• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Home owner shoots intruder.

ghosthunter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
283
Location
MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Homeowner-shoots-intruder-who-fled-from-cops-134965313.html



PORT ORCHARD, Wash. - A homeowner shot and wounded an intruder who burst into his home while running from police early Saturday in Port Orchard, the Washington State Patrol reported.

The drama began when police responded to the area of Melcher Street and Tacoma Avenue at about 1:15 a.m. after receiving a 911 call from someone who hung up on dispatchers, said Krista D. Hedstrom of the State Patrol.

Officers found a 47-year-old man in the street and two officers got into a struggle with him. Police fired a Taser to subdue the man, but it had no effect, Hedstrom said.

At that point, the suspect fled from officers and went to a nearby home. He forced his way inside and got into a confrontation with the homeowner, a man in his 20s.

There was a verbal and physical altercation between the intruder and the homeowner. The homeowner then fired a single shot at the intruder, hitting him in the abdomen, Hedstrom said.

The intruder was taken to St. Joseph's Medical Center in Tacoma, where he is in stable condition.

The homeowner and two officers sustained minor injuries during the incident.

Hedstrom said it does not appear the intruder knew the homeowner or any other occupants of the home. She said officers believe the 47-year-old man was in the neighborhood visiting someone else before the incident, but he does not live in there.

The case remains under investigation, Hedstrom said.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
I heard about this, this morning. A family member saw it on the morning news. Would like to find/hear some more details on it.
 

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
Abdomen wounds may not kill you right away but they do cause a lot of pain maybe the home owner taught him a lesson I wonder what caliber
 

geojohn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Snohomish County, Washington, USA
This is a good lesson for knuckleheads who find themselves being tazed by LEOs. Stay put even if it doesn't have an effect, they're doing you a kindness. The alternative could be much worse.
 

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
wounded

Those who live through A gun shot wound have A tendency to suit you for every thing you own. And there is always some blood sucking anti gun lawyer that would jump on A cace like this.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
This is a good lesson for knuckleheads who find themselves being tazed by LEOs. Stay put even if it doesn't have an effect, they're doing you a kindness. The alternative could be much worse.

The problem is that all too often, LEOs use TASERs as pain compliance devices. If the order is to stay down and lie still, convulsing may be seen as disobedience. But what if the order is to do something requiring motor control or coordination? Every time you fail to obey (due to being incapacitated by the TASER) you get zapped again. The mindset you seem to have here would result in people being shot (possibly in the abdomen) for failing to obey an order after being TASERed.
 

geojohn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Snohomish County, Washington, USA
The mindset you seem to have here would result in people being shot (possibly in the abdomen) for failing to obey an order after being TASERed.

That's a bizarre conclusion to draw from my comment. In case I wasn't clear, by "stay put" I meant not running away from the cops into someone's house where you get shot.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
That's a bizarre conclusion to draw from my comment. In case I wasn't clear, by "stay put" I meant not running away from the cops into someone's house where you get shot.

Yeaaa....I'm a bit puzzled about his response myself. :confused:

I thought your meaning was quite clear, but it just goes to show how internet postings are subjective to the readers in any number of ways.

O well.
 

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
As much as the macho and tactical side of me says keep squeezing till the twitching stops I am glad for the home owners sake he got the job done with a less than lethal outcome.
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
The problem is that all too often, LEOs use TASERs as pain compliance devices. If the order is to stay down and lie still, convulsing may be seen as disobedience. But what if the order is to do something requiring motor control or coordination? Every time you fail to obey (due to being incapacitated by the TASER) you get zapped again. The mindset you seem to have here would result in people being shot (possibly in the abdomen) for failing to obey an order after being TASERed.

Tasers don't work that way. They are on a 5 second relay. You deploy the probes (# 10 fishhooks) they stick, and a charge is delivered for 5 seconds. Then you have full muscle control again. During that time you are supposed to obey. If you fail to then you receive another charge.
Police are fully aware of the effects of the Taser. They must be certified.
I agree with the above comments about follow up shots. I practice with controlled pairs. It is unfortunate that a criminal has the right to file a law suit over something that happened in the commission of a crime.
 

MadHatter66

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Tasers don't work that way. They are on a 5 second relay. You deploy the probes (# 10 fishhooks) they stick, and a charge is delivered for 5 seconds. Then you have full muscle control again. During that time you are supposed to obey. If you fail to then you receive another charge.
Police are fully aware of the effects of the Taser. They must be certified.
I agree with the above comments about follow up shots. I practice with controlled pairs. It is unfortunate that a criminal has the right to file a law suit over something that happened in the commission of a crime.


As far as the RCW's you cannot be... RCW 9A.16.110 (1)... The "of any kind, whatsoever" kind of takes care of that part. If this is ruled justifiable self defense, then he should be in the clear...

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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Those who live through A gun shot wound have A tendency to suit you for every thing you own. And there is always some blood sucking anti gun lawyer that would jump on A cace like this.

Stop when the threat has stopped.

Estates can sue just as well as a wounded man -- and you don't want to face homicide or manslaughter charges, or 'just' a lifetime of internalized shame and regret.

$.02
 

ghosthunter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
283
Location
MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
In WA, if it was a "good shot" (legal) no, you cannot be sued. If you are sued it will be thrown out.

I am not sure that this is true. Few years back a guy in Burlington shot a father and son who were trying to enter his house. The father died ,the son brain damaged. He went to trial and was found inocent. The family of the men sued him and got a settlement from his insurance.

this link

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/8033692.html
 
Last edited:

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
In WA, if it was a "good shot" (legal) no, you cannot be sued. If you are sued it will be thrown out.

I'm afraid you are incorrect, you can indeed be sued in civil court even if you are found to have acted in self defense, and never criminally charged.

Now, the chances of such a law suite actually succeeding, that's another matter entirely. I would say the chances are pretty high it would be dismissed as frivolous, but the fact of our court system is that anyone can attempt to sue you for anything, at any time, and it MAY actually succeed if they find a judge that is sympathetic enough.
 
Last edited:

MadHatter66

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
I'm afraid you are incorrect, you can indeed be sued in civil court even if you are found to have acted in self defense, and never criminally charged.

So what does "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary...." from RCW 9A.16.110 (1) mean then? Civil suit is still "legal jeopardy, is it not? I am really not being argumentative here, if there is another meaning to this passage in the RCW then please, by all means. To me that reads as a very strongly worded statement against any legal action, to include a civil suit.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
So what does "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary...." from RCW 9A.16.110 (1) mean then? Civil suit is still "legal jeopardy, is it not? I am really not being argumentative here, if there is another meaning to this passage in the RCW then please, by all means. To me that reads as a very strongly worded statement against any legal action, to include a civil suit.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true
"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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true#9A.16.020
in case the force is not more than is necessary

Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat is stopped, don't shoot.

Shooting to kill, in order to minimize potential civil lawsuits is illegal and stupid imho -- IANAL :p

PS: try really, really hard to... not shoot. You could consider that legal advice... but IANAL :p
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I am not sure that this is true. Few years back a guy in Burlington shot a father and son who were trying to enter his house. The father died ,the son brain damaged. He went to trial and was found inocent. The family of the men sued him and got a settlement from his insurance.

this link

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/8033692.html

I read the article in your provided link but found information only concerning law enforcements first contact and investigation but nothing about going to trial or findings nor a story on the civil suit out come.

If there was additional links to this that would be nice and I do not know what other circumstances surround this incident.
What I take from this article is the husband had moved out of the home do to martial problems and the estranged wife had returned home with a younger man and his father after a date and the shooting ensued.

According to your recall he was found not guilty of shooting or death, so RCW 9A.16.110 would only apply if he was found that he acted in Self Defense.
Many here will recall the Officer Shooting in Everett where the officer was put on trial and was found not guilty, but the judges ruling was he did not act in self defense and relief in RCW 9A.16.110 was not given.
Another issue there was a self defense claim in Seattle that the defendant acted in Self Defense in Municipal Court but did not receive relief in RCW 9A.16.110 as the City had no authority to make the State reimburse them, if it was done in a State Court then it would have.

Just a quick reminder that in a criminal court evidence is held at a higher standard of "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" versus a Civil Court where the evidence is reduced to "By A Preponderance Of The Evidence".

Even if he had been found not guilty in a civil court of acting in self defense I think he would have not be able to collect on the relief provided for in RCW 9A.16.110 as seen in the below provided link.

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/128wn2d/128wn2d0492.htm
As the majority correctly concludes, by using such expansive language as "no person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever," RCW 9A.16.110 extends the reach of the statute to all cases where a person establishes a self-defense claim that is held by the fact finder. In other words, the Legislature intends this to apply not only to statutorily defined offenses but to municipal offenses as well.

Yet, the majority also correctly concludes that the statute provides that the State--not the city or other subdivision of the State--is responsible for reimbursing such persons. However, since RCW 9A.16.110 clearly states that the reimbursement relief may not be obtained in a separate, independent action, persons like Fontanilla, tried in municipal court, have no effective remedy under this statute«7» because the municipal judge has no jurisdiction over the State.

We thus have an anomalous result where the statute gives with one hand what it takes away with the other. If the Legislature wishes to offer relief to all persons who successfully establish a self-defense claim, it must provide for a remedy that is meaningful.
 

dadada

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
112
Location
Edge of the woods
So what does "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary...." from RCW 9A.16.110 (1) mean then? Civil suit is still "legal jeopardy, is it not? I am really not being argumentative here, if there is another meaning to this passage in the RCW then please, by all means. To me that reads as a very strongly worded statement against any legal action, to include a civil suit.

Legal is different than civil. Ask OJ Simpson if they are the same. Google "Tort".
 
Top