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§ion=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 |
