• 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.

Edmonds homeowner shoots, kills burglar

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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;)
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
I like this comment on the article by mutator.
"Is there a donation set up to help with carpet cleaning?"
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
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..."
 

Bucks Gun Shop

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
97
Location
Snohomish, WA
+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...
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
"The intruder died at the scene."


It's all about reaping the consequences of one's ill-conceived decisions.
 

DevinWKuska

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Spanaway
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
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:

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
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.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
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? . . . .
 

dadada

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
112
Location
Edge of the woods
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:

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
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:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
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.:lol:
 
Top