Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I'm not likely to shoot someone in the back, but what's to say that a man armed with a gun, who has just busted your door in, isn't a threat just because he ran out of your house? He could easily have just ducked for cover so that he can put a round in you from a greater/safer distance.

Exactly, or retreating to his truck to grab a rifle.

Micro wrote:

I'm not likely to shoot someone in the back, but what's to say that a man armed with a gun, who has just busted your door in, isn't a threat just because he ran out of your house? He could easily have just ducked for cover so that he can put a round in you from a greater/safer distance.

Exactly, or retreating to his truck to grab a rifle.

All the more reason we need castle doctrine. In VA I am certain beyond any doubt that if you shoot someone running out of your house you can be successfully prosecuted.

Attorney: So, Mr Smith - you just said that you shot the "perpetrator" as he was running out of your house, is that correct?
Mr Smith: Yes, that is correct.
Attorney: Mr Smith, do you know why - specifically - the alleged perpetrator was running out of your house?
Mr Smith: Well, I believed at the time he was searching for cover so he could fire at me from a defensible position.
Attorney to the court at large: Mr Smith, can you please explain how you knew this to be a fact? Did the alleged perpetrator make any statement as he ran out of your house or did you assume that he was searching for cover?
Mr Smith: Well, I uh er...

Just out of curiosity, if a BG or their family come after you with a civil suit, what is the harm in counter-suing for all its worth? After all, if somebody has knocked down my door, they've caused harm to my house, etc... Is it possible to counter-sue for court costs and attorney fees? Does that kind of thing deter some of the law suits?

Good question. but I think the idea is ,you took something from them. as bad as that is. so you will pay and pay..

Micro wrote:

What is your take on the "Good Samaritan Law"? Did it or did it not eliminate the bulk of the lawsuits against first responders?

I understand the Good Samaritan isn't a law that protects first responders, but rather protects "unpaid" persons who render aid in good faith, but whose aid has detrimental consequences. For instance, if you see me floating face down in a pool, pull me out, perform CPR and fracture by sternum, I can't sue you.

First responders, such as city police and EMS, are protected by laws of soverign immunity.

Soverign immunity has been,pretty much, castrated. Police, fire and EMS are covered under "Good Sam". Compensation is not construed to include the salaries of public officials or personnel who render emergency assistance.

... correct me if I am wrong here... but we are talking about a "..what if..?" situation (re: being sued for using force - deadly or otherwise - against a BG who has clearly shown contempt to our personal/family well-being. I understand the issue of shooting a "fleeing" person; I honestly "get that..." and support that it is a "no-no" course of action.

but part of what we do here - in support of our carry (OC/CC) is because of "what if's..." to include the before, during and after actions of our 2A rights as exercised.

I understand that "x" number of self-defense shootings result in the BG or BG-family suing the GG; but how many of those cases are actually ajudicated in "favor" of the BG and not the GG? I understand the the PITA - costs, stress, scrutiny, etc - incurred by the GG, to also include family/friends, etc. But isn't that the same "scrutiny" "stress" "PITA" that we engage when we carry and get MWAG stares, calls to LEO's, asked to leave establishments, etc....?

I (and I suspect that most here) carry not only to exercise my rights, but primarly to exercise my right to be prepared for the "what if's..." How I choose to handle the "what if" factors into ALL of the training/preparation that I have also taken the responsibility to uphold as a GG, who just happens to own a gun...... versus some wack-job, Dirty-Harry wanna-be..... its the WHOLE package, and that is the whole package that (hopefull will never come to this..) will end up on the witness stand - defining, not defending, why I, the GG, decided to draw/fire my weapon to protect....

... just my $0.02

*oh, because I made everyone read this far down.... Walmart in FairLakes has 9mm, .40 ammo; and Dick's has .223 on sale (Remington, FMJ's 20/rd at $8/box - all of the above was as of 2030hrs last night....

Excellent points, Hey DK you forget the part of Castle Doctrine that allows protection of said Castle not just the occupant(s) .. I think we should have the right to defend our property too. We should never have to analyze a situation and decide if the threat exists or not,, THe act of breaking into a house or car should be grounds enough to react with deadly force if deemed nesessary.. IE:1) BG is caught coming through window into your home,, You should have the right to defend yourself and your property, up to including deadly force if necessary by the act of BG coming into house uninvited. 2): a BG comes up to you as you are getting into your car and grabs your keys, gets in your car and attempts to flee.. I think you should have the right to defend yourself and that property based on , BG has physically taken your keys from your person ,, BG is attempting to steal your property. Some will decry this as legal murder or other name,IMHO criminals need to be made aware that their chosen victims will be legally able to defend themselves and their property using deadly force . Police protection is not a guarentee and by the time they could get there you could be dead or your property is long gone. You would still be obligated to explain your reasons for using DF but with the change in law it would remove the burden of proof from you to prove you acted in self defense, A Castle Doctrine would shift the fault and blame to the BG to prove they were in the right trying to assault you or steal your property..

Well said, Spence. A push from gun owners for liability insurance for civil protection will IMHO make us look like we're admitting we're at fault. Lets face it, (1) we already pay enough insurance already (house, car, health, etc). (2) purchase of insurance is admission that we are betting we're going to need it. Lets not give the antis more ammo. If I were a gun grabber and gun owners were pushing for liability insurance I would be all over that quicker than a speeding bullet. We need to have protection as victims under the law.

I realize this is only a discussion, but here are my parting thoughts. If we make a successful push for liability insurance here's how different groups are going to view it.

Inurance companies: +++$$$$$$
Bad guys: +++$$$$$$$
Lawyers: +++$$$$$$$
Gun owners: ---$$$$$$$ and potentially more gun controls pushed by the insurance industry

A good discussion it is too!!! Oh yes ,,, the end result of forced insurance = Gun Control/ Regulation _where insurance costs so much nonone could afford it..And there are anti gunners out there right now with this scheme in mind,, The old Chicago connection comes to mind immediately,, Additionally insurance would give a lawyer something tangible to go after even in weak case,he could get lucky,... I feel we're all in agreement here that a Strong Castle Doctrine with immunity in a justified case is the solution we will accept,, and nothing else..

Would not matter. Once he run's and stopes the confrontation then he is no longer a threat to your life. You can presume that he is going to hide somewhere in the vicinity of your home and snipe at you, but you are going to be hard pressed to convey to a jury why you shot someone in the back with this argument and you will end up the bad guy with a civil suit on your back.
Bill

VBshooter wrote:A good discussion it is too!!! Oh yes ,,, the end result of forced insurance = Gun Control/ Regulation _where insurance costs so much nonone could afford it..And there are anti gunners out there right now with this scheme in mind,, The old Chicago connection comes to mind immediately,, Additionally insurance would give a lawyer something tangible to go after even in weak case,he could get lucky,... I feel we're all in agreement here that a Strong Castle Doctrine with immunity in a justified case is the solution we will accept,, and nothing else..

Ref your bolded comment above - Touchdown!!!!!!!!

Ain't it the truth!! That is the kind of "reasonable regulation " they want us to swallow claiming that it helps everybody, Nah,,I'll take a change in the law anyday over anti gunner nonsense, If we were to ask for it to be made available on a volunteer basis it would still give the anti's ammunition,,I can hear the claims now.."He shot my client knowing full well that his insurance would cover the costs of this trial". This type of insurance although based in good faith,just can;t replace a good Castle Doctrine Law when properly implemented.

SgtBill wrote:Would not matter. Once he run's and stopes the confrontation then he is no longer a threat to your life. You can presume that he is going to hide somewhere in the vicinity of your home and snipe at you, but you are going to be hard pressed to convey to a jury why you shot someone in the back with this argument and you will end up the bad guy with a civil suit on your back.
Bill

That is the way it is, and we need to know that...but, can you think of no circumstance where he/she might still be a threat to the community? I'm not saying,"shoot in the back" here, as my first comment addressed only whether or not he dropped his/her weapon when appearing to retreat.

WRW wrote:

SgtBill wrote:Would not matter. Once he run's and stopes the confrontation then he is no longer a threat to your life. You can presume that he is going to hide somewhere in the vicinity of your home and snipe at you, but you are going to be hard pressed to convey to a jury why you shot someone in the back with this argument and you will end up the bad guy with a civil suit on your back.
Bill

That is the way it is, and we need to know that...but, can you think of no circumstance where he/she might still be a threat to the community? I'm not saying,"shoot in the back" here, as my first comment addressed only whether or not he dropped his/her weapon when appearing to retreat.

VA code is relatively clear about the use of force concerning yourself and gets a little murky regarding loved ones and even murkier regarding protecting others. Taking it upon ourselves to protect the community at large would IMHO be regarded as vigilantism by an exuberant prosecutor running for re-election. In other words if you chase the guy off even if he keeps his weapon its probably much better for you in the long run to leave him be and just put your call in to the local LE.

I didn't say "community at large".

With our current law ,,I would stop as soon as the BG is running away,Our law basicly covers threat to self and others but once the threat is removed ,if you were to shoot you;d probaly be charged with manslaughter or worse murder...

WRW wrote:I didn't say "community at large".

Nope, you said - community. I added at large...

zephyp wrote:

WRW wrote:I didn't say "community at large".

Nope, you said - community. I added at large...

And you do see the difference?

WRW wrote:

zephyp wrote:

WRW wrote:I didn't say "community at large".

Nope, you said - community. I added at large...

And you do see the difference?

"Community at large" is another way of saying "the community as a whole" or "the community in general." I can also mean simply "the community."

What were you trying to say?

zephyp wrote:

WRW wrote:

zephyp wrote:
Nope, you said - community. I added at large...

And you do see the difference?

"Community at large" is another way of saying "the community as a whole" or "the community in general." I can also mean simply "the community."

What were you trying to say?

Traditionally a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. To give an example of what I have meant: A person has shown bad intent and displayed a weapon. I unholster my weapon and he leaves my residence still carrying his weapon, heading for the road where my neighbors child is getting off the bus...
That might be considered to be into the community but not the community at large (all of my postal code or whatever criteria might be used).