Slight Law Change to Washington Self Defense Statute

Gray Peterson · Dec 4, 2009

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.

joeroket · Dec 4, 2009

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.

911Boss · Dec 4, 2009

imported post

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

Sounds like they were already covered to me.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Gray Peterson · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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.

virgil47 · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

911Boss · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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!

joeroket · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tawnos · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

So it isn't "equal" rights, but "special" rights after all... what a shock!

Click to expand...

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?

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2009

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 ....

911Boss · Dec 5, 2009

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.

joeroket · Dec 5, 2009

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.

tai4de2 · Dec 5, 2009

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.

FMCDH · Dec 5, 2009

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 ....

Click to expand...

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.

FMCDH · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gray Peterson · Dec 6, 2009

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.

joeroket · Dec 6, 2009

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.

Gray Peterson · Dec 7, 2009

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.

Click to expand...

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

sudden valley gunner · Dec 7, 2009

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

joeroket · Dec 7, 2009

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

You have the ability to legally marry, I DO NOT.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Slight Law Change to Washington Self Defense Statute

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member