Self-defense in North Bend

[Dave Workman]

Homeowner ‘stands his ground,’ protects his ‘castle’ in North Bend

Much debate has raged over the past several days in Florida about “Stand Your Ground” as a law and a concept, but a text book example with a deadly outcome for the perpetrator unfolded in North Bend, 30 miles east of Seattle, Friday night.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Garg]

Good outcome. Great article Dave.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

Good Article, thank you for sharing.

 

[Dunerunner]

Good article...Food for thought.

 

[Dave Workman]

Dead man in North Bend case apparently made threats

A man who was killed by a homeowner in North Bend late Friday night in what is being called a clear case of self-defense had apparently been dropped off near the I-90 interchange after an evening of heavy drinking, the Gun Rights Examiner has learned.

<broken link removed>

 

[hermannr]

Dead man in North Bend case apparently made threats

A man who was killed by a homeowner in North Bend late Friday night in what is being called a clear case of self-defense had apparently been dropped off near the I-90 interchange after an evening of heavy drinking, the Gun Rights Examiner has learned.

<broken link removed>

Dave, I must disagree with you here on the last few sentences...There is absolutely NO VALID reason for the Sheriff to sieze this man's pistol. If they sieze the pistol they have just made him defenceless, and by their own account they say this person displayed "restraint"...they know he is no hazzard to the community. He has demonstrated restraint, he has demonstrated knowledge of the law, why disarm him? There is Absolutely no valid reason to disarm him, and I really hope you are wrong and the Sheriff's deputies did not sieze his SD weapon.

 

[Dave Workman]

Dave, I must disagree with you here on the last few sentences...There is absolutely NO VALID reason for the Sheriff to sieze this man's pistol. If they sieze the pistol they have just made him defenceless, and by their own account they say this person displayed "restraint"...they know he is no hazzard to the community. He has demonstrated restraint, he has demonstrated knowledge of the law, why disarm him? There is Absolutely no valid reason to disarm him, and I really hope you are wrong and the Sheriff's deputies did not sieze his SD weapon.

The pistol is part of the evidence chain. That's a valid reason, especially in the event that this does become a murder investigation.
Just because YOU think there is no valid reason doesn't make it so. The bullets in the dead guy came from that gun and ONLY that gun.

Evidently you don't know much about homicide investigations. Police ALWAYS take the firearm as evidence. Once the case is cleared, the cops can return the gun, according to the prosecutor's office. That is if this guy wants it back.

If a baseball bat or knife or crowbar was used as a defensive weapon and someone died from a head injury, that implement would also be seized as evidence. That's just the way it is. The process could take a couple of months.

If this guy wants another defensive weapon, he can buy or borrow one. He is not currently under any criminal investigation.

 

[hermannr]

Police ALWAYS take the firearm as evidence. Once the case is cleared, the cops can return the gun, according to the prosecutor's office. That is if this guy wants it back. .

I personally know that is a false statement....They do not seize an LEO's weapon if he has shot someone.

The second part I cannot undertand "If he wants it back?" what are you saying? The weapon has possibly just saved your life, and you would not want it back? What a crazy statement...sorry Dave, you just went down 10 notches with me.

 

[Dave Workman]

I personally know that is a false statement....They do not seize an LEO's weapon if he has shot someone.

BUSHWHA!
Every time a cop is involved in a shooting in which somebody is plugged, his weapon becomes part of the evidence chain. Period. They check the gun for modifications, legal/issue ammo, ballistics...

You tell me what department doesn't do that. Just how many officer-involved shootings have you been to?

The second part I cannot undertand "If he wants it back?" what are you saying? The weapon has possibly just saved your life, and you would not want it back? What a crazy statement...sorry Dave, you just went down 10 notches with me.

This particular guy is devastated that he took a life, according to my sources. He immediately moved out of the house and refuses to go back.

We've seen this sort of thing before. It does happen. For some people, killing in self-defense is a very traumatic experience.


While it certainly wouldn't occur to me to just let go of a gun forever, others do not share that.

 

[pchewn]

The pistol is part of the evidence chain. ............... He is not currently under any criminal investigation.

If he is not part of a criminal investigation, then why is his gun taken as part of evidence chain?

Can't have it both ways. Either he is being investigated or he is not. If not, then don't take the gun.

 

[Dave Workman]

If he is not part of a criminal investigation, then why is his gun taken as part of evidence chain?

Can't have it both ways. Either he is being investigated or he is not. If not, then don't take the gun.

Tell you what. You and Herm can appoint yourselves kings of criminology in the United States and make new rules. The rules that exist require the firearm to be taken into evidence. Suppose during the course of an investigation some information turns up that counters a claim of self-defense.

I'm not saying that this is the case in North Bend, but there is a standard procedure to these things. The firearm was the death weapon. It is part of the evidence.

You can talk to any prosecutor and/or any homicide/major crimes detective and they will explain it to you in detail if that's what you require.

If the misfortune befalls you to kill somebody in self-defense, trust me on this, your firearm is going to be taken from you as evidence in the investigation, and I dare you to argue that with the investigators, the prosecutor or even your own attorney.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but take my word for it, you will surrender that gun. Be sure to get a receipt for it; something that says the firearm was taken into evidence by so-and-so. Get a business card with that note on the back. With a case number.

If at the conclusion of all the legal stuff, if you haven't been charged and convicted, you should be able to recover your firearm from the cops, when it is of no further use in the investigation, and if the investigation is closed.

 

[EMP9596]

As Dave states, if you are charged, or not, they will take the weapon to run ballistics to verify that "it is the actual weapon" envolved in the shooting.

You will not have any say in this matter whatsoever.

 

[hermannr]

BUSHWHA!
Every time a cop is involved in a shooting in which somebody is plugged, his weapon becomes part of the evidence chain. Period. They check the gun for modifications, legal/issue ammo, ballistics...

You tell me what department doesn't do that. Just how many officer-involved shootings have you been to?



This particular guy is devastated that he took a life, according to my sources. He immediately moved out of the house and refuses to go back.

We've seen this sort of thing before. It does happen. For some people, killing in self-defense is a very traumatic experience.


While it certainly wouldn't occur to me to just let go of a gun forever, others do not share that.

Well Dave, I will not disagree that they MAY want to do a ballistics check, that does not require a seizure of the firearm. I was reading in another forum (granted another state, MI) a guy that went through as in the above article...the Sheriff's deputies stated he MAY be called to bring the weapon in for ballistics testing...it was an apparent good shot, he kept his weapon and I see no reason for this not to happen.

Another time I know of was in Skagit Co. State Patrol Officer was killed, almost every cop in Skagit county took a shot at that crazy guy before he finally died (this was about 30 years ago). None of those firearms were seized, if they had been you would have had all the WSP, most of the Sheriff's deputies, and at least 1/2 of the Mount Vernon, Sedro and Burlington town police disarmed too...did not happen.

Comment on the guy in your article...I am sorry to hear this has affected him so strongly, but if you are prepared to defend yourself physically (you are armed) you need to also be prepared mentally.

 

[ATCclears]

If the misfortune befalls you to kill somebody in self-defense, trust me on this, your firearm is going to be taken from you as evidence in the investigation, and I dare you to argue that with the investigators, the prosecutor or even your own attorney.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but take my word for it, you will surrender that gun. Be sure to get a receipt for it; something that says the firearm was taken into evidence by so-and-so. Get a business card with that note on the back. With a case number.

Dave, thanks. Your observation here is why I will not have an extremely fancy/expensive gun for concealed carry or home defense. I want something good and reliable, but anything top of the line will be relegated to the safe and the range.

Peter

 

[gunnails]

Well Dave, I will not disagree that they MAY want to do a ballistics check, that does not require a seizure of the firearm. I was reading in another forum (granted another state, MI) a guy that went through as in the above article...the Sheriff's deputies stated he MAY be called to bring the weapon in for ballistics testing...it was an apparent good shot, he kept his weapon and I see no reason for this not to happen.

Another time I know of was in Skagit Co. State Patrol Officer was killed, almost every cop in Skagit county took a shot at that crazy guy before he finally died (this was about 30 years ago). None of those firearms were seized, if they had been you would have had all the WSP, most of the Sheriff's deputies, and at least 1/2 of the Mount Vernon, Sedro and Burlington town police disarmed too...did not happen.

Comment on the guy in your article...I am sorry to hear this has affected him so strongly, but if you are prepared to defend yourself physically (you are armed) you need to also be prepared mentally.

==============================================================

Take a nap, quoting something you heard on a message board in another state, a story that happened 30 years ago, and appointing your self judge on training you need to be able to defend ones self.

BUSHWHA!

 

[pchewn]

Tell you what. You and Herm can appoint yourselves kings of criminology in the United States and make new rules. The rules that exist require the firearm to be taken into evidence. Suppose during the course of an investigation some information turns up that counters a claim of self-defense.

I'm not saying that this is the case in North Bend, but there is a standard procedure to these things. The firearm was the death weapon. It is part of the evidence.

You can talk to any prosecutor and/or any homicide/major crimes detective and they will explain it to you in detail if that's what you require.

If the misfortune befalls you to kill somebody in self-defense, trust me on this, your firearm is going to be taken from you as evidence in the investigation, and I dare you to argue that with the investigators, the prosecutor or even your own attorney.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but take my word for it, you will surrender that gun. Be sure to get a receipt for it; something that says the firearm was taken into evidence by so-and-so. Get a business card with that note on the back. With a case number.

If at the conclusion of all the legal stuff, if you haven't been charged and convicted, you should be able to recover your firearm from the cops, when it is of no further use in the investigation, and if the investigation is closed.

I don't doubt that the police will take a gun after a self-defence shoot.

But you stated that the shooter "is not under criminal investigation".

My point is this: If there is not a criminal investigation, then why do the police need to take any "evidence"?


And you do not have to personally attack me with your comment about appointing myself king of criminology. I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying that if the police are collecting evidence, then they are (or should admit to) performing a criminal investigation.

 

[Garg]

Well, I am not a criminal lawyer, or an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems obvious that a criminal investigation will follow a crime. The dead bad guy was committing a crime. Until the case is closed, it will be under investigation. If the police did not gather all the evidence from the crime scene (weapon,etc..) they would be not doing their job. If the home owner/defender/shooter had the presence of mind to get a receipt for his/her weapon, it would seem to follow that when the criminal investigation is closed, he/she should be able to retrieve his/her property.

 

[fendermallot]

Let's amend that statement to "not CURRENTLY under investigation"

They will take it, when the investigation is done and they have determined that it was indeed self defense, he can get it back (if he wants).

 

[pchewn]

Can they charge a dead man (the bad guy) with a crime? If not, then they are not investigating HIS crime.

The ONLY reason they take the gun from the shooter (good guy) is to investigate the shooter. He is the one still alive and able to be charged with a crime.

To claim that they are taking his gun and NOT investigating him is false. He IS being investigated.

I'm not arguing that it should happen any other way, but the SHOOTER should ACT and FEEL like he is being investigated, because he is.

 

[Garg]

the SHOOTER should ACT and FEEL like he is being investigated, because he is.

I completely agree. Again, I would think that would be obvious. I guess I should have said that the police will gather all evidence from a crime scene and investigate all the participants.
It should be standard operating procedure to do due diligence on all factors involved in a homicide investigation. Weather that be self defense or not.
I'm just guessing here. Maybe one of our LEO members with some homicide experience can add some thoughts.