The one question frequently asked: Did anyone ever really throw a tire back through a Discount Tire store window?YMMV, but whenever we've bought tires there, the customer service has always been top-notch.
"Believe it or not, there has only been one instance in the past 29 years," said Sandi Hveem, director of corporate and community development. In 1986, one tire buyer, frustrated after getting two flat tires on his wife's car within a week, heaved the deflated tire through a large glass window of a Discount Tire store in Michigan, causing $500 in damage.
When I next feel like potentially killing a man in an argument overYour world, where pointing a gun at someone's head in response to the tiniest threat of violence is deemed "legitimate", is not a world I want to live in.towelsdirty handprints, I'll keep in mind that all I'm doing is 'threatening escalation'.
Typically, though, when an intruder is shot inside someone's home, "it would be a rare situation where we would charge it," said Jerry Costello, administrative deputy to Pierce County Prosecutor John Ladenburg....[emphasis mine, as these statements directly contradict yours, and are almost exactly the statements I made above that you insisted were "bullshit" - This kind of thing actually happens from time-to-time here, and usually they don't even bother trying to prosecute.]
Costello said the law gives people protecting themselves a presumption that an act of self-defense was necessary.
In order for homicide to be charged, prosecutors would have the burden of proving the person did not act in self-defense....
In King County, Dan Donohoe, spokesman for Prosecutor Norm Maleng, said there have been periodic cases in which homeowners killed intruders, but he could not think of any that resulted in criminal charges against the resident.
Costello said the law gives people protecting themselves a presumption that an act of self-defense was necessary.What part of "presumption that an act of self-defense was necessary" and "prosecutors would have the burden of proving the person did not act in self-defense" are people having a hard time understanding?
In order for homicide to be charged, prosecutors would have the burden of proving the person did not act in self-defense....
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:33 AM on October 23, 2007
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.
RCW 9A.52.010To parse this for you, when Cable Guy was told to leave, his invitation and privilege to remain was revoked, and his refusal to leave constituted criminal trespass. He was, in fact not a "guest," he was an "intruder." And before you complain - yes, it's just ikkyu2's word on that, but as before, in the absence of refuting testimony, that's the only evidence of record.
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;
(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.
RCW 9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.
(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.
RCW 9A.52.080
Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
RCW 9A.52.070Also unambiguous. Cable Guy was clearly remaining unlawfully, as defined above. Cable Guy was therefore guilty of criminal trespass. An intruder, according to the law.
Criminal trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.
RCW 10.58.020Not sure how many more ways I have to say this. It is not "the person's (that is, the person who claims self-defense) statement alone" that is "determinative of it being... self-defense." It is the absence of refuting evidence. If there's no refuting evidence, then THERE'S NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Presumption of innocence — Conviction of lowest degree, when.
Every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt...
RCW 10.58.020"lacking proof that he was not" = "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt"
Presumption of innocence — Conviction of lowest degree, when.
Every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt...
« Older Social amoebas... | Just lately I was thinking of ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rocket88 at 7:38 AM on October 19, 2007 [17 favorites]