Governor Gregoire found herself in a situation where she used the means of force she had at hand, her vehicle, to repel what could have been construed as an attack or could have been construed as a mentally ill, obnoxious, but otherwise benign person. Under stress she might have applied a little more gas, the guy might have struck his head on the pavement or the door and died, or had an artery crushed by a tire and died. Fortunately that did not occur, but it well could have. We are fortunate that her application of a 3,500 pound deadly weapon did not result in serious injury or death to her attacker.

If it had, would we then be having a long discussion about whether the force was excessive, she should have found another way, the threat to her was not that serious to justify using her vehicle in the manner she did, etc.? Would some be wondering why she didn't use the vehicle just enough to wound? Why she didn't let the guy get in and just and hope that he didn't really intend to assault or kill her? Why she used force rather than verbal persuasion? Would others be pointing to RCW 9A.16.050 to state she was in actual resistance to a felony and that she was at risk of "great personal injury" and that was enough to justify deadly force?

When everything turns out well because the victim is safe and the perpetrator faces a judge, not a funeral, that it was not happenstance that the outcome was so good? Why do we assume when the worst happens, and the perpetrator dies, that the person defending themselves over-reacted, used excessive force, wanted not to just stop the attack, but to kill, etc.?

Actually, "no" by itself doesn't say one way or the other about whether a person is willing to discuss a subject further, whatever that subject.

Also, discussions ≠ sexual assault.

@2: If the purpose of the car was to run people over, you might have a point.

That Ansel's so hot now.

@4. That is one purpose of a car, but not its primary purpose. Nor is it how cars or other items that can be deadly weapons are most commonly used. Cars can, and have been lawfully used in self-defense, a small percentage of the time resulting in serious injury or death to the alleged attacker.

What? Some guy tried to tunnel into the ex-governor's car? That could have really cost her.

@2 and 4
A big hole in you straw man there is Gregoire is not, as far as I know, professionally trained to deal with situations such as that. So, if in her frenzied, most likely panicked defense this man died, it wouldn't be equivalent to say police officers shooting someone when there are a plethora of other options available that they're trained (or they should be trained, my faith in that has been questioned of late) to use.

Also, @7 good one.

@2: I'm sure you think you're being smart and clever, but comparing the actions of a 68-year-old woman being attacked with those of a highly trained, fully armed police officer is just plain stupid.

Georgie, some community college 101 courses would be immensely helpful for you.

@6:

I don't think "purpose" means what you think it means.

I don't think that De Blasio has decided against endorsing Hillary. However, he did say that he was waiting for some sort of meat insofar as policy prescriptions for the economy that help main street Americans before he tendered an endorsement. More Dems should hold out like that for Hillary and make her follow thru on them if she gets elected.

@11) You are correct. He doesn't know what that word really means.

Has Georgetown George ever made a cogent argument? I browsed a few of his last comments, and there are none to be found.

@9 It is no more easy to use a car to precisely wound someone just enough to stop an attack than any other object that can be construed as a deadly weapon. There are many deadly weapons in law, and the law does not make distinctions between them. Either you are legally justified in using a deadly weapon or you aren't, regardless of which specific deadly weapon, or object that can be construed as a deadly weapon, was used. Once you deploy it, you are only justified in using it until the threat stops.

If this woman's alleged attacker had died as a result of her actions, which he easily could have, the legal analysis would be the same whether the car and her operation of it was the mechanism of his demise or it was another item that could be construed and used as a deadly weapon. The grief from the alleged attacker's family and friends would be no different. Their would be possible cries from them that he was mentally ill and did the same sorts of things many previous times and never hurt anyone, and she didn't have to act as she did (never mind she has no way of knowing the history, or any guarantee that this time it wouldn't have been different). If she were cleared, as she has been (and also would be if he died because the legal analysis of whether she acted lawfully is the same) because the police determined he was the primary aggressor and they arrested her, not him, had he died, their would be cries that she got off because she was the ex-governor, because there were possible differences in race between her and the alleged attacker, etc.

@14) And yet he continues to type....

@15: Do you not realize that she was fleeing her attacker, not trying to run him over as he fled from her, or are you really that dumb?

I mean, you have to be pretending, because no one could possibly be this stupid.

I can't believe we're still treating "we just need to tell young boys not to rape" as some kind of actual solution to anything. It's been preaching to the choir at best.

@17. You are factually incorrect. From the ST story, "The sergeant says the man opened the passenger side door, got his left foot into the car and was partially seated when she accelerated backward and the man fell to the ground." She accelerated BACKWARD which moved the door on a 3,500 pound vehicle at her alleged attacker creating the foreseeable outcome that either the door or the pavement would strike him in the head or in another vital place and kill the alleged attacker.

Also there is no requirement in Washington State that she "flee[ ] her attacker." The elected Washington State Supreme Court has ruled not once, but twice, that someone who is in a place they are lawfully entitled to be, has no obligation to retreat or flee before using force in self-defense. That is what the Governor did. She, according to her testimony to police, or witness testimony (likely hers), willfully accelerated a 3,500 pound object in a manner she knew would strike her attacker. How else could the Sergeant, who was not there make a public statement on the case like that to the public?

@19: My guess is that the sergeant in question is not a fucking idiot.

Because you would have to be a fucking idiot to belive this was a calculated attack by Gregoire, and equal to a trained police officer raising, aiming, and firing his gun multiple tmes at a fleeing suspect. Or just pretending to be a fucking idiot. Which is it?

Whether calculated or not is not relevant in Washington Law. Intent is only relevant and considered when evaluating 1st, vs. 2nd Degree Murder and Murder vs. Manslaughter. Manslaughter only requires that somebody negligently act in a manner that it is foreseeable that death could result. It requires no intent to kill or maim, only that such an outcome be foreseeable. So the investigating officer, likely not the Sergeant, has to determine was the Governor in actual resistance to a felony, at risk of "great personal injury", attempting to prevent an offense (legal) against him or her, etc. (Google 9A.16.050 and 020) when she acted in a way where it was foreseeable that her actions could cause "great personal injury" or death to another. If any of those conditions are present, and the force used by the Governor was reasonable, then the investigating officer has no cause for arrest, because the statute authorizes the Governor, or any other similarly situated person to use force, up to an including deadly force. Had the guy suffered a brain injury resulting from the Governor's decision to accelerate backwards into the person entering her vehicle, she still would not be under arrest, even though that death was due to a willful act on her part and death to the man was a foreseeable outcome.

The legal analysis would be the same whether the Governor used a car door, a baseball bat, or a firearm to stop him from entering the vehicle. All meet the definition of a deadly weapon under the RCW. In this case she used a car door and the accelerator.

Troy Kelley, indicted this morning on 10 counts, should resign as state auditor. And Inslee should be apologizing for his tantrum about it.

@gerogeingeorgetown

If only to keep you occupied for another few minutes. Please address how an elderly lady fleeing an aggressor, either deranged or malevolent, equates a fully armed and trained peace officer gunning down an unarmed man running away.

@21: You know, most people only need a couple ines to prove how dumb they are, not multiple walls of text. Someone fleeing from an attacker in a car is different than a cop gunning down an unarmed person fleeing from them.

I know you feel obligated to try to explain why blacks being murdered is all good, but maybe you should reevaluate your life.

@21: Um, the definition of "manslaughter" that you give is actually the definition of 2nd-degree manslaughter. If the assailant had died from the fall, it would most likely have been excusable homicide, which is a whole different animal from justifiable homicide. "Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent." (
RCW 9A.16.030)
Why? Because her action was not a use of force against someone but rather an attempt at escape.

Suppose an alternative scenario:
While out walking one winter's night, someone begins following you along threatening to beat you up. You, in an attempt to escape, run across an iced-over field nearby; your harasser follows, slips on the ice, and breaks his neck in the fall, thus dying. Under your definition and interpretation of the law, you (the person fleeing) would be guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter. Why? Because you took an action (running onto the ice) that had the foreseeable consequence of your assailant slipping and falling on the ice (an injury evidently capable of killing him), and because the crime you were attempting to defend yourself against was only a misdemeanor (harassment), and homicide is only justifiable if defending against a felony.
Of course, this is a ludicrous interpretation of the law.

@23. The fact patterns you present are not analogous. "Fully armed and trained peace officer gunning down and unarmed man" would be analogous to this situation. "Running away" is not.

The man in Gregoire's case is attempting to get into her car without permission. He is unarmed. That does not alter the idea that she is under threat of "great personal Injury", is about to be the victim of a crime, etc. The test is whether a reasonable person in her facts and circumstances could reasonably come to the conclusion she did based on the facts present. Having come to that conclusion, she can use whatever force is necessary to stop that. What she can't do, is continue in the use of that force if the guy says, "I quite" and does. She can't continue in the use of force if the guy backpedals out of the car and moves 20 paces away. She then has to take her foot off the accelerator.

@19: Dude.
Since she was in a parking space, it is likely that she had to accelerate backwards to, you know, get out of the parking space. To get away.
So there's that.

Just give him a rest, folks. You can't use logic against willful stupidity.

@28. Not so. The person fleeing did nothing to cause it. Under the scenario you provide the person being threatened and followed might even push them as the attacker takes the first swing, makes a "furtive" move to a covered waistline or pocket, and the attacker could fall down and break their neck and die.

The key is the person being threatened and followed is not the initial aggressor, is resisting an active felony or one of the other justifications in .050, and their force was reasonable. In the furtive movement scenario they might also even draw a deadly weapon and use it in self-defense. Even though the attacking party later proved not to have a weapon, the fact pattern of "threat to kill" (or even do "great personal injury")., them following, and then reaching to a pocket as they close in, is enough to make a reasonable person believe that the person following them was going for a weapon.

That's my point in this whole thing. Stranger readers on these stories freak out when its a gun used in self-defense. They freak out even more if its a cop (S.C. was not self-defense). They don't treat all deadly weapons the same and put the fact pattern against the law and realize that its not the gun or the cop that is the problem but that their is no bright, clear, line in law of when its self-defense, and that if there is any doubt (unlike S.C.) the benefit goes tot he person asserting self-defense.

If Gregroire's actions had resulted in the death of her attacker, the analysis would not have matter that she used a car, and not a bat, or a gun. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. More importantly, the guy who tried to climb in her car, opened the door for her to legally kill him and claim self-defense. Had he cracked his head on the door, car body, or pavement and died, Gregoire still would have gone home, not to jail.

@29: You wanna play, wise guy? We can do this.
Suppose someone is following you around threatening to beat you up (which is harassment, a gross misdemeanor). You try to run away from them, but this time they've got you cornered, so you push past your harasser in an attempt to get away. He falls on the sidewalk, fractures his skull, and dies. By your fruitsy-bananas interpretation of the law, you're now guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.

@29 That is correct. The person has cornered yoh, you are not free to leave. So now you are kidnapped. A felony. But just for the sake of argument let's say it's a misdemeanor, you are still by a reasonable risk of "great personal injury (RCW 9A.16.050) you are being physically threatened which triggers rights to use reasonable force (9a.16.020 (3)). If you use lawful force and someone else dies as a result you are not criminally culpable. You can even kill an innocent bystander under 9a.16.030 and provided you were acting in self defense against an attacker, we're aiming at the attacker, and missed, you are not criminally liable. That is the state of the law and lots of cases are available showing the law being applied as I suggest. Links if you want tbem.

As a former Washington State criminal defense attorney who has tried self-defense cases, without getting into the details I can say that GinG has displayed a hell of a lot better understanding of the law and ability to reason within it than the smug pricks dismissing him (@10, @14, etc.) have. Also I'd note that GinG never said anything in his initial post comparing Gregoire's action to that of a police officer. Reading comprehension fail on y'all's part, I guess.

What I'd like to see more of in this internet world is people proving someone wrong with facts and logic, *then* dismissing him. Instead I see a lot of skipping straight to step number 2.

@32: Sorry you are unable to read between the lines. It was completely obvious to tortured "point" George is flailing around to make. Well, to everyone else at least.

@33, Yes he did not see between the lines (about the Pasco - benefit of the doubt about whether a suspect was running away, had a rock, etc. goes to the person claiming self-defense since a case against them must be made beyond a reasonable doubt - and other cases, not the S.C. case); however, former defense attorney acknowledge the State of the Law that has come from the legislators and state judges WE (including Stranger readers who go ape shit about these cases) elect. If we have problems with these incidents, it is not that the cops are a law unto themselves (although like any profession, they have problem children, and other cops who look the other way) but that the state of the law allows anyone to legally do what they do or what Gregoire luckily missed out on doing (killing someone in self-defense). Pogo was right. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

@31: "The person has cornered yoh [sic], you are not free to leave. So now you are kidnapped. A felony."
I wish you'd read the laws before you talk about them. Kidnapping requires that the offender is either "(a) secreting or holding him or her in a place where he or she is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly force". Following someone into an alley and threatening to beat them up doesn't qualify as kidnapping in the first nor the second degree. Heck, it doesn't even qualify as unlawful imprisonment, I don't think. But for the sake of argument, let's continue.
If someone threatens to beat you up, that doesn't fit the qualifications for justifiable homicide. Either you have to be defending yourself against the actual commission of a felony, or you have to be defending someone against the imminent threat of a felony (and under simply beating someone up is assault in the 4th degree, unless you inflict significant bodily harm) or the imminent threat of death or great personal injury. Defending against someone in the commission of a misdemeanor doesn't justify deadly force.

The key point that I am getting at, and have been trying to get at, is that there is a difference between force that can cause death and deadly force. From RCW 9A.16.010 (2): "'Deadly force' means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury."
If you push someone, it is possible for them to fall to the ground, suffer a skull fracture, and die as a result. However, simply pushing someone doesn't qualify as "deadly force" under the law because it is not "reasonably likely" to cause death; death is a very rare outcome from even less-than-deadly force. Do you get what I'm saying?