VA-ALERT: Castle Doctrine bills are dead for the year!

[Taggure]

VA-ALERT: Castle Doctrine bills are dead for the year!
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------


CASTLE DOCTRINE BILLS ARE DEAD

Both SB 4 and HB 48, the two remaining "Castle Doctrine" bills are now dead for the year.

This was a wise move by the General Assembly. These bills effect 400 years of common law in Virginia and there were too many questions and too much at stake to rush them through.

As long as there is a need to improve our self-defense laws in any way, we should absolutely strive to do so. But it must be done ever so carefully. It is like making changes and repairs to a very fine and intricate watch that is still in working order. If not done exactly right, it could cause another part to break or not work properly.

Because of pressure by citizens who heard about similar "Castle Doctrine" laws in other states and ASSUMED we needed them here, these bills had some real traction. Thankfully the General Assembly did the right thing.

VCDL would like to thank Senators Stuart and Stanley and Delegates Dickey Bell, Habeeb, and Lingamfelter for introducing their Castle Doctrine bills. They did so in the spirit of making Virginia a safer place for all of us and they stepped away gracefully when it became clear that their bills might not achieve that goal in practice.

VCDL will be active over the summer to see if a practical and more comprehensive bill that provides protections everywhere you might be (as opposed to a "Castle Doctrine" bill that protects a person only in their dwelling) can be drafted and vetted. If not, then perhaps our common law would best be left alone.


A LOOK AT CURRENT SELF-DEFENSE COMMON LAW IN VIRGINIA (IMPORTANT INFORMATION)

Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.

Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.

If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.

The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.

Would common law or the "Castle Doctrine" bills GUARANTEE that a person legally defending themselves could NOT be charged with murder or sued civilly? NO. If the police and/or the Commonwealth Attorney have reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you committed a murder instead of true self-defense, you are going to be arrested and charged. Period. As far as a civil suit, you can be sued for anything and nothing can stop that either. However, common law (and the wording in the Castle Doctrine bills) provide a defense. However, the common law provides the same defense wherever you may be, while the "Castle Doctrine" would only apply inside your dwelling.



-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]

[VBshooter]

Hopefully next go around someone in Richmond will author a more in line bill that addresses the needed areas of Self Defense and where it is applicable. I favor the language that simply states anywhere you are legally allowed to be.. Of course it will also have to contain Freedom from Civil Action if you do have to defend yourself...

[VBshooter]

Hopefully next go around someone in Richmond will author a more in line bill that addresses the needed areas of Self Defense and where it is applicable. I favor the language that simply states anywhere you are legally allowed to be..Would also like to see some form of property protection in it Of course it will also have to contain Freedom from Civil Action if you do have to defend yourself...

[mk4]

Hopefully next go around someone in Richmond will author a more in line bill that addresses the needed areas of Self Defense and where it is applicable. I favor the language that simply states anywhere you are legally allowed to be..Would also like to see some form of property protection in it Of course it will also have to contain Freedom from Civil Action if you do have to defend yourself...

here's what some of us have been pushing for all along. authored by Dan, forum id: user.
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/D ... ctrine.pdf
he did an extremely large amount of work codifying hundreds of years of case and common law.

[VBshooter]

Very much what is needed,, Now we just have to get it in to the right people in the General Assembly

[Chasbo00]

here's what some of us have been pushing for all along. authored by Dan, forum id: user.
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/D ... ctrine.pdf
he did an extremely large amount of work codifying hundreds of years of case and common law.

Do you think anything this lengthy has a reasonable chance of becoming a VA statute? I don't.

[mk4]

here's what some of us have been pushing for all along. authored by Dan, forum id: user.
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/D ... ctrine.pdf
he did an extremely large amount of work codifying hundreds of years of case and common law.

Do you think anything this lengthy has a reasonable chance of becoming a VA statute? I don't.

the bill itself is 6.5 pages double-spaced, so less as it would actually be presented/printed (comparably, 18.2-308, the cc statute, is multi-paged). the remaining 52+ pages of Dan's document is all of the legal commentary he's provided as basis for the bill with references to case and common law. that body of information spells out just how complicated the issue really is, and why getting it right is so vital. he's essentially done all of the homework for the legislators.

bottom line, there is no way to codify hundreds of years of case and common law in two paragraphs or less and labeling it 'castle doctrine' to make everyone feel good. the first time must be correct or we all lose important protections. there is a group of us who will be fighting for this over the summer for proper consideration in the next session.

[mk4]

Very much what is needed,, Now we just have to get it in to the right people in the General Assembly

very much in the works. the effort will be non-stop over the summer in preparation for the 2013 session.

[Chasbo00]

here's what some of us have been pushing for all along. authored by Dan, forum id: user.
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/D ... ctrine.pdf
he did an extremely large amount of work codifying hundreds of years of case and common law.

Do you think anything this lengthy has a reasonable chance of becoming a VA statute? I don't.

the bill itself is 6.5 pages double-spaced, so less as it would actually be presented/printed (comparably, 18.2-308, the cc statute, is multi-paged). the remaining 52+ pages of Dan's document is all of the legal commentary he's provided as basis for the bill with references to case and common law.

My mistake - 6.5 double-spaced pages is not unreasonable. I thought the entire 59 pages were intended to be part of the statute. Thanks for setting me straight.

After reading it, one section gives me pause. It may be common law, but I suspect some legislators may balk at listing the below as part of a Castle Doctrine Statute.

"STOPPING A SERIOUS FELONY, GENERALLY:
A person in any place having a reasonably held belief, on the basis of objective
fact, that a serious felony is in progress or being attempted, may use such
appropriate force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force,
to prevent the completion of the felony and to restrain the suspected felon
pending the arrival of law enforcement officers."

As I recall, burglary is a serious felony. The above reads to me that one could use deadly force to stop a burglary. Personally, I don't have any problem with that, but I suspect some of the VA legislators may.

[VBshooter]

They'd like my version even less I bet,,,,

"STOPPING A SERIOUS FELONY, GENERALLY:
A person in any place may use such
appropriate force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force,
to prevent the completion of the felony and to restrain the suspected felon
pending the arrival of law enforcement officers"
Got rid of that having to prove or beleive part

[Kreutz]

I got a letter from my delegate, Greg Habeeb lamenting the defeat of this and swearing it would not have supplanted any common law and stating it had broad gun rights support.

Didn't think to scan it, but I was glad he followed up on my letters about this (and a few other gun issues I've written to him about).

[mk4]

I got a letter from my delegate, Greg Habeeb lamenting the defeat of this and swearing it would not have supplanted any common law and stating it had broad gun rights support.

Didn't think to scan it, but I was glad he followed up on my letters about this (and a few other gun issues I've written to him about).

with due respect... then, he doesn't really understand the protections in the common law and the legal precedents set in the resultant case histories.

[Kreutz]

with due respect... then, he doesn't really understand the protections in the common law and the legal precedents set in the resultant case histories.

Why would I be offended? IIRC he's a lawyer so that makes sense.

There was a special election to replace someone else when I had just moved here, don't really know much about the guy except he advertised big time...why I remember he's a lawyer, heard so many damned ads...he crushed his Democrat opponent so I guess they worked.

He did get top marks from VCDL in the regular election a few months back.

Well, the path to hell, good intentions, blah blah blah.