Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: Your life does NOT need to be in immediate danger..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Despite what many individuals believe, your life does not need to be in any sort of immediate danger for homicide to be justifiable.

    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.

    I believe certain times of property crime could fall under both of these. If someone breaks into your garage and tries to steal your car, this would fall under a "Justifiable Homicide" because breaking and entering is a felony.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Besides, one could argue that once an intruder breaks into your property, your life may be on the line.

  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    I'll visit you in the jail... you will never be justified killing someone for a property crime.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    What's legal may not always be right.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    That is a pretty clear RCW. Despite your opinion, what you may think is right or wrong does not over ride state law. If I see a man breaking into my neighbors house and stealing his car, I'll be damned if I don't draw my firearm on him and potentially use it if the situation calls for it.

    There have been cases of these sort of situations happening.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    To each his own! Here's my take on it. If an individual is going to break into someone else's property, then one can assume he won't stop there. What if this man is armed? Just because a weapon isn't in plain sight doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

    If I see a man breaking into a home, I would definitely draw my weapon on him. I wouldn't just start shooting off the bat, but I wouldn't hesitate if the situation called for it (If he pulled a firearm out on me) if he surrenders, then that's it. That's the end. No reason to take a life if the situation doesn't call for it, even if state law would justify it. Again, that's just my opinion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    I am of the opinion that if someone wants to break in and steal things, they deserve anything they get. You can't break in and steal without knowing what you're doing is wrong, and at that point I think they should be removed from the gene pool.

    Now, whether the law supports that viewpoint or not remains to be seen.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    This has interesting implications on unarmed attacks as well.

  9. #9
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Feel the same way Bader, I wouldn't shoot someone right off the bat for stealing my car, but if I came into the garage and caught them in the act, I would feel justified in drawing down on them. If they ran, so be it. If they attack, they are dead. If they stand there, that gives time for the cops to get there.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Feel the same way Bader, I wouldn't shoot someone right off the bat for stealing my car, but if I came into the garage and caught them in the act, I would feel justified in drawing down on them.* If they ran, so be it.* If they attack, they are dead.* If they stand there, that gives time for the cops to get there.
    That is exactly what should be done.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Feel the same way Bader, I wouldn't shoot someone right off the bat for stealing my car, but if I came into the garage and caught them in the act, I would feel justified in drawing down on them. If they ran, so be it. If they attack, they are dead. If they stand there, that gives time for the cops to get there.
    Yep. My thoughts exactly. Even though the law states I would be justified to do so, I would rather draw my weapon and present myself to them to give them a chance to stop in their tracks. Like you said, if they run, so be it, I doubt they'll be coming back knowing that I'm armed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Feel the same way Bader, I wouldn't shoot someone right off the bat for stealing my car, but if I came into the garage and caught them in the act, I would feel justified in drawing down on them. If they ran, so be it. If they attack, they are dead. If they stand there, that gives time for the cops to get there.
    I think that is where the diff. lies. If you draw and confront, and said person runs there is no longer a crime being commited. If he returns the confrontation and knows you have a gun then you ARE in danger and I personally would put a very large hole in someone for that. Weapon or not.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Breaking into your house is a felony - thus the RCW justifies homicide. In other states it is known as the Castle Doctrine. I believe this is pretty cut and dry as far as the courts go.

    Someone in your house you didn't invite in = reasonable ground to assume they are committing a felony. Notice the "or" after commit a felony. I read that, and was told by an instructor who posts here sometimes that they don't even need to represent imminent danger to you our your family.

    The Castle Doctrine usually also applies to your car, hotel room or similar situation.

    WA is a bit weaker than some other states but there is clearly no duty to retreat.

    I'm not an attorney, so don't consider this advice.

    If someone breaks into my house or car, they are going to be drawn on. What happens next is more dependent on their reaction.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    That is a pretty clear RCW. Despite your opinion, what you may think is right or wrong does not over ride state law. If I see a man breaking into my neighbors house and stealing his car, I'll be damned if I don't draw my firearm on him and potentially use it if the situation calls for it.

    There have been cases of these sort of situations happening.
    Right and legal are not always the same thing, right isn't always legal and legal isn't always right.

    I intended to live my life based off right and wrong and take the laws governing my choices as actions carrying consequences.

    I will always strive to do the right thing, if that means time in jail or time without a car so be it.

    America is failing because right and wrong is being interpreted into law, and law is being interpreted as right and wrong.


    Badger, you talk pretty big... I can't even say with certainty I'd defend myself if my life was threatened, the situation dictates the response.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    The name's Bader.. as in my last name

    I may come across as a "big" talker, because I've had an unfortunate experience in the past that's still fresh in my mind. It's an experience I may share at another time, but not right now It's too long and I want to make sure I get all of the details down, which means I would need to do it when I have a clear head.. not after I've been up for 21 hours.

  16. #16
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    The name's Bader.. as in my last name

    [SNIP]
    My reply is completely off-topic from the original post, but I can't resist; forgive me.

    I knew a Bader (first name) who was from the United Arab Emirates. He said the name means "full moon" in Arabic.

  17. #17
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    The name's Bader.. as in my last name
    LOL! I kept thinking it was Badger too!
    "Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    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;
    9A.04.110 (c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    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;
    9A.04.110 (c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;

    It says great personal injury, not great bodily harm.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Dig out Blacks Law Dictionary and look up "Clear and present danger doctrine" Then couple that with pertinentRCWs and the circumstances then tell what you would do.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    There will be 12 people sitting across the courtroom from you deciding what the law actually means. Hopefully you will get 12 that think like you. Otherwise this whole discussion is just a bunch of hot air and just becasue one jury thinks like you another one may not. I was on a jury where 10 people were charged with the exact same traffic violation at the same time under the exact same circumstances but all 10 were tried by different juries. (Long story but it was after leaving a football game) Out of the 10 separate cases7 were found guilty and 3 non-guilty. You take your chances with a jury.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    The name's Bader.. as in my last name
    I apologize, slipped on the keys there.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    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;
    9A.04.110 (c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;

    It says great personal injury, not great bodily harm.
    It also cays "To commit a felony OR cause great personal injury"

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    "when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony"

    That is the first part of the sentence, followed by an "or", meaning the use of force is legal if we have reasonable ground to assume they were (or are in the process) of commiting a felony OR the harm clause.

    The first clause does not require the second - it is not necessary to be in imminent danger to use deadly force.

    Grand theft, burglary and robbery are all felonies. My understanding is that deadly force is legal in certain property crimes like grand theft, irrelevant of whether my life is in danger or not.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Stein wrote:
    "when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony"

    That is the first part of the sentence, followed by an "or", meaning the use of force is legal if we have reasonable ground to assume they were (or are in the process) of commiting a felony OR the harm clause.

    The first clause does not require the second - it is not necessary to be in imminent danger to use deadly force.

    Grand theft, burglary and robbery are all felonies. My understanding is that deadly force is legal in certain property crimes like grand theft, irrelevant of whether my life is in danger or not.
    That's my take on it, as it seems pretty clear. I think the main argument people are having is whether or not they feel it is right or wrong, on a moral level.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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