Yakima man fends off burglars

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Dave you can't follow your own advise can you?

Do you know the car prowler committed a felony for sure? Was his car on his property. Is car listed as place you can use justifiable homocide.during a felony? If there is no danger to you or others?

But again you just resort to ad hominem attacks. Are you that threatened by every damn thing I say? Before you start attacking what I say prove it wrong and read it correctly.

Click to expand...

I am not going to go back and try to find the story so take it for what it is worth.

The incident occurred I believe in North Seattle at night where a resident looked out from his upstairs window saw a couple of men breaking into his car park in his drive way below him, he yelled for them to drop the stereo and one turned according to him in what he thought was a furtive movement as to draw a weapon and he brought up his rifle and shot and killed him (struck him in the back of the head).
The prosecutor pressured him to plea to a lesser charge and I am not sure if he is still serving his time for this.

The issue at hand here, is just because a felony has been committed does not fulfill the requirements to use deadly force.
The main component of using deadly force is an immediate threat to life or limb, this is not before or after the immediate threat it is at that moment in time only.

Some have a fascination of wanting to use a firearm so badly they hope they find an incident to do just that, this is quite concerning to say the least.
Issues of pulling a firearm on felonies that do not involve the threat of life or limb is placing oneself into a deeper jeopardy then most think.

Just because one may be right, does not mean he/she will not spend time in jail or in prison.
What happens if you are charged, placed in jail or worse in prison who is supporting your family, looking out for their welfare, future and life savings?
Your loved ones depend upon what you will or will not do, so when making that choice make sure it is worth what you may loose.

So when it comes to these issues, am I intense? You Damm Right I Am as I would hate to see any lawful citizen exercising their right to loose their freedom and rights or worse their life, for choosing to act in a manner that is not life or death event.

SVG as to why the home owner was charged, If I am lucky tomorrow I will have the chance to talk with the Yakima County Prosecutor on this very issue to get his views on it.

Again the issue of the perp committing a crime of burglary and then disengaging (the threat is no longer present) and running away does not fit employing Deadly Force (ie shooting).

A good way to evaluate and articulate when the use of Deadly Force is Authorized can be seen by using AOJ.
Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy
and some add Preclusion where everything must be present at the same time along with a that the force was not more then necessary and that a prudent man would have responded the same knowing what you knew, before and at that point in time.

If you are missing one element of AOJ, then the requirements for the use deadly force have not been met.

SVG as to citing things I will when I feel it is needed, that is why I keep posting for you lol, Cite "Because BigDave Said So" :monkeyto bad they do not have signatures in this forum as that would be mine :lol:

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Unless the homeowner had his shotgun loaded with slugs, I doubt that it would have been very lethal against a fleeing car, at distance. Even 00 buck isn't going to penetrate a cars body or windshields very well. At best, it would "mark" the car with tiny dents and chipped paint, making it easy to ID as the "get away" vehicle.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to shoot at fleeing BG's.

Click to expand...

Paintball gun, yellow balls, full-auto?

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Dave's comparison to the car prowler could have been a either a misdemeanor or a felony and that guys car might not have been on his property is not a fair comparison.

This was definately a felony the car may have been on his property. So according to the cites it may if he had shot these criminals justifiable by state law.

Click to expand...

SVG both were felony's and it is directly related to as shots being fired when in both instances the perps were running away and were shot at.

The issue of having the car on his property or not has no basis for determining to use deadly force or not.
If you are referring to ones domain then the domain is confined to ones house or attached structures as a deck or garage, but it must be attached.
An RV, hotel room and even possibly a tent could be considered ones domain but the property surrounding it is just property and does not maintain the same level of implied threat.

If someone uninvited enters your property in itself is not a threat to life and limb if someone uninvited enters your domain "House or Attached Structure" is considered an immediate threat to you and your family. This is why our legislature saw fit to include an exception for your place of abode where you can threaten or display deadly force from inside or upon your place of abode with out legal recourse if someone is there uninvited.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

The three ran off, two jumping in their car. The homeowner fired three shots at the suspects' car. After a high-speed chase, deputies arrested the two with assistance from Yakima and Union Gap police officers.
The other was found on foot about ten blocks from the scene.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Goof with a gun for sure.

Probable violation of supportof HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP]:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


Remember, HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] alwaysapplies. Even when some scumbags try to rob your home.

imported post

Several states had statutes authorizing LEO's use of deadly force to prevent felons from escaping. The courts ruled those statutes violated the constitution and placed further restrictions that the officer needed P.C. that the felon posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

imported post

So according to the cites it may if he had shot these criminals justifiable by state law.

Click to expand...

What part of your cite would apply to justify shooting these fellows while they were fleeing?

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.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be #1, because the guys were fleeing, so don't know how you would call that lawful defense.

I don't see how #2 would apply, because again, the guys were fleeing, so it would no longer be resisting the bad guys attempt to commit a felony.

imported post

erps wrote:

So according to the cites it may if he had shot these criminals justifiable by state law.

Click to expand...

What part of your cite would apply to justify shooting these fellows while they were fleeing?

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.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be #1, because the guys were fleeing, so don't know how you would call that lawful defense.

I don't see how #2 would apply, because again, the guys were fleeing, so it would no longer be resisting the bad guys attempt to commit a felony.

Click to expand...

I thank you erps for actually having a reasonable debate. Unlike others.

I don't justify it, I have no idea if that may be how a prosecutor with more details than have been provided has justified it. What we do know is the homeowner grabbed a gun when 3 guy broke in and we know that two of them made it to the car. The timeline of shots and were the suspects were are not clear. We also have no other idea what the criminals in the car were doing. The guy on foot etc. I am not condoning anything Dave likes to jump to conclusions. I am just thinking outside of the box.

We don't know if the other incident of the car prowlers committed a felony. He may have. The shooter was in his house and shot someone breaking into his car which he was not in, albeit we still don't know everything the LEO and prosecutor's know in that case either. A very different situation than this one were we know a felony was committed for sure. What if the crooks were shouting 'we are going to come back and kill your whole family' as they were leaving? What if it looked like they were grabbing weapons out their car. We don't know. And that is my point. I am not going to judge this person who obviously was a victim of a very scary felony without knowing the facts first. Call me crazy but I try to go by that old saying innocent until "proven" guilty.

It also has been pointed out citizens have more leeway, in justifiable homicide than police officers. Officers have a stricter guideline than regular folk.

Who knows maybe the prosecutor will bring up charges on the homeowner, but just hasn't yet.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

SVG as to citing things I will when I feel it is needed, that is why I keep posting for you lol, Cite "Because BigDave Said So" :monkeyto bad they do not have signatures in this forum as that would be mine :lol:

Click to expand...

So you have disregard for the rules of this forum?


[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.[/font]


[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer). [/font]

imported post

This post is by a pretty smart fellow and succinctly states in one sentence what I was saying.

Ajetpilot wrote:

Additionally, one prosecutor might bring charges for a given set of circumstances and facts, and the prosecutor in a different county might not.

Click to expand...

imported post

I'm obviously with SVG on this one. Dave.. the world is not in black and white

imported post

The Original poster gave reference to the article providing enough information for this discussion, but we have those that like to change the circumstances to fit their views as SVG likes to do and thus generate conflict.

Information provided for discussion.

1. That's when the would-be victim grabbed a shotgun and pointed it at one of the suspects.

2.The three ran off, two jumping in their car.

3.The homeowner fired three shots at the suspects' car.

4. The other was found on foot about ten blocks from the scene.

Additional information

http://www.yakima-herald.com/storie...pects-foiled-after-attempting-to-elude-police

1. The homeowner told authorities he saw a man throw a brick through a window and attempt to enter his home.

2. He then armed himself with a shotgun, went inside and pointed it at the man, authorities said.

3. The burglar ran out of the house and jumped into a waiting white passenger car with another man inside.

4. As the car left the driveway, the homeowner fired three shots at it.

5. A third burglar reportedly left on foot.

Click to expand...

This states pretty clear they were running away, so where would it be justified with in the reported information a homeowner would be authorized to shoot at their car leaving?

SVG or others, a few questions.

1. What do you see constitutes the Use of Deadly Force (Firing Your Gun)?
2. What is the criteria, that are you willing to take a life for not not take a life, where is that line drawn?
3. How does your view of the laws that justify shooting someone fleeing?

These are a few things we all need to be able to answer, if we have trouble or cannot then some deep soul searching needs to be done.

imported post

n16ht5 wrote:

I'm obviously with SVG on this one. Dave.. the world is not in black and white

Click to expand...

Exactly what I am saying. Look again how Dave is trying to paint something as "my view" and never have I said it was my view. If someone was to read the my posts carefully they would grasp that, unless they don't have the ability to think outside of a limited view of the world. He has done this in other threads too. I feel sorry for his "family" if he has any if this is the way he acts at home.

imported post

ouch! This seems like it's getting personal.

imported post

SVG a few questions.

1. What do you see constitutes the Use of Deadly Force (Firing Your Gun)?
2. What is the criteria, that are you willing to take a life for not not take a life, where is that line drawn?
3. How does your view of the laws that justify shooting someone fleeing?

How about it SVG can you answer just a few basic questions that we all should know?

LOL World is not black and white oh how clever, and how does it apply in what we are discussing.
The discussion is dealing with shooting at a fleeing felon that was in their car fleeing, no threat, how is that a threat at that point in time when the shots were fired?

imported post

erps wrote:

ouch! This seems like it's getting personal.

Click to expand...

Well erps you and I have disagreed on matters but have kept it civil. I am going to stop feeding the troll. He thinks he has me all figured out but he doesn't. He thinks he has all the answers but he don't, none of us do. He continues to make what should be a forum for friendly discussion/debate and stories into an antagonistic situation. I hope he goes the way of Boo Boo who used to do the same thing.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

SVG a few questions.

1. What do you see constitutes the Use of Deadly Force (Firing Your Gun)?
2. What is the criteria, that are you willing to take a life for not not take a life, where is that line drawn?
3. How does your view of the laws that justify shooting someone fleeing?

How about it SVG can you answer just a few basic questions that we all should know?

LOL World is not black and white oh how clever, and how does it apply in what we are discussing.
The discussion is dealing with shooting at a fleeing felon that was in their car fleeing, no threat, how is that a threat at that point in time when the shots were fired?

Click to expand...

Well SVG these are simple questions and yet you avoid anything that you cannot twist or see a path that will end other then you intend it to be.

imported post

All I will say here is that SVG seems to understand the rules of this forum and has been here for some time. Other posters in this thread.....maybe not so much.

On topic, I personally would be hard pressed to justify to myself shooting at a car driving away unless I still thought it was a threat. If they had my stuff, would I be following close behind? Maybe.

If the law says that in that circumstance, shooting at the car driving away was OK, well, there you go. I have a hard time finding sympathy for thieves and criminals in the first place....maybe if more criminals caught a bullet, there would be less criminals in society today. Would I do it if I wasn't sure I was legally in the right and/or my life was in danger? Probably not.....this state isn't quite as bad as Kommifornia, but it's getting there......"the poor kid was turning his life around", etc, etc......

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

All I will say here is that SVG seems to understand the rules of this forum and has been here for some time. Other posters in this thread.....maybe not so much.

On topic, I personally would be hard pressed to justify to myself shooting at a car driving away unless I still thought it was a threat. If they had my stuff, would I be following close behind? Maybe.

If the law says that in that circumstance, shooting at the car driving away was OK, well, there you go. I have a hard time finding sympathy for thieves and criminals in the first place....maybe if more criminals caught a bullet, there would be less criminals in society today. Would I do it if I wasn't sure I was legally in the right and/or my life was in danger? Probably not.....this state isn't quite as bad as Kommifornia, but it's getting there......"the poor kid was turning his life around", etc, etc......

Click to expand...

You see that is the issue it is not legal to shoot when there is no immediate threat of life and limb. The threat ceased when they fled to the car and was driving away.

An argument could have been made if he was running toward the car as to obtain a weapon but this is not the case the car was leaving when shot at according to the articles.

Do not get me wrong I have no sympathy for criminals period and I would have probably been hot on their six while on the phone with 911.

As I stated before I will be talking with the County Prosecutor tonight on this issue and will hopefully get his position on the issue.

imported post

Nope.

RCW 9A.16.050Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
(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

BigDave wrote:

SVG or others, a few questions.

1. What do you see constitutes the Use of Deadly Force (Firing Your Gun)?
2. What is the criteria, that are you willing to take a life for not not take a life, where is that line drawn?
3. How does your view of the laws that justify shooting someone fleeing?

These are a few things we all need to be able to answer, if we have trouble or cannot then some deep soul searching needs to be done.

Click to expand...

I think that when the shooting of the fleeing (and unarmed) robbers examples come up here, that the participants in the discussion basically split into two groups:

1. Those that realize there are legal, moral and ethical issues involved that circumscribe gun deploying behavior.

2. Those that think that killing a person who is not a threat is a morally justified action if their home or property has been transgressed.

The former group will be attempting to understand what the limits of his actions should be, as much as they may hate a person who has stolen their stuff.

The latter group looks at a non-threatening and fleeing transgressor (even an unarmed one) as an Impromptu Execution Opportunity (IEO). This group wants to shoot the guy sooooooooooooooooooooo bad. They really have pyschological issues to deal with--and are a danger to themselves, their families and random passers-by.