Washington DGU - Covington - homeowner shoots car prowler

[Alexx1401]

At least in WA, if youre found to have acted in self-defense, you can't be held criminally or civilly liable. All cost to you is reimbursed by the state.

The family can't sue any more? I did not know WA lawmakers had the balls to pass that? If so it's about damn time.

 

[Alexx1401]

Seriously! Dude is running his mouth to anyone who will listen! He even got it all on video and has been showing it to people! The Sheriff's office did acknowledge the bad guy had a gun.

I have said for decades. If you have to shoot, after keep your mouth shut. An amazing number of people can't. Very often when a shoot causes trouble its the shooters mouth that starts the trouble. He should have told media, "I have no comment".

 

[Talos32]

crime, vandalism, other property crimes, theft, loitering, vagrancy, etc are so high, the laws are not enforced. Even with perfectly clear video evidence, they cannot be bothered.
So I do wonder what the hell it is they do 24/7 that they are too busy to address these issues?

Investigating those crimes doesn't generate income. That's why there's so much emphasis on traffic enforcement.

 

[No_Regerts]

The family can't sue any more? I did not know WA lawmakers had the balls to pass that? If so it's about damn time.

RCW 9A.16.110

 

[Talos32]

The family can't sue any more? I did not know WA lawmakers had the balls to pass that? If so it's about damn time.

The operative phrase is "by reason of self-defense".

Unfortunately, a couple years ago I read about a case where somebody shot another person in self-defense, but the jury I specifically chose to find him not guilty and not include "by reason of self-defense".

They were interviewed after the trial and the juror in the news article said that while they felt the person who defended themselves shouldn't go to jail, they also felt that it would be insulting to the dead person's family if the person on trial were reimbursed for their attorneys fees.

 

[Talos32]

As I've said before, shooting someone over a property crime is iffy and will at least need a really good attorney.

I'm not sure if they still do it, but it used to be when you got a CPL in Washington they sent along a flyer with it that said you could use lethal force "in defense of life or property."

A decent attorney could probably make a credible argument that the flyer constituted legal advice or the official interpretation of the law by the State of Washington. There's never any guarantees, but I think throwing their own publication back in their face would be pretty powerful.

 

[Alexx1401]

RCW 9A.16.110

OK, did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night so can't call myself Lawyer. When I just read that I got the impression this meant the state prosecuting. Does this stop some bottom feeder from trying to get money out of you for taking their loved one from them?

 

[Alexx1401]

I'm not sure if they still do it, but it used to be when you got a CPL in Washington they sent along a flyer with it that said you could use lethal force "in defense of life or property."

A decent attorney could probably make a credible argument that the flyer constituted legal advice or the official interpretation of the law by the State of Washington. There's never any guarantees, but I think throwing their own publication back in their face would be pretty powerful.

Could not hurt, what scares me is if some one comes after you with lawyers, you then have to hire lawyers to keep from getting a judgment. It's not the state that scares me as much as some bottom feeder who thinks you may pay them to go away.

 

[No_Regerts]

OK, did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night so can't call myself Lawyer. When I just read that I got the impression this meant the state prosecuting. Does this stop some bottom feeder from trying to get money out of you for taking their loved one from them?

I'd consider "any legal jeopardy whatsoever" as ANY legal issues.

 

[Alexx1401]

I'd consider "any legal jeopardy whatsoever" as ANY legal issues.

I would hope, will be interesting to see here in the future. It would be great if the bottom feeders could not go after the victims here. If so will make me sleep better.

 

[awshoot]

At least in WA, if youre found to have acted in self-defense, you can't be held criminally or civilly liable. All cost to you is reimbursed by the state.

Isn't that only if you go to trial and win and only for the criminal side? If a person has a great outcome, lets say the prosecutor decides not to press the case or dismisses before trial, would you still get your money back? What about the civil side?

EDIT: After reading the cited RCW ( RCW 9A.16.110: Defending against violent crime—Reimbursement. ) this appears to only apply if you go to trial and secure a verdict from the judge or jury indicating you acted in self defense. If you are able to avoid the criminal trial altogether, you won't get your legal expenses AND you could end up having to pay to defend yourself in a civil case.

If you do win, the phrase "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever" is open to an expensive legal battle on whether it also applies to your property. A plaintiff's attorney might argue that the plain language only speaks to your person, meaning your physical liberty, and not your property. I haven't looked to see if there is case law on that topic though and this question might already be answered -- if so, I would hope it totally bars a civil suit.

 

[No_Regerts]

Isn't that only if you go to trial and win and only for the criminal side? If a person has a great outcome, lets say the prosecutor decides not to press the case or dismisses before trial, would you still get your money back? What about the civil side?

The law states that self defense must be determined by preponderance (51%), which leads me to believe it doesn't mean by verdict, which uses a greater standard of evidence.

 

[awshoot]

The law states that self defense must be determined by preponderance (51%), which leads me to believe it doesn't mean by verdict, which uses a greater standard of evidence.

Civil cases are decided on a preponderance basis and result in verdicts all the time (*). Paragraph 2 of the statute clearly indicates the trier of fact (jury, or if both parties agree, the judge) must render a verdict on the question, it's just that they don't have to be as certain as they would have to be convict someone of a crime:

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

EDIT: Note also, paragraph 5 lays out what needs to be on the verdict form.

(*) Something to remember when you read news stories about civil cases -- they can be decided for either party with a massive amount of doubt -- anything more than a complete toss up is what "preponderance" means.

 

[No_Regerts]

Civil cases are decided on a preponderance basis and result in verdicts all the time (*). Paragraph 2 of the statute clearly indicates the trier of fact (jury, or if both parties agree, the judge) must render a verdict on the question, it's just that they don't have to be as certain as they would have to be convict someone of a crime:



EDIT: Note also, paragraph 5 lays out what needs to be on the verdict form.

(*) Something to remember when you read news stories about civil cases -- they can be decided for either party with a massive amount of doubt -- anything more than a complete toss up is what "preponderance" means.

What I was trying to say is if it were a criminal case, the standard would be higher than preponderance, which leads me to believe that it includes civil proceedings.

 

[awshoot]

What I was trying to say is if it were a criminal case, the standard would be higher than preponderance, which leads me to believe that it includes civil proceedings.

I see what you are meaning. I would hope it would also bar civil cases as well but I think the source for that assertion would be that the question was already decided in a previous case to the same standard of proof required in a civil case. The way they got OJ on the civil side was because of the differing proof standard between a criminal case and a civil case (the jury wasn't positive he was guilty criminally, but a jury needs only to be barely above a pure guess level to punish him in a civil trial -- this is why the criminal acquital didn't protect him from the civil side -- here though, the SD determination would be made at the same proof level as a civil case and so a defendant should theoretically be able to say: already decided, can't take a second bite at the apple). So anyway, I think you were right in focusing on the preponderance thing.

 

[No_Regerts]

I see what you are meaning. I would hope it would also bar civil cases as well but I think the source for that assertion would be that the question was already decided in a previous case to the same standard of proof required in a civil case. The way they got OJ on the civil side was because of the differing proof standard between a criminal case and a civil case (the jury wasn't positive he was guilty criminally, but a jury needs only to be barely above a pure guess level to punish him in a civil trial -- this is why the criminal acquital didn't protect him from the civil side -- here though, the SD determination would be made at the same proof level as a civil case and so a defendant should theoretically be able to say: already decided, can't take a second bite at the apple). So anyway, I think you were right in focusing on the preponderance thing.

If they wrote laws in plain English, it would be really helpful. "If it was determined you defended yourself, the matter is dismissed with prejudice criminally and civilly"

 

[Diamondback]

If they wrote laws in plain English, it would be really helpful. "If it was determined you defended yourself, the matter is dismissed with prejudice criminally and civilly"

No money for the Ruling Clas of sh*t-sucking ambulance chasers like Jackoff Jay in that...

 

[DirectDrive]

I hope the homeowner comes out OK.
I wish he had ventilated both of the perps.