Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Warning shots would be considered a miss in my world. Inside my house uninvited = fire for effect.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Gotlabs wrote:Warning shots would be considered a miss in my world. Inside my house uninvited = fire for effect.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Exactly, Marines hate warning shots. That just lets the bad guy Know where I am at

mamabearCali wrote:I don't know why people get hung up on height and weight so much.

Its relevant for establishing perceived threat for either criminal or civil proceedings.

If I shoot an unarmed 5ft1 tall 145lb person given my size I have alot of explaining to do.

Hmmmmm....you break into my house in the middle of the night.....you're probably going to die.....period. Not gonna take any chances that my wife & kids will be harmed or killed by an intruder!

Mark

I always wondered about warning shots. How do you shoot a warning shot (random in air or at the ground hopeing for no ricochet) and hope no one gets hurt by it? I'd prefer my intended target take the hit rather than some innocent.

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I don't know why people get hung up on height and weight so much.

Its relevant for establishing perceived threat for either criminal or civil proceedings.

If I shoot an unarmed 5ft1 tall 145lb person given my size I have alot of explaining to do.

The was an intruder into my house. They failed to leave at my command and continue to advance on me. I thought they had a weapon (a safe assumption if someone continues to advance on you). I was in fear for my family's and my life. A 5 foot 1 woman with a 9mm is the equal of any body building man.....that is why I carry a gun.

All in the articulation

I am looking forward to the toxicology reports as to what was in his system at the time. Me thinks maybe more than alcohol, but we shall see.

No way am I firing a warning shot. I won't risk hitting an unintended target such as my kids, wife, dog, TV, etc. Well... is a leg or abdominal shot considered a warning shot over 2 in the chest and one in the head?

mamabearCali wrote:The was an intruder into my house. They failed to leave at my command and continue to advance on me. I thought they had a weapon (a safe assumption if someone continues to advance on you). I was in fear for my family's and my life. A 5 foot 1 woman with a 9mm is the equal of any body building man.....that is why I carry a gun.

The rub is neither of us know what happened.

The homeowner, Donald West Wilder II, heard his burglar alarm go off and confronted Caleb. He fired a warning shot and told the teenager to leave. When he didn’t, Wilder shot again, fatally striking Caleb, law enforcement officials said.

It sounds like the homeowner should have seen if the intruder was armed or not since they had words, but alas, I dont know if there were lights on or if the homeowner has good vision or whatever.

We also don't know if the intruder advanced or just stood there in a stupor.

It sucks this happened at all, but all these scenarios get investigated and charges are always an option for the prosecutors.

And in the end this intruders family may get a sympathetic jury in a civil suit who decided the homeowner acted recklessly and award damages. Time will tell.

Glockem wrote:What is wrong with a warning shot? You are giving the intruder one last chance to get smart and leave.

A couple of things.

First, in VA a warning shot is typically considered negligence and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.

Second, and the reason VA views it this way, is that a warning shot is an admission that the shooter did not feel their life was in danger. If someone is trying to kill or seriously harm you, who's going to fire a warning shot? Thus, the shooter actually escalated the situation and became part of the problem by using the discharge of a firearm to intimidate the intruder. Either shoot to stop the threat or don't shoot. If you want to be on sound legal ground, there is no middle ground.

Warning shots and "shooting to wound" are Hollywood myths that are propagated by those with limited or non-existant firearm experience. It may work in the movies, but in most states it's illegal and it's always tactically ill-advised.

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I don't know why people get hung up on height and weight so much.

Its relevant for establishing perceived threat for either criminal or civil proceedings.

If I shoot an unarmed 5ft1 tall 145lb person given my size I have alot of explaining to do.

Don't confuse "can be" with "must be." Large size differentials can be used to justify the ability side of the deadly force triangle (ability, opportunity, intent). The large differential may provide one aspect of SD justification because the larger person can inflict serious damage without a weapon.

That should not be confused with "must be" a large differential. Particularly in your own home, the law provides much latitude (as much or more so than any statutory castle law...which I'll address later) on what qualifies as ability. Another example would be a group of people against one. Even if they have no weapons, a group can be more than enough justification for ability.

In order for the SD to be legal, the shooter must have reasonable belief that the attacker(s) have ability, opportunity and intent. Much latitude is given during SD investigations for the "fog of war" that occurs. Even if the attacker ends up being unarmed or was "armed" with a hairbrush that was mistaken for a weapon, that doesn't automatically make it unjustified.

The attacker was trying to kill me and I shot to stop the threat. Then shut up and get a lawyer. There's nothing else you can say that will help your case beyond that.

GeneralG wrote:Exact reason why we need the Castle Law

VA already does, it's just not a statutory castle law. One of our lawyers (user) has already discussed this in-depth. VA has a substantial amount of Common Law which is actually stronger than and more comprehensive than any statutory castle law I'm aware of. Any statutory castle law that's even been proposed in VA would actually weaken the existing law. The only exception to that statement that I'm aware of is civil lawsuit protection.

INAL, but from very good information provided by actual lawyers in VA...

Under the existing Common Law for criminal prosecution:

Opportunity is satisfied during a home invasion merely by the presence of the intruder. They're in your home, therefore they have opportunity and it's the intruders fault for creating it. Even if it's an accident.

Intent is also prima facia given to the home owner. This has been the Common Law in VA for a very long time for several practical reasons. It is a reasonable assumption that anyone breaking into your home is doing so for ill intent. This case may turn out to be an accidental intrusion, but that burden shouldn't be put on the home owner. Requiring the home owner to figure out if the intruder is a murderer or rapist or burglar or just drunk would expose the home owner to substantial risk for the most common cases (i.e. most home intruders have real intent to harm). The law generally doesn't place burdens on potential victims of crime.

Please don't interpret that as you should just shoot. Obviously, you need to first ID the threat as real and not your teenage daughter sneaking a boy in or your wife getting a glass of water, etc. All I'm saying is that in your own home VA Common Law does not require you to retreat or any other silly restriction. You're granted a reasonable assumption that the intruder created the opportunity by breaking into your home and did so with ill-intent to kill or cause serious harm. Unless you grossly violate reasonable SD (warning shots, kill shots after the threat has been stopped, etc), the Common Law has your back.

Ability is not granted prima facia, but still the Common Law gives great latitude for home defense. Typically, if you believe and act during and after the shooting that the attacker had AOI, you're going to be fine. Generally, I assume that everyone on this forum has no interest in killing another human being. Even though opportunity and intent are basically granted to the home owner, which otherwise law-abiding home owner is going to shoot someone they don't believe has the ability to kill or seriously harm them? I'm certainly not!

gunderwood wrote:

GeneralG wrote:Exact reason why we need the Castle Law

VA already does, it's just not a statutory castle law. One of our lawyers (user) has already discussed this in-depth. VA has a substantial amount of Common Law which is actually stronger than and more comprehensive than any statutory castle law I'm aware of. Any statutory castle law that's even been proposed in VA would actually weaken the existing law. The only exception to that statement that I'm aware of is civil lawsuit protection.

INAL, but from very good information provided by actual lawyers in VA...

Under the existing Common Law for criminal prosecution:

Opportunity is satisfied during a home invasion merely by the presence of the intruder. They're in your home, therefore they have opportunity and it's the intruders fault for creating it. Even if it's an accident.

Intent is also prima facia given to the home owner. This has been the Common Law in VA for a very long time for several practical reasons. It is a reasonable assumption that anyone breaking into your home is doing so for ill intent. This case may turn out to be an accidental intrusion, but that burden shouldn't be put on the home owner. Requiring the home owner to figure out if the intruder is a murderer or rapist or burglar or just drunk would expose the home owner to substantial risk for the most common cases (i.e. most home intruders have real intent to harm). The law generally doesn't place burdens on potential victims of crime.

Please don't interpret that as you should just shoot. Obviously, you need to first ID the threat as real and not your teenage daughter sneaking a boy in or your wife getting a glass of water, etc. All I'm saying is that in your own home VA Common Law does not require you to retreat or any other silly restriction. You're granted a reasonable assumption that the intruder created the opportunity by breaking into your home and did so with ill-intent to kill or cause serious harm. Unless you grossly violate reasonable SD (warning shots, kill shots after the threat has been stopped, etc), the Common Law has your back.

Ability is not granted prima facia, but still the Common Law gives great latitude for home defense. Typically, if you believe and act during and after the shooting that the attacker had AOI, you're going to be fine. Generally, I assume that everyone on this forum has no interest in killing another human being. Even though opportunity and intent are basically granted to the home owner, which otherwise law-abiding home owner is going to shoot someone they don't believe has the ability to kill or seriously harm them? I'm certainly not!

Good info gunderwood

The one thing that common law is missing is EXPLICIT release from civil liability if no criminal liability exists.

You may have a good shoot, but can still be stuck defending a civil suit, and perhaps loosing, as the standards in civil courts are generally lower than criminal court.

SHMIV wrote:I got pretty wasted, pretty often, when I was a teen. Still, I was always able to find my own house.

But, then, I was the only one in the area with a Church next door, and tombstones in the backyard.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I fell asleep on some admiral's lawn in Pearl Harbor.