Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Edmonds homeowner shoots, kills burglar

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Edmonds homeowner shoots, kills burglar


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    maybe the word will get out that participation in this kind of crime may be terminal
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Just another homeowner cleaning up after the Justice System. This guy was no "cherry". The Justice System had a chance several times when he was a Juvenile to change his habits and as usual, they failed. Now the homeowner gets to sit on the hot seat while his actions are scrutinized just for doing society a favor.

    Too bad the burglar's body couldn't have just disappeared like in movies. Just call a number and a "clean up crew" shows up within minutes. When the cops show up it's "body? what body?" Somebody must have just heard a scene from the movie I was watching, using my home theater sound system
    "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?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    I like this comment on the article by mutator.
    "Is there a donation set up to help with carpet cleaning?"
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Just another homeowner cleaning up after the Justice System. This guy was no "cherry". The Justice System had a chance several times when he was a Juvenile to change his habits and as usual, they failed. Now the homeowner gets to sit on the hot seat while his actions are scrutinized just for doing society a favor.

    Too bad the burglar's body couldn't have just disappeared like in movies. Just call a number and a "clean up crew" shows up within minutes. When the cops show up it's "body? what body?" Somebody must have just heard a scene from the movie I was watching, using my home theater sound system
    "we're gonna need more saran wrap..."

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    the press asked him what did he feel....."recoil of course"

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bucks Gun Shop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    97
    +1 for the home owner... I'm sure we will hear how he was just "turning his life around"... I honestly feel for the home owner... Because of the intruder's reckless behavior, the home owner is going to go through hell...
    "Like" us on Facebook at Buck's Gun Shop for regular specials and other savings.
    www.Bucks-Gun-Shop.com
    Earl@Bucks-Gun-Shop.com

    The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights to citizens; it limits the powers of government to infringe on the rights which have already endowed upon us by our Creator. One of those is the right to keep and bear arms, to defend our persons and property in any manner we see fit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "The intruder died at the scene."


    It's all about reaping the consequences of one's ill-conceived decisions.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "The intruder died at the scene."


    It's all about reaping the consequences of one's ill-conceived decisions.
    In some circles this is know as a "good outcome".
    "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?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    In some circles this is know as a "good outcome".
    and...in still other circles it's known as a "happy ending".
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  11. #11
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300
    No need for a clean up crew... our tax dollars pay for the clean up, oh and that shiny yellow tape. But, on the plus side not too many crooks gonna put this guys house on the "to-do" list. I bet his neighbor is thinking he should return that rake he borrowed 9mo's ago too.
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by DevinWKuska View Post
    No need for a clean up crew... our tax dollars pay for the clean up, oh and that shiny yellow tape. But, on the plus side not too many crooks gonna put this guys house on the "to-do" list. I bet his neighbor is thinking he should return that rake he borrowed 9mo's ago too.
    You sure about that? Far as I know, some bad guy bleeds out on your living room floor, you foot the bill for new carpet. Or your insurance.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    You sure about that? Far as I know, some bad guy bleeds out on your living room floor, you foot the bill for new carpet. Or your insurance.
    WA has legislation that helps assist crime victims with resititution based on damages incurred when crimes are committed against them

    such damage would clearly fall under that legislation, and i wouldn't be surprised if he could get the bill covered that way.

    WA is one of the best state's in the nation when it comes to the right of self defense

    among other things, the burden is on the state to DISprove self defense (in some states, the burden is on the defense), AND if a case is taken to trial, the person is found not guilty AND the jury rules there is reasonable cause to believe the force was self defense, the state must pay lost wages AND attorney fees to the defendant

    thus, people are much less likely to get charged, and in cases like this you will never even see an arrest in this state.

    recall that in the bernie goetz case in new york, he was acquitted of the shooting (he was found guilty of unlawfully carryign the gun), but the state still ****** him over by putting him through a long trial, etc. where IF they would have had to pay lawyers and his wages as well, they would be less likely to charge, and also iirc in NY, the state does not have burden to disprove self defense. it must at least be established by the defendant
    Last edited by PALO; 02-12-2012 at 09:35 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    PALO, would you please include a link or a citation for the RCW's you are quoting from, it is nice to be able to read the source material in these types of discussions and welcome to OCDO.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    PALO, would you please include a link or a citation for the RCW's you are quoting from, it is nice to be able to read the source material in these types of discussions and welcome to OCDO.
    i'm not going to do it with everything, because most peopel should realize, for example, that theft or rape are illegal. i don't need to provide cites...

    however, here's the relevant RCW....

    and case law...



    The prosecutor bears the burden of disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in self-defense. State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 473, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997). The absence of self-defense, however, is not an element that must be included in the charging document or in the "to convict" jury instruction. See generally, State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 109, 804 P.2d 577 (1991); State v. Meggyesy, 90 Wn. App. 693, 705, 958 P.2d 319, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1028 (1998).

    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? . . . .

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    i'm not going to do it with everything, because most peopel should realize, for example, that theft or rape are illegal. i don't need to provide cites...

    however, here's the relevant RCW....

    and case law...



    The prosecutor bears the burden of disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in self-defense. State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 473, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997). The absence of self-defense, however, is not an element that must be included in the charging document or in the "to convict" jury instruction. See generally, State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 109, 804 P.2d 577 (1991); State v. Meggyesy, 90 Wn. App. 693, 705, 958 P.2d 319, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1028 (1998).

    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? . . . .
    This only covers reimbursement of legal defense for the shooter if they are put on trial and found not guilty. Notice all the use of "judge", "jury", "trier" and you even included jury instructions. It does nothing about cleanup and repair of his personal property that may have been damaged due to the action of the one shot, or his subsequent bleeding. There is no intent for the state to be the shooters insurance company. The shooter is on the hook for the cleanup. This is why people get asked to back up their statements with documentation. You were basing your statements on incorrect law.
    Last edited by dadada; 02-12-2012 at 06:05 PM. Reason: spelling

  17. #17
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    The proper channel for "cleaning" costs would I suppose be a civil suit for damages to the heirs or assignee's of the deceased, but in general how many criminals have an estate to to provide for damages to their victim(s).
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 02-12-2012 at 06:12 PM. Reason: added some forgotten words

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Let's not forget jury instruction is not law either.
    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)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Maybe a suggestion to the folks who brought us (or are trying) mandatory health care: All self-employed persons, including those whose business pursuits are unlawful, must carry liability insurance.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Let's not forget jury instruction is not law either.
    it is when it codified that way, as it is in the example i gave

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    it is when it codified that way, as it is in the example i gave
    It looks to me like it's law the jury are given those questions to answer after a verdict. Not that jury instruction is law.

    What I am getting at is that the jury has the right to nullify law they don't agree with. Even if instructed by a judge that we are only to make a judgement on whether a law has been broken or not. We simply can say not guilty because we don't like or don't agree with the law, or feel the person had made a personal judgement that felt right at that moment because of the circumstances.
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It looks to me like it's law the jury are given those questions to answer after a verdict. Not that jury instruction is law.

    What I am getting at is that the jury has the right to nullify law they don't agree with. Even if instructed by a judge that we are only to make a judgement on whether a law has been broken or not. We simply can say not guilty because we don't like or don't agree with the law, or feel the person had made a personal judgement that felt right at that moment because of the circumstances.
    Jury Nullification is often talked about but the current practices tend to prevent it. Since the late 1800's SCOTUS has found that there is no requirement that Juries be notified that they can "nullify". Any potential Jury member that is believed to support nullification is usually removed during Voir Dire. Any Attorney that presents nullification as an argument will be sanctioned and a mistrial declared.

    Bottom line is that Jury Nullification is rare and I sure wouldn't want to base my defense or future on it's possibility.
    "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?"

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Jury Nullification is often talked about but the current practices tend to prevent it. Since the late 1800's SCOTUS has found that there is no requirement that Juries be notified that they can "nullify". Any potential Jury member that is believed to support nullification is usually removed during Voir Dire. Any Attorney that presents nullification as an argument will be sanctioned and a mistrial declared.

    Bottom line is that Jury Nullification is rare and I sure wouldn't want to base my defense or future on it's possibility.
    Yep and look at our criminal system. Just because prosecutors, cops and judges don't like it doesn't mean it isn't our right. We must educate others and ourselves on these matters. We have the duty to rule against laws we disagree with, regardless of how the judge feels. One reason prohibition failed was because juries simply stopped convicting people for alcohol. In the ever increasing lawlessness of our justice system we as citizens need to revive jury nullification and our right to be a check on the system.

    I like the instructions for juries proposed by Washington State SupremeCourt William C. Goodloe

    You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed.
    Thomas Jefferson was right about judges if left unchecked would increase both their power and the powers of the state apparently Goodloe was an exception to this.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 02-13-2012 at 10:24 AM.
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yep and look at our criminal system. Just because prosecutors, cops and judges don't like it doesn't mean it isn't our right. We must educate others and ourselves on these matters. We have the duty to rule against laws we disagree with, regardless of how the judge feels. One reason prohibition failed was because juries simply stopped convicting people for alcohol. In the ever increasing lawlessness of our justice system we as citizens need to revive jury nullification and our right to be a check on the system.

    I like the instructions for juries proposed by Washington State SupremeCourt William C. Goodloe



    Thomas Jefferson was right about judges if left unchecked would increase both their power and the powers of the state apparently Goodloe was an exception to this.
    you make baseless statements. do you speak for cops, prosecutors (or defense attorneys for that matter)? ime, some of these people like jury nullification, others don't

    usually, no matter what the occopution, many people tend to support it situationally, iow based on results analysis, NOT process analysis.

    one thing is clear. juries are legally entitled TO nullify, it is within their legal discretion, and case law makes that inarguable.

    it is also correct that judges etc. are under no duty to inform them of such right, but that's tangential to the fact that it IS a right. personally, it CAN be misused, but it is still , on the balance imo, a VERY important aspect of our democracy.

    i'm glad we have it

    in brief, it makes juries the ultimate finders of FACT as WELL AS LAW, when the law is egregious, the jury can (and often) does nullify.

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Goodloe was an exception to this.
    You're right, Goodloe was an exception, in more ways than one. I knew him personally and he wasn't all you think he was.

    BTW, read his proposed instruction carefully. He's not telling the jury they should IGNORE the law, just interpret it in how it applies to the case at hand,
    "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?"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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