mav0414
heck, I love shopping at Costco. But I’ve been thru some ups & downs lately, including shock, disorientation and anger from the unexpected assault put upon me by a complete stranger. Searching for answers had I been justified to use “reasonable force” for self defense, an experienced blogger on another site offered this explanation-example from the facts of this incident, at the time the door opens….
From the Revised Code of Washington:
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 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.
To follow up on example A comments, there has to be the “ability” and the “opportunity” for the suspect to carry out the threat, for the defense to be reasonable. For instance, if a man is holding a large knife in his hand and staring right through you with his look of evil as he screams, “I’m gonna stab you through the heart and kill you!” You clearly have a serious threat of death or great bodily harm, however, if that guy is standing up on an elevated deck and you’re 30 ft below him in a parking lot, he clearly doesn’t have the opportunity to carry that threat out, therefore it would not be reasonable to shoot him at that moment unless the circumstances changed.
Also for those that think it is unjustifiable to use deadly force on a person that is “unarmed”, think again. There have been several instances locally where both Police and civilians have been justified in the application of deadly force on individuals that were known or believed to be unarmed at the time of the incident. The justification comes from the totality of the circumstances, not just one issue. The size of the suspect vs. the shooter, the lower levels of force that were used in an attempt to end the situation that were ineffective, the behavior of the suspect (acting crazy, seemingly oblivious to pain, the apparent influence of drugs or alcohol etc, etc). Lastly, the perceptions of the shooter at the time the decision was made to fire. Obviously those perceptions must be viewed as “reasonable” which can be highly subjective. Reasonable basically means (for a citizen), would the “average citizen” in the same circumstances perceive the same threat and act in a similar way. Additionally, for a Police Officer, would the “average Officer” in the same circumstances perceive the same threat and act in a similar way. Here are a few instances when Officers shot unarmed suspects and were justified based on the totality of the circumstances.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004093946_copshooting27m.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19961117&slug=2360213
In the case at Costco, you have a MAV who is suddenly attacked without warning, or expectation by a large-“huge” adult male who has, without any known provocation, ripped open the driver’s door, reached into the cab, grabbed a hold of MAV and attempted to physically pull him from the truck.
Stop right there.
In this 1.2 millisecond, MAV has gone from looking for his debit card in his wallet and wondering what he’s gonna eat for lunch, to…Holy shit! Who is this guy? What is happening? Why is this happening? What does he want? My money? My truck? My life? Is this guy armed? Is this guy high?
All that happens in the blink of an eye. Has MAV perceived an IMMEDIATE THREAT to himself?? Hell yes. His body is dumping adrenaline into his system while his mind is going into high gear trying to process the threat. MAV doesn’t have the luxury everyone else on this thread has had, when reading all the details of the story that unfolded AFTER this moment. At this point, he has no idea about the pregnant wife, the spinning tire scare, the pissed-off protective husband, so none of that plays into his mindset at this point.
MAV is dealing with the here and now. The very real threat that is unfolding in his lap, while his brain tries to fill in the gaps and his body begins to ready for survival. Sound over dramatic? Then you haven’t been there.
MAV is trapped. His vehicle is boxed in. The keys may or may not have still been in the ignition, the truck may or may not have been on. The seatbelt has him stuck to his seat preventing his escape and limiting his defense options. Remember that, part of the formula for whether or not the force used was “reasonable” was that other options were not available or had been used and were unsuccessful.
He can’t run. He can’t drive away. He can’t get out of his seat (remember the suspect pulled on the seatbelt and jammed it). The suspect is large, violent, in a tactically advantageous position over MAV and MAV’s defense options are extremely limited.
MAV tells the suspect to back away and gives a verbal warning that deadly force may be used on the suspect if doesn’t stop his attack.
From MAV: “Then HE pulls away and steps back, proceeds to turn his Seahawk hat around so the cap’s bill is in the back and makes fists and starts coming again.”
If that’s stopping his attack in your book, then you and I have different books.
In the midst of this, MAV had the clarity of mind to use one of last dwindling options and use his cell phone to call 911 from where he sat helplessly. That’s reasonable. That’s doing everything you can to AVOID having to use force, when considering the few remaining options he has at this point in a very fluid and dynamic situation.
The suspect’s response to this is to grab the phone and throw it so MAV cannot use it. That option just went out the window now. By who? The suspect.
Now with no ability to call for help and no one around him running up to get involved, MAVsled is down to one or two options. He still has no idea who this guy is, why he is attacking him, and despite the fact that MAV had given him warning that he would shoot him if he didn’t stop, the suspect has refused to back down.
In fact, HE tells MAV to go ahead and call the cops because, “it will be too late”. TOO LATE?? Sorry folks, but this just confirms that this unpredictable, violent suspect has the intent to do MAV harm. Serious harm. And if you don’t feel that this justifies having a reasonable fear of imminent threat of death or great bodily harm at that moment by a person that has the ability and the opportunity as well as the clear intent, I don’t know what to tell you.
But it didn’t just stop there. As MAV makes an attempt to reach his cell phone on the floor, the suspect attacks. He didn’t just stand there with his fists clenched, he swung at MAV and attempted to punch him in the head, but missed. MAV had to make his own personal decision at that moment. One that he alone could make in that flash of mere seconds.
If you think you want to risk your life on predicting the outcome of the that volatile and unpredictable situation and convince yourself this is just a fist-fight or this guy is just a hot-head blowing off steam, or whatever scenario you come up with, fine. But many people, including cops, have under-reacted in a situation that thought they had under control or that they were not justified in shooting ‘cause no “weapons” were seen, and they have paid the ultimate price with their lives. You can quickly get in way over your head, before you have any idea that the person attacking you has murderous intent and it’s too late.
Be prepared to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.
MAV, I’m not telling you what you SHOULD have done. I was not there. I personally have had to use deadly force in defense of myself and others on two separate occasions. Thankfully, I survived both physically and legally in those circumstances. Others have told you what they WOULD have done. Fine. Your question was, “In your opinion, would this have been self defense?”
My answer is yes.