Skip to comments.WA:Spokane homeowner who shot carjacker charged with manslaughter
Posted on 05/30/2013 6:04:38 AM PDT by marktwain
Dori thinks it should be legal to use deadly force to protect your property, but Spokane prosecutors disagree. They announced Wednesday that they are charging Gail Gerlach, who shot and killed a carjacker, with First Degree Manslaughter.
According to reports, 56-year-old Gail Herbert Gerlach had left his Chevy Suburban running in his driveway to warm it up on a cold day in March when Brendon Kaluza-Graham tried to drive away with it. Gail fired his gun, hitting Brendon in the head and killing him.
Gail said he saw Brendon raise his arm in his direction; he thought Brendon had a gun. But police later searched the car and didn't find a weapon.
After the shooting, KREM TV reported that Kaluza-Graham had been caught stealing cars four times in the past, and had been convicted of assaulting a police officer. Police report that he'd had multiple run-ins with law enforcement where he had been armed with knives.
(Excerpt) Read more at mynorthwest.com ...
If police can (and do) use this excuse, why not private citizens?
They might. Convict or not convict, she was apparently not in fear for her life when she shot. She’s probably in for six figures of legal costs, though, either way.
Makes you want to pay a carjacker to carjack the judge doesn’t it?
Washington state? 50/50
And he should demand a jury of his own peers, not the victim's peers.
“But police later searched the car and didn’t find a weapon.”
The car was/is the weapon. It is not beyond a perp to drive him over or ram him.
Was thinking the same thing.
"I was in fear for my life."
"He motioned like he had a weapon."
I 100% believe him that he was in fear for his life. I would never vote to convict him or anyone else removing a predator from society and experiencing an obviously justifiable fear for his life. He merely shot to stop the threat, and I'm glad he hit center-mass on the portion of the threat that was visible. I certainly don't blame him for misinterpreting a gesture from a violent criminal in the act of committing a felony as a threat to his life. Not guilty, all court costs to be paid by the prosecution's office. Ammo to be replaced at taxpayer expense.
Cops get away with this excuse every day. Why can't we?
Unfortunately but in most states its illegal to defend your property by shooting the thief.Now if the owner of the vehicle was standing in the front of the vehicle in his driveway and the perp attempted to run him down.This would probably have a more positive outlook for the property owner.
Unfortunately I think he’s toast.
Washington state law (I think, current. via Google). It would seem that the shooter has a legal leg to stand on. Personally, I think lethal force is only justifiable in the face of potentially lethal force.
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.
Certain property is considered special and it is automatically a felony to steal such property. The Revised Code of Washington 9A.560.65 makes it a Class B felony to commit theft of any motor vehicle, regardless of that vehicle’s value. Under 9A.56.300, it is also a Class B felony to steal a firearm of any value. If more than one firearm is taken, the theft of each firearm is charged as a separate offense.
Read more: What Constitutes Felony Theft in Washington State? | eHow http://www.ehow.com/info_8484497_constitutes-felony-theft-washington-state.html#ixzz2UmW3WLnB
They might. Convict or not convict, she was apparently not in fear for her life when she shot. Shes probably in for six figures of legal costs, though, either way.
From the article: “Gail said he saw Brendon raise his arm in his direction; he thought Brendon had a gun. But police later searched the car and didn’t find a weapon.”
Cops use that excuse all the time. Good luck proving to a jury (and it is the prosecution’s job to do so) that she didn’t fear for her life.
BTW, this is yet another reason I moved from Washington state to Kentucky two years ago, after 45 years in the Seattle area.
In Texas we would give her an award!!!!
Washington state? 50/50
“Will a jury convict him?”. Answer, NO! But, he will have to pay for a defense which will cost him thousands.
.........I hope a million people move out of the state as a result of this with most of them coming out of the liberal/marxist prosecutors county. The only way to teach ANYTHING to a rogue “government”, whether federal, state, or local is to hit em in the pocket book.
I also think that the governmental entity that prosecutes someone, at the judges discretion minimally, should have to pay attorneys fees when prosecutors go rogue. And, make no mistake, that prosecutor has the discretion to file or not to file. I would bet a hundred bucks he is just a diehard liberal gun grabber and racist, meaning if the perp was white and the shooter black there would be no prosecution.
The thief's grandparents, who raised him, called him a "sweet kid" who made some mistakes in life.
"I know taking the car was wrong, but it's not a capital crime he needed to be executed for."
Yeah, a real sweet kid. A question, Grama: How does a sweet kid have multiple run-ins with the law and you still call him a sweet kid? BTW, he wasn't executed. He was shot while caught in the act of committing a crime and Gail had every right to do what he could to stop the "sweet kid".