Can you legally shoot AFTER a rape? - Page 8

Can you legally shoot AFTER a rape?

This is a discussion on Can you legally shoot AFTER a rape? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Classic case for Castle Doctrine. Repel the invader!...

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 123

Thread: Can you legally shoot AFTER a rape?

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,156
    Classic case for Castle Doctrine.

    Repel the invader!
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!


  2. #107
    Member Array Medic218's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    DFW, Tx
    Posts
    258
    If he is there he is still a threat. PERIOD!
    Paint the walls with him!
    "I don't like repeat offenders, I like DEAD offenders!" -- Ted Nugent
    "Not everyone can be born with common sense, some are born liberals." -- MM218

  3. #108
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    Really, can you post actual law of this.
    This is Washington States law. I bolded some of the relevant portions. Of import is to note that the Legislative note at the bottom
    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;

    (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

    (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

    (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

    (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.

    [1986 c 209 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.16.040.]

    Notes:
    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.]
    Washington has some of the best use of force laws in the country, with some of the broadest justifications use of deadly force. My favorite is that the state is REQUIRED to pick up the tab for your defense if you are ever charged in a shooting and prove that it was justified. It tends to make persecutors walk softly because it means that the regular citizen has the resources to hire as good legal team and mount a defense as good as any Bill Gates would have. You can have Massad Ayoob, and whatever experts you want to hire along with F Lee Bailey and whatever legal team you want to hire. When you win the state will pay for it all
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  4. #109
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnK87 View Post
    Let's draw a line at the guy still being in the house. If he leaves and she runs after him to shoot him, that won't pass the self defense test.
    Under Washington law if she shot him the back a mile away from the house as she tried to apprehend him to turn over to the police she would be justified. See above post she would have probable cause to believe that he would harm others if allowed to escape. ALL rapists re offend, known undisputed fact. You are correct in that the defense would not be self defense it would be defense of others while trying to affect apprehension of a dangerous fleeing felon
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  5. #110
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Per the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by SigHawk View Post
    ..."Let's say the BG just raped me, and he stands up to put his pants on - can I pull my gun out of the dresser and shoot him in the back, even though technically the threat appears to be over?"...
    Many of you are assuming a lot, and applying the Castle Doctrine when it may not apply. You are assuming some beat and blood victim who has been raped by a stranger who has never been in the house before. In contrast, many, if not most, rapes do not involve these assumptions.

    Consider the fact that the next time you have marital relations with your better half (or 1/3 depending on the weight ratio). As you head out the door, are you saying she could go to the dresser, pull out a gun, shoot you, claim it was rape, and thanks to the Castle Doctrine face no prosecution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    How can this thread possibly generate 94 posts. We had a home invasion, followed by a rape. How can anyone reasonably suggest that the rapist is no longer a threat to her simply because, at that moment, he has his back to her, or that she is not in reasonable fear for her life.
    No one has. It has only been pointed out there could be jurisdiction and legal complications because the OP leaves some potential issues (as is the case with many SD situations).

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Classic case for Castle Doctrine. Repel the invader!
    Great, now hire an attorney, and prove it. The Castle Doctrine is not a magic word the solves all legal problems involved in a SD shooting, it is just firm ground to stand on.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  6. #111
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Longrider, I just got through reading the Washington State statutes in regards to deadly force, I am not claiming to be a legal eagle but it is not quite as simple as stated.
    Even though the standards are written primarly for LEO the legislature makes it known that there are broader rules governing private citizens than LE. There are other standards which could/would be applied.
    The mother of all fleeing felon laws Tennessee vs. Garner would be applied in this situation and the one of the main questions would be her proving he was a further danger to society and a continued danger to her since the act had already occured.
    Again this would all depend on the state you live in and local response and attitudes.
    Worst case scenario. Suspect is young and has no criminal record, it was a non violent sexual assualt (All sexual assualts are violent in that force is used to commit the act) as in no marks or physical injury, was there any connection between the offender and victim these are all things that would be looked at.
    In all the posts we assumed the suspect died. What if he lived to give his sick twisted version of what happened.

    "Oh I knew her from school, grocery store, church and she invited me over after I got through at chapel and volunteering at the soup kitchen, and feeding the animals at the animal shelter". All he has to do is plant that seed deep enough, or shallow enough depending on the juror, minds and most castle doctrines go out the window because the suspect was invited or presumed so.
    Not saying anyone is wrong or that the victim should not shoot the guy, just saying that there are other factors that could come into play.
    Remember we are putting our faith in a legal system that is not always manned by people with or based on common sense.
    Just my opinion.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  7. #112
    Member Array cavnamvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Broward County, Fl
    Posts
    41
    I've worked cases in which a perp, while exiting a crime scene such as described here, made the decision to kill the victim for fear of an ID later.
    As long as the perp is in the residence, the threat is immediate and the fear is well founded. Therefore, this would be a good shoot, no doubt.

  8. #113
    VIP Member
    Array sigmanluke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,209
    LongRider

    There is a nearly identical statute in Utah, 76-2-404. The problem with using it in this case, is that it is written for PEACE OFFICERS or those "acting by his command in his aid and assistance". It does not fit the for average citizens.

    I think the shoot would easily hold legally, however, not because of this statute. The rapist is still in the home, HE IS STILL A THREAT. Anyone who tries to argue this fact should see the victim of a rape who sees her attacker for the first time after the attack, then try to tell me that she is not in reasonable fear for her life or serious bodily injury.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    Thomas Jefferson

  9. #114
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    What is moral is not necessarily what is legal.
    How is someone shooting an attacker in the back after a rape any different than someone shooting an attacker in the back after a carjacking or robbery?
    You cannot even compare these crimes. Carjacking or robbery, may or may not be violent.

    Rape is violent, heinous and worthy of death
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  10. #115
    Member Array earlthegoat2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Rome, GA
    Posts
    238
    assuming of course you could not get to the gun before the rape....

  11. #116
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    because someones back is turned does not mean there is no threat..it does mean there may be opportunity to end an impending threat...in the case of a rape because the attacker has stood up and turned their back doesnt mean the attack has ended...the attacker is still present and capable of continuing the attack....

    even during a robbery, assault or carjacking an aggressor with a back turned is not an end to an attack...

    there is a difference between a back being turned and a fleeing attacker...one is an opportunity to end an attack...the other is an attack that has ended...

    although there may be some explaining involved in regard to shooting someone in the back...all of the circumstances would be taken into consideration by law enforcement and/or court...

  12. #117
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,302
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    This is Washington States law. I bolded some of the relevant portions. Of import is to note that the Legislative note at the bottom


    Washington has some of the best use of force laws in the country, with some of the broadest justifications use of deadly force. My favorite is that the state is REQUIRED to pick up the tab for your defense if you are ever charged in a shooting and prove that it was justified. It tends to make persecutors walk softly because it means that the regular citizen has the resources to hire as good legal team and mount a defense as good as any Bill Gates would have. You can have Massad Ayoob, and whatever experts you want to hire along with F Lee Bailey and whatever legal team you want to hire. When you win the state will pay for it all
    Thanks, at first I was going to point out that the statues applied to peace officers, not citizens, but I noted the paragraph at the bottom that implied citizens have more leeway than a peace officer. Very interesting.

  13. #118
    VIP Member
    Array sigmanluke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,209
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    Thanks, at first I was going to point out that the statues applied to peace officers, not citizens, but I noted the paragraph at the bottom that implied citizens have more leeway than a peace officer. Very interesting.
    I do agree that the average citizen has more leeway for using deadly force than a Peace Officer, however, I don't think that extends to the "fleeing felon". I could be wrong, but that's the way I interpret the statute.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #119
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by sigmanluke View Post
    [B]It does not fit the for average citizens.
    Did you read the parts that I highlighted?
    (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
    RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050 are the deadly force, justified homicide statutes for private citizens. As stated below this statute expands on those for what is justified use of lethal force by a citizen
    Notes:
    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.]
    the legislators made a point of specifically of stating that this statute does not limit the conditions that a private citizen can use lethal force. Rather it expands on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Again this would all depend on the state you live in and local response and attitudes.
    I agree that this is probably the crux of how this scenario will play out. What the laws says, what is moral and just, often have little, if any role in criminal proceedings. How the media plays it, who investigates it and who the prosecutor will be the real deciding factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    non violent sexual assualt
    I am sure unintentional but that has to be one of the most offensive oxymorons I have ever read. All sexual assault are violent. Forced penetration is by definition the vilest acts of violence any man can commit. At least as contradictory as non violent murder, no such animal. I can imagine how using that phrase in the presence of a rape victim could result in your needing to have a John Bobbit benefit on your behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    In all the posts we assumed the suspect died. What if he lived to give his sick twisted version of what happened.
    Agreed, as is always the case in a Self Defense shooting, it is better if the criminal does not survive to complicate matters with their distortion of facts.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  15. #120
    Member Array bwhunter65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    124
    if i was on the jury i would say not guilty
    Uly
    Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.

    -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Is there public land in NY where I can legally shoot or "plink"?
    By stuckInNy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 19th, 2009, 06:55 PM
  2. Am I legally obligated?
    By Ram Rod in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: December 24th, 2008, 01:19 AM
  3. How Long Have You CC'd Legally?
    By NCHornet in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: February 5th, 2008, 12:45 PM
  4. Legally exempted?
    By soundwave in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 10:13 PM
  5. I can legally carry.....
    By Wingman in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 28th, 2006, 11:32 PM

Search tags for this page

can you shoot a rapist
,
deadly force rape
,
in the state of fl. is rape just cause to shoot someone
,
is it legal to shoot someone who tries to rape you
,
killed her rapist
,
shoot attacker in back
,
should you shoot someone who is about to rape you?
,
when can you legally kill someone
,
when can you legally shoot
,

when can you legally shoot someone

,
when can you legally shoot someone in utah
,
when to shoot
Click on a term to search for related topics.