Shots fired near work today.

[easy-e]

This is what I have heard as well. They call it case law.

Well just did some looking and they had a bill they where trying to get pass in 2013 the retreat bill but I have to do more looking but the one thing I did find was the law has been changed a lot and that WA IS IN A GREY AREA I don't know what that means but grey area don't sound good

As @Flopsweat said, there is a lot of case law in addition to the penal code.

@EPS - I don't really feel there is ever a "grey area". These situations can usually be simplified to if they actually had the right to defend themselves including who was the initial aggressor. If you ambush someone trespassing on your property or in your home, you could be the initial aggressor. The bad guy had to have the Ability to hurt you, the Opportunity to hurt you, and you had to feel your life was in Jeopardy of serious bodily injury or death. All three of these elements need to be present to justify your use of deadly force. If all three of the elements are not present you should be yelling at them to get out of your house, to stop, back up, or you should be retreating, calling the police, etc. If the situation changes then you may end up with the justification to use deadly force.

The best description of this I've seen is in Chapter 2 (Page 4) of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network's "What Every Gun Owner Needs to Know About Self-Defense Law". https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes_SDLaw.pdf

During the home defense shoot house class I took last weekend I yelled at the hostage targets to drop the gun and then immediately shot the bad guy. It's hard with paper targets but I learned a lot about verbal commands. A few people in our class shot some of the no-shoot targets. The class description literally says "This is not a shooting program but a decision-making or problem-solving course". We only shot about 30 rounds the whole weekend.

 

[Norwestr55]

If I recall shooter was single black man in a white car???

Like I said the car description matched but they didn't get a good look at the driver. Maybe he has an equally dumb *** friend? Its a rural area and theres generally not a lot of these things happening.

 

[Roger65]

Retreating to safety= calling the cops, you are the victim, case closed.

Returning fire= you got some e'splaining to do.

 

[RVTECH]

The bad guy had to have the Ability to hurt you, the Opportunity to hurt you

And don't forget INTENT to hurt you - depending on the situation you may have to prove INTENT.

 

[easy-e]

And don't forget INTENT to hurt you - depending on the situation you may have to prove INTENT.

That's the Jeopardy part. I've heard intent and jeopardy used interchangeably in the industry.

 

[fxdc]

'Reasonable force' was once described as 'The minimum amount of force required to neutralize the threat' which may be unclear to some but there is some rational to it.

if the guy with the screwdriver is a buck twenty soaking wet and you are 190 lbs of rawhide and spring steel then shooting may be ruled as 'excessive' force. If the same guy has a knife and you have already been injured then shooting may be justified. NOW if the attacker is the 190 pounder with a screwdriver and YOU are the 120 pounder then shooting may be considered the minimum. NOW lets say it's a 120 lb woman with a gun and the attacker is a 190 lb beefarillo with NO weapon - shooting may very well be considered the 'minimum amount of force'. This is how a it was explained to me in a LE law class once.

3 things are needed for a clean defendable shooting....

Disparity of force is what you described.

What's the other 2 gang?

 

[easy-e]

3 things are needed for a clean defendable shooting....

Disparity of force is what you described.

What's the other 2 gang?

Well if the attacker is already attacking you then it sounds like Opportunity and Jeopardy/Intent are there in addition to the Ability (disparity of force).

 

[RVTECH]

That's the Jeopardy part. I've heard intent and jeopardy used interchangeably in the industry.

Well, YOU may believe your life to be in jeopardy but that in itself does not prove intent on the part of the alleged attacker.
example:

Three teens break into your house in Oklahoma, masked, and with weapons - a clear case of intent with a justifiable outcome.

A drunk stumbles up to your door at two AM thinking it is his house, bangs on the door, makes entry and you believe you are in jeopardy and react accordingly - however because you only beat the sheet out of the guy he cries in court he was lost, didn't know where he was etc. and thought it was his house. So while you believed yourself to be in jeopardy a clear case of intent could not be proven since the preponderance of evidence suggests in fact he was most likely just drunk and lost. I fail to see where intent and jeopardy could be used interchangeably considering the jeopardy part is your belief at the time and the intent (or unintentional) action lies with the intruder.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Well, had they been armed, they woulda had more options than praying to the Jesus. Good thing they aren't dead.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Intent or jeopardy?? No real evidence of either here, but the woman was still rightfully cleared.

Southeast Portland Woman cleared of wrongdoing

 

[easy-e]

Well, YOU may believe your life to be in jeopardy but that in itself does not prove intent on the part of the alleged attacker.
example:

Three teens break into your house in Oklahoma, masked, and with weapons - a clear case of intent with a justifiable outcome.

A drunk stumbles up to your door at two AM thinking it is his house, bangs on the door, makes entry and you believe you are in jeopardy and react accordingly - however because you only beat the sheet out of the guy he cries in court he was lost, didn't know where he was etc. and thought it was his house. So while you believed yourself to be in jeopardy a clear case of intent could not be proven since the preponderance of evidence suggests in fact he was most likely just drunk and lost. I fail to see where intent and jeopardy could be used interchangeably considering the jeopardy part is your belief at the time and the intent (or unintentional) action lies with the intruder.

I knew I shouldn't have responded to you about intent. Intent is irrelevant because you are not the other person so you don't know their intent but you can observe their actions and respond accordingly. That is why I have never used "intent" and have always used "jeopardy".

Reasonable Man Doctrine - Would a reasonable person in your circumstance, knowing what you knew at the time, have done the same?

A year or two ago a drunk kid was trying to break down my neighbors door. She called the police but they wouldn't come unless she could confirm he was still there. She called me so I went outside and confronted him. She called the police back and told them I was outside talking to him. He was slouched down against her door and tried to get up but I kept him on the ground until the police arrived. Turns out he thought that was the apartment he was staying at and he had the correct apartment number but it was the wrong building. His friends saw him when the police got him out into our parking lot and came down to get him.

If we're talking intent, his was obviously to go home because he was drunk...he kept saying "I live here" and I was not able to convince him otherwise.

I was armed but never drew my weapon. The whole situation would have been different if he had broken down her door. It still would be trespassing because there would be no element of jeopardy until he attacked my neighbor or myself or displayed a weapon.

This is why training is so critical and situations like these are why I continue to train and take scenario or problem solving based classes in addition to marksmanship.

We could propose different scenarios until we reach the end of the internet but it's not going to do any good.

 

[RVTECH]

Actually I was kind of playing 'Devil's Advocate' with the issue of intent because it seems in most of the recent shooting incidents that are reported on 'intent' does not seem to be an element of the case - even times with the aggressor/intruder is not armed and the homeowner is cleared (such as in the case of the woman in Portland - and at least the last three home defensive shootings in Bend - and the aggressor/intruder has NOT been armed.) It's probably better 'intent' is not a 'red herring' in a case of self defense and the emphasis being more on exactly why the person was somewhere they were not supposed to be in the first place - regardless of their actions. The 'intent' issue has always been something I tend to consider when I read about a self defense situation where there did not seem to be any aggressive action by the intruder and never any intended. Make no mistake however - my first thought if I encountered say someone on my property on in my house or shop would be to take an instant defensive posture - and probably more aggressively than would be warranted - and did - sort of once.

 

[mjbskwim]

An intruder in your house can be armed at any time they want
There are plenty of things in my house I don't want to be beaten with. I also have a nice selection of kitchen knives I don't care to be cut with.
BTW did you search the guy when he broke in? Check his pockets? Ask what he was thinking of doing while in your home?
Ask his military,martial arts,boxing training?
A guy's in your house,you don't have time to do an interview. Protect your family first then think of the repercussions. Would you rather visit your immediate family member's grave or have them visit you in jail?
Any way. Plenty of arm chair legal advice in this thread. You have to read as much of the laws for yourself and talk to your SO about what y'all feel is the best way to handle defending your house.
If I had children in my house the laws would be the last thing on my mind if there was an intruder.
Out and about I would give it lots more thought. In the case above,if I had my big Dodge I may have tried to ram the gun slinger. Ha ha not a good choice I know. You just have to quell your temper and try to make clear decisions.
In my case that's easier said than done,especially if kids are involved.

 

[Alexx1401]

This is the problem with the reasonable Force part of the law you wind up in court and some lawyer says he only had a screwdriver you didn't have too shoot him dead and some clown on a jury agrees with him your done

People often way other think this. First a LOT depends on which city/ county. Some are far better. Seattle/ king is bad.
Next "reasonable". Yes there are a few horror stories. Read them. You will normally find one or two common things. One is someone shot someone who was not a threat. The other is after someone does shoot they just can't keep their mouth shut. Prosecutors normally have a lot on their plate. The don't willy nilly take everything to a jury. Most of the time they can get some fool to run his mouth till he is in real trouble then plead out. So if you can use some control and not shoot someone who is running away, and keep your mouth shut if you have to shoot, great. If someone thinks they can't do this they would be better off to just not carry a gun.
Last "good shoot" by a CC holder I can remember in Seattle the guy had enough brains to walk away. He was attacked by a WELL known nut allowed to roam and attack people. He killed him. The City did "try" to make a deal out of it. He had enough brains to not let them trap him. So don't shoot someone driving away or running away. If you have to shoot when they read you your rights (which they will) say lawyer. When you call 911 say VERY little. My life was threatened, I shot. I will follow instructions while waiting for Police. DO NOT start babbling and trying to justify what you did to the operator who is recording the call.

 

[fxdc]

Ok
I can't seem to find anything about this shooting online. Has anyone else been able to find anything in the news?

 

[Camelfilter]

News is pretty bad in the Salem area. We only have the Statesman journal, which used to be a decent print paper, now not so much...

No TV news.

With encrypted radio, it makes it that much harder for even "would be newsies" (bloggers & the like) to even track down crime as soon as it happens to get the real story.

To make it even harder, Keizer doesn't even have a real Police blotter. Just a link to some crime incident mapping page, with hardly any information / description of incidents...

 

[EPS]

That's because News about guy's driving around shooting at people is bad for the anti gun crowd they want you to feel safe out there so they can keep pushing there agenda of nobody needs a gun for self defense

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

Ok
I can't seem to find anything about this shooting online. Has anyone else been able to find anything in the news?

i asked my co workers yesterday if they heard about the guy getting caught or not. they havent heard anything. didnt even get a case # from the police

 

[Camelfilter]

i asked my co workers yesterday if they heard about the guy getting caught or not. they havent heard anything. didnt even get a case # from the police

Then they didn't, because if they did, they would have contacted them to see if they could ID him/them.

Unless he/they was/were caught in the act of brandishing /discharging.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

police caught the guy yeaterday