Hey everyone, I’ve been reading up on some legal stuff and have a question. What options does a wife have if her husband assaults her, her dad steps in, and then the husband pulls a gun on all of them (including her disabled mom)? What happens if the husband gets arrested but then claims self-defense even though he was the only one armed? This is about Washington state specifically. Any insights?
Washington has something called the Castle Doctrine, right? I think that might come into play here. But if no one else was armed, IDK how self-defense would hold up.
Liam said:
Washington has something called the Castle Doctrine, right? I think that might come into play here. But if no one else was armed, IDK how self-defense would hold up.
Yeah, I read about that. It’s for defending yourself in your home or a place you’re allowed to be. But this situation doesn’t seem like that applies…?
Liam said:
Washington has something called the Castle Doctrine, right? I think that might come into play here. But if no one else was armed, IDK how self-defense would hold up.
Exactly. Castle Doctrine doesn’t mean you can just pull a gun on people who aren’t a threat.
If the prosecutor decides not to file charges, the wife can still file a civil suit for assault, right? Might be worth exploring.
Tamsin said:
If the prosecutor decides not to file charges, the wife can still file a civil suit for assault, right? Might be worth exploring.
Yep, civil suits are totally separate from criminal cases. It could be a way to hold him accountable even if charges aren’t filed.
Tamsin said:
If the prosecutor decides not to file charges, the wife can still file a civil suit for assault, right? Might be worth exploring.
Good point. I didn’t even think about a civil suit. Would that also help with getting a divorce?
Wait, so the prosecutor can just decide not to press charges even if there’s proof like photos and an admission? That’s wild.
Rowen said:
Wait, so the prosecutor can just decide not to press charges even if there’s proof like photos and an admission? That’s wild.
Yeah, it’s up to the prosecutor’s discretion. Even with solid evidence, they can choose not to move forward. Super frustrating.
Rowen said:
Wait, so the prosecutor can just decide not to press charges even if there’s proof like photos and an admission? That’s wild.
True. Prosecutors have the final say. It’s crazy, but that’s how the system works.
Rowen said:
Wait, so the prosecutor can just decide not to press charges even if there’s proof like photos and an admission? That’s wild.
Ugh, that’s disappointing. Seems unfair when there’s clear evidence. Thanks for explaining though.
FYI, if the wife needs to file for divorce, the assault and all this other stuff can probably be used as evidence in court.
Kayla said:
FYI, if the wife needs to file for divorce, the assault and all this other stuff can probably be used as evidence in court.
Oh, that’s helpful to know. Thanks! Would it make the divorce process faster or easier?
Kayla said:
FYI, if the wife needs to file for divorce, the assault and all this other stuff can probably be used as evidence in court.
Not necessarily faster, but it could definitely impact decisions like custody or support if there’s a record of violence.
If anyone’s confused about the Castle Doctrine, it basically allows someone to defend themselves in their home, but it has limits.
Leah said:
If anyone’s confused about the Castle Doctrine, it basically allows someone to defend themselves in their home, but it has limits.
Thanks for clarifying! Does that mean the husband can’t use it as a defense if he was the aggressor?
Leah said:
If anyone’s confused about the Castle Doctrine, it basically allows someone to defend themselves in their home, but it has limits.
Exactly. The doctrine doesn’t apply if he was the one who started the confrontation. Self-defense works only if you’re genuinely threatened.