Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Castle doctrine in Washington State

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,452

    Castle doctrine in Washington State

    We now seem to have a pretty solid castle doctrine in Washington State:

    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 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.
    RCW 9A.52.025
    Residential burglary.

    *** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5891-S.SL) ***

    (1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

    (2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary.
    RCW 9A.52.040
    Inference of intent.

    In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.
    I haven't taken the time to see what changed in 2011. Has this combination existed before?

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    By following the provided links one can see the changes in the RCW's made this year.

    note the red letter were added in the following cite.

    Sec. 354. RCW 9A.16.050 and 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.16.050 are
    17 each amended to read as follows:
    18 Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
    19 (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband,
    20 wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his
    21 or her
    presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to
    22 apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony
    23 or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such
    24 person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
    25 or
    26 (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon
    27 the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other
    28 place of abode, in which he or she is.

    note the gray letter is what was removed this year.

    Sec. 38. RCW 9A.52.025 and 1989 2nd ex.s. c 1 s 1 are each amended
    5 to read as follows:
    6 (1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to
    7 commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters
    8 or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.
    9 (2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing
    10 sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, ((the sentencing
    11 guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission
    12 shall consider))
    residential burglary ((as)) is to be considered a more
    13 serious offense than second degree burglary.

    no change in this one, has been on the books since 1975

    RCW 9A.52.040 Inference of intent.
    In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.
    [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.52.040.]

    Seems we now have a solid castle doctrine in Washington State, yes for many years now. Attachment 6365
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-17-2011 at 05:40 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Skok Rez, Washington, USA
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    We now seem to have a pretty solid castle doctrine in Washington State:

    I haven't taken the time to see what changed in 2011. Has this combination existed before?
    Our courts have also been very good about respecting the rights of individuals to protect themselves others and property. With a long history of ruling in favor of those involved a legitimate self defense. Some anti persecutors will try to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a justified self defense shooting and find themselves paying for the defense

    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.

    (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

    (3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

    Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

    (4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

    (5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
    answer yes or no
    1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
    2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
    3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
    a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
    b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
    c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
    d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
    e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
    f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .
    Last edited by LongRider; 07-18-2011 at 02:47 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Washington far exceeds the traditional castle doctine...

    WashingtonThe statute in Washington state appears to be very simply and broadly stated.[25]
    The law 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 doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was 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."[26][27]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#Washington



    In Washington State - the idea of "ones home" is great but the state is more of a stand your ground state. If you are where you are legally able to be... be it your home, on a side walk or park... you have every right to defend yourself if attacked or threatened. Some states will have you try to do 1 or 2 - meaning run away or hide or something... But here it's a NO DUTY to RETREAT.

    So for those new to the idea of the Castle Doctine see the link above and just know Washington exceeds these standards. So keep it simple. If you are legally where you are... you have every right to defend yourself and to use deadly force if needed.

    Example: sorry lost the post... but a guy on downtown Seattle was walking down near Westlake Center a few years back was assaulted by some street guy for no reason. The pedestrian was legally armed and was able to defend himself and shot the guy.. he later died. The victim was never arrested as it was a clear case of self defense. Minding his own business... was where he was legally able to be... used force to stop the attack.
    Last edited by oldkim; 07-18-2011 at 04:46 PM.
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by oldkim View Post
    Example: sorry lost the post... but a guy on downtown Seattle was walking down near Westlake Center a few years back was assaulted by some street guy for no reason. The pedestrian was legally armed and was able to defend himself and shot the guy.. he later died. The victim was never arrested as it was a clear case of self defense. Minding his own business... was where he was legally able to be... used force to stop the attack.
    It helped the case that the victim was thumped to the ground, while the attacker screamed "I'm going to kill you!" The victim pulled what was described at the time as a concealed Ruger GP-100 (!) and shot the attacker once.

    The law doesn't require that you take a blow before shooting back, since you run a serious risk of being disarmed or incapacitated, but it does delineate intent. The attacker was apparently a whackjob with a long history of violence, and did not know the victim.

  6. #6
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    It helped the case that the victim was thumped to the ground, while the attacker screamed "I'm going to kill you!" The victim pulled what was described at the time as a concealed Ruger GP-100 (!) and shot the attacker once.

    The law doesn't require that you take a blow before shooting back, since you run a serious risk of being disarmed or incapacitated, but it does delineate intent. The attacker was apparently a whackjob with a long history of violence, and did not know the victim.
    Here is the link for the Westlake attack I think you are refering to. http://www.kirotv.com/news/10025344/detail.html
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...stlake08m.html

    Along with this attack, the attacker had also attacked others that day as well. It was well laid out that he was a threat and I not suggesting that you need this amount evidence to support your claims of self defense but ones needs to be able to at least assist his lawyer in laying out the foundation to support his/her actions.

    Along with this concept of Stand Your Ground there is an issue that once Self Defense is claimed, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in Self Defense as seen in;

    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 17.02 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].

    As stated by olkim "No Duty To Retreat" I will cite here

    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.”]
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-18-2011 at 06:16 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,911
    Something to be aware of though

    and when the force is not more than is necessary.
    A firearm is "deadly force". Was it necessary to use it or did you have other options? Something to think about for those that carry OC Spray, a Taser, ASP, etc, along with their firearm.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Thanks BigDave for the cites and post!


    A firearm is "deadly force". Was it necessary to use it or did you have other options? Something to think about for those that carry OC Spray, a Taser, ASP, etc, along with their firearm.
    For this reason I have heard both from LEO and civilian side... that is why they don't carry those... If you have to defend yourself... you defend yourself. End of story. If you don't then you don't.

    Of course, I have always said you should carry at least 3 items... what they are... is up to you. I carry a Flashlight, pocket knife and a gun. If you carry a mixture of items then it all depends on the nature of the scenario or incident as it flows and is presented to you.

    In the case above even if the guy had all the above and plus some... using deadly force was deemed necessary and lawful.

    So there is almost always 2 sides to look at things...

    Thanks for the legal post! Remember for those of us "not an attorney".... Just remember you need to say "you feared for your life...." End of story. Or as other may suggest... don't say anything at all... wait for your attorney.

    For those that carry you really do need to think of these issues and scenarios...
    Last edited by oldkim; 07-19-2011 at 09:24 AM.
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,452
    Quote Originally Posted by oldkim View Post
    For this reason I have heard both from LEO and civilian side... that is why they don't carry those... If you have to defend yourself... you defend yourself. End of story. If you don't then you don't.
    That's why I carry only a loaded gun, nothing else. I would rather not answer the question in court, "Well you had pepper spray, why didn't you try that first? You had a tazer, why didn't you try that? Seems like you just wanted to shoot somebody so you went straight for the gun!" I would rather my answer be, "because the gun was all I had to defend myself with..."

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,574
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    That's why I carry only a loaded gun, nothing else. I would rather not answer the question in court, "Well you had pepper spray, why didn't you try that first? You had a tazer, why didn't you try that? Seems like you just wanted to shoot somebody so you went straight for the gun!" I would rather my answer be, "because the gun was all I had to defend myself with..."
    Exactly correct 100%. I do the same, I am not Batman, LEO or any other 'super hero'. My only responsibility is to defend my life and go home at the end of the day.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 07-19-2011 at 11:22 AM.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    I understand the issue of not wanting to be questioned as to why you choose your self defense firearm over another choice but If I can solve the issue with lesser means I prefer to, it is not my desire to take a life but only as a last resort.

    I also believe that carrying alternatives as pepper spray adds to your ability to resolve an issue that does not quite rise to the use of deadly force or you have to have it escalate to the point of deadly force. And when all comes to play and said and done, there are many issues one will deal with after shooting or taking a life of another.

    If you have a lesser force available do you have to use it first, NO. As with any self defense encounter you will determine the amount of force to be used to stop the threat and apply it, the point where some have gotten into trouble is they continue the encounter after there is no longer a threat.

    Some may feel a punch is enough to justify using deadly force, while in some circumstances this is true and others it is not and this is where an alternative methods could be employed, be it martial arts, or self defense techniques, to pepper spray or another item to stop the threat that is less then threat of life or limb, that firearm needs to be our last choice in the majority of contacts and in some it is the only choice.

    In our Washington State laws we see, not more then necessary or used by a prudent person faced with the same facts would do the same. This is align of using equal force to stop a threat or assault not to be excessive as a push versus a kick or a slap versus a round house kick.
    To use deadly force there must be imminent threat of life or limb. During a confrontation where one is of like size and strength it reaches a point you cannot defend yourself from the attack then an escalation of force comes into play as it reaches an imminent threat to life or limb.

    I truly hope those who choose not to carry or employ other means then deadly force rethink their position as it can be explained why you did not use pepper spray versus your weapon, the same way you explain why your weapon was used.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    So there is almost always 2 sides to look at things...

    So there is almost always 2 sides to look at things...
    So again... 2 sides.

    I'm in the middle. I don't think less or more for someone to carry more or less...

    It's up to you and the scenario's you think you'll run into... You carry for self defense. How you can handle those... in your mind and trained to do so will depend on what you carry and how you use them... and what incident and how it develops.

    To each their own...

    Train with what you carry and be proficient using them.
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Skok Rez, Washington, USA
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by oldkim View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#Washington



    [SUP][FONT=times new roman][SIZE=5]In Washington State - the idea of "ones home" is great but the state is more of a stand your ground state. If you are where you are legally able to be... be it your home, on a side walk or park... you have every right to defend yourself if attacked or threatened. Some states will have you try to do 1 or 2 - meaning run away or hide or something... But here it's a NO DUTY to RETREAT.

    So for those new to the idea of the Castle Doctine see the link above and just know Washington exceeds these standards. So keep it simple. If you are legally where you are... you have every right to defend yourself and to use deadly force if needed.
    Thank you good post, we are a very good self defense state with both laws and a pattern of court rulings that support self defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I understand the issue of not wanting to be questioned as to why you choose your self defense firearm over another choice but If I can solve the issue with lesser means I prefer to, it is not my desire to take a life but only as a last resort.

    I also believe that carrying alternatives as pepper spray adds to your ability.
    I agree I would prefer not to see the insides of any more human beings and do provide myself options. Though I have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to DO SO. I am not a LEO. I am neither trained not required to climb the escalating force ladder. I do carry a cane and knives. Both my cane and knife can easily be discounted as viable self defense options for the untrained individual. Rather they are tools not weapons. Pepper spray is a weapon. I would never carry pepper spray its fine for LEO who have back up and training as well as the legal requirement to climb the escalating force ladder. Again I do not have that requirement. So possession of pepper spray may complicate matters if I am forced to use a firearm in self defense. Require I answer questions I would not be asked if I did not have it. Remember keep it simple

    Secondly and maybe more importantly. In every self defense situation I have ever been in you get one chance and one chance only to get it right. I have seen FOX Labs peppers spray fail when used properly applied to both the eyes and directly up the guys nose. FOX Labs is reputedly the most effective pepper spray made bar none, if it will fail it is safe to assume the others can as well. If it fails you may not get a second chance. IMHO whatever options you carry be sure they are options that work 100% of the time for their purpose. Ideally items that are dual purpose not solely identified weapons.
    Last edited by LongRider; 07-19-2011 at 02:52 PM.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    I agree I would prefer not to see the insides of any more human beings and do provide myself options. Though I have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to DO SO. I am not a LEO. I am neither trained not required to climb the escalating force ladder. I do carry a cane and knives. Both my cane and knife can easily be discounted as viable self defense options for the untrained individual. Rather they are tools not weapons. Pepper spray is a weapon. I would never carry pepper spray its fine for LEO who have back up and training as well as the legal requirement to climb the escalating force ladder. Again I do not have that requirement. So possession of pepper spray may complicate matters if I am forced to use a firearm in self defense. Require I answer questions I would not be asked if I did not have it. Remember keep it simple

    Secondly and maybe more importantly. In every self defense situation I have ever been in you get one chance and one chance only to get it right. I have seen FOX Labs peppers spray fail when used properly applied to both the eyes and directly up the guys nose. FOX Labs is reputedly the most effective pepper spray made bar none, if it will fail it is safe to assume the others can as well. If it fails you may not get a second chance. IMHO whatever options you carry be sure they are options that work 100% of the time for their purpose. Ideally items that are dual purpose not solely identified weapons.
    I was not nor am I suggesting in a life or death situation that something other then your self defense firearm to be used, it is those times that it does not rise to the level of deadly force.

    A cane or a knife can be considered a weapon, or a stick or many other items that have other uses for.

    We do have a legal obligation to use minimal force necessary.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Other side...

    Do know the VAST majority of incidents... the one's you don't hear about... are prevented. In the sense, of using going to use one's sidearm.

    This could be simply due to the fact you stood up against them... you used a light to disorient and/or confuse them... you yelled at them... They saw you had some "weapon" be it knife or cane or stick or whatever... you sprayed them with OC and of course they saw you had a gun.

    I think we are all clear that when a firearm is needed - you use it.

    It's the VAST majority of the other times... by simply using a non lethal means to deter... that folks will say you should have some alternatives...

    Again, you have to choose and train... with what you "carry".

    I carry a light, knife and gun. If you choose to carry others or not... that is up to you.
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    I have seen FOX Labs peppers spray fail when used ...
    whatever options you carry be sure they are options that work 100% of the time for their purpose.
    Not even firearms work 100% of the time.

    I carry OC primarily for non-lethal scenarios. If I'm attacked by an empty-handed attacker I can't legally shoot the guy, but OC could end the altercation with less damage to me than taking my chances duking it out. Since OC ranks lower on the force continuum than empty hands, it can be used preemptively; think of it as ******* repellant.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,117
    Quote Originally Posted by MedusaOblongata View Post
    Not even firearms work 100% of the time.

    I carry OC primarily for non-lethal scenarios. If I'm attacked by an empty-handed attacker I can't legally shoot the guy, but OC could end the altercation with less damage to me than taking my chances duking it out. Since OC ranks lower on the force continuum than empty hands, it can be used preemptively; think of it as ******* repellant.
    cite?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,911
    Quote Originally Posted by MedusaOblongata View Post
    If I'm attacked by an empty-handed attacker I can't legally shoot the guy,
    RCW 9A.36.011
    Assault in the first degree.

    (1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

    (a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

    (b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

    (c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

    (2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.



    [1997 c 196 1; 1986 c 257 4.]
    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;

    [b] (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,[b] 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.]
    If someone is attacking you with the intent to do harm, they are committing a felony. You have the right to defend yourself using Deadly Force if necessary. If you don't think bare fists can be deadly, apparently you have your head in the sand. The news media is full of accounts where people have been beaten to death or put in coma's by "bare handed assailants". Here's one example: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...in-injury.html

    The only caveat to using a gun to defend yourself against an attacker, don't stand over the body and administer a final kill shot. When the threat has ended you have to cease fire.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    If someone is attacking you with the intent to do harm, they are committing a felony. You have the right to defend yourself using Deadly Force if necessary. If you don't think bare fists can be deadly, apparently you have your head in the sand. The news media is full of accounts where people have been beaten to death or put in coma's by "bare handed assailants". Here's one example: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...in-injury.html

    The only caveat to using a gun to defend yourself against an attacker, don't stand over the body and administer a final kill shot. When the threat has ended you have to cease fire.
    And don't turn the gun sideways like in the movie Date Night. "Thats a kill shot".
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  20. #20
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    LOL, funny reference. My wife and daughter thought that was a great part of that movie.

    (Also guys, MedusaOblongata is a tad new here, he might not have quite as much knowlege as some here do.)
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  21. #21
    Regular Member ghosthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
    Posts
    281
    Well I do not carry at work. But I do carry a Kimber Pepper Blaster in my cargo pant pocket 7 days a week. When away from work the gun goes on. I think BigDave summed it up for me.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,117
    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    LOL, funny reference. My wife and daughter thought that was a great part of that movie.

    (Also guys, MedusaOblongata is a tad new here, he might not have quite as much knowlege as some here do.)
    Welcome aboard Medusa! And now you know. Hope ya have a thick skin it can get testy in here.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    10
    Hey guys,

    I usually lurk here. It's a good forum, though. Good people.

    It's my understanding that, outside the home, deadly force can only be used in defense against deadly force or serious bodily injury (kidnapping, rape, etc.).
    I know that people can be killed with empty hands, but, being an able bodied male in my 30s, I don't think I would sound convincing saying that, "he tried to punch me, and sometimes some people have died from that, so I had to shoot him."

    My personal policy, though, is that I will draw my weapon iff failure to do so is likely to result in death or serious injury to myself, or a third party I care that much to protect, in other words, I don't ask if I'm allowed to shoot, but if I have to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •