Ammo used by Seattle PD?

Leatherneck · Aug 31, 2010

deanf said:
Absurd. There's no law restricting certain handgun self defense rounds to police only. Who are "they"?

I was at a gun shop. I don't remember which one or I would've mentioned it.

BigDave · Aug 31, 2010

NavyLT said:
The language in the statute of, "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever" is both strong and broad. I would think if the legislature intended for it to be limited to criminal prosecution they would have stated something like, "No person in the state shall be placed in jeopardy of criminal conviction..."

I might be wrong, though. I don't know if there is any case history or not.

If you are found liable in a civil suit, is it still not considered legal liability and the civil suit considered a legal action?

This doesn't really answer the question:
http://danielreitman.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/%E2%80%9Ci-was-only-protecting-myself%E2%80%9D-self-defense-assault-and-battery-and-civil-liability/

When I get a few moments, I will write to the author and ask the question.

OK, sent it anyway:

Mr. Reitman,
WA has this statute (not repeated here in entirety for sake of space):
RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

My question: Does this statute protect a person deemed to be acting in self defense from a civil suit as well as a criminal conviction?
Thank you!
Very Respectfully,
John

Please let us know if you receive a reply, I am interested as it would be something I would embrace.

Some concerns as to how will it be determined if acted in self defense. To what standard would it be held to and lets say you meet it then how is it determined and how will the State become liable to pay the cost in an action they did not bring?

BigDave · Sep 3, 2010

NavyLT said:
Here is the reply I received:

Daniel Reitman says: September 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm
RCW 9A.16.110 probably does provide a defense to civil liability. The primary meaning of the statute, however, is subsections (2) through (5), which allow for reimbursement of costs and attorney fees to a criminal defendant who successfully raises a self-defense defense and the jury finds that the defendant proved self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (but that the defendant was not otherwise engaged in a criminal act).

Notice the word probably, though...

Wondering who or how self defense would be determined until such time there is some type of court action and/or ruling.
It does seem to me that if you were charged and found you acted in self defense it would go along with preventing a civil case against you but if no criminal charges were filed, how would that play out?

ghosthunter · Sep 3, 2010

A few years ago in Skagit County a guy in Burlington shot a father and son on his front porch who were trying to enter his house. He and his wife were going through a break up. The son was the wife's boy friend. They came to the house with the wife to pick up some things. The husband told them to leave as he did not know the men. He had his daughter with him in the house.
He shot both in the head the father died the son has brain damage.
It went to trial and he was found innocent by self defense. The family and the son filed a civil suit againist him. Have not heard the out come.

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/5992/

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/5986/

ghosthunter · Sep 3, 2010

Found it Civil suit was settled out of court for 300.00.00.

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/13624/

BigDave · Sep 3, 2010

ghosthunter said:
Found it Civil suit was settled out of court for 300,000

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/13624/

Thanks for posting this as it is a good reference.
One issue here as we know sometime insurance companies settle even though there is no fault just to cut cost.
And when dealing with the insurance companies you are compelled to go along with them in a suit as provided for in many insurance policies.
Seems RCW 9A.16.110 in this situation had no effect.
Who knows if it had went to trial and what the out come would have been.

Aryk45XD · Sep 3, 2010

Use what police do.

The police dept has done extensive research to find the safest round possible. People will argue about how deadly a round is over another, but police use a round that will penetrate and expand in a target to cause maximum stopabilty. Several NRA instructors have told me this with a lot more explanation behind it. I'm at work on my cell, so I won't go much farther than that now.

BigDave · Sep 3, 2010

NavyLT said:
If I found myself in the situation where I was faced with a civil lawsuit for an act of self defense, my first argument would be for a summary dismissal of the lawsuit based on this:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

I would say that there is a period at the end of that section, causing it to stand alone, by itself in complete totality. The following paragraphs of the statute also end in periods and stand alone, by themselves and in complete totality. Each paragraph should be taken separately, on it's own merits and applied only as each paragraph applies to the given situation.

Given that interpretation, I would suggest that a trial and verdict would not be required to dismiss a civil lawsuit, because paragraph 1 does not require a trial and verdict. It would seem to me that in the case of a civil lawsuit with no charges or no trial, it would only require that the presiding judge over the civil lawsuit to determine that the act was performed in self-defense.

Ditto

amlevin · Sep 3, 2010

Aryk45XD said:
The police dept has done extensive research

This extensive research usually consists of talking to the trainers adn a few senior officers in order to determine which of the 4 manufacturers will be their supplier for the next contract period.

Federal, Speer, Remington, and Winchester all provide ammo that fits the FBI recommendations. From there is is more based on COST. Officers are reqired to carry issued ammo in most cases because the Police Department is advised by Lawyers.

Metalhead47 · Sep 3, 2010

NavyLT said:
Ditto. The key word being COST, as in lowest bidder. I would like to see any evidence of "extensive research" conducted by local LEO agencies.

Yup. And now throw into all that competing schools of thought over more "marginal" rounds like .380 or .22 (or 7.62x38R

) where penetration is considered more important than expansion (meaning no hollowpoints).

gogodawgs · Sep 4, 2010

Ww i

Remember the Great War was started with a measly .32 acp.

arentol · Sep 4, 2010

NavyLT said:
If I found myself in the situation where I was faced with a civil lawsuit for an act of self defense, my first argument would be for a summary dismissal of the lawsuit based on this:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

I would say that there is a period at the end of that section, causing it to stand alone, by itself in complete totality. The following paragraphs of the statute also end in periods and stand alone, by themselves and in complete totality. Each paragraph should be taken separately, on it's own merits and applied only as each paragraph applies to the given situation.

A couple problems...

1.) The word Reimbursement in the section title. That indicates that the intent of the entire section is reimbursement by the state when charged and found innocent by reason of self defense, not about immunity to civil suit.

2.) The other problem is the word Jeopardy, which as a legal term indicate someone who is in danger of being charged or convicted of a crime. It is occasionally used by the lay in reference to civil suits, but I am pretty sure a judge will view it only as referring to criminal charges.

3.) Regardless of the ruling on this kind of thing by a local judge if it is appealed to the state supreme court they will consider the intent of the Washington Legislature when they made the law to be more important than what a strict interpretation of the words leads to, and I seriously doubt the intent was to get people out of civil suits.

Hammer · Sep 4, 2010

This happened right across Hiway 20 from me, and there is a lot of info that doesn't/didn't make the news. Suffice it to say the shooter was found not guilty, but lost the civil damages. It may well be the amount was predicated on the homeowner's insurance amount.
A friend of mine knew the 2 that got shot, whom I won't call victims.
It was a messed up deal all around.

ghosthunter said:
A few years ago in Skagit County a guy in Burlington shot a father and son on his front porch who were trying to enter his house. He and his wife were going through a break up. The son was the wife's boy friend. They came to the house with the wife to pick up some things. The husband told them to leave as he did not know the men. He had his daughter with him in the house.
He shot both in the head the father died the son has brain damage.
It went to trial and he was found innocent by self defense. The family and the son filed a civil suit againist him. Have not heard the out come.

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/5992/

http://www.goskagit.com/home/print/5986/

Ammo used by Seattle PD?

Leatherneck

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

ghosthunter

Regular Member

ghosthunter

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

Aryk45XD

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

amlevin

Regular Member

Metalhead47

Regular Member

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

arentol

New member

Hammer

Regular Member