Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Can anyone tell me where to begin looking for WA State laws regarding what are commonly referred to as "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground"? I don't mind doing my own reading, but I'm not sure which codes deal with this, so I don't really know where to start.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    I saw a good tread somewhere here on OCDO about each state's Castle Law. Washington doesn't have one. It had links to each code for them too. Sorry I cant seem to find it.

    RCW 9A.16.050Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.


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

    Post imported post

    I thought it was a State Supreme Court decision that gave us theoption to not back down anymore.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Take a look at instruction 22 in this PDF.

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pd...;id=481accd331

    I believe it started in this case.

    State v.
    Johnson, 124 Wn.2d 57, 77, 873 P.2d 514 (1994)

    Hope that gives you some direction.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote:
    Take a look at instruction 22 in this PDF.

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pd...;id=481accd331

    I believe it started in this case.

    State v.
    Johnson, 124 Wn.2d 57, 77, 873 P.2d 514 (1994)

    Hope that gives you some direction.
    Look on page 4 for instruction 22.

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Aug 2006
    Sixteen states have adopted "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow an individual to use deadly force to protect a residence, place of business, vehicle or other property. The laws that originated with the National Rifle Association and got first life in Florida in 2005 have now spread widely through the South and Midwest.
    In the last legislative sessions, 21 states brought the bills up for consideration and 15 states adopted statutes.
    This year so far Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Washington have enacted statutes.

    Legal use of deadly force was already case law in Georgia and Washington.
    Arizona defeated a bill under opposition from prosecutors and police chiefs who argued the legislation would give gang members carte blanche to kill without fear of legal retribution.
    Five states failed to enact laws only because the sessions ended before both chambers of the legislature could complete action.
    Law enforcement groups in Missouri made arguments similar to Arizona police without success, claiming a deadly force statute would help gang members avoid prosecution.
    The Mississippi Prosecutors Association also opposed the law on grounds that it would be a boon for gang members.
    But Mississippi Senate Judiciary Chairman Charlie Ross, who sponsored the bill, said, "This allows lawabiding citizens the right to shoot and defend themselves and the law will not second guess them."
    The Kentucky Academy of Trial Attorneys did not fight the bill because it had overwhelming support by legislators in both parties, said Meresa Fawns, the organization's executive director.
    The Florida law, which served as a model, authorizes lethal force against intruders entering homes or vehicles on grounds that the gun user feared a "forcible felony."
    The law states that an individual in self-defense "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force."
    Florida also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the shooters covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
    Florida Gov. Jeb Bush attributed the 2005 decline in the state's crime rate to the lowest level since 1971 partly to legally arming homeowners, toughening sentences and increasing funds for law enforcement.
    Florida already has several incidents involving a cab driver who killed a drunken passenger, a prostitute who shot to death a customer and a retired police officer who wounded a neighbor in a dispute over garbage.
    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said there also appear to be court cases in Florida involving gang killings that the perpetrators claimed to be justified for safety reasons.
    Of 15 self-defense incidents the center has identified, 13 of the alleged assailants were unarmed.
    In Louisiana, the new law would presume a shooter using deadly force acted "reasonably" if evidence shows an entry was unlawful and forced.
    Louisiana earlier enacted a companion law that allows the legal use of force to ward off a violent attack in a home, business or vehicle.
    Besides approval of self-defense legislation in 15 states, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota legalized the carrying of concealed weapons. Kansas blocked a bill to prohibit gun ownership by a mentally ill person.
    Utah and Wyoming defeated bills to authorize concealed weapon laws similar to those in effect in 24 states.
    Copyright Washington Crime News Service Aug 11, 2006

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Washington has no 'duty to retreat', as precedent was set in State v. Studd (http://www.washapp.org/Opinion.aspx?id=16) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user. When you apply for a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), you will see some language that states WA is a 'stand your ground' state; again this is ambiguous.

    There is no specific language in the law to state if burglary in your owe affords you the right to use deadly force, but the ambiguity of the law affords you some leeway.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_washi...e_a_castle_law

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Washington has no 'duty to retreat', as precedent was set in State v. Studd (http://www.washapp.org/Opinion.aspx?id=16) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user. When you apply for a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), you will see some language that states WA is a 'stand your ground' state; again this is ambiguous.

    There is no specific language in the law to state if burglary in your owe affords you the right to use deadly force, but the ambiguity of the law affords you some leeway.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_washi...e_a_castle_law
    M1Gunr,

    Thanks for posting this, it really was hard to find anything solid on it.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the help and resources. It's a pity that the language isn't better established and clearer, but I guess what we have is far better than nothing.

    State v. Prado

    Instruction [to the jury] No. 22

    It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that he is being attacked to stand his ground and defend against such attack by use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    This is why this is not cited law....the instruction in the opinion states... "It is lawful" which doesn't need a law enacted to back it up as laws are made to make thing unlawful.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •