Spokane verdict ignites debate on use-of-force

[The Heretic]

When I watched the video, the perp's grandma said he was trying to turn his life around and had a job interview planned for the day after the robbery.

This immediately reminded me of Dave's classic article from last year!

<broken link removed>

When will these fools learn? "Turning your life around" is often fatal!

We often hear how they are "such a good boy", "turning their life around", etc., i.e., the family making excuses for their behavior.

I've seen this personally (not to the extent someone gets killed, but someone gets in trouble) - the person tells their mother/father/grandparents/etc. that they are trying to turn their life around, etc., but in reality they just continue doing what they have been doing for some time.

A lot of these people don't want to change - they just want their family to stop bugging them about changing - so they make up excuses. The family, ever the enablers, believe them and continue to "help" them when they should demand proof of change.

When something bad happens to that person, then it is said isn't that person's fault, it is something else - guns, drugs, etc. - which is evidence of the underlying problem; failure to be held accountable for one's actions.

 

[soberups]

Im glad the man was ultimately acquitted and that the thief is no longer sharing our oxygen. I would be willing to bet, however, that if given the chance to replay the evening the defendant would choose to NOT have pulled the trigger and subject himself to the ordeal of a trial and the PTSD from taking a life.

 

[Dave Workman]

Q: Since when are defendants *in a criminal case* reimbursed for their legal expenses when they are acquitted??

Since at least 1977 when the original statute, RCW 9.01.200 was adopted. To my knowledge, it is unique in the U.S. and we're lucky to have it. The statute has quite likely averted some questionable prosecutions and helped reimburse innocent people in prosecutions that did not get a conviction.

Get a copy of my book "Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities."

This immediately reminded me of Dave's classic article from last year!

<broken link removed>

Thanks for the kind remark!
"Classic?' Dunno if I'd go that far, but it was a fun effort in a sarcastic sort of way.

I have lost count of the number of times family and friends of some dead miscreant said "He wuz jes' turnin' his life aroun'" And this particular cause of death is color blind, trust me.

 

[Bam]

You don't shoot someone in the back and you don't shoot someone surrendering.

If they're running, even in your own vehicle you are no longer in danger and killing a person over property even a scumbag just isn't worth it. Now if they are a serial killer or a active mass murderer, by all evens, stop them every way possible.

It has already been mentioned, but I have to agree if this happened west of the Cascades, say in King county, he would be off to prison. Different people interpreting the law is the damnest thing.

 

[The Heretic]

Since at least 1977 when the original statute, RCW 9.01.200 was adopted. To my knowledge, it is unique in the U.S. and we're lucky to have it. The statute has quite likely averted some questionable prosecutions and helped reimburse innocent people in prosecutions that did not get a conviction.

Okay, so it only applies to self-defense and not every other possible action. Makes sense.

 

[The Heretic]

You don't shoot someone in the back and you don't shoot someone surrendering.

If they're running, even in your own vehicle you are no longer in danger and killing a person over property even a scumbag just isn't worth it. Now if they are a serial killer or a active mass murderer, by all evens, stop them every way possible.

It has already been mentioned, but I have to agree if this happened west of the Cascades, say in King county, he would be off to prison. Different people interpreting the law is the damnest thing.

The defendant claimed the criminal looked like he was pointing a gun at him even though he was driving off. It seems borderline, but if true (and the gov. has to prove it wasn't true) then it is a valid defense and apparently the court agreed.

Sometimes the court has no choice but to find someone not guilty due to the circumstances - even if they wish they didn't have to.

As some have said, if you do the crime, be prepared to pay the time.

 

[8ball]

Thanks for the kind remark!
"Classic?' Dunno if I'd go that far, but it was a fun effort in a sarcastic sort of way.

I have lost count of the number of times family and friends of some dead miscreant said "He wuz jes' turnin' his life aroun'" And this particular cause of death is color blind, trust me.

It was a classic Dave, because you pointed out something that seems to appear every time we read of a criminal getting shot by a law abiding citizen.

Even my wife has it down pat at this point - she'll read through the article until the relative of the deceased mugger/burglar/home invader says that he was 'turning his life around' and point it out to me.

 

[Sawdust]

I'm sure you all have heard of a simpler time when they would "hang horse thieves". Why do you think that might have been? Taking someone's ability to earn a living, travel/find work? In a sense, greatly affecting their life/livelihood.

Well, I'm and independent craftsman who is dependent on my truck, tools and equipment and trailer to provide for my family. Those tools allow me to put a roof over my family's head, to feed and clothe them. To give them a decent life. Who out there in this world has the right to take all that away from them? Who would not do what is necessary to protect their family. To some, you may say that those are just material things-surely not worth someones life? Really? To me, those tools and equipment represent 25+ years of labor and struggle. I had to EARN every dollar to buy every tool over all those years. Without my equipment I cannot provide for my family. Especially in this economy every job is important. If I can't work then I can't pay bills, pay health insurance premiums, groceries, mortgage, etc..

Those tools ARE MY LIFE! If you don't try to take mine-I won't take yours.

BTW Do not try to tell me "Your insurance should take care of it" That is not reality. Between "depreciation" and other restrictions (location,storage requirements) most small tools and small equipment cannot be covered/underwritten in any reasonable policy.

 

[fd15k]

I'm sure you all have heard of a simpler time when they would "hang horse thieves". Why do you think that might have been? Taking someone's ability to earn a living, travel/find work? In a sense, greatly affecting their life/livelihood.

Let's also recall there was a time we had slaves to "assist" us in our hard livelihood, our women were only to cook and to give birth, native population was exterminated. It's a good thing you ask that question, and the answer is pretty simple whether anybody wants to accept it or not. Morality is not a constant, it evolves with the society, and it did evolve in America.

 

[Sawdust]

Let's also recall there was a time we had slaves to "assist" us in our hard livelihood, our women were only to cook and to give birth, native population was exterminated. It's a good thing you ask that question, and the answer is pretty simple whether anybody wants to accept it or not. Morality is not a constant, it evolves with the society, and it did evolve in America.

Apples to Oranges.

We still have the right, nay, obligation to provide for our selves and dependents. By taking that ability a criminal has risked life.

BTW The items you mentioned were never "moral" in the normative sense. They were just wrong and misguided thinking of the time.

Goodnight.

 

[The Heretic]

Let's also recall there was a time we had slaves to "assist" us in our hard livelihood, our women were only to cook and to give birth, native population was exterminated. It's a good thing you ask that question, and the answer is pretty simple whether anybody wants to accept it or not. Morality is not a constant, it evolves with the society, and it did evolve in America.

I disagree.

The perception of morality by some may change, but even back when many accepted slavery, many did not - and it was just as wrong back then as it is now - as was the other issues you mentioned.

Morality didn't evolve, society's understanding of it did.

The basic premise we have in law now is that someone's life or *physical* well being must be in imminent threat of harm by another for us to be justified *legally* to use lethal force against that person.

Regardless of how we feel about it, anyone who ignores that principle of law risks their freedom, maybe even their life, when the issue is decided in a court of law.

 

[fd15k]

Morality didn't evolve, society's understanding of it did.

You mean like physics or math ?

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

You mean like physics or math ?

The problem with this debate is that morality and the law are almost entirely mutually exclusive. The man was acquitted based on the interpretation of law, not if the shooting was morally justified. Think of the Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida. A lot of folks thought the shooting was immoral, however when judged according to the law, Zimmerman was acquitted. This is not to say that the law will ensure a just conviction. There are lots of criminals that go unpunished and lots of innocent people that get incarcerated.

Was it morally right to shoot the car thief? That is a personal judgment each of us has to face alone.

Was it legally justifiable to shoot the car thief? That is something different that can be judged based on evidence and the way the law is written and interpreted.

This is why I think the best advice in this thread came from Doc In UPlace who said "Do you want to be the test case?"

Best to answer that question for yourself well before hand so you have a clear and unquestioning conviction on how you will react should the situation present itself.

But trying to nail down a definitive idea of morals is, in my opinion, a fools errand. What's moral to one is not necessarily so to the remainder.

 

[fd15k]

The problem with this debate is that morality and the law are almost entirely mutually exclusive.

Ha, just like prostitution, profanity, gambling, porn, drug laws have nothing to do with morality. Or jury nullification for that matter. You guys don't surprise me though.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Ha, just like prostitution, profanity, gambling, porn, drug laws have nothing to do with morality. Or jury nullification for that matter. You guys don't surprise me though.

I am glad you are not surprised. It means at the very least that most of these folks are plain speaking and straightforward. I appreciate that as well. Even when we disagree at least there will be no ambiguity as to where you and I stand.

However please do not think that by understanding my opinion toward the law is an indicator of my moral values.

 

[The Heretic]

You mean like physics or math ?

Not exactly - morality is somewhat relative to the context.

You can pretty much say that 2+2 always equals 4 - at least in this universe.

But whether you can justifiably kill someone depends on the context.

However, if it is morally justifiable to use lethal force against someone who threatened imminent harm to the life of an innocent human today, because it was necessary to prevent that harm, then I can say with some certainty that it would probably be justifiable in 100 years given the same context, and it would have been morally justifiable 1000 years ago given the same context.

Slavery was wrong over the centuries - just as wrong as it is now. So is rape, theft, murder (unjustified killing), harming someone without justification, and fraud.

Morality hasn't evolved, our understanding and willingness to not tolerate wrongdoing has changed.

 

[BigStick]

I tried to stop myself, but I can't. Petty and insignificant to the debate, but in Base 3 2+2=11

11 still means 4 in base three, but I had to point it out.

I agree with the rest of your argument though.

 

[AMProducts]

When I watched the video, the perp's grandma said he was trying to turn his life around and had a job interview planned for the day after the robbery.

This immediately reminded me of Dave's classic article from last year!

<broken link removed>

When will these fools learn? "Turning your life around" is often fatal!

That reads like an onion article.

 

[duldej]

The problem with this debate is that morality and the law are almost entirely mutually exclusive.

There are two types of crimes: mala in sé, and mala prohibita.
Mala in sé crimes, like murder, or rape, are perceived by the legislature to be morally wrong, and are thus made illegal.
Mala prohibita crimes, like illegal drug possession, crimes where a perpetrator is "only hurting himself," are such simply because they are prohibited by law.

In some cases morality gibes with the law. Other times, not as much.