Another one bites the dust.

[MA Duce]

Police: Tacoma homeowner fatally shot intruder | 911 | Tacoma News

Justice 1 Scumbags 0

Read More

 

[Topper]

I wonder how much if any grief he'll get for shooting him through the door....

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I wonder how much if any grief he'll get for shooting him through the door....

None.. they committed the fatal act of breaking into the home and they were fair game until they passed out the threshold

 

[Topper]

Well I would agree and hope so. Even more so since the story states he was initially downstairs, and ran upstairs and secured himself. Presumably meaning he saw and verified they were indeed intruders.

I wouldn't underestimate the many ways a prosecutor with an agenda might find a way to make this poor guy's life a living **** though.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Well I would agree and hope so. Even more so since the story states he was initially downstairs, and ran upstairs and secured himself. Presumably meaning he saw and verified they were indeed intruders.

I wouldn't underestimate the many ways a prosecutor with an agenda might find a way to make this poor guy's life a living **** though.

That is the very last thing I'll be thinking of if intruders break into my home. For those reading this thread who didn't know, WA State is a Castle Doctrine State

 

[Misterbill]

You may use deadly force in defense of yourself or another for any felony about to be committed on your person. And residential robbery of an OCCUPIED home meets that criteria. You never know what a scumbag liberal APA will do, but the bar for prosecuting a homeowner shooting someone in his home is pretty high in this state.

 

[deen_ad]

That is the very last thing I'll be thinking of if intruders break into my home. For those reading this thread who didn't know, WA State is a Castle Doctrine State

Does WA law protect the home owner from lawsuits over the death? If not there can be really long term results from the resulting civil suit.

8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

 

[Topper]

Not suggesting one would think this during the event. But it will probably consume your thoughts afterwards when your story is plastered all over the news.

IMO this guy was totally justified, even more so since he clearly knew this was a break in.

Still doesn't mean this poor guy is free from headaches, lawsuit from the family, etc.

Having personally pointed a gun at my master bedroom door at 2am due to a crashing noise coming from the hallway stairs I know I wasn't thinking about it. However I also didn’t fire until I knew for sure who/what it was.

The bedroom door was never broken in. Turns out it was the cat knocking the vacuum cleaner down the stairs... so I saved some bullet holes through my door/hall closet/etc.

I couldn’t find a specific Castle Doctrine law for Washington. Is it called out as clearly as Texas/etc?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Does WA law protect the home owner from lawsuits over the death? If not there can be really long term results from the resulting civil suit.

8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

True. But at least you are alive, not raped, etc

Anyone can sue you for anything, that does not mean it will go anywhere

 

[Misterbill]

Not suggesting one would think this during the event. But it will probably consume your thoughts afterwards when your story is plastered all over the news.

IMO this guy was totally justified, even more so since he clearly knew this was a break in.

Still doesn't mean this poor guy is free from headaches, lawsuit from the family, etc.

Having personally pointed a gun at my master bedroom door at 2am due to a crashing noise coming from the hallway stairs I know I wasn't thinking about it. However I also didn’t fire until I knew for sure who/what it was.

The bedroom door was never broken in. Turns out it was the cat knocking the vacuum cleaner down the stairs... so I saved some bullet holes through my door/hall closet/etc.

I couldn’t find a specific Castle Doctrine law for Washington. Is it called out as clearly as Texas/etc?

It's not as specific as some states, but it's very clear and there is lots of case law on it.

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.

Nothing is going to prevent a lawyer from bringing about a frivolous civil suit. But depending on where you are, the jurisdiction alone is a deterrent. Try bringing a civil case on a good shoot in Yakima and you will not only lose, you will also lose the counter-suit after about 30 seconds of deliberation. People won't put up with that crap here. Mercer Island on the other hand, might be a different story.

 

[Topper]

Yup, like I said this looks totally justified, and I hope he doesn't get any grief from this.

 

[Misterbill]

Does WA law protect the home owner from lawsuits over the death? If not there can be really long term results from the resulting civil suit.

Nothing prevents frivolous suits. But I don't make defense decisions based on what might happen in a civil suit. I make them based on threat, ability and intent. Follow that rule and you're as safe as it gets. It's always something of a roll of the dice when you use deadly force in self-defense. If you're doing your best to avoid and deter a threat and that doesn't work, you've made it very hard for a lawyer to claim you were willfully using unlawful force. There is a lot more paranoia on this subject than is warranted IMO. You shouldn't be shooting someone unless your life or safety is in immediate danger. I think the guy in this story could have issues because he shot through the door. But depending on what he claims the bad-guys were doing/saying, that may not be at issue.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Breaking and entering an inhabited dwelling is a violent felony.. right?

 

[Misterbill]

Breaking and entering an inhabited dwelling is a violent felony.. right?

Yep.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Then according to the law they have passed the shoot test..

 

[Misterbill]

Then according to the law they have passed the shoot test..

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. You still have to pass the "no more than is necessary" test. RCW 9A.16.020

If you shoot someone 10 times in the back who wasn't armed and was retreating from the house, you're still in jeopardy. The laws in WA on use of force are pretty solid. ****, if you're acquitted of homicide by reason of self-defense the state has to reimburse your legal defense costs. But you can't ice someone for wandering into the wrong house. I harp on my students constantly about Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. If all three are present, you're pretty well covered (as much as you can given that someone can always charge, even when they're sure to lose).

"They were in my house so I killed them," is a justification for deadly force that's likely to at the least wind you in jail for the evening even if the Prosecuting Attorney doesn't wind up pressing charges. It's VERY likely to get you in trouble in a civil trial. -Just because you technically CAN, doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. You still have to pass the "no more than is necessary" test. RCW 9A.16.020

If you shoot someone 10 times in the back who wasn't armed and was retreating from the house, you're still in jeopardy. The laws in WA on use of force are pretty solid. ****, if you're acquitted of homicide by reason of self-defense the state has to reimburse your legal defense costs. But you can't ice someone for wandering into the wrong house. I harp on my students constantly about Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. If all three are present, you're pretty well covered (as much as you can given that someone can always charge, even when they're sure to lose).

"They were in my house so I killed them," is a justification for deadly force that's likely to at the least wind you in jail for the evening even if the Prosecuting Attorney doesn't wind up pressing charges. It's VERY likely to get you in trouble in a civil trial. -Just because you technically CAN, doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

I will..

If they break in and I see them they are going to take incoming.. now if they turn to run and are near the exit I might let them go, but if they are upstairs (where our main living quarters are) or there is anyone else to defend who is not behind me, same thing. Too many variables and too much danger to just let them roam the home. They have committed a violent felony and are an imminent threat

It's called fixed mindset and it helps keep the innocent defender alive

 

[mjbskwim]

It's not as specific as some states, but it's very clear and there is lots of case law on it.
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.


Nothing is going to prevent a lawyer from bringing about a frivolous civil suit. But depending on where you are, the jurisdiction alone is a deterrent. Try bringing a civil case on a good shoot in Yakima and you will not only lose, you will also lose the counter-suit after about 30 seconds of deliberation. People won't put up with that crap here. Mercer Island on the other hand, might be a different story.

So for all you listening,the guy that broke into your house? (felony?) and has the TV in his hands?(may not be a felony if it aint worth the right amount)?

Is this justified homicide now,after reading this,if you shoot the guy?

 

[Misterbill]

So for all you listening,the guy that broke into your house? (felony?) and has the TV in his hands?(may not be a felony if it aint worth the right amount)?

Is this justified homicide now,after reading this,if you shoot the guy?

Is there an articulatable threat from the guy with his hands full of TV? I would say no, given no other information. No, you cannot use deadly force to protect property. You CAN however, knock him to the ground and give him any beat-down necessary to restrain him until the cops get there.

The key in this seems to be (IANAL, so take everything with a handful of salt) that force must be A: Justified and B: no more than was necessary. The statute on justifiable homicide is a defense, but not an affirmative defense. In other words, the onus is on you to prove that the conditions for LAWFULLY using deadly force were met. I think you're going to have one **** of a time doing that if you tell the cops the BG had your TV in his hands so you plugged him.

Resting on the technicality (and that's what it is and this is NOT well settled law) of him merely maliciously trespassing/burgling you is IMO a very bad idea. You might get away with it, but I'd rather hold the guy at gunpoint and wait for the cops. If, after that he makes a move that threatens me all bets are off. Besides, finding the guy with your TV in his hands sounds like you walked in on him, and that is NOT burglary of an occupied residence. -You weren't home when he broke in.

If you wake up and someone is in your house at 3AM it's a reasonable assumption that they are likely to harm you and you're pretty much golden AFAIK. (Though you had still better tell the cops you were sure the guy was going to kill/hurt you). That's an entirely different matter than walking in on a burglar with his hands full of TV.

I've talked extensively with someone in a position to know this stuff and he advises me to be conservative, even though I could probably get away with a dicey shoot where I live. Personally I'm not sure I would kill someone over my TV even if I legally could. But that's a decision I guess we all need to make for ourselves.

 

[rusobr2]

i contacted my ins. co. in regards to attorney fees if the family came back to go for civil suit------as a "homeowner" the ins. co. would protect you with attorney fees-----but in any case my agent suggested going to an umbrella policy just for "GP".... in other words they would really like to get some more money from you, if they could-----"GO FIGURE"

just a touch of info............steven