Shooting at a fleeing suspect?

[midiwall]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

joeroket wrote:

midiwall wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

So much for the "Don't shoot at a fleeing attacker" mandate........this guy wasn't even attacking him....and it wasn't his house! Not saying this is right, not saying it isn't.....I just think it's highly interesting......
​

According to the RCW, he's clear:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

"(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."

Once he starts to flee the attempt to commit a felony has ended. He is not clear. Had he shot/killed the subject in the back he more than likely would be facing manslaughter charges.

If he had, as reported, something in his hand, it would be reasonable to believe that it was property stolen from the dwelling. Therefore, the thief was still in the process of committing the felony and he was still in the presence of the shooter.

Here's a slight right turn in the discussion...

From the OP's story, we can conclude that the BG has commited Criminal Trespass, which is a gross misdemeanor. ref:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.070

Now, if the BG even _thought_ of taking something from the house (or of course that the "something in his hand" is from the house), then that's Residential burglary, which is a class B felony. ref:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.025

Therefore, we're back to 9A.16.050, because a felony has already been committed.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

This topic brings up another issue that many have firmly stand on "not talking to police and lawyer up".

It is pretty clear the House Sitter talked to Officers and it seems to me if he followed this advice, the result would have been, would have been taken into custody until such time the investigation was complete.

While one should be concerned as to what they say, but I feel one should provide the basics, of Who What Where and When thus providing enough information as to evidence.

This is similar to what occurred here in Yakima last month and no charges were filed do to investigating officers did not refer to the Prosecuting Attorney.

 

[Nivek]

imported post

As several have said, the statement of observation is the article is rather vague and ambiguous. However, if the first part of the statement is true, and the culprit had a stolen article IN HIS POSSESSION as he fled, then I would take that to mean the felony is still in progress, ergo deadly force was completely legal. My .02

IMHO, it is questionable to shoot any man in the back. But since this is not a discussion or morality, I will simply say the way I read it, the house-sitter is completely in the clear.

 

[911Boss]

imported post

amlevin wrote:

The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

Who knows?

So it is legal and ok to shoot, as long as you aren't able to actually hit what you are shooting at? But if you got skills and tag the "X" ring now it is wrong to shoot?

I guess I will reassess my beliefs in regard to "warning" shots...

 

[amlevin]

imported post

911Boss wrote:

amlevin wrote:

The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

Who knows?

So it is legal and ok to shoot, as long as you aren't able to actually hit what you are shooting at? But if you got skills and tag the "X" ring now it is wrong to shoot?

I guess I will reassess my beliefs in regard to "warning" shots...

Point I was getting at was since he missed there wasn't any reason to look into whether the use of force was justified. Different case if there was a body laying there with a hole in the back, especially if the body was never armed.

As for the miss, probably didn't hit anyone else either. Very lucky.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

amlevin wrote:

911Boss wrote:

amlevin wrote:

The Sheriff's statement is probably based on the fact he didn't hit the actor. If he had hit and killed him then the Sheriff may well have had a different comment.

Who knows?

So it is legal and ok to shoot, as long as you aren't able to actually hit what you are shooting at? But if you got skills and tag the "X" ring now it is wrong to shoot?

I guess I will reassess my beliefs in regard to "warning" shots...

Point I was getting at was since he missed there wasn't any reason to look into whether the use of force was justified. Different case if there was a body laying there with a hole in the back, especially if the body was never armed.

As for the miss, probably didn't hit anyone else either. Very lucky.

If one could not prove they were in deed in fear for their life or limb then I would agree as well.
If I felt that he had a deadly weapon in his hand that still posed a threat, a different story.
All is dependent upon the situation.