Home intruder shot in shower, home owner charged with murder 1

[Freedom1Man]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/0...er-killing-intruder-in-shower-police-say.html

Bruce Fanning, 59, of Mason County, discovered a stranger showering in one of the two residencies that he owns Saturday at around 8 a.m., Sheriff’s Lt. Travis Adams said. Adams added that Fanning runs a business out of a second property.

Fanning told investigators that he ran from the scene, grabbed a gun and then returned and shot the intruder, court documents showed. Fanning told police he thought the stranger was drunk and claimed he became afraid when the stranger made threats toward him, Q13 Fox reported.

While I don't agree with with his choice of actions, I am more interested in his actions being, techically legal or not.

Intruder = felony
Trespass = Gross misdemeanor

Which was the intruder guilty of?

 

[solus]

let's see now...
1. you find some strange man who appears intoxicated showering in a 'office' property you do not physically reside in.
2. you leave said property.
3. you return to the property shortly thereafter with your trusty firearm and shoot stranger through shower curtain several times.

THEN you call 911 saying you have a strange man, who appears intoxicated, showering in your office property, that you left, returned with w/firearm, shot em through the shower curtain ~ cuz you felt threatened?

last i checked, my firearm was to be used to defend me & loved ones when there is a reasonable threat of death, serious bodily injury, blah, blah, blah! (most states use similar statutory descriptions)

the shooter left the area where that perception of danger existed and therefore wasn't in danger. to return to the dangerous environment with a killing weapon with the sole intent to use it, is not in any shape or form self defense needed to protect yourself. its called hunting, pure and simple.

so property owners can immediately use deadly force on those who trespass in washington state...nawlll come on, you know better than that freedom1man! if that be the case, your vidographer friends would be lying in the streets left and right ~ huh!

ipse

RCW 9A.16.110(1). The statutes read: “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

 

[OC for ME]

Gray bar hotel for this fella.

 

[deanf]

Old news.

 

[solus]

tis like the olden news, the story just reached the west coast!!

ipse

 

[Freedom1Man]

RCW 9A.52.030
Burglary in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a class B felony.

I hate it when out of state people do not even address the question.

CW 9A.16.050
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Looks like it was LEGAL.

I did not say what he did was right. I did not ASK about right or wrong I asked about LEGAL.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I hate it when out of state people do not even address the question.



Looks like it was LEGAL.

I did not say what he did was right. I did not ASK about right or wrong I asked about LEGAL.

When said homeowner retreated from the property, at that time his life was no longer in danger.. Were any family members still in the property and needed rescuing? NO, therefore again, no ones life was in peril...

In my opinion homeowner made a bad decision.. Now the prosecutor will need to convince a jury of homeowners peers that homeowners actions warrant a first degree charge.. I would venture to guess said homeowner will take a plea deal...

My .02
CCJ

 

[solus]

I hate it when out of state people do not even address the question.

Looks like it was LEGAL.

I did not say what he did was right. I did not ASK about right or wrong I asked about LEGAL.

addressing the question, no not legal!

rationale, again...intruder was guilty of being drunk, as such inadvertantly entering a house which was apparently a exact duplicate of the house he was staying in, he was showering, with no evidence in record the property owner attempted to tell the intruder to leave, owner then took matters into his own hands, left and got a gun, came back, again with no evidence in record telling the drunk who was still showering to leave, shot the individual multiple time killing him, then called saying he felt he was threatened.

(tell ya what, get me drunk, in a shower, and have a stranger come tell me to get out...see if kind words are uttered towards them)

last time i checked RCW 9A.52.070 & .080 criminal trespass is a gross misdemeanor not punishable by death and i am sure the dead individual felt .090(3) applied, but tough to ask him cuz he was kill't dead!

no not legal!

ipse

ps, no burglary noted, trespass possibly!

 

[countryclubjoe]

' Hygienic lives Matter"..

 

[solus]

' Hygienic lives Matter"..

even out of staters...rof

ipse

 

[countryclubjoe]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/0...er-killing-intruder-in-shower-police-say.html


While I don't agree with with his choice of actions, I am more interested in his actions being, techically legal or not.

Intruder = felony
Trespass = Gross misdemeanor

Which was the intruder guilty of?

Guilty of both and I would also submit ' thief"of property.. ( Homeowners water) however none warrant a " death sentence".

My .02

 

[The Truth]

The fact that the homeowner left the scene to arm himself and then returned to the scene pretty much tosses self-defense completely out the window. If found that the homeowner was in any danger at all it wasn't until he re-entered the home knowing there was an intruder in there that he placed himself in danger. Using deadly force to stop the felony if it is determined that the trespassing rose to the level of burglary making it a felony? Not according to the jury instructions above. Would a reasonable person leave the house, retrieve a gun, and re-enter the house? To me, that is not reasonable. Especially - and we don't know this - but if it is determined the homeowner had a cell phone in his possession at the time that he could have called used to call for police assistance.

+1

This guy is a total idiot. Would it have even been legal for him to hold the guy at gunpoint and NOT shoot?

Call the cops. Let them deal with it.

 

[solus]

trespass under WA statutes is a misdemeanor ~ period!

spin the 'what if' any way ya want...

ipse

 

[Freedom1Man]

OK then....



You discover someone cheating in a legalized gambling situation which is causing you to lose money. Legal to shoot and kill them under RCW 9A.16.050?

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions:

https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Docu...ype=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)



The fact that the homeowner left the scene to arm himself and then returned to the scene pretty much tosses self-defense completely out the window. If found that the homeowner was in any danger at all it wasn't until he re-entered the home knowing there was an intruder in there that he placed himself in danger. Using deadly force to stop the felony if it is determined that the trespassing rose to the level of burglary making it a felony? Not according to the jury instructions above. Would a reasonable person leave the house, retrieve a gun, and re-enter the house? To me, that is not reasonable. Especially - and we don't know this - but if it is determined the homeowner had a cell phone in his possession at the time that he could have called used to call for police assistance.

Finally, a solid answer.

Also missing is what was said when the home owner found the idiot in the shower in the first place. Did he say, "I am going for my gun, you had better be gone by the time I get back?"
Maybe, "Get the F* out of here now." Reply, "Over my dead body."

Please note, I still do not agree with his actions. I do understand his actions, but don't agree with them.

These out of towners don't bother pulling up the law like locals do.

____

OT are you going to the Picnic again this year?

 

[solus]

let's see now...
1. you find some strange man who appears intoxicated showering in a 'office' property you do not physically reside in.
2. you leave said property.
3. you return to the property shortly thereafter with your trusty firearm and shoot stranger through shower curtain several times.

THEN you call 911 saying you have a strange man, who appears intoxicated, showering in your office property, that you left, returned with w/firearm, shot em through the shower curtain ~ cuz you felt threatened?

last i checked, my firearm was to be used to defend me & loved ones when there is a reasonable threat of death, serious bodily injury, blah, blah, blah! (most states use similar statutory descriptions)

the shooter left the area where that perception of danger existed and therefore wasn't in danger. to return to the dangerous environment with a killing weapon with the sole intent to use it, is not in any shape or form self defense needed to protect yourself. its called hunting, pure and simple.

so property owners can immediately use deadly force on those who trespass in washington state...nawlll come on, you know better than that freedom1man! if that be the case, your vidographer friends would be lying in the streets left and right ~ huh!

ipse

RCW 9A.16.110(1). The statutes read: “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

addressing the question, no not legal!

rationale, again...intruder was guilty of being drunk, as such inadvertantly entering a house which was apparently a exact duplicate of the house he was staying in, he was showering, with no evidence in record the property owner attempted to tell the intruder to leave, owner then took matters into his own hands, left and got a gun, came back, again with no evidence in record telling the drunk who was still showering to leave, shot the individual multiple time killing him, then called saying he felt he was threatened.

(tell ya what, get me drunk, in a shower, and have a stranger come tell me to get out...see if kind words are uttered towards them)

last time i checked RCW 9A.52.070 & .080 criminal trespass is a gross misdemeanor not punishable by death and i am sure the dead individual felt .090(3) applied, but tough to ask him cuz he was kill't dead!

no not legal!

ipse

ps, no burglary noted, trespass possibly!

Finally, a solid answer.

Also missing is what was said when the home owner found the idiot in the shower in the first place. Did he say, "I am going for my gun, you had better be gone by the time I get back?"
Maybe, "Get the F* out of here now." Reply, "Over my dead body."

Please note, I still do not agree with his actions. I do understand his actions, but don't agree with them.

These out of towners don't bother pulling up the law like locals do.

really freedom1man...you went there with that commentary...

truly unbelievable you went from intruder, trespass, burglary, cheating, use of force, jury instructions, to weapons capable of ...

and now you think you have the right concept the situation is ok and legal, whew!!

ipse

oh forgot...projecting what was said between the two...nicely played

 

[Freedom1Man]

really freedom1man...you went there with that commentary...

truly unbelievable you went from intruder, trespass, burglary, cheating, use of force, jury instructions, to weapons capable of ...

and now you think you have the right concept the situation is ok and legal, whew!!

ipse

oh forgot...projecting what was said between the two...nicely played

And nothing from you again.

I state that it was beyond trespass. Entering and not leaving is simple trespass. This is more than trespassing.

I also didn't bring up everything you are making claims of.

 

[Alpine]

Really should stop wasting your time, I only see his posts when others quote him. Site's been a lot more pleasant since I added Solus to ignore list. I've noticed since he began posting a lot in the WA section and jumping down everyone's throats this place has gone fairly silent.

As to the felony here, 2nd degree burglary likely would apply.

RCW 9a.52.030
Burglary in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 § 370; 1989 2nd ex.s. c 1 § 2; 1989 c 412 § 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 7; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.030.]

He broke a window and forced a door open. There's your intent of crime against the property(even if he believed it was his friend's house, you aren't allowed to legally vandalize property just because it belongs to your friends and I'm sure he knew that), and after being discovered in the shower and advised to leave, he remained unlawfully.

Pretty open and shut.

However, the state courts have been ignoring the felony aspect of the relevant RCW for deadly force cases so unless you get lucky and find a sympathetic jury like Gail Gerlach, you are likely to have any prosecutor, judge and possibly jury convict you anyway, especially on the west side of the mountains.

In this way the courts have effectively erased half of the justifiable homicide RCW and lawyers I have spoken with have advised that someone should only use deadly force when your life is in danger or else you will likely suffer from WA activist judges and prosecutors.

For me, I'll let a thief destroy/steal my property before I act to defend myself. It's unfortunate but in WA we aren't allowed to have our laws as they are written.

 

[OC Freedom]

Really should stop wasting your time, I only see his posts when others quote him. Site's been a lot more pleasant since I added Solus to ignore list. I've noticed since he began posting a lot in the WA section and jumping down everyone's throats this place has gone fairly silent.

As to the felony here, 2nd degree burglary likely would apply.


He broke a window and forced a door open. There's your intent of crime against the property(even if he believed it was his friend's house, you aren't allowed to legally vandalize property just because it belongs to your friends and I'm sure he knew that), and after being discovered in the shower and advised to leave, he remained unlawfully.

Pretty open and shut.

However, the state courts have been ignoring the felony aspect of the relevant RCW for deadly force cases so unless you get lucky and find a sympathetic jury like Gail Gerlach, you are likely to have any prosecutor, judge and possibly jury convict you anyway, especially on the west side of the mountains.

In this way the courts have effectively erased half of the justifiable homicide RCW and lawyers I have spoken with have advised that someone should only use deadly force when your life is in danger or else you will likely suffer from WA activist judges and prosecutors.

For me, I'll let a thief destroy/steal my property before I act to defend myself. It's unfortunate but in WA we aren't allowed to have our laws as they are written.

Your statement about Solus is spot on. I rarely come to OCDO anymore just for this reason.

 

[JoeSparky]

Your statement about Solus is spot on. I rarely come to OCDO anymore just for this reason.

I see that I am not the only one.... and my complaints to moderators have had NO EFFECT that I can see. Much nicer with the ignore feature activated!

 

[solus]

oh lookie freedom1man, you have a whole bunch of out-of-state'rs who have taken the thread completely off track as they form their mutual admiration society...(hummm, projecting joesparky et al., singing their society's theme song is kinda scary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUfLHJg-CY0) now if they would be that active in the pursuit of their individual states firearms issues...wow what a wonderful world it would be.

oh dear they have me on ignore and can't respond ~ how pleasant for me!!

ipse