Man shoots possible carjacker/prowler in Everett

skiingislife725 said:

I'm more with amlevin on this one. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim deadly force was justified when someone goes for your cell phone. Obviously there could be more to the story than that, but that seems to be all of the information given at this point. This is one of the exact reasons I carry OC...on top of being good for crazy dogs at the dog park or just making yourself look better in court because you had more options on the force continuum.

Click to expand...

Who's to say that he wasnt reaching for the firearm.....
Sad that the guy has to go through all this but on the good side Everett has one less POS to worry about.

amlevin said:

The shooter still has to make the case that he was in fear for his life. It also has to be shown that the attacker has the ability to cause him great bodily harm or death. Did he have a weapon? Had he made threats? Or was he just annoying the shooter? In police statements they say that things just didn't add up.

This incident illustrated the extreme importance of knowing the laws covering the use of Deadly Force in Self Defense. Shooting someone who is climbing into your vehicle and attempting to harm you should meet all the requirements to use deadly force. Shooting someone who is grabbing your wallet and cell phone from the seat might not.

Click to expand...

To add to this discussion note that there does not need to be actual danger but as you indicate he needs to be able to articulate what brought him up to his choice to use the firearm in Self Defense.

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 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary

A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of great personal injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger.
Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable.
NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction with WPIC 16.02, Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others, and WPIC 16.03, Resistance to Felony, when appropriate.

Click to expand...

BigDave said:

To add to this discussion note that there does not need to be actual danger but as you indicate he needs to be able to articulate what brought him up to his choice to use the firearm in Self Defense.

Click to expand...

BigDave hit the nail on the head. In this state, according to the law we are pretty well protected. You don't HAVE to be in grave danger of bodily harm, you only have to BELIEVE you are.

As to the test of "reasonableness", the jury is supposed to look at from the perspective of the person at the time it happened. Not from an "after the fact, with all the information, and interview transcript of what the suspect's intent was" perspective.

If the old man had made it clear he was giving handouts, the guy continued to pester him, acted aggressively, possibly making verbal threats, then reached in to the truck either through the window or a door and tried to start taking things by force. It is very reasonable for the old man to be in fear, and therefore justified legally in his response.

The news articles are woefully short on information. A lot of the dimwits making comments on the news sites focus on what was being taken - a cell phone and wallet. That is not the issue, the issue is HOW it was being taken.

If I pick up your cell phone out of the grocery cart while you back is turned, that is THEFT and a misdemeanor (unless the value of property is over $750). You would have no reasonable fear of being injured, and if you turned around as I took it, absent any threatening acts on my part you would be hard pressed to make a case for shooting me.

The minute force is used such as physically taking the property from another person (struggling over it, trying to yank out of my hand, etc.) or threat of force such as "You better give it up old man or else!" it becomes ROBBERY. Robbery starts as a class B felony and goes up from the there. The value of what is being taken is irrelevant, it is the manner in which the criminal acts.

I could be carrying a bag of dog crap to the garbage can, you might think it was gold nuggets, threaten me and then struggle to take it away and at that point under our state's law, lethal force becomes an option if I think I may be seriously hurt.

Age and disparity of size may become an issue, but it isn't cut and dry. I am 47 years old, in reasonable condition, but am considerably overweight as well as having recurring back, neck, and shoulder problems from previous injuries. I am in no condition to scrap hand to hand like the good ole days when I was in the Marine Corps. At the time I get into any physical altercation with anyone short of a frail considerably older than I person, I am going to be seriously concerned about being seriously injured.

I hope at some point we get the WHOLE story. I also hope the old man sticks to his guns (assuming it is legit) and doesn't feel pressured into pleading down to something under threat of prosecution, has his day in court and is vindicated.

As far as people who prey on others, I think it is time for society to stop being so lenient. The criminals are getting WAY too many "second chances" and very few are learning from those chances or changing their ways.

If the government doesn't do something about it, and sooner rather than later, more and more people are going to be pushed into feeling they have to do it themselves. Then we will have real problems.

This is why, folks, you don't talk to cops after wards. Let your lawyer do your talking for you, except "It was in self defense" and go no further.

I realize that this may seem gouche, but I have a membership in an organization called Arms Citizen's Legal Defense Network for a reason.

From a news report:

"But the pickup owner's story didn't add up, as detectives continued to investigate, and the truck owner was eventually arrested and booked into jail on suspicion of first-degree assault."

The police evidently have more information than any of us. Perhaps we should wait for a public anouncement of their findings before we decide whether or not it was Self Defense?

amlevin said:

From a news report:

"But the pickup owner's story didn't add up, as detectives continued to investigate, and the truck owner was eventually arrested and booked into jail on suspicion of first-degree assault."

The police evidently have more information than any of us. Perhaps we should wait for a public announcement of their findings before we decide whether or not it was Self Defense?

Click to expand...

It would be nice to know what information they are referring.
Of course anything said in here is hypothetical and information offered from different posters as myself included are not to be brought to a conclusion but rather surrounding information that may apply.

amlevin said:

From a news report:

"But the pickup owner's story didn't add up, as detectives continued to investigate, and the truck owner was eventually arrested and booked into jail on suspicion of first-degree assault."

The police evidently have more information than any of us. Perhaps we should wait for a public anouncement of their findings before we decide whether or not it was Self Defense?

Click to expand...

I've been accosted by an aggressive panhandler before so I have zero sympathy for the homeless guy at all. If I were in a situation where I had to shoot one for putting me in fear for my life, I would state that it was in self defense, call up the folks at ACLDN, and shut the hell up. I'd rather a lawyer argue my case about what I felt when I shot the person than me trying to recount the situation with the adrenaline rush. If it means being arrested and put in cuffs and taken for a ride, so be it. Talking to the police is too goddamned risky.

Gray Peterson said:

I've been accosted by an aggressive panhandler before so I have zero sympathy for the homeless guy at all. If I were in a situation where I had to shoot one for putting me in fear for my life, I would state that it was in self defense, call up the folks at ACLDN, and shut the hell up. I'd rather a lawyer argue my case about what I felt when I shot the person than me trying to recount the situation with the adrenaline rush. If it means being arrested and put in cuffs and taken for a ride, so be it. Talking to the police is too goddamned risky.

Click to expand...

I too have zero sympathy for this guy. Several years ago my wife made one of his "brethren" a hood ornament when he attempted to "agressively solicit her for money", just a few blocks from this incident.

Apparently this guy hadn't received any advice such as you offered.

Again, it will be interesting to see what the full story is when the police finally release the results of their "investigation".

Can't agree

A panhandler my be annoying. Just roll up the window and drive away. This is another guy that makes us look bad. After 20 years in the military I've just joined the OC community (and CC). Reaching inside my car (unarmed) does not justify shooting. He is guilty of being stupid enough to let the guy reach in.

The man was well within his right to shoot the attacker, if the story played out the way it was written in the article--typically the articles are more inaccurate than accurate and are bias against the one acting in self-defense.

Remember people, if you shoot someone, you are more likely to be sitting in jail for a couple of days until you see a judge. I think that people need to talk about and have their children, significant other prepared for the likelihood of you being arrested. You may not be in the position to comfort your family and tell them everything is ok because you are being arrested or you are dealing with making sure the immediate surroundings are clear of danger.

A homeless person whom the 61 year old man does not know approaches the 61 year old in an aggressive manner and reaching into the 61 year old's truck and at him truck--the attacker got precisely what he was looking for, T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

I think it is interesting when the attacker who is met with force to be stopped, runs and cries for help. I wonder if they realize that the people whom they attack, the vast majority of the time, are running and crying for help.

golddigger14s said:

A panhandler my be annoying. Just roll up the window and drive away. This is another guy that makes us look bad. After 20 years in the military I've just joined the OC community (and CC). Reaching inside my car (unarmed) does not justify shooting. He is guilty of being stupid enough to let the guy reach in.

Click to expand...

First thanks for your service of 20 years.

As a vet myself I see a little attitude that sometimes is hard to get away from from serving in the Military ie there is a wrong way to do things and then there is the Army way of doing things which is fine and well when dealing with issues in that area of operation.
Now we in realm of many gray areas and with many surrounding circumstances.

Take for example the comment "Reaching inside my car (unarmed) does not justify shooting" This depends upon other factors as to the size, abilities, strength and health.
While you maybe able to fend off such an event and be willing to leave others may not be able to, does that make them wrong? No.

Washington State is a stand your ground state, as long as you have a legal right to be where you are, there is no requirement to leave to protect yourself.
The option of leaving should always be considered in my view but sometimes it is not just possible.

Justifying a shooting is solely based on the laws and evidence that they knew at that point in time.

This incident could prove out to be either a righteous or bad shoot but we will not know until we know more.

Sylvia Plath said:

The man was well within his right to shoot the attacker, if the story played out the way it was written in the article--typically the articles are more inaccurate than accurate and are bias against the one acting in self-defense.

Remember people, if you shoot someone, you are more likely to be sitting in jail for a couple of days until you see a judge. I think that people need to talk about and have their children, significant other prepared for the likelihood of you being arrested. You may not be in the position to comfort your family and tell them everything is ok because you are being arrested or you are dealing with making sure the immediate surroundings are clear of danger.

A homeless person whom the 61 year old man does not know approaches the 61 year old in an aggressive manner and reaching into the 61 year old's truck and at him truck--the attacker got precisely what he was looking for, T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

I think it is interesting when the attacker who is met with force to be stopped, runs and cries for help. I wonder if they realize that the people whom they attack, the vast majority of the time, are running and crying for help.

Click to expand...

Thanks Sylvia, it is nice to get a response from someone who has been in that situation.

Looks like this one could go both ways. If you add up the chain of events. The most likely tipping point for the old guy going to jail was his own mouth. He might of said to the cops how the guy was trying to take something from him and cops were talking all friendly, baiting the old guy into saying how he was protecting his property. When he should have waited for a Lawyer to help him articulate his fear for his own safety. Gray Peterson is dead right on this one. Do not talk to the Cops! Or you could take a lesson from the Police themselves. When a cop shots someone he gets council first before delivering any statement. All cops do this. Even cops that have clearly screwed up get off free and clear quite often with the help of the lawyer that represents them.

Without having all the facts, it is hard to side with the shooter in this instance... IMO

A guy reaching into your car? That hardly screams self-defense to me. If the guy tried to jack the car, had a weapon, or anything else that might make a difference.

But this, to me, is an over reaction by an armed citizen.

I do not think that stealing a cell phone from your car is reason to justify shooting somebody.

daddy4count said:

Without having all the facts, it is hard to side with the shooter in this instance... IMO

A guy reaching into your car? That hardly screams self-defense to me. If the guy tried to jack the car, had a weapon, or anything else that might make a difference.

But this, to me, is an over reaction by an armed citizen.

I do not think that stealing a cell phone from your car is reason to justify shooting somebody.

Click to expand...

Really? "(I)t is hard to side with the shooter"? Did you read the article? Do you understand this is a stand your ground state? Even with partial facts and the knowledge of the media bias against lawful firearm use I would side with the shooter to start. Then I would let facts change my mind. Even if it is an over reaction by the armed citizen, it still is far more likely to be a legal action versus an illegal action.

If it was my 5' 95lb daughter in the car and someone reached through the car would you have a different perspective?

Did the perpetrator announce that he was only stealing the cell phone? Did he ask to steal it? Is it OK to have your dignity and sense of well being and security compromised because someone is a bum and wants a cell phone? Were there eyes dilated, increasing the likelihood that they were high? Have you seen what someone who is high can do? (Think Rodney King, high on PCP)


(Note: Everyone was against Kurt Kirby in Vancouver after the media coverage of him in the Columbian. Many OCers were very aprehensive. I personally traveled to Vancouver and talked with Kirby. I obtained the police reports and the 911 recording. After posting those items many, if not most, Ocers on this board changed their mind in support of Kirby.)

If I didn't make it clear the first time. I am on the side of the old guy. My first post was me highlighting how talking to the cops without council was a tactical error.

gogodawgs said:

Really? "(I)t is hard to side with the shooter"? Did you read the article? Do you understand this is a stand your ground state? Even with partial facts and the knowledge of the media bias against lawful firearm use I would side with the shooter to start. Then I would let facts change my mind. Even if it is an over reaction by the armed citizen, it still is far more likely to be a legal action versus an illegal action.

If it was my 5' 95lb daughter in the car and someone reached through the car would you have a different perspective?

Did the perpetrator announce that he was only stealing the cell phone? Did he ask to steal it? Is it OK to have your dignity and sense of well being and security compromised because someone is a bum and wants a cell phone? Were there eyes dilated, increasing the likelihood that they were high? Have you seen what someone who is high can do? (Think Rodney King, high on PCP)

Click to expand...

I understand all of that... which is why I began my post with "Without all the facts..." And perhaps I should clarify that I am speaking from a moral standpoint, not necessarily a legal one.

Stand your ground state or not, I do not believe cell phone theft is reason enough to take a human life. If it were me in his position, I might threaten first and decide to shoot if it continued to escalate. But because he reached into the car..? It is clear that the guy was being harassed, but was his life in danger? That is unclear.

Bottom line: I don't think the guy deserved to get shot for trying to steal a cell phone.

Your question about having a kid in the car, or the guy being high or threatening... all changes the situation from what I read in the article.

From what I read I would agree with the assessment of the responding LEO's... there just isn't enough there to support a justified self-defense shooting.

That said, there is far more to this story than what the press will report. I'm pulling for the old guy, hope it works out for him. Personally though, I would need to see more to fully support his actions.

gogodawgs said:

Is it OK to have your dignity and sense of well being and security compromised because someone is a bum and wants a cell phone?

Click to expand...

I agreed with everything you wrote but this. It's not about dignity, it's solely about safety and being faced with a dangerous threat.

Being concerned with dignity, imho, is akin to acting out of a place to preserve an image or ego, not a life.

Son_of_Perdition said:

Looks like this one could go both ways. If you add up the chain of events. The most likely tipping point for the old guy going to jail was his own mouth. He might of said to the cops how the guy was trying to take something from him and cops were talking all friendly, baiting the old guy into saying how he was protecting his property. When he should have waited for a Lawyer to help him articulate his fear for his own safety. Gray Peterson is dead right on this one. Do not talk to the Cops! Or you could take a lesson from the Police themselves. When a cop shots someone he gets council first before delivering any statement. All cops do this. Even cops that have clearly screwed up get off free and clear quite often with the help of the lawyer that represents them.

Click to expand...

The issue of going to jail or not likely had little to do with his mouth getting him there as saying nothing will likely land you there as well.
It is about how what you did and what evidence there is at the scene that supports what you did.

I am not saying that one is to give a detailed statement but the basic facts of time, who, where, evidence and witnesses and a short statement of I was in fear for my life, he was grabbing inside my vehicle at me and I shot him in self defense.
Then advice the Officer that you are highly upset and I will make myself available within 24 hours of talking with my attorney.

I fully agree in the concept of talking with an attorney before giving a detailed statement or being interrogated as any Officer involved shooting would do.

Be Brief!!!

BigDave said:

The issue of going to jail or not likely had little to do with his mouth getting him there as saying nothing will likely land you there as well.
It is about how what you did and what evidence there is at the scene that supports what you did.

I am not saying that one is to give a detailed statement but the basic facts of time, who, where, evidence and witnesses and a short statement of I was in fear for my life, he was grabbing inside my vehicle at me and I shot him in self defense.
Then advice the Officer that you are highly upset and I will make myself available within 24 hours of talking with my attorney.

I fully agree in the concept of talking with an attorney before giving a detailed statement or being interrogated as any Officer involved shooting would do.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that one is to give a detailed statement but the basic facts of time, who, where, evidence and witnesses and a short statement of I was in fear for my life, he was grabbing inside my vehicle at me and I shot him in self defense.

i would agree with your advice, BUT
i would stop talking after "i was in fear for my life", i would not say why, and i would not yet invoke self defense.


ot i dont know how to underline, and i dont know how to make it stop, it was not intentional. Help?