Homeowner Shoots Alleged intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious if the state has the equivalence of Florida's "Castle Doctrine". That would go a long way in helping the victim (homeowner). My problem with this is the criminal was shot in the back. Now that can be explained in a multitude of ways but still I'll be curious to watch this. I'm almost tempted to see if a copy of the complaint can be found online.

As an aside, handling criminal cases in Florida (lawyer), I had many a client want to sue the police or their intended victim. One special case wanted to sue the guy who broke his jaw with a baseball bat after he had broken in at four in the morning. Claimed he wasn't looking for a fight just some easy to take away valuables and the homeowner charged him all unreasonably screaming like a whacko (paraphrasing, had to remind myself I wasn't allowed to start laughing while he was telling me about how unfairly he was treated by the homeowner). Beat him a few times with the bat, got some nasty bruises and one of the hits connected with his jaw and he lost a few teeth, then he decided it was time to leave. The police had an entirely different version of course. Then I told him I'd take the case for a five thousand dollar up-front retainer, a thousand dollar a month minimum payment into the retainer each month, and would bill at two hundred an hour.

He flipped out, started screaming at me, and the jail guards got involved. Safe to say I didn't take the case. But a sucker is born every minute and the legal research I could have charged for to tell him he didn't have a chance would have been icing on the cake. Granted I knew he wouldn't have the money and I'd more or less told him earlier in the meeting that I thought any lawsuits he'd want to file would be a waste of time and money. I just wanted to see his reaction. I felt bad for his grandma, she was paying me but in the end she was the one who helped me convince him to take the deal. If he hadn't he would have been looking at some serious time.

So what does that have to do with this. This scum bag either filed suit Pro Se (himself without a lawyer), or found a lawyer who is willing to take his money or is a very conniving SOB who thinks the Home Owner or his insurance policy will want to settle quick and relatively cheap. A good solid personal injury defense can run you an easy fifty grand before it is all over and that's if you win. You lose, you pay a lot more.

Now unless the SOB and his client aren't willing to walk for ten grand I'd tell them to go pound sand and take it before a jury. Do an offer of judgment (every state is different) with the hope he'd get awarded nothing by the jury and seek attorneys fees (thinking Florida) from the Plaintiff after for not taking the deal.

There is a whole host of unanswered facts and questions, so no one can really say one way or the other, sadly. But I'd be curious what the complaint says.
 
Because this is defense of others and the intruder was headed in the direction of the people he was defending, I don't think the shot in the back will be a big issue. From what little we know about the details, I suspect the justification (reasonableness of his fear for his family) is going to be the big issue for debate.

Mike
 
I found out

* the county prosecutor is not
filing any charges against the homeowner. The Intruder is lawyered up
and ants to get the State AG to file charges.

* The Homeowner is also a Lawyer - council for a
large dept store in Seattle.

Wash. State for CPL's is an Will Issue State
no class/test re
 
I hit the submit button by an oops

Also - the homeowner was working
in an out building 100 ft from the
house that was set up as a home office.

& Wash. State is an open carry state

Demographically, Pugetopolis is BLlue
and Eastern Washington is RED

A couple of years ago the Seattle mayor tried to get
a law passed restricting CPL carry in / on any state property , like parks
& the State Supremes struck that down.

R-
 
As I recall, Washington State has a civil immunity statute. The homeowner might still wind up in court, incurring legal expenses, if only to establish that he satisfied the requirements for immunity.

The "inner workings" of Castle Doctrine and Immunity Laws are discussed in some detail here and here.
 
1) if you are in my house, un-invited, you are an intruder, no "alleged" about it

2) if, in that instance, you get shot in the back, it just means my tactics were better than yours
 
IF the details in the news story are the complete and accurate facts of the case (yeah right) I think I would have done the same thing if I were in his situation. Best of luck to him and his family.
 
shot in the back

Here is how it this works here in SC. About a year ago the local waffle house got robbed repeatedly, in the early morning hours. Finally the staff got fed up and bought a gun for their protection. They kept it under the counter. So along comes another criminal to rob the place. He went in with his gun drawn and they gave him the money. As he exited the resturant with his ill gotten gain, One of the staff pulled out the gun and shot him in the back. The robber died on scene. Naturally the relatives were upset that their son had been shot in the back. In a short statement from our Prosecutor he said." I have no intention of bringing charges against the shooter. Anyone who robs someone with a gun gets what they deserve" And that was the end of that.
 
TomJones said:
...About a year ago the local waffle house got robbed repeatedly, in the early morning hours. Finally the staff got fed up and bought a gun for their protection. They kept it under the counter. So along comes another criminal to rob the place. He went in with his gun drawn and they gave him the money. As he exited the resturant with his ill gotten gain, One of the staff pulled out the gun and shot him in the back. The robber died on scene. Naturally the relatives were upset that their son had been shot in the back. In a short statement from our Prosecutor he said." I have no intention of bringing charges against the shooter. Anyone who robs someone with a gun gets what they deserve"...
And let's see some documentation. In general, shooting someone in the back after he has ceased to reasonably be a threat is a good way to go to jail.

Legally, the right to use lethal force in self defense ends when the person the force is used against is no longer a threat. A pharmacist in Oklahoma forgot that and is now in prison serving a life sentence for first degree murder.
 
"And let's see some documentation. In general, shooting someone in the back after he has ceased to reasonably be a threat is a good way to go to jail"

Your absolutely right. I didn't say it was right or that it was legal or ethical. Just telling what happened. That our Prosecutor decided not to prosecute, even though according to the self defense laws here you can only use lethal force if you can't escape the situation. I don't have the documentation and have no interest in looking for it. Just commenting on a situation that happened here and how where you live makes a difference. <................>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Post #4 pretty well summed up the event.

Lesson: State laws and interpretations of the laws vary. Not all states allow that style of defense or protection. Learn how your state laws can affect you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top