Many people will sympathize with an Arlington, WA man who fired a couple of shots at a burglary suspect who later turned up dead with jewelry belonging homeowner’s wife in his pocket, because the homeowner has now been arrested for investigation of second-degree murder.
Keira S. Earhart was booked into the Snohomish County Jail and is being held there on $1 million bail. The man he shot, Ryan A. Rzechula, 25, of Stanwood, has a criminal record, according to the Everett Herald.
What allegedly occurred in this case will need some sorting out, but the basic facts are that Earhart arrived home Nov. 16 to find Rzechula running from his house. Earhart discovered that some of his wife’s jewelry was missing and called the Snohomish County Sheriff Deputies responded, including a K-9 unit, but a search failed to find the suspect. A few hours later, Earhart apparently spotted the same man hiding in a nearby ditch, yelled at him as he started to run, fired a couple of shots at him, and then called the sheriff again. This time, a deputy arrived, checked the area, found nothing and departed.
On Wednesday – a day and a half after the incident – a neighbor found Rzechula’s body lying in a creek on his property. The medical examiner found at least one bullet wound in Rzechula, along with jewelry that matched the description of stolen items reported by Earhart.
Rzechula has a criminal history that includes a felony conviction. He had jewelry in his pockets that matched what had been taken from Earhart's home. The police affidavit does not say whether any weapons were found on him. - Everett Herald
Go back a month to the story in neighboring King County involving Douglas Sheets, the man who pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter in the September 2008 shooting death of car prowler Jhovany Hernandez in Northgate. Sheets spotted Hernandez and some other people outside his apartment, and Hernandez was carting away stereo equipment from Sheets’ car.
Sheets grabbed a .30-caliber rifle, yelled at the suspects to get on the ground, and when they didn’t, he fired. He later told the police that he thought Hernandez was reaching for a gun in his waistband and feared for his safety – no gun was found – so he pressed the trigger. He also told investigators that he had not intended to kill Hernandez. The bullet hit Hernandez in the back of the head. In an unusually lenient ruling, based in part on the fact that Hernandez contributed to his own demise by stealing the stereo gear, Sheets pulled a 9-month sentence to be served on work release.
Washington has one of the best self-defense statutes in the country, and it is a rare event for a prosecutor, at least in King or Snohomish counties, to make a wrong call on a shooting in which self-defense may be claimed.
Homicide is…justifiable when committed either:(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is. - RCW 9A.16.050
It is not within this state’s definition of self-defense to shoot someone who is fleeing from a burglary or a car prowl. If there is not an immediate and unavoidable threat of grave bodily harm or death, keep your finger off of the trigger.
Certainly the public is frustrated with the criminal court system, which seems dysfunctional more often than not. And it is equally frustrating to find a culprit with your property in his hands and be limited by law from dispensing a little street justice, but that sort of thing only happens on film. All television or movies show is a closing scene with the good guy still standing and the bad guy is lying dead on the ground. Hollywood does not depict the aftermath in which the armed citizen finds himself in a legal quagmire.
Cases like this are part of the reason I wrote a little book titled Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities, available in several gun shops and now in its 12th edition. The shooting has set off a lively discussion on the Open Carry forum that is worth reading.
Washington may be the only state that officially recognizes in statute that there is a “dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens” that actually allows the private citizen more latitude in the use of lethal force than a police officer.
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.
However, it is not a license to maim or kill. Nothing in state statute permits a “warning shot,” and that’s a bad idea, anyway. If that bullet doesn’t hit the suspect, it is going to hit something else.
Jewelry and stereo equipment can be replaced. Others reading about the Sheets case or this new one in Arlington might keep that in perspective.
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
Glad he shot the creep! Maybe if a few more of these dirt bags got gunned down, they would think twice about stealing from other people! In my mind, it is just one less scum bag on the streets!
Dave:
I agree that given the Washington State statues regarding self-defense that one must be very careful when making the decision to use deadly force. In Washington, unless there is imminent danger, you cannot pull the trigger without negative consequence. Unfortunately, our legal system is at a point that it is ineffective in dealing with the criminal element, and people feel that they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. Of course, the result of this is not for our political leaders to develop more effective means of addressing the crime problem. It is for them to make more regulations limiting the actions of "law-abiding citizens", which in turn exacerbates the problem. It would appear that Mr. Earhart broke the law and will be punished for that, while the true criminals continue to prey on society.
I agree with Sam he got what he deserved. While Mr. Earhart is sitting in jail I bet his wife and two children feel real safe knowing that this is not the first time that there house has been broken into.
Normally I would side with the home owner almost always but the amount of time that elapased and the fact he shot the man later creates a real problem for law enforcement. I have to agree it is too bad he did not understand the law better.
Your self interest should be enough reason to know and heed this. Comments like those from Sam and Mac, while not unheard of in the gun community, show a lack of something. I don’t know if it’s character, serious thought or just anonymous internet saber rattling. Do you honestly own anything so valuable that you would be able to kill another person for taking it when you’re life is not in immediate danger? This is a bell that cannot be unrung. You get the rest of your life to mull over that decision; free or released – that thought will be with you. If you can honestly live with this with no misgivings, then I’m sorry for your empty soul.
Ryan made the choice to steal, and to run. He was in the wrong. But shooting someone in the back for running away is wrong. The shooter didn't walk into his home and see family being killed, he lost some stuff. Stuff vs. human life? The law will decide what becomes... but try to remember that both Men are/were loved. Both made a choice that took a terrible turn. (and please) To call Ryan scum is slapping his mother and father in the face. They raised him to be a decent person, and he was for most of his life. He died for his choices, lets not hurt anyone else.
Remember criminals: All you have to do is turn your back. Then the homeowner can't shoot you! It's like having your own personal force field!
I am glad I live in Texas, with its Castle Law. Perhaps Gene you are so very wealthy that losing property is not an issue with you. I work for a living, I see the blisters on my hands. If someone steals my TV, I can't just go out and get another one. If someone steals my car, same thing, as well as if a member of my family is hurt, I cannot transport them to a hospital. To me a thief is one of the lowliest scum there is. Often one can understand a murderer, got into a fight and killed someone for instance. But a thief? If they steal food to feed their family, got it. But to steal my hard won possessions that I worked for? Only "guilty" wealth creates these liberal, live and let live, answers. So sip your Chianti there Joni and Gene and continue to feel that you are better than others, because L.E. will always be there for you, as wll as Sacs, Macys, ...?
Horse thief's used to be hung by the neck until dead. Whay waste a good rope? A bullet is cheaper. Good for the shooter and let ALL be advised not to steal! The bad actor could have gone back for more. Generally speaking criminals continue to escalate their behavior. The shooter could have saved some other victims life.
By my reading (IANAL), both "2)" above make it justifiable:
"Homicide is…justifiable when committed either:
...
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, .... - RCW 9A.16.050"
The burglar was STILL in the act of committing a felony. He had the jewelry and was attempting to leave with the loot.
If his lawyer cannot drive a truck through this one then he needs a better lawyer.
Under common law, a crime is "in progress" until the perpetrator "reaches a place of safety". In most states, this is still the applicable law.
Thus, if you come home and see someone walking out your front door with your jewelry, depending on the state's law on justified use of deadly force, you may simply shoot him. If you see the same perpetrator run from your house, and down the street, and you pursue him for a mile before finally drawing your firearm and shooting him in the back of the head -- still a good shoot. However, if the perp escapes,and you see him the next day and shoot - murder.
It's not difficult to understand, but in states that allow citizens to shoot to prevent "the imminent commission of a felony", the felony has to actually be "in progress".
If the defense is to argue that shooting a burglar in the back while fleeing constitutes "actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony", I suspect they're going to have a massive uphill battle. They'd best get busy researching 9A.16.050 caselaw on "actual resistance".
There's one heckuva big difference between shooting a fleeing felon who's inside one's home and who is fleeing in the direction of one's sleeping children, and shooting a fleeing felon who's off the property and not apparently armed or returning fire or brandishing a weapon at innocent passersby.
On the basis of evidence submitted thus far in the court of public domain, it's really hard to see how Mr. Earhart could be justified. However, I await the court's decision.
Sorry people, but legitimizing robbery, theft, or burglary by the simple expedient of turning one's back and making off with the loot is wrong. I personally don't own anything I would willingly kill over absent threat to me or mine. However, I do believe it is morally justifiable if others do not tolerate the theft of that portion of their lives earning those possessions. It should also be legal for them to stop the escape with the loot by whatever means works.
I have some posessions that I value tremendously however I would not use deadly force in defense of property. I have no problem using deadly force to defend my life or the life of someone I care about. I would avoid shooting someone unless there was no other option. It is a horrible and tremendously stressful thing when a person uses a firearm against another human being. There is no question about using lethal force to defend life, but property? come on. Those that advocate killing to save property or say thats what they would do I suspect that if that situation confronts them and they kill, afterwards they may wish it never happened. Also it takes guts to fight someone who is intent on killing you. It does not require much courage to shoot a person running away in the back. I do not respect those that do it and would not want you in my fighting position if we were both in a combat situation. Your courage is suspect. See how tuf you are when taking incoming rounds.
Seriously people???????????? You think its ok to kill a man for stealing your property? I believe 100% Ryan was in the wrong, but that is what the law enforcement officers and attorneys are for to see justice be served. If Ryan had been in the house this story would be different, Then yes protect your family! Ryan was running away... Its not ok to steal and certainly not ok TO KILL A MAN, that is not putting you in danger! Also think the Police Officers should of done a better search knowing the home owner fired "warning shots"? Remember everyone makes wrong choices, and Ryan's bad choice caused him his life!
My love and prayers go to Ryan's sister Katie and the rest of the Rzechula family!
My love and prayers go to Ryan's sister Katie and the rest of the Rzechula family!
Thank you Mr. Workman for your contributions. I'm looking forward to reading your book, "Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities." All the best!
shoot to KILL.A dead scum bag saves the court money.
How about you learn how to put together a sentence, before posting something so incoherent on the internet.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!