Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders...

This is a discussion on Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by BigStick I like what the sheriff had to say though: "It may be stupid and reckless to have an illegal grow operation ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders...

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post

    I like what the sheriff had to say though: "It may be stupid and reckless to have an illegal grow operation in the house, but it does not waive your lawfull right to self-defense."
    Sounds like an intelligent Sheriff who recognizes the failure of the war on drugs and can see the chages on drug policy that will be coming.
    "Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"

    Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    Interesting. I believe the pot grower has the right to self-defense. Yes he apparently was breaking the law, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to protect himself from another criminal. That's a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn. If you're not wearing your seat belt, is it illegal for you to shoot a carjacker? If the only crime was growing the pot, and the homeowner wasn't engaged in some violent criminal behavior, then I'm glad he was able to defend himself.
    Totally agree. Esp since it is a 'victimless' crime and if not classified as such, maybe those 2 robbers would have been killed trying to steal something else. (Since being illegal makes the pot so much more valuable...if not illegal they may have looked for other goods. But theives are theives so they probably would have offended elsewhere).

    In WA St., in a 1 yr period there were 10,000 arrests for pot use and $100 million spent on LE.


    Oh yeah....there's victims and I'm one of them. That's coming out of my pocket.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    Weird, because the link is showing the story, but a different slant. Now it's talking about how it's legal to grow pot now in Washington, but that people will still try to steal it.
    It's still not legal to grow it. One of the reasons they were able to get it passed (legalization) was so it could be taxed by actual retailers. Bring in income for the state. They dont want the competition. It's dumb I know and will most likely change over time. They're still figuring it all out but I think it's a step in the right direction.

    It's like people can home brew beer, make wine, etc.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Agree. Many (maybe not all) SYG and Castle Doctrines have a caveat where SD won't hold water if performed during the commission of a crime or during an illegal act. Now that the "use" of MJ is legal in WA, how does that affect those possessing an acre of the stuff in the raw?
    It's illegal to grow it, at least without a license.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #20
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    I do like the sentiment as well, and agree in principle that it should apply in the case of something like home invasion.

    But I've got a real problem with the concept when taking to logical conclusion to cover the various crimes that exist. Where is the dividing line? After all, in such cases where a person doesn't have every right to be there, or where the object of the crime is what in fact drew the "attack" by the other individuals, then it doesn't seem right that a criminal's claims of "self-defense" should be taken at face value.

    I think this is a good example of why many/most instances of "Castle" and use-of-force statutes have such wording, specifically describing that a person must not contribute to the situation, must be in a place in which he has every right to be, must not himself be engaging in crimes, etc.

    Seems to me that engaging in a criminal enterprise would specifically disallow application of such self-defense statutes, most particularly in cases where those entering were drawn there because of the criminal enterprise itself. Was that the case here? Had this been a simple burglary or home invasion unrelated to the grow operation, I might agree with the sheriff. But, not in situations where this isn't the case.
    The right to self defense is the primary human right. The right to an altered consciousness is further from that. The threshold of justification for the former is therefore lighter than for the latter. Furthermore it says a lot about our society if we would hold someone's right to life hostage to some belief in their private behavior.
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    In some states He could very well be charged with Manslaughter/Murder,since he was committing a felony,manufacturing/possession of Marijuana and while engaged in that criminal activity killed 2 BG's that broke in.Tx law allows for self defense but this could be a problem
    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,952
    In FL, the shooter would not have a viable SD claim.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #23
    Member Array .45acpguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    We appear to be at the crux of legalization of marijuana. The transition phase will be problematic as the federal government and each state work out the boundaries of law, but eventually this problem will be resolved.

    The so-called "War on Drugs" has been a war on Americans and the sooner this issue is laid to rest the better. Too many productive and valuable lives have been destroyed by our insane drugs policy. Thanks, Nixon.
    Colorado just made the same decision during this 2012 election. A gradual accumulation of public opinion, in Colorado, has crossed the tipping point.

    It will be interesting to see how the feds will proceed regarding the states of Washington and Colorado. Will the feds pursue a path of accomodation or of persistent resistance to this change?

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,472
    "Virtues" of mj aside, I look at loosing the right to self-defense while committing a felony as an expedient way to end two criminal enterprises at the same time and don't see much wrong with it.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    "Virtues" of mj aside, I look at loosing the right to self-defense while committing a felony as an expedient way to end two criminal enterprises at the same time and don't see much wrong with it.
    So you, and other posters, don't believe the homeowner has a right to self defense? What are you guys smoking?

    The guy was just hanging out in his house with his son with a plant that grows naturally all over North America, or rather, it did before racist congressmen backed by pharmaceutical companies decided to get rid of it.

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,952
    Seriously?
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    So you, and other posters, don't believe the homeowner has a right to self defense? What are you guys smoking?

    The guy was just hanging out in his house with his son with a plant that grows naturally all over North America, or rather, it did before racist congressmen backed by pharmaceutical companies decided to get rid of it.
    So, I'm with you in thinking that the guy still has a right to self-defense. It does get sticky in that he was involved in a crime in his house, but he was in his home, with his son. Even if you want to say that he gave up his right to self-defense due to his actions, would he not at least still have the right to defend his son?

    But I don't get where you're going with the racist congressmen? Even if you could prove that they were racist, what does that have to do with them outlawing pot?
    Walk softly ...

  14. #28
    Member Array minimalbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    370
    Have to wonder about all this. If the person wasn't breaking the law growing pot would the people have broken in? In Ohio you are not allowed to be the beginning problem. Not that I don't think the man has a right to defend his and his family's safety. I just have to wonder how the law is really going to look at this situation.
    Our House Is Protected By The Good Lord And A gun. You Might Meet Both Of Them If You Show Up Inside My House Uninvited.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    So you, and other posters, don't believe the homeowner has a right to self defense?....The guy was just hanging out in his house with his son with a plant that grows naturally all over North America,...
    First, way to distort the facts; good job. As it stands now, it's illegal and also a causative factor for other crimes. Second, I didn't limit it to mj, I said "felonly". Third, since any of us lose the claim to self defense if we initiate a confrontation resulting in gunfire, I don't see why someone who is in the process of committing a felony (no matter how passive) should retain the right to such a claim - in his home or not. What if he was committing rape (another felony) when someone broke in and he shot the "intruders" who were actually trying to save the victim? Is he only on the hook for rape, or rape and multiple homicide? Does your argument stand for meth cookers as well?

    If he's so concerned with his son's safety, why is he subjecting his son and home to potential harm from invasions from both criminals and law enforcement?

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,952
    So I was robbing this bank, you see, and one of the guards pulls a gun on me, so I had to defend myself. He'd still be alive if he hadn't threatened me with his piece. I didn't do anything to him to start it either. I was minding my own business with the teller at the time...

    What? I can't claim self defence?
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

2 intruders dead after break-in

,

2 intruders dead after break-in puyallup

,
castle doctrine case in puyallup grow house
,
marijuana grower kills robbers puyallup
,
names of people killed in puyallup marijuana grow operation home invasion
,
puyallup grow shooting
,
puyallup man kills 2 in home invasion
,
puyallup man kills two masked intruders
,
puyallup man shoots and kills two intruders
,

puyallup man that killed two intuders charged on pot growing

,
puyallup marijuana grow killed
,
puyallup pot grower charged
Click on a term to search for related topics.