Metalhead47
Regular Member
imported post
...stupid netbook touchpad...
...stupid netbook touchpad...
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Frustrated neighborhood and burglaries: 'Call 911 and get out your gun!'
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
The tv = $800.00 /The uninvited entry of a persons private property = priceless
Sylvia Plath wrote:
+1. Well said Sylvia.
The tv = $800.00 /The uninvited entry of a persons private property = priceless
Bob Warden
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Holy crap! Me and WFL agree almost 100%!
The only difference is that I don't care if the burgler's intent is only to steal my stuff. Breaking into my house to steal my stuff can get you killed.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Holy crap! Me and WFL agree almost 100%!
The only difference is that I don't care if the burgler's intent is only to steal my stuff. Breaking into my house to steal my stuff can get you killed.
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
Unfortunatly, how we feel, isnt what the judge would be most interested in. There are to many laws that help and protect the criminal from actually having to pay for his actions. Some laws need to be changed to stop hindering the victims from justice.
Bob Warden
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
[align=left]Washington law justifies homicide to protect your stuff in your house (burglary is a felony upon your dwelling):[/align]
[align=left]RCW 9A.16.050(2) Homicide is also justifiable when committed:
(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.[/align]
amzbrady wrote:
[align=left]Washington law justifies homicide to protect your stuff in your house (burglary is a felony upon your dwelling):[/align]
[align=left]RCW 9A.16.050(2) Homicide is also justifiable when committed:
(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.[/align]
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
The the slayer acted within the realms of RCW 9A.16.050 then the judge would have no choice but to find him not guilty, regardless of his personal opinion.
Metal_Monkey
Regular Member
imported post
800 dollar tv? Are you going to question the man invading your house whether or not he is there to take your tv or rape your wife? Maybe sit down and have some tea?
Maybe I should of grown up in the west? Who knows....Either way dead men tell no tails.
800 dollar tv? Are you going to question the man invading your house whether or not he is there to take your tv or rape your wife? Maybe sit down and have some tea?
Maybe I should of grown up in the west? Who knows....Either way dead men tell no tails.
skiingislife725
Regular Member
imported post
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1341062.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ¶29 Justifiable homicide, and indeed all self-defense, is unmistakably rooted in the principle of necessity. Deadly force is only necessary where its use is objectively reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances as they were understood by the defendant at the time. See RCW 9A.16.010; Read, 147 Wash.2d at 242, 53 P.3d 26; Walker, 136 Wash.2d at 772, 966 P.2d 883. For example, in State v. Nyland, this court held that adultery did not justify taking a human life:
“The class of crimes in prevention of which a man may, if necessary, exercise his natural right to repel force by force to the taking of the life of the aggressor, are felonies which are committed by violence and surprise; such as murder, robbery, burglary, arson, ․ sodomy, and rape.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 25 RCW 9A.16.050, Washington's justifiable homicide statute, reads:
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, ․ 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 ․ and there is imminent danger of that design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer ․
In addition, RCW 9A.16.020, Washington's general self-defense statute, explains:
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
․
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured ․ in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, ․ in case the force is not more than is necessary;
“Necessary” is defined for purposes of chapter 9A.16 RCW to mean “that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.” RCW 9A.16.010(1).
see State v Brightman from 2005.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1341062.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ¶29 Justifiable homicide, and indeed all self-defense, is unmistakably rooted in the principle of necessity. Deadly force is only necessary where its use is objectively reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances as they were understood by the defendant at the time. See RCW 9A.16.010; Read, 147 Wash.2d at 242, 53 P.3d 26; Walker, 136 Wash.2d at 772, 966 P.2d 883. For example, in State v. Nyland, this court held that adultery did not justify taking a human life:
“The class of crimes in prevention of which a man may, if necessary, exercise his natural right to repel force by force to the taking of the life of the aggressor, are felonies which are committed by violence and surprise; such as murder, robbery, burglary, arson, ․ sodomy, and rape.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 25 RCW 9A.16.050, Washington's justifiable homicide statute, reads:
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, ․ 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 ․ and there is imminent danger of that design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer ․
In addition, RCW 9A.16.020, Washington's general self-defense statute, explains:
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
․
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured ․ in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, ․ in case the force is not more than is necessary;
“Necessary” is defined for purposes of chapter 9A.16 RCW to mean “that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.” RCW 9A.16.010(1).
Bob Warden
Regular Member
imported post
skiingislife725 wrote:
skiingislife725 wrote:
Like I said, you can fire away at burglars. Note that the word "necessary" does not appear in RCW9A.16.050(2).
skiingislife725
Regular Member
imported post
Yah, that's because it's in RCW 9A.16.020 regarding the use of force in general, which would apply to both lethal and non-lethal force.
And you're right about burglary being considered ok for self defense. Regarding first degree burglary into a residence I have no qualms with the use of lethal force, but with second degree burglary into a detached garage, I won't be the test case for that one!
Yah, that's because it's in RCW 9A.16.020 regarding the use of force in general, which would apply to both lethal and non-lethal force.
And you're right about burglary being considered ok for self defense. Regarding first degree burglary into a residence I have no qualms with the use of lethal force, but with second degree burglary into a detached garage, I won't be the test case for that one!
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
skiingislife725 wrote
skiingislife725 wrote
Just to emphasize the meaning of necessity as the wording was left out in the above post.....
Then lets look to the definition of Necessary.
holeinhead
Regular Member
imported post
If someone is in my house that's not supposed to be, shots will be fired if they don't get out in a hurry. Doesn't matter if they're just there to swipe some dental floss. I don't know their intentions, and their forced presence in my house manifests as a danger to me and whoever else is with me, and they must either leave very quickly, or be met with deadly force.
If while they're running out they have some of my possessions in their hands, as much as it sucks to lose whatever it is they're taking, I'd rather not shoot someone if I don't have to. Sure, there are exceptions to this (no rule of law, people stealing food which I need to survive is an example), but I'd very much like to live my life having never shot someone.
If someone is in my house that's not supposed to be, shots will be fired if they don't get out in a hurry. Doesn't matter if they're just there to swipe some dental floss. I don't know their intentions, and their forced presence in my house manifests as a danger to me and whoever else is with me, and they must either leave very quickly, or be met with deadly force.
If while they're running out they have some of my possessions in their hands, as much as it sucks to lose whatever it is they're taking, I'd rather not shoot someone if I don't have to. Sure, there are exceptions to this (no rule of law, people stealing food which I need to survive is an example), but I'd very much like to live my life having never shot someone.
imported post
If the guy is in your house while you or your family are present, then you must assume he is there to do you harm, and act accordingly. If he's breaking into your truck out in the driveway, you should confront him (armed of course), but at that point shooting is only justified if he attacks, IMO.
As for the looting scenario, that's different. Looters during a time of disaster pose not only a threat to your safety directly (through violence), they pose a threat to you by stealing that which you need to survive. In a disaster, a vehicle or a supply of food can and will save your life and the lives of your family, and should be protected, with deadly force if need be.
If the guy is in your house while you or your family are present, then you must assume he is there to do you harm, and act accordingly. If he's breaking into your truck out in the driveway, you should confront him (armed of course), but at that point shooting is only justified if he attacks, IMO.
As for the looting scenario, that's different. Looters during a time of disaster pose not only a threat to your safety directly (through violence), they pose a threat to you by stealing that which you need to survive. In a disaster, a vehicle or a supply of food can and will save your life and the lives of your family, and should be protected, with deadly force if need be.
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
So the way I read this is, the person in your home would have to actually have picked something up, for you to assume he is robbing you. If he were to break in your home and just walk around in circles and then try to leave when you come out with a gun is not a justifiable shooting?
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Breaking in to someone's house, even if you just go inside and do jumping jacks, is still a felony.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
While it is generally accepted, someone in your home is uninvited they are there to do you harm and arguable so, although not in all cases.
Most I feel here are dealing with in a scenario of an able body person of size and stature to inflict serious bodily harm or death and willing to harm you. In this case then you have little time to stop that threat and the law is with you.
There are also those times that it could be a person ended up in your home not to harm but by some medical reason and unable or able to harm you.
As people that carry on a daily basis with researching and training are better equipped to be able to antalize in a fraction of a second if we are in imminent danger and then we act upon that information.
Even in defense of our homes we must be able to articulate Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy as one of the major considerations as to the use of deadly force is that you were in imminent fear for your life or limb.
There is No Free Pass
Someone being in your home uninvited could be argued that Opportunity and Jeopardy have been met but what about Ability?
Items taken into consideration could be time of day or night; age; stature; strength of intruder, their actions coming at you or running away.
When it comes to use of force to deadly force there are a couple of RCW's that come into play and how will it be evaluated as seen by a reasonable man knowing what you knew at the time and before the incident and necessary meaning there was no other available opportunity to stop the level of threat.
RCW 9A.16.020 and 9A.16.040 or 9A.16.050 come into play with each other.
Note it is clear the legislature is giving citizens a legal position to protect themselves and property in a manner of minimal force required, up to deadly forced as seen by a reasonable person knowing what you know at the time and before the incident and there is no other reasonable choice of force.
Emphasis was added to bring attention to the wording requiring minimal force not more then necessary.
There are cases where people have shot and killed their own family members because they shot with out identifying their target. Be it a child coming in late after sneaking out and you were positive they were in their bedroom, to a wife not staying in a safe place and went to the kitchen to help only to be shot and killed by her husband.
While it is generally accepted, someone in your home is uninvited they are there to do you harm and arguable so, although not in all cases.
Most I feel here are dealing with in a scenario of an able body person of size and stature to inflict serious bodily harm or death and willing to harm you. In this case then you have little time to stop that threat and the law is with you.
There are also those times that it could be a person ended up in your home not to harm but by some medical reason and unable or able to harm you.
As people that carry on a daily basis with researching and training are better equipped to be able to antalize in a fraction of a second if we are in imminent danger and then we act upon that information.
Even in defense of our homes we must be able to articulate Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy as one of the major considerations as to the use of deadly force is that you were in imminent fear for your life or limb.
There is No Free Pass
Someone being in your home uninvited could be argued that Opportunity and Jeopardy have been met but what about Ability?
Items taken into consideration could be time of day or night; age; stature; strength of intruder, their actions coming at you or running away.
When it comes to use of force to deadly force there are a couple of RCW's that come into play and how will it be evaluated as seen by a reasonable man knowing what you knew at the time and before the incident and necessary meaning there was no other available opportunity to stop the level of threat.
RCW 9A.16.020 and 9A.16.040 or 9A.16.050 come into play with each other.
Note it is clear the legislature is giving citizens a legal position to protect themselves and property in a manner of minimal force required, up to deadly forced as seen by a reasonable person knowing what you know at the time and before the incident and there is no other reasonable choice of force.
Emphasis was added to bring attention to the wording requiring minimal force not more then necessary.
RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force — When lawful.The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — 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.
In summary while a burglar is likely to be of size, strength and willingness of committing a crime against you, your family or property one would be fully in the right to use deadly force to protect your life or the life or another and in your place of abode we need to beware of the one time it may not be as it seems.(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — 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.
There are cases where people have shot and killed their own family members because they shot with out identifying their target. Be it a child coming in late after sneaking out and you were positive they were in their bedroom, to a wife not staying in a safe place and went to the kitchen to help only to be shot and killed by her husband.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
That's why I explained to my two teenage daughters that it is not a good idea to ever have boys come try to sneak in the house.
That's why I explained to my two teenage daughters that it is not a good idea to ever have boys come try to sneak in the house.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
If one is charged they will face the The Reasonable Man Doctrine and Force not more the necessary?
Washington Practice Series TM
Current through the Third Edition
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 16. Justifiable Homicide
WPIC 16.02 Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self And Others
It is a defense to a charge of [murder][manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of [the slayer] [the slayer's [husband][wife][parent][child][brother][sister]] [any person in the slayer's presence or company] when: (1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain [or others whom the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain] intended [to commit a felony][to inflict death or great personal injury]; (2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and (3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
Bob Warden wrote:
So Bob in a case where the uninvited person was suffering from dementia or other debilitating medical issue and not displaying any threatening actions, do you still feel your statement of "Like I said, you can fire away at burglars."
If one is charged they will face the The Reasonable Man Doctrine and Force not more the necessary?
Washington Practice Series TM
Current through the Third Edition
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 16. Justifiable Homicide
WPIC 16.02 Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self And Others
It is a defense to a charge of [murder][manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of [the slayer] [the slayer's [husband][wife][parent][child][brother][sister]] [any person in the slayer's presence or company] when: (1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain [or others whom the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain] intended [to commit a felony][to inflict death or great personal injury]; (2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and (3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
gogodawgs wrote:
However this would be a good way to ensure certain young men will not push the issue :shock:
gogodawgs wrote:
Another good point of issue and through training the issue of safety in the home is paramount as to keeping your finger off the trigger until you have identified your target and what is behind the target.That's why I explained to my two teenage daughters that it is not a good idea to ever have boys come try to sneak in the house.
However this would be a good way to ensure certain young men will not push the issue :shock:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
Dr. Fresh wrote:
Just a note it may be a neighbor that may defending yourself against.
Dr. Fresh wrote:
The issue about looters and protecting your survival supplies, survival is paramount and a threat upon you and your families lives.
Just a note it may be a neighbor that may defending yourself against.