Yakima man fends off burglars

[compmanio365]

imported post

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I knew it was not legal to shoot absent threat to life and limb, in fact, I'm saying the exact opposite.....it may very well be legal, SVG has cited law that may make it legal, but since I wasn't there, I don't know if the situation met the criteria posted. What I am saying is that on a moral level, and a level regarding how much grief do I want to deal with, I probably wouldn't shoot at someone fleeing unless I had really good cause. It may very well be legal to do so from what's being posted here by SVG, however.....risk to life and limb or not. As a responsible adult, you have to judge the situation at the time and make a judgment call then and there on what's the correct decision. You'll have to live with it once you take action either way.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Nope.

RCW 9A.16.050Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
(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.

In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony not after the attempt is over and fleeing.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I knew it was not legal to shoot absent threat to life and limb, in fact, I'm saying the exact opposite.....it may very well be legal, SVG has cited law that may make it legal, but since I wasn't there, I don't know if the situation met the criteria posted. What I am saying is that on a moral level, and a level regarding how much grief do I want to deal with, I probably wouldn't shoot at someone fleeing unless I had really good cause. It may very well be legal to do so from what's being posted here by SVG, however.....risk to life and limb or not. As a responsible adult, you have to judge the situation at the time and make a judgment call then and there on what's the correct decision. You'll have to live with it once you take action either way.

Do you have the ability to read and understand what you read? or is it to difficult to look up the RCW and understand that SVG has not clue and is just seeking a possible chance to use his firearm, this is dangerous and ignorant.

You both need serious legal training and present a danger to yourself and others.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

SVG, I think you hit it on the nose. Troll, for sure. I'm done with the clown. You can explain everything all day in plain English for the guy and you might as well be speaking Urdu......either he's dumber than a box of rocks or a troll. Either way I have better things to do with my time.

 

[erps]

imported post

As a responsible adult, you have to judge the situation at the time and make a judgment call then and there on what's the correct decision. You'll have to live with it once you take action either way.

as a responsible adult, it would make sense to figure out whether it is lawful to shoot at someone who is fleeing. I personally don't see how asking someone whether they think it is legal to do so is being a troll.

I don't think it's legal to shoot at someone fleeing as in this circumstance and I'm basing it part on the law that SVG provided. I have a different interpretation of the law than he does. By having a discussion on the interpretation of that law, everyone can learn.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

SVG, I think you hit it on the nose. Troll, for sure. I'm done with the clown. You can explain everything all day in plain English for the guy and you might as well be speaking Urdu......either he's dumber than a box of rocks or a troll. Either way I have better things to do with my time.

+1

. I only proposed that maybe the prosecutor might have interpreted the law differently. Maybe they have other reasons we don't know of. I guess I am saying that in Urdu...or its the other reasons you stated.

erps wrote:

How many times do I have to say it I am not interpreting it as ok to shoot at a fleeing car!!!!!!! There might be other circumstances.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

BigDave wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Nope.

RCW 9A.16.050Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
(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.

In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony not after the attempt is over and fleeing.

Maybe you better be calling that attorney you say you have and asked him/her, or find a new one if you still feel it is legal to shoot someone fleeing that does not present a threat of life or limb.

This is so sad it is not even funny.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

This was definately a felony the car may have been on his property. So according to the cites it may if he had shot these criminals justifiable by state law.

Have your forgotten your statement? you are stating it was justifiable by state law to shoot these guys on his property.

I know there is a few times I have written in these threads when it comes to your place of abode versus your property and out buildings along with no immediate threat to life or limb, fleeing from a crime be it a felony or not you do not have the right to shoot them.
An Officer if they can show that a fleeing felon has an immediate threat to life or limb to the public at large can use deadly force to apprehend them.
A citizen does not get that option.

As to another statement you made that citizen have more levity when it comes to using deadly force, well we do but do you know what it is? It is not shooting down fleeing felons.
It has to do with law enforcement agencies have policy and procedures they must follow when it comes to the use of force all the way up to deadly force. A couple of things they must identify who they are, voice commands to halt or stop and possible a warning shot depending upon the circumstances or in some cases no warnings and shoot, while the armed citizen is not required to do any of this.

Cite: Go Get Training for Self Defense With Firearms and the Legal Aspects. You can benefit from it as others have and do.
What is sad you think you do not need it and you can use it more then most.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Companio couldn't have said it better.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

My personal opinion on this one is that firing at a car while they are leaving, if there is no reason to believe they are a threat at present, then it's technically illegal.
BUT
Yakima. Probably won't charge, if they do, he'll probably win. People are kinda sick of this crap happening every day. There will be a slightly audible public uproar if he is charged, I assure you.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

Come on .... it would appear that nothing is going to come out of this continual disagreement. Just agree to disagree and move on. Contact legal consel for the right answer, or take what ever action one chooses and let the chips fall where they may. Someone is right and someone is wrong. I am not taking sides, even though I "think" I know the right answer.

GET OVER IT and move on.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Again for those who are uncertain I have made it clear I have taken no "side".:banghead:

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

Come on .... it would appear that nothing is going to come out of this continual disagreement. Just agree to disagree and move on. Contact legal consel for the right answer, or take what ever action one chooses and let the chips fall where they may. Someone is right and someone is wrong. I am not taking sides, even though I "think" I know the right answer.

GET OVER IT and move on.

i think you know the answer too trigger dr!! thing is for me, i will not shoot a fleeing bad guy in the back,,,,, unless he is running down the hall towards my loved ones... does that sound right??

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

Come on .... it would appear that nothing is going to come out of this continual disagreement. Just agree to disagree and move on. Contact legal consel for the right answer, or take what ever action one chooses and let the chips fall where they may. Someone is right and someone is wrong. I am not taking sides, even though I "think" I know the right answer.

GET OVER IT and move on.

+1 (start your own thread, call it dissagreement between SVG and Bigdave)

 

[BigDave]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Again for those who are uncertain I have made it clear I have taken no "side".:banghead:

This derives from your statement.

This was definately a felony the car may have been on his property. So according to the cites it may if he had shot these criminals justifiable by state law.

No you have not made it clear, SVG in your mind, is it legal to shoot a fleeing felon that does not pose a threat to life or limb?

SVG so what is it Yes or No? Stand up and be accounted for.

I know it will show you spoke out of turn or others will see you in a less then favorable light.

For those to coddle SVG in hopes of protecting him from what ever hurt feelings or ignorance you are doing him no favor in not stating your position on this matter.

As to posting on the forum with my opinions I will continue to do so as others are afforded the same opportunity regardless of a couple of brats do not like it when others have incites that does not agree with their view/s.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

BigDave wrote:

For those to coddle SVG in hopes of protecting him from what ever hurt feelings or ignorance you are doing him no favor in not stating your position on this matter.

As to posting on the forum with my opinions I will continue to do so as others are afforded the same opportunity regardless of a couple of brats do not like it when others have incites that does not agree with their view/s.

 

[Nathan9493]

imported post

n16ht5 wrote:

someone tries to break into my house and I will be dumping a mag full on their car and them.

Isn't this the EXACT thing we're trying to avoid with ANTI's. Thats the type of thing they want to use against us. If you think they don't research and use DUMB statements like that in their twisted arguments...you're a fool.:banghead:

 

[BigDave]

imported post

I talked with Yakima County Prosecutor Hagarty and his reply was that no crime was referred to him from the investigating authority and it is not in the Prosecutor Authority to investigate.
Thus thanks to the Police Department for not pursing charges.

It is his position that it was stupid and that deadly force is not authorized on those fleeing and in this case no one was hit but he believes in the use of deadly force is reserved for life or limb.

He also felt it would be hard to prosecute this as there was no one hurt and finding a jury that would convict someone when there home was just broken into.

He seems to be pro gun as he carries daily because of the area and this does not come with out a hitch.

I asked him about his position on the County Gun Ban in the Parks and he supports the ban and feels it is lawful.

You know what they say, everything good has some bad and everything bad has some good

 

[cynicist]

imported post

He also felt it would be hard to prosecute this as there was no one hurt and finding a jury that would convict someone when there home was just broken into.

Tolja.

It think this exemplifies how there are many situations where it may be technically unlawful to use force, but no one would convict.