• 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.

Hit with fist size rock, reasonable to draw?

amlevin

amlevin

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

CaptainAttila wrote:
A fist sized rock is deadly force in my book. Absolutely justified.
Click to expand...
Since the time of Cavemen rocks have been used to kill, and continue to be used for the same purpose to this day. No question that having a large rock thrown at you would put you in fear for your life. All the justification one needs to use force to defend themself. The cop who told you that you over-reacted is certainly not the final authority. That's why they just call them "cops", not Judges and Juries. Sleep well at night knowing that you did nothing wrong and don't hesitate to do so should the same scenario come to play.
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

I think you did fine especially since you didn't shoot but rather identified your target first. If you had shot them and I was on the jury you wold walk but everything worked out or seems to have.
 
P

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

amlevin wrote:
CaptainAttila wrote:
A fist sized rock is deadly force in my book. Absolutely justified.
Click to expand...
Since the time of Cavemen rocks have been used to kill, and continue to be used for the same purpose to this day. No question that having a large rock thrown at you would put you in fear for your life. All the justification one needs to use force to defend themself. The cop who told you that you over-reacted is certainly not the final authority. That's why they just call them "cops", not Judges and Juries. Sleep well at night knowing that you did nothing wrong and don't hesitate to do so should the same scenario come to play.
Click to expand...

You know.... if you think about it, broken down to it's most base function, a firearm is nothing more than a rock-throwing machine.;)
 
amlevin

amlevin

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

Phssthpok wrote:
amlevin wrote:
CaptainAttila wrote:
A fist sized rock is deadly force in my book. Absolutely justified.
Click to expand...
Since the time of Cavemen rocks have been used to kill, and continue to be used for the same purpose to this day. No question that having a large rock thrown at you would put you in fear for your life. All the justification one needs to use force to defend themself. The cop who told you that you over-reacted is certainly not the final authority. That's why they just call them "cops", not Judges and Juries. Sleep well at night knowing that you did nothing wrong and don't hesitate to do so should the same scenario come to play.
Click to expand...

You know.... if you think about it, broken down to it's most base function, a firearm is nothing more than a rock-throwing machine.;)
Click to expand...
Someone in an online forum once used the following as a Signature "The reason I carry a gun is that I can't throw rocks at 1300 fps".
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

As the Israelis can tell you, rocks are deadly weapons. When thrown, they can kill a person. If someone is throwing fist sized rocks, it is an attack with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.

If you had spotted the rock thrower, and he had another rock in his hand and it looked like he was going to throw another one, you would have been justified in firing upon the threat in order to stop the threat.
 
C

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
imported post

If you had spotted the rock thrower, and he had another rock in his hand and it looked like he was going to throw another one, you would have been justified in firing upon the threat in order to stop the threat.
Click to expand...
There may be some trouble proving that in the court. The law states that it cannot be "more than necessary." It seems like a toss-up to me if shooting to kill someone fighting with someone else over a rock that accidentally hit you would be meriting lethal force.
 
T

triehl27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
imported post

Happened Downtown Seattle Sodo District. The store was supposed to get the video copied. Their outside camera should have caught the incident.

When I get hit, I went to one knee, drew and went low and ready one handed while looking for the threat. Granted at that point I was looking for a gun, not a rock.

The suspect car got out of there pretty dang fast after the passenger saw my Glock.

Shoulder is all back to good. Or it better be for pulling crab pots this weekend...
 
9

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

cynicist wrote:
If you had spotted the rock thrower, and he had another rock in his hand and it looked like he was going to throw another one, you would have been justified in firing upon the threat in order to stop the threat.
Click to expand...
There may be some trouble proving that in the court. The law states that it cannot be "more than necessary." It seems like a toss-up to me if shooting to kill someone fighting with someone else over a rock that accidentally hit you would be meriting lethal force.
Click to expand...

 IANAL but, the restriction on force being "more than necessary" is a part of 9A.16.020 (Use of force) and seems to relate to lessor crimes against a person or against real or personal property.

"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;"
At the point of serious risk of injury, and in the application of deadly force, I believe 9A.16.050 is more appropriate as it addresses defensive situations against a felony or "great personal injury". It states states that Homicide is justifiable when there is "reasonable ground to apprehend a design" that the assailant to commit a felony or "do some great personal injury".


"RCW 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; "


 Furthermore, in State v Miller, the State Supreme court in overturning his conviction ruled that the jury must decide based on the circumstances as the accused reasonably thought them to be. Not by some standard afterward with all the facts known. They specifically say that even if the defendant's understanding of the situation is shown to be false, such action would be excusable.

"...This instruction left it for the jury to say whether it was necessary for the appellants to use force in defending themselves, and as to the amount of force necessary for that purpose. This is not a correct statement of the law, for the jury might well have believed that the appellants were not justified in fact in using any force, or that they used more force than was actually necessary. The true test was, what was the condition at the time the assault was made; and the appellants' right to resist force with force is dependent upon what a reasonably cautious and prudent man, situated as were the appellants, would have done under the condition then existing.

If the appellants, at the time of the alleged assault upon them, as reasonably and ordinarily cautious and prudent men, honestly believed that they were in danger of great bodily harm, they would have the right to resort to self defense, and their conduct is to be judged by the condition appearing to them at the time, not by the condition as it might appear to the jury in the light of testimony before it.

The appellants need not have been in actual danger of great bodily harm, but they were entitled to act on appearances; and if they believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that they were in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that they were mistaken as to the extent of the danger, if they acted as reasonably and ordinarily cautious and prudent men would have done under the circumstances as they appeared to them, they were justified in defending themselves."

(emphasis added)
 
C

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
imported post

911Boss, I know there is other case law in WA that modifies that, called something like "irrational self-defense." It's basically if the belief was honest, but was irrational or not reasonable. Allows for less-than-minimum sentencing, but still the conviction.
I've heard of incidents like some guy sees a scraggly guy on top of some scantily clad women in an alley and she's screaming "rape!" so he shot him; turns out he was a vice cop arresting a hooker. And he got convicted of something. Saw that one in a Mossad Ayoob video.
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

triehl27: I think you were completely justified in drawing as well. Even if you knew for a fact it was a rock that you were struck by, and that you weren't actually shot, it still would have been reasonable to draw in my opinion. A rock is a deadly weapon and wether you were the intended target or not, you were hit by a thrown rock that could have potentially killed you. (David vs. Goliath anyone?)

I believe I would have drawn in your situation as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top