WA Castle law
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: WA Castle law

  1. #1

    WA Castle law

    Not sure if this is cricket, but this link is to a post above that should really be here.

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...-doctrine.html

  2.   
  3. #2
    Copied from Main General Forum:

    Answers by, NavyLCDR and James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq. ,


    Hope this helps


    See RCW Title 9A, Chapter 16.

    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC
    Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

    __________________________________________________ ________

    From NavyLCDR:

    Castle doctrine, yes. No duty to retreat. You have to combine the statutes posted in RCW 9A.16 with RCW 9A.52 and you have castle doctrine and no duty to retreat established.
    From: NavyLCDR

    Originally Posted by ironmike86
    "Washington"

    "The statute in Washington state appears to be very simply and broadly stated.[25]

    The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.

    Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
    That's all I could find. So I would think no.
    RCW 9A.52.010 defines "entry" for the purposes of burglary as an attempt to remove property with an instrument (prying off a screen, attempting to jimmy a door, pry open a window):
    RCW 9A.52.010
    Definitions.

    The following definitions apply in this chapter:

    (1) "Premises" includes any building, dwelling, structure used for commercial aquaculture, or any real property;

    (2) "Enter". The word "enter" when constituting an element or part of a crime, shall include the entrance of the person, or the insertion of any part of his body, or any instrument or weapon held in his hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property;
    RCW 9A.52.025 establishes residential burglary as a felony:
    RCW 9A.52.025
    Residential burglary.

    (1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

    (2) Residential burglary is a class B felony.
    RCW 9A.16.050 justifies homicide in the case of a person defending themselves against a felony which may be imminent.
    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.
    Those three statutes together clearly establish castle doctrine in Washington state. They were revised to their current wording as quoted in 2011, so maybe castle doctrine was more clearly established in Washington state this year.

  4. #3
    This also pertains to place of business if I remember correctly. In the regards if you are the owner. I am not sure about employees.

  5. #4
    I seem to remember seeing something about the state paying for civil defense in the case of a good shoot. It was a reference to the legislators trying to remove it and failed. Anyone know more about that?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by alternety View Post
    I seem to remember seeing something about the state paying for civil defense in the case of a good shoot. It was a reference to the legislators trying to remove it and failed. Anyone know more about that?
    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.
    The state will reimburse the defendant their costs for defending the CRIMINAL prosecution. I also read paragraph (1) to cause civil actions to be dismissed, but there is no provision for the state to pay any reimbursement for a civil action.

    There is a bill running through the WA State Legislature right now to do away with the state re-imbursement of any legal expenses.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #6
    Was there some action on this issue with the referenced legislation or other legal works of art?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast