Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

Jeff Hayes · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

I have a real problem withthose of you that are justifying the Officer killing this guy because he was drunk behind the wheel and trying to leave. Following your logic everyone leaving a bar could be shot upon getting into their car because they may hurt someone. Or lets just have LEOs shoot anyone they catch CCing without a permit. Remember the jury said the Officer did not shoot in self defence. Also the Officer did not know how impared he was only that some people in a bar thought he was impared, hear say at best.

erps · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Drunk + in possession of deadly weapon (in this case vehicle) + resist arrest = summary execution.

For real?

Any summary executions in the future would have a different jury.

Jeff Hayes · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Jim675 wrote:

As far as I can see, DUI now makes one subject to legal summary execution.

Click to expand...

AND the subject resists arrest.

Given that, I think this is the most valid point of all.

Drunk + in possession of deadly weapon (in this case vehicle) + resist arrest = summary execution. Justification being probable cause to believe the subject was a FUTURE threat to the safety of the officer and others.

We have now given cops the ability to be judge, jury and executioner, with the basis for the judgment being what the subject may do in the future.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

Now, instead of vehicle, substitute gun. It's not even illegal in this state to be in possession of a gun while drunk (unless I missed something somewhere).

+1 said a lot better than I just did

BigDave · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

There is a difference between Law Enforcement and Citizens and they have different roles in society.
Police are charged to enforce the laws and to protect the public at large by RCW 9.16.040 that is more restrictive then the laws that cover the citizen.

In RCW 9.16.040 it states spells out in detail when an Officer can use Force and Deadly Force with an additional twist where their departments can impose further restrictions;

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

Thus being more restrictive then a citizen as most agency's have specific standards in levels of force.

A Citizen position is with their safety and self defense of those they choose to defend in their presence that meet the requirements of the use of force.

Trying to place a Citizen in the shoes of an Officer as in this case is highly unlikely.
The Jury in this case ruled it was not in Self Defense and while in the Officer's position it could be said that if he did not act there was an immediate threat to the public at large.

There are some in the community that try and walk the line between law enforcement and citizen, I would highly recommend for citizen to stay on the side of Self Defense and if you want to be in law enforcement take the test.
Get away from the attitude of you are going to enforce the law but rather to protect yourself and family.

I am sure as well the legal issue of this incident are not over yet, as it would seem the family would file a civil suit and as we know the rules are different.

erps · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Drunk + in possession of deadly weapon (in this case vehicle) + resist arrest = summary execution.

Drunk + in possession of deadly weapon + resisting arrest + perceived action that placed shooter in fear for their life = jury aquital in this case.

Isn't that a more accurate representation of what happened?

I didn't know how the jury was going to rule in this case. It wouldn't have surprised me if it had gone the other way.

But I don't see law enforcement sitting in their squad rooms rubbing their hands together now with a green light to start shooting citizens. Do you?

BigDave · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

AND on top of that.... he was shot, what, 7 times? Was it really necessary to shoot him multiple times? Did the officer evaluate the effect of each shot before shooting the next?

Even in war - in the case of training for Iraq and the possibility of vehicle borne explosive devices - if a vehicle is approaching a convoy at a high rate of speed and there is probable cause to believe the purpose of that approach is to attack, the training is to attempt to disable the approaching vehicle first before shooting the driver. Was there any attempt made to disable this vehicle in question?

Which, brings up an interesting point.... what if this had been an Iraqi, in Iraq and the shooter was an American soldier? My training that I went through would tell me that I would not be justified in shooting him.

Something to consider here NavyLT is how long does it take to shoot 7 rounds 2 to 2 1/2 seconds then how long can it take to someone being hit react.
We do not see an immediate result from hits as we do on paper or reactive targets you may well not know you actually hit the target until they drop, run off or actually see the wounds.

Rules of Engagement are different in War then in Law Enforcement along with different standards.

The Officer did use a taser that did not work and resorted to his firearm when faced with a drunk, highly upset and has just put his running vehicle in reverse and you are in close quarters.

How long do you feel this incident lasted when the car was put in reverse to the time it ended? my guess would be a few seconds.

BigDave · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Is this not how the Jury ruled, he acted within the Laws of Washington as a Police Officer in this situation but it was not in Self Defense.

antispam540 · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Let's look at it this way....

Jack and I are at a party. I watch Jack drink 10 drinks in 3 hours - most of them in the last 2 hours. Jack gets in an argument with someone and storms out of the party. I follow Jack outside and Jack gets in his car, pissed off and drunk.

I come up to Jack's car and have the following conversation with him:

ME: "Jack, give me the keys and I will drive you home, you are too drunk to drive."

Jack: "Piss off."

ME: "Come on Jack, don't do this, just let me drive you home."

Jack: "Screw you!" and starts the car.

ME: "Jack, if you leave now you are going to kill yourself or someone else, you are too drunk to drive, not stop this and let me just drive you home!"

Jack: "F.... off! I've had enough, I'm going home" and puts the car in gear ready to drive off.

So, am I justified in shooting him? How about if I hit him with a taser after he started the car and it didn't work? Now, if I have a uniform and a badge, am I justified in shooting him?

AND, if we answer the above three questions in order, NO, NO and YES... then how are the rules MORE restrictive for a police officer shooting than a private citizen?

Another interesting question to consider is what options a citizen has if he sees something like this. If you see a policeman pull out his gun and shoot someone in his car in the back 7 times without any obvious threat, I think the natural reaction is to believe a murder just occurred.

How would you perform a citizens arrest in that situation? You can't yell "freeze" or "I'm placing you under citizen's arrest", because if the policeman just murdered one person, what's to stop them from murdering you as a witness?

What could you do in the various police brutality situations, where you see a group of officers kicking and beating someone bleeding and unconscious on the ground?

If you draw your weapon, you'll be gunned down as quickly as you can think. If you yell at them or call attention to yourself, you'll likely be lucky to escape with a beating too. If you film them and they see you, they'll chase you and shoot or assault you, because at that point they're criminals in uniform. Is there any way to protect others when this happens, or are you pretty much as good as dead to try?

erps · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

The jury SPECIFICALLY ruled that the above bolded and underline part DID NOT EXIST!

the jury ruled that the shooter did not prove that he acted in self defense, so was therefore not elligible for having legal fees reimbursed.

Isn't the conflcting ruling because niether side met their burden of proof?

Norman · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Sticky stuff guys. Just as an aside. We are tasked with protecting ourselves. The second we try to protect another persons life (potentially) we open up a whole new can of worms.

Cops are there to maintain law and order. That is there "job". I know courts have ruled they don't have to protect anyone, but that is their general function.

If I try to stop a guy (random person) from driving drunk, I would think my actions are pretty limited in scope.

If a cop tries to stop a guy from driving drunk, they are pretty much required to do so. Allowing someone to drive home drunk sounds like a great lawsuit waiting to happen.

Just some random thoughts.

Norman · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Isn't the conflcting ruling because niether side met their burden of proof?

The thresholds were different. More evidence for vs against murder for the civil part (self defense). Beyond a reasonable doubt for the criminal act (murder/manslaughter).

erps · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

And if: perceived action that placed shooter in fear for their life existed then would it not be in self defense? Isn't that what the definition of self defense is?

It's my understanding that the jury heard evidence from the shooter that the the backup lights came on and that he wasinfear for his or his partner's life. Now the jury is sent to the back room to deliberate and found that the state did not prove that the shooter recklessly caused the death of the guy in the car. How much weight they gave to the shooters perceived fear is anyone's guess. Part one over.

Part two, I want my attorney fees paid, I acted in self defense. Jury goes in back room and finds that the shooter did not prove it.

I just don't think the characterization that drunk + car + resisting arrest = justified shooting is anaccurate one. The jury was given more evidence than that. How they weighed it, we will probably never know.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

First off John brings up very valid points. And a great illustration of howthere is a double standard.The law specifically states LEO are more restricted,just doesn't seem to be applied often enough.

There is no Hierarchy, in our society. We are the law, we hire LEO to do what is ultimately our job, while we are busy going about trying to make a living. Exactly why they should be more restricted when it comes to arrests and use of force.

Personally I am appalled by the thinking that it's ok for LEO to shoot someone in the line of duty when it wouldn't be ok for a citizen. It shows a double standard, lack of respect for lifeand makes me sick. I have respect for LEO, they do a tough job, but noone makes them or forces them to be an officer, if you can't do your job within the boundaries of the law and the restrictions placed upon you don't be a cop.

Like Deputy Doll of Bellingham PD told me, when we were discussing officer safety, "...no one held a gun to our head and made us take this job..."

Erps made some good points too, that seem to be getting bypassed.

gogodawgs · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Let's look at it this way....

Jack and I are at a party. I watch Jack drink 10 drinks in 3 hours - most of them in the last 2 hours. Jack gets in an argument with someone and storms out of the party. I follow Jack outside and Jack gets in his car, pissed off and drunk.

I come up to Jack's car and have the following conversation with him:

ME: "Jack, give me the keys and I will drive you home, you are too drunk to drive."

Jack: "Piss off."

ME: "Come on Jack, don't do this, just let me drive you home."

Jack: "Screw you!" and starts the car.

ME: "Jack, if you leave now you are going to kill yourself or someone else, you are too drunk to drive, not stop this and let me just drive you home!"

Jack: "F.... off! I've had enough, I'm going home" and puts the car in gear ready to drive off.

So, am I justified in shooting him? How about if I hit him with a taser after he started the car and it didn't work? Now, if I have a uniform and a badge, am I justified in shooting him?

AND, if we answer the above three questions in order, NO, NO and YES... then how are the rules MORE restrictive for a police officer shooting than a private citizen?

1st question.... you would be justified in shooting him if it is in self defense. But in the case you describe here "and puts the car in gear ready to drive off." You do not describe an instance where self defense is necessary. Let him drive off, call 911, get in the car and follow him, but you do not describe that you are defending your life. This is the same answer the jury had for the officer concerning only this single aspect.

2nd question... if as a citizen you attempt to use less then lethal force this would have nothing to do with self defense. The same standards for the 1st question apply.

3rd question... yes, the officer believed that other citizens were in jeopardy of serious injury or death. The police are authorized in this instance, that is part of their job. There are still consequences as we have found out in this instance.

4th question... you are comparing a self defense argument with a police policy argument. They are not the same. This seems to be where this entire thread is hung up, continuing to overlap the self defense and officer related shooting. Remember, it is not a case of self defense. The only reason the officer's attorney attempted to use self defense as an argument is to pay for the fees.

Does it look like the escalation of force moved quicker than what is expected? Yes, I believe so.

Would the escalation of force reach the same result if more time, another taser, been used? Yes, I believe so. Some drunks are violent, belligerent, uncooperative, perpetrators.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Navy you forgot to mention you have to say "....let's end this...." to those around you before pulling the trigger. (sarcasm)

BigDave · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

how are the rules MORE restrictive for a police officer shooting than a private citizen?

Let me see if I can shed some light on this, it says "is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."

It does not say "More Restrictive" and this is a general misconception when it comes to this RCW.

RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

Officers are given powers to preform their duties that are prescribed by RCW 9A.16.040 is for Law Enforcement or those Aiding a Police Officer, not a citizen acting upon their own accord.

In RCW 9A.16.040 you will find at the bottom of it

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

(a) is telling us this is not for citizens acting upon their own accord and

(b) an agency can place further restrictions upon Officers.

It is possible that the Officer was found not guilty do to;

RCW 9A.16.040 (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

One more note on a statement made as to Self Defense being a Civil Action, no it is within the RCW and dealt with in a criminal case.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

If it states that for private citizens it "is not restricted" and "remains broader than the limitations imposed upon peace officers.

Than yes it would be "more restrictive" for officers.

The RCW mentioned is restricting when officers can use deadly force not authorizing it, a popular misconception,hence the footnote. We have no 007 licensing that I know of in this state.

BigDave · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

The RCW mentioned is restricting when officers can use deadly force not authorizing it, a popular misconception,hence the footnote. We have no 007 licensing that I know of in this state.

Splitting hairs here? Restricting vs Authorizing

Glass half full or half empty?

RCW 9A.16.040 authorizes Law Enforcement use of deadly force in these instances listed.

Did you get turned down for your Double Knot Spy Card again !

Jethro !

RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.
[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

Notes:Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.] establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NavyLT, I like your example and raises some good questions because there is a double standard although the law specifically saysthe double standardis in favor of the citizens and that they have a broader use of deadly force.Very intiguing to me that and the info Erps provided ( a LEO) that we do have the powers of arrest in this state. Seems to me that by law LEO are held to a higher accountability for their actions (while on duty) as it should very well be.

Then again the justice system isn't fair it seems to work for the privledged more often than not. I say OJ got the exact verdict he should have according to our legal system, they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But he was rich, you and I hmmm probably wouldn't have got the same results.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

I personally don't think anyone should shoot someone for trying to drive away drunk.

Gotta get that disclaimer for some of the loons who jump to conclusions.

Like erps pointed out though it done in line of duty not for self defense. So theoretically the citizen in your scenario doing his duty as a citizen should have even a greater lattitude. Since they are supposed to have a broader use of deadly force.

Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member