Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

LFS wrote:However, common law does not cover the frivolous wrongful death law suits that may occur after a righteous self-defense shooting. Virginia needs a law to stop wrongful death civil suits in the absence of criminal convictions.

Anyone can file a civil action against against anyone at any time for any reason. Like illegal shootings, passing a law doesn't prevent that. In fact, there is already a statute that provides for penalties for filing frivolous civil actions. Va. Code section 8.01-271.1.

The Code of Virginia is located here: http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm

Diomed wrote: One thing I'm curious about though is how often we see those kinds of frivolous suits brought in VA. I've seen it said that it's very rare, but have not seen any evidence to back up that assertion.

I would think self-defense shootings themselves are rare, thank goodness.

VBshooter wrote:I agree fully,,, Would like that lawyer guy to put up some of his info here , Sentr a email and got a blank page in return.....Myself I would like the law to include protecting ones property, Might just slow a few would be thieves down a spell........

I don't know about any blank "page" - what I sent you was in plain ascii text, as an attachment to an email. If you click on the website link at the bottom of this message, then scroll down and click on the mailbox, you can send me email without having to use the "email" function of this website. I had the idea that my email address was visible in the "user" profile, but that was a mistaken assumption on my part. Try again, please, if you find you don't have the case excerpts I think I sent you.

OK will try again,,for some reason the attachment didn't come through last time...On the way to you.

It came through fine this time, Thank You SIr!

Even MD has passed a relatively comprehensive castle doctrine...I dont care about case law perse...I want something in the code that clearly spells it out and grants immunity from civil prosecution...

zephyp wrote:Even MD has passed a relatively comprehensive castle doctrine...I dont care about case law perse...I want something in the code that clearly spells it out and grants immunity from civil prosecution...

1) Because the castle doctrine as it is in Virginia is principally aimed at home invasions by agents of the state, you can expect any codification of the principle to remove that protection. As it has in other states. Those people didn't come out ahead, in my opinion, by codification, they lost.

2) I don't know why you prefer code sections to other sources of law; it's no clearer in the code than it is in (in this case, a 1604 judicial decision). There's a little bit of a deception in the code. It appears to be written in plain English, but half the words used are not English, but Legalese - they have definitions that come from case law. You have to know the case law in order to be able to make sense of the code.

3) There is no way to give "immunity from civil prosecution". You've already got all the defense you need, but, as I said before, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Passing a law is not going to keep you from getting sued. And you've already got all the law you need to defend against a civil suit arising out of a legitimate shooting in your home. What you don't seem to get is that I could go down to my local courthouse tomorrow and file suit against you for having shot me in your house; whether or not I've ever even been to your house, much less been shot there, has absolutely no bearing on whether I could file the suit. Your protection lies in the fact that you have good defenses and could sock me with the costs of defending yourself for having filed a lawsuit that I have reason to know is factually hogwash. (To use the technical, legal term, "hogwash". But I reckon everyone knows what's in the hogs' dirty bathwater.)

user wrote:[
3) There is no way to give "immunity from civil prosecution". You've already got all the defense you need, but, as I said before, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Passing a law is not going to keep you from getting sued. And you've already got all the law you need to defend against a civil suit arising out of a legitimate shooting in your home. What you don't seem to get is that I could go down to my local courthouse tomorrow and file suit against you for having shot me in your house; whether or not I've ever even been to your house, much less been shot there, has absolutely no bearing on whether I could file the suit. Your protection lies in the fact that you have good defenses and could sock me with the costs of defending yourself for having filed a lawsuit that I have reason to know is factually hogwash. (To use the technical, legal term, "hogwash". But I reckon everyone knows what's in the hogs' dirty bathwater.)

I'm thinking you are a lawyer and I am about to get schooled. But...

Guilt in a civil trial is based on the preponderance of the evidence, whereas the standard in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. And that makes all the difference in the world. I know of a case right here in NOVA where the states attorney couldn't get a grand jury to indict, but the defendant went into bankruptcy when found guilty in a civil trial... even though the "eye witnesses" changed their story and couldn't explain themselves and the forensic evidence contradicted their testimony at trial. Something is seriously wrong with our courts to have allowed that to happen. A law changing either the basis of guilt in civil wrongful death suits or requiring a criminal conviction for a civil wrongful death claim to be filed would get rid of the injustice and ambulance chasing. It is simply not right to lose your house and retirement savings for having legally defended your life or the lives of your family.

And you are right that codified law written in English deceptively refers to other legal terms. This does not win kudos for the legal community from the general public. It is one of those things that gets people spittin' mad.

I cant provide a cite but I do believe Florida provides immunity from civil prosecution for those defending themselves within the law. I bet there are other states too.

With all of the dumb stupid unconstitutional laws on the books already I'm not sure how anyone can possibly think that immunity cant be a law too. Bottom line is law makers can and will and have already made just about kind of law they want...dont believe me...read through posts on this board at random...it doesnt take long to find a thread where we collectively discuss the illities of such laws...

LFS wrote:...Guilt in a civil trial is based on the preponderance of the evidence, whereas the standard in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. And that makes all the difference in the world. ...

Absolutely right. Hence the OJ Simpson debacle. My point was that there's a big difference between being sued and being found liable after a trial. My feeling is that a lot of the things people worry about are matters that are routinely used to have cases summarily dismissed on the basis of a pretrial motion, often without having to even file an answer in the case.

LFS wrote:...And you are right that codified law written in English deceptively refers to other legal terms. This does not win kudos for the legal community from the general public. It is one of those things that gets people spittin' mad.

I agree completely. The reason it's like that is that we don't trust humans to use good judgment, even as judges, so we want everything to be nailed down and well-defined. So, over the centuries, we've complicated things to no end. It's them derned humans. If we could just get rid of all the humans, the Earth would be just fine.

user wrote:I had the idea that my email address was visible in the "user" profile, but that was a mistaken assumption on my part.

I have made it so that the board acts as an intermediary, thereby hiding email addresses from public consumption and from email harvesting robots that may troll this site at any time. This is all done in the best interests of our members.