On the heels of the coroner's inquest jury decision, Saul will not face prosecution. Previous articles on this case can be found here. The criminal gangbanger's family has already filed a civil suit.
Here is the Prosecutor's decision copied from the PDF at the link above:
On May 4, 2012, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Cesar Chavira, age 22, entered The New York Store by breaking the front glass doors. He broke a glass display case, stole a belt buckle, and stole 9 belts. John Saul, age 63, the owner, lives in The New York Store. Upon hearing the burglary in progress, Saul stated to officers that Chavira threatened him, he was in fear of his life, and he defended himself and shot Chavira. Cesar Chavira had been known to law enforcement not only for his criminal record, but also for his confrontational nature. Once Chavira threatened Saul, the burglary also became a robbery. Residential burglary, second degree burglary and second degree robbery are each class B felonies, and second degree robbery is categorized by the legislature as a violent crime. Fearful for his life, Saul brought his shotgun to bear. Saul also kept a .25 caliber pistol in the area where Chavira was, and Saul would have to speculate whether Chavira had armed himself with Saul's pistol while burglarizing the store and making the threat. Chavira exited the store and left on or pushing a bicycle, while carrying the stolen goods and an empty backpack.2 Saul, standing within the doorway of the store, fired five rounds in Chavira's direction. Some of the 49 shotgun pellets struck Chavira on his side, but most struck him in the back, penetrating several organs. Chavira dropped the belts, belt buckle, and his backpack, lost hold of his bicycle and fell to the ground approximately 250 feet from the store. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.The Washington State Legislature, representing the people of our State, has enacted laws that give every person the legal right, under certain circumstances, to use reasonable force to defend themselves, their property or property they are entrusted with. Also, in certain circumstances, a citizen may lawfully attempt to stop a fleeing felon, or prevent a malicious trespass. The use of deadly force in these circumstances is extremely risky to the party using the force, the potential "felon", and also the general public. Law enforcement professionals are highly trained not only in accuracy in the use of force, but also in the situations where it is proper to use force. The typical citizen has no such training, and risks danger to self, others, and potential felony charges. The Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Supreme Court have also made it clear that in such situations the prosecution should not charge a person with murder or manslaughter when they are defending themselves, their property, or against a felony, unless the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove the absence of any of these defenses to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court also requires that a jury take into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the person being robbed. The slayer does not have the burden of proving that the homicide was justifiable. Unless the jury is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that a person was not defending themselves, their property, or against a felony, the jury is instructed that they must find the defendant not guilty. If the State cannot prove the absence of these defenses, a jury can also find that the State must pay for the cost of the defense of the slayer.
The jury verdict of the coroner's inquest indicates how difficult the prosecution of this case would be. Even though a coroner's inquest does not have a legal effect on the prosecutor's decision whether to file criminal charges, this jury's decision was informative and useful. The inquest jury had to decide the same issues that a jury in a criminal case would decide, albeit with a standard of proof lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. The inquest jury was selected from the same pool of people that a criminal jury would be selected from, and therefore provided a relevant gauge of public opinion. It is highly likely that a criminal jury would find that Saul acted on his reasonable belief that he was defending himself and his property at 2:30 in the morning in his darkened store from a person who was stealing his property and threatening him, and that he was stopping a fleeing burglar and robber. The prosecution would not be able to prove that he knew Chavira was unarmed. In fact, the circumstances as they appeared to Saul at the time would lead a reasonable person to fear that Chavira may have been armed with something in his hands, in his backpack, or perhaps even with the .25 caliber pistol that Saul kept near the cash registers when he threatened Saul. This belief could appear reasonable under the circumstances in this case. However, had any of the particular facts in this case been different, the reasonableness and necessity of his actions would be highly doubtful and he would likely be facing serious charges. The use of deadly force by the public to stop a fleeing felon is always risky for the one using the force, and in most situations the person may not have enough information to make a correct decision about what is occurring. The use of deadly force also presents a serious danger of injury or death to bystanders, and the possibility of criminal charges for these acts always exists. Depending on the facts, such use of force may in fact be reckless or criminal.
Therefore, after a careful review of the facts, applicable law, the inquest verdict and the likely defenses that could be raised, I have decided that John Saul will not be charged for the homicide of Cesar Chavira.