Spokane man CC uses his firearm over this weekend

imported post

Lovemy.22 wrote:

I am the man who did the shooting and to clear the air for EVERYONE ...

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info, and welcome to the board! I hope everything turns out well for you.

I agree with compmanio365. I dislike the fact that the legal system inhibits a person's ability to truthfully speak of an event, but such is the case.

Good job!

imported post

I truly appreciate the concern over being sued and what not. However, everything I have just posted is in statements given to detectives and readily available to any lawyer who would try to take his case. I find it very important for others to know that in a circumstance like this where lives are being threatend the law is on our side. The headline very well could have read "Host stabbed to death in quiet neighborhood" and for our constitution I am forever grateful. I have owned my permit since I turned 21, I am now 24 and this is the first time I have had to use my firearm.

imported post

Wow it's moments like this that make me want to find out whether Washington has a castle law or whatever its called.

Edit. It looks like we don't have one that offers Immunity it's just the no duty to retreat and the definitions for justifiable homicide.

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

Wow it's moments like this that make me want to find out whether Washington has a castle law or whatever its called.

Edit. It looks like we don't have one that offers Immunity it's just the no duty to retreat and the definitions for justifiable homicide.

Click to expand...

Actually WA laws are better than typical Castle laws. We basically have a "Castle law that applies everywhere you have a legal right to be.":

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.



So if the BG is attempting to commit a felony or cause great personal injury against ANYONE in your presence, and it seems likely they would be able to do so if you didn't intervene, then homicide is justified. A man running at you or anyone near you with a 5" knife out is, to all appearances, trying to commit great bodily harm to someone, is capable of doing so, and is likely to accomplish the goal in the very near future. That makes homicide justifiable, and if it really happened as described then the only reason this law doesn't apply is because the assailant didn't die.


However, the general use of force defense should work since one bullet was reasonable force to stop an offense by someone with a deadly weapon against a guest in the home.

imported post

I know that but does the RCW the way it's written protect you from civil suits or prosecution?

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

I know that but does the RCW the way it's written protect you from civil suits or prosecution?

Click to expand...

Nothing protects you from a civil suit anymore. Any one can sue any other one for any such thing.

imported post

David.Car wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I know that but does the RCW the way it's written protect you from civil suits or prosecution?

Click to expand...

Nothing protects you from a civil suit anymore. Any one can sue any other one for any such thing.

Click to expand...

That sucks.

imported post

Verdict: In the clear, BG charged with intimidation with a weapon.

imported post

Nice! Score one for the good guys.

imported post

David.Car wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I know that but does the RCW the way it's written protect you from civil suits or prosecution?

Click to expand...

Nothing protects you from a civil suit anymore. Any one can sue any other one for any such thing.

Click to expand...

Except for this,

RCW 9.01.055Citizen immunity if aiding officer, scope — When.
Private citizens aiding a police officer, or other officers of the law in the performance of their duties as police officers or officers of the law, shall have the same civil and criminal immunity as such officer, as a result of any act or commission for aiding or attempting to aid a police officer or other officer of the law, when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith.

imported post

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

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110

Check out the whole chapter it's a good read, and good info.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16


WA has good protections......IMHO

imported post

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

imported post

Lovemy.22 wrote:

I am the man who did the shooting and to clear the air for EVERYONE it was a BBQ. The man drank some but was not intoxicated. I was not intoxicated. I had never met him as he showed up with a buddy's sister. He pulled the knife out after an argument with my girlfriend over music and was asked to leave. While leaving he kept repeating he was going to gut somebody. After he exited the door my small dog ran out as well. As my girlfriend went out on the front porch to retrieve our dog since she was scared he would hurt the dog the man who had reached the street turned around, saw her and ran back to the house at her. The guests who were in the house were coming outside to see what the commotion was about, thus blocking the way into the house. With repeated warnings given the man still charged the house toward my girlfriend with knife drawn. I waited until he was 2 feet from her (who was a foot from the front door with me trying to pull her inside past everyone) to FINALLY fire on him. In my statement the words "probably saved a life" meant just that. I know her life was in danger and my actions may have saved her life or others had he gone off on someone else. I don't think anyone would argue that a man who has just pulled out a knife, had a clear exit to leave but willingly chose to run back to the house with knife drawn after reaching the street had intentions to do harm. I am happy that I had a .22. A bigger caliber was not needed because it did it's job, it stopped the oncoming attack. The point of self defense is to do just that, prevent harm not to kill the attacker. I don't believe talking to the media was bad at all because all the police gave them was "shooting at college party" which is completely off base and imagine the posts that would be on here had that story aired with no mention of a knife or self defense. The knife was found as the guy tossed it into a neighbors truckbed. It was a locking blade knife that had a 5 inch blade.

Click to expand...

You waited until he was 2 feet away from his apparently intended victim? Did he have a knife in his hand when he was 2 feet away from your girlfriend?

That doesn't seem like a good tactic. Especially with a .22.

imported post

Troll alert.

imported post

If you see the word HankT next to a post you know it's a troll.

imported post

He is the only troll I know of that has 3500 posts. I will say that he raises a half decent point this time of why wait until the BG is 2 feet away from the soon to be victim before you act?

imported post

Vandal wrote:

I will say that he raises a half decent point this time of why wait until the BG is 2 feet away from the soon to be victim before you act?

Click to expand...

2 feet is cutting it kind of close, yes?

Perhaps Lovemy.22's slowness in acting was due to his impairment level if he was drinking.

I wonder how much alcohol Lovemy.22 had imbibed?

imported post

Sorry, Vandal. You've been hooked.

imported post

Not impaired at all...my waiting to shoot the BG justproved that he wasted every chance to stop his actions.You obviously fail to observe the obvious and that is that the BG was stopped and no harm came to my girlfriend due to the actions I took.. You say I was impaired yet my actions prevented harm to a potential victim and put down the aggresser. The fact that I used a .22 doesn't mean anything.. It means that lugging a .40 cal or .45 or even a 9mm around my house when I have guests doesn't strike my fancy.. A well concealable .22 pocket pistol on the other hand is more than enough fire power to keep the BG's at bay.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

Sorry, Vandal .  You've been hooked.

Click to expand...

Hooked, do explain? Did you read all of my previous post or was your examination selective? I will break it down for you. Most forums find a troll like HankT and ban him sooner or later, thus my comment about his post count. For some reason he is still around to spew his BS. I usually ignore HankT's posts as they are out there merely to get a rise out of other users. The second part of my post is that he did raise a good point in waiting until the BG was 2 feet away, I don't think he intended for it to slip out though. The dude is a troll and a very active one. I too have been known to ask questions or raise points around here that piss others off and make them think does that make me a troll?

Thanks for calling me out though in living blue color, I really do appreciate that gesture.