Another burglary interupted

imported post

OC-Glock19 wrote:

It may not be a clean shoot. From another story about this:
"The 59-year-old homeowner told police he took a life to protect his own. He says the home he's been renovating had been broken into at about 5 p.m.

He planned on spending the night there in case the burglars came back.

At about 9:45, a man and a woman pulled into his driveway in a pick-up. When the owner opened the garage he saw the two holding flashlights.

The property owner opened fire, killing the 56-year-old man. The 31-year-old woman who had been in the pickup ran away, but later talked to deputies and was released."

Even if cleared by the police he could be sued for wrongful death by the family of the deceased who could argue that he laid in wait with a gun and intended to shoot anyone who ventured onto his property.

Click to expand...

I sure hope that he didn't word it like that or he is in trouble. The woman was released? Sounds to me like two people were somewhere they weren't supposed to be. The man might be civily liable. If he thought they were a threat and shot in self-defense then I hope he is not found civily liable, even though the proof is much less in civil court.

imported post

Keeping in mind, I am playing devil's advocate here, but these two could have had a very innocent reason to be there. Walking onto someone's property is NOT much of a threat. These two could have been neighbors that heard about the break-in and were dropping by to check on the house. They could have been trying to peddle their religion. They could have been selling booster-club tickets.

...or they could have been looking for the best entry for breaking into the house. Pretty brave criminals to shine a flashlight in a face versus running back to their truck.

Just some thought.

imported post

This brings up some thing that has bothered me for awhile.

Lets say a couple guys kick in your door and run in with weapons, any weapon and you shoot one dead. It is ruled self defense in court or no charges at all.

Now enters the bad guys wife and sues you in civil court for wrongful death.

I have a real problem with that seems like it should be considered double jeopardy?

If it was a good shoot there should be no civil suit allowed.

Comments???

imported post

ghosthunter wrote:

This brings up some thing that has bothered me for awhile.

Lets say a couple guys kick in your door and run in with weapons, any weapon and you shoot one dead. It is ruled self defense in court or no charges at all.

Now enters the bad guys wife and sues you in civil court for wrongful death.

I have a real problem with that seems like it should be considered double jeopardy?

If it was a good shoot there should be no civil suit allowed.

Comments???

Click to expand...

umbrella insurance policy

imported post

ghosthunter wrote:

This brings up some thing that has bothered me for awhile.

Lets say a couple guys kick in your door and run in with weapons, any weapon and you shoot one dead. It is ruled self defense in court or no charges at all.

Now enters the bad guys wife and sues you in civil court for wrongful death.

I have a real problem with that seems like it should be considered double jeopardy?

If it was a good shoot there should be no civil suit allowed.

Comments???

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not because, among other things, civil and criminal cases are seperate aspects of the law. That is one reason why it isn't double jeopardy.

I don't agree with that crap either, but that is the way the beast grumbles.

EDIT: Bad grammar, and jeopardy is one of my spelling demons.

imported post

ghosthunter wrote:

This brings up some thing that has bothered me for awhile.

Lets say a couple guys kick in your door and run in with weapons, any weapon and you shoot one dead. It is ruled self defense in court or no charges at all.

Now enters the bad guys wife and sues you in civil court for wrongful death.

I have a real problem with that seems like it should be considered double jeopardy?

If it was a good shoot there should be no civil suit allowed.

Comments???

Click to expand...

im not sure which,,, but either the castle doctrin or the stand your ground rule,, contain a provision that protects you from the civil liability in your self defense!!

imported post

if the woman talked to the cops? and she alledged neferious intent by her man..
the shooter will get off AOK!

if she ""hadent"",,,, "talked to the police" "coulda kept her mouth shut"
this guy would be up shlt creek without a paddle,,
if she didnt talkup a robbery!! he was just shooting at flashlights!!!!

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

ghosthunter wrote:

This brings up some thing that has bothered me for awhile.

Lets say a couple guys kick in your door and run in with weapons, any weapon and you shoot one dead. It is ruled self defense in court or no charges at all.

Now enters the bad guys wife and sues you in civil court for wrongful death.

I have a real problem with that seems like it should be considered double jeopardy?

If it was a good shoot there should be no civil suit allowed.

Comments???

Click to expand...

im not sure which,,, but either the castle doctrin or the stand your ground rule,, contain a provision that protects you from the civil liability in your self defense!!

Click to expand...

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.

[/b](1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030...

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

if the woman talked to the cops? and she alledged neferious intent by her man..
the shooter will get off AOK!

if she ""hadent"",,,, "talked to the police" "coulda kept her mouth shut"
this guy would be up shlt creek without a paddle,,
if she didnt talkup a robbery!! he was just shooting at flashlights!!!!

Click to expand...

There seems to be nothing that indicated the shooter knew that that was all he was shooting at was two people with flashlights. The shooter percceived a threat and that is all you need to shoot in self-defense is a reasonable perception of a threat.

LEO's have shot and killed (justified) for less than a flashlight and we as citizens have much more latitude than LEO's do when it comes to self-defense.

imported post

Updated article:

Source

Homeowner, Fearing Burglar, Fatally Shoots Man

Posted: 7:31 am PDT April 20, 2010
Updated: 4:08 pm PDT April 20, 2010

ONALASKA, Wash. -- A homeowner fatally shot a man he suspected was trying to steal from him during a confrontation at a house near Onalaska Monday night, the Lewis County Sheriff's Office told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.

Chief Deputy Stacy Brown said the homeowner, a 59-year-old man, called the sheriff's office Monday at about 5 p.m. to report that someone had broken into his house and had stolen a checkbook and a power tool.

The homeowner, who lives nearby, apparently decided to stay in the unfinished house Monday night in case the burglar returned, Brown said. The house, in the 2100 block of State Route 508, has been under construction for several years.

At about 9:46 p.m., the homeowner heard a noise, went to the garage to investigate, opened the garage door and saw flashlights shining in his eyes. He opened fire on a man who was outside the garage. The man, a 56-year-old from Morton, was pronounced dead at the scene, the sheriff's office said.

A neighbor heard the sound of a woman screaming at about 10 p.m., the neighbor told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reporter Alison Grande.

A 31-year-old Morton woman who was with the man ran away, but later spoke with detectives. She told police she was the man's wife.

The sheriff's office said investigators don't know whether the two were responsible for the earlier burglary or why they were on the property.

The 58-year-old homeowner was not arrested and the prosecutor will decide if he should face charges.

"If someone is in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, they have a right to use deadly force to protect themselves," said Lewis County Prosecutor Michael Golden. “The force though has to be reasonable to the threat."

The Washington State Patrol is assisting Lewis County sheriff's detectives in the investigation.

Click to expand...

imported post

The prosecutor says it the same as others have said it on here: "If someone is in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, they have a right to use deadly force to protect themselves," said Lewis County Prosecutor Michael Golden. “The force though has to be reasonable to the threat."

What I perceive to be a threat and how I see the threat are what is important. If you pull out a gun and point it at me (you know it is unloaded) it is still assault, because I don't know the gun is unloaded. Same here. The home owner perceived a threat, and acted accordingly.

(Remember, this is also Lewis County) I doubt the prosecutor will file charges. What harmless act can there be to cause you to drive onto someone's property late at night and start snooping around? You don't do that kind of thing down here... Or if you do, you are willing to accept the consequences...

imported post

You really shouldn't do that anywhere. Private property is exactly that.

imported post

Considering the ages of themale who was shotand his "wife", the area, the time of night, and the flashlights, I would guess meth-heads looking for something to pawn for materials. The question that still lingers with me though is why does a home invader stick around when the garage door starts to open? I mean, nothing says "Run like hell!" like the sound of a garage door motor. Am I crazy here?

EDIT: removed the word victim. Although I was thinking victim of a gunshot wound, he more than likely was not a victim in this scenario.

imported post

Weren't just locals, they had to drive 30-45 minutes (depending on traffic).

Back to the opening post. Maybe some of these will think about changing occupations.

imported post

A little more to the story



http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/22/1215007/onalaska-fatal-shooting-circumstances.html

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

You can be standing your ground while laying--it is still considered a form of standing your ground even though it is actually laying your ground but not to be misconstrued as laying groundwork because laying groundwork you might not be justified in standing your ground whether in a vertical or horizontal position unless after you lay the groundwork you stand your ground either figuratively or actually.

Click to expand...

touche Sylvia....touche....

imported post

I believe in "stand your ground". I believe in protecting your property and those you love. But I also believe STRONGLY in one other thing. That is TARGET IDENTIFICATION. The homeowner got the right guy for the right reasons, but he was LUCKY. All he knew for sure was that someone was shining a flashlight in his face.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

I believe in "stand your ground". I believe in protecting your property and those you love. But I also believe STRONGLY in one other thing. That is TARGET IDENTIFICATION. The homeowner got the right guy for the right reasons, but he was LUCKY. All he knew for sure was that someone was shining a flashlight in his face.

Click to expand...

Definately agreed.

He lived physically unharmed for another day.

imported post

oneeyeross wrote:

The prosecutor says it the same as others have said it on here: "If someone is in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, they have a right to use deadly force to protect themselves," said Lewis County Prosecutor Michael Golden. “The force though has to be reasonable to the threat."

What I perceive to be a threat and how I see the threat are what is important. If you pull out a gun and point it at me (you know it is unloaded) it is still assault, because I don't know the gun is unloaded. Same here. The home owner perceived a threat, and acted accordingly.

(Remember, this is also Lewis County) I doubt the prosecutor will file charges. What harmless act can there be to cause you to drive onto someone's property late at night and start snooping around? You don't do that kind of thing down here... Or if you do, you are willing to accept the consequences...

Click to expand...

The sticking point is "The force though has to be reasonable to the threat." In this case there was very little known threat, so the force used seems very excessive to me. He should have either waited for the person to actually break into the home before shooting them, or he should have stayed hidden while announcing he had a gun and was calling the police.

imported post

oneeyeross wrote

What I perceive to be a threat and how I see the threat are what is important. If you pull out a gun and point it at me (you know it is unloaded) it is still assault, because I don't know the gun is unloaded. Same here. The home owner perceived a threat, and acted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Actually you have this dead wrong.

What matters is what the responding police officers perceive the threat to have been. What matters is how those officers present the situation in their report to the local prosecutor. What matters is whether the prosecutor is up for reelection soon, whether the press is giving the prosecutor a hard time about being too soft on crime, whether the prosecutor is having a good day or not. What matters is how good of an attorney you can afford. What matters, should it come to it, is how the jury perceives the threat a year after the incident actually took place.

Your view is basically completely and utterly irrelevant, because should it come to trial you probably won't even testify. The only statements of yours the jury will here will be what the police officers claim you said when they arrived on scene, and if it gets to a jury those statements probably won't be that favorable.

I will be very surprised if the shooter in this case doesn't get prosecuted. He did just about everything wrong you can think of in that situation and, sadly, should be prosecuted for murder and be allowed to plea down to manslaughter or reckless endangerment.