Question about Assault and Carrying.

I hope this is the right place to ask this question:

To what extent are you obligated to take a beating from anyone in Washington state?

Let's say you are at the store buying something. Someone doesn't like you, or whatever you are doing and mouths off you to. An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I cant help but be curious about this type of situation.

As a rule of thumb, never do anything that requires you are armed. Conversely, never do anything because you happen to be armed.

If you have 'fu, too' issues, I'd suggest you resolve them before deciding to leave the house again. That is unless you like paying lawyers lots of money.

Getting an 'attitude' that because you are armed you have the right, ability or stupidity to be confrontational is the last thing you want to contemplate.

HTH

I would think that you would be in some trouble in that situation .. per the law.

One certainly does not have to take even a single punch (a single punch can kill).

And shouting and yelling does not justify a punch in the face (otherwise I'd have a steel plate in my head by now).


If it occurs, your best option is to remain silent and ask for your lawyer.

Your query did not say shooting or killing the other person ... but IMO a gun is not a threatening device.

So you pull a gun on someone who punched you .. I assume that this ends the conflict ... other guy calls cops .. they come and start asking you questions ... you gonna answer them? Not if you are smart.

OP said:

...An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I can't help but be curious about this type of situation...

Click to expand...

The "FU, too" is tricky, but not a game changer in many states.

The person who attempts physical contact is the criminal.

I will put a gun in my hand to avoid being punched, even the first time, if I have time. Not saying "FU, too" helps avoid that situation, though.

I am not an expert in WA law.

I do not consider unholstering to be a very last resort. That implies you must pull the trigger once drawn. Indeed, drawing earlier may prevent needing to pull the trigger. Being willing to pull the trigger if needed, yes.

"No duty to retreat" is a good law because it can't be held against you if you don't take the time to look for an avenue of retreat (which is tactically unwise many times). But if you KNOW you have a safe retreat, you are an idiot if you don't take it. Paperwork sucks.

MAC702 said:

The "FU, too" is tricky, but not a game changer in many states.

The person who attempts physical contact is the criminal.

I will put a gun in my hand to avoid being punched, even the first time, if I have time. Not saying "FU, too" helps avoid that situation, though.

I am not an expert in WA law.

I do not consider unholstering to be a very last resort. That implies you must pull the trigger once drawn. Indeed, drawing earlier may prevent needing to pull the trigger. Being willing to pull the trigger if needed, yes.

"No duty to retreat" is a good law because it can't be held against you if you don't take the time to look for an avenue of retreat (which is tactically unwise many times). But if you KNOW you have a safe retreat, you are an idiot if you don't take it. Paperwork sucks.

Click to expand...

Thanks all,

We can take the gun out the equation all together.

So if someone threatens you with bodily harm... "I'm gonna kick your....." , "I'm gonna kill you/your....." you have the right to preemptively defend yourself correct? Whether it be pulling out a first, night stick, mace, or gun?

Once again, I DON'T go looking for trouble or excuses to "legally kill people." I just want to educate myself. Obviously if you shoot and kill someone, you better have a very very good reason to do so.

I had a situation a few years ago in Seattle. I was leaving a restaurant with my wife and street thug came up to me and starting talking random stupid stuff... "Hey Meing, looks like to gots a good job man, whatcho do? " "You got any money man?...." meanwhile thug 2 and 3 uncrossed their arms and slowly walk towards us. They created a subtle choke point that we would have had to walk through. I was unarmed. I kept conversation brief yet polite, and said excuse me. The one wouldn't move. I got that feeling you get that something bad was about to happen. Like that moment just before a snake strikes at a mouse. At that moment other patrons left the restaurant and they backed off. I refuse to be that vulnerable again.

Nightmare said:

The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

An altercation of any sort removes the first element of innocence.

Click to expand...

Though WA is not a traditional SYG state, we have no duty to retreat.

That's what THIS nonsense was about: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109541-HB-1012-An-order-to-retreat

flienlow said:

...The one wouldn't move. I got that feeling you get that something bad was about to happen. Like that moment just before a snake strikes at a mouse. At that moment other patrons left the restaurant and they backed off. I refuse to be that vulnerable again.

Click to expand...

So what are you going to say 'some unarmed guys got in my face and asked impertinent questions, I became fearful and shot them all'?

Don't be ridiculous - you go back into the restaurant and if you are worried you call 911.

Going to quote a friend of mine. "Had a conversation about when you should throw a punch and my view drew a few puzzled looks. I believe you should never get physical unless you are willing to kill. My reason for this is if you do hit someone and they die, whether intended or not, can you justify to yourself there was nothing else you could do? So, the next time you feel like pushing someones face to the back of their head take a moment to think if you can live with knowing they are dead because of you."

This is an excellent thought, imo, that resorting to violence at any level, with or without a firearm, could become fatal.

Nightmare said:

YOU do have a duty to read though.

Click to expand...

I was concerned with relevant WA RCWs and caselaw in terms of how decisions are reached. Is there a WA case that was decided on those elements of law you described?

Maverick9 said:

So what are you going to say 'some unarmed guys got in my face and asked impertinent questions, I became fearful and shot them all'?

Don't be ridiculous - you go back into the restaurant and if you are worried you call 911.

Click to expand...

Just because he didn't see a gun on the thugs doesn't mean they were unarmed. He could have preemptively told the thugs that he was armed to cause them to back off. Of course I wouldn't want to be bluffing in a situation like that. I don't like to gamble. He's lucky they were deterred by more witnesses coming outside, otherwise he may have found out what they were armed with.

And obviously no one is advocating "shooting them all" without indication that there is truly a threat.

You are allowed to use "that amount of force required to neutralize the threat. Deadly force is to be used as a last resort when all other lesser means cannot be or have been employed without success."
First law of common sense.

flienlow said:

So if someone threatens you with bodily harm... "I'm gonna kick your....." , "I'm gonna kill you/your....." you have the right to preemptively defend yourself correct? Whether it be pulling out a first, night stick, mace, or gun?

Click to expand...

Don't even think the word preemption. A preemptive strike stops a threat from materializing before there is a threat. Self-defense is justified at the moment it happens or it is not justified at all. If you try to claim self-defense based on what someone might do but have shown no signs of doing yet, you will be going to prison.

Words are words, and you use your own words to defend against them. If you draw a dangerous weapon because someone is trash talking at you, you are the aggressor. There has to be something more than "that guy said mean things to me" to justify that level of force.

flienlow said:

I hope this is the right place to ask this question:

To what extent are you obligated to take a beating from anyone in Washington state?

Let's say you are at the store buying something. Someone doesn't like you, or whatever you are doing and mouths off you to. An "FU" "FU Too" conversation breaks out, and then someone punches you in the face. Assuming you are just standing there, Are you obligated to take another punch, or can you then defend yourself (to include deadly force?) At what point are you justified in pulling your gun?

DO NOT misunderstand me. I don't advocate shooting anyone, and I feel unholstering a firearm should be a very last resort.

However, there is no duty to retreat in WA, and I cant help but be curious about this type of situation.

Click to expand...

You can take some guidance here, but there are many threads that have discussed this. Your question is "do you have to take another punch?" and "at what point are you justified in pulling your gun?"

Somewhere in here it seems to me that the "perp" needs to be committing a felony level assault to meet any threshold that you are describing to pull a weapon. If you engage in the "FU", "Oh yeah, yo' momma" "bring it on then" argument, you could be in the soup as having "escalated" the situation. The open carry pamphlet has this:

"2. Unlawful carrying (RCW 9.41.270) occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon “in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm. If there is a dispute, for example, and one person, while angry, displays the weapon to scare the other person."

....if he is just mouthing off, you'll have to exercise some judgment on how it is escalating. I try to stay out of someone's swing radius or will move to do so...If that means I'm backing up, I'm not "retreating", I'm just working to get a tactical advantage in an escalating situation so that I can figure out what's next.

An open (verbal) threat of "I'm going to kick your ass" may not meet the felony assault threshold unless a weapon or threat of great bodily harm is there to meet the requirement in WA, Someone saying "I'm gonna choke the living crap out of you".... may under 036.021.g, but it may be hard to prove unless they actually grab you. "give me your wallet or I'm gonna cut you and take your women" may meet the threat threshold, especially if he has his hands in his hoodie and he outweighs you by 30 or 40lbs and has you by 10 years.....but then again, he may just be holding up his pants.....anyway, for what it's worth...IAJAAL

You'll have to make the call under duress...good luck with that.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.011


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.

First, second, fourth degree assaults are all felonies...

More guidance:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

RCW 9A.16.020

Use of force — When lawful.

(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;

(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;
(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;

Nightmare said:

YOU do have a duty to read though.

Click to expand...

Someone may think that retreating is what they must do, instead of what they should try to do, depending on the circumstances. Besides, common law ain't so common anymore.

and then there are these events

For the OP to consider...it doesn't get any easier however,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...hool-student-15-dies-after-school-fist-fight/

Nightmare said:

Common law is the basis law of all American states law, law that confounds the heuristic of the four simple elements of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Even Louisiana?

Trigger Dr said:

You are allowed to use "that amount of force required to neutralize the threat. Deadly force is to be used as a last resort when all other lesser means cannot be or have been employed without success."
First law of common sense.

Click to expand...

This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?

flienlow said:

This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?

Click to expand...

By legislators note police are to be more restrained.

Sadly we this is often ignored.

flienlow said:

This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?

Click to expand...

It is supposed to apply to police MORE STRICTLY than to us "commoners" as per RCW u can look it up. The LAC has more latitude in the use of deadly force than does LEO. (hahahahaha what a bunch of BS) Too bad it does not work that way.

flienlow said:

This maybe a different subject, but this does not apply to Police does it?

Click to expand...

No, of course common sense doesn't apply to police. At least not all of them anyway.