Rough year for burglars getting shot in Tacoma County.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/bad-year-for-burglars-tacoma-continues-with-wednesday-shooting

• On April 4, Jamarr Johnson, 19, died after he and two others broke into a home in the 3800 block of East J Street. An occupant of the home heard the burglars and fired through a door, killing Johnson.

• On May 23, Anthony Len McDougald, 36, was killed when he and another man broke into a home in the 3800 block of South D Street. The homeowner heard noises, confronted the two intruders inside his detached garage and told police he shot them when they charged him. The other burglar was injured but survived.

• On May 24, a Tacoma police officer shot and injured a suspected burglar after a confrontation outside a South Tacoma home where the man had crashed his car.

And today's event:


Contractor arrived at a home, saw burglar carrying stuff our, called homeowner to verify, homeowner called police, contractor confronted burglar, burglar got in his vehichle and tried to ram the contractor's pickup out of the way so he could escape, contractor shot burglar, burglar ran away but was caught later, is now in hospital, condition unknown.

That is a total of five burglars shot so far this year. Washington state has Castle Doctrine law. Its a beautiful thing, unless you are a burglar.

[gateley]

1. What's Castle Doctrine law? I'm a Washingtonian and I'm not

familiar with it, probably because I don't have a gun. Thanks!

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Your home is your castle and you can defend it with lethal force.

Basically a state with Castle Doctrine law allows you to presume that someone who has illegally forcibly entered your home while you are there is a deadly threat to your life or the lives of any of your family members or guests present. Based on that presumption you are allowed to shoot the intruder without giving any warning, and you are not required to retreat from your own home in the face of intruders. You are not required to use only proportional force as it is extremely difficult to know just how much force would be proportional when you are facing a burglar in your own home. So the law short-cirucits that problem by allowing you to go directly to lethal force.

Some states may have some nuances to the law so it would be well to read Washington's law to know exactly how you would stand.

[gateley]

6. Thanks. If I ever decide to buy a gun I'll definitely check this --

and other -- laws first. :hi:

[iverglas]

8. sadly, the description you have been given is not accurate

For starters, these ugly laws do not "allow you to presume" anything.

The law itself states a presumption that the person who has broken in intends to cause harm (even if the person is a 10-yr-old) and a presumption that you feared injury or death (even if the person is a 10-yr-old). You may have known perfectly well that no harm was intended, and had no fear whatsoever. Doesn't matter. The police/prosecution are not allowed to prosecute if the condition is met: that a person had forcibly and unlawfully entered your home. Once that happens, you are immune from investigation or prosecution.

This means more than immunity; it means impunity. Killing people with impunity.

If you're interested in reality rather than obfuscation, this thread offers it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x125237

The laws are not remotely consistent with the fundamental "liberal" principle of the worth and dignity of the individual, and are clear violations of constitutional guarantees regarding the right to life.

Joe Biden really would not support this vicious, anti-human legislation. ;)

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel.

POP went the weasel.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Dancing with words but adding no clarity or insight does not help the discourse

Your comment is well done

[iverglas]

29. hahaha, very insightful

Dancing with words but adding no clarity or insight does not help the discourse
Your comment is well done

As an example of what you say -- it was indeed very well done!

:rofl:

As is your own, of course.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. And that would be a very interesting thread indeed if it were about the state under discussion

Unfortunately, that was about Florida, not Washington.
I did like this little bit you wrote:

Damn, I love it when I am 100%, on all counts, RIGHT.

At least, in the opinion of people who count.

Did the Harvard Law student that wrote the paper actually get Florida's Castle Doctrine law overturned, or at least help?
No,he did not; apparently he "counts" by having the proper alma mater and agreeing with you.

[iverglas]

18. ah, it seeeeeems that way to you, does it?

apparently he "counts" by having the proper alma mater and agreeing with you

He "counted" by being someone with an actual knowledge of the law and by citing and quoting a whole lot of other people recognized as authoritative on the subject of the law and this area of the law in particular.

This put him in the same category as me, and does not describe anyone else in this forum.

You guys found any authoritative sources to rebut anything he or I or the judge in Kentucky or the criminal law expert in Kentucky, or even the prosecutors in Kentucky, or the Florida legislature's own legal counsel, had to say about these disgusting pieces of legal garbage?

Didn't think so.

Anybody want to post the actual Washington state legislation and show me where it differs from the Florida legislation? If it does, in some substantive way, I'll be very happy to know.

[DWC]

19. Malignant Authoritarian Narcissism at its best

"He "counted" by being someone with an actual knowledge of the law and by citing and quoting a whole lot of other people recognized as authoritative on the subject of the law and this area of the law in particular.

This put him in the same category as me, and does not describe anyone else in this forum"

“all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Please instruct us "Napoleon"

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

23. I hope you'll forgive me

Malignant Authoritarian Narcissism at its best

But I don't consider accusations of being a troll with a personality disorder anything that needs responding to on this website.

However, if you're going to diagnose people by internet, you might want to actually know what you're talking about. "Malignant narcissism" has a meaning, even though it isn't actually in the DSM-IV, and so your use of the term at all might be seen as little more than an attempt at insult. You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
and then consider whether that diagnosis (false as it is here in any event) is something you really want to level at a member of this website.

As well, if you are going to accuse members of this website of being "authoritarian", you might want to back your words up with something. Or maybe take your complaint to the appropriate, uh, authority.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. And what effect does his opinion have on the law in our states?

None. So why bother with him?

[iverglas]

24. what effect does your opinion have on anything?

None. So I defer to your wisdom, and will not bother with you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Gotta take your "legal experts" where you find them

[iverglas]

28. Well, you sure won't find one in the opening post

See my post 27, down at the bottom.

More fool me for accepting the satement in the opening post at face value.

And more evidence that one needs to look for actual legal experts, because they are sure as hell in short supply in this forum, to put it mildly.

Washington state does not have "castle law" doctrine.

Now go find a "legal expert" who says otherwise, 'k?

[gateley]

11. Ooooh, you got me with the Biden bit!

:7

Not to worry, the thought of owning a gun scares me to death anyway, I was just curious what the law was. I'll check out the link - thanks! :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Be aware that the linked article is about a different state, Florida.

and I can sum it up for you: Florida's Castle Law is bad.
What this has to do with Washington's Castle Law escapes me...

[gateley]

13. Thanks. I appreciate all the help, but I was mostly just

curious. :hi:

[iverglas]

17. tricky, wasn't I? ;)

I remember the Biden forum from the primaries (and I still have my bookmark for the youtube where Joe demonstrates how to walk, chew and smack Giuliani down with a simple roll of the eyes, all at the same time) -- Joe is still my man, has been since the Clarence Thomas hearings. Smart as hell, and cute. And Joe is a "liberal". I'm not, but if I were in the US, he'd have been my choice.

"Castle doctrine" laws are about as ILliberal as they come, I'm afraid.

Nice to see you again!

[The Green Manalishi]

38. Yes

And a good thing, too.


"The law itself states a presumption that the person who has broken in intends to cause harm (even if the person is a 10-yr-old) and a presumption that you feared injury or death (even if the person is a 10-yr-old). You may have known perfectly well that no harm was intended, and had no fear whatsoever. Doesn't matter. The police/prosecution are not allowed to prosecute if the condition is met: that a person had forcibly and unlawfully entered your home. Once that happens, you are immune from investigation or prosecution.

This means more than immunity; it means impunity. Killing people with impunity."

yes. As it should be.

[iverglas]

42. nobody else will tell me - will you?

This means more than immunity; it means impunity. Killing people with impunity.
yes. As it should be.

My question is simple and easily answered.

Is your statement a principle of

- liberal philosophy
- progressive philosophy
- democratic philosophy
- Democratic Party policy
- more than one of the above

?

Easily answered: identify the philosophy/policy your statement is a principle of, or even consistent with, or jsut say "no".

I look forward to continued fruitful discourse!

[The Green Manalishi]

45. My own philosophy,

Which might, or might not have anything to do with a liberal. Democratic, progressive or any other sort of agenda on any specific facet of any specific issue. Whilst I have always found the Democratic candidate preferable to the Republican one, and have voted thusly, I in no way am beholden to any specific agenda outside of the greatest good for the greatest number at the lowest cost :-)

In my humble and respectful opinion your statement is an unfruitful, ineffective and discursive example of reductio ad absurdum that would have earned a 'd' in freshman high school rhetoric. The age (or race, socio-economic status, gender, intoxication or intent) of someone attempting to gain forceful ingress into a domicile is completely irrelevant; old enough to kick down a door, old enough to kill you, old enough to be defended against with a lethal level of force first and all other matters investigated and attended to in due order later with, ideally, complete exculpability, at least in the legal sense (despite the morbid and dishonest stereotypes that many firearms restrictionists seem to have, I would be traumatized and probably permanently so if I had to ever use lethal force in defending myself or my domicile, however in my opinion the greatest good for the greatest number would come about if robbers, rapists and carjackers were at the highest possible risk of finding themselves violently and rapidly expiring any time they ply their tactics, YMMV).

Regards

[iverglas]

49. high school rhetoric?

Nobody teaches that kind of nonsense where I am. But whatever, you obviously didn't pass the course.

In my humble and respectful opinion your statement is an unfruitful, ineffective and discursive example of reductio ad absurdum that would have earned a 'd' in freshman high school rhetoric.

If only I'd made a statement ...

Yeeeeesh.

Or maybe I see. You've moved from that clever answer to my question (yes, you vote for Democratic Party candidates, there we are, all done and dusted) back up to the one statement I did make:

This means more than immunity; it means impunity. Killing people with impunity.

And you seem to think that stating a conclusion based on facts is something called "reductio ad absurdum". You might want to google that.

As for:

The age (or race, socio-economic status, gender, intoxication or intent) of someone attempting to gain forceful ingress into a domicile is completely irrelevant

I will just say, in my confused Canadian way: Eh? What the fuck are you yammering about there? Did you think you'd wandered into somebody else's fantasy?

... old enough to kick down a door, old enough to kill you, old enough to be defended against with a lethal level of force first and all other matters investigated and attended to in due order later with, ideally, complete exculpability, at least in the legal sense (despite the morbid and dishonest stereotypes that many firearms restrictionists seem to have, I would be traumatized and probably permanently so if I had to ever use lethal force in defending myself or my domicile ...

Do you have any idea how minute a pinch of poop I give about how traumatised you would be after killing someone if you had no reasonable belief that you were about to be seriously injured or killed and had no reasonable alternative to using force (something you notably failed to address in that oh so rhetorical rhetoric)? Get out your microscope, and you probably still won't find it, because it won't be there. So why are you dribbling that at me?

... however in my opinion the greatest good for the greatest number would come about if robbers, rapists and carjackers were at the highest possible risk of finding themselves violently and rapidly expiring any time they ply their tactics, YMMV).

Yes, and the famous criminogists of the 17th century would all agree with you. Sadly, you know as well as anyone else in this century does that no such thing does come about. All that's coming about these days is a number of very unpleasant people getting away with murder.

Would I be way off the mark if I imagined you are a member of the Tony Martin fan club?

[The Green Manalishi]

55. One more time, and I'll try to use smaller words and shorter sentences for your sake.

"Do you have any idea how minute a pinch of poop I give about how traumatized you would be after killing someone if you had no reasonable belief that you were about to be seriously injured or killed and had no reasonable alternative to using force (something you notably failed to address in that oh so rhetorical rhetoric)? Get out your microscope, and you probably still won't find it, because it won't be there. So why are you dribbling that at me? "

Are you capable of following an argument or comprehending English? I think you are not only one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen try to string a paragraph together but so incapable of comprehending anyone else's argument that you would be funny if, as with Rick Perry, there weren't people who actually agreed with you. Your lies and errors do not require a microscope, indeed they are as obvious and odious as an oil spill.
Your lame attempt was specifically: ""The law itself states a presumption that the person who has broken in intends to cause harm (even if the person is a 10-yr-old) and a presumption that you feared injury or death (even if the person is a 10-yr-old). You may have known perfectly well that no harm was intended, and had no fear whatsoever".

Your ridiculous attempt at an argument was that some supposed person, able and attempting to kick down a door to gain violent and forceful entry was actually a 10 year old kid. Thus perhaps trying to create a fevered and imbecilic implication that someone who would terminate anyone attempting forced entry, or support the legal freedom of any resident to do likewise, would also love to kill a 10 year old kid? Or just suggesting that the homeowner should check the ID of the person trying to break in. No one could be so irrational as to believe that someone using violent force to gain entry into a house could possibly have any other intent than to cause harm to the residents thereof.

The simple fact is that, yes, I support the right of a person on their own property to use lethal force against anyone attempting to gain forced entry against their domicile.

Period.

Someone trying to kick in my door, force me out of my car or assaulting my wife is also a person without whom the world would be a better place. Killing them, on the basis of those actions alone is entirely justified.

And society should prevent prosecution or litigious action against anyone who acts to defend their person or property against what rational people believe would constitute such a threat, which, in the consensus of people who are not afflicted with an irrational hatred of guns and gun owners, can most definitely include forcing entry into a house.

[iverglas]

61. goldarn it, I missed this one

Your ridiculous attempt at an argument was that some supposed person, able and attempting to kick down a door to gain violent and forceful entry was actually a 10 year old kid.

Ooooh, the ... is it intellectual dishonesty or lack of basic reading/reasoning skills?** ... just oozes from this one.

The requirement is "unlawfully and forcefully". Breaking in a window and then entering meets that requirement. My brother broke the neighbour's basement window with a stone when he was about eight. He and another neighbour kid were playing, you know, how hard can we throw a stone at a window without breaking it. Imagine if they had then climbed in the window.

<** I quote: Are you capable of following an argument or comprehending English? I think you are not only one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen try to string a paragraph together but so incapable of comprehending anyone else's argument that you would be funny if ...>


Thus perhaps trying to create a fevered and imbecilic implication that someone who would terminate anyone attempting forced entry, or support the legal freedom of any resident to do likewise, would also love to kill a 10 year old kid?

That's your fevered imagination there, son, not mine. However, I did post a news item here recently in which someone shot a 13-yr-old who had broken in ... in the back. Just not so far-fetched, not when ya live in one of those "castle doctrine" states. That one was Florida.

I merely stated what the effects and meaning and intent of the law are. I'll leave the speculation about mental status to you.


The simple fact is that, yes, I support the right of a person on their own property to use lethal force against anyone attempting to gain forced entry against their domicile.

Period.

I believe I've told you how much of a shit I give about what you support or don't support. (Have you ever noticed that saying one "supports the right ..." is kind of a nonsense?)

So there ya go.


Uh oh. Uh oh. I've just spotted a problem. We went beyond that cute "intellectually dishonest" stuff. Just got carried away on the wings of our own rhetoric, did we? --

Your lies and errors do not require a microscope, indeed they are as obvious and odious as an oil spill.

Uh oh. I think you said a magic word, O! Green Manalishi. I think something may be about to disappear in a cloud of pink smoke.


I'll just immortalize these here words first:

Someone trying to kick in my door, force me out of my car or assaulting my wife is also a person without whom the world would be a better place. Killing them, on the basis of those actions alone is entirely justified.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. Well said.

The simple fact is that, yes, I support the right of a person on their own property to use lethal force against anyone attempting to gain forced entry against their domicile.

Period.

Exactly.

Careful, though. You might not be a true Scotsman.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. Just so.

Which might, or might not have anything to do with a liberal. Democratic, progressive or any other sort of agenda on any specific facet of any specific issue. Whilst I have always found the Democratic candidate preferable to the Republican one, and have voted thusly, I in no way am beholden to any specific agenda outside of the greatest good for the greatest number at the lowest cost :-)

Some people around here think that unless you bend over and spread them for anyone who wants a quickie you just aren't a liberal.

[ileus]

2. that's not very progressive of these gunners...criminals need love to.

[cliffordu]

4. LOL.

The word "love" embossed in REALLY small type on the business end of a .45 apc cartridge

[ileus]

5. 45 when you care enough to send the very best.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. . . .

[gravity556]

7. Play stupid games, win multiple supersonic prizes!

[MyrnaLoy]

14. Yeah

been a rough year for police officers getting shot also. 47, a 21% increase. http://www.odmp.org/ Got any more anecdotal information? Would you like to compare handgun murders to burglars being shot in any given year? You posted 5, I could provide over 100 gun crimes during the same period. Let's compare OK?

[Kennah]

15. If present trends continue, 77 officers killed by gunfire this year

Things are cyclical, and unfortunately we're on an upward trend.

Killed by gunfire by year

1970 - 107
1971 - 141
1972 - 122
1973 - 142
1974 - 140
1975 - 144
1976 - 105
1977 - 96
1978 - 100
1979 - 112
1980 - 104
1981 - 93
1982 - 91
1983 - 81
1984 - 72
1985 - 76
1986 - 75
1987 - 75
1988 - 80
1989 - 69
1990 - 61
1991 - 73
1992 - 65
1993 - 77
1994 - 84
1995 - 70
1996 - 60
1997 - 68
1998 - 64
1999 - 43
2000 - 50
2001 - 65
2002 - 57
2003 - 48
2004 - 56
2005 - 53
2006 - 51
2007 - 66
2008 - 40
2009 - 47
2010 - 59
2011 - 77

[GreenStormCloud]

22. That's why I carry a gun.

To protect myself if one of those 100+ decides that I am his next victim. The gun is also very good if the thug happens to be armed with a knife or just his fists.

[PavePusher]

26. How many were done by legal gun owners and/or Concealed permit/licence holders?

Despite your insinuation, the percentage is probably pretty low or non-existant

Anyway, the numbers you want to compare are irrelevent, as succeful self-defense only rarely requires shooting someone, and even more rarely results in death.

But hey, I'm sure the Republicans appreciate you helping to push the "FEAR!" meme.

[MyrnaLoy]

37. non-existant?

How many more time are you going to be wrong? "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed at Least 139 Since May 2007, Including 9 Law Enforcement Officers" http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/19

We all know the number is probably much higher because the NRA, the GOP, and the Gungion fight to keep permit holder records sealed.

[PavePusher]

39. Yes, yes.... you've pointed to that VPC claim many times.....

and thus far, both you and the VPC have failed to cite evidence that any of those folks had Concealed Weapons permits, or that they were otherwise legal.

Cite your evidence or give up your little spoof of moral poutrage.

[MyrnaLoy]

40. The evidence has been provided

you just deny it. This guy killed two.

"all that can be found of the disabled, former coal miner are a trio of concealed weapons permit applications and renewals dating back to 1999" http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/mar/15/randy-gilbert-newberry-lived-quiet-life-according--ar-905824/


I can provide the evidence. Either way you're still wrong as always. How many times is that now, 6

How about this guy, Jason Kenneth Hamilton he had a permit also. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/145109/shocking%3A_concealed_handgun_permit_holders_have_killed_9_law_enforcement_officers_and_108_citizens_since_may_2007/

You know the numbers are right, you just are blinded by Hoppes number 9 worship. Maybe the fumes have gotten to you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. He did NOT deny it. He DID say "The percentage is probably pretty low..."

You even validated it with this line:

How many times is that now, 6

Out of more than six million CCW holders, that is indeed a pretty low percentage.

You know, if you have to make shit up to support your argument- it wasn't a good argument to begin with.

Anyway, don't you have some apologias for the ATF to write? For some reason, you haven't been posting any lately...

[MyrnaLoy]

53. you left this part out

"or non-existant" Try reading a little harder and not skipping over parts you don't want to see.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Seems a perfectly reasonable sentence to me. It admits of reasonable doubt

A practice that you should take up...

[GreenStormCloud]

41. It has been shown to you before that the VPC numbers are "cooked". N/T

[MyrnaLoy]

54. then

disprove any of these cop killers. Prove they didn't have permits. You made the accusation now back it up. I've shown VPC and newspaper articles showing that they had permits and the numbers are real. You made an accusation that the info is false, prove it. We'll all be waiting.






For a long time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Yes, you've proved that permit holders kill cops at a lower rate than *cops* kill cops.

No one has claimed that CCW holders were all saints, despite your claims to the contrary.

You've spent a great deal of time and energy arguing against things that people haven't said.
Your life, of course, is yours to do with as you wish...

[Kennah]

16. Washington's Castle Doctrine can be found in RCW 9A.16

The use of force statutes are overall very good, and the added allowance for the use of deadly force in a dwelling is a fairly narrow window.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

[AtheistCrusader]

68. That's not Castle Doctrine.

[iverglas]

27. Ah, so this statement is actually not true

Washington state has Castle Doctrine law.

Or are the statutes linked to in the post above mine out of date?

Because this is what they say :

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

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:

... (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; ...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

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.

The change referred to is here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202011/5045.SL.pdf

EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/11

RCW 9A.16.050 and 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.16.050 are 17 each amended to read as follows:

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 or her 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 or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

The bits underlined (in the original) are the only changes indicated.

Is there something newer? I'd kind of think not, since that document isn't a month old yet.


In what sense is this "Castle Doctrine" law? What it actually is, is pretty much the classical law of self-defence.

In point of fact, when I google "washington state" "castle doctrine" I am told that Washington State does NOT have this "castle doctrine" law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Washington
I suppose the assessment there will be wrong because I agree with it.

What Washington state has, by judicial interpretation, is no "duty to retreat", known in the less testosterone-driven parts of the world as a requirement that the person believe, "on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm".

That's an essential bit of genuine self-defence law, but omitting it really and simply does not make a law "castle doctrine" law. "Stand your ground" law, indeed. They are not the same thing.


So may I ask:

Why did you state in your opening post that Washington state has castle doctrine law?

Mea culpa that I relied on your statement, I guess.

[iverglas]

30. is that chirping I hear?

It's reasonable to allow a poster more than a couple of hours to reply before commenting, but ...... NO comment from anybody in this thread?

:eyes:

[Kennah]

47. You responded to the OP, but addressed your comments to me

As such, you were treated to crickets.

[iverglas]

51. excuse me

I responded TO THE OP, and specifically to this statement in the OP:

"Washington state has Castle Doctrine law"

and asked why that statement was made when it appeared to be incorrect.

You had posted the legislation in question, on which I based my question about the incorrect statement.

I did not address any comments to you.

The chirping I heard was from everyone reading/posting in this thread, all of whom appeared to have exhibited the most supreme lack of interest in the actual facts.

I said in my comment about the chirping that I was not expecting an immediate answer from the author of the OP (since one should not expect someone else to reply within a fixed timeframe simply because one chose to post something), but I would have thought that surely someone would have had something to say about the actual facts once they were posted.

None of it had anything to do with you except that you had posted the content of the legislation, from which it was apparent that Washington is not a "castle doctrine" state.

So I received no treats from you thereafter.

What a carry-on about nothing.



edited - I misspoke and said "bill" when I was talking about the legislation; fixed

[Kennah]

57. I think you mean excuses, which is what I'm hearing

[GreenStormCloud]

31. I just now got back from two hours in an oxygen hyperbaric chamber.

And it was a 30 minute drive there and back. It is part of my post-surgery therapy.

I got the information about Washington having Castle Doctrine from this site: http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-castle-doctrine-a-state-by-state-summary/

[iverglas]

I was patient

No wait ... you were the patient ...

That source gives this one from two years later when you click on the map (I could find no reference to Washington state at the 2007 link, other than what seems to be an inaccurate map):

http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/castle-doctrine-map-update-for-january-2009/

and that one links to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_ref-9

which says:

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,<9> Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,<10> South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,<11> West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,<12> New Hampshire, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.

Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law<16> before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.

So in actual fact, it is exactly as I said.

Washington state is very definitely not a "castle doctrine" state, and "stand your ground" is the law there (in residences) although by judicial decision, not statute.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. And the map shows CS states as red, including WA.

[iverglas]

34. is the map an authority?

Unless you have some basis for saying it is, that reply doesn't tell us much.

The map appears to have been created by the individual whose blog it is on. He appears to be mistaken.

If you know otherwise, you can say.

I've quoted the actual law. It is not "castle doctrine" law. I'm not sure what more there is to be said.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Map is wrong.

Hope nobody read your OP, and no follow up, and goes and does something unlawful in this state.

[ManiacJoe]

35. Yes, you are correct.

WA state does not have explicit "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books.

[iverglas]

36. c'mon, let's speak plainly

WA state does not have explicit "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books.

No. Washington state does not have anything remotely resembling "castle doctrine" laws on its books.

What it has is the absolutely classical law of self-defence, from which the courts have apparently excised the requirement that force not be used in self-defence if an alternative is reasonable available.

Eliminating that requirement does NOT make the law even slightly similar to "castle doctrine" law. It is not.

It makes my eyes hurt every time I see that, let alone have to type it. The laws in question are actually atrocities that have nothing to do with the "home is your castle" doctrine ...

[Kennah]

48. RCW 9A.16.050(2) says:

"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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025

"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."

Because Residential burglary is a felony, any burglar in the home is committing a felony. As such, a homeowner is justified in using deadly force against any burglar in their home.

The phrase "enters or remains unlawfully" is interesting. It appears to mean that one is not justified in killing a fleeing burglar as a fleeing burglar would no longer be viewed as remaining; however, the cops and attorneys I've talked to say there's no caselaw here. Actually was a case, which should have been prosecuted, back around 1998 or 1999. There had been a number of residential burglaries in and around this one neighborhood, and a homeowner caught a fleeing burglar in the act. Burglar fled and was shot and killed climbing over the fence going out of the yard.

[iverglas]

50. edited ...

deleted part while trying to reorganize

muddled it up, and may just go to bed instead

but I offer this


The phrase "enters or remains unlawfully" is interesting. It appears to mean that one is not justified in killing a fleeing burglar as a fleeing burglar would no longer be viewed as remaining; however, the cops and attorneys I've talked to say there's no caselaw here.

Yeah, well, no wonder. It pretty obviously means what it says: "remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle", i.e. remains once their presence becomes unlawful, even if they entered lawfully. The purpose here is to raise trespassing to the level of burglary if the premises are a dwelling and if the person who entered lawfully is instructed to leave and remains with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein.

I think that might have applied if I'd let that feral gas company guy come into my house this afternoon when he pretended I had to let him in, and then he'd tried to commit the fraud he was trying to commit, while he was inside my house ... but I think I would have just settled for pointing and laughing when he saw that the hot water heater he was trying to convince me I had to let his company replace was actually electric, because the gas meter on the front of my house isn't actually connected to anything ...

[Kennah]

46. It is Castle Doctrine ...

... in that 9A.16.020(4), 9A.16.050(2), and parts of 9A.16.020(3) apply only inside one's dwelling or abode.

The 2011 change made "technical corrections to gender-based terms" in a myriad of statutes. Nothing substantively changes vis-a-vis the use of force.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202011/5045.SL.pdf

[iverglas]

52. jesus fucking christ

Go and get a genuine explanation of "castle doctrine" law somewhere -- preferably an actual example, post it here, and identify what parts of the Washington state bill coincides with that explanation/legislation.

It doesn't, it isn't, it won't, it ain't.

You're saying it is, so you demonstrate it.



The 2011 change made "technical corrections to gender-based terms" in a myriad of statutes. Nothing substantively changes vis-a-vis the use of force.

That is exactly what I said. What is your point?

Nothing substantive with respect to the use of force. Precisely. The legislation you posted (excuse me, I believe I said "bill" in my previous post) is the law. That law IS NOT "castle doctrine law".

Lordy lordy lordy.

[Kennah]

56. Your post appears to have parted company with the reality of the law

[iverglas]

64. you appear not to have a clue

I've tried to sell one cheap, but one can lead those devoid of clues to the clue ...

[AtheistCrusader]

70. That is NOT castle doctrine.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Kennah]

58. Since Wikipedia is the legal authority here ...

... let's check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law

Not all Castle Doctrine states have No Duty To Retreat.

Washington does have No Duty To Retreat anywhere one has a right to be, inside or outside the home. That means a parking lot, local park, public library, etc.

State v. Studd
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1441280.html

State v. Redmond
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1244581.html

I'll risk repeating myself and say that any felony, against you, in your dwelling or place of abode, and deadly force is justified. Residential burglary is a felony.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025

Not all Castle Doctrine states have immunity from civil liability, and this is the one weakness in Washington's laws.

I'll let others raise their voices over what Wikipedia does or does not say.

I grew up in Maryland, one of the supposed Castle Doctrine States, and while there I talked to two State's Attorneys and a law librarian, on several occasions, about the laws concerning use of force. The use of force statutes and caselaw, in and out of the home, in a word suck. Only thing I see in the 2010 so-called "Castle Doctrine Law" was immunity from civil liability, which is a good thing. However, even that law retains that the use of force while inside the home must still be reasonable, which is the same standard for the use of force anywhere else in the state.

[iverglas]

66. that's very funny

Now go read an actual "castle doctrine" law and bring us your book report.

"Stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" are entirely different things.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain that again.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. That's great.

"I'll risk repeating myself and say that any felony, against you, in your dwelling or place of abode, and deadly force is justified. Residential burglary is a felony."

Wonderful. Now, what does that have to do with Castle Doctrine? In this state, you are HIGHLY likely to be explaining your actions to a grand jury. Not a bad thing, I might add.

We do NOT have castle doctrine. We have 'de facto' 'stand your ground' sorta, since we have no duty to retreat. NOT the same thing.

[iverglas]

72. c'mon

You could just said "ditto" all these times. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

73. You missed that the OP had the county name wrong.

It's Pierce county, after one of our presidents. Tacoma is a city, and is the County Seat. But it's not 'Tacoma County'.


I was just working my way down the thread. I detest posts that state half-assed legal opinion as fact, especially when the person making the claim doesn't A) preface it as 'I am not a lawyer/expert' and B) is totally wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. Oh! But noone's life is worth property!

Yeah, right.

More criminals who didn't put a high enough price tag on their own lives.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Wow, there's a shitload wrong with your post.

For starters, it's Pierce county. Not Tacoma County.
Second, Washington State is not a Castle Doctrine state. We have no duty to retreat. Not the same thing. If you think we are a Castle Doctrine state, please, cite the RCW.