I'm very disturbed.....

[Jim]

.....to find out that Va. has neither a Castle Doctrine nor a Stand-your-ground law. Fortunately, I live in a small town where violence is virtually nonexistent. The fact remains, though, that if someone were to kick in my door, I would most certainly defend my self with deadly force. And I don't brandish, fire warning shots or take prisoners.
I'll deal with the consequences when I get to it.

[GS78]

The Castle Doctrine and Virginia
There are some basic rules that all lawyers learn in law school. First, there is a duty to retreat when faced with danger. Second, if the danger finds you in your house there is no duty to retreat, because the presumption is that you've retreated as far as any person should have to. Thus, the castle doctrine (a man's home is his castle) allows defense of habitation as an extension of defense of self. Of course every State has its own variations on these rules and Virginia looks like it's about to add some new wrinkles to its version.

History:

Virginia's common law has developed two types self defense which are in some ways broader and in other ways narrower than the castle doctrine. In "justifiable" self defense, a person is allowed to stand his ground anywhere, so long as he did not in any way provoke the aggression, and defend himself. In "excusable" self defense a person is somewhat at fault for the aggression and in this case he is required to retreat as far as safely possible before he can legally defend himself.1 This is further limited in that a person can only use "reasonable" force when attacked.2 Generally, this means that if the aggressor is using fists the defender can only use fists. It also means that there must be a threat to a person, not just property.

On top of all this is another line of cases which allow a landowner to order those illegally on his property to leave and if the trespasser does not leave to use "proper" force to expel the intruder from his land. However, this is limited in that the landowner is subject to a "breach of the peace in the outset" test. If there is such a breach the landowner may not continue to use force to expel the intruder. One case seems to say that this allows a property owner, who has given a prior warning to a trespasser on his chattels or realty, to threaten deadly force, but perhaps not to actually use it.3


http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/cas ... ginia.html

[zephyp]

.....to find out that Va. has neither a Castle Doctrine nor a Stand-your-ground law. Fortunately, I live in a small town where violence is virtually nonexistent. The fact remains, though, that if someone were to kick in my door, I would most certainly defend my self with deadly force. And I don't brandish, fire warning shots or take prisoners.
I'll deal with the consequences when I get to it.

Even without castle doctrine if someone kicks in your door and gets shot a few seconds later you're most likely on the good side of things unless you're a crack dealer and its the feds doing the kicking. Regarding stand your ground law there is no duty in VA to retreat unless you started it...

[albertshank]

Good Morning Fellow Gun Owners and Patriots!

What has been said about the "castle doctrine" law and the "stand your ground" law in Virginia within this "forum" is correct. There are no laws per se, specifically addressing these issues precisely. What we have is "case law precedent". To explore those "precedents" in a shooting defense trial is going to cost you some REAL money and could potentially ruin you financially and cause great embarrassment and travail for your whole family.

To wit: if someone breaks into your home, you arise and find them carrying away your brand new "flat screen" 3-D set and you shoot them, it appears likely you'll have problems. On the other hand, if the perp slips into your young daughter's bedroom and proceeds to rape her and you shoot and kill them, you'll likely have "fewer" problems with that. "Precedent" is exactly that: precedent.

Here's what will definitely happen under "case law precedent": You will be immediately arrested by the authorities and taken into custody. You may be charged with Murder and you will probably be denied a bond because that's a "capital offense". If you are charged with "Malicious Shooting", say for example, you will perhaps be able to post an expensive cash bond, be released pending arraignment. You will stand to be publicly "anounced" in the news; you may or may not be humiliated by the authorities, your weapon will be confiscated certainly, no doubt, you may or may not lose your job because being locked up means you aren't at work. You will most certainly have to retain a very expensive defense attorney. Got a spare $5-10,000 laying around? You may stay in confinement for several days, who knows how long? The media will "make you look guilty as sin". believe me on that.

After all of that, you will appear in court and go through the trial process to prove you were justified in using your weapon for defense of self, family and "castle". For those of you who would rather be "tried by 12 than carried by six", I guess that's an accpetable "trade-off", but meanwhile, you have taken out a 2nd mortgage on your home to pay your "mouth-piece", you may or may not have lost your job and you could be in this "holding pattern" for weeks and months until your case comes to trial. BTW, you'll likely be "broke flat" after all that, but GUESS WHAT? Even if you are found "Not Guilty" by your peers, you may still face a "wrongful death suit" and resultant civil liability for causing the perp's demise. More lawyers and a LOT more money to defend yourself (Again!!) And you will have had your life ruined financially.

Please, think it over gun lovers! We have no "castle" law nor "stand your ground law" in Virginia. Most recently, a castle doctrine law was killed in a "kangaroo" sub-committee by the Senate Courts of Justice and avowed "gun-hater", Senator Henry Marsh of Richmond and his like-minded cronies. Other important gun rights bills were shelved as well. Did we get "short shrift"? You bethcha! Meanwhile, I hope you all are well-heeled and prepared to "defend the fact that you were "right".

I don't imagine anyone can tell me which side this judicial system is on? Pardon me, but I am confused as hell!

God Bless America!

Albert

[KaosDad]

So, what are you saying? If three buys bust into my house at 0100 armed with tire irons, Louisville sluggers & assorted cutlery shouting; "Death to the infidels!" I should just stand there and enjoy the event? BS!

Once they set foot on the first step to come upstairs they'll get lit-up with a Tac-Light and told to leave. One more step and I'll solve the problem 29 cents at a time, in sets of two.

[Jim]

.....Once they set foot on the first step to come upstairs they'll get lit-up with a Tac-Light and told to leave. One more step and I'll solve the problem 29 cents at a time, in sets of two.

You're a patient and tolerant man, I'll give you that! We have four barking dogs. If someone actually enters after being warned by the dogs, there won't be a warning of ANY description from me, just a hail of buckshot from an elevated position.

[zephyp]

So, what are you saying? If three buys bust into my house at 0100 armed with tire irons, Louisville sluggers & assorted cutlery shouting; "Death to the infidels!" I should just stand there and enjoy the event? BS!

Once they set foot on the first step to come upstairs they'll get lit-up with a Tac-Light and told to leave. One more step and I'll solve the problem 29 cents at a time, in sets of two.

I think the difference is this: if you awake to find a scumbag unplugging your tv and he looks at you and says "dude, I'm just gonna take the tv. I'm not armed and wont hurt you" and you shoot him then you got some explaining to do. On the other hand if you're watching tv and the same scumbag violently kicks in your door and gets shot 2 seconds later you're in a much better position.

[GS78]

well Albert, I have something to say to your paper argument.....

If I awake to find someone carrying out my new flat screen, and shoot them, I wasn't taught correctly by the person I went to the CCW course was I?
to wit; I think everybody here knows you can not dish out the death penalty for simple robbery.



If someone enters my home in any fashion of invasion, most likely I would be "in imminent danger". I assume the invader would also have a deadly weapon, and intent on threatening my life and those other lives in my home. I could beat that in court myself.


to the wrongful death? thats ridiculous. I assure you nothing about the perps death would have been wrongful. If the perp is wounded, or maimed for life, then you may have an argument about civil liability. First rule is never draw your weapon unless you intend to shoot it. Second rule is to kill what you shoot at. Never shoot to wound, only movie actors and psychopaths do that.

[VBshooter]

'GS78 Wrote "First rule is never draw your weapon unless you intend to shoot it. Second rule is to kill what you shoot at. Never shoot to wound, only movie actors and psychopaths do that." Words to LIVE by.. Amen

[KaosDad]

I think the difference is this: if you awake to find a scumbag unplugging your tv and he looks at you and says "dude, I'm just gonna take the tv. I'm not armed and wont hurt you" and you shoot him then you got some explaining to do. On the other hand if you're watching tv and the same scumbag violently kicks in your door and gets shot 2 seconds later you're in a much better position.

Exactly why I have the first step rule. They can have any object in the house - the TV, the computers, the silver - all replaceable. There are no **items** of great value on the top floor, just me & family & we are priceless.

[SgtBill]

I have always trained people that you shoot untill there is no more threat. If he or she moves, they are still a threat start shooting again. No one breaks into my home and lives if I can help it.
Bill

[albertshank]

Good Day Fellow Gun Lovers and Citizens!

I'm not arguing with anything anyone says here. However, please re-read my post on what will happen to you if you use your weapon in your "castle" or while "standing your ground" here in Virginia. The fact you are right is not the question at all. What is the problem is that you will be arrested, go to jail, appear in court, maybe lose your job, go bankrupt and have to spend a small fortune of your hard-earned money to prove you are "right" in the eyes of the law. THIS is "case law" precedent. In addition, after you have proven you are "right", you will still be faced with the potential problem of civil liability as well. Yes, you may be sued for "wrongful death". Goldman is still trying to collect from OJ over this very same issue under California law.

My concern is not in using my weapon for a "righteous" shooting in self-defense of me or my family. My concern is with the judicial process itself that forces me to defend my right to defense against circumstances which are obviously justifiable and proper. No "castle" or "stand" law makes me the victim rather than placing the blame on the person(s) who unlawfully attacked me in the first place. In having to legally prove I was "right", I may go bankrupt with lawyer fees, lose my job (if I had one) and become the real "victim" in these circumstances.

I am surprised that none of you (so far) has addressed these issues. All you have to do is defend your "castle" by shooting an intruder and you'lll see what happens to you without a "castle" and "stand" law. I hope this never happens to any of you but if you use your guns to defend your family or self, you had better be prepared for all of what I have told you and probably a lot more bad stuff in the bargain. Trust me on that.

Best wishes,

Albert

[SgtBill]

I have always trained people that you shoot untill there is no more threat. If he or she moves, they are still a threat start shooting again. No one breaks into my home and lives if I can help it.
Bill

Albert, Re-Read my quote. I don't care about anything else. Trust me I know what may or may not happen if I kill ANOTHER person and I have no problem with it. As long as you are able to convince a jury that you were in fear for your life or the life of another most of the problem's will go away.
Bill

[graybeard321]

When my wife and I took our class for our first CCW many years ago we were told two things. You can only shoot and intruder if he has a weapon and you are in fear for your life, not just bodily harm. Second hand gun to wife she will have easier time convincing jury she was in fear for her life then a man would.

[zephyp]

When my wife and I took our class for our first CCW many years ago we were told two things. You can only shoot and intruder if he has a weapon and you are in fear for your life, not just bodily harm. Second hand gun to wife she will have easier time convincing jury she was in fear for her life then a man would.

Bull crap. I've taught Young that if she's alone and someone kicks in the door she shoots until they go down and dont get up. If I'm there I might give them a small chance to see if they have a weapon but I'm not taking chances on her and placing some crap burden on her to "analyze" the situation while some scumbag decides he can take the gun away from her and do whatever....bottom line is if someone violently enters my home they will leave very peacefully...

[wally626]

Most people get in trouble for using dealy force in VA when there is already some argument going on when they use deadly force. You get into a shoving match with Joe and he pulls a knife, you cannot just pull a gun and shoot, you have to retreat and show an unwillingness to fight. This works best if you have some separation (so you don't die before getting a chance to retreat) and a bunch of freindly witnesses. The VA law was set-up to keep self defence from being used to cover up murder. This was very common in the western states in the mining camps, people would start fights and when things escalated kill the person. Almost no one was convicted in these cases.

[GS78]

Good Day Fellow Gun Lovers and Citizens!

I'm not arguing with anything anyone says here. However, please re-read my post on what will happen to you if you use your weapon in your "castle" or while "standing your ground" here in Virginia. The fact you are right is not the question at all. What is the problem is that you will be arrested, go to jail, appear in court, maybe lose your job, go bankrupt and have to spend a small fortune of your hard-earned money to prove you are "right" in the eyes of the law. THIS is "case law" precedent. In addition, after you have proven you are "right", you will still be faced with the potential problem of civil liability as well. Yes, you may be sued for "wrongful death". Goldman is still trying to collect from OJ over this very same issue under California law.


So now, nicole simpson and ron goldman broke into OJ's mansion? and he killed them in self defense?

My concern is not in using my weapon for a "righteous" shooting in self-defense of me or my family. My concern is with the judicial process itself that forces me to defend my right to defense against circumstances which are obviously justifiable and proper. No "castle" or "stand" law makes me the victim rather than placing the blame on the person(s) who unlawfully attacked me in the first place. In having to legally prove I was "right", I may go bankrupt with lawyer fees, lose my job (if I had one) and become the real "victim" in these circumstances.

I am surprised that none of you (so far) has addressed these issues. All you have to do is defend your "castle" by shooting an intruder and you'lll see what happens to you without a "castle" and "stand" law. I hope this never happens to any of you but if you use your guns to defend your family or self, you had better be prepared for all of what I have told you and probably a lot more bad stuff in the bargain. Trust me on that.

Best wishes,

Albert

If it is a justifiable shooting, there will be no charges leveled against you . YOU have to make certain its a justifiable shooting, before you draw. Period, what don't you understand about this?

[GS78]

If you want someone to adress the castle doctrine albert, I agree, it sucks that it is not crystal clear and etched in stone in Richmond somewhere. What don't YOU understand about adapt and overcome?

[zephyp]

If it is a justifiable shooting, there will be no charges leveled against you . YOU have to make certain its a justifiable shooting, before you draw. Period, what don't you understand about this?

That, my friend, depends on several factors. One of which is who the DA happens to be. They decide who gets prosecuted and why...as a matter of fact in some places you will be charged until you are either cleared or brought to trial...thats why we need a revision to the law.

Now, granted you wont get charged in all justifiable shootings but there have been and will no doubt be exceptions.

[GS78]

If it is a justifiable shooting, there will be no charges leveled against you . YOU have to make certain its a justifiable shooting, before you draw. Period, what don't you understand about this?

That, my friend, depends on several factors. One of which is who the DA happens to be. They decide who gets prosecuted and why...as a matter of fact in some places you will be charged until you are either cleared or brought to trial...thats why we need a revision to the law.

Now, granted you wont get charged in all justifiable shootings but there have been and will no doubt be exceptions.

If you have a history of justifiable shootings, then I would agree, you are likely to be arrested first. I stand by my original reply. Only YOU can prevent an unwarranted arrest.....