Guns, Dope, Dead People. Little Something for Everybody

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought this story would give anyone a chance to wax wroth. It's got everything.

http://www.kxly.com/news/29389620/detail.html

Attorney: Woman Who Shot Robber Acted In Self-Defense
Jeff Humphrey | KXLY4 Reporter

Posted: 5:13 pm PDT October 4, 2011Updated: 6:37 pm PDT October 4, 2011
SPOKANE, Wash. -- The attorney for a woman who shot a marijuana robbery suspect outside her North Spokane home on Monday claims she was acting in self defense.

The woman, Darcee Kapfer, and her brother had been beaten by the robber with a two-by-four before she retreated into her home and grabbed a .38 caliber pistol. Attorney Dana Kelly says Kapfer's use of deadly force was totally justified.

Here's the story. Woman is a medical marijuana user; she grows pot legally (by Washington state law, still illegal under federal law) in her back yard. She hears a noise, sees a man pulling up her pot plants. She rushes out and defends her pot with a 2x4. Pot-robber takes the 2x4 from her and proceeds to begin beating both her and her developmentally-disabled brother with it. She runs into the house, retrieves a pistol, and shoots the pot-robber dead. In the back of the head. In 'self-defense'.

Oh where to begin?

* As a medical marijuana user, the federal government has just (last week) come out and said that she does not have the legal right to possess a firearm.
* Marijuana planted in one's backyard tends to attract crime. Imagine that.
* I have to wonder if she would have rushed out and attacked the robber with a 2x4 if he had been stealing, say, her radishes instead of her pot?
* How do you shoot a bad guy in the back of the head in self-defense?
* Defending one's home with a gun seems pretty clear-cut; defending one's pot?
* If she had not taken a 2x4 to the pot-robber, he would not have been able to take it from her, right?
* If a 2x4 is a deadly weapon in the hands of the pot-robber, then it was a deadly weapon when she started whacking the pot-robber with it. Can you use deadly force to stop someone from stealing your garden crops legally?

Well...let's see where this goes...

 

[Steve]

Sounds like a mess.
This question is interesting to me: "Defending one's home with a gun seems pretty clear-cut; defending one's pot?" Had pot not been involved, I suspect you wouldn't think twice. Protecting one's home and protecting one's property are often used interchangeably by gun advocates.

Without knowing the details, I don't know if she lawfully owned the weapon or what happened. But by your description, isn't it possible she shot the bad guy in the back of the head while he was beating her brother?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sounds like a mess.
This question is interesting to me: "Defending one's home with a gun seems pretty clear-cut; defending one's pot?" Had pot not been involved, I suspect you wouldn't think twice. Protecting one's home and protecting one's property are often used interchangeably by gun advocates.

Well, I guess it depends on the state laws in question. "Castle Doctrine" generally includes the inside of the home, not the outside. Even the garage, if it is not attached to the house, cannot automatically be defended by deadly force using the Castle Doctrine as defense.

Also, there is a question as to what the threat is. If the man was not armed and was uprooting pot plants in the back yard, what was the threat to the occupants of the house? No threat, no right to self-defense with deadly force. The right to defend one's property? Yes. With deadly force, hmmm.

Without knowing the details, I don't know if she lawfully owned the weapon or what happened. But by your description, isn't it possible she shot the bad guy in the back of the head while he was beating her brother?

Ah, yes, I guess that could be possible. Or he could have been mule-kicking her.

 

[Carol]

Spokane Major Crimes detectives apparently believe that Bates was armed at some point during the altercation because they asked that he be charged with armed robbery.

"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene." -- Col. Jeff Cooper

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Had pot not been involved, I suspect you wouldn't think twice.

Oh, and that's not true, at least in my case. I have many times stated that while everyone has the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property, that does not mean they have the right to use deadly force to defend their property. This is in accordance with general theories regarding self-defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person.

This is not a perfect example. Is pot value when it is being legally grown for medical reasons valuable? If it is judged on 'street value' as an illicit drug, then stealing it might fall into the felony range; and laws differ with regard to a person's right to use deadly force to stop a felony versus a misdemeanor. However, if we're talking about a basic farm crop, as if the pot were radishes, then the value is pretty low, clearly not a felony to steal it. Hmmm. How do you figure this one out?

Whether the woman was protecting her pot crop or her rutabagas, though, she had the right to defend her property from theft. But not necessarily using deadly force. However, it gets interesting in that she chose to go after the guy with a 2x4. She may not have seen that as a 'deadly weapon', but when he took it from her and began beating her and her brother with it, then apparently is *was* a deadly weapon, authorizing her (her lawyer claims) to then use deadly force to defend herself and her brother.

It's almost like tossing a shoplifter a knife and then shooting him because he had a deadly weapon. Not sure it really flies, but it will be interesting to see what comes of all this.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene." -- Col. Jeff Cooper

He wasn't armed until he took the stick she was hitting him with. If I stop a shoplifter, hand him my knife, and he lunges at me with it, can I shoot him?

 

[Monroe]

She shouldn't have shot him the back of the head. When I was mugged, the guy just wanted my weed, I didn't have much cash on me. I handed it over and he took off. I don't like a knife pointed at me anymore than the next person, but weed isn't worth my life. Someone digging around stealing pot out of my back yard isn't worth risking my life over. Turn on a light outside, get a good view for your description and call the cops.

The lady had to be an idiot confronting him with the 2X4. It's just weed. Put up with some crappy pain killers with their side affects until you can get a new crop. I don't care what happens to her.

She wasn't smoking enough of her pot.

 

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Carol
"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene." -- Col. Jeff Cooper

I completely disagree with this. Armed robbery isn't okay, but possessions aren't worth more than human life. Victim or perpetrator.

 

[Carol]

Originally Posted by Carol
"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene." -- Col. Jeff Cooper

I completely disagree with this. Armed robbery isn't okay, but possessions aren't worth more than human life. Victim or perpetrator.

Yet an armed robber is dictating exactly that -- possessions ARE worth more than human life.

 

[Carol]

He wasn't armed until he took the stick she was hitting him with. If I stop a shoplifter, hand him my knife, and he lunges at me with it, can I shoot him?

Not seeing how the statement corresponds with the story.

Is a 2x4 a "stick" ? I don't see it as such. Did she hand him the garden shears? Or the 2x4?

 

[Monroe]

Yet an armed robber is dictating exactly that -- possessions ARE worth more than human life.

The armed robber can have my possessions, I'm not taking a life over "stuff."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not seeing how the statement corresponds with the story.

Is a 2x4 a "stick" ? I don't see it as such. Did she hand him the garden shears? Or the 2x4?

I was using a euphemism. A 2x4 is a stick; it's also a reasonably hefty piece of wood. A deadly weapon, in other words. And my point stands; if she was beating him with the 2x4, but it wasn't deadly force, and he took it away from her and commenced beating her with the same 2x4, now it suddenly is deadly force? Again I am simply asking - if I arm a bad guy and then shoot him because he is armed, is that self-defense? He would have had the 2x4 if she hadn't whacked him with it, would he? As to the garden shears, that seems to be a variable at this time. I'm not sure how they play into it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yet an armed robber is dictating exactly that -- possessions ARE worth more than human life.

I have no problem with an armed robber ending up dead. I do have a problem with turning an unarmed robber into an armed robber so that you can shoot him legally. Not quite cricket, IMHO.

 

[Buka]

A man is stealing her medication. Good for her. I hope she walks and I hope her brother is okay.

 

[Carol]

I was using a euphemism. A 2x4 is a stick; it's also a reasonably hefty piece of wood. A deadly weapon, in other words. And my point stands; if she was beating him with the 2x4, but it wasn't deadly force, and he took it away from her and commenced beating her with the same 2x4, now it suddenly is deadly force? Again I am simply asking - if I arm a bad guy and then shoot him because he is armed, is that self-defense? He would have had the 2x4 if she hadn't whacked him with it, would he? As to the garden shears, that seems to be a variable at this time. I'm not sure how they play into it.

Google found 3 news articles on the story, none of them say that she was beating the robber or that she whacked him with the 2x4. Perhaps he was, but the flow seems to be that she armed herself with the 2x4, the robber grabbed it and then began beating her brother, that's when she went in to the house to get the gun and shot the perp. No mention that she struck the perp.

As far as defending herself in general with the 2x4, might want to look at what Masaad Ayoob says about disparity of force, specifically a male attacker on female victim.

 

[Carol]

I have no problem with an armed robber ending up dead. I do have a problem with turning an unarmed robber into an armed robber so that you can shoot him legally. Not quite cricket, IMHO.

You think the homeowner planted a weapon in the perps hands simply so she could go shoot him?

 

[Carol]

EDIT -- double post.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You think the homeowner planted a weapon in the perps hands simply so she could go shoot him?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just noting that the man wasn't armed with a deadly weapon until she attacked him with it.

 

[Carol]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just noting that the man wasn't armed with a deadly weapon until she attacked him with it.

So how did the weapon come in to his possession?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So how did the weapon come in to his possession?

Is some part of this unclear? Are you trying to make a point? She came outside with the weapon, began hitting him with it. He took it away and began hitting her with the same weapon.

He was then armed with a deadly weapon and she had legal permission to defend herself with deadly force. Except that he would not have had the weapon if she hadn't been beating him with it first.