Washington Farmer Detains Burglars at Gunpoint

[JustSomeGuy]

I thought there was an old law saying you could use lethal force to defend property you were dependant on that property for revenue?

Both of the examples you shared the thieves were armed which isn't the same as what the sheriff stated in the quote I shared.

"In this case the bad guys had a weapon, but really ...holding someone at gunpoint is incredibly complicated situation you better be sure your life is in danger. Is protecting your property a life threatening situation?"

And how, exactly, does one make an accurate assessment of the lethality or intentions of a total stranger that is not obviously in possession of something other than their empty hands and feet? I'm certain beyond any doubt that, even at 80 years old, I'm more than capable of exercising lethal force with nothing more than my bare hands and feet.

Just my opinion, but I don't view displaying the ability to exercise lethal force as being the equivalent of using lethal force.

As an example; Thief caught in the act advances with hands at the ready and clearly means to inflict bodily harm. Would I be legally required to allow the confrontation to continue on a "parity of force" basis considering that I have no idea what level of harm said thief is capable of inflicting? Or, would a reasonable and prudent man display his ability to exercise superior force? I would posit that the display of superior force is the most likely response to end the confrontation with the least amount of physical injury to either party.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Some things to consider here with cases like this are.....

Not only would you have found someone to be a threat...but that the folks investigating and perhaps a jury will also need to find that someone was a threat.

What is threatening to one person , may not be seen as a threat to another.

The often mentioned 21 foot rule applies to many things besides knives...to include bare hands and feet .
At least in my mind...however....again someone else may not think so...someone say on a investigation team or jury.

And please spare me the just as often mentioned old saw of :
Better to judged by 12 , than carried by 6.
Yes I will do what it takes to survive a situation...however...I have been on two juries and have seen and interacted with my so called peers on them....my take away was....don't go to court.

As for the OP...
Not so sure I would have held them at gun point...and I damn sure wouldn't have fired any warning shots...
Or considered to do so , as was actually stated in the article.
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Some things to consider here with cases like this are.....

Not only would you have found someone to be a threat...but that the folks investigating and perhaps a jury will also need to find that someone was a threat.

What is threatening to one person , may not be seen as a threat to another.

The often mentioned 21 foot rule applies to many things besides knives...to include bare hands and feet .
At least in my mind...however....again someone else may not think so...someone say on a investigation team or jury.

And please spare me the just as often mentioned old saw of :
Better to judged by 12 , than carried by 6.
Yes I will do what it takes to survive a situation...however...I have been on two juries and have seen and interacted with my so called peers on them....my take away was....don't go to court.

As for the OP...
Not so sure I would have held them at gun point...and I damn sure wouldn't have fired any warning shots...
Or considered to do so , as was actually stated in the article.
Andy

Cops: "So you fired a warning shot?"
Farmer: "No, I missed."

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Cops: "So you fired a warning shot?"
Farmer: "No, I missed."

I laughed here...but good answer.
Andy


Unless it goes like this :
Cops : "So you fired a warning shot ?"
Farmer : No , I missed. "
Cops : " You sure you are a farmer ? "

 

[solv3nt]

Cops : " You sure you are a farmer ? "

 

[Stomper]

throw them in the wood chipper for fertilizer and grow a garden....

Wait, that might have gone too far. The fertilizer part.

Three words:

Prize Winning Tomatoes!

 

[Stomper]

"They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes."


Brick Top

I hear the best way to transport a body is in 5 easy pieces…. I mean, you can't go walking around the streets with a stiff rolled up in a carpet, now can you?

 

[Koda]

I read the article, guy talked about doing a warning shot to get them compliant. He's lucky he didn't - discharge of firearms not in self defense but to intimidate others isn't legal. The perps could literally argue that they then had to defend themselves against lethal force from this guy who threatened them with a gun for a crime (burglary) that is not punishable by lethal force.

We can talk about what "should be" - sure, thieves can all ESAD, and I wouldn't shed a tear, but that's not how the law sees it and that's why good people get locked up for shooting bad people.

Yup,

And the local sheriff encouraging holding people at gunpoint for mere property crimes.

 

[Stomper]

Yup,

And the local sheriff encouraging holding people at gunpoint for mere property crimes.

I'd argue that "mere" property crimes can be absolutely devastating to the lives of the crime victims, especially small farmers that generally live by their shoestrings season after season.

Notwithstanding, I'm glad he doesn't have to live with having taken someone's life, justified or otherwise.

 

[Tinman357]

A lot of innocent people get killed, raped, otherwise damaged by those "mere property crimes"

Once the bad guy knows you are on/in your property, and doesn't immediately leave, that signals to me he's ready/prepared for a physical confrontation.

Bad guy knows it is not his property, has pre-armed himself, has displayed intent to do bodily harm.

I don't feel the farmer drew his weapon to defend his property. I feel he drew it to defend his life once he saw one of the do-bads had a lethal weapon.

It ain't "mere property", it will very likely be your life. This recent brand of criminal will kill you for the watch/wedding ring they can trade for a few hits of fentynal. They won't hesitate, hell, they wont even blink.

Its easier for them to take it off your unconcious/dead body than waste time trying to get you to give it up.

An increasing trend is to overwhelm the victim with brutal violence with no verbal clues at all. Just explosive violence.

Doubt it? Spend a little time watching any one of a few thousand youtube videos on the subject. With the open border policy of the current administration, more attacks are being added every day.

The days of the shady looking creep growling "gimme all yer munny" are long gone. These days its a rock or a skateboard to the back of the head on a busy street in broad daylight, with zero warning. And its usually a swarm of them.

The lone bad guy is becoming a rarity these days. This is spreading into smaller suburbs and increasingly rural areas.

Blemmers and Panti-fa warned that they were coming to the 'burbs. They meant it. The illegal immigrants coming from 3rd world crime infested toilets are not like the home grown thugs we used to hear about from time to time.

This new breed is far more violent with none of our societies inhibitions. They aren't deterred by our liberal "justice system" and seem to feel that whatever they want is free for the taking, with no repercussions, if they even get caught.

I'll say it again.
It ain't "mere property"

 

[American123]

Yup,

And the local sheriff encouraging holding people at gunpoint for mere property crimes.

Being employed in law enforcement doesn't guarantee an understanding of the law, but that's also the issue.

The issue IS the law. Common sense has been removed from society. The law has been written in such a way that criminals face next to no punishment, if any punishment at all. So of course it is very frustrating dealing with incessant pieces of crap victimizing others because the law protects them more than the victims of their crimes.

If theft was punishable by lethal force, crime would plummet, but the soft on crime politicians prefer we become a 3rd world country due to out of control theft and general lawlessness.

That all being said, what's right and what's the law are two different things. So while I wouldn't fault the guy for potentially shooting the thieves, he's be in prison if he did unless it was determined to meet the qualifications of justified self defense (which the lines for that are already skewed in favor of the criminals/attacker who basically gets to put you in a near death situation before it is deemed "reasonable" by the court.)

 

[Koda]

I'd argue that "mere" property crimes can be absolutely devastating to the lives of the crime victims, especially small farmers that generally live by their shoestrings season after season.

You can argue that but it wont fly in court.
Everyone here knows that property theft is not a lethal threat. You can pysically try to stop them but unless they are armed or assaulting you can't threaten deadly force to stop them.

Ive heard about some old law about protecting livlihood, i havnt heard of it used or know what it actually allows. I think if were gonna cite that law we need to share a link so we can discuss otherwise its all hearsay.

 

[Alexx1401]

I hear the best way to transport a body is in 5 easy pieces…. I mean, you can't go walking around the streets with a stiff rolled up in a carpet, now can you?

Made me think of that movie with Jimmy Stewart. Where guy makes a bunch of trips in the night with a suitcase while his neighbor notices he no longer sees the guys Wife.

 

[Alexx1401]

You can argue that but it wont fly in court.
Everyone here knows that property theft is not a lethal threat. You can pysically try to stop them but unless they are armed or assaulting you can't threaten deadly force to stop them.

Ive heard about some old law about protecting livlihood, i havnt heard of it used or know what it actually allows. I think if were gonna cite that law we need to share a link so we can discuss otherwise its all hearsay.

The MOST important thing in a case like this is controlling your mouth. People who get in trouble over a shoot almost always dig a hole for themselves with their mouth. It can be amazing to watch so many who just can NOT shut the hell up. Wait for a lawyer to do the talking for you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Made me think of that movie with Jimmy Stewart. Where guy makes a bunch of trips in the night with a suitcase while his neighbor notices he no longer sees the guys Wife.

That is a great movie...Rear Window.
Andy

 

[The Heretic]

um...no.


In this case the bad guys had a weapon, but really ...holding someone at gunpoint is incredibly complicated situation you better be sure your life is in danger. Is protecting your property a life threatening situation?

Grant County Sheriff's Office spokesman Kyle Foreman told Fox News Digital that Washington state law allows people to "use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person" whenever "reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public."

 

[The Heretic]

I thought there was an old law saying you could use lethal force to defend property you were dependant on that property for revenue?

Both of the examples you shared the thieves were armed which isn't the same as what the sheriff stated in the quote I shared.

Grant County Sheriff's Office spokesman Kyle Foreman told Fox News Digital that Washington state law allows people to "use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person" whenever "reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public."

 

[Koda]

Grant County Sheriff's Office spokesman Kyle Foreman told Fox News Digital that Washington state law allows people to "use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person" whenever "reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public."

Notice he didnt say use lethal force.

 

[Stomper]

Notice he didnt say use lethal force.

The key takeaway word is, "reasonable". The farmer exhibited extraordinary reasonableness (up to exhorting they work on redeeming themselves) compared to the mayhem I have witnessed (so far) during my (let's just say) "colorful" lifetime.

As a potential juror, I see that he had no initial intention, nor a burning desire to "smoke" any intruders and THAT makes all the difference in judging this scenario.

 

[Koda]

The key takeaway word is, "reasonable". The farmer exhibited extraordinary reasonableness

The farmer was facing someone with a weapon.