the use of force bill 2016

zaitz · Jan 30, 2016

I assume that the use of force bill is being put forward in the legislature partly on the request of or by persons who wish to help the Seattle police have greater guidance in their use of force, given the DOJ instructions and the fact that some people in the spd are not happy with the decrees or whatever has been somewhat decided. Note that the use of force bill also preempts any local attempts to restrict the allowable use of force.

A few things of interest . . . use of deadly force is justified to arrest or apprehend a person who is committing or has committed a felony . . . Robbery is a felony. I actually think it should be ok to use deadly force to stop a guy who has been doing robberies . . . or is threatening a robbery or has made the threats that often constitute the beginning of a robbery.

My question is why this guidance on deadly force use seems to be restricted to protecting law enforcement officers and whether or not regular individuals have the same power to resist robbers and/or arrest or apprehend them with means including deadly force.

There is this and there is this . . .

A south Austin store owner shot a suspected get-away driver after an attempted robbery. Police say the shooting appears to be justified.

and

JEFFERSON COUNTY - One person was shot and killed in Littleton Sunday morning following a robbery attempt.

The incident happened in the 5400 block of South Taft Court. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office says the homeowner was trying to sell an item on Craigslist when the two men who responded tried to rob him. The homeowner was tied up but broke free and confronted the suspects with a gun.

One man was shot while driving away and he crashed into a house after losing control of the car. He died a short time later. . .

LITTLETON, Colo. -- The victim of an armed robbery in his home could face criminal charges.

The homeowner shot and killed a man Sunday morning who came into his home in the 5400 block of South Taft Court after responding to a Craigslist ad.

The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office are weighing the evidence in deciding whether charges are appropriate.

***

I would like the bill, especially with the following changes:
1) members of the public have the same legal rights to use deadly force as the law enforcement officers . . .
and
2) you have the right to use deadly force to stop persons from fleeing armed robberies.

So, the next question is whether or not you have the right to use deadly force to stop, arrest or apprehend persons who did or began unarmed robberies.

"Your money or your life," but with no gun or knife visible. "Your cell phone, wallet or camera or your life" with no gun or knife visible, etc.

Also, the other question is how one may allegedly legally react to attempted or threatened unarmed assault.

solus · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
I assume that the use of force bill is being put forward in the legislature partly on the request of or by persons who wish to help the Seattle police have greater guidance in their use of force, given the DOJ instructions and the fact that some people in the spd are not happy with the decrees or whatever has been somewhat decided. Note that the use of force bill also preempts any local attempts to restrict the allowable use of force.

A few things of interest . . . use of deadly force is justified to arrest or apprehend a person who is committing or has committed a felony . . . Robbery is a felony. I actually think it should be ok to use deadly force to stop a guy who has been doing robberies . . . or is threatening a robbery or has made the threats that often constitute the beginning of a robbery.

My question is why this guidance on deadly force use seems to be restricted to protecting law enforcement officers and whether or not regular individuals have the same power to resist robbers and/or arrest or apprehend them with means including deadly force.

There is this and there is this . . .

A south Austin store owner shot a suspected get-away driver after an attempted robbery. Police say the shooting appears to be justified.

{quote: Surveillance video shows Mitchell entering the store and pointing a pistol at the cashier. Mitchell left the scene after obtaining cash from the register.

After Mitchell left, the cashier grabbed a pistol of his own and chased after him. The cashier said he saw Mitchell running parallel to a dark-colored SUV. The cashier shot at Mitchell and the SUV. Mitchell got into the SUV and drove off.

The Austin Police Department was called and secured the area. Another call came in from a person, later identified as Brown, who said he had been shot while walking to the bus stop.

Police determined his injuries were consistent with injuries a driver of the suspect vehicle would have suffered. unquote.

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/crim...shot-south-austin-attempted-robbery/79098786/ }

and

JEFFERSON COUNTY - One person was shot and killed in Littleton Sunday morning following a robbery attempt.

The incident happened in the 5400 block of South Taft Court. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office says the homeowner was trying to sell an item on Craigslist when the two men who responded tried to rob him. The homeowner was tied up but broke free and confronted the suspects with a gun.

One man was shot while driving away and he crashed into a house after losing control of the car. He died a short time later. . .

LITTLETON, Colo. -- The victim of an armed robbery in his home could face criminal charges.

The homeowner shot and killed a man Sunday morning who came into his home in the 5400 block of South Taft Court after responding to a Craigslist ad.

The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office are weighing the evidence in deciding whether charges are appropriate.

{quote: ... but the investigation could result in gun charges against the homeowner.... While the homeowner was robbed and restrained at gunpoint, legal experts say he’s not necessarily protected by self-defense statutes such as Colorado’s "make my day" law, which allows residents the right to shoot and kill a harmful intruder — but not beyond their front or back doors. unquote. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colo-man-shot-craigslist-robber-charged-article-1.2511408}

***

I would like the bill, especially with the following changes:
1) members of the public have the same legal rights to use deadly force as the law enforcement officers . . .
and
2) you have the right to use deadly force to stop persons from fleeing armed robberies.

So, the next question is whether or not you have the right to use deadly force to stop, arrest or apprehend persons who did or began unarmed robberies.

"Your money or your life," but with no gun or knife visible. "Your cell phone, wallet or camera or your life" with no gun or knife visible, etc.

Also, the other question is how one may allegedly legally react to attempted or threatened unarmed assault.

both incidents you presented the individual was not in fear of their life or facing great bodily injury...they went from victim to premeditated armed aggressor...it shan't fair well judicially i am afraid.

at the moment to answer your question(s)
1. no citizens (state specific) for the most part do not have the same legal rights as nice LEs to use deadly force as they have qualified immunity ~ period.
2. no citizens (state specific) do not have the right to use deadly force to stop persons "from fleeing'...anything. citizens use of deadly force centers around the premise the citizen needs to stop the IMMEDIATE threat or perceived threat of bodily harm, death or in the case of NC sexual assault. (in NC the statutes are clear you shot and wound/kill you will be charged and "if a person of reasonable firmness" (normally the DA) determines, based on the situational investigation, deadly force was justified or not. if they do you are off the hook for the incident.

so you want citizens chasing after alleged BGs, shooting wildly at vehicles or BGs to stop them over replaceable property OR when no crime as actually taken place when someone Attempts to rob someone w/o evidence of threat to the person's life or serious bodily harm to the victim...this should work out really well.

finally, with the exception of NC, citizen arrests (state specific) are permissible...not sure i want to be charged with kidnapping or federal wiretapping charges and personally would rather be a good witness.

ipse

btw, you did notice the CO man should be worried about prosecution ?

sudden valley gunner · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
I would like the bill, especially with the following changes:
1) members of the public have the same legal rights to use deadly force as the law enforcement officers . . .
and
2) you have the right to use deadly force to stop persons from fleeing armed robberies.

So, the next question is whether or not you have the right to use deadly force to stop, arrest or apprehend persons who did or began unarmed robberies.

"Your money or your life," but with no gun or knife visible. "Your cell phone, wallet or camera or your life" with no gun or knife visible, etc.

Also, the other question is how one may allegedly legally react to attempted or threatened unarmed assault.

No way! I'd rather they pay attention to the legislative note in the use of force RCW that recognized cops have a limited use of force and the civilians a much broader one.

davidmcbeth · Jan 30, 2016

In my state, the use of force is the same for cops and citizens in the performance of making arrests.

Looks like in WA they want to expand the use of force for police beyond the normal common law application of the use of deadly force (which pretty much is in favor of police now).

Many crimes are committed by kids and young adults-I don't think that granting police "Judge Dredd" authority to kill certain criminals is a wise move.

Next it will be expanded to stops for speeding tickets.

Freedom1Man · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
I assume that the use of force bill is being put forward in the legislature partly on the request of or by persons who wish to help the Seattle police have greater guidance in their use of force, given the DOJ instructions and the fact that some people in the spd are not happy with the decrees or whatever has been somewhat decided. Note that the use of force bill also preempts any local attempts to restrict the allowable use of force.

A few things of interest . . . use of deadly force is justified to arrest or apprehend a person who is committing or has committed a felony . . . Robbery is a felony. I actually think it should be ok to use deadly force to stop a guy who has been doing robberies . . . or is threatening a robbery or has made the threats that often constitute the beginning of a robbery.

My question is why this guidance on deadly force use seems to be restricted to protecting law enforcement officers and whether or not regular individuals have the same power to resist robbers and/or arrest or apprehend them with means including deadly force.

There is this and there is this . . .

A south Austin store owner shot a suspected get-away driver after an attempted robbery. Police say the shooting appears to be justified.

and

JEFFERSON COUNTY - One person was shot and killed in Littleton Sunday morning following a robbery attempt.

The incident happened in the 5400 block of South Taft Court. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office says the homeowner was trying to sell an item on Craigslist when the two men who responded tried to rob him. The homeowner was tied up but broke free and confronted the suspects with a gun.

One man was shot while driving away and he crashed into a house after losing control of the car. He died a short time later. . .

LITTLETON, Colo. -- The victim of an armed robbery in his home could face criminal charges.

The homeowner shot and killed a man Sunday morning who came into his home in the 5400 block of South Taft Court after responding to a Craigslist ad.

The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office are weighing the evidence in deciding whether charges are appropriate.

***

I would like the bill, especially with the following changes:
1) members of the public have the same legal rights to use deadly force as the law enforcement officers . . .
and
2) you have the right to use deadly force to stop persons from fleeing armed robberies.

So, the next question is whether or not you have the right to use deadly force to stop, arrest or apprehend persons who did or began unarmed robberies.

"Your money or your life," but with no gun or knife visible. "Your cell phone, wallet or camera or your life" with no gun or knife visible, etc.

Also, the other question is how one may allegedly legally react to attempted or threatened unarmed assault.

You must be new to Washington.

When I get home, I will cite the law showing that you can slay a fleeing felon.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

zaitz · Jan 30, 2016

solus said:
both incidents you presented the individual was not in fear of their life or facing great bodily injury...they went from victim to premeditated armed aggressor...it shan't fair well judicially i am afraid.

at the moment to answer your question(s)
1. no citizens (state specific) for the most part do not have the same legal rights as nice LEs to use deadly force as they have qualified immunity ~ period.
2. no citizens (state specific) do not have the right to use deadly force to stop persons "from fleeing'...anything. citizens use of deadly force centers around the premise the citizen needs to stop the IMMEDIATE threat or perceived threat of bodily harm, death or in the case of NC sexual assault. (in NC the statutes are clear you shot and wound/kill you will be charged and "if a person of reasonable firmness" (normally the DA) determines, based on the situational investigation, deadly force was justified or not. if they do you are off the hook for the incident.

so you want citizens chasing after alleged BGs, shooting wildly at vehicles or BGs to stop them over replaceable property OR when no crime as actually taken place when someone Attempts to rob someone w/o evidence of threat to the person's life or serious bodily harm to the victim...this should work out really well.

finally, with the exception of NC, citizen arrests (state specific) are permissible...not sure i want to be charged with kidnapping or federal wiretapping charges and personally would rather be a good witness.

ipse

btw, you did notice the CO man should be worried about prosecution ?

After December 7th 1941, the US was not in imminent danger of attack on december 8th. The fact of the attack at Pearl Harbor meant that the us and Japan were at war and we should kill or disable them and not wait for the next attack or until the next attack was imminent.

The man in Colorado is, according to the news reports at risk of prosecution, but, at least as far as his neighbors are concerned, he acted properly . . . and maybe a lot of the neighbors are happy that is not them tomorrow who is being busted into and busted up and tied up by a man with a history of armed robberies . . .

zaitz · Jan 30, 2016

sudden valley gunner said:
No way! I'd rather they pay attention to the legislative note in the use of force RCW that recognized cops have a limited use of force and the civilians a much broader one.

where may I read the legislative note to that effect and what exactly does it say?

solus · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
After December 7th 1941, the US was not in imminent danger of attack on december 8th. The fact of the attack at Pearl Harbor meant that the us and Japan were at war and we should kill or disable them and not wait for the next attack or until the next attack was imminent.

The man in Colorado is, according to the news reports at risk of prosecution, but, at least as far as his neighbors are concerned, he acted properly . . . and maybe a lot of the neighbors are happy that is not them tomorrow who is being busted into and busted up and tied up by a man with a history of armed robberies . . .

so you get threatened, walk away from the event, and you then pick up a firearm and hunt the perps down shooting at them in public, without concern for life and limb of those citizens ~ noncombatants if you will, not involved in your initial incident. i see this ending quite well for all concerned...

which neighbour is paying for damage resulting from the nice individual running outside after getting his gun to attack the bad guys:

oh wait, the BG has insurance wouldn't he...or better yet, since it is the shooter's vehicle their insurance will cover the damage to the house and car ~ including detailing the vehicle to remove the blood stains.

ipse

Difdi · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
One man was shot while driving away and he crashed into a house after losing control of the car. He died a short time later. . .

This one says it all, really. While driving away. That's not defense of your life, that's extrajudicial execution/vigilantism. You're supposed to get the courts involved with punishing criminals, not lynch them.

zaitz said:
After December 7th 1941, the US was not in imminent danger of attack on december 8th. The fact of the attack at Pearl Harbor meant that the us and Japan were at war and we should kill or disable them and not wait for the next attack or until the next attack was imminent.

The flaw in your argument is that there was no overarching authority above Japan and the United States in 1941. The US couldn't call the World Police and have Japan arrested, tried for the crime and punished if convicted. Generally, nations still can't do things like that. So war is a valid response to an act of war. But you are not a sovereign nation and neither is someone who commits a crime against you, and both you and they are subject to the consequences of breaking the law.

davidmcbeth · Jan 30, 2016

FYI .. in CT one can kill a fleeing murderer even if not a threat to the shooter.

The WWII analogy? Not a very good example.

Grapeshot · Jan 30, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
FYI .. in CT one can kill a fleeing murderer even if not a threat to the shooter.
--snipped--

This ain't [strike]Kansas[/strike] Connecticut Toto.

solus · Jan 30, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
FYI .. in CT one can kill a fleeing murderer even if not a threat to the shooter.

The WWII analogy? Not a very good example.

putting my hand to cover my mouth is surprise...

ya'l got a site for that their statement?

ipse

zaitz · Jan 30, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
FYI .. in CT one can kill a fleeing murderer even if not a threat to the shooter.

The WWII analogy? Not a very good example.

A man breaks into the homes of you . . . or of A, B C and you, and beats you, points a handgun at you and rapes your wife, steals what money and gold and silver there is

and starts to run or drive off . . . in his car, your car or in a stolen vehicle . . .

and by some fluke you are still able and moving and have a handgun nearby he did not take . . .

you can't shoot him because he is not a threat to your life or body anymore, although he is just finishing his little armed robbery, rape and aggravated assault . . .

The guy shot down in Colorado who was shot by the man he had assaulted and robbed was on offense #whatever . . .

Here in Seattle there are assaults which take place downtown or on Capitol hill . . . at times a single blow is enough to knock a guy out and maybe 2 to 5 such blows lands him in the hospital and sometimes a single blow can kill . . .

some of the guys who start the bullying attacks begin with a small and minor push to see how someone will react . . .4

The guy who has robbed and/or raped and/or stolen is not subject to a higher authority unless and until he is caught and he is obviously not acting like he regards himself as subject to a higher authority.

But I admit that I am not infallible and do not always know everything that God or infallible persons would know or understand . . . but shooting armed robbers who are in the process of fleeing seems like a necessary thing at times.

solus · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
A man breaks into the homes of you . . . or of A, B C and you, and beats you, points a handgun at you and rapes your wife, steals what money and gold and silver there is

and starts to run or drive off . . . in his car, your car or in a stolen vehicle . . .

and by some fluke you are still able and moving and have a handgun nearby he did not take . . .

you can't shoot him because he is not a threat to your life or body anymore, although he is just finishing his little armed robbery, rape and aggravated assault . . .

The guy shot down in Colorado who was shot by the man he had assaulted and robbed was on offense #whatever . . .

Here in Seattle there are assaults which take place downtown or on Capitol hill . . . at times a single blow is enough to knock a guy out and maybe 2 to 5 such blows lands him in the hospital and sometimes a single blow can kill . . .

some of the guys who start the bullying attacks begin with a small and minor push to see how someone will react . . .4

The guy who has robbed and/or raped and/or stolen is not subject to a higher authority unless and until he is caught and he is obviously not acting like he regards himself as subject to a higher authority.

But I admit that I am not infallible and do not always know everything that God or infallible persons would know or understand . . . but shooting armed robbers who are in the process of fleeing seems like a necessary thing at times.

shades of bronson's death wish...shudder

ipse

zaitz · Jan 30, 2016

solus said:
shades of bronson's death wish...shudder

ipse

New york state law on the police power to shot those who are fleeing . . .

Section 35.30 of the state penal code says that a police officer "in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody … except that deadly physical force may be used for such purposes" under specific conditions.

One of them is when "the offense committed" by the fleeing person is "a felony … involving the use or attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person" which Sweat's original crime was. Deadly force is also permitted when the person has committed "kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime." Escape in the first degree is what Sweat apparently committed when he broke out of prison.

***

Police in New york have the power to use deadly force when pursuing, arresting or attempting to arrest those believed guilty of several heinous crimes, but you and I do not?

***

Also, for individuals who are not police persons . . . from the new york law . . .

may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.30

Are you alleging that there is been serious problems in New York as a result of the individual right to use deadly force to arrest fleeing robbers or murderers?

Also, a police persons shot David Sweat who was unarmed but who had previously committed murder and then broke out of prison . . . are you suggesting it would have been better for the officer to not have shot Sweat?

z

Grapeshot · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
--snipped-- . . are you suggesting it would have been better for the officer to not have shot Sweat?

Are you suggesting that it was better that the officer shot Sweat?

No other means to regain custody?

sudden valley gunner · Jan 30, 2016

zaitz said:
where may I read the legislative note to that effect and what exactly does it say?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

NOTES:
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."

solus · Jan 30, 2016

ZAITZ, your lack of intellectual integrity is showing as you failed to quote the whole paragraph 4 and only provided partial information on what you felt suited your purpose.

not playing, so enjoy...

ipse

edited to eliminate Mr. Hayes confusion, thus assuring my comment is directed to the appropriate individual.

Jeff Hayes · Jan 30, 2016

solus said:
your lack of intellectual integrity is showing as you failed to quote the whole paragraph 4 and only provided partial information on what you felt suited your purpose.

not playing, so enjoy...

ipse

Who you talking to willis?

solus · Jan 30, 2016

sudden valley gunner said:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

NOTES:
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."

RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

therefore, WA's JQPublic is not acting on their own to go after the BG but under the nice LE's command AND in their aid.

ipse

the use of force bill 2016

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member