How would you handle this?

[el gringo loco]

I am not familiar with the laws in WA. However, I don't consider merely the pointing of a firearm a "use of deadly force." The homeowner, arguably, should have called 911 and allowed the police to confront the suspects. In Oregon (and in my opinion), he would have been within his rights to use that force which was reasonably necessary to arrest the suspects. Using that force which was reasonably necessary to arrest the suspects means that had they chosen to drive off, the homeowner would have had to holster his gun and use his now free hand to wave goodbye. Reading this guy's statements, however, make me doubt that he understood that pointing his gun and threatening to shoot these idiots was, to be within the law, simply a bluff.

With five suspects, the homeowner was outnumbered and could not hope to catch all of them if they fled on foot. He should let the police-who have the radios, non-lethal tools, K9's, manpower, etc. necessary to contain the suspects- take them into custody.

So I didn't press charges! I hope they learned there lesson and won't do something like this again.

...Well, this is why they weren't arrested.

My problem with this story is that in the state of Washington...a private party does not have the power to press or drop charges against a criminal. The prosecutor makes the determenation on whether or not to press charges.

Even in states where the prosecutor decides who does or does not get prosecuted, in practice, they are not going to pursue chippy misdemeanor charges with a victim who has indicated he is not willing to show up in court.

Also...In my opinion...The King County Sherriff was lazy for not arresting the three 18 yr olds for attempted grand theft auto. In Washington that is a felony. He apperantly didn't want to do all the paper work to let the prosecutor do his job.

The cop, who has to respond to calls where people actually want to press charges, is not going to waste his time writing for four hours on a case that will not be prosecuted. It also doesn't sound like they were trying to steal the car...just the stuff inside of it.


My two cents

 

[tionico]

Best re-read the laws in both Oregon and Washington. Neither state authorises the use of deadly force for the protection of property (except by l LEO, registered security, and the like.. the Brinks guys can do it, we can 't), only for life and health (imminent danger of bodily harm, or some such wording).

Nor is it authorised to be used in the process of citizens arrest. Again, only LEO and licensed security.

Both states have laws against "brandishing" a weapon, that is, in a situation that is NOT defensive, to show, wave about, point, menace, a firearm so as to give the impression one might use it against another.... again, EXCEPT in cases of a perceived imminent threat.

The five chumps in the car were, at that point, making no moves against the homeowner's person, or those of his family (who were safe inside). The car had been started, they were ready to drive off, leaving homeowner waving bye bye..... hopefully remembering the number plate. End of mission. He ran them off, got identifying information. He was at no time (according to the tale we read) under any plausible threat to his person, and thus unjustified in even revealing the presence of his handgun. Hey, the creeps weren't even on his property at the time he flashed his piece. The DA could still, justifiably, charge him with brandishing, at least.

I hope he doesn't and I thoroughly disagree with the present laws in both states. Someone prowling MY car, locked or not, on MY property (or elsewhere...) I believe I have every right to accost him, even with threat of deadly force. Part of why this sort of crime is so common is that those slimeballs know I can't come up to them with my pistol and threaten them or use it to force them to stop. Now, I do that---confront them, demand they stop and stand where they are, and one comes at me.... THEN I can draw, even fire. But not until then. Up to that point, under present (unjust) law, I cannot show my weapon. Oh, I could have it strapped to my hip, large and menacing, gleaming in the streetlamp's light, turned in such a way they are certain to see it. But unholster and show it? Nope. I become the criminal at that point, never mind I'm now accosting five in the very act, caught WITH my goods in hand, and on my property.

It is the threat (real or perceived) of imminent bodily harm that changes the equation. Once they begin to back away, run, hop in the car and drive away, I'm done..... or its ME inspecting the wrong side of the wall at the local Greybar Hotel.

 

[Trlsmn]

It really sounds like a B.S. story to me. I have a hard time believing 5 people breaking into a car and an owner confronting them with a gun would have ended with no arrests.

 

[BUZO71]

My read on it is this. The guy should have 1. locked his doors 2. never gone outside, just call 911. If he had gone outside, should have kept his weapon out of sight unless needed and only gone far enough outside to get a license plate.

The cops were not lazy- except by not telling the guy he just menaced five people and may be arrested or lose his CHL (although I'll bet there is more to the story we aren't hearing). And yes, "Menacing" would be the charge- at least in Oregon.

If the Deputies were charging them with MIP, you might never know about it. Unless you are called as a witness. Also, you told them you did not want to press charges- what did you want them to do. Most DA's won't prosecute without a willing victim except domestic violence cases where special case law applies.

And while talking about MIP- in Oregon, police may use SFST's, PBT's, even odor of intoxicants to determine MIP.

Two sad points in this story. 1. They guy went outside in the first place. 2. He did not press charges. If you don't press charges, you deserve to have the crime committed against you.

 

[Stomper]

You can always be prepared for a case like this with the three following words... "throw away knife", followed up with your statement to the police, "he/she pulled a knife on me, I was in fear of my life".

 

[USMC1911]

My read on it is this. The guy should have 1. locked his doors 2. never gone outside, just call 911. If he had gone outside, should have kept his weapon out of sight unless needed and only gone far enough outside to get a license plate.

The cops were not lazy- except by not telling the guy he just menaced five people and may be arrested or lose his CHL (although I'll bet there is more to the story we aren't hearing). And yes, "Menacing" would be the charge- at least in Oregon.

If the Deputies were charging them with MIP, you might never know about it. Unless you are called as a witness. Also, you told them you did not want to press charges- what did you want them to do. Most DA's won't prosecute without a willing victim except domestic violence cases where special case law applies.

And while talking about MIP- in Oregon, police may use SFST's, PBT's, even odor of intoxicants to determine MIP.

Two sad points in this story. 1. They guy went outside in the first place. 2. He did not press charges. If you don't press charges, you deserve to have the crime committed against you.

I agree he should have called 911 before hand, I really dont understand why a homeowner should stay inside while his stuff is pillaged? If I go outside my house to investigate something it will be with gun in hand as ITS MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY!

 

[Rugerbub]

And its not DUI its minor in possessionIt is DUI if the person in the driver seat has the keys in the igniton. They all should havd gotten MIP's and some kind of theft charge and tresspassing charges. Who knows what the cop charged them with. I thinked they might have learned a lesso just by the homeowner holding them at gunpoint with a 44

 

[Frog]

"ITS MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY"!

Not in Oregon. The legal buffs will have a name for it, but in Oregon you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, family members or a person in peril IF you have no other clear and/or resonable option, BUT NOT PROPERTY!!

Like I said, the legal guys will have the name for it. It's something like a 'run & hide' State verus a 'stand & defend' State. Oregon is a Hide & Run State.

Anyway, the law in Oregon doesn't feel a car thief should be shot for stealing your car, unless he's tring to run you over with it!!

Frog.

 

[USMC1911]

"ITS MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY"!

Not in Oregon. The legal buffs will have a name for it, but in Oregon you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, family members or a person in peril IF you have no other clear and/or resonable option, BUT NOT PROPERTY!!

Like I said, the legal guys will have the name for it. It's something like a 'run & hide' State verus a 'stand & defend' State. Oregon is a Hide & Run State.

Anyway, the law in Oregon doesn't feel a car thief should be shot for stealing your car, unless he's tring to run you over with it!!

Frog.

Who said anything about shooting anyone??? Yes it is my right to confront a prowler on my property with a firearm in my hand. Can I go out and shoot him at first sight no.

 

[Frog]

Whoo up there USMC1911,

I didn't right the law, I'm was just passing along some info that might one
day keep you out of trouble.

You can a use a gun as a 'deterent' to defend yourself, but if you use it to defend your property (in Oregon) you are Menising.

Yes, you can 'show it', but don't take it out of it's holster unless you are threatened.

Frog.

 

[speelyei]

sounds made up.

badly written internet fantasy for grown ups.

 

[Frog]

There are even situations where you can not legally use deadly force on a home intruder!

<broken link removed>

Frog.

 

[probasco]

i think this post has the potential to divide us and not bring us together in peace and harmony. while it pertains to firearms, some of us might disagree on the issue of how to properly deal with the teens, so as per #9 of "the rules", it should be closed. although it might stimulate some conversation and thought, it is bad per #9.

 

[Trlsmn]

i think this post has the potential to divide us and not bring us together in peace and harmony. while it pertains to firearms, some of us might disagree on the issue of how to properly deal with the teens, so as per #9 of "the rules", it should be closed. although it might stimulate some conversation and thought, it is bad per #9.

Wrong.

 

[Gunner3456]

The home owner was not in immediate or emminent danger of being raped, maimed, or killed... Keep the gun holstered, call the police, and report your loss to the insurance company, then go to bed. (Oregon)

+1. No Rambo here. I don't see any sense in escalating an outside burglary which isn't endangering anyone physically into a possible shooting. I'd dial 911 and then prepare to defend the home's interior if it came to that.

$.02

 

[Gunner3456]

There are even situations where you can not legally use deadly force on a home intruder!

<broken link removed>

Frog.

Someone who is drunk and/or asleep on my couch and I've got the drop on him? He doesn't need to be shot. 911 only if he stays put.

Now, if I wake up at 2:00 AM and someone is standing over our bed in the dark, he's dead and with no regrets.

$.02

 

[probasco]

Wrong.

i am simply reacting to my post on "no need to vote" that was closed as "it might divide us" and its not what this forum is about.

 

[Trlsmn]

i am simply reacting to my post on "no need to vote" that was closed as "it might divide us" and its not what this forum is about.

When you take the discussion out of a clearly gun issue on a gun forum what is left? Craigslist?

 

[Frog]

Gets my vote Gunner 3556 !

And 'probasco' I think any discussion that encourages gun owners to move from a Rambo attitude to one of responability is actually a good thing.

I mean, gee, all laws aside. Do you think 'resonable' people agree with the OJ Theory? All that the majority of the voices on this thread have expressed, is that common sense toward responable firearms management does not endorse people shooting people who are not threatening harm against them, or others!!

If that divides us, then so be it in my mind.

Frog.

 

[probasco]

When you take the discussion out of a clearly gun issue on a gun forum what is left? Craigslist?

ok, i am guilty. but how many guys here actually are aware of what the state is doing to our rights? i assumed (wrongfully i guess) that people who care about firearms would also be interested in hearing about the government stealing the only tool we have for a free society.

To me, That is news everyone should hear about and i know a lot of people out there dont watch or listen to the news.

So am i so misguided in trying to share this with the people who hold true to their hearts, the rights and freedoms of this country.

I would think as a medium for the patriots of this country, who support the constitution, this forum would be anxious to spread the word about the
activities of our state legislators refusing to enact the vote of the people.

if you find this to be too trivial to be told here then i was sadly mistaken about the membership and/or owners here. I would think the hijacking of our votes is some thing every american should be aware of and so i act. i guess i am hoping there are a few people out there that still care about this country.

i apoligize for making the assumption everyone, everywhere needs to, or wants to, know their vote no longer counts.