability or stupidity to be confrontational is the last thing you want to contemplate.

    HTH

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would think that you would be in some trouble in that situation .. per the law.

    One certainly does not have to take even a single punch (a single punch can kill).

    And shouting and yelling does not justify a punch in the face (otherwise I'd have a steel plate in my head by now).


    If it occurs, your best option is to remain silent and ask for your lawyer.

    Your query did not say shooting or killing the other person ... but IMO a gun is not a threatening device.

    So you pull a gun on someone who punched you .. I assume that this ends the conflict ... other guy calls cops .. they come and start asking you questions ... you gonna answer them? Not if you are smart.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

    An altercation of any sort removes the first element of innocence.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    ...An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

    DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

    However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I can't help but be curious about this type of situation...
    The "FU, too" is tricky, but not a game changer in many states.

    The person who attempts physical contact is the criminal.

    I will put a gun in my hand to avoid being punched, even the first time, if I have time. Not saying "FU, too" helps avoid that situation, though.

    I am not an expert in WA law.

    I do not consider unholstering to be a very last resort. That implies you must pull the trigger once drawn. Indeed, drawing earlier may prevent needing to pull the trigger. Being willing to pull the trigger if needed, yes.

    "No duty to retreat" is a good law because it can't be held against you if you don't take the time to look for an avenue of retreat (which is tactically unwise many times). But if you KNOW you have a safe retreat, you are an idiot if you don't take it. Paperwork sucks.
    Last edited by MAC702; 11-14-2013 at 04:41 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The "FU, too" is tricky, but not a game changer in many states.

    The person who attempts physical contact is the criminal.

    I will put a gun in my hand to avoid being punched, even the first time, if I have time. Not saying "FU, too" helps avoid that situation, though.

    I am not an expert in WA law.

    I do not consider unholstering to be a very last resort. That implies you must pull the trigger once drawn. Indeed, drawing earlier may prevent needing to pull the trigger. Being willing to pull the trigger if needed, yes.

    "No duty to retreat" is a good law because it can't be held against you if you don't take the time to look for an avenue of retreat (which is tactically unwise many times). But if you KNOW you have a safe retreat, you are an idiot if you don't take it. Paperwork sucks.
    Thanks all,

    We can take the gun out the equation all together.

    So if someone threatens you with bodily harm... "I'm gonna kick your....." , "I'm gonna kill you/your....." you have the right to preemptively defend yourself correct? Whether it be pulling out a first, night stick, mace, or gun?

    Once again, I DON'T go looking for trouble or excuses to "legally kill people." I just want to educate myself. Obviously if you shoot and kill someone, you better have a very very good reason to do so.

    I had a situation a few years ago in Seattle. I was leaving a restaurant with my wife and street thug came up to me and starting talking random stupid stuff... "Hey Meing, looks like to gots a good job man, whatcho do? " "You got any money man?...." meanwhile thug 2 and 3 uncrossed their arms and slowly walk towards us. They created a subtle choke point that we would have had to walk through. I was unarmed. I kept conversation brief yet polite, and said excuse me. The one wouldn't move. I got that feeling you get that something bad was about to happen. Like that moment just before a snake strikes at a mouse. At that moment other patrons left the restaurant and they backed off. I refuse to be that vulnerable again.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

    An altercation of any sort removes the first element of innocence.
    Though WA is not a traditional SYG state, we have no duty to retreat.

    That's what THIS nonsense was about: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...der-to-retreat

  8. #8
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    ...The one wouldn't move. I got that feeling you get that something bad was about to happen. Like that moment just before a snake strikes at a mouse. At that moment other patrons left the restaurant and they backed off. I refuse to be that vulnerable again.
    So what are you going to say 'some unarmed guys got in my face and asked impertinent questions, I became fearful and shot them all'?

    Don't be ridiculous - you go back into the restaurant and if you are worried you call 911.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw. An altercation of any sort removes the first element of innocence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Though WA is not a traditional SYG state, we have no duty to retreat. ]
    YOU do have a duty to read though.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    Going to quote a friend of mine. "Had a conversation about when you should throw a punch and my view drew a few puzzled looks. I believe you should never get physical unless you are willing to kill. My reason for this is if you do hit someone and they die, whether intended or not, can you justify to yourself there was nothing else you could do? So, the next time you feel like pushing someones face to the back of their head take a moment to think if you can live with knowing they are dead because of you."

    This is an excellent thought, imo, that resorting to violence at any level, with or without a firearm, could become fatal.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    YOU do have a duty to read though.
    I was concerned with relevant WA RCWs and caselaw in terms of how decisions are reached. Is there a WA case that was decided on those elements of law you described?

  12. #12
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    So what are you going to say 'some unarmed guys got in my face and asked impertinent questions, I became fearful and shot them all'?

    Don't be ridiculous - you go back into the restaurant and if you are worried you call 911.
    Just because he didn't see a gun on the thugs doesn't mean they were unarmed. He could have preemptively told the thugs that he was armed to cause them to back off. Of course I wouldn't want to be bluffing in a situation like that. I don't like to gamble. He's lucky they were deterred by more witnesses coming outside, otherwise he may have found out what they were armed with.

    And obviously no one is advocating "shooting them all" without indication that there is truly a threat.
    Last edited by tombrewster421; 11-14-2013 at 09:13 PM.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    You are allowed to use "that amount of force required to neutralize the threat. Deadly force is to be used as a last resort when all other lesser means cannot be or have been employed without success."
    First law of common sense.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 11-14-2013 at 10:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    So if someone threatens you with bodily harm... "I'm gonna kick your....." , "I'm gonna kill you/your....." you have the right to preemptively defend yourself correct? Whether it be pulling out a first, night stick, mace, or gun?
    Don't even think the word preemption. A preemptive strike stops a threat from materializing before there is a threat. Self-defense is justified at the moment it happens or it is not justified at all. If you try to claim self-defense based on what someone might do but have shown no signs of doing yet, you will be going to prison.

    Words are words, and you use your own words to defend against them. If you draw a dangerous weapon because someone is trash talking at you, you are the aggressor. There has to be something more than "that guy said mean things to me" to justify that level of force.

  15. #15
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    I hope this is the right place to ask this question:

    To what extent are you obligated to take a beating from anyone in Washington state?

    Let's say you are at the store buying something. Someone doesn't like you, or whatever you are doing and mouths off you to. An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

    DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

    However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I cant help but be curious about this type of situation.
    You can take some guidance here, but there are many threads that have discussed this. Your question is "do you have to take another punch?" and "at what point are you justified in pulling your gun?"

    Somewhere in here it seems to me that the "perp" needs to be committing a felony level assault to meet any threshold that you are describing to pull a weapon. If you engage in the "FU", "Oh yeah, yo' momma" "bring it on then" argument, you could be in the soup as having "escalated" the situation. The open carry pamphlet has this:

    "2. Unlawful carrying (RCW 9.41.270) occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon “in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm. If there is a dispute, for example, and one person, while angry, displays the weapon to scare the other person."

    ....if he is just mouthing off, you'll have to exercise some judgment on how it is escalating. I try to stay out of someone's swing radius or will move to do so...If that means I'm backing up, I'm not "retreating", I'm just working to get a tactical advantage in an escalating situation so that I can figure out what's next.

    An open (verbal) threat of "I'm going to kick your ass" may not meet the felony assault threshold unless a weapon or threat of great bodily harm is there to meet the requirement in WA, Someone saying "I'm gonna choke the living crap out of you".... may under 036.021.g, but it may be hard to prove unless they actually grab you. "give me your wallet or I'm gonna cut you and take your women" may meet the threat threshold, especially if he has his hands in his hoodie and he outweighs you by 30 or 40lbs and has you by 10 years.....but then again, he may just be holding up his pants.....anyway, for what it's worth...IAJAAL

    You'll have to make the call under duress...good luck with that.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.011


    RCW 9A.36.011

    Assault in the first degree.


    (1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

    (a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

    (b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

    (c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

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

    First, second, fourth degree assaults are all felonies...

    More guidance:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

    RCW 9A.16.020

    Use of force — When lawful.

    (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;
    Last edited by jt59; 11-15-2013 at 02:19 AM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    YOU do have a duty to read though.
    Someone may think that retreating is what they must do, instead of what they should try to do, depending on the circumstances. Besides, common law ain't so common anymore.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The common law elements of self-defense are an effective heuristic for the confounded

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Someone may think that retreating is what they must do, instead of what they should try to do, depending on the circumstances. Besides, common law ain't so common anymore.
    Common law is the basis law of all American states law, law that confounds the heuristic of the four simple elements of self-defense.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    and then there are these events

    For the OP to consider...it doesn't get any easier however,

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ol-fist-fight/
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Common law is the basis law of all American states law, law that confounds the heuristic of the four simple elements of self-defense.
    Even Louisiana?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    You are allowed to use "that amount of force required to neutralize the threat. Deadly force is to be used as a last resort when all other lesser means cannot be or have been employed without success."
    First law of common sense.
    This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?
    By legislators note police are to be more restrained.

    Sadly we this is often ignored.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?
    It is supposed to apply to police MORE STRICTLY than to us "commoners" as per RCW u can look it up. The LAC has more latitude in the use of deadly force than does LEO. (hahahahaha what a bunch of BS) Too bad it does not work that way.

  23. #23
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by flienlow View Post
    This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?
    No, of course common sense doesn't apply to police. At least not all of them anyway.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

    Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 3.]

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    You are allowed to use "that amount of force required to neutralize the threat. Deadly force is to be used as a last resort when all other lesser means cannot be or have been employed without success."
    First law of common sense.
    One should never consciously use deadly force. The only place Deadly force is appropriate is on the battle field IMHO. If you are attacked one only attempts to stop the threat using the minimum force to keep your aggressor from continuing or escalating further. If the force you use happens to kill your aggressor then so be it, I personally would never set out to kill anyone, morally and legally that is not something I would do.

    Taking a punch does not justify using a pistol unless there is a severe disparity of force involved in the situation.

    These what if scenarios are really a waste of time in most cases. For example there is a big difference between punching a 90 year old woman and punching the right tackle from the Nebraska football team.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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