WA State - Just say NO to eliminating RCW 9A.16.110

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MD_Willington

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
3,692
Location
Canuck in SE WA State.
More here - http://www.the-minuteman.org/tracker

** Short notice - I apologize in advance **

HB 2067 - 2011-12 - Eliminating reimbursement for defense costs of persons acquitted on the basis of self-defense.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2067&year=2011

Representative Ross Hunter has introduced legislation to repeal RCW 9A.16.110.

This RCW allows for reimbursement of legal defense costs when a person is acquitted of a crime on the basis of self-defense.


There is a meeting on this today: Tuesday October 04, 2011 - *** Not a public meeting ***

If you're a Washington State resident, contact your representatives and let them know RCW 9A.16.110 should not be on the chopping block.

** Big email list **
 
Last edited:
I emailed the whole list. I agree we need to cut out some old obsolete and expensive laws, but this isn't the one. Cutting this would only encourage over-zealous prosecution more. Why not go ahead and throw it against the wall and see if it sticks justice? Plus, being wrongly charged with a crime like this is devastating not only to the individual but to the whole family. Yeah, cutting this out is a bad idea.
 
I got an email back already:

"$5-10 million savings. The bill didn't go anywhere last year, and I don't expect it to this year either, but I think it's crazy that we pay this one little segment of criminal defense costs and not any other."

Rep. Ross Hunter
www.rosshunter.info

He has a point, but still, I'd like to see it left alone. That it didn't go anywhere last year is good though.
 
Strykervet said:
He has a point, but still, I'd like to see it left alone. That it didn't go anywhere last year is good though.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have a point at all. He fed you a spoonful of BS and you ate it up. The same guy who proposed the repeal just comforted an opponent by saying, "Don't worry, I was unsuccessful last year, so you might still get your way this year."

Innocent people run up huge debts defending themselves for defending themselves, and the state shouldn't pay it just because they don't pay bills for the guilty morons who try covering up their crimes by calling it SD? What a bunch of garbage. Get that idiot out of office.
 
If you ask me the state sholud also cover lost wages/time, lost job, and mental anguish of the defendant and his/her entire family.
 
Bobson said:
He doesn't have a point at all. He fed you a spoonful of BS and you ate it up. The same guy who proposed the repeal just comforted an opponent by saying, "Don't worry, I was unsuccessful last year, so you might still get your way this year."

Innocent people run up huge debts defending themselves for defending themselves, and the state shouldn't pay it just because they don't pay bills for the guilty morons who try covering up their crimes by calling it SD? What a bunch of garbage. Get that idiot out of office.
Click to expand...
Nobody pulled the wool over my eyes. If you noticed, that was the guy that introduced the bill. Of course he is standing by it. The fact it failed last year is a good indication it will probably fail this year. They do that a lot here, reintroducing stuff and throwing it against the wall to see if it will stick. Take the money out of the politics and that won't happen so often. People don't work for free you know, so when they do work and you are paying for it, make SURE they work for you.

And the guy DOES have an arguement based on logic. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, it means his arguement isn't completely emotional. Law should be fair. But many laws aren't fair, so we perform this balancing act.

"I strongly agree with you. Brian Blake"

Another reply. In fact, I've gotten a few already. From the gist of it, it would appear that many are against it. But lots haven't gotten back to me yet.

The thing I like about WA state is that it is the most democratic state I have lived in, and I've been around. I really can't think of a time when I haven't gotten a response from, even if short, from a state representative or senator. They usually tell it like it is too.

BTW, you can pretty much count on Scott White to be on our side on this. I've sent him some emails in the past, he was (and still might be --not sure, just moved) my representative. Always got back to me, and it was obviously not an aide.

Conversely, when I write Patty Murray, the many, many times I've written, I get nothing except a response from an aide about how she's sending messages on the hill and crap. So to me, the federal governemnt is about worthless --I don't feel like I or my fellow citizens here are fully represented in DC. But here in WA, I feel we are adequately represented, and would get more from our state government if everyone just participated. With the federal government, there is just too much money, and so they represent that instead.

In WA, we just got suppressors. We could get the full class III buffet if everyone would just call or write. This is a great state, I hate the rain and I wish I could go back down South, but things are just too crazy and I didn't feel like government worked for me at all there. It isn't perfect here, but at least I can see it working, and that did a lot for me. At least here it isn't a complete sham.
 
Mike1234567 said:
If you ask me the state sholud also cover lost wages/time, lost job, and mental anguish of the defendant and his/her entire family.
Click to expand...
That would be even better. I wrote that keeping this in the law will help prevent over-zealous prosecution. I think when the rest of you write, you should include Amanda Knox's ordeal in that. Everyone here knows about it. Or the Norfolk 4 or those guys from Memphis. Everyone included a false confession and everyone was cleared by DNA.

An even better law would be a false confession or coerced confession law that directly punishes both the prosecutor AND the detective responsible for the case. It should define and outline what constitutes such. For any felony case with such and such possible sentence. Then paying off those falsely accused wouldn't be necessary, since prosecutors would be MUCH less likely to take circumstantial cases. Just an idea. Cops and lawyers wouldn't like it, but it sure would "protect and serve" the public.
 
MD_Willington said:
Same RCW would save his sorry hide if he was on that side of the judge, lets face it, the way things are going there may be a lot more people in a SD situation using this fund.
Click to expand...
Did you write? It only takes a second to type out a line saying you are against it and cut and past that huge list into the address bar.

Remember, while you have only one vote, you actually have many voices. Emails are considered to be worth so many voices (since they assume everyone won't write) and letters more, while a phone call to that individual is worth many, many voices. Here, email is the way to go because you can get them all in seconds. No reason NOT to participate, one way or the other really.
 
Actually I cannot vote, I'm a Legal Permanent resident but I can still be a "Thorn in their sides" via email, yes I do write, and often. No replies yet, on the flip side, I usually only check my email every few days.

I too consider Cantwell and Murray a useless cause for email... Cathy McMorris-Rogers on the other hand and my local Reps are always willing to write back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Wa State RCW and Civil Lawsuits
Replies
3
Views
575
Bobarino
B
Back
Top