I wouldn't risk my life for my own property much less someone else's
I wouldn't. I think the only state where you would be on strong legal ground leaving your house with a gun in hand to confront someone robbing our car in the driveway is Texas. That might not even be true anymore.In my own home I would run out with my gun if I saw someone smashing the window of my truck
Do not over look the little words "reaonable" and "necessary".....in Washington state, you are immune from wrongful death civil suits if the deceased was committing a crime that led to their however untimely and tragic demise.
I'm not sure the question really makes sense.Would you be willing to risk your life to protect yourself or another person while outside of your home, during a robbery or burglary?
These laws sound good on the surface, but if you dig into them more deeply they aren't as comforting.As an aside, here in Washington state, you are immune from wrongful death civil suits if the deceased was committing a crime that led to their however untimely and tragic demise.
I don't know why, after all the discussions we've had on this subject, people continue the self delusion that it's that simple.kilimanjaro said:....As an aside, here in Washington state, you are immune from wrongful death civil suits if the deceased was committing a crime that led to their however untimely and tragic demise. 'Crime doesn't pay' is still true, for a while, anyway.
...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....
...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):and (at 159, italicized emphasis in original, bold emphasis added):...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).......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....
Sequins said:I'm housesitting for several weeks and a thought occurred to me... I know I'm here, but does anyone else? A casual acquaintence or walk-about prowler whom expected an empty house might be surprised to see me. An added wrinkle are two luxury cars in the front drive- let's face it you don't hire a housesitter for a house that holds no value. For all I know the safe, to which I do not have combination, holds gold bars of immense value.
My question is to what degree you would defend property in a house sitting situation, and what changes in strategy you may adopt?
And exactly how do you think one's DGU is determined to be justified? Cite the law and cases.Limnophile said:...kilimanjaro is not referring to an affirmative defense, but to WA's immunity from prosectution (civil and criminal I think) if your DGU is lawful. However, one may face a gut-wrenching criminal trial before a not guilty verdict is rendered....
Again, cite the law and cases.Limnophile said:.... However, one may face a gut-wrenching criminal trial before a not guilty verdict is rendered. After that I think you are immune from civil action for the shooting,...
And exactly how do you think one's DGU is determined to be justified?
And so anyone (such as in post 28) who says anything approaching, "No worries, we have an immunity law." is deluding himself. It's not that simple, and it's about time folks started to understand that.Limnophile said:...I believe I acknowledged the problematic aspects of the immunity law....
No, Florida law does not provide for that.Limnophile said:....Was Zimmerman reimbursed for his defense expenses?....
Most likely the law has nothing to do with it. Most likely the primary reason Zimmerman hasn't been sued is because he has no money.Limnophile said:....Has the law kept Trayvon's family from filing a civil suit against him?...