Murder charges against CC'er dropped

Status
Not open for further replies.
When the law prohibits the use of force to protect property it becomes an open invitation to theft by the young and strong who can physically take what they want and run before the police arrive. After all, most property crimes are never solved. The collectivist might argue that human life is always more important than mere property, yet to the individualist that all depends on whose property it is.
Being able to protect your property has always been one of the basic tenants of liberty. In fact the American Revolution was about protecting property. King George did not want to kill anyone, at least not at first. He just wanted to take a percentage of people’s property in the form of various taxes. The colonist
Who attacked the British army at Lexington and Concord were not in fear for their lives, they just did not want some foreign army confiscating their weapons and subjugating them to British law and demanding taxes. This was the American spirit at its finest "Don't tread on me". Today our motto might as well be "Walk all over me" or worse yet, Take whaterer you wan't just don't hurt me. This is the attitude of sheep and cowards.
 
The fact remains that there is only one state in the union where shooting someone to protect or recover property is lawful -- and then only under pretty stringent conditions.

A willingness to kill someone rather than lose an item of property does not reflect, nor have any bearing on, the laws pertinent to this case.

A revolution/revolt against a government or king, and the conditions and actions common to a state of war have nothing to do with a lawful self-defense action between citizens.

Lets not drag this off into the weeds.
 
I don't have the link, but the FBI actually did a series of tests on this
A person drawing and fireing a handgun from exposed (presented) is 3 TIMES slower than the time it takes a person to identify and move (turning being the quickest)

So, guy goes for his gun
BG sees him drawing and turns
bullets impact side and back

Now why would a big ol Federal LE agency be wasting your money on these test???
Cause BG's family sue for big money, even when they are killed in the commission of a felony. Esp. when they weren't threatening anyone and were JUST TRYING TO RUN AWAY... see the cops didn't have to shoot them in the back...

And when the decision to shoot was made, the BG was a clear and imminent danger.
Click to expand...

I have to qualify on "turning" targets. I've squeezed off rounds while it was facing, only to have them impact mid turn, some even shred the paper target laterally as they pass.

Usually this happens using my back-up Glock-27 at the 25 yard line, where I get 4 seconds, starting from the holster. It takes me a second extra to find the front sight at that range.
 
When the law prohibits the use of force to protect property it becomes an open invitation to theft by the young and strong who can physically take what they want and run before the police arrive. After all, most property crimes are never solved. The collectivist might argue that human life is always more important than mere property, yet to the individualist that all depends on whose property it is.
Being able to protect your property has always been one of the basic tenants of liberty. In fact the American Revolution was about protecting property. King George did not want to kill anyone, at least not at first. He just wanted to take a percentage of people’s property in the form of various taxes. The colonist
Who attacked the British army at Lexington and Concord were not in fear for their lives, they just did not want some foreign army confiscating their weapons and subjugating them to British law and demanding taxes. This was the American spirit at its finest "Don't tread on me". Today our motto might as well be "Walk all over me" or worse yet, Take whaterer you wan't just don't hurt me. This is the attitude of sheep and cowards.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and if laws were changed to allow deadly force to be used anytime there is a robery day/night I am sure robberies would start to decline. Once criminals realize they are the fair game and not the honest people things would change for the better.
 
Sam, I think you are mistaken about only one state lets you use deadly force to protect property. WA and ID you can under certain circumstances. For WA see RCW 9A.16.110 (1)

quote: "(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."

(My bold)
 
Interesting, hermannr, what other WA state laws come into play to influence this? How is it being applied?

Taken as a snippet of legal text, that seems unbelievably open-ended -- like you could kill someone to keep them from stealing something like your cell phone or hat or other trivial bit of "personal property." (Defending "real property" I take to mean preventing arson, and similar grave damage to home & land, which does have precedent elsewhere.)

Love to see how that's being interpreted. WA could be the next TX! (Oh yay.) ;)

...

And, by chance, does this come from a "castle doctrine" law, meaning which, IF you make a successful case for self-defense or other lawful violent action under state laws governing manslaughter or assault, then you may not be placed in legal jeopardy, esp. from civil suits and so forth?

If that is the case, then this snippet doesn't actually define what is "justifiable" and what isn't, but rather says -- IF you were justified, then you won't be sued, etc.
 
Hej Sam!

That law is in the criminal code (RCW 9A) and was put there to keep over-zellous DA's from making life misrable and expensive for SD (including defence of property) situations (this was especially true in Seattle) so the state legislature decided that if a person is improperly prosecuted in a SD situation, the offending governmental unit must pay. No need for a law suit, it is automatic. There is a lot more to RCW 9A.16.110, you really need to read the whole section to get a fuller understanding of what the legislature intended.


There was a funny one in Seattle a month or so ago, or at least it was reported in a funny manner. Burgler is caught (but not shot by the homeowner) in the act and runs...there is a person parked nearby, using his cell phone, burgler trys to car-jack this car, car owner shoots burgler (now attempting a car-jacking)...no charges filed...what was funny is the news reported that the "burgler shot fleeing",,,, not really a true discription of what happened.
 
back to West Virginia

We are commenting on the comments either here or in the Charleston Gazette, rather than on the facts of the case.

The prosecutors charged the guy with murder before the investigation was complete.

http://wvgazette.com/News/201109192975
Travis Crum, "Murder charge dropped in Walmart shooting in Logan", The Charleston Gazette, September 19, 2011.

Logan County Magistrate Dwight Williamson on the state's behalf filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Jesus Canul. Canul's attorney Mark Hobbs Hobbs and Logan County Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett signed the motion.

According to the Charleston Gazette, the motion said "some aspects of the investigation have not been completed" and Canul's attorney said "the charges were dismissed to allow prosecutors to gather more information about the investigation."

He could be charged if the prosecutors present a case to the grand jury.
 
According to the law hermannr cited, the operative words might be "reasonable means necessary", that's where I see the missing immunity idol.

Is it reasonable to shoot and kill a miscreant for attempting to steal your garaged chainsaw because you are 5'6", 140 lbs and he's 6'6" and 220 lbs? Obviously you are not going to fist fight him for it and come up a winner, but I'm not so sure emptying a .45 clip in him is going to fly with Mr. Prosecutor.
 
That law is in the criminal code (RCW 9A) and was put there to keep over-zellous DA's from making life misrable and expensive for SD (including defence of property) situations ...
Click to expand...

Right. That was my point about it being a "castle doctrine" law to aid and assist someone who has defended themself lawfully. My question about how it is applied still stands.

What law or laws define how the self-defense case is actually successfully argued? This law seems to say IF you are justified you won't be further hassled. It does not seem to be the point of law, itself, that defines which acts or conditions must be proved to establish that you were indeed acting out of self-defense (or another lawful justification for violence).

Maybe this is it. But it doesn't read like it,
 
If it is wrong to use deadly force to protect property, why do we have a military?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is completely off-topic. Why? For the same reason one might say, "If it is wrong for me to kill someone who has committed a crime, why do we have capital punishment?" Because society may do things and perform actions which are not the right of any one individual to do on their own. YOU don't have an army, the nation of the United States does, to defend our borders against invasion and to project US policy around the world. YOU don't get to kill someone for murder. Society may decide that they must be killed because of their heinous crime, but that responsibility and right does not belong to any citizen. And even society as a sovereign entity refuses to KILL someone for stealing property.

Now, don't take this off-topic again, please.
 
Sam, the rules are in RCW 9A.16.020 and RCW 9A.16.050.

Basically, dangerous to you or others with you, or commit a felony in you presence. When you read 050(1), especially see, "felony OR to do some great personal injury"

As I understand the rule, the felony must be committed on your person, OR in your presence.

There is another section in 9A.16 that covers the police. (yes, the rules are a bit different)
 
Posted by hermannr: Sam, I think you are mistaken about only one state lets you use deadly force to protect property. WA and ID you can under certain circumstances. For WA see RCW 9A.16.110 (1)

quote: "(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."
Click to expand...
That law has to do with prosecution. Do not conclude that homicide in defense of property is justifiable in Washington State.

It is never wise to try to base one's conclusions on a layman's interpretation of a single statute taken in isolation, without an understanding of legal principles and without full knowledge of relevant court rulings.
 
If you commit a robbery and get shot front or back Should be no charges. Why are we suppose to play fair. Criminals get the break. You were just robbed a knife at you throat . You life threatened and you suppose to just let them walk. Bull Laws need changed do a crime with a weapon and get shot tough luck. We have to many nice to criminal laws on the books.
 
Good point, Kleanbore.

And very unfortunate. It is unfortunate that law has become so complicated that a layman cannot sit down and read a statute, understand it, and follow references to related statutes for a full and complete picture of the law.

A nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But a person cannot possibly fully comprehend its laws,
without paying a good sum of money for counsel.

That's too bad. It should be of the people, by the people, for the people,
and comprehendable to the people.
 
Quote:
im sorry pal.....but thats murder.....period.
Not always.

There are situations, and cases, where shooting someone in the back is the correct thing to do and they still pose an imminent threat to your safety and welfare. Someone with their back turned to you while they are reaching for a gun is a likely scenario. Another is someone fleeing yet shooting behind them as they flee.

These are just two examples but they do, I hope, help to illustrate that shooting someone in the back is not always murder.

BikerRN
Click to expand...


Biker is correct. I've been following this case as it has been discussed daily on local radio. There have been a number of attorneys commenting during these radio discussions. According to them, some who have had first hand experience with similar cases, the fact that the robber was shot in the back does not mean the shooting was not justified. It is absurd to say shooting a robber in the back after they have robbed you and are running away is murder. There are way too many variables in any given incident to make any kind of blanket statement about anything that occurred.

The prosecutor's case is dead. There was a tremendous public outcry that murder charges were brought against the victim. We can all say he should not have shot the guy as he was running away but we weren't in the victims shoes on that day. I think the prosecutor realized there was no way he could get a conviction and simply cut his losses. From the prosecutor's perspective he, the prosecutor, had already done severe damage to his political future by bringing charges. I live here and I can tell you the public was angry.
 
As a recently NRA certified pistol instructor I was sitting in on and also assisting in a concealed weapons class given by my club. While aiding an elderly lady with her shooting (our students fire between 50-100 rounds) I found out why she was getting her CCW in FL. Recently at her isolated 40 acre country home some criminals with extensive records were walking about her house and peering inside. When the police arrived the officer told her she should have shot fire from the windows at the lowlifes and killed them. I reminded her of the legal lecture that our lawyer had given the class and she acknowledged she could not legally fire out of her window at circling criminals. The thing is there a lot of misinformation floating around as to when and why you can shoot someone.

Part of being an adult is being able to suck it up and do nothing even you are highly outraged and keep it inside. If you can not you should not be carrying a weapon or even driving a car.
 
barnetmill said:
As a recently NRA certified pistol instructor I was sitting in on and also assisting in a concealed weapons class given by my club. While aiding an elderly lady with her shooting (our students fire between 50-100 rounds) I found out why she was getting her CCW in FL. Recently at her isolated 40 acre country home some criminals with extensive records were walking about her house and peering inside. When the police arrived the officer told her she should have shot fire from the windows at the lowlifes and killed them. I reminded her of the legal lecture that our lawyer had given the class and she acknowledged she could not legally fire out of her window at circling criminals. The thing is there a lot of misinformation floating around as to when and why you can shoot someone.

Part of being an adult is being able to suck it up and do nothing even you are highly outraged and keep it inside. If you can not you should not be carrying a weapon or even driving a car.
Click to expand...
There's an old saying up in my former neck of the rural woods; shoot, shut up, shovel. I'm sure it only pertained to stray animals though, at least that's what I always figured.
 
There's an old saying up in my former neck of the rural woods; shoot, shut up, shovel. I'm sure it only pertained to stray animals though, at least that's what I always figured.
Click to expand...
Could this be an example of misinformation?

A few years ago I was told of case when a man a in rural FL county did open fire on criminals outside of home in rural setting and got a letter commendation from the prosecutor for his shooting. Today do not count on it happening.

About two yrs ago a man that was accused of molesting a father's 4 yr old disappeared. Following a divorce the the wife ratted out on the father of the molested child. The father was taken in to custody to face charges in Escambia, Alabama which is rural. Cops knew he did it but could not prove it. He had already served time for once before for unsuccessfully having tried to kill the pervert.
i do not know the outcome.

Take care in what you do.
 
barnetmill said:
Could this be an example of misinformation?

A few years ago I was told of case when a man a in rural FL county did open fire on criminals outside of home in rural setting and got a letter commendation from the prosecutor for his shooting. Today do not count on it happening.

About two yrs ago a man that was accused of molesting a father's 4 yr old disappeared. Following a divorce the the wife ratted out on the father of the molested child. The father was taken in to custody to face charges in Escambia, Alabama which is rural. Cops knew he did it but could not prove it. He had already served time for once before for unsuccessfully having tried to kill the pervert.
i do not know the outcome.

Take care in what you do.
Click to expand...
Just the fact that he was ratted out means he did not follow rule 2, shut up.

And just to be clear, I don't personally subscribe to that credo, but it is well known in those parts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
FL law -- joint responsibility = murder charge
Replies
10
Views
1K
David Scott
D
J
  • Locked
CCW Holder Charged with Murder
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
6K
Art Eatman
A
bikemutt
  • Locked
Claim of self-defense nets a murder charge
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
3K
baylorattorney
B
P
  • Locked
Judge stops murder trial, acquits shooter, calls victim "animal"
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
OrvilleYertleson
O
R
  • Locked
Deputy charged with murder
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
hammer4nc
H
Back
Top