24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
Originally Posted by mathman
Quote
In Washington this would not have been a good shooting unless the robber was equally or greater armed and the victim had retreated as far as he could go. It is not enough here to be confronted face to face with a robber who is armed. You as the victim must retreat and try to get away.



That is pretty freaking sad, law or not.

It's the same here in TAX HELL WISCONSIN..

Nice, eh?


Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69
Pro-Constitution.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
BP-B2

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
In Alabama this may or may not be considered legal. The castle laws here state that protecting property (ie cash) is legal grounds for a shoot. The right to own and protect property is highly protected here.

That said, I don't think at that time, given the information posted, that I would have shot. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but for ME, killing a man isn't worth a handful of cash. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

However, the difficult thing with a fleeing crook, is it CAN be difficult to know if the guy is actually fleeing, or if he is repositioning. Given that the article states he had a sharp object, I'd think he was fleeing. If he had a gun though, I would have shot in a heartbeat as I would have still felt threatened due to the fact that he COULD be repositioning. I wouldn't risk my life on a could be.


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Turdlike, by default.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
A person shouldn't have to retreat or submit one little bit to protect their body or property, no matter where they are.

The proper response to "Hand it over or I'll kick your ass" should be the alignment of the sights on center mass.

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,570
S
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
S
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,570
Originally Posted by CoalCracker
Reminds me of some of the best legal advice I ever read. If you ever need to defend yourself in any way, tell the authorities ONLY that you were the victim of a crime and feared for your life. Anything beyond that will be forthcoming AFTER you retain an attorney.

Even if the LEOs on scene appear to be "on your side", you never know how they really feel or how a potential prosecutor may view your story
.


EXCELLENT post!

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
Originally Posted by mathman
A person shouldn't have to retreat or submit one little bit to protect their body or property, no matter where they are..
No argument from me.. But it's the stupid-azzed law in this stupid-azzed state.. mad

I know they're working on a 'castle-doctrine' bill but it's not here yet..


Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69
Pro-Constitution.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
IC B2

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by mathman
A person shouldn't have to retreat or submit one little bit to protect their body or property, no matter where they are.

The proper response to "Hand it over or I'll kick your ass" should be the alignment of the sights on center mass.


Agreed. But we do not know the situation. Perhaps he did not have time. Perhaps he was not on the alert and the first he knew anything was wrong he was looking at getting his throat slashed. I cannot second guess this as I was not in his shoes.

It is what I would have tried to do but again I was not there and I may well have found myself in the same situation.

And I agree a person should not have to run and try to hide before making the choice to defend himself. What if it were my wife and I? What if I was armed and she was not? Does the state of Washington think I should run and hide and let the bad guys do whatever they wish with her? Then is it OK to defend myself after she id dead and the have me cornered? Sounds like a pretty stupid law to me but this is Washington and that is the way the laws read.

These are decision each of have to make before we carry. It is wise to know the laws in your state and any other states you carry. Then make your own decisions as to how you would react.

BTW. I not case where I have to run and let the bad guys have my wife, it just ain't going to happen. I would rather face prison and execution as a murder that live with letting them have my wife. But that is a decision I have already made.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
[quote=HugAJackass
That said, I don't think at that time, given the information posted, that I would have shot. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but for ME, killing a man isn't worth a handful of cash. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

However, the difficult thing with a fleeing crook, is it CAN be difficult to know if the guy is actually fleeing, or if he is repositioning. Given that the article states he had a sharp object, I'd think he was fleeing. If he had a gun though, I would have shot in a heartbeat as I would have still felt threatened due to the fact that he COULD be repositioning. I wouldn't risk my life on a could be. [/quote]

Exactly how I feel.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 19,804
T
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
T
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 19,804
I'm sure I would be too scared for my life to turn my back and retreat.


"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by toltecgriz
I'm sure I would be too scared for my life to turn my back and retreat.


Yep. The law is stupid. It was written by idiots who have never had to defend themselves and believe all criminals are really good guys on the inside.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
I haven't read all the posts so I might have missed something.

Here's my opinion from Montana.

If murder is the only charge and it's murder or nothing, using jury nullification, it's not guilty based on what's known.

If it's a manslaughter charge, 2nd degree, based on the known information it would be guilty.

I suspect the charge will be manslaughter in the 2nd degree because that should a easy charge to get a conviction on. I doubt it will be a murder charge but hey, it's the liberal gun hating East coast so who knows.


Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous

"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude


IC B3

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320
1
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
1
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320
What about the robber leaving the scene of a crime? Leaving the scene of a crime is illegal, isn't it?

Would that not justify the shooting? The victum was only trying to prevent the robber from leaving the scene.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,941
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,941
Originally Posted by 1234567
What about the robber leaving the scene of a crime? Leaving the scene of a crime is illegal, isn't it?

Would that not justify the shooting? The victum was only trying to prevent the robber from leaving the scene.
For some reason, police officers are actually considered privileged to shoot those fleeing arrest if 1) they observed them commit a felony, and 2) they have reason to believe they pose a high degree of danger to society. I'd say this case qualifies. Running away was, in essence, fleeing arrest.

Now for the question why cops are in any way distinguished from anyone else in terms of privileged lethal force. There's no logic to it. Originally, we were all "the police," i.e., we all had the common law right to maintain the piece, and defend life and property. Then people got too busy to do it, and decided to either elect or hire someone to do it for them. The people then extended to these officials the full degree of their own common law powers to maintain the piece and defend life and property, i.e., police can have no greater authority than we all possess in these regards. Where did the police derive any greater degree of power than that possessed by the folks who empowered them to do their policing for them?

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by 1234567
What about the robber leaving the scene of a crime? Leaving the scene of a crime is illegal, isn't it?

Would that not justify the shooting? The victum was only trying to prevent the robber from leaving the scene.


A reach at best and a long one at that. In this case the robber did not commit a capitol crime. Armed robbery will not get you a death sentence in any state as far as I know.

Face to face with an armed robber and you have a chance. In this state you would have to have pretty convincing proof your life was in emanate danger. In other words the famous dog poop on a stick would not do it. A knife or any other kind of deadly weapon might do it. In this state a fleeing armed robber would get you a long stay away from home.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 455
S
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 455
Gentlemen,
As I see it, this is what comes from allowing a bunch of scabby-kneed, ambulance-chasing lawyers to make the laws. Like the old Ranger said, "Puttin' a lawyer in the legislature is akin to havin' a fox guard your chickens". Jim

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Well, if you put the Supreme Court in that category. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Fleeing felon statutes have pretty much been repealed so as a civilian you're looking at making out a case for justifiable homicide if you're a good shot. Imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury and all that. The old rule applies: Don't shoot anybody unless you're left with no choice. Even if justified it'll likely mess with your head.

Should add that Castle Doctrine is a legislative definition of justifiable homicide. Adds no more than that.

Last edited by nighthawk; 08/31/11.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Which explains a lot.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,863
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by 1234567
What about the robber leaving the scene of a crime? Leaving the scene of a crime is illegal, isn't it?

Would that not justify the shooting? The victum was only trying to prevent the robber from leaving the scene.
For some reason, police officers are actually considered privileged to shoot those fleeing arrest if 1) they observed them commit a felony, and 2) they have reason to believe they pose a high degree of danger to society. I'd say this case qualifies. Running away was, in essence, fleeing arrest.

Now for the question why cops are in any way distinguished from anyone else in terms of privileged lethal force. There's no logic to it. Originally, we were all "the police," i.e., we all had the common law right to maintain the piece, and defend life and property. Then people got too busy to do it, and decided to either elect or hire someone to do it for them. The people then extended to these officials the full degree of their own common law powers to maintain the piece and defend life and property, i.e., police can have no greater authority than we all possess in these regards. Where did the police derive any greater degree of power than that possessed by the folks who empowered them to do their policing for them?


It pisses you off doesn't it? That LE can do this under certain circumstances as those within Garner-vs-TN. This doesn't occur outside of the most severe and limited circumstances.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
T
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
A few points.....

First, in Texas (and yes I know our laws are somewhat unique) the defense of property IS justification for use of deadly force. Deadly force is also justified to prevent or to prevent a felon from fleeing following such things as theft, robbery, assault and even "criminal mischief" under certain circumstances. therefor in Texas this would likely be a justified shooting (particularly if it took place "in the night time"....and no, it makes no difference if it is a rural or urban setting according to the law).

Some have said the a handful of cash isn't reason enough to take a life. For me, a used beer can is reason enough because it's MY beer can.....not yours. Steal from me and pay the price if I know about it and can react.

Second, the idea that a jury "has" to convict because of the way a law is written is bullshit. No one HAS to do anything and there is a legal idea (which lawyers and judges HATE for jurors to be aware of) called Jury Nulification It matters not what THE LAW says....if a juror feels it is not justice.....he can and should "nulify" the law by voting not guilty. If you DON"T do so....in my opinion, you are guily of being an assesory after the fact and just as guilty as the original criminal.

The final point that amazes me is that the same people here who say that the would "have" to vote guilty....even though they also say they think the man was justified.....are mostly the same folks who loudly proclaim that they'd never give up their guns if a law were passed saying they must.

Does this mean that you also believe that a person has the right to ignor any law they choose because they don't agree with it....but MUST follow other laws? You NEVER "have" to convict when on a jury....grow a set of balls and stand up for what's right or blindly follow whatever instructions THE LAW decides you should.....you can't have it both ways.

Maybe I'm a bit different, but I was taught a truth by my father and grandfather....and have taught my children the same thing,

"Never let the LAW stand in the way of what's right and wrong!"


I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,307
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,307
Scott---Washington self defense laws are not that bad.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force � When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) 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;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.










RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide � By other person � When justifiable.


*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5045.SL) ***

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.


[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 � 9A.16.050.]


�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12,664
D
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12,664
Originally Posted by bea175
This happened in West Virginia by the name i would bet the robber was a Illegal


The news reports he's a citizen. Illegals can't get a permit. Several Logan residents have come out in support of Jesus. Two witness tell it just like Jesus. Meth heads hanging around WalMarts waiting for someone to rob are starting to be a problem. David Abbot is now a good citizen after rehab.


The Karma bus always has an empty seat when it comes around.- High Brass

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,941
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,941
Originally Posted by TexasRick
A few points.....

First, in Texas (and yes I know our laws are somewhat unique) the defense of property IS justification for use of deadly force. Deadly force is also justified to prevent or to prevent a felon from fleeing following such things as theft, robbery, assault and even "criminal mischief" under certain circumstances. therefor in Texas this would likely be a justified shooting (particularly if it took place "in the night time"....and no, it makes no difference if it is a rural or urban setting according to the law).

Some have said the a handful of cash isn't reason enough to take a life. For me, a used beer can is reason enough because it's MY beer can.....not yours. Steal from me and pay the price if I know about it and can react.

Second, the idea that a jury "has" to convict because of the way a law is written is bullshit. No one HAS to do anything and there is a legal idea (which lawyers and judges HATE for jurors to be aware of) called Jury Nulification It matters not what THE LAW says....if a juror feels it is not justice.....he can and should "nulify" the law by voting not guilty. If you DON"T do so....in my opinion, you are guily of being an assesory after the fact and just as guilty as the original criminal.

The final point that amazes me is that the same people here who say that the would "have" to vote guilty....even though they also say they think the man was justified.....are mostly the same folks who loudly proclaim that they'd never give up their guns if a law were passed saying they must.

Does this mean that you also believe that a person has the right to ignor any law they choose because they don't agree with it....but MUST follow other laws? You NEVER "have" to convict when on a jury....grow a set of balls and stand up for what's right or blindly follow whatever instructions THE LAW decides you should.....you can't have it both ways.

Maybe I'm a bit different, but I was taught a truth by my father and grandfather....and have taught my children the same thing,

"Never let the LAW stand in the way of what's right and wrong!"
I agree on all points.

Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
694 members (10gaugemag, 10ring1, 12308300, 007FJ, 160user, 10Glocks, 81 invisible), 2,740 guests, and 1,307 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,637
Posts18,398,948
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.115s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9151 MB (Peak: 1.0925 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 17:04:54 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS