Now I do not think he did the right thing, but if the law really is as quoted, how does anyone think he was not protecting his real (the building) or personal (the contents of the building) property?
I don't think he should have shot the guy, but I do feel that going home to get the gun was a prudent thing to do in case of confrontation, and that if the guy made threatening verbalizations to him what should he do?
Sure call the police first is a good idea, but finding a stranger in your shower is a stressful event and he might not be thinking with 100% clarity.
Well Carl Rowan was lucky enough to get a mistrial verdict. So he has a chance.
Yes - the law in Washington state says reasonable force (including homicide) can be used in defense of property. The problem with this shooting would be the “reasonable” aspect of it. If it was me I would have called 911 and went back and made sure he didn’t leave until the cops came. Making a citizen’s arrest if need be. And armed.
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.
.
.
.
(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.
(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
answer yes or no
1.
Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense?
. . . . .
2.
If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3.
If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a.
Protecting himself or herself?
. . . . .
b.
Protecting his or her family?
. . . . .
c.
Protecting his or her property?
. . . . .
d.
Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime?
. . . . .
e.
Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime?
. . . . .
f.
Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged?
. . . . .