O/T: Protection

The specific wording of the Washington statute is: "(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."

The statute provides no non-judicial means for ascertaining whether a person was "protectiing by any reasonable means necessary . . .". So if you have not been tried in the criminal courts and acquitted on grounds of self-defense the relatives can still sue you and you still have to pay for a legal defense. Further, unlike a criminal trial there is no specific provision that you are due compensation for a civil trial in which it is ascertained that you acted in self-defense. So to actually obtain protection under the statute you have to persuade the district attorney to bring criminal charges and go to court so you can get acquitted by reason of self defense. It's going to be an uphill battle to persuade him to do that--generally DAs don't like to waste the state's money on cases that they know they are going to lose.

If the statute provided, for example, that an affadavit from the district attorney stating that he did not bring charges because he was certain that you would be acquitted on grounds of self-defense would suffice as evidence that you did so then things might be different, but there appears to be no such mechanism provided in the statute.

Reply to
J. Clarke
Loading thread data ...

The OJ case wouldn't be applicable as an example here because self- defense was not an element of the case (at least not from OJ's frame of reference).

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Have you seen a perp's relatives sue the victim in a justifiable shooting in a CD state? That *is* what we were talking about.

I would disagree, but...

e. none of the above. Back to you.

Reply to
krw

Make life easier for the rest of us. Either learn to snip or top post.

Reply to
CW

I'll reverse that. Make life easier on the rest of us, learn to inline post.

Reply to
krw

At least I didn't post a whole page of irrrelevent horse shit.

Reply to
CW

Posting anything after what you wrote was irrelevant.

Reply to
krw

WTH were we talking about?

Reply to
LDosser

Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Reply to
LDosser

Some of our civil law needs serious work ...

Reply to
LDosser

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:54:45 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:

Hello, fellow Webfoot! (LJ, from Grass Pants, OR)

-- REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up!

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Beaverton!

Reply to
LDosser

You think ours are bad, how about those libel laws in Europe? Yikes!

Reply to
krw

NTM their criminal law.

Reply to
LDosser

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your hinder legs over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun comments when we were talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned until you brought it up. Listen up, slick, there's a big difference between a firearm and BUG SPRAY - even a pro-gun nutter like me knows that. As to stereotype, I don't think there IS a stereotype for exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not me. If I have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty not to interfere. If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the government has a duty to not impose unreasonable restrictions. For constitutional rights, the methodology is called "strict scrutiny."

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress) applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Reply to
HeyBub

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:29:31 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:

Way up there. When I moved up from CA, I went from 50 miles north of the Mexican border to 50 miles north of the California border (_exactly_ one state), so I'm still a Southerner, I guess.

-- REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up!

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use of deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say so, the Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat. That said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from liability for a righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Many other states have something similar.

Reply to
HeyBub

Note those words: "Affirmative defense". It doesn't mean that you can't be sued. It means that if you can prove self-defense you will be absolved of liability--you'll still be out legal fees and court costs and lost time.

Reply to
J. Clarke

No, because you continue to mouth off like Johnny Carson parodying a hunter.

You have a duty to use your rights responsibly. Right now with all the inflammatory rhetoric you are making a fool of yourself, which you are welcome to do, but you are also serving as an embarrassment to others in your own camp.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Most insecticides are chemical variants of military nerve agents, and work by interfering with neurotransmitters. Wasp spray has a good chance of working, so long as you don't care about any possible long term toxic effects.

Reply to
Father Haskell

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.