Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
double tap
Last edited:
I am absolutely, positively against unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The reason is simple, the person does not have any identifying markers to prove they are a police officer.
Someone drive next to me in a car that has no police markings, gets out of their car in plain clothes, pulls a gun out and says they are police, how am I supposed to know that is true??? My reaction would be to draw my sidearm and shoot it out, and I would be wrong for this?
Take this situation, private property, business owner approaches the car, he doesn't know they are LEO, LEO gets out and opens fire. It is dark outside, the police have not identified themselves (just a hunch).
Plain clothed officers and unmarked cars are a danger to officers and a danger to civilians. Part of the point to marked vehicles and LEO's dressed in LEO attire is that it shows the public that they are there, they are a reminder that we have a system of laws, and that there are people working every day to help enforce those laws.
If you are ever involved in an encounter where the person, aside from stating they are LEO, does not prove that they are in fact LEO, you shoot them, you are going down, but they shoot you, they were just doing their job, and you died thinking some POS criminal got the jump on you.
Vandal said:This story sucks all the way around and is very tragic.
In Washington State one can use deadly force to protect life and limb but when it comes to property outside the home is very limited and a immediate threat to life and limb must be into play.
Well if you confront someone on 'your' property and they pull a gun on you (without identifying themselves) then yes he'd be justified in shooting the cop.
Too many unknowns in this story.
It's a little more complicated than that. See section .020 as well regarding the use of force. As is often the case, you have to apply the "reasonableness" analysis of the incident. That is, was it reasonable, given what the defendant knew at the time, to use lethal force on the slain?
I still come to the same conclusion. It doesnt state that the property your protecting has to be within a dwelling, or other place of abode.
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
(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;
I am absolutely, positively against unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The reason is simple, the person does not have any identifying markers to prove they are a police officer.
Someone drive next to me in a car that has no police markings, gets out of their car in plain clothes, pulls a gun out and says they are police, how am I supposed to know that is true??? My reaction would be to draw my sidearm and shoot it out, and I would be wrong for this?
Take this situation, private property, business owner approaches the car, he doesn't know they are LEO, LEO gets out and opens fire. It is dark outside, the police have not identified themselves (just a hunch).
Plain clothed officers and unmarked cars are a danger to officers and a danger to civilians. Part of the point to marked vehicles and LEO's dressed in LEO attire is that it shows the public that they are there, they are a reminder that we have a system of laws, and that there are people working every day to help enforce those laws.
If you are ever involved in an encounter where the person, aside from stating they are LEO, does not prove that they are in fact LEO, you shoot them, you are going down, but they shoot you, they were just doing their job, and you died thinking some POS criminal got the jump on you.
Am I missing something here? Sounds like so long as the slain was in the act of committing a felony while in my presents it would be justified.
9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
Where dose "Castle Law" and "Stand your Ground Law” come into play in WA St.?
Note the bold areas it is a felony upon the person.
The only time I am aware of right now when property is involved is when catching someone in the act of arson to a building you know has occupants in it.
I see no problem in one arming themself and going to investigate a possible "Property Crime". If the perpetrator of the property crime attacks the owner when discovered that act could qualify as a "felony upon the person" and self defense is warranted.
I see no problem in one arming themself and going to investigate a possible "Property Crime". If the perpetrator of the property crime attacks the owner when discovered that act could qualify as a "felony upon the person" and self defense is warranted.