BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
For a few here that proclaim they are so up on our laws miss the basic elements of what transpired in this incident and on what authority the Officer acted in and thus being found not guilty of a crime.
Note RCW 9A.16.040 is for by a public officer, peace officer or person aiding, this RCW does not apply to a citizen acting upon his own accord.
This would appear to be pretty clear but we still have those with out a clue placing themselves into this scenario as the officer, you cannot, citizens do not have the authority to act in the position of an officer, remember it says "Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding".
If a citizen acted on their own accord as this Officer did they would have been found guilty as the RCW does not cover them.
There is questions as to when to escalate to the next level of force in this situation, easy when the Officer felt threatened or feared for the public at large if he was not stopped.
There is a few here that need to accept the concept that they are not law enforcement they do not enforce the laws, the laws for citizens are for self defense only.
There are those that feel LE should not have more powers then citizens, well as a society we have decided that they need these powers to enforce the laws we have on the books to protect the public at large.
If you found yourself confronting a drunk driver and intervened one would be held to reasonable force and until such time you felt threaten of life or limb could you use deadly force.
The Officer was not found acting in Self Defense does not indicate wrong doing as he was justified in his actions in RCW 9A.16.040.
The issue some say the reason he claimed self defense was to pay for his attorney fees which is a good point although RCW 9A.16.110 does not cover Officers acting within the laws of the State to have his attorney fees paid.
I am wondering where are the resident lawyers are and why they have not addressed this topic?
It is each of our responsibilities to dig into and seek out the information that govern this right so you can make it your own and own it.
my sunglasses are on for the trolls
For a few here that proclaim they are so up on our laws miss the basic elements of what transpired in this incident and on what authority the Officer acted in and thus being found not guilty of a crime.
Note RCW 9A.16.040 is for by a public officer, peace officer or person aiding, this RCW does not apply to a citizen acting upon his own accord.
This would appear to be pretty clear but we still have those with out a clue placing themselves into this scenario as the officer, you cannot, citizens do not have the authority to act in the position of an officer, remember it says "Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding".
If a citizen acted on their own accord as this Officer did they would have been found guilty as the RCW does not cover them.
RCW 9A.16.040(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.
A citizen cannot act under RCW 9A.16.040(2) on the behalf of the public, as it is an immediate threat to life or limb which is covered under RCW 9A.16.020/050.(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.
There is questions as to when to escalate to the next level of force in this situation, easy when the Officer felt threatened or feared for the public at large if he was not stopped.
There is a few here that need to accept the concept that they are not law enforcement they do not enforce the laws, the laws for citizens are for self defense only.
There are those that feel LE should not have more powers then citizens, well as a society we have decided that they need these powers to enforce the laws we have on the books to protect the public at large.
If you found yourself confronting a drunk driver and intervened one would be held to reasonable force and until such time you felt threaten of life or limb could you use deadly force.
The Officer was not found acting in Self Defense does not indicate wrong doing as he was justified in his actions in RCW 9A.16.040.
The issue some say the reason he claimed self defense was to pay for his attorney fees which is a good point although RCW 9A.16.110 does not cover Officers acting within the laws of the State to have his attorney fees paid.
I am wondering where are the resident lawyers are and why they have not addressed this topic?
It is each of our responsibilities to dig into and seek out the information that govern this right so you can make it your own and own it.
my sunglasses are on for the trolls 
