Class B felony equals capital offence? What then is class A? I'm asking because the translator gives only "Schwerverbrechen" or "Kapitalverbrechen" for "felony", and car theft in Germany is no such major offence. Slaughter, robbery with injuring people, murder would be that, heavy physical violence and such stuff.

Skybird - a private individual may commit justifiable homicide to prevent a felony act against them. That is the law in that State. It is not the law in every State. However - the law defining justifiable homicide above does not limit what types of felonious acts it means. In essence - ANY felony against them allows that private individual to use deadly force.

Note that we are talking a private individual during the commission of a felony in which they are the victim. The courts do not have such leeway in sentencing or punishing a criminal.

After looking it up - theft of anything worth $5000 or more is a class B felony in Washington (except for firearms and vehicles - those are covered separately). Class C felonies are assault type charges - usually against minors. Class A felonies are murders/homicides. So apparently a criminal life is worth $4,999.99 - and not one penny more. At least, in Washington State.

While that may be your opinion, it is not what is stated in law. Specifically, the following:

The attempt to steal the vehicle was defined under law to be a felony. The felony was committed upon Mr Gerlach, as he was the owner of said vehicle. His actions were to stop - thus actually resist - the commission of said felony. To have the right to use such force to resist he need only be present. To have fired the shot, it is in evidence that he must, by laws of physics, be present to fire the shot.

Thus - had he not claimed self defense, but merely stood on the legality of the use of deadly force in the resistance of a felony committed upon him, he would not even be in court.

Also - a person does not have the constitutional protection of the 8th amendment EXCEPT when dealing with punishment dealt out by the courts. In violating the constitutional rights of Mr. Gerlach, the perpetrator (or their family) has no standing to claim constitutional protections during the commission of a crime.

From the Washington State code:
 

(b) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling,((or)) residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle in which he or she is;
your whole statute as set forth.!

(c) In the event the slayer had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another person in a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle.


(2) Under subsection (1) of this section, a person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9A.16 RCW to read as follows:


(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 person when using deadly force pursuant to RCW 9A.16.050(1)(c) if:


(a) The person against whom the deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle; and....Mr Gerlach was not 'in or on' an Abode or 'occupied vehicle' and not under duress or reasonable fear of death and/or great bodily harm and the perpetrator was not in the process of entering, but had already accomplished that of an unoccupied vehicle not in an abode or an attachment to which would include a garage or carport even. NO GO here as before; it's just not a 'clean shoot' and Mr Gerlach's very cool 60' distance "outside the home" with apparent lack of panic lends no credence to need use of deadly force! Giving every benefit of the doubt to Mr. Gerlach is real tough here. Needless firearm discharge in a residential front yard over an insured vehicle:hmmm: in a class B felony, probably 'wobbled down' by a decent public defender to a misdemeanor-class A doesn't add up to it!?:shifty:

OK - show me the link for that... because what you have in red is NOT the law as recorded by the official Washington state legislature page located here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

So either you are adding to the statute to suit your claim, or your source is incorrect according to the official government page.

Next - the key word there is "or". Even "if" your quote of the statute was correct (which it isn't) - then only ONE of the conditions need be met in section 2. The fact that the crime was a felony and was being committed IN THE PRESENCE of Mr. Gerlach constitutes fulfillment of section 2 in regards to justifiable homicide.

Nowhere in the law regarding justifiable homicide as delineated in 9A.16.050 does it require Mr. Gerlach to be in fear of his life or under assault by a deadly weapon. While it does state those conditions are one possible reason for justifiable homicide, it also lays out other alternative circumstances in which homicide is justifiable under that statute. Specifically, homicide is justifiable if the person is in active resistance to a felony being perpetrated on them or in their presence. Given that Mr. Gerlach was in the area of the felony being perpetrated, and it was his truck being stolen, it is clear that Mr. Gerlach acted in resistance to a felony being committed in his presence - which justifies the homicide according to 9A.16.050. It is also clear that Mr. Gerlach acted in resistance to a felony being committed upon him - that is the theft of his vehicle (already defined as a Class B felony) so again the homicide is justified under the law.

However - Mr. Gerlach did not avail himself of the defense provided to him under 9A.16.050. As such. he is likely to be convicted unless his attorney also includes the above statute in his defense as the trial moves forward.

Here is your challenge, Achtungbby....

Show me where - using the official source for the law in question - where in 9A.16.050 it is a REQUIREMENT to be under assault or in fear of assault. Note that 9A.16.050 states EITHER - not AND.....

Profound apology!
 

:k_confused:Yipes! Your absolutely right! and I humbly apologize! Apparently I'm looking at the proposed legislation to correct RCW 9A. 16.050! However, I like your version just as well! RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.



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 or her 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 or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
Of some interest by a Washington police officer-scenario wise: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2011/08/24/when-it-comes-to-deadly-force-there-is-no-home-base/ ... http://blog.seattlepi.com/defenseattorney/2012/04/24/stand-your-ground-2/In Washington, if someone claims a killing was done in self defense, then the jury would be instructed this way: " It is a defense to a charge of murder that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer when:
1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain intended to commit a felony or to inflict death or great personal injury;
2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and
3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him, at the time of and prior to the incident.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty." [Washington Pattern Instruction #16.02] Washington law adds the requirement that the force be what a "reasonably prudent person" would use, :hmmm: It also appears that private citizens in Washington have some wider latitude to use deadly force than peace officers under RCW 9Aa.16.040...http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2010400110_shootingrules01m.html.. For most of the 20th century, police officers in several states were allowed to shoot any fleeing felony suspect to prevent escape. That changed after a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tennessee v. Garner, in which the court ruled that police violated constitutional rights when they killed an unarmed burglary suspect as he fled by climbing a fence.
Deadly force is permitted only when a fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, the justices said.
That standard has been written into Washington state law, RCW 9A.16.040. I was also incorrect about the penalty for auto theft which remains a class B felony in Washington State and for which the penalty IS:
Theft of a Motor Vehicle – Penalties

If you are caught stealing an automobile, no matter the value you can be charged with this offense. Theft of a motor vehicle is a Class B felony carrying a potential sentence of up to one year in prison, fines, community service, and/or a potential term of community supervision (probation).
Ref: RCW 9A.56.065 The question put to Mr Gerlach's 'tryers of fact' will be " would a reasonably prudent person shoot anyone at 60' to prevent a crime which only draws a year of time as he was fleeing and not a 'significant threat of death or serious injury'? as with the now legally constrained peace officers. Did Mr. Gerlach know it was a felony or a misdemeanor at the time( one year is usual for misdemeanors) sufficiently to know he was permitted to fire at the now fleeing felon in a vehicular class B felony? Mr Gerlach needs a good attorney and a crime scene cleanup crew to restore his truck to it's pre-felony condition. Sadly, you cannot shoot the burglar in the back outside the home these days even as he's humpin' along under the weight of your big $creen TV and has actually been in your 'castle' to do the felony burglary, and that's where Mr Gerlach's similar case will go against him.

Haplo, I exclusively struggle with the understanding of the term "felony", its definition and what it means in Us penalty code, type A and B. Stealing a car is not a capital crime like slaughter, murder, robbery by the use of severe physical violence, serious physical violence, kidnapping over here. So, the term felony (A, B) means any kind of crime in general, or capital crimes only?

@Achtungbby - No apology necessary. That is why we discuss things and I appreciate your willingness to double check. You are right, the private citizen does have more latitude IF they are present when the crime is committed. Not sure I agree that should be the case, but it is what Washington State allows.

@Skybird - no, there are two generally levels of crime, a misdemeanor and a felony. A felony is worse regarding sentencing. According to the State in question, any theft of $5000 (excluding firearms or motor vehicles) or more is a felony act. Any theft less than that would be a misdemeanor and would have different sentencing (punishment) guidelines.

The key here is that the Court can not impose capital punishment just because its a felony. Basically in Washington State - if you are convicted of a Class B felony, the punishment maximum is 10 years incarceration and up to a $20,000 fine. That is the most the Court can do. However, the law does allow greater action by private citizenry if you commit a felonious crime in their presence - up to and including deadly force to stop you.

To make it more confusing, we have 50 States.... Each State would have its own laws regarding this type of situation.

So "Autodiebstahl" is a capital crime, then. Strange I find that. Different folks - different strokes.

In Germany, it would only be murder, slaughter, severe physical violence, kidnapping, robbery with a strong physical component and/or very huge prey and or an act of killing, arson. I'm not sure whether rape and child abuse are seen as such capital crimes as well (I would hope so).

"Kapitalverbrechen" is no official term in German legal system anymore, but is still very popular in colloquial use, since everybody klnows what is meant by it. Formally, the law calls these things simply "Schwerverbrechen" (very serious crimes).

Mister Gerlach is in need of a good jailhouse lawyer.

Any of you fellows available?:03::O:

Like I said in post #22 "I don't think the shooter has a 'leg to stand on'. I would be interested in what the jury says."
He said he shot the perp in 'self defense', yet the perp was running away from him. Because of the self defense statement, I think he is well and truly screwed.
I would like to hear what the jury has to say. He does get a trial by Judge & jury, doesn't he? Or is it just Judge Roy Bean that tries him.

Again a difference in interpretation. In the United States the term "capital crime" indicates a crime that is punishable by death, or "capital punishment".

A felony is described as a crime which is punishable by one year or more in prison. Any lesser punishment indicates a misdemeanor.

Like I said:

I conclude that the ENG-GER dictionaries, which also varied in their translation, have messed the term "felony" up then.

So cops are (rightfully!) not allowed to waste a car thief, if they don't pose an immanent danger to others, yet citizens should be allowed to do so? :hmmm:
So where do you guys draw the line? Should egging a car be punishable by death? Hey, we don't know if the guy could afford the claening bill...

:agree:

Also if work as a professional and can't afford to pay a loss insurance, you have a pretty bad business model.

Rough equals:
felony = Verbrechen (madatory minimum sentence)
misedeamor = Straftat/Vergehen
infraction/violation of ordinances = Ordnungswidrigkeit (ticket)

not 100% comparible because case law vs. common law/differences in jurisdictions, etc