6
-
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.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
Let's look at what can be learned from this situation.
If the two men wouldn't have stolen another man's property, they would not have been shot at, and the home owner would not be sitting in custody.
Don't steal. It's not worth your life, and it's not worth a legal liability for the person you're stealing from, if they decide to perform "more force than necessary".
Let's look at what can be learned from this situation.
If the two men wouldn't have stolen another man's property, they would not have been shot at, and the home owner would not be sitting in custody.
Don't steal. It's not worth your life, and it's not worth a legal liability for the person you're stealing from, if they decide to perform "more force than necessary".
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
Too bad the homeowner was arrested. I have no sympathy for the perps, including the dead one. One of the dangers of criminal activity is you can be shot and killed.
Too bad the homeowner was arrested. I have no sympathy for the perps, including the dead one. One of the dangers of criminal activity is you can be shot and killed.
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
ok I know i am new here so please help me in understanding this...
The facts as I see them are thus:
1. Guys property was being robbed
2. Guy defended his property.
3. Guy got arrested?
I guess where I am failing to see the problem is why is he not receiving a friggin medal for standing up for himself and his property?
Like I said I am new so maybe there is some sort of legal hoopdieha that I am unaware of.
Does this mean that you cannot protect your property in WA or am I just missing something here?
ok I know i am new here so please help me in understanding this...
The facts as I see them are thus:
1. Guys property was being robbed
2. Guy defended his property.
3. Guy got arrested?
I guess where I am failing to see the problem is why is he not receiving a friggin medal for standing up for himself and his property?
Like I said I am new so maybe there is some sort of legal hoopdieha that I am unaware of.
Does this mean that you cannot protect your property in WA or am I just missing something here?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
devildoc5 wrote:
devildoc5 wrote:
If the person is leaving, i.e. back is turned to you...don't shoot or your butt is in big trouble.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
Sylvia Plath wrote:
Of course, each situation will be viewed on a case by case basis.
1970camaroRS
Regular Member
imported post
1. Guys were stealing pipe from the ditch which had nothing to do with the shooter's property.
2. Suspects were fleeing.
No bueno.
Also, don't steal...you might die.
1. Guys were stealing pipe from the ditch which had nothing to do with the shooter's property.
2. Suspects were fleeing.
No bueno.
Also, don't steal...you might die.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
WA law is pretty permissive on using deadly force, basically you are justified in using force to prevent a felony against yourself or another person in your immediate presence. But protecting property outside your house it starts to get iffy. And shooting in the back, never a good idea. Unless you believe (and can prove in court) that the BG was running away in order to get a weapon or the like.
Sylvia Plath wrote:
w0rd +1
WA law is pretty permissive on using deadly force, basically you are justified in using force to prevent a felony against yourself or another person in your immediate presence. But protecting property outside your house it starts to get iffy. And shooting in the back, never a good idea. Unless you believe (and can prove in court) that the BG was running away in order to get a weapon or the like.
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
Now I understand....apparently I had missedthe fact that they were getting in their truck...went back and re read it now its a little more clear...guess I was just not completely informed on all the facts.
Now I understand....apparently I had missedthe fact that they were getting in their truck...went back and re read it now its a little more clear...guess I was just not completely informed on all the facts.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
imported post
I wonder if the pipes were in the perps truck at the time of the shooting. If the pipes were over the felony theft amount and the perps were getting away with them then couldnt he say he used deadly force to prevent a felony?
I wonder if the pipes were in the perps truck at the time of the shooting. If the pipes were over the felony theft amount and the perps were getting away with them then couldnt he say he used deadly force to prevent a felony?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
+1
Sylvia Plath wrote:
+1
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
imported post
Latest news report
?) indicates the perp drove away, as the shooter fired at him,came to a dead end, turned around and came back by the property owner. Th shooter then fired again, hitting the driver in the head.
Bad shoot all the way around. Bad theft any way you look at it.
Latest news report
?) indicates the perp drove away, as the shooter fired at him,came to a dead end, turned around and came back by the property owner. Th shooter then fired again, hitting the driver in the head. Bad shoot all the way around. Bad theft any way you look at it.
Bob Warden
Regular Member
imported post
Lesson today, once again, is that shooting bad guys outside your home while they are in the process of fleeing from a non-violent crime is NOT legally justified.
Lesson today, once again, is that shooting bad guys outside your home while they are in the process of fleeing from a non-violent crime is NOT legally justified.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
I'll wait until the case is over before making a full judgment on it.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
Trigger Dr wrote:
Trigger Dr wrote:
If that's the case the homeowner might be justified if he feared of being run down by the truck.Latest news report
Bad shoot all the way around. Bad theft any way you look at it.
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
devildoc5 wrote:
Yes, I believe you are missing something. The fact that Washington Law only allows a property owner to shoot in Self Defense. If there is no threat, or if the threat has ended (like when the actor is running away), there is no longer the claim of self defense.
I don't like it either but that's the law. As far as I am concerned this is a case where the criminal took his chances and lost. One less criminal loose in society. But I won't be on the Jury so my thoughts don't really matter.
Gun Owners need to make sure they understand the law when it comes to Self Defense or they too run the same risk,
devildoc5 wrote:
Yes, I believe you are missing something. The fact that Washington Law only allows a property owner to shoot in Self Defense. If there is no threat, or if the threat has ended (like when the actor is running away), there is no longer the claim of self defense.
I don't like it either but that's the law. As far as I am concerned this is a case where the criminal took his chances and lost. One less criminal loose in society. But I won't be on the Jury so my thoughts don't really matter.
Gun Owners need to make sure they understand the law when it comes to Self Defense or they too run the same risk,
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
Sylvia Plath wrote:
This seems to be the basis of most defenses when LEO's are doing the shooting. Can be real expensive though, just ask Troy Meade and the City of Everett.Trigger Dr wrote:If that's the case the homeowner might be justified if he feared of being run down by the truck.Latest news report
Bad shoot all the way around. Bad theft any way you look at it.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
imported post
amlevin wrote:
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.
amlevin wrote:
actually it might not apply to this case but you can also shoot to prevent a felony http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
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.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
Which state has the best self defense law? ie - would justify a shooting even if the thief is fleeing the property.
Which state has the best self defense law? ie - would justify a shooting even if the thief is fleeing the property.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
imported post
Aaron1124 wrote:
I have heard that in Texas there is a law on the books that says you can shoot a man for trespassing on your property after dark (old anti cattle rustling law that was never repealed) It could just be urban myth tho.
Aaron1124 wrote:
I have heard that in Texas there is a law on the books that says you can shoot a man for trespassing on your property after dark (old anti cattle rustling law that was never repealed) It could just be urban myth tho.