OTish: Need advice on how to find case law example/law interpretation examples

brianstone1985 · Dec 23, 2011

In having a heated discussion with a few friends regarding escalation of force... I am looking for Case law examples (state of Washington Preferred) or maybe some help really pinning down the wording within the law to prove a point. I figured with as many people that post on here that know everything, someone has got to know something!

Hypothetical Scenario:
Woman is sitting in car (for the sake of keeping this on topic lets say she is OCing). She has no idea she cut off the gentlemen behind her, and he has followed her to her stopping point. This man is irate and is yelling at her, he exits his vehicle walking up to hers. At some point lets say he starts to physically hit the window of the car, not so much as to break it but rather to startle her or get his frustration out, or whatever crazy idiots do these days when one might physically hit a car.

This was the scenario that was discussed. I was chastised for giving the advice to my friend that if that scenario were to take place she should feel comfortable un-holstering the weapon and having it at the ready, however being careful to say that she should not brandish the weapon or make a threat with it until something is said along the threatening lines of "I'm going to get/kill you"...etc or the irate individual actually breaks the glass in an attempt to physically harm.

Further reasoning behind this was that from within the car car she would have the opportunity to simply start the car and drive away from a man that is now on foot. A person yelling and being really angry at you, and even hitting your car window doesn't deserve to be shot.

I am curious if anyone else has a differing opinion on the matter, and of course if you have any case law/examples...hell anything that you can think of to prove your point it might serve as a good exercise for us, and help me win an argument.

Thanks,

B-

phoneguy · Dec 23, 2011

Simple answer, I had that happen to me years ago. I waited for him to get out of his car and I just drove away.

hermannr · Dec 23, 2011

I had something simular happen to me years ago. I don't know how I irritated the guy (2 lane road) but he was right up on my tail, so I pulled over to let him by. (couldn't drive away, be boxed me in) anyway, he came to the car yelling and screaming he was going to beat the living stuffing out of me, grabbed the door, flung my car door open, and reached in to grab me so he could pull me out of the car. I just twisted enough to show I was armed, and started to move my hand back to the grips...I said, you don't really want to touch me, do you? He left in a very big hurry...gun never left the holster.

Now, at what time in your example your OC'r should, could display the weapon? Any time she felt her self in immenent danger> RCW 9.41.270 Does not apply too:

"c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of ]presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;"

Trigger Dr · Dec 24, 2011

"c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of ]presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;"

BUT...You can use Only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat.

BigDave · Dec 25, 2011

A similar incident occurred in Puyallup, WA in a mini mart on Meridian where an argument between two men in the store spilled out to one mans car where he got in and the other was threatening and hitting the drivers side window and in response since the man in the car felt in fear for his life he drew and shot killing that attacker.
The Prosecutor wrote an article in the TNT explaining that do to State Law for Self Defense no charges would be filed and did explain a little about lawful use of force and he would like to see the law revised so the State was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter did not act in self defense.

Sorry I do not have a link for the article though I do have a link for searching WA State Supreme Court and Appellate Court Decisions

brianstone1985 · Dec 26, 2011

Thanks Big Dave!

Dave,

That was exactly the type of info I was looking for, and a good site to begin my search of reference to boot! Further I would like to publicly say sorry for being a jerk on the first few interactions of ours, and that perhaps I did not stop to think someone could have an opposing view from my own.

-Brian

BigDave · Dec 26, 2011

brianstone1985 said:
Dave,
That was exactly the type of info I was looking for, and a good site to begin my search of reference to boot! Further I would like to publicly say sorry for being a jerk on the first few interactions of ours, and that perhaps I did not stop to think someone could have an opposing view from my own.
-Brian

Jerk? you were being a Jerk? I must have forgotten it as it has not been an issue with me, I have been called worse LOL and I whole heartily agree there are many opinions here and other forums and sometime they give us pause.

As to the escalating of force you will find some of your answers below.

Also take a look through the Pattern Jury Instructions for;

Part IV. Defenses
9A.16.020 Use of force -- When lawful.
9A.16.030 Homicide -- When excusable.
9A.16.050 Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.

Good luck in your searching.

hermannr · Dec 26, 2011

Trigger Dr said:
"c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of ]presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;"

BUT...You can use Only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat.

Not quite that wording. You can use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself or others, It is a very strongly worded law. In BigDave'e example for instance, the prosecuter did not like the law, but it is the law...and I think it is reasonable. In any criminal case it is supposed to be "beyond any reasonable doubt" to get a conviction.

DOA is a neutralized threat. I have never drawn my weapon in anger, or in defence of myself or others (since coming back from Nam), but that does not mean I would not, it only means, if it were to ever come out of its holster, someone would be DOA, so I am very careful in trying to meet any problem in other ways first.

BigDave · Dec 27, 2011

hermannr said:
You can use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself or others, It is a very strongly worded law.

While one can use whatever force is necessary there is limitation of being not more then necessary and as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions.

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:
(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;

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]

OTish: Need advice on how to find case law example/law interpretation examples

brianstone1985

Regular Member

phoneguy

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

Trigger Dr

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

brianstone1985

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

hermannr

Regular Member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members