Tacoma - Good Guy - 1 / Bad Guys - 0

http://tacoma.komonews.com/news/crime/homeowner-shoots-intruders-killing-one/642764

Tacoma police spokesman Mark Fulghum said the homeowner woke up when he heard someone breaking into his garage, and he confronted the two intruders about 4:40 a.m.

The intruders charged at the homeowner, who opened fire, Fulghum said.

Both intruders were hit, and one died at the scene. The other was taken to St. Joseph Medical Center.

That's about 1 1/2 blocks away from my house.
Great job to the home owner

Love the comment section

Just got word that he (homeowner) is a Special Forces Soldier. Sorry, guys, you picked the wrong house.

Possible Twist on Use of Deadly Force

This story was thought-provoking for me. The first thought I had was, the homeowner may be in a tough spot here: According to the story, the break-in occurred at the home's *detached* garage. So, at that point, only the homeowner's property was being threatened. The homeowner then chose to confront the intruders in the garage, where he held them at gunpoint, presumably in an attempt to wait until LE arrived. It was while the intruders were being held by the homeowner that at least one of the intruders charged him, resulting in the shootings.

So my question is, how do you think the legal system is going to view the actions of the homeowner in this case?

Even if you accept that, at the point the intruders charged the homeowner, that the homeowner's life was being threatened, was the homeowner justified in holding them at gunpoint?

I think I have a pretty good grasp of Washington law applying to deadly force situations. But I've never thought about the legality of detaining someone at gunpoint. Does it play in to the deadly force equation? Is it illegal outright?

Inquiring minds want to know...

The homeowner was on his own property with a legal handgun he encountered two burglars and they charged him. That would make this a good shoot. There was a case last year(?) where a homeowner was WAITING in concealment as two burglars came into his garage, that went differently, I don't remember all the details.

This may be a case of the homeowner saying too much. I think if he had shut up and let his lawyer lay out the 'facts' - i.e. he happened to go to garage (wasn't 'hunting' the BGs) and encountered them, and pulled his carry gun.

This is a bit different than knowing someone was there and going out there (i.e. not retreating) calling 911 and staying in the house in a defensive position. Probably depends on the State and existence of any Castle Doctrine (which would prob. extend to the garage). IANAL

$.02

kwiebe said:

This story was thought-provoking for me. The first thought I had was, the homeowner may be in a tough spot here: According to the story, the break-in occurred at the home's *detached* garage. So, at that point, only the homeowner's property was being threatened. The homeowner then chose to confront the intruders in the garage, where he held them at gunpoint, presumably in an attempt to wait until LE arrived. It was while the intruders were being held by the homeowner that at least one of the intruders charged him, resulting in the shootings.

So my question is, how do you think the legal system is going to view the actions of the homeowner in this case?

Even if you accept that, at the point the intruders charged the homeowner, that the homeowner's life was being threatened, was the homeowner justified in holding them at gunpoint?

I think I have a pretty good grasp of Washington law applying to deadly force situations. But I've never thought about the legality of detaining someone at gunpoint. Does it play in to the deadly force equation? Is it illegal outright?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Click to expand...

The homeowner had a legal right to be were he was and can stand his ground legally. He is not pushed by legality to retreat. If he is charged in his own home, he is allowed legally to "stand his ground"

Cite: "Stand-your-ground" Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6]

I should not be compelled to cower in my house if I think someone is breaking into my garage. I should be able to investigate my own property. For all I know it's racoons tearing up my garbage cans or a dog messing around. Or it could be two guys trying to steal my sh!t. But you won't know until you actually look. And as a property owner I should have the right to detain anyone doing something illegal on my property.

kwiebe said:

This story was thought-provoking for me. The first thought I had was, the homeowner may be in a tough spot here: According to the story, the break-in occurred at the home's *detached* garage. So, at that point, only the homeowner's property was being threatened. The homeowner then chose to confront the intruders in the garage, where he held them at gunpoint, presumably in an attempt to wait until LE arrived. It was while the intruders were being held by the homeowner that at least one of the intruders charged him, resulting in the shootings.

So my question is, how do you think the legal system is going to view the actions of the homeowner in this case?

Even if you accept that, at the point the intruders charged the homeowner, that the homeowner's life was being threatened, was the homeowner justified in holding them at gunpoint?

I think I have a pretty good grasp of Washington law applying to deadly force situations. But I've never thought about the legality of detaining someone at gunpoint. Does it play in to the deadly force equation? Is it illegal outright?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Click to expand...

I have not seen anything indicating it was an detached garage, do you have a link?

http://tacoma.komonews.com/news/911/homeowner-shoots-intruders-killing-one/642764
Police say a homeowner fatally shot an intruder and wounded another early Monday morning.
Tacoma police spokesman Mark Fulghum said the homeowner woke up when he heard someone breaking into his garage, and he confronted the two intruders about 4:40 a.m.
The man tried to hold the two at gunpoint while his wife called 911, but the intruders charged at the homeowner, who opened fire, Fulghum said.
Both intruders were hit, and one died at the scene. The other was taken to St. Joseph Medical Center.
Fulghum said it appears the two were trying to steal something from the house.
"They hoped to get in and get out without being noticed," he said.
Investigators said the homeowner went back into his house after the shooting and got a first aid kit to help the wounded man until medics arrived.
Police cordoned off the home near the intersection of S. 38th St and S. Fawcett Ave. for several hours while they investigated.
No information about the person who was killed was available.

Click to expand...

Even if it was, they charged him on his own property and had no legal right to be there, and he believed they were trying to enter the home.

As for talking to much, not likely but enough to support his self defense position.

I highly doubt any charges will come up the homeowner and his punishment shall be to get to the range more often for wasting ammo :monkey

Badger Johnson said:

This may be a case of the homeowner saying too much. I think if he had shut up and let his lawyer lay out the 'facts' - i.e. he happened to go to garage (wasn't 'hunting' the BGs) and encountered them, and pulled his carry gun.

This is a bit different than knowing someone was there and going out there (i.e. not retreating) calling 911 and staying in the house in a defensive position. Probably depends on the State and existence of any Castle Doctrine (which would prob. extend to the garage). IANAL

$.02

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. I've learned from my own lessons that your action is to establish you were being attacked and were afraid for your life and then shut up. Massad Ayoob indicates that you need to even be careful about stating that you "shot" someone because of the connotation. He indicated that many people say "I killed him" which is a huge mistake as well. Simply state that you were being attacked and were afraid for your life and you'll be happy to cooperate with the police within 48 hours with your attorney. You may get arrested, and even charged, but you are on much less jeopardy when you ****.

sigfan said:

I tend to agree with this. I've learned from my own lessons that your action is to establish you were being attacked and were afraid for your life and then shut up. Massad Ayoob indicates that you need to even be careful about stating that you "shot" someone because of the connotation. He indicated that many people say "I killed him" which is a huge mistake as well. Simply state that you were being attacked and were afraid for your life and you'll be happy to cooperate with the police within 48 hours with your attorney. You may get arrested, and even charged, but you are on much less jeopardy when you ****.

Click to expand...

+1 Agree! Do not talk to police, shut up, contact you attorney, shut up!

(will wait for bigdave and others to say it's ok to talk to police about a few things....)

gogodawgs said:

+1 Agree! Do not talk to police, shut up, contact you attorney, shut up!

(will wait for bigdave and others to say it's ok to talk to police about a few things....)

Click to expand...

Why not, if they are polite, then they are just doing their job and are there to help you. You should say as much as possible to them. They have the best recording equipment and and better trained to relay all the info you give them, all in your defense of course. They are your friend, so go ahead and utilize them, you tax dollars are paying them to be there and work for you. After all they are there to protect and serve...

gogodawgs said:

+1 Agree! Do not talk to police, shut up, contact you attorney, shut up!

(will wait for bigdave and others to say it's ok to talk to police about a few things....)

Click to expand...

Hmm is he in Jail ? Nope, News reporting law enforcement supports his position as it being Self Defense...

Yes something things need to be said and then shut up such as describe so many times before.
Others advocate to shut and not talk to police. Does this include not calling Police, Not telling them where the incident occurred, not telling them you were in fear for your life , not that you were defending yourself, do you let the perps call and report the incident? let them spin the story as you being the bad guy, let witnesses or evidence disappear into the night, yeah gogo you tell them, just as a person on this forum a while back with the incident where the young lady was being harmed he intervened and was charged until what, he showed a video. What is the difference here? the homeowner did not get arrested nor charged and stated just enough to lay that foundation, was he stupid, nope not in my book.

I wonder how many people talk to police after a self defense action versus not and what the outcome would be of those being charged, cited or convicted, my bet would be more talk to police then not.

Sure there are those who end up in jail and released later after proving they were not guilty but what is this percentage versus how many really did commit the crime and are sitting in jail, the odds are still better.

The ball is in your court GoGo

The police can also twist and misapply your words in court. Say as little as possible, and call your lawyer. The courts and LEO have railroaded people in the past, it is no longer a "justice" system it is a processing system.

And there are some who take a stand for civil rights who some LEO may be looking to pin anything on. Or what if the perp was the nephew or other relative of the cop? There are many variables about the situation we may not instantly grasp at the time of the shooting. Why take your chances the advice from Lawyers is not to talk.

And it works.....

As I typically do - I will let you all sort out the details about should he/should he not have fired...

I just want to say +1 for the good guys...

If this was "business as usual" we would have a lot fewer criminals... :banana:

sudden valley gunner said:

The police can also twist and misapply your words in court. Say as little as possible, and call your lawyer. The courts and LEO have railroaded people in the past, it is no longer a "justice" system it is a processing system.

And there are some who take a stand for civil rights who some LEO may be looking to pin anything on. Or what if the perp was the nephew or other relative of the cop? There are many variables about the situation we may not instantly grasp at the time of the shooting. Why take your chances the advice from Lawyers is not to talk.

And it works.....

Click to expand...

And talking with the Police works as well if conclude not everyone is cited or arrested, so it could be said as well, talking to police, works as well.

BigDave said:

I have not seen anything indicating it was an detached garage, do you have a link?

Click to expand...

It is a detached garage, I pass by this place everyday.

WinchesterModel12 said:

It is a detached garage, I pass by this place everyday.

Click to expand...

So in it being a detached garage is as you stated is and is not covered as to place of abode but he is covered as to RCW 9A.16.050 which has been updated in 2011 see underlined portions.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5045.SL) ***

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 or her 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 or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Click to expand...

Once the perps were in the commission of a felony and the home owner encountered them to detain and they then charged him placing him in fear for life or great personal injury, he defended himself lawfully.

If they had not tried to attack him then we would be looking at a different story.

There are some great comments here, thanks. I do have to scratch my head still, over the issue of the homeowner holding the intruders at gunpoint *before* there was a threat to his safety (i.e., detached garage). I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

You could even take this a step further. As a thought experiment, let's say the homeowner heard some rustling in his neighbor's garage and did the same thing, with the same results. Would you who are saying he was entirely within his rights say the same thing? Why or why not?

There's nothing in Washington law, that I know of, that would give justification to either case, since it's only property. That's why I tend to think like Badger, the homeowner may have said too much. If someone can point to something in the law that says it's OK to detain someone at gunpoint if you're protecting your property, I'm all ears. I think the chances of getting into that type of situation are pretty good, and I'd like to know what to expect should I act a certain way.