Your life does NOT need to be in immediate danger..

[olypendrew]

imported post

WPIC 16.03 Justifiable Homicide—Resistance To Felony


It is a defense to a charge of [murder][manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction.
Homicide is justifiable when committed in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony [upon the slayer][in the presence of the slayer][or][upon or in a dwelling or other place of abode in which the slayer is present].
The slayer may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her] at the time [and prior to] the incident.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.



This is the pattern jury instruction that would likely be used. The third paragraph finds no support in the statute in question, but it seems to mean you cannot just shoot someone you find breaking into your truck, unless a "reasonable person" would have been inclined to do the same.

This is in no way, shape, or form to be construed as legal advice or a binding interpretation of any law.

 

[Tony Santiago]

imported post

Why not just move to Texas where none of this would be a gray area?

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:

Why not just move to Texas where none of this would be a gray area?

Well, I dunno, one can't even OC in Texas right now, so that's a minus. Do you have a point or something useful to add to the discussion, or did you feel you had to barge in just to add that little pearl of wisdom?

 

[Tony Santiago]

imported post

Ah! I take it you don't have what they call a "sense of humor"!

No problem! I'll go elsewhere!

 

[Tony Santiago]

imported post

Thursday, November 29, 2007 This new law is going to be tested by this gentleman:

HOUSTON -- The cha-chick of a shell entering a shotgun's chamber rattled through the 911 line just before Joe Horn stepped out his front door.

Horn, 61, had phoned police when he saw two men break into his neighbor's suburban Houston home through a window in broad daylight. Now they were getting away with a bag of loot.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

He did.

Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Horn just feared for his life.

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.​

Three cheers for Mr Horn, there are two less goblins to ply their criminal ways on other law abiding citizens.


Mr MinorityLabels: Guns, Texas

By the way, that man was never charged.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

By the way, that man was never charged.

You might get away with that in WA too. If you could reasonably construe that the neighbors lives were in danger -blam-.
If you want to stretch it to summary executions for ANY felony, go downtown and shoot the first drug dealer you see.

 

[Marty Hayes]

imported post

Instead of asking a cop or lawyer, or even the county prosecutor, why not ask the Washington Supreme Court?


[align=center]
155 Wn.2d 506, State v. Brightman[/align]

 

[Bader]

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

Instead of asking a cop or lawyer, or even the county prosecutor, why not ask the Washington Supreme Court?


[align=center]
155 Wn.2d 506, State v. Brightman[/align]

Good idea - But one wouldn't even have a case in front of the supreme court if the prosecuting attorney doesn't bring up charges in the first place.

 

[Marty Hayes]

imported post

Bader wrote:

Marty Hayes wrote:

Instead of asking a cop or lawyer, or even the county prosecutor, why not ask the Washington Supreme Court?



[align=center]
155 Wn.2d 506, State v. Brightman[/align]

Good idea - But one wouldn't even have a case in front of the supreme court if the prosecuting attorney doesn't bring up charges in the first place.

And, the best way to insure the prosecutor dowsn't bring charges is to know the law, not only statutory law, but case law. Look up the case, then report back what you find.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:

Ah! I take it you don't have what they call a "sense of humor"!

No problem! I'll go elsewhere!

OK, I dunno what bug was up my butt, but I jumped the gun on that one. Sorry for getting on your case, guess I had a bad day yesterday.

 

[Gene Beasley]

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

[align=center] 155 Wn.2d 506, State v. Brightman[/align]

Neither of these is the best format for readability. Sections [7] through [10] cover the issue at hand.

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/supreme/current/155wn2d/155Wn2d0506.htm

or

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/729191MAJ&invol=4
(I think you have to register for this)

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Here is the case in a PDF format.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=48

 

[Bader]

imported post

Sorry for the delay.

Here is the email I received, and it was the King County Prosecuting attorney, not Seattle.

"
[align=left]Dear Mr. Bader,[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]Thank you for contacting the King County Prosecutor's Office regarding the defense of your home from a burglar and the justifiable homicide statute. We appreciate hearing from you on this important topic.[/align] [align=left]Washington State lawclearly gives a homeowner the right to use all necessary force to repel the invasion of their home.Our office has not charged a homeowner for using force against a burglarin the past.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]However, every case must be reviewed on its own facts for whether the use of force was reasonable and necessary before we apply the justifiable homicide statute. We oftenencounter cases where the level offorce used in response to the level of threat posed is unreasonable and unnecessary. Wewould review every use of force caseindependently.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]I hope this information has been helpful.[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]Sincerely,[/align] [align=left][/align] [align=left]Ian Goodhew[/align] [align=left]King County Prosecutor's Office "
[/align]

 

[Stein]

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

Bader wrote:

Marty Hayes wrote:

Instead of asking a cop or lawyer, or even the county prosecutor, why not ask the Washington Supreme Court?




[align=center]
155 Wn.2d 506, State v. Brightman[/align]

Good idea - But one wouldn't even have a case in front of the supreme court if the prosecuting attorney doesn't bring up charges in the first place.

And, the best way to insure the prosecutor dowsn't bring charges is to know the law, not only statutory law, but case law. Look up the case, then report back what you find.

Not being an attorney, I had a hard time even finding the document. When I found it, it wasn't much help. Is this the paragraph of importance:

[9] Homicide - Justifiable Homicide - Instruction - Necessity - Deadly Force Reasonably Necessary. In determining whether a defendant charged with a homicide offense is entitled to an instruction on justifiable homicide under RCW 9A.16.050 (2), which provides that a homicide is justifiable if it is committed in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, the trial court must evaluate whether the force used by the defendant was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. A killing in self-defense is not justified unless the attack on the defendant's person threatens life or great bodily harm. An individualized determination of necessity must be made, even if an attack on the defendant's person occurred; i.e., where a homicide is committed in defense of a felony or attempted felony, the attack on the defendant's person must threaten life or great bodily harm. A person may not use any more force than is reasonably necessary to resist the commission of a felony.

I have a hard time figuring out what I am looking at, what part was the actual decision?


I found it on mrsc.org.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

imported post

Just my $02.

If you're going to use a gun in self defense, your life better be in immediate and unavoidable danger.

I'd want to be able to swear before God that there was no other course of action, and my very life was at stake(or a loved one's life).

 

[911Boss]

imported post

I remember many years ago a case where a Shoreline homeowner shot and killed a burglar in the backyard.

Norm Maleng (RIP) decided not to charge him.

Not saying whether it was right or wrong, or whether the next guy who does it will be treated the same way.

Personally I don't think I could pull the trigger if the bag guy was not posing an threat (running away), of course depending on what he was running away with might have some bearing.

I was burgled a couple years ago and they took a gun. I am going to assume any burgler is armed. If they were in my house, I am going to assume they got one of my guns if they didn't already have one of their own.

I hate to think that my stolen gun has been or will be used in a crime. I would probably do whatever was necessary to keep someone from getting away with another one. It is only property, but it is property that can be used to kill.

 

[Bader]

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Just my $02.

If you're going to use a gun in self defense, your life better be in immediate and unavoidable danger.

I'd want to be able to swear before God that there was no other course of action, and my very life was at stake (or a loved one's life).

For me, once an intruder has entered your house and is either

A) Not complying with your orders when confronted or;

B) Brandishing a weapon

It is reasonable grounds to use force.

On the flip side, waiting before he brandishes a weapon before you resort to using force could be the difference between him being a burglar and a murderer.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

For me, once an intruder has entered your house and is either A) Not complying with your orders when confronted or; B) Brandishing a weapon It is reasonable grounds to use force.

That's also reasonable to believe that your life or others' lives are in danger of having a violent felony committed against you, and the person is already committing Burglary 1; the law is very direct about that.
It's the stretching it to any felony that gets on my nerves as some lurker might take that as law and do something stupid