Guns, Dope, Dead People. Little Something for Everybody

[Big Don]

There were ZERO law abiding people involved in this incident.
If you're going to threaten a bad guy with a weapon, threaten them with a GUN.
Do not, under any circumstances be beaten with the weapon you bring to the party.

 

[David43515]

This is going to be an interesting one to watch. Her lawyer says she shot him in her yard during the fight. The police report she filed (if I read the news links already provided correctly) says she shot him while he was fleeing in his truck. All we know for sure right now is that we don`t have enough info to make an informed opinion.

I don`t even know the details of Washington`s laws for using deadly force. Do they extend to protecting property from theft, like the laws of Texas? Or would it only be justified if her brother was still being beaten when she returned, like my home state of Ohio? Does she have a duty to retreat if she can, like some New England states require? Who`s gun is it?Odds are even if she makes a self defense case, she`s screwed because she can`t own one legally and I don`t think her mentally handicapped brother can either.

In my own opinion they should have just called the cops from inside. If her brother is developmently handicapped and she`s in some condition that allows her to be on medical marijuana, they had no business getting anywhere near a theif if they were already safe inside. Two points no one else has brought up are 1)Why didn`t she call the cops after the shooting? And why did it take the cops 20 minutes to respond to a 911 call about shots fired? The house didn`t look like it was in a rural area, and the news called them local police instead of county sheriff`s deputies. So many questions.(why did those idiot theives try to do this in broad daylight instead of at night?)

 

[Big Don]

Criminals probably hesitate to call the police when other criminals victimize them...

 

[JohnEdward]

In Texas, you steal you can be shot dead standing there or running away. That simple. The pot plant is her property. All she had to do is shoot him in the first place, no 2x4 required. I agree with Bill it is a messy situation in another state that doesn't have a cut and dry law. 1. she is protecting otherwise illegal hallucinogenic plants which probably totaled under $1000.00. 2. Does she have the legal right to own a hand gun. 3. Shooting him in the head while he was driving away claiming self defense. Boy is the prosecuting attorney going to have fun with that case. It is a cake walk. It will have a rippling effect among those who grow pot for medical purposes.

 

[Big Don]

It will have a rippling effect among those who grow pot for medical purposes.

In direct violation of federal law.
Fixed that for you...

 

[Buka]

And while this is in California rather than Washington state, it certainly could add some fuel to the fire.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-15-51-35

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And while this is in California rather than Washington state, it certainly could add some fuel to the fire.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-15-51-35

I'm not terribly surprised; it's happening in Michigan also; but it's the state actually cracking down.

See, Michigan passed a 'medical marijuana' law a couple years ago, but it almost instantly became exactly what the people who started the ballot initiative said it would NOT become; which was simply legalized recreational use. "Medicine" my ***. Yes, I am sure that there were some few people using it for actual medical needs, but the majority are just potheads who want to get high. Huge companies popped up overnight with monster paintings of pot leaves and bongs on the sides of the buildings, big signs saying "GET YOUR MARIJUANA CARD INSTANTLY! DOCTOR ON PREMISES!" It just nothing more than a complete lie. The public in Michigan were conned into voting for what they thought was marijuana for legitimate medical use, but which turned out to be nothing more than legalized dope. So the state is cracking down and I'm glad.

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't have time to read the whole thread at this point, so what I say may have already been covered.

First, self defense does not usually apply to property. I know of no jurisdiction in the USA that would allow that, but stand to be corrected if there is one. If I shoot a person trying to set my house on fire, and I and my family are in the house, I can make a good arguement that I am not defending my property so much as myself and my family. Defending my family is not self defense, but most state laws allow defense of someone you are obligated, or allowed to defend, as justification to use deadly force against deadly force. But just to defend property, it isn't going to be a justification for using deadly force.

Bill, if you hand someone a knife and they attack you with it, legally you can reply with deadly force if you have no means of retreat. Practically, you would probably be made to look pretty stupid in court, as to why you handed someone a knife. You would also probably have to explain why you had the knife if there was any question as to that legality. If you weren't authorized to have the knife, you might find yourself labled a felon participating in a crime, and not have any defense. And if the local law, as most, require a proof there was no retreat, you will have to answer for that, proving you had none.

As to retreat or using a 2x4 to begin with, I would need more facts, such as was she in a position where she felt she had to protect her brother or herself. If so, some jurisdictions allow that a person of small stature, or facing someone who appears to have superior fighting ability and the inclination to use it, may use deadly force. They will have to convince a DA and/or a jury they feared for their life, or the life of someone they are authorized to protect, and had no retreat. Some allow that a victim fearing they could not escape an attack or imminent attack, for instance, being disabled, or not a fast runner, might be justified in using deadly force in defense. If it isn't very obvious, they still may find themselves defending it in court.

Once a thief, or even an assaulting attacker, breaks off the commission of the crime, deadly force is not justified in any jurisdiction I am aware of. If she reasonably feared her brother had been killed, or in fact knew he had been, I don't know that most DA would prosecute. However, as I have read up to the end of the second page of the thread, that wasn't so. When the thief/robber broke off his attempts/attacks, he was still game for a citizens arrest, but not to be shot and killed. Worse, he not only broke off his attack, he was fleeing. She could have stopped and called the police. She had no legal right to shot him in defense of property, even though his possession of the property may have constituted another crime besides theft.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to cover everything I thought was necessary.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just noting that the man wasn't armed with a deadly weapon until she attacked him with it.

This doesn't matter. What's important is whether the criminal became armed at any point during the crime. I've seen a case where a burglary of a dwelling became an armed burglary of a dwelling because...you guessed it...one of the items stolen was a gun. In other words, the thieves didn't show up armed. (Note: no residents were there at the time, so self-defense was not an issue).

As for the rest of the thread, the original post is way too loaded. Sorry.

 

[JohnEdward]

Ok, I didn't read everything. The case is in California, well she is going to jail. Not for the pot, because she shoot someone stealing. See California has lots of criminal rights. Like when a criminal is in your home, if you wound him, you get sued by the criminal you shot, and go to jail for 10-20. If you kill him, you go to jail for life. California is full of cases like that. California has a low tolerance for the victim defending themselves. Far as the pot is concerned, California being a pot friendly place, well that is just being a bogart, and no one should be shot for that to put it in pot smoking vernacular. The women and the 2x4 assaulted and or battered the thief, and the thief was just protecting himself - welcome to California justice. Again in Texas, she has a right to protecting herself and her property. That is it. The issue for me is how the Texas Supreme Court would see the pot plants. or the laws surrounding growing for and medical use. I don't smoke pot, I don't know stuff like that.