-
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.
not washington but close
- Thread starter bwboley
- Start date
mparramore
Regular Member
that is bs. If someone was coming at me, I would do the same thing. So, he should have stood by and watched them steal his property and more than likely assaulted him.
When does it become legal to protect yourself? When someone stabs you? Hmm, lets see I see a stab wound in my stomach, yep that constitutes as an assault. Then it would be too late.
It is bs that in one state its legal to shoot someone that trespasses on your property or your neighbors property when they are not home, but in Ore its not when they trespass onto your own property and come at you.
When does it become legal to protect yourself? When someone stabs you? Hmm, lets see I see a stab wound in my stomach, yep that constitutes as an assault. Then it would be too late.
It is bs that in one state its legal to shoot someone that trespasses on your property or your neighbors property when they are not home, but in Ore its not when they trespass onto your own property and come at you.
Oregon Revised Statute enumerates a Unlawful Discharge of a Firarm Violation of 166.220(1)(a) AND 166.220(1)(b) as a Class C Felony, per 166.220(3)!
Although I am not the State of Oregon or The Judge that will ultimately decide this Case..., I think that this is crazy, and it should be ruled as Justifed under ORS 161.225 AND ORS 161.229!
Oregon needs a Stand-your-Ground and No-Duty-to-Retreat Law!
Although I am not the State of Oregon or The Judge that will ultimately decide this Case..., I think that this is crazy, and it should be ruled as Justifed under ORS 161.225 AND ORS 161.229!
Oregon needs a Stand-your-Ground and No-Duty-to-Retreat Law!
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
All over marijuana plants, sad.
Where elevates a situation in preventing theft of marijuana plants as compared to life, easy choice, let them have the plants and call 911.
Where elevates a situation in preventing theft of marijuana plants as compared to life, easy choice, let them have the plants and call 911.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
BigDave has this right. Call 911, take pictures, get license #s, but do not shoot an unarmed man taking vegatation from your property.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Washington is not so different then Oregon when it comes to a situation as this as there still a requirement of imminent threat of life or limb and the forced used needs to be reasonable as seen by a reasonable man.
A person coming at you to fight that is of same size, strength and ability does not in itself allow for the use of deadly force.
As described in many articles one must be able to articulate how the follow applies to this situation; Ability; Opportunity; Jeopardy and all of these have to be present at that time and moment when the threat of life or limb is imminent.
A comment in this situation as to when a victim is charged or I would have done the same thing maybe more towards emotion then facts, we must choose facts not emotions.
A person coming at you to fight that is of same size, strength and ability does not in itself allow for the use of deadly force.
As described in many articles one must be able to articulate how the follow applies to this situation; Ability; Opportunity; Jeopardy and all of these have to be present at that time and moment when the threat of life or limb is imminent.
A comment in this situation as to when a victim is charged or I would have done the same thing maybe more towards emotion then facts, we must choose facts not emotions.
jt59
Regular Member
Could you provide the WA citing for this please?
amlevin
Regular Member
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(1) "Necessary" means 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.
(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
[1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.010.]
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(1) "Necessary" means 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.
(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
[1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.010.]
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:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(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;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(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;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
WPIC 17.02 Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Property
It is a defense to a charge of __________ that the force [used][attempted][offered to be used] was lawful as defined in this instruction.
[The [use of][attempt to use][offer to use] force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when [used][attempted][offered] [by a person who reasonably believes that [he][she] is about to be injured] [by someone lawfully aiding a person who [he][she] reasonably believes is about to be injured] in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person, and when the force is not more than is necessary.]
[The [use of][attempt to use][offer to use] force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when [used][attempted][offered] in preventing or attempting to prevent a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in that person's possession, and when the force is not more than is necessary.]
The person [using][or][offering to use] the force may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the person, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time of [and prior to] the incident.
The [State][City][County] has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force [used][attempted][offered to be used] by the defendant was not lawful. If you find that the [State][City][County] has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].
Note all these quotes came through out the RCW Defenses and Pattern Jury Instructions with the same concept in mind.It is a defense to a charge of __________ that the force [used][attempted][offered to be used] was lawful as defined in this instruction.
[The [use of][attempt to use][offer to use] force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when [used][attempted][offered] [by a person who reasonably believes that [he][she] is about to be injured] [by someone lawfully aiding a person who [he][she] reasonably believes is about to be injured] in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person, and when the force is not more than is necessary.]
[The [use of][attempt to use][offer to use] force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when [used][attempted][offered] in preventing or attempting to prevent a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in that person's possession, and when the force is not more than is necessary.]
The person [using][or][offering to use] the force may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the person, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time of [and prior to] the incident.
The [State][City][County] has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force [used][attempted][offered to be used] by the defendant was not lawful. If you find that the [State][City][County] has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].
- "amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended"
- " in case the force is not more than is necessary"
- "Whenever reasonably used by a person"
- "and when the force is not more than is necessary."
- "employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the person,"
Some equate this to force of like kind in where you cannot use a base ball bat to stop someone from hitting you of like size, strength and ability, it would have to rise to a level of disparity of force or you have been injured so you can no longer protect yourself and you are in imminent fear of life or limb before it reaches to that level.
Granted if they had a weapon in hand, approaching and threatening you the level of deadly force has arrived, to having a Goliath type person, more then 1 that posed an imminent threat that level would have been reached sooner.
When it comes down to it, you will be judged by your peers and if they do not see what you are portraying then guess who looses, you.
Our firearms are tools of last choice and only when nothing else will stop the imminent threat of life or limb.
Last edited:
Tomas
Regular Member
Excellent information and discussion.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
This type of incident could also direct us to
RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
The place of abode includes the home and attached items as a garage or deck, so if one was to be armed be it in hand and as long he/she was with in their abode there is no violation of RCW 9.41.270, this does not cover pointing or shooting a firearm at them.
It is my understanding if this occurred in Washington and he was to stay on his porch or deck (attached) and did not shoot or point it at them, but displayed the weapon and ordered to leave there would be no charges.
RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
It is my understanding if this occurred in Washington and he was to stay on his porch or deck (attached) and did not shoot or point it at them, but displayed the weapon and ordered to leave there would be no charges.
Last edited:
JoeSparky
Centurion
IF this occured in Washington:
It seems that the State has the duty to Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Unfortunately, I am fairly sure the Trespassers will not be testifying that they were charging toward him with intent to cause him bodily harm and he doesn't have a recording (audio or video) demonstrating that he was acting in self defense.
But did it occur in Washington State? Or Oregon?
I wish the OP good luck with this.
It seems that the State has the duty to Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Unfortunately, I am fairly sure the Trespassers will not be testifying that they were charging toward him with intent to cause him bodily harm and he doesn't have a recording (audio or video) demonstrating that he was acting in self defense.
But did it occur in Washington State? Or Oregon?
I wish the OP good luck with this.
Last edited: