• 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.

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner looks at Montana's new statute

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
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.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.)
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
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
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

G_Lyons

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
26
Location
Bothell, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
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.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

amlevin

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

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top