• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What I understand about Ocing in WA

S

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Alwayspacking wrote:
Oh also I forgot. We are to allowed to carry a pistol in a place that sales alcohol, but we are not allowed to enter places that do not allow persons under the age of 21… I am not sure we can drink would someone give me the answer to that? I would say we can't drink under arms
Click to expand...
You can drink while armed as long as you remain sober. Personally I don't do it. Even if I am eating. It sends an odd message at the least IMHO, and I don't want any sort of impairment when I am packing.
EDIT: Post 1000! WooHoo!!
 
just_a_car

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Alwayspacking wrote:
Oh also I forgot. We are to allowed to carry a pistol in a place that sales alcohol, but we are not allowed to enter places that do not allow persons under the age of 21… I am not sure we can drink would someone give me the answer to that? I would say we can't drink under arms
Click to expand...
You can drink while armed as long as you remain sober. Personally I don't do it. Even if I am eating. It sends an odd message at the least IMHO, and I don't want any sort of impairment when I am packing.
EDIT: Post 1000! WooHoo!!
Click to expand...

+1. If I'm going out to a party or a bar, I leave my gun in my car or at home. I don't drink even one beer when I'm OC'ing just on principle. It is against the law to carry a gun while intoxicated, though. So, as Steve said, if you stay sober, you're legal, but remember the legal limit is 0.08% and having two glasses of wine in 30 minutes can put you over that limit.
 
D

dlnwoody

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
The Old men back in the days of my youth would tell me to make sure he is dead..... That has always been in my mind that is I shoot someone I should hope I kill him. I know not to execute the guy.
Click to expand...

No. You shoot to stop the threat ASAP. The best way to do this may be center of mass or head. Your goal is not to kill but to stop.
Click to expand...
As someone told me when I was teaching a class. You do not shoot to kill. You use as much force necessary to stop the threat. I alway practice two to the chest one to the head.
 
TechnoWeenie

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

IIRC, you can't be sued for defending yourself.



RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

legal jeopardy can be civil or criminal.


As I interpret it, I can accidently shoot a GG while defending myself from a BG and as long as the actions I took were reasonable, I can't be sued, OR charged, for the actions I took.


Ie. you shoot a guy that is attempting to rob you, but you had 'super penetrating' bullets, and it went through him and into a person standing behind him. You can't be sued or arrested for shooting the other person, since you were acting in defense of yourself.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
 
R

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
IIRC, you can't be sued for defending yourself.



RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

legal jeopardy can be civil or criminal.


As I interpret it, I can accidently shoot a GG while defending myself from a BG and as long as the actions I took were reasonable, I can't be sued, OR charged, for the actions I took.


Ie. you shoot a guy that is attempting to rob you, but you had 'super penetrating' bullets, and it went through him and into a person standing behind him. You can't be sued or arrested for shooting the other person, since you were acting in defense of yourself.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say you can't be sued or arrested and tried. Just that there is a defense. You may have to prove in court that your actions were "reasonable".
 
I

Izzle

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
157
Location
, ,
imported post

Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
IIRC, you can't be sued for defending yourself.



RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

legal jeopardy can be civil or criminal.


As I interpret it, I can accidently shoot a GG while defending myself from a BG and as long as the actions I took were reasonable, I can't be sued, OR charged, for the actions I took.


Ie. you shoot a guy that is attempting to rob you, but you had 'super penetrating' bullets, and it went through him and into a person standing behind him. You can't be sued or arrested for shooting the other person, since you were acting in defense of yourself.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say you can't be sued or arrested and tried. Just that there is a defense. You may have to prove in court that your actions were "reasonable".
Click to expand...
Correct. ANYONE and sue ANYONE for ANYTHING the question is if it will hold up in court
 
P

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

Izzle wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
IIRC, you can't be sued for defending yourself.



RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

legal jeopardy can be civil or criminal.


As I interpret it, I can accidently shoot a GG while defending myself from a BG and as long as the actions I took were reasonable, I can't be sued, OR charged, for the actions I took.


Ie. you shoot a guy that is attempting to rob you, but you had 'super penetrating' bullets, and it went through him and into a person standing behind him. You can't be sued or arrested for shooting the other person, since you were acting in defense of yourself.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say you can't be sued or arrested and tried. Just that there is a defense. You may have to prove in court that your actions were "reasonable".
Click to expand...
Correct. ANYONE and sue ANYONE for ANYTHING the question is if it will hold up in court
Click to expand...

Simply put, any process that places you in a position of having to defend yourself against a charge in court (civil or criminal) places you IN JEOPARDY.;)
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

Alwayspacking wrote:
Oh also I forgot. We are to allowed to carry a pistol in a place that sales alcohol, but we are not allowed to enter places that do not allow persons under the age of 21… I am not sure we can drink would someone give me the answer to that? I would say we can't drink under arms
Click to expand...

You can drink, but a police officer can confiscate your firearm if you "appear intoxicated", and to what level is not defined by the law. It is not a crime, however, to carry while drinking.

I don't condone drinking while carrying. The reason is that alcohol effects your judgement before anything else, and while you are still fine to drive after 1 beer, your judgement is impaired, even if it is only a slight impairment. What is dangerous about that is not getting arrested for carrying a gun. What is dangerous is if you do have to shoot anyone, you don't want ANYTHING in your system that would call that decision into question. A prosecutor will ream you over even a 0.01.

So I don't recommend drinking while carrying. Not because you can't trust yourself, but because if you have to defend yourself, your actions will be scrutinized, and that alcohol could take you from a justified shooting to a manslaughter charge.
 
M

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
IIRC, you can't be sued for defending yourself.
Click to expand...

Please realize that I am not an attorney, but I do have a law degree, I know how to research case law, and I have just done a search of RCW 9A.16.110, to see if this statute disallows civil suits due to the "legal jeopardy" clause.

I don't believe it does. In the 14 cases that came up when searching WA state case law, nothing was said about preventing civil lawsuits. The question has never come up, so as far as I am concerned, it is unsettled law, (in otherwords, we need a test case).

The closest was a case where the shooter, (who was found not guilty by reason of self-defense) was sued by the family of the deceased. The shooter asked his homeowners insurance company to cover the case, they declined, based on the fact that the shooting was an intentional act, and the policy did not cover intentional acts.

My question, is if the shooter had protection against civil law suits under RCW 9A.16.110, then he would not have had to ask his insurance company to defend the suit.

Unless someone else has a case cite to the contrary, I would NOT expect that RCW 9A.16.110 prevents someone from being sued.

In addition, RCW 9A.16.110, only kicks in after a jury has found you not guilty by reason of self-defense. At that time, you may request reimbursement of your legal costs, you still have to bear the burden of your legal defense until that point.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, (don't shoot the messenger, please).
 
M

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Marty, again, your wisdom on the subject is not only welcome, but appreciated.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I am very willing to listen to a differing opinion, as I have heard this interpretation before, but never had anyone confirm it.
 
M

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

expvideo wrote:
He could have just had a crappy lawyer, too.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. OTOH, I would expect that if the insurance companies lawyers had knew about this law, (and one would expect they were reasonably competent), they would have helped the guy get the suit dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top