I'm very disturbed.....

[zephyp]

I would venture to guess that in at least 50% of justifiable shootings the shooter is presumed guilty by responding LEOs especially in cases where there are no credible witnesses.

[CCFan]

I know of several instances here in VA where people have had the unfortunate situation of having to defend themselves and their loved ones - and none of them were taken to jail or treated like anything other than a victim... I think a lot of it depends on the circumstances....

[SgtBill]

Oh Hell, it look's like I am in trouble maybe if I drop another one. Damn history follows me every where. Will every thing that I did in N.J. be held against me.
poop happen's LOL Bill

[zephyp]

Oh Hell, it look's like I am in trouble maybe if I drop another one. Damn history follows me every where. Will every thing that I did in N.J. be held against me.
poop happen's LOL Bill

We cant help it because you're from Jersey...

[GS78]

If a codes and compliance officer were to come and tell you , you need to do this or that to be "in compliance" you would do it, right?



same thing here.

[MikeVictor]

I would not know if someone who breaks into my house has a knife or gun if it isn't obvious. To engage in defense via fists and thereby allowing the invader to get close enough to pull a knife on me and stab me is not reasonable. If someone has the nerve to break into a house not knowing how well armed the inhabitant is, then that person is probably armed with more than just his fists.

I am not going to get into a fist fight with anyone breaking into my house. I would sincerely be afraid of the weapon I may not be seeing and I am not willing to risk my life or that of loved ones to test such a person to find out if they are armed or not. If someone is in my house, I will treat such an invasion as a threat to my life with a weapon of some sort.

I think that is reasonable since we do not have Xray vision,

Mike

[MikeVictor]

And that reminds me, if it had not been for an S&W 38 my father in law had in his house, he would not have been able to keep an armed thrief hiding under he and his wifes bed where he was until the police arrived. And had he come out from under the bed with the knife he had, I may very well have lost one or more of my family members that day long ago. True story.

He didn't tell the guy to come out to see if he was armed and then try to fight him with his fists, he put a gun on him to start with and told him what was going to happen if he did, displaying a weapon or not. That kept the situation from possibly escalating to murder since the SOB was recognizable as a neighbor from down the street.

I firmly believe in home defense with a firearm of some kind, especially living in the proximity of Washington DC as I do.

And you know how they detected the SOB under the bed after they returned home from work that day....their cat had him "treed" under there and was spating, hissing, and clawing at him. My mother in law saw the cat and then saw the guys hand come out from under the bed slaping at the cat.... She was so terrified that she could not speak, she stumbled into the hall way in shock pointing at the bed room trying to scream or say something but could not. My father in law took a look, saw the hand come out from under the bed, slowly walked over to the nightstand, pulled out his pistol, backed to the door and told the SOB to stay under the bed or he'd shoot him...Police arrived very soon and cuffed him.

Do I believe in home defense, you bet I do. The B#$%@#@ had a long butcher knife he took from the kitchen....

Mike

[GS78]

I would not know if someone who breaks into my house has a knife or gun if it isn't obvious. To engage in defense via fists and thereby allowing the invader to get close enough to pull a knife on me and stab me is not reasonable. If someone has the nerve to break into a house not knowing how well armed the inhabitant is, then that person is probably armed with more than just his fists.

I am not going to get into a fist fight with anyone breaking into my house. I would sincerely be afraid of the weapon I may not be seeing and I am not willing to risk my life or that of loved ones to test such a person to find out if they are armed or not. If someone is in my house, I will treat such an invasion as a threat to my life with a weapon of some sort.

I think that is reasonable since we do not have Xray vision,

Mike

Right on

[albertshank]

Good Morning Patriots and Gun Owners!

Can anyone tell me if they have ever actually had to justifably use their weapon in REAL self or family defense? If so, what happened to you here in the Commonwealth?

Again, no arguments with anything said so far. The "civil damages" suit in the "OJ" case was perhaps an inapprioriate example because this actually involved a murder, however, the FACT of civil damages was the point trying to be made. This was especially applicable since OJ was found not guilty of the charges against him. Goldman took the civil damages route to collect against OJ and ruin him financially. Goldman won a judgement.

My feeling is that without a well-defined "castle" and "stand" law, justifiably using your firearm for self-defense can lead to a most uncertain outcome here in Virginia, cost you one hell of a lot of money and ruin your life financially. I find that totally unacceptable.

My personal presumption is that if a person(s) breaks into my home by force, whether they are armed or not, whether they are there to steal or worse, they are there to harm me or my family. I don't feel comfortable with having to "roll the dice" as to whether my actions to defend my "castle", or self and family therein, were justified in the eyes of the judical system. There should be no doubt and I shouldn't have to financially ruin myself and family in having to "prove it". No "castle" or "stand" law makes this outcome too uncertain in my eyes.

Obviously, the way to rectify this problem is to draft, sponsor and obtain well-written, specific "castle" and "stand" law here in Virginia. Anything less is simply too slippery for me. Let's send a real message to the criminal element here in Virginia because they don't care about the law, my rights and the safety and well-being of myself and my people. Nor do they care about you.

There is no "legal checklist" to mull over when you are directly confronted and threatened with harm by a criminal or actually under attack. You have a few micro-seconds to react and whether or not you "react" well and justifably will determine perhaps whether you or a loved one lives or dies. Much depends on circumstance, "fear" and your "perceptions" and training. This is simply too "slimy" for me and I want to be sure my rights are protected, not the "rights" of some scumbag thief and/or raper/killer.

By now, I am sure you all know who to vote for in the fall elections and you all know who cares for our 2A rights and who does not!

How about it fellow gunners? Shall we "talk the talk" AND "walk the walk" or just play around with these dirtbags all day while we simply "admire" how beautiful all of our weapons are, how much we know about them and how we are all CERTAIN we would use them without adverse repercussion if we had to? Anyone out there who can answer my first question above?

Respectfully ,

Albert

[GS78]

No I doubt if anyone here would anyway. You are wrong about the OJ case though, I'm pretty sure he was found liable for the wrongful death, even though he was acquitted of the murder charge. If he wasn't found liable for the wrongful death the Goldmans could not have won judgement.


You should really be lobbying your representative in Richmond about this castle law. Still, I wouldn't worry so much if I were you.