JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So difficult to say what you will do if faced with it. You are afraid, mad, brain is spinning, the adrenalin is going...I'm not gonna second guess the guy.

I've been outside in the dark in my underwear with a gun in my hand to 'investigate' before. After thinking it over the next morning I decided that it's best to stay inside, call the police, and maybe, if safe to do so, observe what is happening. I want to take reasonable steps to avoid the confrontation. Even if I'm in the right, whenever possible, I want to avoid being in a spot where somebody could die.
At the same time, I want to be ready if the only option is between an attacker's life and an innocent's.
By the way, if you ever have to use force, anything you post on one of these boards will be slanted as much as possible by the attorneys to make you out as someone who wanted to be a Rambo/Dirty Harry vigilante.:s0131:
 
By the way, if you ever have to use force, anything you post on one of these boards will be slanted as much as possible by the attorneys to make you out as someone who wanted to be a Rambo/Dirty Harry vigilante.:s0131:

i've been thinking about that.. and you're absolutely right.
 
Sheets told police that he ordered the car prowlers to the ground but they refused. Sheets said Hernandez turned in his direction as he ran and reached for his waist band, according to charging documents.

This is the crux of the case. If Sheets statement is true, he is innocent. Being in reasonable fear is a defense. WA. is pretty good, in that they determine the reasonableness to be based on the actors perception at the the time, even if that perception later turns out to be false. "I thought he was going to draw a gun" and no gun is found. If it is reasonable for the thought (turned to face and made gesture=reasonable to me) then he has a green light.

The "Shoot to recover property" and "Shot in the back" arguments are red herrings. Either he did or didn't think the guy was going for a gun. If he thought the guy was pulling a gun, there is nothing that says he can't be shot in the back. If he didn't, and made this up as a cover after the fact, then he is screwed. If the prosecution is presenting the theory he shot attempting to recover property, they have to PROVE that, in addition to DISPROVING the self-defense claim. In WA you don't have to prove your claim for SD, it is assumed to be the case and the prosecution has to disprove it.

There have been all sorts of shootings involving police hitting folks "in the back" that were deemed to be righteous. There is a fraction of a second when you make the decision to shoot and the nerve impulse gets to the muscles and they squeeze. Sometimes during that moment an assailant moves or changes direction, or continues in a direction. Just because there back was to you at the time of impact, does not mean it was to you at the time you made the decision and pulled the trigger. It is a dynamic, changing event, not a paper target that sits and waits.


In an interview with police, Sheets "admitted that he had shot the victim, intending to hit him in the leg or other body part," but didn't mean to kill him, according to charging documents.

This doesn't help his case. If you aren't "meaning" to kill someone, you shouldn't be using lethal force. This is not to say you intend to kill someone, but you have to accept it as a reasonable outcome. You don't shoot to scare or wound. You shoot to stop the threat.

Head shot at 70 feet with a rifle while aiming for the legs? Dude, if you ever get your guns back, get to the range.

Though Sheets never saw Hernandez brandish a weapon, Sheets said he "freaked out" when he saw Hernandez reach for his waistband and decided he "wasn't going to take any chances."

Again, if a true statement, reasonable and by WA law, makes it a good shoot.

WA law is pretty good and very pro-self defense. In a self defense case, if the prosecution loses, the state is on the hook for the cost of defense and "expense" of the accused (lost pay, etc. ). [ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110 ]

King County has historically been VERY hesitant to charge if there is the slightest chance of reasonable SD. My guess is they might have enough on Mr. Sheets to discredit his claims. If that is the case, I hope to heck that it is not just from the dirtbag's accomplices

The lesson here is in such a situation "cooperating" with the police can come back to hurt you. Statements made immediately after such an event with the adrenaline dump are not going to be well thought out or properly articulated, and can be taken out of context. "Clarifying" them later has the appearance of "changing" your story. Keep it simple, hit the main points (feared for life/safety) and then shut up and get a lawyer.

As others have said, the dead guy set this all in motion. I don't think I would have ANY problem finding reasonable doubt based on what is known so far. The other criminals words would have no sway over me. Absent irrefutable and unbiased contradictory evidence to Mr. Sheets mind set and and claimed thought process, I would be giving him a pass.
 
In an interview with police, Sheets "admitted that he had shot the victim, intending to hit him in the leg or other body part," but didn't mean to kill him, according to charging documents.
This doesn't help his case. If you aren't "meaning" to kill someone, you shouldn't be using lethal force. This is not to say you intend to kill someone, but you have to accept it as a reasonable outcome. You don't shoot to scare or wound. You shoot to stop the threat.

I would also like to point out another error in that quote from Sheets "Sheets admitted" The only statements Sheets should have made are "I will not speak without my attorney present" and "I will exercise my right to remain silent."
 
even if his statement that he perceived his life to be in danger is totally true, self-defense is still an "affirmative defense"- the burden of proof that you acted in self-defense is on you, with affirmative defenses. he's gonna have to prove his claim, somehow.

i know we all hate the cheesy term "guilty until proven innocent," but that's basically what happens when you claim self-defense.
 
Old Testament times, if you were an Israelite and you were caught stealing, you were to pay back the value of what was stolen plus 5% of the value. Then you'd have to take the high priest a ram and then be forgiven. (Leviticus 6:1-7)

Just a little insight on some old school law.

p.s. With a law like that, no wonder the ark got stolen and never returned. Can't put a value on that thing!
 
I wonder what would happen if a 22LR was used instead of a 7.62? A 22 CAN be deadly, but it might be easier to prove that your intent was to hurt the thief, not kill the thief?
Maybe I should start a new thread with this question??????
 
I wonder what would happen if a 22LR was used instead of a 7.62? A 22 CAN be deadly, but it might be easier to prove that your intent was to hurt the thief, not kill the thief?
Maybe I should start a new thread with this question??????

it would be such a minor detail that i don't think it would even come up. either you dont shoot, shoot and dont kill, or shoot and kill- the caliber isn't going to matter unless you use a .454 or .50 or some crap. then they'd say you were just out for blood. and skull fragments.
 
I wonder what would happen if a 22LR was used instead of a 7.62? A 22 CAN be deadly, but it might be easier to prove that your intent was to hurt the thief, not kill the thief?
Maybe I should start a new thread with this question??????

Using any firearm would be use of deadly force, and the decision to use deadly force should not be thought of lightly, no matter what the "caliber" is. It makes no difference if you use a .22 or a .50 bmg, the moment you fire, you are "using deadly force", and it must be justified to avoid legal consequences.
 
Using any firearm would be use of deadly force, and the decision to use deadly force should not be thought of lightly, no matter what the "caliber" is. It makes no difference if you use a .22 or a .50 bmg, the moment you fire, you are "using deadly force", and it must be justified to avoid legal consequences.

+1:s0155: I totally agree. It's like stabbing someone with a two inch pocket knife instead of a ten inch bowie knife. Both are deadly.. end of story.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top