Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Slight Law Change to Washington Self Defense Statute

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    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.


    RCW 9A.16.900 took effect yesterday, which states:

    RCW 9A.16.900
    Construction — Chapter applicable to state registered domestic partnerships — 2009 c 521. (Effective if E2SSB 5688 is approved at the November 2009 election under Referendum Measure 71.)


    For the purposes of this chapter, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital relationships and married persons, and references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved, or invalidated, to the extent that such interpretation does not conflict with federal law. Where necessary to implement chapter 521, Laws of 2009, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships.


    Washington's self defense law just got slightly stronger today. In light of recent news involving a woman who just had her shooting of an aggressive man who was making threatening acts towards her, her partner, and their children, declared to be self defense by the prosecutors, I thought it was interesting to point out here.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    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.


    RCW 9A.16.900 took effect yesterday, which states:

    RCW 9A.16.900
    Construction — Chapter applicable to state registered domestic partnerships — 2009 c 521. (Effective if E2SSB 5688 is approved at the November 2009 election under Referendum Measure 71.)
    ***

    For the purposes of this chapter, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital relationships and married persons, and references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved, or invalidated, to the extent that such interpretation does not conflict with federal law. Where necessary to implement chapter 521, Laws of 2009, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships.


    Washington's self defense law just got slightly stronger today.* In light of recent news involving a woman who just had her shooting of an aggressive man who was making threatening acts towards her, her partner, and their children, declared to be self defense by the prosecutors, I thought it was interesting to point out here.
    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.
    "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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Thats what I was thinking why not just shorten the whole RCW, to those quoted words. Government is trying so hard to be PC its ridiculous.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    RCW 9A.16.050:


    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.


    It already does, though domestic partnerships are limited for opposite gendered couples, as they are only allowed to apply for it if one of them is over 62 years of age.

    From the Secretary of State:

    Who can register as domestic partners?
    To register as domestic partners, both partners must:
    • Share a common residence
    • Both be at least 18 years of age
    • Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
    • Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
    • Not be nearer kin than second cousin
    • Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
    • Either be:
    o Of the same sex, or
    o At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    RCW 9A.16.050:


    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.


    It already does, though domestic partnerships are limited for opposite gendered couples, as they are only allowed to apply for it if one of them is over 62 years of age.

    From the Secretary of State:

    Who can register as domestic partners?
    To register as domestic partners, both partners must:
    • Share a common residence
    • Both be at least 18 years of age
    • Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
    • Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
    • Not be nearer kin than second cousin
    • Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
    • Either be:
    o Of the same sex, or
    o At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.
    Looks like age discrimination to me.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    RCW 9A.16.050:


    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.


    It already does, though domestic partnerships are limited for opposite gendered couples, as they are only allowed to apply for it if one of them is over 62 years of age.

    From the Secretary of State:

    Who can register as domestic partners?
    To register as domestic partners, both partners must:
    • Share a common residence
    • Both be at least 18 years of age
    • Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
    • Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
    • Not be nearer kin than second cousin
    • Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
    • Either be:
    o Of the same sex, or
    o At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.
    So it isn't "equal" rights, but "special" rights after all... what a shock!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    RCW 9A.16.050:


    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.


    It already does, though domestic partnerships are limited for opposite gendered couples, as they are only allowed to apply for it if one of them is over 62 years of age.

    From the Secretary of State:

    Who can register as domestic partners?
    To register as domestic partners, both partners must:
    • Share a common residence
    • Both be at least 18 years of age
    • Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
    • Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
    • Not be nearer kin than second cousin
    • Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
    • Either be:
    o Of the same sex, or
    o At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.
    So it isn't "equal" rights, but "special" rights after all... what a shock!
    An that is my big problem with this asinine law. When it applies to all then I will be in favor of it.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    RCW 9A.16.050:


    When it covers opposite sex domestic partners I will get exited that the statute is a little stronger.


    It already does, though domestic partnerships are limited for opposite gendered couples, as they are only allowed to apply for it if one of them is over 62 years of age.

    From the Secretary of State:

    Who can register as domestic partners?
    To register as domestic partners, both partners must:
    • Share a common residence
    • Both be at least 18 years of age
    • Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
    • Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
    • Not be nearer kin than second cousin
    • Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
    • Either be:
    o Of the same sex, or
    o At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.
    So it isn't "equal" rights, but "special" rights after all... what a shock!
    An that is my big problem with this asinine law. When it applies to all then I will be in favor of it.
    You mean like if there wasn't a need for all this legal hooplah and gay people were given the same right to marry as straight people instead of denied it due to popular demand?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Marriage is a religous institute and the state really has no business being invovled in it, like Joerocket says, it leaves opposite sex partners out, shorten the law just to cover anybody...and you are good.

    I believe in individual rights across the board ....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Gay people DO have the same right to marry as straight people and they always have. Many of them do it (marry someone of the opposite sex) for a variety of reasons. I think what pisses them off is the refusal of society to accept a new definition of "Marriage".

    I've no problem with "civil unions". I think if the goal is "equality" than that is what it should be, an option for anyone/everyone. If you want the state to recognize your commitment and be afforded rights between partners, have a civil union.

    If your faith and relationship lead to marriage, so be it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Marriage is a religous institute and the state really has no business being invovled in it, like Joerocket says, it leaves opposite sex partners out, shorten the law just to cover anybody...and you are good.

    I believe in individual rights across the board ....
    That is exactly it.
    "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

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Agree. All the rest of the stuff in there just seems like redundant verbiage... although I suppose perhaps if it got down to splitting hairs over application of this law, an over-zealous prosecutor might try to infer various intentions on the part of the legislature, and so any strengthening language can't hurt.

  14. #14
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Marriage is a religous institute and the state really has no business being invovled in it, like Joerocket says, it leaves opposite sex partners out, shorten the law just to cover anybody...and you are good.

    I believe in individual rights across the board ....
    That is exactly it.
    Amen!....er.....I totally agree!

    What consenting adults wish to call each other and or do "to" each other should be no business of the governments, regardless of if its two or twenty.

  15. #15
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Agree. All the rest of the stuff in there just seems like redundant verbiage... although I suppose perhaps if it got down to splitting hairs over application of this law, an over-zealous prosecutor might try to infer various intentions on the part of the legislature, and so any strengthening language can't hurt.
    Making a law "over defined" can always hurt. The more words that are in a law, the more ways there are to read that law. Generally speaking.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    Gay people DO have the same right to marry as straight people and they always have.* Many of them do it (marry someone of the opposite sex) for a variety of reasons. I think what pisses them off is the refusal of society to accept a new definition of "Marriage".*
    These sort of sham marriages are now extraordinarily rare, and are illegal for the purposes of immigration into this country.

    I've no problem with "civil unions".* I think if the goal is "equality" than that is what it should be, an option for anyone/everyone. If you want the state to recognize your commitment and be afforded rights between partners, have a civil union.

    If your faith and relationship lead to marriage, so be it.* *
    Congress has no political interest in rewriting all of their statutes which implicates the word "marriage". You'd need the cooperation of all 50 states and the political will to do something like that. The offer was made many years ago to do something similar to this about 15 years ago. It was soundly rejected by the "other side". Basically, it wasn't a matter of defending marriage to them.

    Essentially, they rake in a lot money in donations demonizing LGBT's, non-Christians, and so on, and if that particular culture war is solved in the way that you and I would prefer (make everything a civil union, no "marriage" nationwide) they would see a sudden downturn in their donations and they won't be able to pay their salaries, their living expenses. Peace on this issue is not in their financial interest. Scared people hand over money. The difference is that my side, as it where, want the equality and civil liberties. My religion doesn't even use the word "marriage" because they believe it to be a civil legal matter not a religious matter for them, however they do support marriage equality for same gendered couples in a legal sense.

    Ask Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the Traditional Values Coalition, if they would support a stand-down in the "marriage wars" and just have civil unions for everyone. I already know the answer, but I like to hear their answer to a unique question posed to you.

    That being said, I want there to be some clarity as to the reasons why the DP law actually exists. I've heard the statement "special rights" being bandied about because all opposite sex couples cannot participate in the DP program.

    There were two constituencies that are served by the domestic partnership: The same gendered couples (I am one half of one of those couples) who would marry but cannot due to legislative and legal refusals by states such as Washington (Washington's DOMA law is still in effect), and elder couples who do not remarry due to provisions of social security survivors benefits and pension benefits would see their income reduced or even eliminated because their deceased spouse under that survivor benefit would not longer be considered a "Deceased spouse" due to the remarriage, which is why they don't marry. These are federally regulated, and only the word "marriage" triggers the law's effects. You can forgive me if I'm a little non-plussed about the perspective about this being "special rights" because opposite sex couples of all cannot participate. You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.

    As for "extraneous language" of wife, husband, and so on, it's not really extraneous. The "other persons in your presence" provision seems to make it clear. I am not sure about the case law supporting this idea, but here is my thought just based on plain reading of the stupid, and this is just one scenario:

    You walk down the street, and you encounter someone you've had issues with (old renter who you evicted out of your property, whatever), and he tries to start an argument. He makes it clear he has a weapon but doesn't grab it or display it. During the verbal altercation, and near the end, the old renter tells you where your wife/husband/child works (assuming he's correct), and starts going to his car, saying that he is going to stab your wife/husband/child or shoot them (depending on the weapon). Relying on the cops, or relying on your wife/husband/child answering her cell phone (which may be turned off due to work) or the work phone, is not the best option. You know she isn't armed (work rule)

    The law, at least if I'm reading this correctly, extends your ability to use deadly force to this situation, even though your wife/husband/child is not in your presence. The old renter enunciated the intent to murder your wife/husband/child, showed the ability to do so, and then is apparently getting into a vehicle to do so because they know their work location.

    Though I can't speak for the case law for this because I am not sure if this has ever happened in this state, but if I am reading this correctly, this is a very good law for this situation. Unfortunately, the problem here is the aftereffects, as in the cops being called. If the guy survives, then he's going to claim that he never threatened to kill your wife/husband/child. If he's dead, then the prosecutor may be arguing on the criminal's behalf. I personally would not want to be in such a situation, but before December 3rd, if someone went after William in the manner of the above scenario, I could not exercise that defense. Now I can.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.
    I am so tired of hearing this crap. Because I can means that I shouldn't be afforded the same right as you now? I thought the whole argument from your side was equality?

    You sure blew that out of the water with your post.
    "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

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.
    I am so tired of hearing this crap. Because I can means that I shouldn't be afforded the same right as you now? I thought the whole argument from your side was equality?

    You sure blew that out of the water with your post.
    Why would YOU want a domestic partnership rather than marriage? Why would you intentionally set yourself up with an inferior license who's recognition across this country is spotty at best, whereas a marriage license with your wife is universally recognized and respected in every state in this country?

    Your outrage is exactly backwards of what it should be. If you're upset over the current domestic partnership law, then let's try to get a law passed to expand the domestic partnership law to be available to everyone. Problem resolved, issue resolved, though I just have one question: What is your skin in this game? Why do YOU really care? What civil right are you being denied by being disallowed from a form of licensed relationship recognition which is inferior to marriage? My perception is that you're being specious, but if you ARE being for real with me, you're upset with being excluded from a relationship recognition license due to your affection orientation. All I gotta say is...

    Welcome to my world

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.
    I am so tired of hearing this crap. Because I can means that I shouldn't be afforded the same right as you now? I thought the whole argument from your side was equality?

    You sure blew that out of the water with your post.
    Why would YOU want a domestic partnership rather than marriage? Why would you intentionally set yourself up with an inferior license who's recognition across this country is spotty at best, whereas a marriage license with your wife is universally recognized and respected in every state in this country?

    Your outrage is exactly backwards of what it should be. If you're upset over the current domestic partnership law, then let's try to get a law passed to expand the domestic partnership law to be available to everyone. Problem resolved, issue resolved, though I just have one question: What is your skin in this game? Why do YOU really care? What civil right are you being denied by being disallowed from a form of licensed relationship recognition which is inferior to marriage? My perception is that you're being specious, but if you ARE being for real with me, you're upset with being excluded from a relationship recognition license due to your affection orientation. All I gotta say is...

    Welcome to my world
    Really? Really? Well if you were straight maybe you would understand.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.
    I am so tired of hearing this crap. Because I can means that I shouldn't be afforded the same right as you now? I thought the whole argument from your side was equality?

    You sure blew that out of the water with your post.
    Why would YOU want a domestic partnership rather than marriage? Why would you intentionally set yourself up with an inferior license who's recognition across this country is spotty at best, whereas a marriage license with your wife is universally recognized and respected in every state in this country?

    Your outrage is exactly backwards of what it should be. If you're upset over the current domestic partnership law, then let's try to get a law passed to expand the domestic partnership law to be available to everyone. Problem resolved, issue resolved, though I just have one question: What is your skin in this game? Why do YOU really care? What civil right are you being denied by being disallowed from a form of licensed relationship recognition which is inferior to marriage? My perception is that you're being specious, but if you ARE being for real with me, you're upset with being excluded from a relationship recognition license due to your affection orientation. All I gotta say is...

    Welcome to my world
    I would be all for it if you read my posts above. As far as my skin? Everyone is equal, the states should stay out of religious marriages and there should be a federal domestic partner law that encompasses every single person, regardless.

    I don't want to be part of your world. We should all be part of the same world. Now get off your f'ing high horse.
    "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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I think there are two issues at hand when talking about two people committing to one another. You have marriage which is a religious institution. You have unions which are a legal contract between two adults.

    Gay people are framing it all wrong, it should be about the legal recognition of two people, i.e. union. As for the religious aspect of coupling people together, religions should have a right to refuse to deny marriage to same sex couples.

    I am in support of legal unions between same sex, and heterosexual couples. If the couples wish to go through a religious ceremony, than so be it, but the religious organization must have the option to accept or reject offerring said marriage.

    It is nice to see the law clarifying itself. Gay couples should have a right to defend each other, and their families. As much as some who are against gay-families would like to believe that there are gay-families out there, there are many, and they should be equal to heterosexual families. The only reason that gay unions are an issue across the country is because gays are denied the ability to enter into a legal contract that opens the couple up to legal union benefits. There are many benefits that come with legal unions for heterosexual couple, and those benefits should be given to gay-couples also who have a legal union.

    One question I have about all the discussion regarding this lesbian couple, and their family is did Salters harrass, and attack the couple because they were lesbian, and had children? I wishsomeone could reach down into what was going through Salters mind the whole time, from the moment he decided to stand up, and walk to the front of the bus towards the family, to him not heeding the warnings to stop when a handgun was being pointed at him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Agree. All the rest of the stuff in there just seems like redundant verbiage... although I suppose perhaps if it got down to splitting hairs over application of this law, an over-zealous prosecutor might try to infer various intentions on the part of the legislature, and so any strengthening language can't hurt.
    How about voting judges in that use common sense and tell overzealous prosecutors to sit down and ****. We long ago stopped trying to find the truth in our court rooms, now it is a battle to see who can win, truth &justice take a back burner most of the time. We the people have allowed this to happen we should be ashamed.

    Thereis no need for special laws for special groups. What we really need is a law that reads mind your own busniess if you are not harmed, offended is not harmed.

    Orphan



    Orphan
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    tai4de2 wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Agree. All the rest of the stuff in there just seems like redundant verbiage... although I suppose perhaps if it got down to splitting hairs over application of this law, an over-zealous prosecutor might try to infer various intentions on the part of the legislature, and so any strengthening language can't hurt.
    How about voting judges in that use common sense and tell overzealous prosecutors to sit down and ****. We long ago stopped trying to find the truth in our court rooms, now it is a battle to see who can win, truth &justice take a back burner most of the time. We the people have allowed this to happen we should be ashamed.

    Thereis no need for special laws for special groups. What we really need is a law that reads mind your own busniess if you are not harmed, offended is not harmed.

    Orphan



    Orphan
    There is no justice system anymore....it's a processing center.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Orphan wrote:
    tai4de2 wrote:
    911Boss wrote:
    quote: "...or of any other person in his presence or company,"


    Sounds like they were already covered to me.
    Agree. All the rest of the stuff in there just seems like redundant verbiage... although I suppose perhaps if it got down to splitting hairs over application of this law, an over-zealous prosecutor might try to infer various intentions on the part of the legislature, and so any strengthening language can't hurt.
    How about voting judges in that use common sense and tell overzealous prosecutors to sit down and ****. We long ago stopped trying to find the truth in our court rooms, now it is a battle to see who can win, truth &justice take a back burner most of the time. We the people have allowed this to happen we should be ashamed.

    Thereis no need for special laws for special groups. What we really need is a law that reads mind your own busniess if you are not harmed, offended is not harmed.

    Orphan



    Orphan
    There is no justice system anymore....it's a processing center.
    SVG

    I stand corrected, I am not sure what came over me!

    Orphan
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    joeroket
    I would be all for it if you read my posts above. As far as my skin? Everyone is equal, the states should stay out of religious marriages and there should be a federal domestic partner law that encompasses every single person, regardless.

    I don't want to be part of your world. We should all be part of the same world. Now get off your f'ing high horse.
    [/quote]

    Except you did not answer my questions. Sometimes people have a bad tendency to think of things as a zero sum game. Your objection to the law seemed to give off the impression that the law should be struck down as unconstitutional, or repealed, leaving me and over 6,000 couples with no protections at all.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •