• 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..

B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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.
 
B

Bader

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

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
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.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what should be done.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
tat2ed_guy

tat2ed_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
184
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

Stein

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

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
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.
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

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

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

[SNIP]
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
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;
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...
 
D

Dr. Fresh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
390
Location
, ,
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;
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.
 
T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top