Everett, WA (Silver Lake area) - homeowner shoots and kills intruder

[deadshot2]

As a lawyer stated while taking the concealed permit safety course at the Multnomah county sheriffs office, "great class but you forgot one thing, you can guarantee a civil suit if you do use lethal force."

(I am not a lawyer, and I am not giving any kind of advice)

And therein lies the problem with Lawyers.

Some States make it darn difficult for Lawyers like this one to push for lawsuits when someone shoots in Self Defense. WA State has reeled in their ambitious, crusading, prosecutors by reimbursing the Defendant for all legal costs if acquitted in a Self Defense case. Now we just need to make the Civil cases "Loser Pays" to send a message to the opportunistic Lawyers. Maybe a few won't be able to by that Bently they have their eye on.

Only thing worse than a Lawyer saying this in a "Class" is an Instructor that is all to free with his opinions rather than fact.

 

[pietro beretta]

I think its a great thing to know and understand that even if you are in a justified use of force situation; it doesn't mean someone wont/cant bring a civil suit against you.

I probably misquoted, but the way I understood what he was saying: he wasn't saying it as a 100% guarantee, but a most likely. Again, its a great piece of information to have.

By saying "that's the problem with Lawyers", is just another way of saying, in my opinion; "That's the problem with the Law."

Also by saying that its an opportunistic lawyer at fault, have you ever thought about opportunistic people in general. Honestly, when someone is breaking the law and either the perpetrator or family member brings a civil case, could they not be the ones being opportunistic by seeking that civil case. You just can't blame the Lawyer.

I do agree that if a civil suit is brought to court, "Loser Pays" is not a bad idea at all.

 

[Jammer Six]

There's so many things wrong with "loser pays" that I can't begin to name them...

Starting with a justifiable shoot that looses a civil suit. There are excellent reasons for our legal system being the way it is. The more I learn about it, the more I like it.

I'm an instructor, I teach personal defense and I teach not to listen to anyone who preaches just about anything, much less that a civil suit is anything more than a choice.

Blinders serve a legitimate purpose in teaching, but not once a student keeps the muzzle pointed downrange.

 

[drew]

And therein lies the problem with Lawyers.

Some States make it darn difficult for Lawyers like this one to push for lawsuits when someone shoots in Self Defense. WA State has reeled in their ambitious, crusading, prosecutors by reimbursing the Defendant for all legal costs if acquitted in a Self Defense case. Now we just need to make the Civil cases "Loser Pays" to send a message to the opportunistic Lawyers. Maybe a few won't be able to by that Bently they have their eye on.

Only thing worse than a Lawyer saying this in a "Class" is an Instructor that is all to free with his opinions rather than fact.

Also have laws that provide immunity from any civil liability if the use of force is justified. Would make the case a guaranteed loser.

 

[redmud]

Civil suit or not, I am sure if he had the chance to think about it, he would have pulled the trigger either way.

 

[deadshot2]

By saying "that's the problem with Lawyers", is just another way of saying, in my opinion; "That's the problem with the Law."

I still hold that it's more a problem with Lawyers than with the laws. Up until the 80's or so, it was considered unethical for Lawyers to advertise. Now we have lawyers that have built mega empires and bank millions each year just from their advertising (call it trolling to be more accurate) for the injured. They are then convinced that the only way they will be "healed" is for them to sue. Of course the Attorney will pocket 1/3 of whatever they get, even if it's only a "nuisance payment".

Want to see a real travesty brought about by "Lawyers", take a look at the Class Action Lawsuit game. If 1 million people are genuinely harmed by a corporation and the attorneys get a Billion Dollar settlement, they pocket $330 million and the "injured parties" get a whopping $670 each. Look at TV today and see how many "Advertising Lawyers" there are now.

Yes, people are opportunistic but there's a whole industry out there encouraging them to be just that.

 

[Jammer Six]

"What do you think about lawyers?"

"They're all crooks!"

"What about your lawyer?"

"Oh, he's different!"

 

[deadshot2]

"What do you think about lawyers?"

"They're all crooks!"

"What about your lawyer?"

"Oh, he's different!"

No, mine is a crook too. That's why I avoid doing things where I have to deal with him

Just remember, there are all kinds of Attorneys. Some make it a business out of exploiting people for big gain and others merely rent their services out for a fixed fee.

 

[bikejunkie]

Do you know why a good attorney is so expensive? Because they're worth it!

 

[ATCclears]

No charges in fatal shooting of burglary suspect | HeraldNet.com - Local news

A south Everett homeowner won't face any criminal charges for fatally shooting a suspected burglar earlier this year.

Prosecutors said Wednesday that they don't believe the man committed a crime Jan. 9 when he fired on Johnny Sok, 22.

"We are quite certain that a jury would conclude that the shooting was justifiable self-defense," Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe said.

He added that any loss of life is regrettable, however, in the eyes of the law, the shooting that ended Sok's life was not a crime.

Investigators believe Sok likely didn't know that anyone was home when he broke a kitchen window around 11:30 a.m.

"Somebody was home and he had a gun," Roe said.

The homeowner, a 54-year-old Boeing worker, said that he was woken up by the sound of breaking glass. He grabbed a .38-caliber revolver before stepping outside his bedroom to investigate. The man said he saw a stranger crawling inside through a broken kitchen window. The burglar had a hammer in his hand, the man said.

The homeowner told police he fired once. He also told deputies that after the shooting, he stood over the fallen man until it became clear that he was unconscious, court papers said. The homeowner called 911, telling the dispatcher that he'd shot someone.

He explained that the burglar was lying on the floor inside his home. He also said there was a car parked in front of his home and he believed it belonged to the man he'd shot.

Sok was dead when paramedics arrived. The medical examiner later concluded that Sok died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Prosecutors explained their decision to Sok's family, Roe said. The family had some lingering questions about what happened, in part because the homeowner exercised his right not to provide detectives with a statement.

The family questioned the man's claim that he fired once, Roe said. The number of shots has no bearing on whether the homicide was justifiable, Roe said. Once the right to use deadly force is established, the case law is silent about how much force is too much.

Roe explained that physical evidence corroborated what the homeowner told the deputies first on the scene.

Deputies noted that a plate glass window toward the rear of the house was broken. They also spotted a black hammer on a table. There was what appeared to be a fired bullet wedged between what remained of the window's glass panes, court papers said. They found the homeowner's gun on a kitchen counter.

Deputies canvassed the neighborhood and learned that a neighbor had spotted a man, matching Sok's description, walking toward the front of the house where the shooting happened. He said the man was wearing a stocking cap and dark clothing.

The car outside the house was registered to Sok. The Toyota was being sought by Everett police in connection with a Jan. 2 burglary in the city, according to court documents. Sok also was named as possible suspect in the investigation, the search warrant said.

"Burglaries are a dangerous business," Roe said.

Sheriff's detectives continue to investigate another fatal encounter between a homeowner and a burglary suspect in the Edmonds area.

On Feb. 7, Kenneth Talley, 26, was shot multiple times. A homeowner was on the phone with an emergency dispatcher when Talley, a stranger, reportedly kicked in a front door and stepped inside. Deputies found Talley on the ground inside the entryway.

The homeowner told police that Talley had first knocked on a sliding glass door and asked to come inside. The homeowner turned him away. He armed himself with a gun and called 911.

During their investigation, detectives learned that several minutes before the shooting, sheriff's deputies received reports of a car prowl about a block away. The caller told a dispatcher that someone who was trying to break into a car fled and was possibly running through back yards.

Man trackers later were able to determine that the person who was breaking into the car had run toward the house where the shooting happened, court papers said.

Detectives are waiting on the results of evidence being tested at the state crime lab. Eventually, prosecutors will decide if the homeowner faces charges.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Well, you can call it whatever you want. The victim arrested the suspect and held him until LEO showed up. Suspect croaked during the struggle. I don't believe "citations" issued for misdemeanor charges are available for public view.

As stated there is no citizens arrest in WA state.. wish there were..

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Well how about we send someone over to the complainer's house to break in with a hammer while their children are present?
Maybe break their leg or arm so they can be somewhat handicap when this happens?

Why should I have to flee my house? What kind of BS teaching have these people had?

You have left your house and your protection from the elements (and there are some elements this time of year) to stand outside and freeze while the intruder is inside keeping warm and eating your food and drinking your Maker's Mark.
How is this even close to reasonable?
IT IS MY EFFING HOUSE THAT I BOUGHT TO KEEP MYSELF SAFE AND WARM

I AM NOT LEAVING,you will be made to leave ,with force if necessary.

Mi casa es tu casa?

If I invite you in

I will keep my Makers Mark but may be short a few 00 shells in the aftermath

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Interest to see what happens. Not a Castle Doctrine State. But right to stand ground. If he wasn't threatened they may charge him?? Hope not.

Via codified court cases WA state really is a castle doctrine state. Local libtard prosecutors may try to charge you, anyway

If they break and enter my home while I am present they will not do it again, for me that alone is a death threat

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I am not a lawyer and it is not my intent to give anyone advice.

First I ever heard of this.. have been told by cops that there is no citizens arrest ability.. yeah, I know, cops usually don't truly understand the law

 

[FourTeeFive]

No charges in fatal shooting of burglary suspect | HeraldNet.com - Local news

"The family had some lingering questions about what happened, in part because the homeowner exercised his right not to provide detectives with a statement."

Smart move on the homeowner's part.

I don't get the question of how many shots were fired. It was a revolver and undoubtedly taken into evidence. Unless he had already fired shots previously, or reloaded, one can at least estimate the number of rounds fired somewhere between one and more...

 

[ThemGunsThough]

I would have done the same thing... Seems like that neighborhood was getting bullied and as they say, karma is a....

 

[chemist]

I don't know what I would've done in his place and I hope to God that I never find out.
BUT - if this happened in my home, the single shot would've come from a 12 ga., not a handgun.

 

[Burt Gummer]

OT, but didn't want to start a new thread -

Gunshop Owner Kills One, Leaves Bullet Holes In Two Others

 

[Darknight]

I think its a great thing to know and understand that even if you are in a justified use of force situation; it doesn't mean someone wont/cant bring a civil suit against you.

I probably misquoted, but the way I understood what he was saying: he wasn't saying it as a 100% guarantee, but a most likely. Again, its a great piece of information to have.

By saying "that's the problem with Lawyers", is just another way of saying, in my opinion; "That's the problem with the Law."

Also by saying that its an opportunistic lawyer at fault, have you ever thought about opportunistic people in general. Honestly, when someone is breaking the law and either the perpetrator or family member brings a civil case, could they not be the ones being opportunistic by seeking that civil case. You just can't blame the Lawyer.

I do agree that if a civil suit is brought to court, "Loser Pays" is not a bad idea at all.

My wife was in a car accident last year. Right after the accident we received no less than 20 letters from liars, oops! lawyers, wanting to represent her. Ambulance chasers!

I don't think anyone is trying to say that all lawyers are opportunistic, but which ones do you see in the news?

By the way, my wife was the passenger and I was the driver, it was my fault, I made a mistake. It is kind of funny thinking of a lawyer representing my wife suing our own insurance company though. LOL!