• 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.

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

P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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;
Click to expand...

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;
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It says great personal injury, not great bodily harm.
Click to expand...
It also cays "To commit a felony OR cause great personal injury"
 
S

Stein

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
16
Location
, ,
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.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Bader wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I'd like to get some confirmation that that's what the law means. Moral arguments are irrelevant to the community - they're part of a personal choice, but the law applies to everyone, so it's important to know for sure what the law does and doesn't allow. You can choose to limit yourself further than the law requires, if you feel morally obligated to do so, of course.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
imported post

If you want, you can always contact an attorney or a police department. I have a good friend who has been in law enforcement for years, and that is his interpretation of the law. He also stated that it's his interpretation as a Law Enforcement official, and said "I am not a prosecuting attorney or a judge.".

Your best bet is to get an opinion from a prosecuting attorney, seeing how the opinion of the prosecutor is the one that will matter.
 
D

Dr. Fresh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
390
Location
, ,
imported post

Bader wrote:
If you want, you can always contact an attorney or a police department. I have a good friend who has been in law enforcement for years, and that is his interpretation of the law. He also stated that it's his interpretation as a Law Enforcement official, and said "I am not a prosecuting attorney or a judge.".

Your best bet is to get an opinion from a prosecuting attorney, seeing how the opinion of the prosecutor is the one that will matter.
Click to expand...
Don't bother asking a cop. Ask a lawyer.
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

Don't bother asking a cop. Ask a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Better yet, ask a prosecutor.



Bader, what you think the law says really isn't important. It's what the court says it says and what the jury understands it to say.

Jails are full of people who thought they were in the right. Don't be one of 'em.

Get a copy of WASHINGTON STATE GUN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

Pay particular attention to Chapter Five
 
P

PT111

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

You hear something out in your garage, you grab your gun and go check it out. You find someone in your garage with the door to you car open so you open fire and drop him right there.

I really don't know what the law is on that but I predict a lot of sleepless nights in your future and enough money being paid to a lawyer to buy you a new Escalade. You may get lucky and find him armed and on the local most wanted list. If so go buy you a lottery ticket.
 
C

cynicist

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

It also cays "To commit a felony OR cause great personal injury"
Click to expand...
That's part of a full sentence, ending in " to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
Semantically speaking, you could argue that it means that you can kill anyone committing a felony, but any grammarian or many other people would argue that the felony has to be committed against the slayer or other person, making it a violent felony, not just theft of something worth $200.
I suppose we could all look up the case law on this and try to find out what the WA supreme court has defined this as...
...or you could find a marijuana dealer, someone possessing prescription drugs not prescribed to them, or some other felon and shoot them to death, and try to plead self-defense. At least make a good show out of it.

If what you mean is committing a felony against your person (not your personal property necessarily) but not exactly threatening your life, then I agree with you. But if you mean you can kill anyone who might be committing a felony... look up "case law" the look up WA state case law for self-defense.
 
C

cynicist

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

The first clause does not require the second - it is not necessary to be in imminent danger to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
Again, the sentence is not even complete- is this something you really want to risk the death penalty over?
The sentence seems clear to me that both clauses of "to commit a felony" or "violent offense" bother refer to the same object of the sentence.
If you seriously want to try it, go downtown, lurk for a while until you find a drug dealer, and kill him.
Walk what you talk.
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Bader wrote:
I have one.

 By the way, Seattles prosecuting attorneys statements agree with what I have said about that law. I just received an email from him.
Click to expand...


I'd very much like to see that.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

The problem I see with "asking a prosecutor", is that the prosecutor doesn't decide if you are guilty, a judge/jury does. There are cases throughout history where a prosecutor has brought charges but the judge/jury has found the person not guilty. There has been cases here on OCDO where the prosecutor has filed charges, refused to look at the laws in question, and the OCer has been found not guilty because he didn't actually break any laws. Prosecutors aren't above their own prejudices and stubbornness.....I wouldn't trust them anymore than I would trust a cop on the street, because they are on the same team. They both want to put you in jail.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
The problem I see with "asking a prosecutor", is that the prosecutor doesn't decide if you are guilty, a judge/jury does. There are cases throughout history where a prosecutor has brought charges but the judge/jury has found the person not guilty. There has been cases here on OCDO where the prosecutor has filed charges, refused to look at the laws in question, and the OCer has been found not guilty because he didn't actually break any laws. Prosecutors aren't above their own prejudices and stubbornness.....I wouldn't trust them anymore than I would trust a cop on the street, because they are on the same team. They both want to put you in jail.
Click to expand...
If the prosecutor won't charge the individual, then the judge will never see the case.

I'm at work right now, and I don't have a lot of time, but I will post his email later. Basically he just told me that he's not in a position to give legal advice (interpretations) to the general public, but he said "What I can tell you is that I have never prosecuted a citizen for rightfully defending their personal property if I found that the deadly forced used was to, again, rightfully defend the property." There's more to it, but I'll get at it later and maybe I'll post my story of home defense that I was referring to earlier.

Take care guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top