Deadly Force Questions for Legal Experts/Cops

[Choada_Boy]

Your comments are only meant to provoke. I'm rubber, you're glue. If those dudes last night had a real fear that someone might just blow their heads off or beat them into a coma for their actions, I wouldn't be sitting here ignoring your drivel. Maybe the dude's face will heal up in a year and everyone will feel fine about how they did nothing.

[JayB]

Bas Rutten would say that anything goes in a street fight. Should that include beating an assailant with a hammer?

 

Pretty sad that I'd think I'd need my glasses to brawl, it's amazing how weird your thought processes can get in high adrenaline moments at 2am. The dude said "Escape" as the type of car, and I added an "R" and told the cop "Pacer"

 

Regardless, I'm most certainly no Seattle Pussy, but I'm getting to the point in life where I'm fed up with the societal response to this type of shit. Wrist-slapping makes people think that it's no big deal. If you and your bro want to stomp a dude like cowards, you deserve to die, or, better yet, have your hands sawed off.

 

I'd give yourself a few days to think things over before you make any permanent decisions. I know from experience that when you see or you, or someone else that you care about, is on the receiving end of something like that it can take days before the adrenaline and anger settle down to the point where you can think rationally.

 

One rational step would be to see if your neighbor would like to press charges, and volunteer yourself as a witness. Another might be to get an alarm system for your home.

 

I'd also find someone who provides firearms training for a living and have a serious talk with them about your motivations for wanting a gun, then get extensive training on their operation and use if you decide that you are a good candidate for gun ownership.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

"The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law, author Richard Maxwell Brown says in No Duty To Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Another common law principle, the "duty to retreat," requires people to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. The principles apply in most states. The duty to retreat generally doesn't apply in a person's home.

 

LaPierre says the NRA is targeting 29 duty-to-retreat states where people can be prosecuted, sued or both if they don't retreat from criminal attacks.

 

Ragbourn says the proposals aim to "fix a system that isn't broken. People aren't being thrown into jail for legitimate self-defense. There's no crisis here."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-20-states-self-defense_x.htm

[archenemy]

Your comments are only meant to provoke. I'm rubber, you're glue. If those dudes last night had a real fear that someone might just blow their heads off or beat them into a coma for their actions, I wouldn't be sitting here ignoring your drivel. Maybe the dude's face will heal up in a year and everyone will feel fine about how they did nothing.

So, you just gave up hunting two years ago, right?

[JayB]

That makes sense. Not only was the Marine trained to use that weapon, he did so in an effort to protect someone in mortal danger (he didn't see the macing, right? And he doesn't know the history between the two men).

Great example of when it is understandable that someone use deadly force against a person he just saw shoot another person and then have that person threaten another life.

 

Not sure what he saw, but from what I can recall it was just BMC shooting the policeman.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

"The jury rejected self defense and convicted Peter

Twigg of assault in the first degree while armed with a deadly weapon.

 

...

 

Twigg was charged with first degree assault with a deadly weapon in violation

of RCW 9A.36.011(1)©. Under RCW 9A.36.110(1)©, "[a] person is guilty of assault

in the first-degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm: ... [a]ssaults

another and inflicts great bodily harm." There is no dispute that Twigg intentionally

assaulted Sereyka with a metal baseball bat and intended to inflict great bodily harm.

Twigg claimed he acted in self defense and in defense of Larie.

6

No. 56561-3-I/7

In evaluating self defense, the jury is instructed to view the evidence from the

defendant's perspective and determine what a reasonably prudent person would have

done and the degree of force a reasonable person would believe was necessary.

Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 474. Jury instructions on self defense must "more than

adequately convey the law." Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 473 (citing State v. LeFaber, 128

Wn.2d 896, 900, 913 P.2d 369 (1996)). The jury instructions must also make the law

of self defense "manifestly apparent to the average juror." Walden, 131 Wn.2d at

473. A jury instruction that misstates the law of self defense is constitutional error

and is presumed prejudicial. Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 473. We review jury instructions

de novo. State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 656, 904 P.2d 245 (1995).

The trial court gave six jury instructions on the law of self defense; Instructions

6 through 11. Instruction 6 is based on 17.02, Lawful Force -- Defense of Self, 11

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions -- Criminal (2d ed. Supp. 1998) (WPIC).

 

...

 

Instruction 6 states:

It is a defense to a charge of Assault in the First Degree,

Assault in the Second Degree or Assault in the Third Degree that the

force used or offered to be used was lawful as defined in this

instruction.

The use of or offer to use force upon or toward the person of

another is lawful when used or offered by a person who reasonably

believes that he is about to be injured or by someone lawfully aiding

a person who he reasonably believes is about to be injured in

preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person

and when the force is not more than necessary.

 

...

 

Instruction 7 states:

One has the right to use force only to the extent of what

appears to be the apparent imminent danger at the time. However,

when there is no reasonable ground for the person attacked or

apparently under attack to believe that his person or another

person is in imminent danger of death or great personal injury, and

it appears to him that only an ordinary battery is all that is intended,

he has no right to repel a threatened assault by the use of a deadly

weapon in a deadly manner.

 

...

 

Instruction 11 states:

In determining whether a use of deadly force in self defense was

lawful, the phrase "great personal injury" means an injury that the

defendant reasonably believed, in light of all the facts and circumstances

known at the time, would produce severe pain and suffering if it were inflicted upon either the defendant or another person.

 

 

Twigg argues the imminent fear of death and great personal injury

standard used in Instructions 7 and 11 is limited to homicide and attempted

homicide cases and the Instructions improperly placed a greater burden on him

to prove that he feared more than bodily injury."

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/565613MAJ&invol=4

[high_on_rock]

I have tried in court to argue a "he deserved it" defense, and the judges beat the hell out of me every time. Nor does the majority of modern society buy the defense. I grew up in a logging town where when someone deserved a beating, he got beat: no law, no cops, no judges. Those days are over, and the public now wants the court system to deal with stuff. Merely a reality of life.

[archenemy]

That case looks like the guy did not deserve it. And, it looks like it went to appellate court b/c the lawyer instructed the jury incorrectly, not b/c there was a question of force.

[tvashtarkatena]

If I wake up in some stranger's house, should I kill myself?

[lizard_brain]

If I wake up in some stranger's house, should I kill myself?

 

Depends on what she looks like.

[ashw_justin]

That case looks like the guy did not deserve it. And, it looks like it went to appellate court b/c the lawyer instructed the jury incorrectly, not b/c there was a question of force.

It's the actual instructions to the jurors that are the most relevant: they look to be taken almost verbatim from a previous supreme court case (Walden), and are likely the very same instructions that one's jury would hear today if they ended up in court over using deadly force (which apparently includes baseball bats) in self defense.

 

The case itself is less interesting; it looks like Twigg had a pretty hard time arguing self-defense in the first place. I gather the Twigg appeal was not a strong one, but I haven't researched the outcome.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If I wake up in some stranger's house, should I kill myself?

 

Depends on what she looks like.

 

Or in Trashie's case, "he"

[tvashtarkatena]

If I wake up in some stranger's house, should I kill myself?

 

Depends on what she looks like.

 

Or in Trashie's case, "he"

 

No, you still can't borrow my butt plug, KKK, so stop PMing me.

 

Besides, they charge duty for those things at the Canadian border.

Edited July 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

Your comments are only meant to provoke. I'm rubber, you're glue. If those dudes last night had a real fear that someone might just blow their heads off or beat them into a coma for their actions, I wouldn't be sitting here ignoring your drivel. Maybe the dude's face will heal up in a year and everyone will feel fine about how they did nothing.

 

sound like you need to think through first what is the right thing to do in this instance.

 

I've found that people like that tend to be cowards. I've never sat paralyzed and thought about something like this afterwards, my response has always been to just jump right in, once attacking 6 skinheads stomping and beating a solitary black dude on the streets of London at 1 am. They jumped up and ran away as my 160db attack screams rapidly closed in on them. A block away they realized who they were running from and thought they could get away with comin back and takin me on. They got back and chose otherwise, despite the fact that every one of them was taller than me, as I would have smashed those mf asswipes into the pavement. I knew it and they knew it too. I was more than ready for them, they were not really ready for me. After the a piss poor attempt at trash talkin, they moved on.

 

To go kill someone because you somehow missed your chance to kick their ass's as they deserved is way over the top Choada. Way over.

 

My advice, grab a couple of neighbors and go confront them. Immediately, suddenly, brutally and unexpectedly. Get this thing off your mind asap or it will start to burn. Pushing someone up against the wall can cause the same, sometimes better effect than beating them silly. (depends on the person) So pay close attention to their personality as you do this. Some folks, they're ready to back off and apologise till you start smackin them, and once you start you gotta go till they're unconcious, so start small and if you have to go big: go big, go hard, and go quick. Don't start there though.

 

Do not walk down there with a weapon at all is my call, assumin you're talkin 15-16 year olds here. Don't need to risk life in a cage do ya? Kick some ass, take some names, make it clear to these bastards they were over the line, then make them apologise to the stompee - through their tears. Then call it a day and move on with your life after you have shaken the hands of the lads you just straightened out.

 

BTW, I was trained in the use of deadly force while in the military and still remember the rules of engagement. They do not apply in your instance so why even discuss it IMO.

 

Not knowing more of the story, that's my advise and I've done plenty of bad, mean, wrong shit in my life which I won't do anymore.

 

Do the right thing.

[Thinker]

Boy, it's been awhile since I've confirmed that I'm glad I still have KK on my ignore list.

 

I can only begin to imagine the vapid drivel he must be spewing on this topic based on a few of his comments the rest of you have quoted.

 

Scotty doesn't seem to be getting any better with age...I thought a few years might take the edge off him. Evidently not.

[Choada_Boy]

I'm certainly not advocating tracking these people down to kill them. I'm considering what to do to stop the attack without going to jail.

[Thinker]

how about something non-lethal like pepper spray or stun gun?

[Cobra_Commander]

I suggested this. I still think some face feces would stop 'em cold.

[tvashtarkatena]

I suggested this. I still think some face feces would stop 'em cold.

 

This is where a butt plug really comes into its own. No household should be without one.

[lizard_brain]

I just get so tired of having all these murderous people breaking into my home in the middle of the night all the time. I never know what to do about them.

[Choada_Boy]

how about something non-lethal like pepper spray or stun gun?

 

Fucking A Right! A entire can of Bear Spray full in the face! Problem solved, thanks Thinker!!!

[underworld]

don't take pepperspray to a gun fight

[Thinker]

and then a long, fretfull night in the rocking chair with a shot gun laid across your lap, btdt, but at least you won't have killing or maiming someone on your conscience forever.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Thinker

[Cobra_Commander]

don't take pepperspray to a gun fight

 

exactly. shit catapult from 50m is the appropriate response.

[tvashtarkatena]

don't take pepperspray to a gun fight

 

exactly. shit catapult from 50m is the appropriate response.

 

Shitzkrieg.