OT: Onalaska homeowner to be charged in the 1st degree for murder?!!

Aaron1124 said:

Theoretically, it would be fair if it weren't crooked.

Click to expand...

It's still the best system in the world. Would you prefer somewhere else like China? How about those civilized countries where you don't get a "Jury of your Peers", just judges?

How about Italy? We've seen recent examples of what happens there with the Amanda Knoxx trial.

Crooked? Perhaps a logical conclusion if you loose. But then again, there are only innocent people in prison. Just ask them.

Of course not, but it still needs work. Remember, the justice system is run by humans, like you and I.

I'm sure Al Capone LOVED how the local justice system worked back in his day.

Not to get into too much detail, but I know first hand of someone who wrongfully served a year of incarceration, and he didn't do jack diddly to deserve it. People are also getting off scott-free when they should probably be doing life in prison.

Clemmons is a prime example of a should-have-been lifer. The justice system is flawed because it has the human component, basically, the justice system will always be flawed. Not to mention the socio-economic factors that come into play, lack of education, etc. It does not negate the responsibility of the criminal, just saying it plays a role in the criminal behavior of some.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Clemmons is a prime example of a should-have-been lifer. The justice system is flawed because it has the human component, basically, the justice system will always be flawed. Not to mention the socio-economic factors that come into play, lack of education, etc. It does not negate the responsibility of the criminal, just saying it plays a role in the criminal behavior of some.

Click to expand...

+1

If we follow the example given by another local LEA, a person fleeing the scene can still be shot 4 times because they may pose a threat to someone else.

[/sarcasm]

Leatherneck said:

If we follow the example given by another local LEA, a person fleeing the scene can still be shot 4 times because they may pose a threat to someone else.

[/sarcasm]

Click to expand...

The only logical conclusion If you are referring to Meade, I think he shot the guy in the back 7 or 8 times.

No, I'm thinking MORE locally. Like local-er to you and me.
(Yes, it's a word. I just made it.)

Leatherneck said:

No, I'm thinking MORE locally. Like local-er to you and me.
(Yes, it's a word. I just made it.)

Click to expand...

Yea. I really hope that the woodcarver's death isn't swept under the rug. Nice word BTW.

If police can set up a sting operation involving a "broken down" truck and trailer, and have police waiting inside to catch would-be thieves, why can't this home owner stand guard over his own house?

A point that is being overlooked probably due to lack of knowledge, is also a point that the prosecutor MUST look at seriously.
Prima Facia evidence= evidence that at first glance tends to support a fact.
A home owner waiting while armed and hiding would suggest the that use of the firearm is planned.
Police waiting, while armed and in hiding would suggest an impending arrest.
Now, I fully expect a lot of disagreement, and that is fine. This is the way the prosecutor will look at the circumstances.
Kind of different from the way the citizen reading the media "facts" isn't it?

Trigger Dr said:

A home owner waiting while armed and hiding would suggest the that use of the firearm is planned.

Click to expand...

I don't know where your sidearm goes at night before you go to bed, but it goes right next to my bed...with the intent to use it if I had to. When I holster my sidearm, tie my shoes on and step outside, I realize that my sidearm is there for the sole purpose of intending to use it if I have to. Premeditated first-degree murder? Shoot, when I practice at the range, research effective ammunition, clean my sidearm, load the sidearm and holster it, I do it with the intent to use it against another human being efficiently and effectively if they attempt to cause bodily injury or death to me and my family.

Trigger Dr said:

A point that is being overlooked probably due to lack of knowledge, is also a point that the prosecutor MUST look at seriously.
Prima Facia evidence= evidence that at first glance tends to support a fact.
A home owner waiting while armed and hiding would suggest the that use of the firearm is planned.
Police waiting, while armed and in hiding would suggest an impending arrest.
Now, I fully expect a lot of disagreement, and that is fine. This is the way the prosecutor will look at the circumstances.
Kind of different from the way the citizen reading the media "facts" isn't it?

Click to expand...

That is a good point, Trigger Dr. I can certainly see how a prosecutor could construe that perspective to reach a conclusion of 1st degree murder.

Aaron1124 said:

Given the logic of some people, as soon as an intruder turns his back to you and runs, you are no longer justified in taking lethal action. Which, by that logic, if I were to ever rob a home, all I would have to do is turn my back on the home owner and start shooting back over my shoulder, while making sure my back is turned toward him, so he's no longer justified in shooting back.

Click to expand...

Nope, even if the back is turned if one is shooting over their shoulder at me THAT PERSON IS STILL A THREAT AND ATTEMPTING TO USE POTENTIALLY LETHAL FORCE AGAINST ME!

Question: Does Washington State have a law that states the State must prove that a self-defense claim must be disproved by the State instead of the Crime victim having to prove that they did act in self defense?

Also, in another state, Utah to be specific, If one is legally in a location like a residence and someone attempts to or does enter either by force or by stealth with felonious intent I can legal use any force necessary to stop that threat up to and including lethal force. Also, the same statute states that such action is presumed to be justified and the person is protected from both criminal and civil actions.

Here is the specific Utah code:
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

I know that I am posting in the Washington forum but just offering the preceding for discussion and / or ideas to potentially change Washington States laws so that they may be more reasonable and protect a homeowner/resident more fully.

The fellow facing charges here MAY have had a better justification if he waited until they had made more entry.

Generally, I choose not to use potentially lethal force to protect property. But CarJacking of an occupied vehicle and home type invasions or burglary of occupied dwellings are a different story.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I don't know where your sidearm goes at night before you go to bed, but it goes right next to my bed...with the intent to use it if I had to. When I holster my sidearm, tie my shoes on and step outside, I realize that my sidearm is there for the sole purpose of intending to use it if I have to. Premeditated first-degree murder? Shoot, when I practice at the range, research effective ammunition, clean my sidearm, load the sidearm and holster it, I do it with the intent to use it against another human being efficiently and effectively if they attempt to cause bodily injury or death to me and my family.

Click to expand...

Having a firearm ready for use while you go about your normal routine is quite a bit different from waiting, armed and hiding anticipating the arrival or return of persons attempting to break into your property.
and if you re read your first sentence, my sidearm does not go right next to your bed. it goes next to mine the same as yours goes next to your bed I would presume (smile)

I note a few things from the paltry info in the articles I've seen...

Hours earlier the home owner made a police report of an attempted robbery and damage to his property.

It was night time and the person who owns the house at the end of a log private drive was in the house with the lights off. (I often have my lights off at night, duh.)

He had a .22 rifle in the house with him. (I have numerous firearms in my place, with me.)

He hears a vehicle coming down the drive and observes it's headlights, and as it approaches the garage he moves from the house to the garage.

The intruders aim flashlights into the eyes of the homeowner when he opens the garage door, essentially blinding him. (Remember, he is alone, far from help, on his private property, and sees lights, obviously held by two or more people, blinding him.)

In fear for his life he fires his .22 rifle in the direction of the intruders, striking and killing one.

The wife of the person he killed claims they thought the homeowner was an intruder. (They, themselves were on private property they did not own.)

The wife claims they had permission to be there to remove some parts from a truck on the property. (But the only tools they had with them were burglary tools, and they were wearing gloves.)

She later made an "Alford" plea saying she'd probably be found guilty of burglary.

She did not follow the court's orders and was re-arrested.

Both the dead man and the wife have a drug and burglary history, and the wife has since been arrested yet again on drug charges.

Firing after the retreating wife is a toss-up. She could have been running to retrieve a weapon, to get the assistance of another accomplice, or even just to reach cover before returning fire. To a homeowner just blinded by two or more folks carrying flashlights and confronting the homeowner on his property, I can easily understand his still being in fear for his life - especially that far from any help.

I hope the homeowner has a damned good lawyer. I do not believe he committed a crime.


Best of luck to the homeowner.

On threads like this we should have a pool. Buy in and select a verdict. When the trial is over the winner(s) collect.

Then we could have another thread on the merits of the State's Anti-Gambling laws.

Trigger Dr said:

Having a firearm ready for use while you go about your normal routine is quite a bit different from waiting, armed and hiding anticipating the arrival or return of persons attempting to break into your property.
and if you re read your first sentence, my sidearm does not go right next to your bed. it goes next to mine the same as yours goes next to your bed I would presume (smile)

Click to expand...

So question? If your house was broken into earlier, and you filed the report you wouldn't wait there armed? In case they came back? To me that is just being prepared.

sudden valley gunner said:

So question? If your house was broken into earlier, and you filed the report you wouldn't wait there armed? In case they came back? To me that is just being prepared.

Click to expand...

I agree, but was merely trying to point out the way the prosecutor looks at the circumstances. Good shoot on the man ? I will wait for the verdict. Good shoot on the woman, In MY opinion, no. The threat was gone as she ran away. As far as still being a threat because she MIGHT be going after a gun, etc. The threat would return when she did return with the gun etc. and only then.

Trigger Dr said:

I agree, but was merely trying to point out the way the prosecutor looks at the circumstances. Good shoot on the man ? I will wait for the verdict. Good shoot on the woman, In MY opinion, no. The threat was gone as she ran away. As far as still being a threat because she MIGHT be going after a gun, etc. The threat would return when she did return with the gun etc. and only then.

Click to expand...

Gotcha.

Although I still tend to lean toward homeowners when anyone is on property fleeing or not. Would I shoot don't think so, but I wasn't there.

Trigger Dr said:

Having a firearm ready for use while you go about your normal routine is quite a bit different from waiting, armed and hiding anticipating the arrival or return of persons attempting to break into your property.
and if you re read your first sentence, my sidearm does not go right next to your bed. it goes next to mine the same as yours goes next to your bed I would presume (smile)

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. Here is the issue I see coming up--you would have to prove that he had the foresight of knowing that the intruders were coming back--technically, we all are doing what he is doing simply by arming ourselves. We arm ourselves because of a potential threat that might arise. Even then, let's say he had the foresight of the intruders coming back--Washington is a stand your ground state--the homeowner had a right to be where he was, no duty to flee, and had a right to defend his life. The evening hours, flashlights beaming at him...a reasonable person would feel their life was in danger.

He will be dragged through the system, but will be acquitted.

Yea, I meant to say that it goes right next to my bed.