Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Seattle Gun Rights Examiner looks at Montana's new statute

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner discusses Montana's new self-defense statute, and there's a sharp poke at Eliot Spitzer's arrogant gun control scheme

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d30-Montana-lawmakers-have-it-right-with-new-statute-on-selfdefense



    And if that doesn't work

    http://tinyurl.com/cltagf

  2. #2
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Question: Do we have a duty to retreat if attacked in a place wherewe have a right to be in Washington? From things I've heard, in spite of the assurances in the article, we do not, or that it could be that even if we do, we may be found to have committed assult or worse, manslaughter by using our guns because of some tricky prosecutor or by the way the police report the incident.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    There is no codified duty to retreat in Washington. There is also a State Supreme Court decision specifically upholding the right to stand your ground.

    There are also specific statutes allowing one to use force to arrest someone who has committed ANY felony, and to use the fact that you witnessed a felony IN PROGRESS as a defense to justify homicide. This basically means that you don't have a duty to retreat when a felony is committed in your presence, because if you did then force could not be justified by law, but it is.

    HOWEVER, just because you believe you have a valid defense for shooting someone does NOT mean the local prosecutor will believe so. As with the recent bus stop shooting in Seattle, the person who did the self-defense shooting will basically be admitting they shot the person, and will then have to provide solid evidence that a felony was being committed at the time of the shooting.

    Even then a prosecutor may still chose to prosecute (this can even happen in Montana) if the prosecutor thinks it will help his career. He won't care if it gets overturned, he will just be trying to look good on the local political scene, and there is nothing you can do about this kind of thing.

    So your best bet is to be VERY familiar with what is an isn't a felony in WA, be VERY sure which felonies you feel are sufficient (in your mind) to draw your weapon, be VERY sure that you know what to say when the police arrive, and be VERY sure you have a good lawyers number available at all times while carrying. (I would call the police after a shoot to get a quick statement on the 911 record, then hang up before the police arrive and call your lawyer and get him to the scene too.)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Dave's article quotes the WA Supreme Court as saying “the law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

    Does anyone have the decision that this language came from?

    MD

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    Dave's article quotes the WA Supreme Court as saying “the law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”*

    Does anyone have the decision that this language came from?*

    MD
    State v. Reynaldo Redmond.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Machoduck wrote:
    Dave's article quotes the WA Supreme Court as saying “the law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

    Does anyone have the decision that this language came from?

    MD
    State v. Reynaldo Redmond.
    Yeah, I suppose I could have been more clear with my concern. I'll look up that case and read up on it.

    I guess what I was concerned about was the precedent. If it's only one case, we could still be breaking ground on this subject and find ourselves in hot water... like the guy in Eastern Washington who shot the guy in the car who supposedly hit him. It's like a game of he said he said and the prosecutor has decided that even though no one else could debunk the guy's claim of self defense, that he'd prosecute anyway. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

    Anyway, thanks for posting.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

    State v. Reynaldo Redmond.
    Yeah, I suppose I could have been more clear with my concern. I'll look up that case and read up on it.

    I guess what I was concerned about was the precedent. If it's only one case, we could still be breaking ground on this subject and find ourselves in hot water... like the guy in Eastern Washington who shot the guy in the car who supposedly hit him. It's like a game of he said he said and the prosecutor has decided that even though no one else could debunk the guy's claim of self defense, that he'd prosecute anyway. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

    Anyway, thanks for posting.
    You must be kinda new around here. In State v. Reynaldo Redmond the court was alluding to a combination of earlier cases, all lumped in under State v. Studd in which the concept of "no duty to retreat" was discussed.

    I've written about this in my book "WASHINGTON STATE GUN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES."

    Simply because it is not spelled out in statute does not mean this important concept is not part of our established legal fabric. Indeed, thanks to the view of the high court, it is BECAUSE this concept is already part of our legal framework that it probably has not been specifically codified in statute. We don't need to codify it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    while it is not a guaranty of protection from prosecution, WA RCW 9A-16-110, does grant that if you are found Innocent by reason of self-defence or defence of another the state must reimburseyou. So I would think that this would give pause to a prosecuter.




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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    So I would think that this would give pause to a prosecuter.
    You might wish it would, but I don't think the money comes out of the prosecutor's budget.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    So I would think that this would give pause to a prosecuter.
    You might wish it would, but I don't think the money comes out of the prosecutor's budget.
    Right you are. The prosecutor's money comes out of OUR pockets.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Guys, believe me, the evil prosecutors whoare so-often maligned on internet bulletin boards are very few and far between. I've worked with dozens of prosecutors in two different states, and I've never encountered anyone who was at all hostile to the concept of armed civilian self-defense. A significant portion ofmy fellowprosecutorshave beenextremely pro-gun, and pro self-defense, and carried often, if not 24/7.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    Guys, believe me, the evil prosecutors whoare so-often maligned on internet bulletin boards are very few and far between. I've worked with dozens of prosecutors in two different states, and I've never encountered anyone who was at all hostile to the concept of armed civilian self-defense. A significant portion ofmy fellowprosecutorshave beenextremely pro-gun, and pro self-defense, and carried often, if not 24/7.
    I am not talking about a prosecutor who is particularly against armed civilian self-defense. I am talking about a DA who wants to be re-elected and has a major public case before him with a large number of voters supporting the prosecution. Sadly public opinion a/o the desire to be re-elected has cause DA's to prosecute people just to make themselves look good. For instance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    Personally I think most DA's are good people who want to do the right thing, despite being lawyers. However, there are some bad apples in the bunch, just as their are in ANY group of people. Because of these bad apples you CAN be prosecuted for a good shoot, and that is something anyone who owns a gun should be aware of.

    In the case before us it is sounding more and more like the woman may have at least partially instigated, which is something nobody with a gun should be doing. If you are armed you have a responsibility to NOT get in unnecessary arguments, not the power to get in them with impunity.



  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    I am not talking about a prosecutor who is particularly against armed civilian self-defense. I am talking about a DA who wants to be re-elected and has a major public case before him with a large number of voters supporting the prosecution. Sadly public opinion a/o the desire to be re-elected has cause DA's to prosecute people just to make themselves look good. For instance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong


    You bring up Mike Nifong as an example of the impurely motivated prosecutor. He was only one out of thousands and thousands of prosecutors that go about their business, on a daily basis, far more honestly than him. The fallout from the "Nifong" case was no doubt a warning bell for those that feel they can push the envelope based on their personal agendas. The closest Nifong will come to practicing Law in the future will be cleaning the toilets and urinals in a law firm's bathrooms.

    As for using Deadly Force to stop a Felony, just remember that Washington State Law specifically states that only sufficient force shall be used to stop the threat.

    ++++++++++++++++




    RCW 9A.16.020
    Use of force — When lawful.


    (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;



    9A.16.050
    Homicide — 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.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Just killing someone because they are comitting a felony doesn't always give one a free pass. That's going to always be the rub. Did you HAVE to shoot? Did you feel your life, or that of another, was in jeopardy? Could other means (that you had available) have been employed? Lots of questions to be answered and little time to do so when the chips are down. Make a mistake and it won't matter what the Prosecutor's political aspirations are. You could be deep "in the sauce" when it's all over.

    Knowlege of the law(s) and training are the best tools. The rest is pretty much up to how well you implement both.


    "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?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    Just killing someone because they are comitting a felony doesn't always give one a free pass. That's going to always be the rub. Did you HAVE to shoot? Did you feel your life, or that of another, was in jeopardy? Could other means (that you had available) have been employed? Lots of questions to be answered and little time to do so when the chips are down. Make a mistake and it won't matter what the Prosecutor's political aspirations are. You could be deep "in the sauce" when it's all over.

    Knowlege of the law(s) and training are the best tools. The rest is pretty much up to how well you implement both.

    BRAVO!

    This seems to be the single important factor that a lot of people cannot quite comprehend.

Posting Permissions

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