• 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.

Interesting article in The Olympian...

sv_libertarian

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

http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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!
 

user2050

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8
Location
Eastside of the Lake, ,
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

user2050

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8
Location
Eastside of the Lake, ,
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?
 

sv_libertarian

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

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top