November 13, 2009
LAWSUIT FILED IN WASILCHEN MURDER CASE!
I found this on the web this AM. I guess the Weed Guy is in big trouble over in SNO County.
Blog Story
Heraldnet Story
Posted by LeCerveau at November 13, 2009
07:09 AM | Email This
1. The Government is filled with arrogant civil servants strutting their stuff. A very large number of them are fundamentally tyrants on their own personal Power Trips. They take great pleasure in telling and bulling the Citizenry and if you don't just, roll over for them, they will bring in another Government agency to further harass and stick it to you. I have dealt with these enemies of Liberty and thieves of your earnings on more than one occasion. I use to run a business and the average Citizen has no idea how Criminal these people can be and if you resist, they will try and destroy you. It is common knowledge among the business community that you let the civil servant have his fun of stepping on your rights and pushing and slapping you around some. Not, a whole lot but, some. If you totally stonewall him in standing up for your rights, as said before, he will bring in another Government agency or agencies to continue the assault. The average Citizen, in no way, realizes the level of corruption and handholding between Government agencies in the collective action of treading on our Liberties and the taking of our earnings.
Yes, may the Lawsuit Win! Do you think the killers of Snohomish County Deputies and Sonny Gohrman, the Weed man, will have to pay any penalties for their actions? Naah...Only the Victim, Victim's Family and the Taxpayer will have to PAY!
2. @1: No matter how much of a bully you are, it doesn't deserve getting a gun pulled on you.
3. You're Right!...demo Idiot! We should never defend our self no matter how much we are bullied. Always, let the aggressor win. That's the way to retain ones Liberty. What a Laugh you are!
The Weed man was told to leave more than once. The Weed man was threatening, obnoxious and being an officious bully. You have every right to defend your Castle/House and Property. When your right to defend your property rights is eliminated, you will have lost your Liberty. You will have Socialism/Liberalism!
4. @3: You do not have the legal right to pull a gun on an unarmed man on your property, period. It's felony assault in the state of Washington. If you have an issue with misdemeanor trespass, call the police.
If this is the way you feel, woe to the cop that pulls you over for speeding, that you feel is "stepping on your rights". Would you shoot them?
5. You poor Dumb LYING Sap...You do have the Right to pull a gun on anybody, armed or unarmed, who is knowingly on your property illegally and refuses to Leave. You have the Right to pull a gun on anybody who you suspect is there to do wrong. You have the Right to Blow him away if threatens you and or will not follow your commands. You have the right to chase a bugler down not, only on your property but, even when he runs off your property and will not follow your command to stop...You have the Right to shoot him. This of course, has nothing to do with being pulled over for speeding. Again, what ridiculous Liar you are to equate that to defending your property from assault. But then, demo LIAR is well known on SP and LIES from demo LIAR is no Surprise!
6. @5: The law isn't on your side. If someone is within your home without permission, about to damage your property, or about to commit a felony, THEN you can use a threat of deadly force against them. Misdemeanor trespass is NOT sufficient.
Look it up.
7. Quit being an IDIOT! Use of deadly force is not the act of pulling a gun. It is the Shooting of the Intruder that is the deadly Force. Yes, you have the Right to pull a gun on any uninvited Intruder. Are you to Wait, until the possibility that he pulls his weapon of choice first and suffer the fate of being too Late to defend yourself against an Assault? Yes, lets all be politically correct and always give the intruder the benefit of the doubt. Always allow the Intruder the first play so, when the police are called they can perform the lifesaving duty of drawing the chalk line around your body. Such a Deal!
8. @7: First of all, having a gun in hand IS assault. Second, you're not allowed to shoot people on your property unless there is an immediate threat. Again, look it up.
And the only person being an "idiot" here is you. You don't even know the law, apparently, but you see fit to comment on it like you do.
9. Again, quit being a Fool. For any Legal bearing that will hold up in the Courts, to bring punishment upon the defender, a physical action that requires more than, merely exercising the Right to bare arms when facing an Intruder must take place. You must simply Blow the Intruder away without Warning. Even at that, there may be circumstances that allows you to do so. Yes, you are an IDIOT and there are many on SP who will agree.
10. @9: Again, read the law. Threatening someone with a weapon without cause -- and a misdemeanor is not cause -- is felony assault. This is definitely the case when the person trespassing has no weapon. Prove me wrong, and not just with a "because I say so" argument.
But then again, it seems that while you love the right to bear arms, you're unable to take the responsibilities that go with that.
11. I DO know the Law. Have you provided any links/proof that I'm incorrect in what I have actually said? No you haven't! You, the Chronic LIAR, continue to make statements pertaining to my position that I have not put forth. I have never said you had the Right to threaten someone with a weapon without cause. Once again, you're LYING! We are talking about dealing with an uninvited Intruder. An uninvited Intruder can, in every sense of the word, be cause to feel threaten and you have every Right to take the means to have defense against the perceived threat. Doesn't make any difference if the person trespassing doesn't have a weapon. In the first place, you may not know that and in the second place, you have every Right to have the upper hand in an act of defense against a trespasser. If that requires a gun to be in hand, so be it. It is far, far better to be Safe than, Sorry. Bottom Line: You are continuing to prove to all on SP and have done so for sometime, what a total Liar and Fool you are and yet, it never shames you. No Surprise, after all...You're a Liberal!
12. @11: I just said prove me wrong, and you post nothing. Seems like you can't do much more than throw insults. What a loser.
13. Your the one who attacked my position as being Wrong. The burden of proof is always on the Accuser. So...Wake Up!...IDIOT!
14. Obviously this will be a question for a jury, but this appears to be the relevant cite from law - since neither of you could be bothered to do this and instead decided to act like children sniping back and forth at each other.
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force � When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
It pains me to support Daniel in this thread because of the attitude he displays, but he IS right that this appears to be a case where the actions of the deceased were lawful.
Daniel, you'd be well served to not expect people to take you at your word especially on a site of as much ill-repute as this one. Cite the law and you might actually show people they are wrong instead of just insulting them. You should be ashamed of yourself.
PS - your random capitalization is very odd.
15. Well, thanks for your input Andrew Brown. However, as stated before, it is up to those who disagree to provide proof to support their position. A lot of cases coming before the Court with circumstances that are not clearly or fully included in Legislative Statutes and Case Law/Common Law may require a Judge to make the final decision. For a Judge to make a final decision of merit, the Judge must use a dose of Common Sense to tie it altogether. Unfortunately, this can be missing and an appeal is in order. Those of Common Understanding/Common Sense would not disagree with my position. It is the Liberal, who is lacking in Common Sense and needs such proof. If the Liberal doesn't want to be insulted then, he shouldn't LIE. The Truth can be very insulting to a Liberal but, if the Truth hurts, so be it.
16. @14: You're partly right... but this is a case where the government official was in the driveway, an area "intended to be open to members of the public". Likewise, this is not a case where the guy was trying to "detain" anyone while investigating the reason for them to be on the premises. If someone were walking around in this guy's backyard... sure. But a gun is definitely more than necessary.
This is a pretty sad situation, because no one deserves to die for something like this. However, if he did look like he was about to shoot someone, the police officers acted as they should.
17. @16, demo Liar...The Government official was not standing confronting Daniel Wasilchen in his driveway. Daniel Wasilchen was in his yard at the time reported by others when Sonney Gorhman made his confrontational approach. Yes, there was some light humor passed back and forth before the serious confrontation took place...In the Yard! That's Lie number one. Lie number two, is your statement that a Driveway is intended to be open to the Public. The Driveway was HIS Driveway, a Private Driveway NOT, a Public Driveway and is NEVER intended to be open to the Public. In fact, some Private Driveways are Gated! It was the fourth time that Sonney Gorhman, the Weed man was told to leave. Yes, Daniel Wasilchen had every Right to get a gun to force Gorhman to leave. Daniel Wasilchen had every Right to defend his property and privacy. When, the police arrived at Gorhman's request, which Gorhman had no Right to call the police in the first place because, the property owner had every Right to demand Gorhman to leave. Then, the police supposedly seeing the gun and as far as the report goes, no call was made for Daniel Wasilchen to drop the gun. The police simply felt so-called threaten by a man standing on his own property protecting it from an unauthorized Intruder who was told to leave four times. The police, giving the excuse that somehow they felt threaten...Slaughtered the private Citizen rightfully defending his own property. Yes, it was Sad that Daniel Wasilchen was Gunned down by the very police that are supposed to protect individuals and Society at large.
18. demo kid,
First to stave off any kneejerk arguments - I'm not one of the usuals on this site and I'm not here to blindly disagree with you because of who you are, so I hope you'll keep that in mind when I say this... I know it can get pretty snippy in here sometimes :)
It's definitely a question for a jury. I think that any attorney - and even myself - could make a pretty good argument that the definitions of those words such as detained or 'intended to be open to members of the public' might apply here since he told the guy to get lost.
I also understand your argument that the police officer may have acted as best he could in the situation - hard to say without more information - but I think this should definitely go in front of a jury.
Daniel, you're way out of your league on this one. A driveway can in fact be inferred to be open to the public but in this case the man was told to leave, thus leaving him under no illusions that he's welcome there. At a minimum, he was guilty of trespassing.
However, none of that changes the fact that you're very likely to find a lot of case law that says you can reasonably expect that a driveway is open to the public at least until you're told to get lost.
Also, Gorhman had every right to call the police in spite of your comment. Was he morally correct in doing so? No, obviously not, but he still had every right to do so.
19. @18: It's definitely a question for a jury. In this case, it's certainly NOT "murder", as there were no charges made, and no convictions obtained. Because this is a "wrongful death" suit, though, the burden of proof is different... and who knows how it will turn?
The "detained" part of the law is one that is probably open to interpretation. However, it doesn't cover chasing people OFF your land, just checking out why they're ON your land. If the dude was sneaking around his backyard at night, or looked as if he was about to steal something, or whatever... I would be much more sympathetic to him pulling a gun and defending his property. But the right to chase ANYONE off your land with a gun under ANY circumstance just doesn't exist, though.
I certainly don't think that you're snippy, either, or disagreeing with me because of who I am. This "Daniel" person is a tool that seems more suited to throwing around idiotic, infantile, overly capitalized insults than actually making a point. Everything that you've said is actually quite reasonable, and I don't disagree.
As I've said before, this is a sorry situation, and no one deserves to die because of it.
20. @18, Andrew Brown...Your Wrong! The only way a Private Driveway can be inferred to be open to the Public would for that Private Driveway to be signed with a sign stating "Open to the Public".
Gorhman had No right to call the police...PERIOD! No more than someone calling the police to complain for the police to restrict anybody from performing their lawful conduct and their Right to do so. The police are there to defend the Rights of Lawful Citizens not, obstruct those Rights in any way. Gorhman's call was calling for the Violation and the Misuse of Police Services and Gorhman should be charged thereof. But, of course he won't.
21. Ah, since you're disagreeing with me, Daniel, are you going to go ahead and cite to your proof this time, or will you just expect us to take the almighty word of Daniel as evidence as usual?
22. I'll go ahead and cite my proof, though, since I already know I'm wasting my time waiting on yours:
http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/950370.htm
Like our neighboring courts, this court believes police with legitimate business may enter certain areas surrounding a home where persons may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as curtilage, but which are "impliedly open to use by the public." State v. Crea, 233 N.W.2d 736, 739 (Minn. 1975); State v. Krech, 403 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. 1987) (stating police may "approach a dwelling in order to conduct an investigation if they restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go"); State v. Lodermeier, 481 N.W.2d 614, 624 (S.D. 1992) (stating "[e]ven though [a driveway] is part of the curtilage, a police officer with legitimate business may enter a driveway and, while there, may inspect objects in plain view"); see also Lubenow v. N.D. State Highway Comm'r., 438 N.W.2d 528, 532 (N.D. 1989) (stating appellant did not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the officer observing from a place he had a right to be the contents and activities within the garage while the garage door was fully open"). Here, the officers were investigating a fatal hit-and-run accident with information possibly pointing to Winkler's involvement. Any member of the public would have entered upon Winkler's property in the manner the officers did. We, therefore, have no difficulty sustaining the officers' initial entry onto Winkler's driveway and observation of Winkler's pickup in the open garage.
It's commonly known that a driveway is a place that will "reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public".
23. Andrew Brown...The discussion was dealing with a Private Driveway being intended for Public access, which it is NOT! The Police are NOT the Public. CASE CLOSED! But, then...You're a Liberal and confusion, lack of commonsense, inability to connect the dots and lies are expected from a Liberal.
24. Well, I'll chalk that up as a win, since you ignored everything I wrote and decided to just call me a liberal.
Thanks for failing publicly, sir :)
25. Yeah...Right! If you wish to delude yourself, so be it.
26. @24: Congrats on your win, sir! Daniel's a little too dim to understand when he's lost an argument.
27. I'm sure Andrew Brown is delighted to receive your Congrats. Especially, from such a well established honorable and respected person. What a Laugh!