Slight Law Change to Washington Self Defense Statute

[Solar]

imported post

Ok, thanks for that Gray. I understand.

So would the friend of Maurice Clemmons, who was told that he was going to go kill a bunch of cops (had he taken him seriously) been able to use deadly force in a pre-emptive strike? It wouldn't appear not, since that doesn't constitute a special relationship. It seems to be a very fine line. From what I know from past incidents that a friend of mine had, you could basically say anything you want to someone , including threats and saying that you are going to kill them without reprimand if you are in their presence. Amusingly, you can't do this over a phone line without being brought up on federal charges. This might be different if you are carrying a weapon. From what I remember, he had a baseball bat... but was free from prosecution.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

Solar wrote:

Ok, thanks for that Gray. I understand.

 So would the friend of Maurice Clemmons, who was told that he was going to go kill a bunch of cops (had he taken him seriously) been able to use deadly force in a pre-emptive strike? It wouldn't appear not, since that doesn't constitute a special relationship. It seems to be a very fine line. From what I know from past incidents that a friend of mine had, you could basically say anything you want to someone , including threats and saying that you are going to kill them without reprimand if you are in their presence. Amusingly, you can't do this over a phone line without being brought up on federal charges. This might be different if you are carrying a weapon. From what I remember, he had a baseball bat... but was free from prosecution.

He can say whatever the F he wants, IMO. But if he's got a bat, tells me he's gonna kill me, and takes one step towards me, he's going down.

Talk is cheap, actions are actionable.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

+1000 TW.....at least that's the way it used to be in this country. Thoughtcrime isn't real.....yet. We are a society of laws regarding actions.....you should be able to think whatever you want.....it's when you act on those thoughts that you may or may not run afoul of the law.....

 

[Solar]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

+1000 TW.....at least that's the way it used to be in this country. Thoughtcrime isn't real.....yet. We are a society of laws regarding actions.....you should be able to think whatever you want.....it's when you act on those thoughts that you may or may not run afoul of the law.....

But isn't what the law change is accomplishing by making it allowable to prevent as yet to be inflicted harm(or attempted/alluded to harm) by allowing someone to strike first, before the would be assailant even gets within striking distance of the assumed target (which is only a target because he says so, before taking any action) ?