Carrying and Alcohol

[eye95]

I would want a lawyer to weigh in on this.

I think you'd be justified in going immediately to where your family members are, calling ahead, and calling 911. As soon as the person is anywhere within range of those he threatened, IMO, deadly force would now be in order.

It takes a real stretch to come up with an even slightly credible scenario in which one might feel the need to defend a person who is not present, yet other options still seem to be available.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Law-Change-to-Washington-Self-Defense-Statute

Here's Gray's thread.

RCW 9A.16.050:

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;

And Gray's recap of what it means, most the thread was an argument over nothing to do with Gray's OP....

I'll repost the particular scenario from earlier in this thread:


You walk down the street, and you encounter someone you've had issues with (old renter who you evicted out of your property, whatever), and he tries to start an argument. He makes it clear he has a weapon but doesn't grab it or display it. During the verbal altercation, and near the end, the old renter tells you where your wife/husband/child works (assuming he's correct), and starts going to his car, saying that he is going to stab your wife/husband/child or shoot them (depending on the weapon). Relying on the cops, or relying on your wife/husband/child answering her cell phone (which may be turned off due to work) or the work phone, is not the best option. You know they are't armed (work rule)

The law, at least if I'm reading this correctly, extends your ability to use deadly force to this situation, even though your wife/husband/child is not in your presence. The old renter enunciated the intent to murder your wife/husband/child, showed the ability to do so, and then is apparently getting into a vehicle to do so because they know their work location.

Though I can't speak for the case law for this because I am not sure if this has ever happened in this state, but if I am reading this correctly, this is a very good law for this situation. Unfortunately, the problem here is the aftereffects, as in the cops being called. If the guy survives, then he's going to claim that he never threatened to kill your wife/husband/child. If he's dead, then the prosecutor may be arguing on the criminal's behalf. I personally would not want to be in such a situation, but before December 3rd, if someone went after William in the manner of the above scenario, I could not exercise that defense. Now I can.

 

[eye95]

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;

I highlighted the part relevant to this discussion.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I highlighted the part relevant to this discussion.

Did you miss the comma?
What is the rule of English when a sentence lists something separated by commas? It qualifies as an or between each comma.
Did you read Gray's comments?

When shopping for groceries at this establishment you may use plastic, paper, or canvas.

Does this mean the paper and canvas have to be in conjunction with the plastic?

Gray is on top of legal matters and works closely with SAF and other organizations fighting for our rights.

Plus his threat is a felony committed in my presence which by our RCW's justifies deadly force. In the scenario Gray brought out I am not going to take my chance with the police, if I believe it is an immediate and probable threat.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I highlighted the part relevant to this discussion.

Actually this discussion was meant to be about alcohol and guns....it has strayed.

 

[eye95]

Did you miss the comma?
What is the rule of English when a sentence lists something separated by commas? It qualifies as an or between each comma.
Did you read Gray's comments?

When shopping for groceries at this establishment you may use plastic, paper, or canvas.

Does this mean the paper and canvas have to be in conjunction with the plastic?

Gray is on top of legal matters and works closely with SAF and other organizations fighting for our rights.

Plus his threat is a felony committed in my presence which by our RCW's justifies deadly force. In the scenario Gray brought out I am not going to take my chance with the police, if I believe it is an immediate and probable threat.

There is nothing in the sentence that communicates that the qualification does not apply to every one of the items on the list.

You can hang your fate on which part of the law the qualification applies to, but I recommend that you stop posting in such a way as to possibly convince others that they may do something that a court would find the law did not allow.

Folks, unless someone can present actual case law that establishes that you can shoot someone for threatening another who is nowhere near present, even if the threat were extremely credible, I strongly recommend that you not do so and that you do not hang your future on legal opinions posted on a message board.

Moving on.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It is part of the list and not a qualifier. Was plastic a qualifier for the other example I gave there was nothing in that sentence that said it wasn't?

And I'll post however I want. I noticed how you totally skipped Gray's comments.

And I think folks on here are smart enough to discuss it wisely without you having to lecture them on it. If you read the thread you would have noticed Gray touched on your points too. That it hasn't had a court case, but the wording of this statute would play heavily in a court case.

If I knew my family was in immediate danger like the case Gray pointed out, I wouldn't not wait for the "law". People forget we are the law, and I will take my chance with a jury in that matter.

 

[Tawnos]

Check out the actual numbers in the article. The heavy drinkers don't fare much better than the non-drinkers.

The mortality rates:

Moderate drinkers - 41%
Heavy drinkers - 60%
Non-drinkers - 69%

The conclusion the study should have highlighted is that moderate drinking is the healthiest option. The other two options are not healthy, with abstinence being slightly less healthy than heavy drinking.

I wonder how they came up with their definitions. I wouldn't call three drinks a day "moderate."

Three drinks is quite moderate if you consider that it's around 2 pints of non-pisswater beer. A standard "drink" is 12oz of 5% beer. At 16 oz and 6 or 7% beer (most IPAs, stouts that aren't guinness, etc), that's 2 standard drinks. A bottle of wine at 12% has 5 standard drinks.

Ruby, you can disagree with it as much as you want, but this is another in a line of studies that all show moderate alcohol consumption is associated with longer life. This one particularly tried to account for factors such as socioeconomic status, age, and as many other possible confounding factors. The "what" is pretty much settled, it's the "how" that needs to be figured out now

 

[obamacare]

Alcohol and guns=bad
Weed and guns=no so bad
I have quite a bit of my own scientific evidence to back that up.

 

[1245A Defender]

Bac

most regular beer is 3.2% alcohol
i weigh 170 lbs.
i can sip my 12 oz. can of brew, and take 1 1/2 hours to finish it off.
then i can have another, i probably wont register over .01 on a breathalizer.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

most regular beer is 3.2% alcohol
i weigh 170 lbs.
i can sip my 12 oz. can of brew, and take 1 1/2 hours to finish it off.
then i can have another, i probably wont register over .01 on a breathalizer.

Friends don't let friends drink cheap beer.
Let me buy you a nice Mac and Jacks or a good local brew. We have some good ones up in my neck of the woods. (Whatcom County)

And you absolutely right they have proven time and time again moderate drinking does increase longevity.

 

[Tawnos]

Friends don't let friends drink cheap beer.
Let me buy you a nice Mac and Jacks or a good local brew. We have some good ones up in my neck of the woods. (Whatcom County)

And you absolutely right they have proven time and time again moderate drinking does increase longevity.

Never been a fan of Mac&Jack's, which is a shame since I pass the brewery on the way to work every day. Black raven is pretty good, but I haven't gone into their brewhouse. Love Redhook and Elysian, as well as Hale's Koelsch and Supergoose (though not Mongoose...)

"To beer: the cause of, and solution to, most of life's problems." - Homer




(... Simpson)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Mac and Jacks on tap is good, never tried the Raven.
You should try the scottish ale from the brewery on the way to Mt. Baker. Now that is the bomb and can buy a jug for only $10.00. It's also on the way back from the pit we go shooting a lot at and had the OCDO clean up.