• 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.

Slight Law Change to Washington Self Defense Statute

jamesjackson

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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 STFU. 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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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 STFU. 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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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 STFU. 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
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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".

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.

It's all good as long as Gay people do not proclaim to be christians. Gods law specifically states that Homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev20:13;Deut23:18mg;Rom1:27&version=NASB
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
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".

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.

It's all good as long as Gay people do not proclaim to be christians. Gods law specifically states that Homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev20:13;Deut23:18mg;Rom1:27&version=NASB
So's eating shellfish and wearing clothing blended between two different fibers. What's your point?

It's all good for you personally, but people can call themselves generally whatever they want, and you can't stop them from doing so.

Let's not drag this down into a religious argument, because no one wins those.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
It's all good as long as Gay people do not proclaim to be christians. Gods law specifically states that Homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev20:13;Deut23:18mg;Rom1:27&version=NASB
No, the Catholic Church proclaimed that homosexuality is a sin. Remember who compiled your bible, it was man, not God.

The foundation of God's laws, The Ten Commandments, don't have anything to say about homosexuality in any way shape or form.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

This post has been off topic for way too long and is going in a bad direction in a big hurry. I am going to suggestwe just let this one die, Please.

Orphan
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

FMCDH wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
It's all good as long as Gay people do not proclaim to be christians. Gods law specifically states that Homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev20:13;Deut23:18mg;Rom1:27&version=NASB
No, the Catholic Church proclaimed that homosexuality is a sin. Remember who compiled your bible, it was man, not God.

The foundation of God's laws, The Ten Commandments, don't have anything to say about homosexuality in any way shape or form.

Lev20:13 was handed down from God to Moses, I'm not gonna argue with what God intended.

Better yet, Dirty Harry said it best... "How can one man look at another mans hairy @$$ and find love?"
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
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.

It should absolutely not be struck down. It should be expanded to cover all.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Gray Peterson wrote:
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.

It should absolutely not be struck down. It should be expanded to cover all.
And this, my friends, is why one should *never* ass-u-me anything, because it makes an ass out of you and me.

Whoops. :what: Sorry Joe. I'll take the hit on that one and take the personal DURRR moment on my part.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

civil union = common law marriage, IMO

marriage=commitment=religious

I don't see a need for government to regulate who loves who.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
civil union = common law marriage, IMO

marriage=commitment=religious

I don't see a need for government to regulate who loves who.

Exactly, so simplify the law to the anybody part and we are all good. Individual rights across the board.

Oh, and only those who didn't proscribe to Jesus the Carpenter as the messiah was banned from eating shelfish.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Gray Peterson wrote:
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.

It should absolutely not be struck down. It should be expanded to cover all.
And this, my friends, is why one should *never* ass-u-me anything, because it makes an ass out of you and me.

Whoops. :what: Sorry Joe. I'll take the hit on that one and take the personal DURRR moment on my part.
No worries Gray. We all have those moments. God knows I have had my fair share. ;)
 

Solar

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
87
Location
, , USA
imported post

Getting back to the real issue. I did not see a response to the posts pointing out that the law already seemed to cover "anyone in their company". That being the case, why make the law go into the domestic partnership issue? I would agree that these seems to be going overboard for a special interest. Gray, can you explain how the addition of that section is different? I didn't understand your initial statement regarding how one could use the new law as a defense, that was not available before.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Solar wrote:
Getting back to the real issue. I did not see a response to the posts pointing out that the law already seemed to cover "anyone in their company". That being the case, why make the law go into the domestic partnership issue? I would agree that these seems to be going overboard for a special interest. Gray, can you explain how the addition of that section is different? I didn't understand your initial statement regarding how one could use the new law as a defense, that was not available before.
I'll repost the particular scenario from earlier in this thread:


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 they are'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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Having trouble finding it in the RCW, but in some states they prohibit death/terrorist threats and they are considered felonies. IANAL, but you should be able to citizen arrest him, up to and including deadly force if necessary. Tennessee v. Garner may figure in too.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Deadly force is only authorized if its a special relationship? I may hate someones politics, attitude, ....way they look...I am not going to let someone kill them.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

I clicked on this thread in hopes to read some good ol' discussions about self defense, but instead there's a bunch of talk about homosexuals.
 
Top