Guns, Dope, Dead People. Little Something for Everybody

[Carol]

Is some part of this unclear? Are you trying to make a point? She came outside with the weapon, began hitting him with it. He took it away and began hitting her with the same weapon.

He was then armed with a deadly weapon and she had legal permission to defend herself with deadly force. Except that he would not have had the weapon if she hadn't been beating him with it first.

A few points, actually. One, nothing in the news reports say she struck him. Two, the dude had plenty options. He didn't have to rob her place. He didn't have to take the weapon, he could have chosen some sort of escape/evasion. Once he did take the weapon he could have chosen to thrown it clear of the altercation point or done something other than choosing to beat her brother with it. I don't think the perp would have been shot, or even caught, had he chosen to run back to the getaway car and told his driver to hightail it out of there at instant he saw the robbery going south, instead of later on in the game.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A few points, actually. One, nothing in the news reports say she struck him. Two, the dude had plenty options. He didn't have to rob her place. He didn't have to take the weapon, he could have chosen some sort of escape/evasion. Once he did take the weapon he could have chosen to thrown it clear of the altercation point or done something other than choosing to beat her brother with it. I don't think the perp would have been shot, or even caught, had he chosen to run back to the getaway car and told his driver to hightail it out of there at instant he saw the robbery going south, instead of later on in the game.

Regarding her hitting him with the stick, you're right, I'm wrong:

The incident started when Kapfer spotted a man wearing a hoodie pulling up mature marijuana plants in her back yard. Kapfer, who has a medical marijuana card, picked up a two by four and tried to stop the thief.

That's when the man, now identified as Raymond Bates, took the two-by-four away from her and beat both her and her brother with the lumber.

However, this still leave the issue that a person is generally not authorized to use deadly force to stop a non-violent property crime. The thief apparently posed no violent threat to her or her brother until she tried to stop him from stealing property, using a weapon that was later used on her and her brother.

Let's say that the guy was jaywalking and she rushed up to him with a board and tried to stop him from jaywalking. He takes the board away from her and hits her with it, and she shoots him. He should not have hit her with the board, true. But he would not have had the board if she had not threatened him with it, and if she had simply called the police, he would have represented no threat to her at any time.

He committed the first crime, that of theft of property. That would have been the end of it, but she committed the second crime, employing deadly force to try to stop him from committing a non-violent crime. You seem offended that I would object to her defending himself against an 'armed robber', but he would not have BEEN an armed robber if she had not provided him with the weapon (willingly or not).

What was her risk of injury if she had gotten his description and called the police?

 

[Nomad]

Regarding her hitting him with the stick, you're right, I'm wrong:

However, this still leave the issue that a person is generally not authorized to use deadly force to stop a non-violent property crime. The thief apparently posed no violent threat to her or her brother until she tried to stop him from stealing property, using a weapon that was later used on her and her brother.

So wait... I'm confused. Is brandishing a weapon or threatening someone with one considered (legally) the same as using it on them? Otherwise, I don't think your question holds water.

I see a big difference between holding a baseball bat and requesting that someone leave your yard immediately and actually beating the intruder with said bat. In other words, the difference between the threat of violence and actual physical violence.

Can you "employ deadly force" without actually using your weapon? Or is it more likely that she brought it along as "insurance" and was surprised (to say the least) when he took it away from her and used it against her? Still not a great move, IMO.

 

[Carol]

Regarding her hitting him with the stick, you're right, I'm wrong:



However, this still leave the issue that a person is generally not authorized to use deadly force to stop a non-violent property crime. The thief apparently posed no violent threat to her or her brother until she tried to stop him from stealing property, using a weapon that was later used on her and her brother.

Let's say that the guy was jaywalking and she rushed up to him with a board and tried to stop him from jaywalking. He takes the board away from her and hits her with it, and she shoots him. He should not have hit her with the board, true. But he would not have had the board if she had not threatened him with it, and if she had simply called the police, he would have represented no threat to her at any time.

He committed the first crime, that of theft of property. That would have been the end of it, but she committed the second crime, employing deadly force to try to stop him from committing a non-violent crime. You seem offended that I would object to her defending himself against an 'armed robber', but he would not have BEEN an armed robber if she had not provided him with the weapon (willingly or not).

What was her risk of injury if she had gotten his description and called the police?

This may be an area where we disagree, but I'm by no means offended. What good is an argument if you don't have a good sparring partner? :asian:
(cue Monty Python's Argument Clinic)

I disagree with the fact that the perp was "provided" with a weapon. He took it and attacked her brother. He didn't have to take the weapon, let alone attack her brother...but he did. Don't do the crime, if ya can't do the time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So wait... I'm confused. Is brandishing a weapon or threatening someone with one considered (legally) the same as using it on them? Otherwise, I don't think your question holds water.

Brandishing is assault. Hitting is battery.

I see a big difference between holding a baseball bat and requesting that someone leave your yard immediately and actually beating the intruder with said bat. In other words, the difference between the threat of violence and actual physical violence.

The bat is a deadly weapon. Yes? If a person is in reasonable fear that you are about to hit them with it, you have in fact already assaulted them. Actually hitting them is a separate crime.

Can you "employ deadly force" without actually using your weapon? Or is it more likely that she brought it along as "insurance" and was surprised (to say the least) when he took it away from her and used it against her? Still not a great move, IMO.

Once again I ask the obvious, but no one seems to want to answer it. As to her right to self-defense; what danger was she in BEFORE she chose to confront the pot-thief with a two by four? When you put yourself in danger, it is possible you will have to defend yourself; you may even be legally entitled to do so; but it's not like she was in danger inside her house; she wasn't.

And I also ask again; what if the thief had been stealing her radishes instead of her pot? Is there a difference in how she would have been expected to respond?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I disagree with the fact that the perp was "provided" with a weapon. He took it and attacked her brother. He didn't have to take the weapon, let alone attack her brother...but he did. Don't do the crime, if ya can't do the time.

We're playing chicken and egg. She was not in danger UNTIL she came outside with a weapon in her hands. He took it and used it on her, which then entitled her to defend herself with deadly force; except that if she had not confronted him with the board, he would have been unable to threaten her life or safety in any way.

 

[Monroe]

Why was it that she couldn't have just called the police? It didn't make any sense to leave the house. She sounds like an idiot.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Found some more information. Not holding out on anyone, I just looked for this a few minutes ago:

http://www.khq.com/story/15617259/update-burglary-suspect-shot-in-the-head-in-northeast-spokane

According to a probable cause affidavit victims Darcee Kapfer and Jason Kirby saw a man they didn't know stealing Kapfer's mature marijuana plants from her backyard area. Kapfer then "armed herself with an eight food 2x4 board" but at some point, the man proceeded to take the board away from Kapfer and hit Kirby in the rib cage with the 2x4 instead. At that point the documents state Kapfer went inside her rental home to get a .38 caliber Revolver.

Then the documents state Kapfer saw the man carrying at least one of the marijuana plants over a three foot chain link fence and into the alley way. Both Kapfer and Darby saw another man sitting in a nearby truck, which was parked next to the backyard fence. The man then got into the truck and the truck sped away, but not before Kapfer fired five times toward the unknown man in the truck who had been carrying the marijuana plant.

OK, so now things look even less like self-defense.

1) Robber takes pot plants.
2) She goes out with a 2x4 and confronts him.
3) He takes the board and hits her with it.
4) She goes back into her house (he does not pursue) and arms herself with a pistol.
5) She goes BACK OUT and confronts robber a second time.
6) He flees.
7) She shoots at him as he drives away, hitting him in the head.

Self-defense? I don't think so. If there was a question about it, it's pretty much gone now.

Oh, and:

Deruwe said Kapfer could potentially face criminal charges as well. According to police, Kapfer may have had more plants than permitted under Washington's new medical marijuana law. Deruwe said Kapfer claims she was growing solely for personal use and not maintaining a garden.

Authorities in Spokane have cracked down on medical marijuana recent months. In April and May, federal agents working with local law-enforcement raided at least seven dispensaries the city. Several dispensary owners now face federal charges.

 

[Carol]

Found some more information. Not holding out on anyone, I just looked for this a few minutes ago:

http://www.khq.com/story/15617259/update-burglary-suspect-shot-in-the-head-in-northeast-spokane



OK, so now things look even less like self-defense.

1) Robber takes pot plants.
2) She goes out with a 2x4 and confronts him.
3) He takes the board and hits her with it.
4) She goes back into her house (he does not pursue) and arms herself with a pistol.
5) She goes BACK OUT and confronts robber a second time.
6) He flees.
7) She shoots at him as he drives away, hitting him in the head.

Self-defense? I don't think so. If there was a question about it, it's pretty much gone now.

Oh, and:

Counterpoints:

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2011/oct/04/police-identify-pot-thief-shot-woman/

Kapfer said she armed herself with a 8-foot piece of wood, but the thief grabbed it and struck Kirby, so she retrieved a .38 caliber revolver from her home and fired it at him five times, according to court documents.

Police found 11 plants in her yard, which is under the legal limit.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Counterpoints:

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2011/oct/04/police-identify-pot-thief-shot-woman/

Again, it's not self-defense when she retreats to safety, gets a gun and comes out to confront him a second time. Her right to self-defense ended when she retreated to her house and he did not pursue her.

And if she did not shoot him in the head while he was in the truck, it will be interesting to find out how he got hit in the back of the head.

 

[Carol]

Again, it's not self-defense when she retreats to safety, gets a gun and comes out to confront him a second time. Her right to self-defense ended when she retreated to her house and he did not pursue her.

And if she did not shoot him in the head while he was in the truck, it will be interesting to find out how he got hit in the back of the head.

She still has a right to protect a developmentally delayed family member, eh? Providing she shot him while he was beating up her brother.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

She still has a right to protect a developmentally delayed family member, eh? Providing she shot him while he was beating up her brother.

Yes, I suppose in that scenario, she would. I didn't see that described anywhere, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Monroe]

She still has a right to protect a developmentally delayed family member, eh? Providing she shot him while he was beating up her brother.

She shot him in the back of the head while he was in a truck. She was not defending anyone as her brother wasn't even in the truck. That's revenge, not self-defence.

 

[Nomad]

It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out. Obviously, if she shot him in the head as he was driving away, that's definitely not self defense, and she should (and likely will) be charged for it. Even if these are the facts of the case, I also completely understand why her lawyer is spinning it this way.

As to your other question; if someone were in my backyard rooting around, there is a strong likelihood that I'd confront them and politely ask them to leave (ignoring for now the fact that my two dogs would likely be doing likewise well before I got there). I'd likely also have an equalizer of some kind in hand to deter the intruder (or his unseen friends) from rushing me. It might well be a stick (though not a 2 x 4; more likely a jo or rattan stick). It would not be held in a threatening manner, but the meaning is pretty universal. The difference is that it's very unlikely that the intruder would be able to take it from me and use it against me since I've actually trained quite a bit with this type of weapon.

I'm curious... at what point does it officially become assault? I get that it's pretty clear if you tell someone you're going to take his head off with it; but if you're just holding it in a non-threatening manner, is that still assault? I certainly would have motive (protecting property) and opportunity to assault someone, but I'm not sure you can show intent unless I give it away by saying something dumb, or start swinging it in their general direction.

 

[Steve]

Do we know if she was the lawful owner of the gun?

 

[Carol]

It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out. Obviously, if she shot him in the head as he was driving away, that's definitely not self defense, and she should (and likely will) be charged for it. Even if these are the facts of the case, I also completely understand why her lawyer is spinning it this way.

As to your other question; if someone were in my backyard rooting around, there is a strong likelihood that I'd confront them and politely ask them to leave (ignoring for now the fact that my two dogs would likely be doing likewise well before I got there). I'd likely also have an equalizer of some kind in hand to deter the intruder (or his unseen friends) from rushing me. It might well be a stick (though not a 2 x 4; more likely a jo or rattan stick). It would not be held in a threatening manner, but the meaning is pretty universal. The difference is that it's very unlikely that the intruder would be able to take it from me and use it against me since I've actually trained quite a bit with this type of weapon.

I'm curious... at what point does it officially become assault? I get that it's pretty clear if you tell someone you're going to take his head off with it; but if you're just holding it in a non-threatening manner, is that still assault? I certainly would have motive (protecting property) and opportunity to assault someone, but I'm not sure you can show intent unless I give it away by saying something dumb, or start swinging it in their general direction.

If I am recalling correctly, assault occurs when there is criminal intent. (I'm an engineer, not an attorney....don't trust your freedom to my words)

Scenario 1: you're walking up to me while I'm raking leaves. You ask for directions to city hall, I don't drop the rake. This likely isn't assault, keeping the rake in my hands doesn't demonstrate criminal intent.

Scenario 2: Lets say I'm out raking leaves, and I decide to put on a blond pigtailed wig, a viking hat, and I start tossing the rake around my yard singing exerpts from Wagner operas. You're in the house across the street and call the cops, thinking I have truly lost my mind. Might be a bit....strange, might even meet a definition of reckless behaviour. But probably not enough intent to prove assault, even with my spear and magic helmet


Scenario 3: I'm out raking leaves, you're in the street walking by and ask me for the time. I come charging at you swinging my rake around. That sort of thing is assault, even if I don't hit you (if I do, its battery).

 

[Carol]

She shot him in the back of the head while he was in a truck. She was not defending anyone as her brother wasn't even in the truck. That's revenge, not self-defence.

The accounts don't agree that he was definitely shot in the head while in the truck. If that turns out to be the case, then I would agree with you and Bill -- that is indeed revenge. The police action in this case is consistent with her actions being self-defense, and not revenge. Without more information, I'm willing to give the Spokane Police detectives the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they know the difference between the two and took appropriate action.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If I am recalling correctly, assault occurs when there is criminal intent. (I'm an engineer, not an attorney....don't trust your freedom to my words)

Scenario 1: you're walking up to me while I'm raking leaves. You ask for directions to city hall, I don't drop the rake. This likely isn't assault, keeping the rake in my hands doesn't demonstrate criminal intent.

Scenario 2: Lets say I'm out raking leaves, and I decide to put on a blond pigtailed wig, a viking hat, and I start tossing the rake around my yard singing exerpts from Wagner operas. You're in the house across the street and call the cops, thinking I have truly lost my mind. Might be a bit....strange, might even meet a definition of reckless behaviour. But probably not enough intent to prove assault, even with my spear and magic helmet


Scenario 3: I'm out raking leaves, you're in the street walking by and ask me for the time. I come charging at you swinging my rake around. That sort of thing is assault, even if I don't hit you (if I do, its battery).

Not quite. Criminal intent is not required for there to be assault. The victim merely has to be reasonably in fear of their life. In 'Scenario 1', if I feel you are about to attack me, the 'reasonable and prudent man' argument will say that I am incorrect. There is no assault because even if I claim to be in fear, a 'reasonable and prudent man' would not be.

I'll leave the Viking situation alone for now.

In 'Scenario 3', you are correct, but it is not down to whether or not you actually intend to hit me with the rake. Perhaps you only intend to frighten me. Perhaps you think it's a funny joke. Perhaps you're just a nut. In any case, what YOU intend is not the issue; it's whether or a not a 'reasonable and prudent man' would be in fear. That hypothetical person would, so this is probably an assault.

 

[Carol]

Not quite. Criminal intent is not required for there to be assault. The victim merely has to be reasonably in fear of their life. In 'Scenario 1', if I feel you are about to attack me, the 'reasonable and prudent man' argument will say that I am incorrect. There is no assault because even if I claim to be in fear, a 'reasonable and prudent man' would not be.

I'll leave the Viking situation alone for now.

In 'Scenario 3', you are correct, but it is not down to whether or not you actually intend to hit me with the rake. Perhaps you only intend to frighten me. Perhaps you think it's a funny joke. Perhaps you're just a nut. In any case, what YOU intend is not the issue; it's whether or a not a 'reasonable and prudent man' would be in fear. That hypothetical person would, so this is probably an assault.

Ahhh that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do we know if she was the lawful owner of the gun?

According to the federal government, even if she is the lawful owner of the gun, the fact that she is a medical marijuana user means she has forfeited her right to own a firearm. So whether she was the owner or not, she is not allowed to possess the weapon.