Inserting your reply comments into the quoted text to make it difficult to respond to you, Solus? How utterly "clever" of you. If you need to pull tricks like that to win an argument, it simply makes it more clear that your argument fails.
IPSElease provide a cite of RCW stating that.
Citations of that have already been provided, and you ignored them. Simply googling for it with the acronym RCW and the statute number will pull up the full text. But since you apparently disregarded it as an invalid citation before:
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.
IPSE: and yet so many BGs use toy guns...insanely to be sure...
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is, Solus. Please explain and/or provide a citation?
IPSE: did you intentionally fail to put in the word "deadly" in your statement? if it is justified...RCW cite please.
I didn't need to include the word deadly, since it was obvious what I was talking about. It only becomes non-obvious when you separate that sentence from the rest of the post. Other people in this thread have already cited the law -- and you ignored it. Why do you keep asking for citations that have already been made? But just in case you'll read it this time:
RCW 9A.56.065
Theft of motor vehicle.
(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.
(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.
IPSE: the RCW code referencing use of deadly force in WA state has been discussed, to reiterate once again:
9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(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.
Note the words 'reasonably effective'. What would you consider to be a reasonably effective method other than force to prevent someone from stealing your car right in front of the owner? Once they have drawn and used a weapon to prevent the car owner's interference, what would you consider to be a 'reasonably effective' method to prevent the theft other than use of force?
IPSE: i stated, killing/wounding/maiming someone in self defence is different significantly judicially than using deadly force by killing someone to preclude theft of your property especially since 9a.16.010 defines necessary....oh and yes, OJ was found not guilty after a year long trial then found guild in civil court...
And yet, despite people posting citations that illustrate that you are flat out wrong about this, you still persist in this. In Washington state, the victim of a felony is allowed to use force in resisting the felony. If deadly force is necessary to resist the felony, then deadly force is lawful.
you may project all you want to what you believe is my comfort level is towards a great many things...so i will end this by saying you are are unequivocally right Difdi, but just remember those that read what you pontificate out here on this public forum, who just might not be able to discern the nuances of your blanket statements to use deadly force to defend their property or grasp the term 'necessary force' as defined by state statue ~ without knowing nor understanding the judicial consequences...
Pontificate? You pontificated first, so why exactly do you say that as if it were a bad thing? If it is a bad thing, wouldn't that mean you were not only wrong too, but wrong first?
I cited the law, in a state where laws that have meanings other than the plain English meaning are null and void. Where in that did I make a blanket statement about the law, without nuances? The only blanket statement I've made is that you are mistaken about what the law says. And that part is simply true, no nuances required.
so yes, difdi...please continue advocating individuals use deadly force to stop theft of property or other 'felonies' from occurring when they are under no threat whatsoever to be killed or subjected to grave bodily injury as well as continue advocating quote: Yes, you will be tried for homicide. And then you will be acquitted. unquote where there is no dire threat against the person stopping the theft or the felony.
So yes, solus, please continue advocating that individuals not obey the law because you don't understand the law. No, wait, don't do that. All I've advocated here is that people obey the law. Your descent into passive-aggression doesn't change that.
then act surprised when they get judicially jam'd up with an exclamation stating ~ the DA can't do that!!! oh, i'm sorry...isn't there a thread out on the WA side of the house talking about an individual having their gun taken away & who must petition the courts to get possession of it back ~ even tho they weren't charged with a crime? Wait was that you Difdi, screaming in anguish now... WAIT THE COURTS CAN'T DO THAT...they did Difdi and w/o state or case law to hang a hat on.
Wow. Just...wow. Words fail me. Why must you tell such transparent lies, when all anyone must do to see they are lies is scroll up?
please remember, my initial statement, after i pointed out a cite which stated & as collaborated by WA's DOL, there is no RCW regarding citizen's arrest.
No, there is no RCW. That's the entire point here. There is no law saying citizen's arrest exists in Washington. Yes, we knew that before you pointed it out. But that's also the key issue that keeps evading your comprehension: You can't find any law prohibiting it, or you'd have been able to cite it by now. Despite your profound discomfort at living in a country that values freedom, the fact remains that anything not explicitly prohibited by statute is lawful. If there is no law in Washington prohibiting a citizen's arrest, then the matter defaults to common law which absolutely DOES permit citizen's arrest.
lease provide a cite of RCW stating that.
