Tag: Self Defense

  • Purim: Self-Defense in Jewish History

    Today, March 6th, begins Purim 2023. This Jewish holiday is often treated like a blending of Christmas, Halloween and Easter with candy, gifts and costumes for kids. Most Christians ignore it. But there is a deep significance that goes beyond the over-romanticized marriage of newly crowned queen, Esther — who replaced Vashti when she was thrown out of the kingdom —  and King Ahasuerus, ruler of the Persia-Median Empire.

    The story is in the Book of Esther where Haman (the King’s adviser probably a descendant of Amalekites, ancient enemies of Israel) prevails on the King to decree a genocide against the captive Jewish population. The date was set by purim; i.e., the drawing of lots. The fact that Esther was secretly Jewish led to her appealing to the King not to allow the destruction of her people. According to the Hebrew calendar, Purim lands on the 14th day of the month Adar, which is the sixth month of the (Jewish) year. Adar roughly corresponds to March in the Gregorian calendar, give or take a few days.

    The photo below depicts Jan Žižka, a  contemporary and follower of Jan Hus and who led the resistance against overwhelming professional troops by raising a volunteer army of untrained farmers armed with pikes and a few muskets and pistols.   Žižka was a successful military leader and is now a national hero in the Czech Republic. He was nicknamed "One-eyed Žižka", having lost one and then both eyes. Jan Žižka led Hussite forces against three crusades and never lost a single battle despite being completely blind in his last stages of life. Like Esther, he stood for his people and stopped a genocide. The Moravian War helped launch the Reformation years before the time of Martin Luther.

    Queen Esther stood for her people while facing possible death for daring to approach the king without being summoned. King Ahasuerus issued a new decree because, under the ancient laws of the Medes, the King cannot revoke a decree that he has previously entered and proclaimed.

    (more…)

  • Bellingham Herald Reports Nothing About Whatcom County Acquittal?

    Kamuran Chabuk never set out to create a case history for legal advocates in the self-defense arena when he and his girlfriend went to check on a noise in their neighborhood. It sounded like someone near where they lived might have needed help. The neighbor making the noise was very drunk and he and another potential assailant followed the young couple to their home, continually harassing Chabuk and his girlfriend right up to their front door. Mr. Chabuk took out his gun and told the two men to leave the private area outside his residence. The two men, continued to advance towards Chabuk- even after one of them had been shot. Kamuran shot the most aggressive of the two; the aggressor did not realize he had been shot. The aggressor continued to advance even after Kamuran shot him a second and third time

    (more…)

  • What Should You Tell the Police After a Self-Defense Shooting?

    Bob Smith, our expert witness in the Chabuk trial, provided the following insight that relates to some important points we made to the judge concerning what Kamuran Chabuk could have done differently to avoid being prosecuted after shooting an unarmed aggressor where there were at least two or three potential assailants:

    “Recall also that we countered the point of the prosecution in the first trial regarding Chabuk’s alleged legal obligation to announce that he was armed. There is no such legal obligation. This was one of many such points that the first judge pointed out in his decision granting a retrial.”

    (more…)
  • 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…)
  • 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

     

  • 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…)

  • 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…)

  • Expungement of Convictions, Gun Rights & Criminal Defense in Spokane, Washington

    Restoration of Gun Rights.

    As a Spokane Criminal Defense attorney, Mark Knapp often gets calls regarding restoration of gun rights, expungement and the right to possess firearms under Washington state law. In Washington state, expungement does not restore the right to possess firearms. A Petition to Restore the Right to Possess Firearms is the procedure that is required pursuant to RCW 9.41.040.

    Since 1993, the Law Firm of Mark Knapp PLLC has specialized in NFA Gun Trusts and working with courts to restore clients’ right to possess firearms in Washington.

    See Press Release from Top Attorneys of North America.

    Washington State Firearms Attorney.

    We have been focused on gun rights for the last fifteen years. With 32 years of practicing law, we know how to navigate the many pitfalls and potential problems that arise in the process of restoring gun rights. Although some situations seem simple, it is best to have an attorney handling your case that focuses on firearms issues and restoration of gun rights.

    Subscribe to Newsletter. (more…)

  • Jihad Swarming & Counter-Terrorist Tactics

    The manner in which societies organize for war has always been dependent on a number of interrelated factors. Technology is an important factor but there are many instances where societies that are behind in the technology of warfare or even behind in industrial strength and other economic factors have been able to become better organized than their opponents. Japan, for example, created the first successful carrier groups and managed to do this virtually overnight in the years before Pearl Harbor.

    At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese executed tactics gleaned from systematic study of the British attack on Taranto that destroyed a major portion of the Italian Navy.

    Just prior to WW II, theorists like Liddell Hart advocated in favor of integrating fast moving armored vehicles with smaller infantry units and air cover. The only authorities in a position to follow Hart’s innovative doctrine who actually listened were members of the German High Command.

    The German execution of the lightning-fast tactics that the world came to know as Blitzkrieg overran France’s “state of the art” defenses in a matter of a few days with a loss of German lives that was almost nil!

    The ability of the U.S. to mobilize and organize a civilian industrial base in order to convert to the building of carriers and planes and other military armament was one important factor that turned the tables on the Japanese and the Germans. (more…)