When you go in to court you will have to articulate just WHY you would think your life would be in imminent danger if a person were standing out there without a weapon (come on now, we are talking about a man on a man at this point, we will get back to the woman in a minute). Washington HIYC law *** CHANGE IN 2011 *** RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide By other person When justifiable. 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. RCW 9A.52.025 Residential burglary. *** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5891-S.SL) *** (1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle. (2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary. RCW 9A.52.040 Inference of intent. In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.
This is true everywhere, articulating why you felt an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, it doesn't preclude a threat without a weapon. I have given you examples of threats of imminent death or great bodily harm without weapons that justify use of deadly force. You are trying to justify your position with a specific example and man on man is not the only way imminent threat of great bodily harm can manifest itself. I'm sorry, did you see something that inferred a weapon had to be involved. I didn't. I saw this: Which mentions nothing of a weapon, just an intention and ability to carry out said intentions. I don't know why you quoted this last part as it has nothing to do with using deadly force. Your state laws clearly articulate that when a person is under imminent threat of great personal injury, deadly force may be used and never mentions that a weapon must be present. One only need use a small amount of thought process to determine all of the possibilities of being placed in imminent threat of great personal injury to understand a weapon does not need to be involved. Finally you said "come on now, we are talking about a man on a man at this point, we will get back to the woman in a minute" Please could you get back to that?
I just watched this video. Good story. Flip side? If the UBC bill had passed, she never would have been able to borrow her friends shotgun unless she went through a background check which costs money (tax) and time (more tax). In this case, no background check: good gal with a gun: 1, bad dead guy: 0
I quoted the whole law change because of this; """.... In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer"". Followed by this; """(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. """ And I quoted the last part of the new bill to show that in this state if you are inside a home or building not belonging to you it is considered burglary therefore a felony and the person has opened themselves up to getting shot; ""In any prosecution for burglary, any person WHO ENTERS OR REMAINS UNLAWFULLY IN A BUILDING MAY BE INFERRED TO HAVE ACTED WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME AGAINST A PERSON or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent."" It mentions two intents but the person inside the building can articulate with 50% accuracy that the person was there to do them harm. Now, if a person makes an aggressive move at you on the street, even if it's dark and there isn't any weapon showing, just how are you going to articulate that they were going to kill you rather than just screwing around or trying to shock or scare you?? If battle is joined and you are both similar size with similar abilities, just how are you going to articulate that the person was trying to kill you when you shot them??? When you start talking about someone twice your size you are still going to have to be convincing that they were there to kill you. A hard nut to crack in court. A woman would have a little easier time of it. "I thought he was trying to rape me" Any man that would fight a woman needs to be shot anyway. But someone just standing outside and a woman comes out of the back of the house when someone breaks into the front will be up against it to prove that person was there to help the intruder if she just ups and shoots when she sees him. As I first said, drop the one that comes in and if another comes in the back, then drop him.
OK there are two laws at work here, RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide By other person When justifiable. Which is divided into two parts. The first part says Hey you are justified if you or a family member or other person in your presence is under a reasonable belief the bad guy will commit a felony against you that will result in your life or others lives will be in in imminent danger. That is part one....no mention of a house or dwelling, or car. The above second part says Hey if you are in your home or place of abode, if you are in an attempt to resist a felony against you. Both are telling you that you can use deadly force if appropriate, neither is giving you outright permission to shoot someone just because of where you are. The second law RCW 9A.52.025 does define residential burglary as a felony if they remain in your house, you use that at your own peril. However neither of your intents requires a weapon to be present in order to use self defense and neither of your intents require you to be in your home. I suspect you need to articulate 100 percent but our original discussion was whether or not a weapon had to be present in order to use deadly force and you haven't made your case. Am I missing something? In your example I probably wouldn't shoot, I might have my weapon in my hand though. What if a 65 year old frail woman was walking on the streets and a 25 year old gangster made a move to attack the woman, you are trying to tell me, she couldn't shoot even if the man had no weapon? That's not what your law says. Also, just how do you decide you and your attacker have similar abilities. Really the idea is not to engage anyone in hand to hand even if your abilities were similar, the result of you losing could be that you die. I could inform the criminal I am armed and any attempt to attack me would be met with force, I could draw my weapon and ask them to stop, I could point it at them and ask them to stop.....what do you suppose a jury would do if I did all that he continued aggressing me and then I shot the attacker? None of these are "hard nuts to crack" if you understand justified use of deadly force. You really need to study up some. I never said I would just shoot someone helping or not, inside or not. If I lived in Washington state I would be very familiar with use of deadly force laws and use it anytime or anywhere I was put in imminent threat of death or great injury and while weapons would assist in my justification your law does not require one. I also wouldn't just up and drop someone in my house until felt I could provide information that I was under imminent threat of death or great injury. That's just me though
I saw my father at 76 engage a 27 year old that outweighed him, was 5 inches taller (the 27 year old shoved dad rather roughly and started to step back to swing) and my father reached up grabbed a hand full of hair, shock him like a dog while he was calling the police with the other hand and every time the 27 year old tried to move, dad would shake him again. Dad held him like that for over 5 minutes and the police were the ones that told him to let the perp go. I asked dad why he didn't just hit the guy (he held a 3 state championship for boxing in the welterweight division back east in the thirties and I had seen him knock a person out in the ring with a 3 inch punch), his reply was, "I didn't want to hurt him, just wanted to hold him". It depends upon the person. I am now 9 years younger than dad was at that time and I WOULD hit the fool. Now, dad stood 5' 7" tall and weighted 180, wore a size 13 ring (just think what size the man's wrists would have had to be, twice the size of mine now) compared to my 5' 10" and 200 pounds. Even though he had trained me for 8 years when I was a kid there is NO way I would have taken him on when he was 79. It just depends on the person whether they place all their faith in a weapon or if they themselves are the weapon. Oh, by the way, Small, in every dexterity test I have ever taken I have placed 50% faster than the norm. So, once again, it depends on the person. If you think you can convince a jury, do things your way and I'll do things mine. A person shoving you, drawing back a hand to hit you, is NOT an imminent threat of death or great injury, just some fool that thinks he can take his inabilities out on someone else. Once they have had a good whipping or 2 they get over that idea. I use to play a game with the mouthy ones out on the job that were pushing for a fight. I would put a cigaret in my mouth, place my hands behind my back, have him extend his arm to where his hand more than would hit the cigaret and then bet him $5 that he couldn't slap it out of my mouth in 3 swings. No body ever collected. Then I would give them a chance to get their money back with them holding the cigaret. I got it every time on the first swing. End of TROUBLE annnnnnnd 10 dollars richer!!!
How wonderful for your dad, I wonder how many 76 year olds had the skills and training your dad did, everyone in Washington state like that or are there weak and basically defenseless who need an equalizer. It's amazing how you want to judge what others get to do and how they could justify their actions by your experiences.....kinda selfish isn't it? I don't care about your dexterity, that's not the point. In convincing a jury you get to establish facts as they relate to each individual and making universal statements like they are true for everyone leads me to believe you need to allow that others aren't like you or good old dad. Each circumstance they face is based on their own individual influencing factors. Why sure it is, if you are a frail old woman, one hit is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm because one hit could kill them. Your selfishness in defining peoples rights to self defense as it relates to you is astounding. Let me assure you the definition of imminent threat of death or great bodily harm isn't dependent on a single persons vision of what could happen. Thank God one size doesn't fit all eh. As to your last idea, yeah a 45 year old with severe COPD could lay a good whipping a young banger and teach him a lesson I don't care about your macho toughness, this isn't about you. This is about EVERY American no matter what shape, medical condition, age, size, or gender being able to defend their lives. It is apparent you are trying to make selfish judgments about how everyone should judge the situation they are facing based on how you would handle it.....It don't work that way and in Washington state....you don't need to be facing a weapon to use deadly force. nuff said
