Posted on 04/05/2017 12:01:57 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A Washington state man is facing a possible first-degree murder charge after shooting an intruder he found taking a shower in a property he owned — in a case authorities and legal experts said appeared to go beyond self-defense laws.
Bruce Fanning, 59, is accused of fatally shooting Nathaniel Rosa, 31, after he discovered Rosa bathing early Saturday morning in Belfair, Washington, according to the Mason County Sheriff's Office.
Authorities say Fanning discovered his place of business, which is near his home, had been broken into and found Rosa in the shower.
Fanning told investigators he confronted Rosa, who responded with "some unintelligible words that seemed threatening to him and that he appeared drunk," Mason County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Ryan Spurling told NBC News.
Image: Washington state A homeowner shot an intruder after finding the man in his shower in Mason County, Wash. Mason County Sheriff's Office Fanning then left the building, went next door to his home and got a hand gun, returned and shot Rosa, Spurling said.
Both Spurling and a press release from the sheriff's office said Fanning did not try interact with Rosa again before shooting him.
"He wasn't in any danger when he left the residence," Spurling said, later adding, "He reinserted himself, saw the individual was still showering and shot him — that's not self-defense."
Authorities arrested Fanning on suspicion of second-degree murder, but a clerk at the Mason County Superior Court told NBC News that a judge at Fanning's court appearance on Monday found there was probable cause for first-degree murder — which would require prior intent to kill.
Fanning has not yet been charged with either first or second degree murder but is being held at the Mason County Jail on $250,000 bail, prosecutor Mike Dorsey told NBC News. He was scheduled to be arraigned on April 10.
Dorsey said investigators were still working out the details of how Rosa ended up at Fanning's residence, but noted that on that street there were several "almost identical" looking houses.
Legal experts told NBC News on Tuesday that while the specific case was still being investigated, even the most permissive self-defense laws or gun laws still required using deadly force to be necessary to preserve one's life, or that of another.
Play How US compares to rest of world on gun laws Facebook Twitter Embed How US compares to rest of world on gun laws 3:52 Heidi Li Feldman, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Washington state "has permissive gun ownership and use laws, and it specifically is a state that doesn't have any duty to retreat," referring to a legal requirement that a person under threat must retreat from the threat rather as much as possible rather than resort to use of force.
Feldman said that even states with so-called "stand your ground" laws, which allow people to use force without retreating in order to protect themselves, there must be a reasonable threat.
"None of these doctrines let you shoot someone just for being on your property," she said.
Washington state law says no person shall be placed in "legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever" for protecting themselves "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."
The sheriff's department included in its press release that state law also rules a person can use force lawfully to defend themselves or someone in their vicinity if they are about to be injured, and said they found in their initial investigation that this case did not support "reasonable" or "necessary" self-defense.
"It's not clear that somebody standing in your shower, naked and maybe not all that communicative, is in fact posing the sort of threat to you that would justify the use of force in defending yourself," Feldman noted.
Image: Mason County, Wash. Police investigate the shooting. Mason County Sheriff's Office Robert Cottrol, a law professor at George Washington University, said many laws around the country draw a distinction between "self-defense, which is when you're in imminent peril, and self-help, which is taking the law into your own hands."
"There are aspects of the case — like the fact that it took place in the home — that complicate it, but I don't think the arrest is by any means out of the question," he said.
"Where's the imminent harm? Where's the upturned knife that you're about to be struck by," he added.
Mason County Coroner Wes Stockwell told NBC News on Tuesday that Rosa died from four gunshot wounds to the torso. He said his office would be doing a toxicology report, but that results would not be available for several weeks.
Stockwell said Rosa's family told him the victim had been visiting his mother, who lives in the town of Belfair, and friends for the weekend.
Rosa was a special education teacher at Woodmoor Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, according to school district officials. He was hired in July 2015. It was unclear why he would have been taking a shower on Fanning's property.
"This is a devastating loss for our school community," Principal Angela Kerr said in an email to families obtained by NBC News.
Northshore School District Superintendent Michelle Reid said in a separate email to staff that Rosa "was a compassionate and dedicated educator who made a difference in the lives of many and will be dearly missed."
Fanning's niece, Christal Farster, told NBC affiliate KING5 on Monday that her uncle was a private person.
"He is a great uncle," she told the station as she left the courtroom. "I feel for the whole situation, all the families and stuff."
What a tragedy.
To man in shower: “Put down your weapon!”
Man in shower: “But I can’t! Give me a minute!”
Blam, blam, blam blam!
Man coming at you in shower is no reason to blow him dead.
Gotta blow him dead. What’s to keep him coming back after he’s been arrested? Why do you think cops shoot to kill?
Incredibly stupid. He goes next door, gets a gun, returns, shoots the guy in the shower 4 times, then calls the police. Dead man had no criminal record.
It’s real simple. You walk out of your house. Then you call the police. This is murder, not self-defense
Sadly, an avoidable murder. He had plenty of time to call the police. If it were a house he lived in, it might be more understandable about fear of return and revenge later on. So many reasons to despise the misuse of alcohol.
Probably some kind of Craig’s list queer hookup gone wrong.
Dude, WTF are you talking about?! :)
He went next door and got a gun. And went back and shot him.
This is a conservative website.
Not stormfront.
Now I do not think he did the right thing, but if the law really is as quoted, how does anyone think he was not protecting his real (the building) or personal (the contents of the building) property?
I don't think he should have shot the guy, but I do feel that going home to get the gun was a prudent thing to do in case of confrontation, and that if the guy made threatening verbalizations to him what should he do?
Sure call the police first is a good idea, but finding a stranger in your shower is a stressful event and he might not be thinking with 100% clarity.
Just stupid? I don’t know. Sounds like a sociopath to me.
I’ve learned a lot about guns and when self defense is permitted from gun owners on FR.
I would assume most of them would think this guy was nuts!!!
Being the coward i am, i’d lock myself in the other house and hold the gun just in case until the cops got there!! :)
Well Carl Rowan was lucky enough to get a mistrial verdict. So he has a chance.
This one sounds like murder. Unlike the guy in Broken Arrow, OK, who was facing three armed intruders, the shooter in this case wasn’t under a direct threat.
I'd be really careful with anything I "learned" on Free Republic regarding the lawful use of firearms and self defense.
Lot of folks posting here who believe in within their God-given legal right to shoot anything that moves.
Ah, alas, it doesn’t matter.
I live in NYC/USSR.
I’m obliged to get shot like a sitting duck if my home is broken into.
YES, I want to leave. But the, what’s the word, I always forget, oh yeah, WIFE wants to stay.
I’m 49 in May. We’re out of here at 62.
Straight to PA.
But thanks for the heads up :)
Yes - the law in Washington state says reasonable force (including homicide) can be used in defense of property. The problem with this shooting would be the “reasonable” aspect of it. If it was me I would have called 911 and went back and made sure he didn’t leave until the cops came. Making a citizen’s arrest if need be. And armed.
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.
.
.
.
(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?
. . . . .
“’Fanning then left the building, went next door to his home and got a hand gun, returned and shot Rosa,’ Spurling said... Both Spurling and a press release from the sheriff’s office said Fanning did not try interact with Rosa again before shooting him. ‘He wasn’t in any danger when he left the residence,’ Spurling said, later adding, ‘He reinserted himself, saw the individual was still showering and shot him — that’s not self-defense.’”
A good journalist would ask the officers how they know these supposed facts of the case.
Did the owner confess these things? They obviously did not get them from the intruder. No one else was present. No one else would know what happened but the owner.
If it happened the way the police describe it, then it is murder. But it is convenient for them to support their arrest and his being charged by stating these things as facts.
Remember to never answer police questions if involved in a shooting without first talking to a lawyer. Sometimes there is a gray area. Use the presumption of innocence in your favor. But don’t be stupid by shooting someone unless you truly feel your or someone’s life is in danger.
I guess it is implied by the statements of the police to the press that the owner told them the facts that they were sharing with the reporters.
If so, the guy is stupid for telling them AND for shooting the burglar.
But I still wonder if they are distorting what he told them.
If he went home and got his gun and came back, he probably would not be breaking the law.
If he tried to arrest the guy, he probably would not be breaking the law.
Both of these actions would probably be stupid, as opposed to calling 911, but not illegal.
Either way, you don’t shoot someone for being in your shower. That’s not a deadly threat.
I hate to prejudge, but it certainly sounds like a bad shooting.
I trust what I read about the law on FR. Especially since much of it is written without reading the story, you know it’s never contaminated by the facts of the case.
As for the shooter, the bullet holes in the shower curtain worry me. It’s hard to justify whatever fear is required for a shooting if the (drunk, drugged, or crazy) criminal is still in your shower and you’re not. Obviously, it would be an entirely different situation if they were both in the shower!
This guy would have been much better off if he had not shot. Failing that, he should have left out incriminating details, starting with his excursion back to his home, and then including everything else - until he had talked with a good lawyer.
With regard to the rights of citizens who use a firearm, you better understand some basic things, or you may find yourself in prison or in debt to legal bills of a quarter of a million dollars or more.
1. Know if your state has a Castle Doctrine law.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines negate the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted in a place where that individual has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another". The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.
Justifiable homicide inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide.
2. Understand the difference between Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/castle-doctrine-stand-ground/
Don’t get confused. The Castle Doctrine is not Stand Your Ground. The laws are vastly different and if they apply in your state you need to review them and understand what you can and can’t do. Just to make this perfectly clear, every state’s laws are subtly different from similar laws in other states. This is a general overview. Castle Doctrine applies in your home, if you are already inside. Stand Your Ground applies outdoors and only changes one element of the justification for the use of deadly force. They are vastly different.
3. If you use your firearm to defend yourself:
After you have neutralized the threat, call 911. Tell them YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF A CRIME. Tell them you need: medical, police, and give your address. Do NOT tell them you just killed someone. THEN HANG UP!!! Everything is being recorded and can and will be used as evidence. When police arrive, tell them where your firearm is located, and then tell them you are exercising your right to remain silent until your lawyer arrives. Make no statements to the police. If they persist, tell them you are not making a statement without your lawyer. If they ask you to move to their headquarters or station, comply with their instructions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.