Woman holds man at gunpoint in home after locking him in - could she get in trouble?

[Kleanbore]

As Frank Ettin said in Post #11,

Remember we have only a sketchy news report. There's probably a lot of information missing.

Whether the actions of Mrs. Larson and her daughter committed aggravated assault and false imprisonment or used justified force to effect a lawful citizen's arrest will need to be decided by a close look at all the evidence under applicable Minnesota statutory and decisional law.

It is usually--no, it is almost always--a very poor idea to attempt to detain a burglar. Whatever benefits may accrue are most unlikely to offset the risks.

Those risks include criminal prosecution, civil liability, and/or death or serious injury. One risks being surprised and overcome by the burglar or an unseen accomplice, or as has happened, being shot by arriving first responders.

 

[BSA1]

What? Defend yourself is not an argument for gun control.

It is a common argument for Liberals and in countries such as England whom Libs like to use as a model for what they think our laws should be.

My point was that you're discussing two different things, self-defense and stopping crime. One of those is the right, responsibility, and duty of everyone.

True for defense of one's self and maybe family members. Defense of others such as neighbor would be a whole different ball of wax.

The other is the job of our paid and sworn and indemnified law enforcement professionals.

Exactly the point of my commentary about the decline of our society and soaring crime rate.


Quote:
Call the cops in my community and you will be told not to take any action regardless of the crime and lack of police response. In other words just be a witness regardless of the harm the perp did/could still cause.

And that is FANTASTIC advice, up to and unless that harm involves hurting or killing someone. Then the matter becomes self-defense which is quite different.

The point being made is trying to protect or save the life of someone else is not self-defense and can land you in a peck of legal trouble. The Bible teaches that you are your brother's keeper. Our legal system says you wil be investigated, criminally charged at the whim of a prosecuter and almost certainly be sued.

Let's be very clear: The victim does not get to pass judgment on or punish the wrong-doer in a society under law. That has nothing to do with being "liberal." The criminal acts of a citizen are to be judged by a JURY, by society. Criminal offenses are offenses against society, though they are generally enacted on only one or a few members of society. If there is some redress of harms due the victim, that comes later, in a civil trial. And assault, execution, and even imprisonment are not the results of any civil suit.

My point exactly. By removing the individual victim from the process we remove all responsibility in citizens involvement in the criminal justice system. This is why we see so many criminals walking out of the courtroom repeatedly and committing more crime.

The system and the police fear citizen involvment as the citizen will demand holding the offender more accountable for his actions.

Civil suits often are used as alternative when the C.J. system fails such as with O.J. Simpson case which has been back in the news again. And we know some are without any merit and is just a attempt to get money.

You seem to be arguing for "vigilante justice" which is really just murder.

Let me explain it this way. My mother, mother-in-law and sister are trained nurses. All three have said repeatedly that if they saw someone badly injured in a traffic accident needing medical help they will not stop because the risk of civil lawsuit and losing their medical license due to doing something wrong while trying to help the victim is simply to great. Good Samaritan laws does not shield them from a lawsuit and even criminal charges. I personally know Doctors who feel the way. They can even face criminal charges for how they treat a patient in the Emergency Room.

If you think about murder is a fine line. Isn't not getting involved and not using your skills to save someone from death murder or preventing the offender with facing murder charges?

Quote:
True. Excellent comment on the decline of our society in the last 50 years or so. It is easier just not to get involved than being arrested yourself for doing what you think was right under the circumstances.

If you think that you could only get in trouble for doing what you thought was right in the last 50 years, that's just not so. Now, many states do allow citizens to enact an arrest if they are convinced they've seen criminal wrong-doing. We tend not to advise that here because it is such a treacherous path and so very dangerous. It is monstrously easy to end up shot by someone ELSE, and have them claim self-defense against you -- and be right! Let alone all the many ways you may end up in jail for playing Dudley Dooright when you should have been acting as a good witness and reserving your forceful actions for when you had no choice but to act.

I have been watching the old TV series "ADAM-12". The contrast is amazing betwen then and now. The TV series shows a lot of citizen involvement that you would never dream of today.

Quote:
Burglar gave back the money so the burglary ended and the crime only became violent after the homeowner stood in his way of his new goal...escape.

Tough call. Shot in self-defense? Probably ok. Shot to prevent escape, most likely not ok at all.

Is there anything in the "Castle Doctine" that applies to this situation?

As always thank you for the thought provoking comments.

 

[Sam1911]

What? Defend yourself is not an argument for gun control.

It is a common argument for Liberals and in countries such as England whom Libs like to use as a model for what they think our laws should be.

I still don't understand. "Defend yourself" is an argument AGAINST gun control...

My point was that you're discussing two different things, self-defense and stopping crime. One of those is the right, responsibility, and duty of everyone.

True for defense of one's self and maybe family members. Defense of others such as neighbor would be a whole different ball of wax.

Errr, sort of. The law generally doesn't say you can defend your brother but not your neighbor. Or yes, defend your neighbor and brother, but not a stranger. The law generally says that assault or homicide may be justified if a reasonable person would have felt that your actions were necessary to save a life.

For example, PA's law says:

18 Pa.C.S. § 506: Use of force for the protection of other persons
(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

What can come into play is how clearly you understood the circumstances -- how reasonable was your fear of death or grievous injury about to take place -- and being related to the apparent victim can certainly play into that.

But one of the compelling opposing factors we often bring up is that it is terribly easy to misunderstand what you're seeing. Is that man attacking that woman and threatening her with a gun? Or...is that undercover officer attempting to arrest a drug dealer or prostitute? Let's not even get into discussing the terrible black hole of jumping into "domestic" disputes. Angels fear to tread!

Further, if the person you jump in to defend was actually engaging in almost any untoward activity, their own right to use lethal force may be forfeit. If that's the case, then YOU don't have the legal authority to defend THEM, either. That's a nasty surprise.

(You jump in to save the life of, just to put a fine point on it, a petite white suburban looking woman who's being beaten by a large young black "inner city" looking man. You end up shooting him dead. Later that week it is determined that the woman you saved was engaging in a drug deal and had a kilo of cocane in her possession! Whoops. Guess who is now on trial for manslaughter?)

The think the point being made is trying to protect or save the life of someone else is not self-defense and can land you in a peck of legal trouble. The Bible teaches that you are your brother's keeper. Our legal system says you wil be investigated, criminally charged and almost certainly be sued all at the whim of a prosecuter.

I think you're misunderstanding how that works. As I pointed out, very few (if any) states prohibit you acting in defense of another person.

You put yourself into an increasingly risky situation the farther removed you are from the defendee (again, because of it being harder to establish WHY you, reasonably, believed you had to shoot someone), but it isn't an immediate case of charges being pressed or you going to jail.

But this is a very specific case (defense of life), and somewhat different from the direction we seemed to be going in this thread, e.g: detaining burglars or otherwise preventing/stopping "crime."

Let's be very clear: The victim does not get to pass judgment on or punish the wrong-doer in a society under law. That has nothing to do with being "liberal." The criminal acts of a citizen are to be judged by a JURY, by society. Criminal offenses are offenses against society, though they are generally enacted on only one or a few members of society. If there is some redress of harms due the victim, that comes later, in a civil trial. And assault, execution, and even imprisonment are not the results of any civil suit.

My point exactly. By removing the individual victim from the process we remove all responsibility in citizens involvement in the criminal justice system. This is why we see so many criminals walking out of the courtroom repeatedly and committing more crime.

What? The victim is an integral part of the process -- but NOT the prosecutor in the criminal case. His/her testimony (either spoken or forensic) is usually crucial in the state establishing it's case. But the state, not the individual, has ALWAYS (in our legal system and the entire "western" judicial system) been the power to bring criminal charges, try, sentence, and punish. Not the individual, not the victim.

The system and the police fear citizen involvment as the citizen will demand holding the offender more accountable for his actions.

Really? The law sets the range of penalties for each crime a person might be convicted of, a fair and impartial* jury decides guilt or innocence, and a judge decides how strict the penalty applied must be within the prescribed range.

The victim is never -- and has never been -- allowed to declare guilt nor issue the sentence. The entire key to our justice system is that "impartiality" I put the asterisk by. No one can get a fair judgment from a person who is claiming to have been wronged by them. That wouldn't even make sense.

("I, Bill Smith, hereby charge Jim Johnson with the crime of theft. I declare him guilty, and I shall now sentence him to imprisonment in my basement for a period of two years." Sounds silly, doesn't it?)

The victim HAS to be separated from the conviction process or the trial is utterly illegitimate.

Civil suits often are used as alternative when the C.J. system fails such as with O.J. Simpson case which has been back in the news again. And we know some are without any merit and is just a attempt to get money.

Civil suites are not an ALTERNATIVE. They are simply the opposite side of our judicial system. They are THE part of the justice system in which an individual aggrieved party may seek his/her restitution.

Criminal convictions put people in jail or possibly even execute them. The standards of proof are very high. Civil trials decide what is "fair" compensation for whatever did transpire. Someone may be acquitted of murder, because the jury does not feel that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of that specific crime. But a civil trial may still find that the defendant had some culpability for that wrongful death and must pay restitution to the family, etc.

It's just two completely separate things. One is not a stand-in for the other.

If you think about murder is a fine line. Isn't not getting involved and not using your skills to save someone from dieing murder or preventing the offender with facing murder charges? Or is it all just God's will?

Wow, that's a very difficult question to answer and is so circumstantial as to be impossible to address completely. However, as we've said, defense of life is generally lawful. You just have to be incredibly certain you're in the right (and that the person you are defending is completely and totally in the right as well!), and not being the one facing attack yourself can make that difficult.

I have been watching the old TV series "ADAM-12". The contrast is amazing betwen then and now. The TV series shows a lot of citizen involvement that you would never dream of today.

Television even today does a MISERABLE job explaining law, especially use of force issues. Go back half a decade and it was arguably even worse. TV isn't a good source to base your legal opinions upon.

Is there anything in the "Castle Doctine" that applies to this situation?

Obviously not, in the case of the store clerk, though certain "Stand Your Ground" laws (if any are in effect) might.

SYG laws generally say you don't have to retreat before you defend yourself. That doesn't seem to be an issue in the clerk's case -- where would he retreat TO?

"Castle Doctrine" laws generally allow the defender a presumption that an intruder in their home has malicious intent. They remove the need for the defender to establish in trial that they knew that the intruder was there to harm them. It's a bit more of a technicality than a sea-change in how self-defense law works. It just makes the affirmative defense of "self-defense" easier to establish.

In the case of a woman who's detaining someone in her home, I don't see that it still applies. It would if she'd shot him breaking in, but once he's in and expresses a desire to leave, that presumption of intent is no longer clearly relevant. The presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the fact that he was not (or no longer) armed and was attempting to flee would be a clear rebuttal of that presumption that he still was attempting to harm her/them.

 

[BSA1]

I still don't understand. "Defend yourself" is an argument AGAINST gun control

The murder rate in the United States is 4.2 per 100,000. In the United Kingdom it is 1.2 per 100k.

In the U. S. the burglary rate is 699.6 per 100k. In the U.K the burglary rate is 1,157.7 per 100k people or a burglary occurs every 40 seconds.

Liberals argue our murder rate would be lower if our gun laws were like England’s. Gun owners argue that the burglary rate in the U.S. is lower because of the chance of running into an armed homeowner.

Does that help any?

 

[Zoogster]

Whoops. Guess who is now on trial for manslaughter?

Well it all does depend. I recall in California law even someone that is a mutual combatant can regain their right to self-defense technically if they try to stop fighting and clearly communicate that.
In reality it probably won't work for them most of the time, but for a third party defending them it could depending on the situation.
If they try to run away, stop fighting, are pursued, and the other person is intent on doing them damage, they can regain their self defense rights.

Also if you witness a fight where one guy is knocked out and goes down, and the other guy begins to stomp on their head, there is a real risk of serious/great bodily injury or death.
Police or authorities acting in a lawful manner also don't generally stomp or beat on people unconscious.
The fight just went from a fight to something much more serious legally.
Boot to the head is often even considered use of a lethal weapon. Injury likely to cause or that is causing damaged teeth, eyes, skull etc can qualify as serious bodily injury and can quickly go past the gray area and often allows for use of lethal force, including by a third person.
Now you may want to wait until after they stomp on their head at least once if it is not someone you know because the injuries help establish evidence of the seriousness of the situation, but once the stomping starts you can use whatever force is necessary to stop it.
You may want to warn them, try to stop them verbally, but you may also need to shoot or hurt them rather quickly to keep them from killing or permanently disabling that person. It doesn't take long to permanently disable, cause brain damage, or kill someone down on the concrete, a few seconds can be the difference between needing some stitches and being a brain damaged vegetable or severely disabled for life.

Additionally if one person goes uncouncious it becomes quite easy to establish that the other person is acting in an offensive manner if they do not cease further attack, and continuing to pose a serious threat to someone unable to defend themselves.

It is a gray area depending on the severity what is and is not 'serious bodily injury'/ 'great bodily injury' but if it is causing some serious injuries or may kill the person it can qualify. Trying to inflict injury to anyone unconcious pretty clearly qualifies in most cases.

So I would normally not interfere in what seems like a mutual fight. Or even a one sided attack where the victim could easily get away yet obviously is choosing to remain and just contributing the to situation (like in many domestic situations where someone is slapped or punched etc and continue to argue)
However if I see someone being chased and subsequently beaten down by multiple attackers, or I see someone go down in a defensive ball or unconcious and continue to be attacked by one or more attackers I may choose to intervene and deploy the force necessary.
While warning shots are normally best advised against, it is also one of those situations where they can be considered (of course you are still responsible for where the bullet ends up) before shooting someone who is a clear aggressor in an altercation you are unsure of. It may stop someone who is using force likely to create or creating serious bodily injury, without requiring you shoot them, or it might not and require your next shot to drop them.
But it has more validity in defense of a third person than in self-defense, because it can actually be done at a point where if you were the victim you wouldn't even be able to deploy a gun anymore and the severity is more established.

 

[hermannr]

Can you post the WA statute that makes this clear? I don't believe there are many places where use of deadly force (i.e.: not brandishing but actually shooting him) is lawful to detain someone. I'm curious how they word it.

RCW 9.41.270 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270)

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

Sorry Kleanbore...with WA law you are mistaken. LEOs can make arrests, but so can an ordinary citizen if it is a felony committed in their presence.

May I also add this provision in the WA Criminal code: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110

 

[Kleanbore]

Hermann, the code section you cited applies to drawing, pointing, and handling a weapon--not shooting. It simply outlines circumstances in which pointing a firearm would not be considered a misdemeanor.

And yes, a citizen in WA can make an arrest under certain circumstances, as is the case in every state except NC. That does not make shooting a burglar who opts to depart lawful. Nor is the citizen protected against liability that may arise should the detainee suffer harm in the process or while being detained.

 

[Sam1911]

Hermann, the code section you cited applies to drawing, pointing, and handling a weapon--not shooting.

That's what I was assuming it would say, which is why I qualified the question with "(i.e.: not brandishing but actually shooting him)."

So, no, in WA you CAN'T use deadly force to detain someone.

 

[alsaqr]

Comanche county, OK is larger than the state of Rhode Island. There are two deputies on duty at night, on weekends and holidays. Response time may be 30 minutes or more. Our sheriff is a reasonable guy: If a homeowner held a burglar or home invader at gun point it would not be a big deal.

 

[Sam1911]

If a homeowner held a burglar or home invader at gun point it would not be a big deal.

Very probably so. And quite possibly so in most other parts of the country.

Now, if the homeowner says, "he tried to escape, so I shot him..." the picture likely changes.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by alsaqr: If a homeowner held a burglar or home invader at gun point it would not be a big deal.

If the burglar chose to stay, if the burglar or an accomplice did not surprise and defeat the homeowner, if the owner did not shoot while holding the burglar (inadvertently, or through a misunderstanding of commands given and actions taken), and if the burglar did not suffer a serious injury while in detention....

There are a few circumstances under which detaining an invader might be indicated; simple burglary is not really one of them. For those who may need to go about it, it is essential to know what to say and how, what not to say, what to do, where to aim (it is not center mass), and where to look. Attending MAG-20 is strongly recommended.

In my view, if you are visited by a person known to be violent who is under a restraining oder to keep away from your family, you likely have good reason to not wanting him to remain on the loose. For a simple burglary, you have no really good reason to put your self at extreme risk--it's all downside, with no real upside.

 

[hermannr]

Hermann, the code section you cited applies to drawing, pointing, and handling a weapon--not shooting. It simply outlines circumstances in which pointing a firearm would not be considered a misdemeanor.

And yes, a citizen in WA can make an arrest under certain circumstances, as is the case in every state except NC. That does not make shooting a burglar who opts to depart lawful. Nor is the citizen protected against liability that may arise should the detainee suffer harm in the process or while being detained.

Kleanbore: Did you read the second link? It most definately includes firing the weapon.

Becasue you obviously did not read the second link I will cut and paste from RCW 9A.16.110:

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

 

[Sam1911]

Does that cover shooting someone while trying to detain them?

 

[Lost Sheep]

Dogs chase cars. But what will the dog do if he ever actually CATCHES one?

This thread will have served well if it prompts any of us to make a plan before the need arises.

The time to plan HOW to detain someone or what options you will choose in response to various acts by perpetrators is not in the moment. "Better judged by 12 than carried by six" has a counterpart. "Better lost pride than life or limb."

The lady at the beginning of this thread was lucky and I congratulate her. For her gumption. For her success. For her ability. For her daughter. But not so much for her wisdom. All in all, though, I would give her a medal for the totality of her actions. Wisdom is not often the strong point of heroic acts.

Lost Sheep

 

[Lost Sheep]

I hope I misunderstood

Call the cops in my community and you will be told not to take any action regardless of the crime and lack of police response. In other words just be a witness regardless of the harm the perp did/could still cause.

And that is FANTASTIC advice, up to and unless that harm involves hurting or killing someone. Then the matter becomes self-defense which is quite different.

"Fantastic" in what sense?

Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/fantastic

fan·tas·tic
adjective
1.
conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2.
fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3.
imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.
4.
extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5.
incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: to spend fantastic sums of money.

I certainly hope, most sincerely that I have misinterpreted your words below, Sam1911

Safety but not fighting crime. In other words as the police teach don't resist cause you will only get hurt...This use to be one the attitudes about women being raped...don't resist it will only be worse.

No. That doesn't make any sense at all. Defend yourself if you are forced to do so. If you want to enforce laws, get the training, get sworn, get the protection we the people give to our law officers, and put on the badge. That's a righteous path, and it is how a society under laws operates.

Quite right. It doesn't make any sense.

The idea that a woman raped and strangled with her own panty hose is morally superior to one who shot and stopped her (attempted) rapist only makes sense if you subscribe to the notion that ordinary citizens should refrain from crime-stopping measures because they are not professionals, trained, authorized, indemnified and given some kind of blessing from on high.

Citizens, if stripped of the authority to protect themselves, their ownership of property and even of that of others are less citizens than subjects.

There are limits to what a citizen is authorized to do. These are our laws. There are limits to what a citizen is morally allowed to do. These are our ethics and our religions. There are limits to what a citizen should do. This is our intelligence and common sense. To the extent these three sets of limits disagree, we have these discussions, which are worthwhile.

But the "righteous path"?

Society enforces the social norms (which are generally codified as laws) less by its police force than by its peer pressure. That is, citizens uniting to condemn bad behavior. A police force alone cannot stop crime. It takes society. In other words, citizens.

(soap-box mode : off)

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep

 

[Sam1911]

"Fantastic" in that acting as a good witness is precisely the right course of action, as I then said, "up to and unless that harm involves hurting or killing someone."

Once more, there's quite a difference between enforcing laws and defending life. I think we've pretty clearly beaten all the way around this issue now, but we can take another lap if we have to.

In general, no, it is NOT wise to sally forth to "stop crime." Peer pressure is great. Part of that social peer pressure is in calling for more, and more professional and well-trained law enforcement officers. Enacting citizens' arrests for anything you perceive might be criminal activity is a great way to live a short life of freedom, but a long time in jail. (Or get yourself dead.)

Obviously, self-defense is an utterly different matter and the right, and I believe, DUTY of every person.

But, as I've illustrated, stepping up to even save the life of (or prevent other apparent grievous injury to) another is a quite dangerous path. It is very easy to misread a situation, or misjudge the character of the poor innocent you're defending, and find yourself behind bars (or worse). Sometimes that risk is work it.

But stepping out to save someone else's replaceable property? No, no way. (Heck, if I have the choice, I'm not shooting anyone to protect MY OWN material possessions. Stuff can be replaced. NOT having to kill someone is worth a LOT of "stuff.") Let the investigators and the insurance companies earn their keep.

And detaining a dangerous criminal? We've covered that one many times. Probably about the most physically and legally dangerous thing you could ever hope not to do.

 

[hermannr]

Does that cover shooting someone while trying to detain them?

yes, at least that is how the DAs and WA courts have seen it.

Example, Tacoma last year if I remember correctly, man was being robbed (armed robbery) at an ATM. Passerby shot the robber, and held him for the police...all he got was questioned.

another example: Guy was caught burglarizing a home when the home owner came home. Burglar ran. There was a guy on his cell phone parked in front of the house. Burglar tried to car jack this guys car with a knife...Burglar/wannabe car jacker was shot, then held for police.

Another example was where there was a belligerent drunk that broke into a house and terrorized the man and his wife. Home owner was on the phone with 911 and did everything he could to keep from shooting this drunk...he finally had to shoot the drunk to protect his wife...the police lauded (in the news) the guy for his restraint.

Yes, you can use deadly force to detain...and you can shoot the perp if that is necesary...at least here you can.

May I reitterate...must be a Felony act done in your presence...

 

[Lost Sheep]

Sam1911,

I see that I was not clear. I am not talking about actively intervening in most cases.

Let me illustrate by example. A couple years ago a car came down my street, missed the curve and jumped a guard rail and wound up just short of first base in a ball field. The two inside were pretty much unhurt, but trying to start the car and drive away.

I went up to them and asked it they were OK and told them they weren't going anywhere as all their tires were flat. They were pretty drunk. Extremely.

They decided they should run away before the police got there.

They did not respond to my advice that they should wait.

At this point I could have insisted they remain. I could have detained them (or tried to) with minimal force. That would have been moral. But not wise, as it would put me in harm's way if they decided to get physical, and put me in danger of harming them (without the indemnification of being under the City's liability insurance).

I did notice that one of them would stop running (more like staggering - he was pretty drunk) away and engage in conversation whenever I spoke to him, so I asked him about the car, who was the owner, what kind of gas mileage he got. HE STOPPED AND TALKED TO ME! (Yes, he was pretty drunk.) Until he saw the police cars, then he ran away.

I did not chase. When the police arrived, I kept my hands in sight and pointed the direction they went and gave a description. Another witness identified me as NOT from the car and I stood back and let the first responder go after them, then gave my more detailed observations to the second unit to arrive.

Some would have had me just stay on the other side of the street once I determined that no injuries had occurred. I decided my inexpert efforts would keep the situation more under control than not, so I stepped up. I stopped where prudence suggested I should.

Could I have (legally, or safely) detained them by touching them, or would that be an assault or prompted them to fight me?

Probably, but opened myself up to civil action if either were injured (by me or by the accident or by the accident and aggravated by me). So I decided against that.

Could I have (again, legally or safely) detained them by overt force, risking that they might have escalated the force?

Probably not legally. Nor, probably, would the police have thanked me, as while I may have helped catch them, I risked making their job much more complex and difficult. Unwise as well as extra-legal.

Not defense of my property or safety (or anyone else's) and I had no "right" to intervene, nor duty or authority. But I simply could not stand by, as a citizen, and not lend appropriate help.

This long narrative is to illustrate the decision points I went past and that each decision was considered. I was benefited by the facts that no one was bleeding, no gunplay was involved and no other exigent circumstances held sway, so I had the luxury of thought. Sometimes action has to be instant, without thought, but by reflex and/or prior thought.

Lost Sheep

 

[Sam1911]

yes, at least that is how the DAs and WA courts have seen it.

Example, Tacoma last year if I remember correctly, man was being robbed (armed robbery) at an ATM. Passerby shot the robber, and held him for the police...all he got was questioned.

Robbery underway. Forcible felony with threat of lethal force against a victim. VCA is shot to stop the threat, THEN held for police.

another example: Guy was caught burglarizing a home when the home owner came home. Burglar ran. There was a guy on his cell phone parked in front of the house. Burglar tried to car jack this guys car with a knife...Burglar/wannabe car jacker was shot, then held for police.

Again, VCA is shot in the act of perpetrating a violent robbery, THEN held for police.

Another example was where there was a belligerent drunk that broke into a house and terrorized the man and his wife. Home owner was on the phone with 911 and did everything he could to keep from shooting this drunk...he finally had to shoot the drunk to protect his wife...the police lauded (in the news) the guy for his restraint.

Again, had to shoot to defend someone -- i.e. to stop an attack. NOT shot in order to detain them, or in order to prevent their escape. There's a BIG difference.

Yes, you can use deadly force to detain...and you can shoot the perp if that is necesary...at least here you can.

You can use FORCE to detain. There's nothing here in the examples you've given which tells me you can shoot someone WHO IS TRYING TO LEAVE. All the instances you've provided show someone shot while trying to enact a violent felony upon another, and then who are detained.

If you showed a case where someone has broken in, is confronted, attempts to run away, and is shot so they don't get away -- THEN that would be use of deadly force TO detain.

Of course you can use deadly force to keep yourself alive or prevent rape or some other grevious injury. But the law doesn't seem to allow you to shoot and/or kill someone just so they can't escape.

 

[Sam1911]

Lost Sheep, those sound like very good examples of what TO do.

The direction some in this thread have seemed to want to take is to say you could/should attempt to detain these guys, with force (including drawing your gun) if necessary. The whole, "evil prospers when good men do nothing" philosophy.

As you correctly surmised, there was no direct (current, remaining, impending) threat to anyone, and you could act without risking (almost) any of your own safety, or freedom, or the consequences of wrongful, forceful action.

I'd say, great job!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hermannr: Kleanbore: Did you read the second link? It most definately includes firing the weapon.

Of course I did. The operative word is protecting. It has absolutely nothing to do with detention or arrest.

And by the way, that section of the code has nothing to do with the justification of deadly force. It simply provides for the protection of an actor who can show that his her use if force was justified under other sections. Requires the actor to show a predominance of the evidence.

One more time, and get this loud and clear: In WA, Tone may employ deadly force to detain if and only if the actor is a peace officer or is acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid to arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony, under circumstances in which the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. According to the law, mong the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

The law goes on to say that the use of deadly force by persons other than sworn officers to arrest or detain under other circumstances is not permitted.

Believe otherwise at your own peril.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I will spin it this way. She didn't lock him in. Rather, she locked out a potential accompliace from comming in.