What circumstances do you believe are justifiable in deadly force?

imported post

I've seen many posts reading that only if you feel you are in fear for your life, should you ever use deadly force.

I haven't read any opinions on rape.

How do you feel about a woman using deadly force, if an unarmed man breaks into her home and attempts a sexual assault?

imported post

If you have to ask......

imported post

I say kill his ass, first if anyone is breaking into your home you should feel like your life is in danger, second whether or not this guys say's hey I’m not going to kill you just rape you that too me is a death sentence and he should be shot on site.

If some nut job molested one of my kids, I would kill him.

imported post

Are you asking personal opinions, or the law?

imported post

Imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm is the general legal standard.

Of course there is the Castle Doctrine, which you have invoked in your example.

Broke into her home - Castle Doctrine
Rape - serious bodily harm.

Read more here.

imported post

Rape isn't just a little push or shove to a woman, it is a serious emotional and physical attack on her. She will remember that most likely for the rest of her life, and make decisions that are influenced by it, such as being scared of being intimate or even sleeping alone in her own home. I fear for my girls safety, as she lives in South Seattle, and there is danger everywhere, and I never let her go home alone.

Now to answer your question, nobody needs to touch anybody they do not know and trust, and if they do, it probably isn't for a good reason, most likely for harm. I would not wait to find out exactly what that person might do, touching without permission is already crossing the line. Most will agree, that naturely, men are stronger than women, and they can inflict a lot of damage, and if a woman is not armed and ready, she is in a lot of trouble. If she is armed, shoot to STOP the threat, whether this means killing for her or not, it is up to her. Maybe she sprays and prays, maybe she shoots until he stops moving. Either way, stop the threat, and don't overkill, or that is going to get her in trouble.

Already the situation is that a man BROKE INTO HER HOME, and is attempting to rape her, attempting to hurt her emotionally and physically, and I feel no sympathy to the attacker if he ends up in the coroners office looking like a sponge due to bullets.

imported post

With AIDS and other HIV's being so widespread, and many being a virtual or literal death sentence, one should not have to take the chance that they may, or may not contract something from their attacker.

Woman (and men) have every moral and legal right to assume their life is in danger, even if an attacker assures them they are not going to "kill" them. No one should be forced to take that chance.

If deadly force isnecessary to stop such an attack, then it should be used, andWashington State law supports that position.

There are worse things than death in this world.

imported post

I say it's just time to take our cities and communities back. I will NOT live in fear of a d-bag lawmakers poor choices any longer.

Defend yourself, your neighbors...

And if I get threatened with prison for doing such, I'll put my gun to my head and do it that way. I'm not going to jail for defending my rights/defending others.

Screw the Islam terrorists and gang bangers. 5 cops murdered since halloweeen. Its open season. I wont go out alone.

imported post

Its open season.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that?

imported post

The subject(s) should have the intent, capability, and opportunity to inflict serious bodily damage or harm to yourself or another. All 3 elements should be present.

Then you should use only that force necessary to stop the action or threat from continuing.

"Necessary" means no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended (i.e. defending yourself or another).

Your personal perception of the threat has alot to do with your defense of the lawful use of force used on another. Especially when selling it to a panel of idiot jurors and scumbag lawyers who will ask why your familydid not jump out of a 2 story house to get away from the meth-man at 3 AM.

Iheard of people who keep unmarked, untraceable, "throwdown" knives available in their homesto eliminate ANY question of lawful force used. Is itwrong? They think it is no more wrong than charging or suing a homeowner for defending themselvesor their familiies from being injured, kindapped, or raped.

They think dead men tell no tales, nor do they sue you in civil court with the help of the ACLU or NAACP.

imported post

Pavegunner wrote:

The subject(s) should have the intent, capability, and opportunity to inflict serious bodily damage or harm to yourself or another. All 3 elements should be present.

Then you should use only that force necessary to stop the action or threat from continuing.

"Necessary" means no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended (i.e. defending yourself or another).

Your personal perception of the threat has alot to do with your defense of the lawful use of force used on another. Especially when selling it to a panel of idiot jurors and scumbag lawyers who will ask why your familydid not jump out of a 2 story house to get away from the meth-man at 3 AM.

Iheard of people who keep unmarked, untraceable, "throwdown" knives available in their homesto eliminate ANY question of lawful force used. Is itwrong? They think it is no more wrong than charging or suing a homeowner for defending themselvesor their familiies from being injured, kindapped, or raped.

They think dead men tell no tales, nor do they sue you in civil court with the help of the ACLU or NAACP.

Click to expand...

With the help of modern forensic science, dead men do tell tales and family members can and have filed civil suits.

Do nothing to alter the scene of a shooting - it can and will bite you.

To those that give advice that crosses the line or even approaches it sideways: Stop. You are doing no one a favor.

Yata hey

imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:

How do you feel about a woman using deadly force, if an unarmed man breaks into her home and attempts a sexual assault?

Click to expand...

Just how would a woman know that she is only going to be raped?

So the woman has the gun pointed at the rapist, the rapist promises to be gentle so the woman puts away the gun. Now there is no rape, it is consensual.

My opinion - point the gun at the bad guy. If you still fear for your well being, pull the trigger.

imported post

rape = evidenced means and intent to cause serious bodily harm, including death.

imported post

I thought Washington wasn't a Castle Doctrine State?

imported post

gsx1138 wrote:

I thought Washington wasn't a Castle Doctrine State?

Click to expand...

It is. The RCW on justifiable is very specific

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

gsx1138 wrote:

I thought Washington wasn't a Castle Doctrine State?

Click to expand...

It is. The RCW on justifiable is very specific

Click to expand...

Wow, I've been bad mouthing my State this whole time because I thought we didn't have a Castle Doctrine. Doh! I can't even remember where I got the idea.

imported post

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; 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.

imported post

gsx1138 wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

gsx1138 wrote:

I thought Washington wasn't a Castle Doctrine State?

Click to expand...

It is. The RCW on justifiable is very specific

Click to expand...

Wow, I've been bad mouthing my State this whole time because I thought we didn't have a Castle Doctrine.  Doh!  I can't even remember where I got the idea.

Click to expand...

It is a Castle Doctrine style state. Case law laid the no duty to retreat.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Pavegunner wrote:

The subject(s) should have the intent, capability, and opportunity to inflict serious bodily damage or harm to yourself or another. All 3 elements should be present.

Then you should use only that force necessary to stop the action or threat from continuing.

"Necessary" means no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended (i.e. defending yourself or another).

Your personal perception of the threat has alot to do with your defense of the lawful use of force used on another. Especially when selling it to a panel of idiot jurors and scumbag lawyers who will ask why your familydid not jump out of a 2 story house to get away from the meth-man at 3 AM.

Iheard of people who keep unmarked, untraceable, "throwdown" knives available in their homesto eliminate ANY question of lawful force used. Is itwrong? They think it is no more wrong than charging or suing a homeowner for defending themselvesor their familiies from being injured, kindapped, or raped.

They think dead men tell no tales, nor do they sue you in civil court with the help of the ACLU or NAACP.

Click to expand...

With the help of modern forensic science, dead men do tell tales and family members can and have filed civil suits.

Do nothing to alter the scene of a shooting - it can and will bite you.

To those that give advice that crosses the line or even approaches it sideways: Stop. You are doing no one a favor.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2397719/posts

Man in custody after beating an intruder with a brick. Thislaw-abiding homeowneris done in civil court, that is if he beats the criminal rap.

This happens all the time.

imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:

I've seen many posts reading that only if you feel you are in fear for your life, should you ever use deadly force.

I haven't read any opinions on rape.

How do you feel about a woman using deadly force, if an unarmed man breaks into her home and attempts a sexual assault?

Click to expand...

As stated above RCW 9A.16.050 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.

Which is the best advice on this thread thus far.

Rape is a Felony and she would have every right to use deadly force to stop that threat. It is our intent to stop the threat and our training teaches us to shoot center of mass to include head or groin shots depending on the threat.

What is concerning here is many reply with no more then just emotions to others stating they are willing to act outside the law which does not speak well for for ones responsibility in carrying a firearm for self defense.

A serious inquiry should not be met with contempt.

As to Castle Doctrine, Washington State is a Stand Your Ground State which is very similar.
A difference I see is that while in your home or as quoted on state law, place of abode which is your house or place where you live which does not include your property of unattached buildings, while it will include attached porches or decks but will not include items that are not directly attached to the place of abode.
In Washington State if you have a legal right to be there, you are not required to retreat to defend yourself.

Dave Workman's Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities is a good start and then seek out professional training, Puget Sound has a few very good schools, use them.
http://www.danddgunleather.com/pages/washington_gun_rights.htm

I may take some heat on this statement but Open or Concealed Carry is minor in the light of the grave responsibility we take when we choose to arm ourselves and a more assertive effort on the later is needed by all.