Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Shooting at a fleeing suspect?

  1. #1
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/2010/...truder-misses/
    House-sitter shoots at intruder, misses A Douglas County man who was watching a home for a friend shot at an intruder in the home as he fled but missed, authorities said.
    The man arrived at the house, southeast of Bridgeport, to find the door open and burglars inside, said Douglas County Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal.
    The home is in the 3400 block of Highway 172, about one mile west of Sims Corner.
    Gjesdal said the man saw a suspect dressed in black and wearing a ski mask, and went to his pickup to retrieve a 9 mm pistol, he said.
    When he returned he heard glass breaking and believes he saw the man in black with something in his hand as he fled, the sheriff said. The man told police he fired twice, but missed.
    When deputies arrived, they searched the home and found a 20-year-old Bridgeport man hiding in the bathroom. He had injuries from a saw he pulled on top of himself when the other suspect fled, he said. He was treated by an ambulance crew, the sheriff said.
    Deputies used dogs and night-vision optics to search the area, but were unable to locate the man who fled.
    Gjesdal said an investigation led to two other Bridgeport males, one 20 and one 17, who were also arrested as suspects in the burglary.
    Authorities have identified a 23-year-old Bridgeport man they believe to be the man who fled, and they are searching for him, the sheriff said.
    He said there’s nothing to suggest the man who fired acted inappropriately.


    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattleish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
    According to the RCW, he's clear:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    "(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."

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Ethical and moral arguments aside it is pretty clear what the law says.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    midiwall wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
    According to the RCW, he's clear:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    "(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."
    We just want to shoot dudes in the back tonight, don't we?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    midiwall wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house!* Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
    According to the RCW, he's clear:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    "(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."
    Once he starts to flee the attempt to commit a felony has ended. He is not clear. Had he shot/killed the subject in the back he more than likely would be facing manslaughter charges.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    When I read(e) this article I wondered if the man shooting at the intruder as the intruder was running away was going to be charged with a crime.

    Should the man be charged?....NO, IMO Even if the house-sitter actually shot the intruder in the back, I have no problem with it personally. Would I do it?....heck no!
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post


    ........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house!
    Your place of abode is Washington State FWIU includes any place that you are sleeping, no matter how temporary....a tent is a place of abode FWIU....I coul dbe wrong about all of this. The fact that the intruder entered the house posed a danger to all the legal inhabitants of the home.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattleish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    We just want to shoot dudes in the back tonight, don't we?
    It's not my call that someone started a new thread on the topic. I still stand by my statement in the other thread.

    I will concede on _this_ thread that I misread the original post.

    believes he saw the man in black with something in his hand as he fled, the sheriff said. The man told police he fired twice, but missed.
    This is an ambiguous statement that doesn't draw a true timeline. When I first read it, I did not read it as "the man shot at the intruder as he fled". I read it disconnected as "the man fired twice" being separate from "as he fled".

    If he shot (and hit) as the intruder was running out the door, _and no felony had yet been committed_ then yes, the shooter would be in trouble.

    That would make this a different situation than the other thread.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    We just want to shoot dudes in the back tonight, don't we?
    Well, it certainly would make the "dude" think twice the next time, if he survived.


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

    Post imported post

    I am a strong proponent of private property although I woud not shoot a fleeing victim and not saying I would shoot someone for the following reasons, I don't think anybody should be prosecuted for shooting someone who was intent on stealing or committing any other crimes on their property. It might start teaching folks to respect property again.
    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
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:

    ........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house!
    Your place of abode is Washington State FWIU includes any place that you are sleeping, no matter how temporary....a tent is a place of abode FWIU....I coul dbe wrong about all of this. The fact that the intruder entered the house posed a danger to all the legal inhabitants of the home.
    So then I could live in a motorhome... driving around...carrying concealed inside it while driving it...without a CPL...because it is my place of abode?

    RCW 9.41.050 Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
    Nurg nurg nurg.



    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    As to this situation I feel the person house sitting was well with in his legal right to use deadly force as to what he knew at that point in time his life was in immediate threat of life or limb.
    Multiple intruders, observed what could be a deadly weapon in hand, running to an area of cover (still another intruder in the home) where he could use the weapon in his hand or retrieve another.

    "Gjesdal said the man saw a suspect dressed in black and wearing a ski mask, and went to his pickup to retrieve a 9 mm pistol, he said.

    When he returned he heard glass breaking and believes he saw the man in black with something in his hand as he fled, the sheriff said. The man told police he fired twice, but missed."
    Do we have AOJ (Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy) full filled here, I think so and with that I feel a reasonable prudent man would have done the same thing.
    Note this incident has different circumstances then ones I have posted on before as there is a clear and present danger.
    To bad he was not a better shot at night, which is a tough thing to do, I wonder if he had a flashlight or not?



    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Poosharker wrote:
    Sylvia Plath wrote:


    ........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house!
    Your place of abode is Washington State FWIU includes any place that you are sleeping, no matter how temporary....a tent is a place of abode FWIU....I coul dbe wrong about all of this. The fact that the intruder entered the house posed a danger to all the legal inhabitants of the home.
    So then I could live in a motorhome... driving around...carrying concealed inside it while driving it...without a CPL...because it is my place of abode?

    RCW 9.41.050 Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
    Nurg nurg nurg.
    Except in the person's place of abode or a fixed place of business.....I would love to know what "fixed place of business means" and i would like to know if the place of abode has to be fixed, and what constitues fixed.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    It doesn't say FIXED place of abode now does it?

    You said a place of abode could be a tent....last I checked, you can pack a tent up and go places with it...


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Poosharker wrote:
    It doesn't say FIXED place of abode now does it?

    You said a place of abode could be a tent....last I checked, you can pack a tent up and go places with it...
    That is what i am saying, but wondering....it does say place of abode, then it goes on to say fixed business. The "fixed" reference was not applied to place of abode.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    When it comes to your place of abode it is referring to your place of residence and attached structures such as garage, porches and decks (if they are attached).
    If you are in a hotel room or an RV that you are presently living in that is also generally accepted as your place of abode.

    RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following: (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

    82 State v. Smith July 2003 118 Wn. App. 480 AGID, J. - James Smith appeals his conviction for unlawful display of a weapon in violation of RCW 9.41.270(1). The issue is whether Smith's display of a weapon in his backyard falls within the "place of abode" exception to the statute. RCW 9.41.270(3)(a). Smith's actions do not fall within the exception because a backyard is not "in" a person's place of abode. We therefore affirm.

    35 Wn. App. 96, STATE v. HALEY [3] Weapons - Intimidation With Weapon - Abode Exception - What Constitutes - Deck. For purposes of the exception to the crime of intimidation with a weapon for acts committed while in the actor's place of abode (RCW 9.41.270(3)(a)), a deck attached to a dwelling constitutes a part of a place of abode. Court of Appeals: Holding that the deck was part of the juvenile's "place of abode" for purposes of the statutory exception to the definition of the crime, the court REVERSES the judgment.


    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  17. #17
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    midiwall wrote:
    This is an ambiguous statement that doesn't draw a true timeline. When I first read it, I did not read it as "the man shot at the intruder as he fled". I read it disconnected as "the man fired twice" being separate from "as he fled".

    If he shot (and hit) as the intruder was running out the door, _and no felony had yet been committed_ then yes, the shooter would be in trouble.

    That would make this a different situation than the other thread.
    I agree.

    In this situation, a clear danger has not been established.

    Given the information as stated in the OP, I probably wouldn't choose to shoot.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    So then I could live in a motorhome... driving around...carrying concealed inside it while driving it...without a CPL...because it is my place of abode?
    Nurg nurg nurg.
    I suspect that if the motor home was once broken, and you took it in for repairs, than you would be alright to say it was fixed.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    midiwall wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
    According to the RCW, he's clear:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    "(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."
    Once he starts to flee the attempt to commit a felony has ended. He is not clear. Had he shot/killed the subject in the back he more than likely would be facing manslaughter charges.
    If he had, as reported, something in his hand, it would be reasonable to believe that it was property stolen from the dwelling. Therefore, the thief was still in the process of commiting the felony and he was still in the presence of the shooter.

  20. #20
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

    Who knows?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattleish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    midiwall wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
    According to the RCW, he's clear:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

    "(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."
    Once he starts to flee the attempt to commit a felony has ended. He is not clear. Had he shot/killed the subject in the back he more than likely would be facing manslaughter charges.
    If he had, as reported, something in his hand, it would be reasonable to believe that it was property stolen from the dwelling. Therefore, the thief was still in the process of committing the felony and he was still in the presence of the shooter.
    Here's a slight right turn in the discussion...

    From the OP's story, we can conclude that the BG has commited Criminal Trespass, which is a gross misdemeanor. ref:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.070

    Now, if the BG even _thought_ of taking something from the house (or of course that the "something in his hand" is from the house), then that's Residential burglary, which is a class B felony. ref:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025

    Therefore, we're back to 9A.16.050, because a felony has already been committed.


  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    This topic brings up another issue that many have firmly stand on "not talking to police and lawyer up".

    It is pretty clear the House Sitter talked to Officers and it seems to me if he followed this advice, the result would have been, would have been taken into custody until such time the investigation was complete.

    While one should be concerned as to what they say, but I feel one should provide the basics, of Who What Where and When thus providing enough information as to evidence.

    This is similar to what occurred here in Yakima last month and no charges were filed do to investigating officers did not refer to the Prosecuting Attorney.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    As several have said, the statement of observation is the article is rather vague and ambiguous. However, if the first part of the statement is true, and the culprit had a stolen article IN HIS POSSESSION as he fled, then I would take that to mean the felony is still in progress, ergo deadly force was completely legal. My .02

    IMHO, it is questionable to shoot any man in the back. But since this is not a discussion or morality, I will simply say the way I read it, the house-sitter is completely in the clear.

  24. #24

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

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

    Who knows?
    So it is legal and ok to shoot, as long as you aren't able to actually hit what you are shooting at? But if you got skills and tag the "X" ring now it is wrong to shoot?

    I guess I will reassess my beliefs in regard to "warning" shots...

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

    Who knows?
    So it is legal and ok to shoot, as long as you aren't able to actually hit what you are shooting at? But if you got skills and tag the "X" ring now it is wrong to shoot?

    I guess I will reassess my beliefs in regard to "warning" shots...
    Point I was getting at was since he missed there wasn't any reason to look into whether the use of force was justified. Different case if there was a body laying there with a hole in the back, especially if the body was never armed.

    As for the miss, probably didn't hit anyone else either. Very lucky.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

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
  •