Posted on 12/03/2001 5:36:08 PM PST by Come get it
I would like to know if there are any lawyers (familiar with WA law) that could settle a debate. This debate started on a previous thread between myself and another freeper (connectthedots). He had announced that in Washington state normal citizens have permission to shoot fleeing suspects if they have committed a felony, and he cited the following law:
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;
RCW 9A.16.030 Homicide -- When excusable. Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent.
RCW 9A.16.040 - Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
(4) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or
(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.
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.]
I have bolded the sections that I think are most important.
I interpret this law to say that RCW 9A.16.040 grants permission for a police officer only (not citizens) to shoot fleeing suspects. I think that it is an all inclusive list of permissible actions by specific persons. Connectthedots says that it limits the police officers, but leaves citizens a broader use of deadly force. The legislative recognition seems to be the trouble spot. It says that the citizens permission to use deadly force remains broader than the limitations on police. I think that it clarifies that RCW 9A.16.040 has no effect on the permission given to citizens under the listed sections. Connectthedots says that any permission granted to officers is also given to citizens, plus some.
I hope I have represented the argument fairly, and I will flag connectthedots so he can clarify his argument in places where I may have misquoted or misunderstood. You can ee the previous thread to follow the arguments for both sides (starting after post 80).
Bottom line: Is it legal in WA for a citizen to shoot a fleeing felony suspect?
Or
If you happen upon a crime and a LEO asks for assistance or you give assistance to save his life (i.e. he is down and being beaten etc.) you can shoot legally and you have the same legal protections as the officer has. That means you force is justified if you had reason to believe or believed you were in danger, not "if you actually were in danger. The latter is a higher standard that applies to civilians, whereas the former is a lower standard to be met by LEOs because we ask them to go into harms way daily.
Give me a couple of hours and I will have the answers with the exact RCWs.
I am not a lawyer.
Bluesagewoman, I will check back around 7:45 pacific time, but after that I will check again tomorrow, so your hubby's input would be appreciated. Thanks all.
Just for the record, I prefer to call 911 and let our very well trained officers handle the outside problems. The response times here are great.
/john
I know I read the RCWs and they apply to everyone.
If this is the case, all bets are off because the debate was over whether or not this law (RCW 9A.16.040) gave permission to the citizens to shoot fleeing felons. My argument was based purely on the text of the law that I was given as proof of CTD's statements.
You have a common law right to use all necessary force to arrest & hold a felon.
But be prepared to face felony charges on your own conduct if you use 'unnecessary' force, in the opinion of a prosecutor. -- Then, once indicted, you are at the mercy of a judge who can forbid jury nullification.
Don't shoot unless you feel lucky.
The specific wordings of 'law' can be used by clever lawyers & judges to mean damn near anything.
The most likely senerio is the suspect is fleeing because you have brandished a firearm. Regardless of the law an antigun DA and a questionable jury may be inclined to rule against you based on common law.
The only possible exception I can think of to shoot someone in the back is if they were fleeing to retrieve a weapon that was plainly visible when you shot them.
IMHO, no.
If the subject is fleeing, how could anyone, including a peace officer justify the use of deadly force?
I am not a lawyer, but I do work in law enforcement and have extensive military experiance. No were does it say you can shoot a fleeing subject. If the subject is fleeing, he is not a threat to you, or anyone else, and if you, as an LEO or private citizen shoot him/her in the back, your toast in a court of law.
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.