Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Interesting article in The Olympian...

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    http://www.theolympian.com/breakingn...ry/446506.html

    Man arrested after fighting, taking gun from Grand Mound area homeowner
    The Olympian

    A man arrested near Grand Mound after allegedly fighting with a homeowner and stealing his handgun was booked into the Thurston County Jail as "John Doe" because he refuses to cooperate with police.
    The man was reportedly standing on the homeowner's property on the 19900 block of Grand Mound Way Southwest at about 1:30 p.m. and ranting about five men hurting a woman at the home before the homeowner confronted him with a .44-caliber Magnum handgun Sunday, Thurston County sheriff's Lt. Chris Mealy said today.
    The homeowner said the man became combative and at one point, picked up a stick and charged at him. The man reportedly wrestled the gun away from the homeowner and started to walk away from the property.
    The homeowner said the man later cocked the gun and threatened the homeowner, who then walked away and called police.
    Deputies took the man into custody, and he was booked on suspicion of theft of a firearm and second-degree assault while armed. Other charges also are being considered, Mealy said.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    At first blush this is a 'keep your gun in your pants 'til you're ready to use it' story. (Playing off "This is my rifle and this is my gun. This one's for fightin' and this one for fun.") But, I wonder if the property owner got better police response for having given up his gun than using it? If you want your car stolen in SC found by the police, tell 'em you keep your BUG in it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Another case of the idiot gets a gun and thinks it is a magic wand that will scare off the bad guy. Trouble is if you pull the gun, it isn't a magic wand, and you have to have the balls to pull the trigger. The crazy rushed him with a stick in hand, appropriate responds...BANG, problem solved. To many people watch too many movies and TV and don't understand that if you won't pull the trigger you can die from your own gun. The home owner got lucky this time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    This is why you don't pull it until you're ready to use it. He's lucky to be alive.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    The crazy rushed him with a stick in hand, appropriate responds...BANG, problem solved.
    Just think how many others the problem would be solved for if this individual was shot. No expense to the taxpayers for incarceration, trial, more incarceration (more appropriately just probation), other taxpayers that will eventually become "victims" of this paskudniak (a yiddish term for the bag that is hung behind a horse to keep the "emissions" from hitting the street).

    Simple equation. Weapon=Threat=Fear=Justification for SD=BANG!
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastside of the Lake, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.

    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.

    Why should his punishment for pointing a gun, be any more than the Home owner's punishment for pointing and brandishing a gun. Shouldn't they both be prosecuted for their stupidity?

    If John Doe was attacking the homeowner, then I could see the HOdrawing and firing. However, free from further clarification, I suspect that HO used the weapon to intimidate, thus when Johndisarmed him, it was how a reasonable man might act. (that or run quickly away from the gun)

    Again, I don't know the particulars, but if A was to visit B's property, and B took out a weapon to threaten A before asking him to leave, then I feel A is justified in disarming B. B had the means to kill him, and A had to take action to save his life. Now why did A go to B's property? Because B and his friends were beating women? Was B stopping something he witnessed?

    I don't agree with A going back and brandishing after the fact, but it's not (potentially) reallydifferent from B's crime the first time around.

    Curious to know why he's charged with assault, and not the homeowner. And if the revolver was a DA, it didn't really matter if it was cocked or not. Lastly, if one disarms his assailant,are they to be charged with theft too? Even if they bring it back and hand it to police?

    DoCitizens have rights to arrest people committing crimes they witness?

    Was John Doe acting in that capacity to protect another Citizen?

    Just trying to see if there's another viewpoint.











  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    user2050 wrote:
    Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.

    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.

    Why should his punishment for pointing a gun, be any more than the Home owner's punishment for pointing and brandishing a gun. Shouldn't they both be prosecuted for their stupidity?

    If John Doe was attacking the homeowner, then I could see the HOdrawing and firing. However, free from further clarification, I suspect that HO used the weapon to intimidate, thus when Johndisarmed him, it was how a reasonable man might act. (that or run quickly away from the gun)

    Again, I don't know the particulars, but if A was to visit B's property, and B took out a weapon to threaten A before asking him to leave, then I feel A is justified in disarming B. B had the means to kill him, and A had to take action to save his life. Now why did A go to B's property? Because B and his friends were beating women? Was B stopping something he witnessed?

    I don't agree with A going back and brandishing after the fact, but it's not (potentially) reallydifferent from B's crime the first time around.

    Curious to know why he's charged with assault, and not the homeowner. And if the revolver was a DA, it didn't really matter if it was cocked or not. Lastly, if one disarms his assailant,are they to be charged with theft too? Even if they bring it back and hand it to police?

    DoCitizens have rights to arrest people committing crimes they witness?

    Was John Doe acting in that capacity to protect another Citizen?

    Just trying to see if there's another viewpoint.









    You are forgetting that you have the right to defend your property in this state. Hence no charged.

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    user2050 wrote:
    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.










    When you are comitting a crime, Self Defense can not be claimed.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastside of the Lake, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    It's obvious he committed a crime when he returned with the pistol and pointed it.

    What was the first crime? IF he was not "trespassed" he merely was an agitated man complaining about the homeowner beating women. That's ranting to me, ranting is not necessarily assault,IF there was no verbal assault, no physical assaultand no request to leave, how is drawing justified in the first place? That's pure brandishing on the homeowners part. His life or property were not in jeopardy.

    Thearticle doesn't imply the Perphad weapons,or that heassaulted the HO, but he was drawn on first, then disarmed the Homeowner, when he used a stick to do so.

    So if the draw against youis not "justified" are you able to defend your self by physically removing the pistol from theone who presented it in a threatening manner?

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I think the article left a lot of key info out that we would ask. It was "breaking news" when I saw it. I'll keep an eye out for follow ups.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    user2050 wrote:
    It's obvious he committed a crime when he returned with the pistol and pointed it.

    What was the first crime? IF he was not "trespassed" he merely was an agitated man complaining about the homeowner beating women. That's ranting to me, ranting is not necessarily assault,IF there was no verbal assault, no physical assaultand no request to leave, how is drawing justified in the first place? That's pure brandishing on the homeowners part. His life or property were not in jeopardy.

    Thearticle doesn't imply the Perphad weapons,or that heassaulted the HO, but he was drawn on first, then disarmed the Homeowner, when he used a stick to do so.

    So if the draw against youis not "justified" are you able to defend your self by physically removing the pistol from theone who presented it in a threatening manner?
    It's called trespassing and from the report of screaming and hollering, disturbing the peace, but the trespass is enough. If the property owner or tenent tells you to go you have no right to self defense because you are trepassing, youare committing a crimeand if you charge the owner he has ever right to shoot you dead. The courts have be very clear on this. Also the home owner does not have to back up one step to avoid your sorry ass, it's his and he can defend it. The owner does not have to wait to be assaulted, all he needs isto feel threated with bodily harm for himself or others.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    user2050 wrote:
    Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.

    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.
    John Doe has no legal rights in this case since he was trespassing on another person's property. If I ask him to leave and he doesn't I have every right to pull a handgun if I feel that I am endangered. Doesn't actually matter if I am endangered, just that I feel endangered. If John Doe then attacks me with a stick I can shoot him. John Doe always had the option of walking away. Since it is my property I have every right to be there and don't have to walk away.

    Not saying that the homeowner did the right thing by pulling a gun but if I felt the need to pull a gun in defense of myself and my property and then was subsequently attacked I would have pulled the trigger. No further questions asked.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    The Olympian wrote:
    A man arrested...was booked into the Thurston County Jail as "John Doe" because he refuses to cooperate with police.
    A perfect example of why police do not need one's ID. They've got the body. Doesn't matter what name goes with that body. If they have probable cause, they can just grab the body. Hell, sometimes they'll even grab it without probable cause. Just ask Chet and Rich.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    user2050 wrote:
    Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.

    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.
    John Doe has no legal rights in this case since he was trespassing on another person's property. If I ask him to leave and he doesn't I have every right to pull a handgun if I feel that I am endangered. Doesn't actually matter if I am endangered, just that I feel endangered. If John Doe then attacks me with a stick I can shoot him. John Doe always had the option of walking away. Since it is my property I have every right to be there and don't have to walk away.

    Not saying that the homeowner did the right thing by pulling a gun but if I felt the need to pull a gun in defense of myself and my property and then was subsequently attacked I would have pulled the trigger. No further questions asked.
    Unfortunately in this state you are mistaken. Trespassing alone is only a gross misdemeanor.

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

    RCW 9A.16.020 outlines the use of force. It only states that we are authorized to use force to detain some one who has trespassed. It does hardly qualify for the use of deadly force. Remember you are only allowed to utilize the minimal amount of force required to detain someone. A firearm used to detain someone for tresspassing is far beyond a reasonable use of force unless the situation falls under 9A.16.050

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    9A.16.050 outlines justifiable homicide. Again tresspassing does not fall within the scope of it.

    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    user2050 wrote:
    Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.

    John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.
    John Doe has no legal rights in this case since he was trespassing on another person's property. If I ask him to leave and he doesn't I have every right to pull a handgun if I feel that I am endangered. Doesn't actually matter if I am endangered, just that I feel endangered. If John Doe then attacks me with a stick I can shoot him. John Doe always had the option of walking away. Since it is my property I have every right to be there and don't have to walk away.

    Not saying that the homeowner did the right thing by pulling a gun but if I felt the need to pull a gun in defense of myself and my property and then was subsequently attacked I would have pulled the trigger. No further questions asked.
    Unfortunately in this state you are mistaken. Trespassing alone is only a gross misdemeanor.

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

    RCW 9A.16.020 outlines the use of force. It only states that we are authorized to use force to detain some one who has trespassed. It does hardly qualify for the use of deadly force. Remember you are only allowed to utilize the minimal amount of force required to detain someone. A firearm used to detain someone for tresspassing is far beyond a reasonable use of force unless the situation falls under 9A.16.050

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    9A.16.050 outlines justifiable homicide. Again tresspassing does not fall within the scope of it.
    You seem to have forgotten that the crazy attacked with a stick and since they owner didn't shoot, the crazy ended up with his gun and could easily have killed him. That qualifies for fear of harm or life.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Bear, keeping in mind Steve's caution that this is a brief, poorly written, incomplete article--it nevertheless does make it sound as if the stick attack came in response to having the property owner's gun pointed at him. If so, then while the "crazy" might have no grounds for a self-defense claim, neither can the property owner claim that a subsequent stick attack justified his prior threat of deadly force against someone committing a misdemeanor.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Bear, keeping in mind Steve's caution that this is a brief, poorly written, incomplete article--it nevertheless does make it sound as if the stick attack came in response to having the property owner's gun pointed at him. If so, then while the "crazy" might have no grounds for a self-defense claim, neither can the property owner claim that a subsequent stick attack justified his prior threat of deadly force against someone committing a misdemeanor.
    Exactly my thoughts as well.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    Bear, keeping in mind Steve's caution that this is a brief, poorly written, incomplete article--it nevertheless does make it sound as if the stick attack came in response to having the property owner's gun pointed at him. If so, then while the "crazy" might have no grounds for a self-defense claim, neither can the property owner claim that a subsequent stick attack justified his prior threat of deadly force against someone committing a misdemeanor.
    Exactly my thoughts as well.
    Sorry, as a trespasser he must leave ASAP when told to, when he doesn't the owner can and usually will feel threated and the gun is approprate. The trespasser has to right to defend himself on the owners property. Quit twisting the law, it took a long time to get the courts to admit you have the right to defend your property, yourself and family and not have to give ground to the BG. Don't trespass and the owner won't be pointing a gun at you. Some of you amaze me. If I state a position you will twist logic and the law to disagree with me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    You have the right to defend your property against a felony. Trespassing is a gross misdemeanor at best. I am not twisting the law, it is very simple and black and white. You need to read it as it was written and not the way you want it to read Bear.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    You have the right to defend your property against a felony. Trespassing is a gross misdemeanor at best. I am not twisting the law, it is very simple and black and white. You need to read it as it was written and not the way you want it to read Bear.
    The micro second the home ownerfeel threated,he has theright to shoot, trespass or not. The trespasser has to leave, NOW, not after he charges the home owner to disarm him, which would be assault I believe, so there is your felony.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    You have the right to defend your property against a felony. Trespassing is a gross misdemeanor at best. I am not twisting the law, it is very simple and black and white. You need to read it as it was written and not the way you want it to read Bear.
    The micro second the home ownerfeel threated,he has theright to shoot, trespass or not. The trespasser has to leave, NOW, not after he charges the home owner to disarm him, which would be assault I believe, so there is your felony.
    You are mostly correct Bear. We are allowed to prevent an attempted felony with deadly force but in the incident we are talking about in this thread the homeowner had no authority to brandish his pistol. At the time he did that the crime was simply trespassing which, as you stated the perp needs to leave. If he does not an shows no agression the only thing you can lawfully do is to go hands on and detain him.

    I agree with the police not arresting the homeowner, especially since after the display of the weapon the perp charged him with a weapon of his own, but if the case is assigned to an overzealous prosecutor that has a anti-2a stance it would not suprise me if the home owner is charged with a violation of 9.41.270.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    You have the right to defend your property against a felony. Trespassing is a gross misdemeanor at best. I am not twisting the law, it is very simple and black and white. You need to read it as it was written and not the way you want it to read Bear.
    The micro second the home ownerfeel threated,he has theright to shoot, trespass or not. The trespasser has to leave, NOW, not after he charges the home owner to disarm him, which would be assault I believe, so there is your felony.
    You are mostly correct Bear. We are allowed to prevent an attempted felony with deadly force but in the incident we are talking about in this thread the homeowner had no authority to brandish his pistol. At the time he did that the crime was simply trespassing which, as you stated the perp needs to leave. If he does not an shows no agression the only thing you can lawfully do is to go hands on and detain him.

    I agree with the police not arresting the homeowner, especially since after the display of the weapon the perp charged him with a weapon of his own, but if the case is assigned to an overzealous prosecutor that has a anti-2a stance it would not suprise me if the home owner is charged with a violation of 9.41.270.
    If the home owner felt threatened is all it takes to bring the pistol into play. Crazy guys running around my yard screaming and holler about God knows what, qualifies as far as I can see to feel threatened. Crazies scare me mainly cause you can never know what they will do next, as this guy proved by charging a guy with a gun in his hand. Having dealt with a number of mentally unstable persons over the years, including a family member, there is nothing scarier,

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.270:
    ...
    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
    ...
    (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
    There are exceptions in .270 for being in your abode (not on your property, but actually in your house, tent, etc.) and for unlawful display to protect against "presently threatened unlawful force by another."

    Note it doesn't saw it must be threatened unlawful force that creates grave bodily injury or death, just that it is presently threatened and unlawful. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but this appears to give an option of drawing without shooting in a "pre-deadly force" scenario. An example is what people suggested in Stealth Potatoe's thread about being robbed, where several said they would put hand on gun, which would normally be unlawful display. I am not a lawyer.

    Given this, I would have to agree with Bear, that all it takes is the homeowner to reasonably feel threatened to display his weapon.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    If a crazy, incoherent person is standing on my property, or place of business (or God forbid, my boat) I would probably feel threatened. Now I have land in the boonies in Alaska, but the crazies have to fly in, so probably not a problem. At work, I can't pack, so I always look for a way out. On the boat. Screw it, that is such close quarters, with really only one quick way out, I am going to feel VERY threatened, and introduce said crazy to my gun. Hopefully the brief introduction will be enough to make the person leave me a lone. Come any closer, or try and get in the boat, I'm going to pull the trigger, because I will be for all intents and purposes, cornered.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sean-1286 wrote:
    RCW 9.41.270:
    ...
    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
    ...
    (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
    There are exceptions in .270 for being in your abode (not on your property, but actually in your house, tent, etc.) and for unlawful display to protect against "presently threatened unlawful force by another."

    Note it doesn't saw it must be threatened unlawful force that creates grave bodily injury or death, just that it is presently threatened and unlawful. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but this appears to give an option of drawing without shooting in a "pre-deadly force" scenario. An example is what people suggested in Stealth Potatoe's thread about being robbed, where several said they would put hand on gun, which would normally be unlawful display. I am not a lawyer.

    Given this, I would have to agree with Bear, that all it takes is the homeowner to reasonably feel threatened to display his weapon.
    A person trespassing is far from a presently threatened unlawful force. Besides this RCW there is an unlawful use of force RCW that must be looked at, it is in another post above. Yelling or not it is not a force if he is just trespassing. If you are going to draw it had better fall within the scope of 9A.16.050 and 9A.16.020 because you are now using deadly force. It is unlawful to use a gun as an intimidation piece as we all know, but if the threat is removed by the sole display of a firearm then you are OK providing you had the right to use deadly force.

    As far as just being afraid Bear, you had better think again. You need to be afraid and the actor needs to have the means to do you bodily harm or cause your death for you to lawfully use your firearm. A trespasser does not meet the requirements for .050 but it does for .020 as far as detainment. That does not mean he has the reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony or that he is committing a felony.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

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
  •