Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa . ( Answered,   9 Comments )
Question  
Subject: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
Category: Miscellaneous
Asked by: obladeeoblaadaa-ga
List Price: $100.00
Posted: 29 May 2003 20:13 PDT
Expires: 28 Jun 2003 20:13 PDT
Question ID: 210537
I live on harbor ave in seattle wa .I only have one cross walk near my
home whitch is clearly marked and is next to a busy prk and a very
busy biker bar . my wife has m.s and has trouble crossing the street .
the traffic in this area is posted 30 m.p.h but cars  moterbikes speed
by at a much higher rate of speed .I have been in the middle of the
cross walk when I have had almost been run over by car that will not
stop for amarked cross walk. At what point am I a liscenced concealed
carry pistol permit holder able to defend myself from a speeding car
that I cannot flee from due to its speed size failure to yeild and my
fear of being killed . I am not able to move my wife in a qwick manner
and I do not want to see her or my son or myself hurt or killed from
people that will not slowdown and threaten all our lives. I do carry a
legal pistol for self protection and have a permit for carry in stste
of washington and have a spotless record . thank you Steve

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 29 May 2003 20:51 PDT
Sir,

At NO POINT can you pull out a concealed weapon and point it at a
person or a moving vehicle without being in a whole heap of trouble. 
EVEN IF YOUR ACTIONS ARE EVENTUALLY FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED, you would
still be faced with dealing with the legal system, probably for a very
long stretch of time.  This could mean being charged with a crime,
arrest, imprisonment, lawyers fees, and other major disruptions to
your life and well-being.  And again, all this could happen even if
you are found -- at the end of the legal process -- to have been
justified in your actions.

Harming -- or threatening to harm someone else -- in self-defense is a
recognized principle of law, but is rarely clear-cut.  A site called
Findlaw.com has a brief introduction to the concept of self-defense:


Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a
crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a
deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact
commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other
person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense
cases are:

Who was the aggressor?


Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a
reasonable one?


If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to
protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does
not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense.
If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that she
is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first
and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is
reasonable -- if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.

---------

Bottom line:  There is no well-defined "point" at which use of a gun
for self-defense against a careless or agressive driver is justified. 
Each case will be investigated by the justice system.  And believe
me...you don't want to go there!

My apologies if I sound preachy here.  Your frustration with your
situation is understandable, but perhaps there are other solutions
available.

I only want to suggest that you re-think your question.  One of the
researchers here may be able to come up with one or several
alternatives for you to consider in dealing with your situation.

All you need do is ask.

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 30 May 2003 06:00 PDT
I should emphasize the disclaimer at the bottom of this page, which
states that answers and comments on Google Answers are general
information, and not intended to substitute for informed professional
legal advice.  If you need legal advice -- especially for a situation
as serious as this -- you should consult an attorney licensed to
practice law in the state of Washington.

As pafalafa has indicated, it seems doubtful (from a layperson's
perspective) that the legal system will approve of private citizens
shooting cars for any reason.  However, as pafalafa has also
suggested, there may be alternatives.

On some streets, I have noticed methods for cautioning or slowing down
traffic.  These methods include reduced speed limits (perhaps 20
m.p.h. would be more appropriate), signs warning drivers to watch for
disabled persons (along the lines of the more common "Children at
Play"), signs in conjunction with speed bumps, or a large electronic
sign displaying how the vehicle's speed compares to the posted speed
limit.

I don't know whether you could claim any right to require the city to
install a method for slowing traffic.  However, I presume that you
have the right to apply for some such method to the city council or a
city agency, and that the city would want to act if there is a genuine
problem for you and your wife (which it sounds like there is).

I have not done any research yet, but I or another Researcher would be
interested in looking into such alternatives as an answer to your
question.  Would you be interested?

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 30 May 2003 07:31 PDT
The ideas suggested by knowledge_seeker-ga are alternatives that you
might want a Researcher to look into as well.
Answer  
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
Answered By: mvguy-ga on 30 May 2003 11:22 PDT
 
Hi,

I'm familiar with the streets of Seattle and frequently have been a
pedestrian there, so I can understand how frustrated you must be.
However, as I will soon show you, the law is extremely unlikely to be
on your side if you were to use a gun to fire at the driver of a
moving vehicle or even at the vehicle itself.

First of all, let me point out that the law on concealed weapons
doesn't grant the permit holder any special rights to use the weapon,
only to conceal it. In fact, under Washington state law, anyone who
applies for a concealed-weapons permit is entitled to receive one as
long as he/she hasn't committed a felony or is otherwise ineligible
for certain specified reasons.

RCW 9.41.070
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=6&X=530101357&p=1

So even though you have a permit, you are entitled to use deadly force
only to the extent than any other person is.

Obviously, if you're using a gun, you have to consider the fact that
somebody could get killed as a result. Legally that would be known as
homicide. The question then would be whether it was justifiable
homicide. To answer that question, let's look at the state law that
defines justifiable homicide.

RCW 9A.16.050
     "(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."
http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20%209A%20TITLE/RCW%20%20%209A.%2016%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%20%209A.%2016%20.050.htm

So if a person were aiming a car straight at you intending to kill or
injure you, that would be a felony where you would be legally
justified in killing the assailant. But mere speeding is not
felonious, and killing a driver under such circumstances would not be
justifiable.  The fact you are in a marked crosswalk does not make the
fast driving felonious, since failure to yield to a pedestrian is not
a felony either.  So this law is not going to help you.

But that law does not provide the complete answer, as a separate law
determines when it is lawful to use force in general.

Basically, Washington state law presumes that the use of force (deadly
or otherwise) is unlawful except under specified circumstances. Those
circumstances are listed in Revised Code of Washington 9A.16.020. 
Most of those are irrelevant in this case, except for subsection 3:

RCW 9A.16.020(3)
"Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully
aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense
against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious
interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her
possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;"
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=9A.16.020

In other words, using the scenario you describe, three things (all
three, not just one or two of the three) would have to be true:

1) You or somebody you are aiding is about to be injured.
2) The goal is to prevent "an offense ... or a malicious trespass."
3) The force used is not more than is necessary.

So let's look at each of these conditions and see if you meet them.

Arguably, you might meet the first condition (you or someone you're
with is about to be injured). However, this law imposes more of a
certainty than the fact that using the crosswalk is dangerous. Let's
just say for the sake of argument that you can meet this condition.

The second condition (the goal is to prevent an offense or trespass)
would be harder to meet.  Is the purpose of shooting the gun to
prevent the offense of failure to yield to a pedestrian? To accomplish
this, you would probably have to shoot at the car long before it
reaches the sidewalk, and even doing so wouldn't ensure that the car
wouldn't reach the sidewalk. It seems pretty iffy at best.  Certainly
if you were charged with the crime, the prosecution would argue that
the purpose was revenge or rage at drivers, not to prevent a traffic
infraction. Frankly, by the time the car is close enough for you to
KNOW that it would hit you, it would be too late to shoot at the
driver or car to prevent it from hitting you.

But the real key here is the third condition, that "the force is not
more than is necessary."

First of all, what is "necessary" force? That is defined earlier in
the law:

RCW 9A.16.010
"'Necessary' means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use
of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was
reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended."

In other words, to defend your use of a gun, you'd have to show there
was "no reasonably effective alternative" AND that deadly force was
"reasonable" to bring about the desired behavior on the drivers.

To be blunt about it, you're not going to get anywhere to show there
was "no reasonably effective alternative," especially in the
circumstances where you have already shown that you are aware of the
dangerous situation.

Your goal is to get drivers to stop. There certainly are other ways to
accomplish that. Maybe you could carry a big sign that says, "I have
the right of way in this crosswalk" or something similar. Maybe you
could wear a big flashing red light. Perhaps you could yell at drivers
to stop and wait until someone does.  (Usually if the driver in one
lane stops, others will too, or at least that has been my experience.)
I don't know what the best way would be, but certainly there is SOME
way to get drivers to stop.

Even if there is no other way to get the drivers to stop, the legal
question becomes whether using a gun would be "reasonable" under the
circumstances.  Ultimately this is a question for a judge and/or jury
to decide, but I can't imagine any judge or jury deciding that it
would be. One of the tests of reasonableness would be whether it
creates more dangers than it seeks to alleviate. Obviously, shooting
at a driver would at best send a car out of control, possibly injuring
or killing other people and causing property damage.  "Reasonable" is
one of those words that's hard to define, and that's why the task is
usually left up to jurors. But again, I can't imagine any jury finding
that it was "reasonable" to shoot at someone who looked like he/she
was about to not yield a crosswalk to a pedestrian.

Reasonableness is also a matter actual practice.  The more often
people do something under real circumstances, the more likely it is to
be found reasonable. Since very few people use guns to get across
crosswalks, that would lend support to the position that doing so
would be unreasonable.

I was able to find one case where a pedestrian had used such a tactic.
Although it wasn't in Washington state, similar laws were in force. 
Here are some of the details:

Caution: Uppity pedestrians ahead
"Last June, when a car drove dangerously close to him as he attempted
to cross the street, Spangler, who describes himself as an 'aggressive
pedestrian,' pulled a gun from his briefcase. Judge Gerald Corso
sentenced him recently to up to 23 months in jail for simple assault
and reckless endangerment. The judge said he wanted to bring home to
Spangler 'the seriousness of this kind of conduct.'"
http://www.rightofway.org/prensa/philly.html

(Note: The characterization of pedestrians as "uppity" belongs to the
person who wrote that article, not to me.)

I doubt this is the answer you were hoping for, but the law really is
quite clear. You're going to have to find some other way to get
drivers to stop.

I suggest several alternative steps you could take:

1) If you can't get cars to stop, call 911 and tell them you need a
police escort to get across the street.  Do this often enough, and
somebody might do something about the situation.

2) Call the City of Seattle Pedestrian Program at 684-7583.  That's
the city department in charge of pedestrian safety, and someone there
can tell you what might be done.

3) If that doesn't help, call one of the Seattle City Council members.

4) Call KIRO, KOMO or KING or one of the other TV station's news
departments, or the Times or P-I. Someone might see a story in your
situation (especially if you refer to your question here on Google
Answers).

5) If all the above fail, talk to your neighbors and see if you can
enlist them to help your cause.

I am sorry to disappoint you about the law, but I do wish you the best
in trying to resolve your problem.

Best wishes,

Mvguy-ga






Search strategy:

I went to the Washington State Legislature's site to get the details
of Washington law:
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

I used the search box in the City of Seattle site to find out about
the Pedestrian Program.
http://www.cityofseattle.net/

I also performed numerous Google searches to find any examples of
cases where a pedestrian had used a gun under circumstances similar to
yours. I found only the Pennsylvania case above using the following
search term:

pedestrian crosswalk gun
://www.google.com/search?q=pedestrian+crosswalk+gun

I also performed numerous other searches to find more about how courts
view the concept of reasonable force, but the results added basically
nothing to what I and the other researchers have already provided. One
summary of the law on self-defense can be found on this page:

Common Defenses to Criminal Charges
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/F7D2015C-DDD4-494B-B7B9D6D6D9FAC218
Comments  
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: factsman-ga on 30 May 2003 04:28 PDT
 
I'm worried. I'm worried that there is someone roaming around my city
with a gun and the right to carry it who doesn't know when he can use
it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to bear arms, however I
also believe in responsibility for knowing when to use them.

Contemplating shooting at a car is INSANE. Had you fired a weapon at a
passing vehicle and killed an occupant, you could have been charged
with 2nd Degree Murder.

While I commend you for asking the question, and pafalafa for
providing a good response, I would sincerely recommend that you
re-evaluate your need for carrying it. There are plenty of non-lethal
weapons such as a stun gun or pepper spray which may suffice in many
situations.
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: journalist-ga on 30 May 2003 07:17 PDT
 
Also, if you had the time to pull a concelaed weapon and fire, a court
would probably be convinced that you had time to get out of the way of
a vehicle.  Condsider that scenario before you act.
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: knowledge_seeker-ga on 30 May 2003 07:20 PDT
 
Better ideas ....

Residential roadway safety 
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=23037

-K~
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: aceresearcher-ga on 30 May 2003 11:35 PDT
 
I have seen in numerous places the standard diamond-shaped traffic
warning sign with non-standard text such as

CAUTION
 Blind
 child
  in
 area

and

CAUTION
 Deaf
 child
  in
 area

Perhaps you could get the city to post a similar sign that says
something like:'


 CAUTION
Pedestrian
   in
wheelchair

maybe with the universal disability wheelchair symbol on it.

Best wishes on finding some good, non-violent solutions to your
problem --
ace
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: journalist-ga on 30 May 2003 12:55 PDT
 
An excellent answer, Mvguy.  My father, who has a permit to carry,
expressed woe at the scenario and I am happy you found the supporting
law to clarify this so well for the customer.
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: cynthia-ga on 30 May 2003 13:31 PDT
 
mvguy,

I just want to comment that I think you have given obladeeoblaadaa an
excellent answer. I used to live near Harbor Ave. I currently live in
the U-District and work in Lake Forest Park. Obviously the folks on
Harbor Avenue don't get to the U-District much, otherwise they would
be used to pedestrians.....and with the outsatnding view on Harbor
Avenue, it makes me wonder just WHY someone would want to drive fast.
It is after all, one of the greatest views in the city.

This Quicktime movie shows a panoramic view of the area
obladeeoblaadaa is talking about:
http://www.vrseattle.com/html/vrview.php?cat_id=33&vrs_id=vrs396
WHen you click on it, Harbor Avenue is on the left. It shows the
stunning view. Why anyone would want to drive fast there is beyond
me...

These next two pics are not nearly as good but they are here in case
the movie doesn't work for some folks.

This page shows the park on Harbor Avenue:
http://www.gonorthwest.com/Washington/seattle/viewpoints/seacrest.htm
...1660 Harbor Avenue SW, near Fairmount Avenue, on the waterfront of
West Seattle..."

And on that page is this link that shows the view at the park, looking
east at Downtown Seattle:
http://www.gonorthwest.com/Washington/seattle/viewpoints/photos/seacrest/needle.jpg

~~Cynthia
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: skermit-ga on 30 May 2003 14:21 PDT
 
Great comments all around and great answer as well. May I offer a more
humorous approach? Try getting a custom diamond sign made which says:

"Caution
Armed
Pedestrian
Crossing"

Put a couple empty bullet shell pictures somewhere on the sign, and
I'm sure people will start slowing down, or maybe take other streets!
(btw, this is completely a joke)

skermit-ga
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: cynthia-ga on 30 May 2003 14:31 PDT
 
Maybe something along these lines?

This sign could be changed to suit your need...
http://www.firingpin.com/posters2.htm

..."My favorite is "Never mind the dog, beware of owner..."
Subject: Re: legal personal defense in a marked cross walk in seattle wa .
From: alkemyst1971-ga on 02 Jun 2003 09:30 PDT
 
The main thing that even if you could legally shoot at a driver would
be, how in this situation the shooting prevent anything or help?

1) Driver is approaching, you shoot him and now the vehicle is
continuing unmanned...it more than likely has a better chance of
impacting a pedestrian at this point than if the driver was in full
control. You will lose that.

2) Driver has passed, you shoot him...this will fall under the
vigilante type laws and you will lose that. (You cannot persue someone
after the crime).

The only time shooting another driver is justified would be if they
were in some kind of pursuit of you (whether or not you are in a
vehicle)...then you would have some kind of ability to say that even
if the driver passed you, he would have come back and tried again. 
You would also have to prove you were trying to evade him and get help
in some way.

The laws are all for giving someone the ability to defend themselves,
but never the ability to take the law in their own hands.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy