Category: Law

  • Deadly Force

    Deadly Force

    The Court of Appeals has held that “the amount of force that is necessary to prevent the infliction of great personal injury may vary with the number of persons the defendant reasonably believes are about to commence striking him with their fists.”

    State v. Irons, 101 Wn. App. 544, 558, 4 P.3d 174 (2000).

    On November 14, 2022, the Whatcom County Superior Court found Kamuran Chabuk not guilty of a 2nd Degree Assault charge nine years after a self-defense shooting in Bellingham. The Law Office of Mark Knapp PLLC obtained an acquittal after a bench trial before Hon. Judge David E. Freeman.

    The case presented some critical factual issues including the presence of multiple aggressors, disparity in the size of the so-called victim, and the potential for a concerted attempt on the part of at least two aggressors to take away the Defendant’s gun and use it against him.

    The aggressor survived the shooting. Nevertheless, the language in WPIC 16.02 provides a template for self-defense cases in which there are multiple aggressors or a group that seems to be acting in concert. The appearance of a threat by one member of the group might justify use of force against other members of the group, depending on the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the defendant at the time.

    WPIC 16.02 Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others 

    Multiple assailants. There is no requirement that the defendant’s fear be caused by only the person slain. His self-defense is lawful if based on reasonable fear of imminent harm from either the person slain, or others whom the defendant also reasonably feared. State v. Harris, 122 Wn.App. 547, 90 P.3d 1133 (2004); State v. Irons, 101 Wn.App. 544, 550, 4 P.3d 174 (2000).

    After a jury convicted Kamuran Chabuk of 2nd Degree Assault at his first trial in 2015, the judge ruled that prosecutorial misconduct required a new trial. The State appealed and, in 2019, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One upheld Judge Ira Uhrig’s decision to take the verdict away from the jury. Whatcom County’s Chief Prosecutor for 44 years, Dave McEachran, had stated at trial that Chabuk had an absolute duty to announce that he had a gun. He also implied that Chabuk provoked the pursuit by videotaping Kiener and his friends and that Chabuk had a duty to retreat.

    In the first trial in 2015, the State made a deal not to call its expert witness to testify about use of lethal force if the defense would agree not to call Bob Smith, retained by the defense to analyze issues such as disparity of force. In the 2022 trial, Smith was instrumental in explaining to the Court why Chabuk had no reasonable alternatives—based on all the circumstances known to him—despite the fact that Kiener might have been unarmed.

    (more…)
  • Arming Teachers

    Arming Teachers

    Retired Special Agent of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and tactical use of force instructor, Gary Griffiths, offered the following observations related to ongoing discussions related to arming teachers and other school personnel as specially trained employees of a school district. These employees work in a capacity other than as security staff but are trained to protect themselves and others when threats arise in their working environment. Proposed legislation empowering school districts to implement the “embedded” school personnel concept utilizes the term School Marshals.  Please feel free to network with us in reaching out to elected officials, law enforcement agencies and school districts interested in advocating for School Marshal programs:

    “There is simply no way to absolutely prevent school shootings from happening in this or any other free country.  Even requiring all students to enter the school campus through a metal detector, like they’re entering an airport is not 100% certain to prevent this sort of tragedy. (Google Red Lake Minnesota, 21 March 2005). The recent tragedy at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX also illustrates that even excellent physical security can be instantly negated by a staff member too lazy to follow security protocol.”

    (more…)
  • Machine Guns & Automatic Weapons in Washington State

    Machine Guns & Automatic Weapons in Washington State

    We sometimes get questions as to whether a machine gun qualifies for Curio/Relic status under federal regulations. Any such items must comply with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and also local state law.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives will not allow transfer of ANY automatic weapon into Washington state since July 1, 1994 (except departmental purchases). Thus, there are no exceptions for antiques under Washington state law per RCW 9.41.190 and the definitions under RCW 9.41.010.

    Prior to legislative changes in RCW 9.41.190, it was theoretically legal to own an automatic weapon if you were in the armed forces, provided that BATFE would provide the $200.00 tax stamp.

    RCW 9.41.190 stated the following: (more…)

  • Use of Force Policies & Law Enforcement

    Use of Force Policies & Law Enforcement

    In 2017, Chuck Delgado spoke to our Action Training Group regarding the circumstances when he shot and killed an unarmed attacker when he was a Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputy in 1971.  Chuck was neither charged nor disciplined because the use of force was justified.  Nevertheless, the shooting was contrary to use of force procedures in place in the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office in 1971. 

    The following is an After Action Report provided by Mr. Delgado.

    “If you wait until you see the muzzle flash of the adversary’s weapon, you waited too long.”

    -Bob Smith, Use of Force Expert


    Policies Are Great If They Don’t Get You Killed.  At the time of the 1971 shooting, the policy of the Spokane Police Department was to the effect of, “You only shoot after being fired upon.”  In a section of the Spokane County Sheriff’s Training Manual, concerning the shooting of an unarmed subject read something to the effect of, “you can only employ lethal force on an unarmed subject if attacked by three or more.” In those days there was little or no understanding of the “Disparity in Numbers” argument in a self-defense situation.  That line of thinking was not unique to our local agencies, and that is why so many police officers were killed during the mid-Seventies and often with their own weapons.

    Remember who used to write the policies back then?  The old guys with the gold bars on their shoulders.  The officers who haven’t worked in the field in years or even decades.  But that has changed since I was in the uniform.  It is now more common to see the practitioners who actually work in the field, i.e., patrolmen, patrol corporals and patrol sergeants involved in those studies which lead to policy changes. The present day use of force seminars sponsored by local police agencies are presented by patrol officers (patrolmen, corporals and sergeants) and detectives involved in research and development of use of force policies.

    Gold Bars Don’t Make Policy Today.  I have never attended any of those presentations where the speaker was a Lt. or Capt.  There were few exceptions to guys with gold bars presenting use of force education to officers. One exception was Dean Lydig, who was the detective Captain at the time of the shooting.  Two days after the shooting, the post shooting investigation was completed.  Captain Lydig called me into his office, closed the door behind me, sat me down and handed me the entire file, and instructed me to read every page:  The autopsy report; the WSP ballistic report; the background of the deceased; witness interviews; crime scene pictures of the damage done by the deceased in his efforts to gain entry to the complainant’s dwelling, etc. He did not disparage the patrol Lt. or the patrol Capt. who I overheard say, “Chuck is in a heap of s—!” but Capt. LYDIG did say, “How could anyone reasonably expect you to physically prevail  (I was 154 lbs., the adversary was 244 lbs with martial arts traing) with a guy like this?  Had you try to physically subdue this guy, I’d be here looking at your autopsy reports.”  In those days there was little or no understanding of the “disparity of size” argument in a self defense situation.  I should further point out that on my first day back to work after the shooting, my Sgt., pulled me aside, looked directly into my eyes and said, “If tonight you go on a call like the call last Monday morning, you do exactly the same thing you did at 0113 hrs on Monday, you understand me?” 

    That was the difference between Patrol Sgts. and the brass.  Policies are improved by guys like me who broke the rules.

    Gun Fight at GU.  I should bring the readers attention to the gun fight which took place at the Gonzaga University on November 22, 1971 A call was put out of a man with a rifle on the campus.  The Gonzaga district patrol car was two-man unit. Two well-seasoned veteran cops, were dispatched to the call.  Another two-man unit, which was close, but in a different district was occupied by two rookies, requested to back-up the primary unit.  Radio advised the rookie unit it was not necessary to back-up the primary unit, since it was a two-man unit.  As soon as Bob, the senior officer in the rookie unit, advised dispatch that he understood the instructions to disregard the back-up, he put the Motorola mike on it’s mount and told the junior officer “Screw it, we are headed for Gonzaga!”  Those two rookies saved many lives that day, including the Old Veteran cops. A gun battle erupted, the Veterans missed the bad guy, who was ultimately killed by the rookies. It should be noted that Bob was in my Spokane Police Academy class. We graduated November of 1969.

    Wait & See Policy in 1971.  The conventional policy in 1971, prevalent for most police agencies across the country, was “Wait until you see a weapon!”  At that point it is too late.  I am a graduate of the Spokane Police Academy, as well as a former Martial Arts student.  I have been taught that ACTION IS FASTER THAN REACTION.  If the defender allows the aggressor to initiate the threat of deadly force, prior to the defender being prepard to neutralize the deadly force, it is too late. As a deputy sheriff, at the first furtive/suspicious movements, I had my sidearm out of the holster and in my right hand.  If I was within striking distance of the subject, where I may have compromised my safety by reaching for my sidearm, I would immediately take the individual down and handcuff the subject.  During the 1970s so many cops were being killed, many with their own sidearm, because they were not taught the defensive tactics taught today along with ineffective use of force policies.  Even now the cops are waiting too long to shoot.  I read recently that between 2013-2015 11% of the LEOs killed in the line of duty were killed with their own weapon.  They’re still failing to control the scene and allowing the adversaries to get to close or waiting too long to shoot. Once you lose control of the scene, your safety, as well as the safety of the citizens you should be protecting, is in jeopardy.  It has always been said that there is a weapon on every call a cop goes on…the cops weapon.

    Weapon Retention Skills Are Paramount.  Many LEOs were killed after being disarmed by the bad guy.  Think about JoAnne Chesimard who killed the N.J State Trooper and  and is now in Cuba.

    FBI research confirms that LEOs were waiting too long to shoot!  My shooting was part of that research. Sadly, because of such things as the Black Lives Matter movement (based on the false narrative of hands up don’t shoot) and a citizenry which has been dumbed-down by corporate news media, public education and the NFL, the average citizen believes police are killing Black people due to invidious racial prejudice.  This same misinformation and media bias is a powerful tool aimed at armed citizens.  We have an uphill battle.

     

    Action Training Group. That is exactly why more people have to get involved with groups such as the Action Training Group.  Although the ATG is nonpolitical, members need to work individually with their legislators and with politically inclined gun groups like the NRA to keep the policies from being watered down.  If the lethal force available to the police is unduly restricted, the responsibility for armed citizens to deploy deadly force in defense of our own lives and the lives of our loved ones will also become severely restricted.  Right now, armed citizens in Washington state theoretically have broader authority to use deadly force than LEOs.

    According to the Legislative Note included with RCW 9A.16.040:

    Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.”

    The reality, however, is that the average person, including lawmakers, judges and attorneys and jurors, thinks that officers have broader authority in regard to the use of deadly force.  Law Enforcement Officers and armed citizens need to recognize that we all have an interest in educating the public regarding issues involving the criteria for use of deadly force.  I once read something like, “You deserve what you are willing to tolerate.  Get involved with the legislative process, because if you don’t use your rights, you will lose those rights.”

    Chuck Delgado, November, 2017

     

  • Criminal Assault Laws, Self-Defense & Display of a Weapon With Intent to Intimidate

    Display With Intent to Intimidate. The Spokane area Law Office of Mark Knapp PLLC handles many kinds of criminal defense cases. Many present issues of self-defense. The ability to claim self-defense depends on whether there is an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. The issue of self-defense often arises when a weapon is displayed during a road rage incident or some altercation.

    The Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 9.41.270, the Display With Intent to Intimidate law, in 1969. The statute prohibits display of a weapon in “a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” (more…)

  • Need Washington State Domestic Violence Lawyer in Spokane County?


    Charged With a Domestic Violence Offense. Things can often get out of control when family members are involved. We are a Spokane area criminal defense firm.  If you are ever charged with Domestic Violence, there are a number of issues that usually come into play. When the police arrive, usually because someone called 911, they will separate the witnesses and ask what happened. If the police hear different stories, they will often assume that the woman is lying to keep her husband or boyfriend from getting in trouble.

    Right to Remain Silent. The best thing to do is to remain silent. If you or another family member say something that sounds likely that an assault occurred, a threat was made or community property broken, someone is probably going to get booked into jail. If it looks like there is probable cause to believe two people committed domestic violence, the male is usually the one that gets booked.

    (more…)

  • The Lochner Era in Supreme Court History

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    Prepare.
    Preparation, then action!

    What is Substantive Due Process?

    Constitutional law recognizes fundamental principles which are ordained by our Creator. There was a time, however, in the early 1900s when the U.S. Supreme Court only applied the Bill of Rights to state & municipal governments in order to restrict the Progressive agenda.

    Constitutional Law during the Lochner era. From 1897 through 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a number of cases involving economic issues where the court  struck down state regulations that restricted business owners. Child labor laws and minimum wage laws, for example, were held to violate the freedom of contract, a liberty interest under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guarantees life, liberty and property and requires due process under the law before state governments can invade such interests. At one time, the Court  consistently held that the 14th Amendment only guaranteed fundamentally fair procedural safeguards. But the Lochner  era cases found that freedom of contract was a substantive liberty interest under the U.S.Constitution

    (more…)

  • Restoring Gun Rights & Vacating Convictions

    We handle criminal cases, including felonies, and firearms law. We can also help get some convictions vacated:

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR VACATING MISDEMEANOR AND GROSS MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS

    Washington law permits vacating some misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor convictions.

    When the court vacates a conviction, you are released from penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense- but not from the prohibition against possessing firearms.

    (more…)

  • Spokane Criminal Defense Law Firm

    Criminal Defense. A big component of our Spokane area criminal defense practice is dedicated to restoring the right to own firearms. Up until a few years ago, the NICS did not recognize restoration of rights for non-felony domestic violence convictions entered in Washington state. With many Domestic Violence (DV) convictions, a person is still prohibited by Washington state law from possessing firearms under RCW 9.41.040 (2)(a)(i).

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    Domestic Violence. The Domestic Violence convictions that prohibit possession of firearms under Washington state law are the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence. (more…)

  • Criminal Defense Team Sends Message to Spokane County

    Criminal Defense Team Sends Message to Spokane County

    Gerlach Acquittal and the Right to Carry

    Gail Gerlach Acquitted of First Degree Manslaughter

    Gerlach’s Acquittal Sends Strong Message on self-defense

    Criminal defense lawyers in Spokane paid close attention when Gail Gerlach was acquitted of first-degree manslaughter charges. Defense lawyers, Richard Lee and David Stevens, sent a clear message to prosecutors when the Spokane-area resident was acquitted of First Degree Manslaughter for shooting 25 year old Brendon Kaluza-Graham on March 25, 2013. The shot killed Kaluza-Graham who was driving away in Gerlach’s vehicle. Gerlach left the vehicle running while getting ready to take his wife to work.  (more…)