re public disclosure re the Spanaway shooting

Is anyone in or near Tacoma, and with a wish to stop in and fill out the paperwork for a public disclosure request for the video of the shooting in the kim case?

It appears that the Pierce county prosecutor has summarized the case against Kim while neglecting to mention, discuss or summarize anything harmful that the shoplifter had done which probably raises the shoplifter's conduct to a felony, and it currently appears that Kim was using force or the threat of force to

"arrest one who has committed a felony and deliver him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;"

Also, there are different degrees of felony. There is felony A and B and C etc.

What is it when a shoplifter reaches for and attempts to grab or steal one's weapon? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that attempting to grab the firearm or knife of another person should be felony A or at least felony B. Grabbing and stealing a loaded firearm or dangerous knife from a person is somewhere near unpremeditated murder and manslaughter in how serious it is. Grabbing for and attempting to steal a loaded firearm from another person in the process of effecting an arrest is murderous conduct and likely to lead to someone being shot by the nature of things.

Also, as for RCW 9A.16.020, would you folks propose or support adding some words to the law so that it is clear it includes the use of deadly force?

zaitz said:

Is anyone in or near Tacoma, and with a wish to stop in and fill out the paperwork for a public disclosure request for the video of the shooting in the kim case?
<snip>

Click to expand...

Yes there is...its YOU.

davidmcbeth said:

Yes there is...its YOU.

Click to expand...

I am in Tacoma about once a year. The last time was several months ago and I went to a gun and knife show. I didn't know what I was doing and I arrived at 3 or 5 on a Sunday afternoon when they were packing things up.

I have since ordered some knives online.

It seems pretty bad to me that Pierce county has not released the video to the public, while verbally accusing the fellow . . . and the news media just taking the word of the prosecutors as to what has happened, it seems, without asking many questions.

zaitz said:

I am in Tacoma about once a year. The last time was several months ago and I went to a gun and knife show. I didn't know what I was doing and I arrived at 3 or 5 on a Sunday afternoon when they were packing things up.

I have since ordered some knives online.

It seems pretty bad to me that Pierce county has not released the video to the public, while verbally accusing the fellow . . . and the news media just taking the word of the prosecutors as to what has happened, it seems, without asking many questions.

Click to expand...

Prosecutor's offices are subject to FOIA requests ...

See? You can go to Tacoma.

You might be able to get records via email too.

I do know PC prosecutor mark Lindquist got on KVI and told Kirby Wilbur that he made the decision to prosecute Kim before even seeing all angles of the video, plus its unclear if there is audio or not. Some possible exculpatory scenarios include the perp verbally telling Kim that his friends will come and kill Kim and his family if he doesn't let him go, which might account for Kim briefly holstering his sidearm but then changing his mind. Who knows. All we know for sure it that the store had been hit multiple times, and on a previous occasion the robber tried to kill Kim's wife and almost succeeded. Kim might have easily concluded that if he let the perp go it would lead to his death or his wife's death in the future. Not exactly a legal scenario but the "fear of death" would be present.

Alpine said:

I do know PC prosecutor mark Lindquist got on KVI and told Kirby Wilbur that he made the decision to prosecute Kim before even seeing all angles of the video, plus its unclear if there is audio or not. Some possible exculpatory scenarios include the perp verbally telling Kim that his friends will come and kill Kim and his family if he doesn't let him go, which might account for Kim briefly holstering his sidearm but then changing his mind. Who knows. All we know for sure it that the store had been hit multiple times, and on a previous occasion the robber tried to kill Kim's wife and almost succeeded. Kim might have easily concluded that if he let the perp go it would lead to his death or his wife's death in the future. Not exactly a legal scenario but the "fear of death" would be present.

Click to expand...

What it basically comes down to is whether or not the right of citizens arrest for people who commit violent felonies in your presence includes the ability to use the threat of deadly force or deadly force to enforce the detention or arrest. If not, there is no such thing as citizens arrest unless the guy wishes to cooperate with you because he can leave at most any time. If citizen's arrest for a violent felony includes the right to use deadly force, then Kim is justified.

I will file an initiative with the sec of state to clarify the matter . . . and if any of you folks and the 2nd amendment foundation wish to put it on the ballot, you folks will have to help a lot.

z

zaitz said:

What it basically comes down to is whether or not the right of citizens arrest for people who commit violent felonies in your presence includes the ability to use the threat of deadly force or deadly force to enforce the detention or arrest. If not, there is no such thing as citizens arrest unless the guy wishes to cooperate with you because he can leave at most any time. If citizen's arrest for a violent felony includes the right to use deadly force, then Kim is justified.

I will file an initiative with the sec of state to clarify the matter . . . and if any of you folks and the 2nd amendment foundation wish to put it on the ballot, you folks will have to help a lot.

z

Click to expand...

something about being shot in the back as the BG was leaving and kim was no longer in any danger...kinda falls under the homicide category...not citizen's arrest but rather...homicide.

ipse

solus said:

something about being shot in the back as the BG was leaving and kim was no longer in any danger...kinda falls under the homicide category...not citizen's arrest but rather...homicide.

Click to expand...

It would depend on whether the guy was under arrest. No arrest? Murder without doubt. Under arrest? Thornier problem -- force is lawful to enforce a citizen's arrest in Washington, but you have to actually inform the guy he's under arrest, not just open fire. Even stopping someone from fleeing from arrest, it's problematic. Stopping a fleeing murderer? Almost certainly lawful. Stopping a fleeing bar brawler? No way in hell. Stopping a fleeing robber? Gray area and subject to much interpretation. It would probably come down to intent and personal belief -- punishing him for daring to rob you is a very different motive than stopping him from robbing anyone else.

Even if it were justified on the criminal law side, he (or his family) can still sue and could win the lawsuit.

Difdi said:

It would depend on whether the guy was under arrest. No arrest? Murder without doubt. Under arrest? Thornier problem -- force is lawful to enforce a citizen's arrest in Washington, but you have to actually inform the guy he's under arrest, not just open fire. Even stopping someone from fleeing from arrest, it's problematic. Stopping a fleeing murderer? Almost certainly lawful. Stopping a fleeing bar brawler? No way in hell. Stopping a fleeing robber? Gray area and subject to much interpretation. It would probably come down to intent and personal belief -- punishing him for daring to rob you is a very different motive than stopping him from robbing anyone else.

Even if it were justified on the criminal law side, he (or his family) can still sue and could win the lawsuit.

Click to expand...

in the Bernard Goetz case, he won on the criminal side and lost on the civil side. Juror said that the fact that he shot twice was a factor in the decision. Afterwards, the standard in self-defense in criminal cases changed in New York to become much more favorable to the defense of Goetz. Jurors now are supposed to be able to consider the background of the defendant in determining if fear and apprehension is reasonable.

Difdi said:

It would depend on whether the guy was under arrest. No arrest? Murder without doubt. Under arrest? Thornier problem -- force is lawful to enforce a citizen's arrest in Washington, but you have to actually inform the guy he's under arrest, not just open fire. Even stopping someone from fleeing from arrest, it's problematic. Stopping a fleeing murderer? Almost certainly lawful. Stopping a fleeing bar brawler? No way in hell. Stopping a fleeing robber? Gray area and subject to much interpretation. It would probably come down to intent and personal belief -- punishing him for daring to rob you is a very different motive than stopping him from robbing anyone else.

Even if it were justified on the criminal law side, he (or his family) can still sue and could win the lawsuit.

Click to expand...

you know, perhaps my gore fuuu is weak, but i am unable to find a single statute in RCW discussing nor concerning citizens arrest...

so i sought other sources and came up with this one:
quote:
Washington (Official Source Unavailable)
*We could not find an official Washington citizen’s arrest statute. We called their legislative information center, and their law library, and both informed us that the statute does not exist. A 2005 report from the Department of Licensing confirms this. However, the law librarian and the report note that case law protects citizens arrests in the state. In State v. Gonzales and Guijosa v. Walmart Stores the Washington Court of Appeals opined that a person could arrest another person within the state for a misdemeanor that equaled a breach of the peace and was committed in the citizen’s presence. A person can also arrest for felonies, according to State v. Malone, State v. Miller, and State v. Gonzales. In addition, there is a WA Attorney General’s 1957 opinion on citizen’s arrest here.


http://www.solutions-institute.org/tools/citizens-arrest-laws-by-state/

so what is it you good members are rant'g about sue this can's arrest that or if it was a felony or isn't or or...

could someone please produce a RCW discussing a position on citizens arrest.

ipse

zaitz said:

What it basically comes down to is whether or not the right of citizens arrest for people who commit violent felonies in your presence includes the ability to use the threat of deadly force or deadly force to enforce the detention or arrest. If not, there is no such thing as citizens arrest unless the guy wishes to cooperate with you because he can leave at most any time. If citizen's arrest for a violent felony includes the right to use deadly force, then Kim is justified.

I will file an initiative with the sec of state to clarify the matter . . . and if any of you folks and the 2nd amendment foundation wish to put it on the ballot, you folks will have to help a lot.

z

Click to expand...

A lot of this may hinge on the video and what it does or doesn't show. Another possibility is the Gerlach strategy of arguing the perp appeared to be preparing a Parthian Shot, which is possible to argue if the video is too low quality and it cannot be ruled out even when enhanced. It would also presume there was no video of Min Kim fully body frisking the perp so therefore Kim wasn't totally sure the perp was unarmed at the time.

Alpine said:

A lot of this may hinge on the video and what it does or doesn't show. Another possibility is the Gerlach strategy of arguing the perp appeared to be preparing a Parthian Shot, which is possible to argue if the video is too low quality and it cannot be ruled out even when enhanced. It would also presume there was no video of Min Kim fully body frisking the perp so therefore Kim wasn't totally sure the perp was unarmed at the time.

Click to expand...

1. Given: BG came in and allegedly assaulted storekeep at counter
2. Given: storekeep broke off alleged assault causing BG to flee
3. Given: storekeep shot BG in the back at the exit several feet away from the counter
4. Given: BG succumbed at the scene after being shot in the back
5. hypothesizing: storekeep still upset wive laid up after having gotten shot 5 weeks previously by BG and wanted to send a clear message (read as revenge)
6. hypothesizing: storekeep might have not kept his mouth shut and proved #5 or made other incriminating comments to the nice LEs.

ya you wait for the video...

a fact of life, if you use deadly force, even if the circumstances are cut & dry, completely obvious to HelenK, as well as you have a universal film crew shooting the whole scene for posterity ~ you WILL/COULD/MIGHT be arrested and tried for homicide and you are strictly at the mercy of the DA.

ipse