Replies

For Washington State. The “fleeing felon” rule is for police officers - not citizens.

Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [1986 c 209 § 3.]

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

[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

ping to post 66. The stuff you posted pertains to police and people aiding the police. Post 66 has the law as pertains to this case I think. Well - not really, as Mr. Gerlach claimed self-defense.

I was wondering if the jury had not believed that it was in self-defense, if his attorneys could have brought up the ACTUAL LAW - that says the shooting didn’t need to be a self-defense issue. Or perhaps that would have been for another trial.

Regardless - glad for a happy ending - but with a year of his life ruined. Saw on his facebook page he is out having dinner with his wife and friends. What a relief!

[Sorry for the length of this post and the next, but interpreting the Washington law isn’t easy, and I’m not a lawyer.]

The Washington law isn’t as clear as the Texas law, and as you point out, Gerlach claimed self-defense. Section (1) starts out, “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 or her presence or company,...” Why name those particular relatives (leaving out uncles, aunts, grandparents, and others — expendable?) when it’s about to add, “or of any other person in his or her presence or company,...” They are all included anyway.

That makes me suspect right away that common sense isn’t going to be used in choosing terms for this law. :-) It continues, “...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.” So why not just say that homicide is justifiable to prevent a felony or other great harm to persons — and property, if property is included — when there’s reasonable ground to believe that the slain person had the intent to commit it, and there is imminent danger of it being accomplished?

The earlier passage that speaks of “lawful defense” is limited to a “person in his or her presence or company”. If mere protection of property is adequate justification, why must the danger be to someone in his or her presence or company? (Also I wonder whether that “lawful defense” and “danger” apply to property or to persons at risk during the commission of a crime against property.)

If I’m standing with my neighbor in my yard, and I see a thief stealing something from my neighbor’s yard, can I shoot the thief? Maybe. If my neighbor isn’t in my presence, though, apparently I can’t, which is odd if the purpose of the law is to protect property too.

Section (2) says “In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence...” “Upon” sounds like something that poses a direct physical risk to him, but if so, “in his or her presence” seems unnecessary. (Also it’s rather difficult to become a slayer of a someone without both of you being in each other’s presence — apparently it forbids handing him a time bomb for explosion later.)

That part does sound as if it’s restricting the homicide to criminals who are committing felonies that pose a direct risk to the slayer, though, because it uses a comma and “or” to include “upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is”. That seems to imply that you can shoot someone who’s damaging your home or taking possessions from it, but only if you are in it too at the same time. If you come home and, when outside, see someone taking possessions out of your house, you can’t approach and kill him.

Gerlach’s vehicle, being outside his abode, wouldn’t seem to be covered under that provision. Because he said he thought the man was pointing a gun at him, though, he could be acquitted on the ground of self-defense. In any case I believe the law is so unclear that it’s hard to determine what it means.