An intruder in your garage, what would YOU do?

[4runnerman]

I would just open the door to the Garage, just enough to let my Very Friendly, Large Ugly Black dog come and visit you. While he is not as fast as a bullet, he is faster then any human. If you make it to the property line-You are safe. He will not cross that line with out a go from one of us.--- Yes the dog knows all the neighbor kids and loves them.

 

[44 AMP]

The first step is to avoid doing anything that makes the presence of valuable property known to potential thieves.

This was posted early on, and is sound advice.

I always enjoyed the wisdom of the Redneck sage, Foxworthy, to paraphrase him here,

Thief sees a nice house, well tended yard, flower lined walk, he thinks Hmmm might be something worth taking in there...

When he sees a house with weeds four feet high, cars up on blocks, engine block hanging by a chain from a tree, he thinks...that's a house where a GUN lives!!!

I'm still enough of a counter culture rebel that my place looks ...poor.. (because I am) and I deliberately don't make it look better. Sure, this hurts its market value, but I'm not selling, so who cares? And you know what? I generally get left alone, which is just the way I like it.

 

[Sequins]

IMO insurance is a racket. I'm home at night and my local statutes authorize lethal force for any felony, and in WA property theft of $750+ is a felony. Why would I pay $50 a month for the protection a single $25 investment in speer gold dot will provide?

I cannot imagine watching someone steal my stuff and not doing anything, insurance or not whether or not I get compensated isn't the point.

Edit: I forgot a critical digit on the value that qualifies as a felony and have added the correct amount.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sequins:

I'm home at night and my local statutes authorize lethal force for any felony, and in WA property theft of $50+ is a felony.

First, the local statutes in Washington are irrelevant; state law governs. Second, the law does not "authorize lethal force"--it defines circumstances under which the use of force would be justified. Third, a defense of justification will only succeed if others, after the fact, decide (to the standard of proof covered in the law) that what the actor did was both necessary and reasonable, knowing what he knew at the time.

Why would I pay $50 a month for the protection a single $25 investment in speer gold dot will provide?

Cost, convenience, and risk. Your attorney, and you will need one, will charge you several times that $50 for each billable hour, and quite a number of hours will likely be involved, leading to expenses that you may not be able to imagine. You will endure all kinds of inconvenience, from the time of the shooting forward; most of us dislike going to the station, and few of us relish the idea of having our gun taken for evidence. And there is a real chance that the triers of fact all not agree that your actions had in fact been necessary and reasonable under the circumstances; loss of freedom, loss of personal fortune, and permanent loss of gun rights are not things to risk willfully except in the gravest extreme.

I cannot imagine watching someone steal my stuff and not doing anything, insurance or not whether or not I get compensated isn't the point.

Work on improving your imagination.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

IMO insurance is a racket. I'm home at night and my local statutes authorize lethal force for any felony, and in WA property theft of $50+ is a felony. Why would I pay $50 a month for the protection a single $25 investment in speer gold dot will provide?

I cannot imagine watching someone steal my stuff and not doing anything, insurance or not whether or not I get compensated isn't the point.

On the surface I agree with every thing you just said. You should be able to protect your property. And in essence you can.

BUT...

It would be best to consider the use of deadly force as a life changing event.
Because thats exactly what its going to be. Even if you win the fight.
Its getting real rare to find a case were some one shoots another person and the cops come in and say.
Yup you did good and leave.

More likely they are going to go through your life with a fine tooth comb.
They will learn more about you than your wife knows.
Plus if your a suspect they may load up all your fire arms. ammo and other stuff for safe keeping. Of course they will report your arsenal to the media.

My self, They can have the chain saw before I want some one looking up my butt.
And I dont have any thing to hide, but they have a way of making any one look bad.
Nope not me, unless I have too.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm home at night and my local statutes authorize lethal force for any felony, and in WA property theft of $50+ is a felony....

Really? Care to cite the law?

In any case, here's an interesting overview by a Seattle lawyer of Washington State use of force law. As he writes:

...In Washington State there is a self-defense argument (RCW 9A.16.020), which states when it is lawful to use force. This affirmative defense may be used when the defendant was preventing another from being injured by an assailant often referred to as “defense of others.” There are other exceptions that involve detaining burglars and using force to subdue a mentally ill person from doing harm to themselves or others.

None of these defenses allow a person to become a vigilante crime fighter, but allow citizens to protect themselves and the people around them if necessary. ... An affirmative defense essentially allows the defendant to admit to the crime but also to explain the circumstances behind the event and to justify the use of force in their case.

The affirmative defense does not give a cart blanch approach but rather shifts the burden on the defense to prove that the force used is justified in that particular instance. ...Not all force is justifiable and some uses of force can even be seen as excessive. The threshold is often a “reasonable person” argument that looks at what a reasonable person would do in a situation....

As far as what constitutes felony theft under Washington law, theft of property of a value less than $750.00 is a gross misdemeanor (Theft in the Third Degree, RCW 9A.56.050). Only when the value of the property stolen is $750.00 or more, or is an automobile or firearm, does the theft become a felony (Theft in the Second Degree, RCW 9A.56.040).

 

[garryc]

Watching this thread and I come to my original position. I don't care what the law says I am not killing someone over a piece of property. Their life is not less valuable than mine unless they threaten mine.

 

[Sequins]

Frank, RCW for you here on justifiable force by a non LEO: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

You're right about the value of theft, though. I was reading the 2nd degree statute and the way it's written with the value in plain english after the parenthese confused me, it's definitely $750 and I misread it. I'll edit my prior post with a note so as to prevent misinformation.

Now, I'm hardly bloodthirsty although I think I gave off that perception. I meant to challenge the philosophy of many that watching calmly while thugs load your stuff onto a truck and drive off is the way to live. That's just crazy to me. I was a bit flippant it's so crazy to me, so I apologize for my tone.

I believe evil prevails when good men fail to act and I think a lot of the problems in the world today stem from a "not my job, not my fight, not my problem" ethos. I certainly wouldn't just run out and blithely shoot someone for taking my stuff, but I would stop them from taking my stuff come what may. What kind of world are we building where "ehhhh the insurance will take care of it" is our response to crime? Maybe that's why we need so much insurance these days.

I know case law trumps statute, and that the way it is and the way it should be diverge especially in court, so I'm not under any illusion that that statute insulates me. I'm sure my life would be very negatively impacted if I ever shot someone over a property crime. I also would never forget that time I had a chance to do the right thing and instead hid and let the insurance take care of it .

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

but I would stop them from taking my stuff come what may.

But the question is how would you stop them?

Do you put yourself at risk of death and serious injury for property alone when you don't have to?

You can lose the fight.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sequins:

....I would stop them from taking my stuff come what may.

You might come through it uninjured--or not.

If someone else is harmed as the result of your action, then another set of people will judge, based on the evidence, whether a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have found your action both necessary and appropriate at the time.

At that point you undoubtedly will be incurring far more costs than the value of what most people have in their garages.

You could still end up a free man with a clean record--or not.

And you could also could end up avoiding a hefty civil judgment--or not.

But your "balance sheet", as it were, would very probably be impaired, perhaps very significantly indeed.

I wouldn't even think about it. An insurance claim is a much better idea.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm sure my life would be very negatively impacted if I ever shot someone over a property crime. I also would never forget that time I had a chance to do the right thing...

Going to prison certainly would count as being "negatively impacted." I submit that your contemplation of doing "the right thing" would most likely be small comfort as you sit in prison.

...I know case law trumps statute, and that the way it is and the way it should be diverge especially in court, so I'm not under any illusion that that statute insulates me....

Indeed case law is determinative, and the statute will not insulate you.

See, for example, State v. Brightman, 122 P.3d 150, 155 Wn.2d 506 (WA, 2005). Brightman appealed his conviction for second degree murder. While the Washington Supreme Court ordered an new trial on other grounds, the Court rejected Brightman's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on justifiable homicide.

The evidence suggested that Brightman killed Villa in defense against Villa's attempt to steal money by fraud and his following assault. In rejection Brightman's contention that he was entitled to a 9A.16.050 jury instruction the Washington Supreme Court noted (122 P.3d 150, at 158 -- 159):

...Justifiable homicide, and indeed all self-defense, is unmistakably rooted in the principle of necessity. Deadly force is only necessary where its use is objectively reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances as they were understood by the defendant at the time. See RCW 9A.16.010; Read, 147 Wash.2d at 242, 53 P.3d 26; Walker, 136 Wash.2d at 772, 966 P.2d 883. For example, in State v. Nyland, this court held that adultery did not justify taking a human life:

"The class of crimes in prevention of which a man may, if necessary, exercise his natural right to repel force by force to the taking of the life of the aggressor, are felonies which are committed by violence and surprise; such as murder, robbery, burglary, arson, . . . sodomy, and rape."

47 Wash.2d 240, 242, 287 P.2d 345 (1955) (quoting State v. Moore, 31 Conn. 479 (1863) (first emphasis added)). In all of these felonies, human life could be presumed to be in peril. Id. at 243, 287 P.2d 345. But the Nyland court also noted that "a killing in self-defense is not justified unless the attack on the defendant's person threatens life or great bodily harm." Id. (emphasis added).¹⁰ Thus, the Nyland court contemplated an individualized determination of necessity, even where an attack on the defendant's person occurred. See also State v. Griffith, 91 Wash.2d 572, 576-77, 589 P.2d 799 (1979) ("A self-defense instruction, or a justifiable homicide instruction, is appropriate only where the slayer has used such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances." (emphasis added).

In State v. Brenner, Division One of the Court of Appeals read Nyland and Griffith to establish that even where a homicide is committed in defense of a felony or attempted felony, "the attack on the defendant's person [must threaten] life or great bodily harm." 53 Wash.App. 367, 377, 768 P.2d 509 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 68 P.3d 282 (2003)....

and (at 159, italicized emphasis in original, bold emphasis added):

...The Nyland, Griffith, Brenner, and Castro cases support a conclusion that a justifiable homicide instruction based on either .050(1) or .050(2) depends upon a showing that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances. All of these courts implied that an individualized determination of necessity is required, contradicting the notion that deadly force is per se reasonable whenever a robbery or other violent felony is attempted....

...but I would stop them from taking my stuff come what may...

And then maybe your stuff will still be there if you get out of prison -- unless you had to sell it all to pay your legal bills. Are you familiar with the term "Pyrrhic victory"?

 

[Sequins]

There was once a case in Washington where a man ran into his garage and saw a thief taking his SUV. He pursued the SUV into the street and fired through the back windshield, killing the thief.

He was charged, but he was found not guilty. I am sure despite the verdict his life is certainly worse and I have no desire to join his company and become a killer. 300k would ruin me, as well.

I couldn't find a better article after a brirf google but this is the case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143156/posts

In Washington state I would trust 12 of my fellow citizens, good and decent people whom also value their life, home, and property to acquit me if I were to defend my life, home, or property during the actual commission of a crime.

If I went after the guys who did it post-facto ala "Deathwish" that would be insane, but doing nothing because you think 12 of your peers are pro-crime is equally insane.

I don't want to live in a society where people are more scared of the law as citizens than as criminals. I refuse to do so.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sequins:

There was once a case in Washington where a man ran into his garage and saw a thief taking his SUV. He pursued the SUV into the street and fired through the back windshield, killing the thief.

He was charged, but he was found not guilty.

Gerlach was able under the circumstances to present convincing evidence indicating self defense. Nothing whatsoever to do with shooting a thief.

Any idea how much that year cost him?

Bad idea.

...doing nothing because you think 12 of your peers are pro-crime is equally insane.

So is committing a crime.

Do not pursue a thief, and do not shoot a fleeing felon.

 

[manta49]

There seems to be a lack of common sense among some, avoid confrontation if possible.

 

[OldMarksman]

By the way, Gerlach was entitled to be reimbursed by the taxpayers for his legal costs, but not for loss of income, or for the effects of one really bad year.

I'm sure that Gail will be the first to say privately that he did a really dumb thing.

Even though he's out, and even though he didn't get shot

 

[Frank Ettin]

...He was charged, but he was found not guilty...

But as OldMarksman pointed out:

...Gerlach was able under the circumstances to present convincing evidence indicating self defense. Nothing whatsoever to do with shooting a thief....

Which also meant that Gerlach's jury receive an instruction from the judge regarding self defense.

But as ruled in Brightman (122 P.3d 150, at 158, quoting State v. Nyland, 47 Wash.2d 240 (1955)):

...a killing in self-defense is not justified unless the attack on the defendant's person threatens life or great bodily harm....

unless you put on evidence that standard was satisfied, you won't even get a self defense jury instruction.

...In Washington state I would trust 12 of my fellow citizens,...

Except that won't matter if you don't get your self defense jury instruction.

....I don't want to live in a society...

Many people want things they don't have. Our world is what it is. You're free to pretend you live somewhere else, but pretending doesn't make it so.

 

[AK103K]

Except that won't matter if you don't get your self defense jury instruction.

Perhaps the people of Washington are more educated and aware about jury nullification than other parts of the nation.

Not that I'd want to bet the farm on it.

From my personal experience having been on both local and federal juries, the thought of having to go through the justice system as a defendant, is one of the scariest things I can think of. As the old joke goes, youre life is in the hands of 12 people too stupid to get out of it. Funny, but really not to far off.

In all seriousness, most of the people who where there in the pools with me, only wanted to go home, and wanted nothing to do with being on a jury. Most see it as a burden, and are only there under threat of the system themselves. Not a real reassuring thing.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sequins:

I don't want to live in a society where people are more scared of the law as citizens than as criminals.

In my case, I am not "scared of the law". I have some understanding of it, and I certainly intend to comply with it.

Regarding the extent to which some criminals may or may not be "scared of the law, I cannot say. I would imagine that it varies significantly.

It does concern me that respect for the law in some circles seems lacking. I take that into account in a number of ways.

I refuse to do so.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[SocialAnarchist]

Seriously, there is nothing I own, whether of monetary, or sentimental value, that I believe is worth killing someone over. Property is only stuff and all of mine is protected by insurance. It seems foolish beyond all reason to risk my life over stuff.

Threaten my wife or kids and that's a different story. That would be game on and I would do whatever I have to to protect them.

 

[44 AMP]

Property is only stuff and all of mine is protected by insurance.

This is the attitude of the modern age, both social and legal. There is some conflict with the attitude held over from the previous age in many people's minds, but we are in the modern age, and we must follow both the law, and societal rules.

The past is a dimly remembered thing, or a compete fantasy to some, indeed we have left behind many of the social attitudes from those days, and justly so.

HOWEVER, traces remain, like the desire to protect property. Mere "stuff", including money. Insurance will replace it all, right? so there's no reason to ever shoot someone over mere property.

But that wasn't always the case, and in fact was NEVER the case until the 20th century's creation of the social safety net, and FDIC.

Why do you think the good townfolks didn't even hesitiate to arm, gather in a posse and ride out after the bandits who robbed the bank? Because it was the only remote chance they had of ever getting their money back.

The bandit who stole your horse didn't just inconvenience you, he threatened your survival, and maybe your family's as well.

if you were robbed of the most important things (money, tools & stock needed to make a living, etc.), only the charity of friends (if you had any) and the Church was all there was to keep you & family from starving.

So, it was considered both right, AND proper to shoot that villain dead on the spot. You and your family were less of a burden on society if you did that.

Things have changed a lot, but old attitudes die hard, and only slowly.

You can't legally shoot someone over "mere property" (there are, possibly a VERY few legal exceptions, ask lawyer if you think you can handle the answer)