• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Pastor killed in officer involved shooting in Spokane Valley

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I am absolutely, positively against unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The reason is simple, the person does not have any identifying markers to prove they are a police officer.

Someone drive next to me in a car that has no police markings, gets out of their car in plain clothes, pulls a gun out and says they are police, how am I supposed to know that is true??? My reaction would be to draw my sidearm and shoot it out, and I would be wrong for this?

Take this situation, private property, business owner approaches the car, he doesn't know they are LEO, LEO gets out and opens fire. It is dark outside, the police have not identified themselves (just a hunch).

Plain clothed officers and unmarked cars are a danger to officers and a danger to civilians. Part of the point to marked vehicles and LEO's dressed in LEO attire is that it shows the public that they are there, they are a reminder that we have a system of laws, and that there are people working every day to help enforce those laws.

If you are ever involved in an encounter where the person, aside from stating they are LEO, does not prove that they are in fact LEO, you shoot them, you are going down, but they shoot you, they were just doing their job, and you died thinking some POS criminal got the jump on you.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Just a comment to 92FS - Cops are also civilians. They work for Civil authority, enforce Civil law, and are non-combatants under the law. Other than that, your comments were spot on.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
Right on!

...and it's exacerbated with the trend of the "real" unmarked cars actively working toward increasing their "stealth" factor by removing the "state" plates and replacing them with plates like yours and mine.....add to that the plain clothes and it presents a real dilemma.

Now, they are awarding prizes....

http://www.king5.com/news/local/More-unmarked-cars-patrolling-roadways-101297254.html

I am absolutely, positively against unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The reason is simple, the person does not have any identifying markers to prove they are a police officer.

Someone drive next to me in a car that has no police markings, gets out of their car in plain clothes, pulls a gun out and says they are police, how am I supposed to know that is true??? My reaction would be to draw my sidearm and shoot it out, and I would be wrong for this?

Take this situation, private property, business owner approaches the car, he doesn't know they are LEO, LEO gets out and opens fire. It is dark outside, the police have not identified themselves (just a hunch).

Plain clothed officers and unmarked cars are a danger to officers and a danger to civilians. Part of the point to marked vehicles and LEO's dressed in LEO attire is that it shows the public that they are there, they are a reminder that we have a system of laws, and that there are people working every day to help enforce those laws.

If you are ever involved in an encounter where the person, aside from stating they are LEO, does not prove that they are in fact LEO, you shoot them, you are going down, but they shoot you, they were just doing their job, and you died thinking some POS criminal got the jump on you.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
On Unmarked Cars and Plainclothes Officers

Both have their place.

Unmarked cars with a fully uniformed officer are great for stopping those drivers who immediately put on their "Halos" in the presence of a marked car.

Plainclothes officers in unmarked cars work great for enforcing drug laws and staking out high crime areas.

There is obvious a downside when an officer has to encounter an armed citizen in a situation like this.



Vandal said:
This story sucks all the way around and is very tragic.

Very true and it sucks even more because there are no facts available yet. Even those comments that are claimed to have been verified are at best, hearsay.
 
Last edited:

bennie1986

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
368
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
In Washington State one can use deadly force to protect life and limb but when it comes to property outside the home is very limited and a immediate threat to life and limb must be into play.

Am I missing something here? Sounds like so long as the slain was in the act of committing a felony while in my presents it would be justified.

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.
 

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
It's a little more complicated than that. See section .020 as well regarding the use of force. As is often the case, you have to apply the "reasonableness" analysis of the incident. That is, was it reasonable, given what the defendant knew at the time, to use lethal force on the slain?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Well if you confront someone on 'your' property and they pull a gun on you (without identifying themselves) then yes he'd be justified in shooting the cop.

Too many unknowns in this story.

What do you mean by the word identify? Remember gang bangers have conducted home invasions by kicking in the door screaming FBI.

IMHO the legal answer will vary from state to state.
 

bennie1986

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
368
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
It's a little more complicated than that. See section .020 as well regarding the use of force. As is often the case, you have to apply the "reasonableness" analysis of the incident. That is, was it reasonable, given what the defendant knew at the time, to use lethal force on the slain?

I still come to the same conclusion. It doesnt state that the property your protecting has to be within a dwelling, or other place of abode.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

(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;
 

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
I still come to the same conclusion. It doesnt state that the property your protecting has to be within a dwelling, or other place of abode.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

(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;

Oh, were you referring to the comment made about being outside of your home? There is something about being outside of your dwelling/off your porch, in that you are scrutinized more so than if you were inside or on your porch. See State v Smith 2003 and State v Haley 1983 regarding "abode".
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Amlevin thanks for making my point when marked cars are persent everyone behaves when there is an ummarked car pulling over 1 car the only one behaving is the single car stopped.

Unmarked cars should be used by undercover LEOs for drug busts, supervisors, survaliance etc.

Unmarked cars should never be used for traffic stops or patrol duty, there is just no good way to know if you are dealing with a real LEO.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I am absolutely, positively against unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The reason is simple, the person does not have any identifying markers to prove they are a police officer.

Someone drive next to me in a car that has no police markings, gets out of their car in plain clothes, pulls a gun out and says they are police, how am I supposed to know that is true??? My reaction would be to draw my sidearm and shoot it out, and I would be wrong for this?

Take this situation, private property, business owner approaches the car, he doesn't know they are LEO, LEO gets out and opens fire. It is dark outside, the police have not identified themselves (just a hunch).

Plain clothed officers and unmarked cars are a danger to officers and a danger to civilians. Part of the point to marked vehicles and LEO's dressed in LEO attire is that it shows the public that they are there, they are a reminder that we have a system of laws, and that there are people working every day to help enforce those laws.

If you are ever involved in an encounter where the person, aside from stating they are LEO, does not prove that they are in fact LEO, you shoot them, you are going down, but they shoot you, they were just doing their job, and you died thinking some POS criminal got the jump on you.

+1000
 
M

McX

Guest
saw the thread title, didn't read, just stopped to say; shoot a Pastor, you'll be smokin a turd in hell for that!
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Am I missing something here? Sounds like so long as the slain was in the act of committing a felony while in my presents it would be justified.

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.

Note the bold areas it is a felony upon the person.

The only time I am aware of right now when property is involved is when catching someone in the act of arson to a building you know has occupants in it.
 
Last edited:

k.rollin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
133
Location
Bellingham, Washington, USA
Where dose "Castle Law" and "Stand your Ground Law” come into play in WA St.?

Castle Doctrine has no place in Washington state law. The law as it is written allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.

Washington state citizens have no duty to retreat though. This is legal precedent set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Many use the wording of Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground Law which in general is very similar to what we have in Washington State "No Duty to Retreat" so as long as you have a legal right to be there you can stand your ground and protect yourself and are not compelled to retreat before using force.


Washington Practice Series TM
Current through the 2010 Pocket Parts

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 17. Lawful Force—Charges Other Than Homicide​

WPIC 17.05 Lawful Force—No Duty To Retreat

It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force.
[The law does not impose a duty to retreat.][Notwithstanding the requirement that lawful force be “not more than is necessary,” the law does not impose a duty to retreat. Retreat should not be considered by you as a “reasonably effective alternative.”]

How it applies to this thread is if he was in imminent threat of life or limb he (business owner) would be lawful to use deadly force but the threat must be imminent. And in some cases there is that issue of necessary force to stop the threat.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Note the bold areas it is a felony upon the person.

The only time I am aware of right now when property is involved is when catching someone in the act of arson to a building you know has occupants in it.

I see no problem in one arming themself and going to investigate a possible "Property Crime". If the perpetrator of the property crime attacks the owner when discovered that act could qualify as a "felony upon the person" and self defense is warranted.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I see no problem in one arming themself and going to investigate a possible "Property Crime". If the perpetrator of the property crime attacks the owner when discovered that act could qualify as a "felony upon the person" and self defense is warranted.

I am sure the pastor felt the same way while it helped contribute to the death of him.
I do not think it was addressed as to who called 911 but out running around looking for a bad guy and police on the way only leads to a bad mix.

edited; I agree with you amlevin as to if one attacks the owner he is all well with in his right and the RCW to defend himself, that is why it is there.

I was taking into account the OP and how it was reported.

Dave
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I see no problem in one arming themself and going to investigate a possible "Property Crime". If the perpetrator of the property crime attacks the owner when discovered that act could qualify as a "felony upon the person" and self defense is warranted.

Plus common rules of English all the following are also included, as "or" when separated by commas.

When you shop at a grocery store use a plastic bag, paper bag or canvas.

Does this mean we can only use a plastic bag to shop at the store? Or that the paper and canvas bag have to include the plastic bag? No it does not. It does not make the plastic bag a qualifier for the other bags, it is the same with this RCW.
 
Top