Interesting article in The Olympian...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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,

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;

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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;

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Your scenario may very well fit the requirements because of the compact quarters and absolutely would if he tried to board your boat. Trespassing with the intent to commit a crime against property or person is burglary, which is a felony.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

sean-1286 wrote: 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.

Click to expand...

Ever seen a guy get beaten to death by someone using their bare hands? If he wasn't a quadripalegic then he had the means to do you bodily harm. If this guy is acting crazy I will assume that he is probably on drugs and I will assume that he therefore has the means to do me bodily harm. Am I supposed to wait until he actually pounds my head against the pavement to be sure he can use his hands? Of course not. I am in fear of my safety, I am lawfully allowed to use my firearm.

There should be only two possible endings to the case here. The fellow attacked with a stick and you shot him. The jury will hear that you asked him to leave the property and he attacked you. Case closed.

The fellow left the property. No reason to shoot him and no reason to have a jury.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

joeroket wrote:

sean-1286 wrote: 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.

Click to expand...

Ever seen a guy get beaten to death by someone using their bare hands? If he wasn't a quadripalegic then he had the means to do you bodily harm. If this guy is acting crazy I will assume that he is probably on drugs and I will assume that he therefore has the means to do me bodily harm. Am I supposed to wait until he actually pounds my head against the pavement to be sure he can use his hands? Of course not. I am in fear of my safety, I am lawfully allowed to use my firearm.

There should be only two possible endings to the case here. The fellow attacked with a stick and you shot him. The jury will hear that you asked him to leave the property and he attacked you. Case closed.

The fellow left the property. No reason to shoot him and no reason to have a jury.

Click to expand...

There have been a few cases in Wa were a person used deadly force against another who used his hands as a weapon. 2 that I know of were ruled justified because of the immense size difference between the two and one was ruled unjustified and prosecuted because the size difference was very slight. While I agree that there should only be two possible endings the jury in ending #1 would also hear that the homeowner came outside then displayed a firearm before the trespasser fought him with a stick. And no it is not case closed. Jurors have made some really odd decisions in the past and will do so in the furture.

If you can show me and RCW that allows you to use a firearm against a person that is trespassing either as a defensive weapon or as an intimidation tactic then I will agree with you. Besides that we will have to agree to disagree.