Home defense in Washington

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but I was finally convinced to get of my butt and do it by what I heard on the radio yesterday morning.  I was driving to work when they reported a story about a guy who's house was broken into the night before somewhere in or around Seattle.  A punk with a knife tied him up with a phone cord and went through his place, taking his credit cards, money, etc.  Before he left, he slashed the victim's throat twice and stabbed him in the gut.  He survived, in serious condition, and they caught the bad guy not long after.  They played the 911 tape on the radio, he sounded like he was in a lot of pain.  He apparently did everything you're 'supposed' to: gave the bad guy what he wanted, didn't argue with him, etc.  But he still got slashed.

So now my question.  I just moved to WA about six weeks ago.  I live about 25 miles south of Seattle, but in the same county (don't know if that makes a difference).  I commute through Seattle to my new job, which is just outside the Seattle city limit on the north side.  My home-defense guns are a GP100 (6" heavy barrel, too big for carry),  12 gauge pump, and a Mini-14 which I am in the process of accurizing (CQB-style, equipped with a Holosight).  Just after I moved here I was talking to an in-law about home defense.  She told me Washington has some pretty screwed-up ideas about defending oneself in one's home.  Apparently, you can't shoot an intruder unless he has a gun and he's blocking the door or window (your way out).  Or if the room has a window, you can't shoot regardless of what's happening in the room, whether the bad guy has a gun or is attacking you, because the window means you have a means of escape, so you can't shoot even if you're being killed, or some ridiculous idea like that.  

Can someone confirm this for me?  Or explain what the law in WA says about home defense regarding an intruder?  Any intelligent person knows that you can't legislate what will happen and how to respond during a home invasion, but I'd like to know what the law is in these parts regarding this stuff.  Even if the law makes no sense, I need to be aware of it before hand.  So can anyone enlighten me on this?  I know every state has it's own laws about what you 'can and can't do', and I need to know what WA law says.

The other thing is concealed carry.  I know WA is a shall-issue state.  So what's the process for obtaining a CCW permit?  Where do I start and how much will it cost?  I don't have a WA driver's license yet, if that matters.   I don't have a CC gun yet, but will probably get one in the spring or summer.

[twodollarpistol]

Im not in any way qualified to give advice on the law in any state, so take what I have to say as just MHO. If any body invades my home, and places me, my family, or my property in danger, and I have any type of opportunity, Im going to shoot the bastard. And Im going to shoot him very much bad. Damn the law. We will argue "should have, could have" in court. And it will just be my side of the story and the evidence to consider. He wont be saying anything. Many will disagree with this line of thinking and that is O K too. If they are more concerned with what might happen to themselves afterwards than the safety of there family, then let them decide the best course of action for themselves. I would rather spend the rest of my life in prison than to live with the knowledge that one of my loved ones was harmed because I was worried about what the law MIGHT say and what MIGHT happen to me and hesitated too long to protect them. Thats my responsibility. I dont intend to be politically correct with the safety of my home and HOPE everything will turn out O K.
  Opinions are plentiful and cheep, and everybody has one....or more. This is just ONE of mine, FWIW. :wink:

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not saying that I disagree with your point of view.  But I still want to keep myself informed of the laws where I live.

[LMM]

I'm not from Washington State but don't trust what "someone" tells you.  Go to the source. Hope this helps!

Here are a couple links to check.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/

http://www.atg.wa.gov/firearms/

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=9.41

http://access.wa.gov/government/state_laws.aspx

Washington State Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:

     (1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

     (2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force -- When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

     (1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

     (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

     (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

     (4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

     (5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

     (6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

RCW 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 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 presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.
(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.

     (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

     (3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

     Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

     (4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

     (5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:

  answer yes or no
 1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .  
 2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.  
 3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:  
 a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .  
 b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .  
 c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .  
 d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .  
 e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .  
 f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .

[dawei]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-ccw/

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

Thanks for the info.

[leverfan]

Welcome to the Evergreen State, Rex.

Here in Washington, you do have a "duty to retreat".  That is, if you can avoid trouble, you're supposed to.  However, it really only gets enforced around the extremely liberal Seattle area.  Where I live, the cops and prosecutors will let you defend yourself.  In fact, I've had local cops tell me to just drag a body into the house if I pop someone on the porch.  A neighbor was recently advised to deliver a beating to a car prowler, as the local jail is too full to accept a prowler for official punishment.  The rank and file police strongly believe in self defense, the 2nd Amendment, and the right to protect one's home.  Local juries recognize the right to defend property, so failure to retreat, or using lethal force to protect property, is not likely to result in conviction.  

Even in Seattle, the right to self defense is recognized, and you're really not going to get in any legal trouble if you act to save an innocent life.  Civil suits are something else, but you run into that everywhere these days.

I lived in Seattle for many years, and I obtained my first carry permit there.  If you ever tire of the Seattle area, keep in mind that most of the rest of the state is nothing like Seattle.  Keep your fingers crossed that Dino Rossi becomes our next governor, that should solve some problems with the state.  There are only about 8 liberal leaning counties in the state, out of about 40.  

Getting a CCW is a snap, if you have a clean record, no mental/drug problems, and you're over 21.  Go to the nearest police station and ask for the forms.  Fill them out, pay the fee, and your permit comes in the mail.  My last renewal cost $32, and it's good for 4 years.  You'll be fingerprinted for the first one.  Some cop shops issue them within a matter of days (like Kalama police).  Around Seattle, you may have to wait up to a month, especially for the first permit (lots of checking is supposed to get done, you know).  You'll be given a pamphlet that tells you where it's illegal to pack.  If they forget, be sure to ask for it.  In some areas, the county sheriff issues the permit, so you might want to make a few phone calls, just to be sure you go to the right place.

Your commute sounds like it sucks eggs.  I used to drive a route back and forth through Seattle, from the Rainier Valley to Northgate, and it wasn't fun.  Be sure to pack in a very concealable rig.  Bangers and hookers spotted some of the rigs that I started with, and thought I was a cop.  I'd rather that nobody knew I was packing.  Don't buy your guns in the Seattle area, the mark up can be huge compared to other places.

[Lawdog]

Squirrelsaurus Rex,

In fact, I've had local cops tell me to just drag a body into the house if I pop someone on the porch.

Don’t you believe it.  Lawdog
 

[leverfan]

Squirrelsaurus Rex,

In fact, I've had local cops tell me to just drag a body into the house if I pop someone on the porch.

Don’t you believe it.  Lawdog
 

This advice was given to my family when I was about 15 or 16.  After a series of property crimes, my father asked a responding officer what level of force was okay for him to use in defending our home.  We were told that if our guard dog chomped someone outside, or if lethal force was used, that the officer would actively assist in making the scene "correct."  That's not to say that this officer was right, or that his advice was good, or legal, or moral.  I was trying to illustrate local attitudes, and this was not meant to be taken as advice.  The police officer was giving bad advice, and anyone taking his advice would likely be in for a long stint in the state prison.  However, he did say it.  Luckily, it never came up for us, but I'm sure that my father would not have done what the officer said.  

The last time someone used lethal force to protect property in this county, when there was no threat to himself, he was charged.  The jury let him off, but that's more of a gamble than any property is worth, not to mention the life that was taken.

Lawdog, sorry I wasn't clearer in my first post.  It was late. :oops:   The fact remains that local police have in the past, and continue, to support a rather antiquated approach to justice.

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

Your commute sounds like it sucks eggs.

Yup.  Rotten eggs.  I'm in Renton.  My job is in Shoreline.  I have to go south on 405, then north on I-5, through Seattle to Shoreline.  I hear going north on 405 would be even worse, then through Bothell and that area over to Shoreline.  If things go smoothly, it's usually about an hour, although it's taken an hour and twenty minutes before.  The other night was a real drag going home, lots of rain and one bridge closed due to a fatal accident.  Traffic was backed up everywhere.  It took me an hour to go four miles.  I finally got off the freeway and sat in my car and read a book for an hour until traffic eased up.  Took a total of 2 1/2 hours to get home, which is a total of 32 miles from work.

Thanks for the info.  And don't worry, I'm too intelligent to think altering a crime scene is a good idea. :mrgreen:

[LMM]

........Here in Washington, you do have a "duty to retreat".  ...........

Couldn't locate that legal reference, can you advise where it is at?


I reiterate:

.....don't trust what "someone" tells you. Go to the source."

Everyone be safe!

[Mikey]

Rex - I've followed this thread since your first post and have wanted to jump in about half a dozen times with my own two cents worth but you have already gotten good advice and the correct perspective on this issue and to go into further detail wouldn't be very fruitful.

I will say this to you only once my friend and hope it carries you well.  If you ever have to defend yourself, your family or home, you will need to make absolutely certain the threat has been eliminated.  That usually means a dead man in your home or on your property.  It won't matter if you have justifiably defended yourself, you will be put through a wringer just the same.  You may well be carted off in handcullfs and forced to appear before a judge to state your innocence.  Just make certain you have a standing attorney (your own lawyer) and that he/she is familiar with defensive shooting situations.  In addition, make certain he or she has the telephone number for the NRA for advice and counsel.  

Being prepared to defend yourself, whether bodily or in court, is just being wise.  If you never have to do so, that's all the better.  But if you do, be prepared and you carpe diem.  Just my two cents worth.  Mikey.

[Lawdog]

leverfan,

I have wore the badge for 30 years and I have a plaque on the wall behind my desk that reads;
I Would Rather Be Judged By Twelve Than Carried By Six.
It is just bad advice to give to someone to tell them to try to cover up a shooting.  If your life or the life of someone else is being threatened and you can not escape then of course, use whatever force is needed to stop the threat BUT no more than that.  Lawdog