Chapter
29 of the Substitute Senate Bill No. 4465, filed in the
Office of the Secretary of State (April 2, 1986), relating to [the use of]
deadly force; amending RCW 9A.16.010 and RCW
9A.16.040- creating a new section, is as follows:
DEADLY
FORCE
9A.16.010 Section
1
(1)
“Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of
[deadly] force appeared to exist, and that the amount of [deadly] force
used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful purpose intended.
(2)
“Deadly force” means the intentional application of [deadly] force through the
use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death
[chokeholds??] or serious physical injury.
9A.16.040 Section
2
(1)
Homicide or the use of deadly force is “justified” in the following causes:
(2)
In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1) (c) of this
section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of a crime, the
police officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect(s)
if not apprehended:- poses a threat of serious
physical harm to the officer, or
- poses a threat of serious
physical harm to others
(a) The suspect threatens the police officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction of serious bodily harm.
Under
these circumstances [previously mentioned] deadly force may also be used
[subjective determination??] if necessary, to prevent escape from the officer
[i.e. Section 2 ii/iii], where if feasible, some warning is given.
(3)
A public officer or peace officer shall not be held liable for using deadly
force without malice and with a good
faith belief that such an act is “justifiable” pursuant
to this section.
In
order to get a clearer understanding of the most significant and crucial words
in the statute, Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary will be used as a reference.
Malice
(syn) - Implies a deep-seated,
often inexplicable [unreasonable/unjustifiable] desire to see (or
cause) another to suffer [pain, injury, violence, or harm].
Desire
(verb) - To cause pain, injury, or
distress to another; (syn) - stresses
the strength of feeling, often implying strong intention or aim (objective
purpose).
Justifiable
(adj)/justify (verb) b [1]; to show having sufficient legal reason [for an
action??].
Reason
(noun) 1 b; a rational ground or
motive to act upon. c; a sufficient explanation or logical defense, esp.; something (as a principle of law)
that supports a conclusion that explains a fact or a client’s action.
So,
in those cases where a police officer uses deadly force resulting in the death
of another person, the established standard as enumerated in this provision Substitute
Senate
Bill No. 4465 (Chapter 29) has precedent. To determine as a rule of law
whether the action taken by a police officer is legally justified and lawful,
certain prongs have to be satisfied, namely:
- Was the police officer
attempting to arrest/apprehend [they were not free to leave] a person in
the commission of a crime? And if so,
- Was there sufficient
probable cause to believe that the person posed a serious threat to
inflict serious physical harm to the police officer, or
- Was there probable cause
that person committed a crime where serious physical harm was inflicted
upon another [or was there an immediate/imminent threat of such]?
- Was the use of deadly force resulting in the death of another person sufficient and legally necessary because no reasonably effective alternative to the use of deadly force appeared to exist at the time, and that the amount of deadly force used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful resolution of the matter?
This
article has provided concise information regarding the use of deadly force that
the legislature has codified into the criminal law code for the state of
Washington (RCW), and it is sufficient without revision or amending for any
plaintiff that has standing to bring legal action for criminal prosecution
against police who cause the death of someone unlawfully. The intent behind
initiatives such as I-873 are certainly worth pursuing but the main thing is
that instead of trying to create a new law the prosecution and courts should
just enforce the law that’s already on the books instead of blindfolding
justice.
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
June 14, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com