Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Zeph put this to bed.

Kill em all, let gawd sort em out.

We need a statute.

Over and out.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around being in a salon... dammit all, iambald!

Tweaker wrote:Zeph put this to bed.

Kill em all, let gawd sort em out.

We need a statute.

Over and out.

Indeed we do and every gun owner in VA should scream to the high Heavens this year about it too...Starting with VCDL...castle doctrine and everywhere I have a legal right to be is my castle...

wylde007 wrote:

dorminWS wrote:I seem to remember learning that in Virginia you may use deadly force to protect your life or the life of others but MAY NOT use deadly force to protect property;

They have guns and are DEMANDING property. That is coercion under threat of lethal force. Translation: your life is in imminent danger.

Easy answer. Shoot them.

Now, the beauty is that they are already engaged in at least two felony crimes - Strongarm Robbery and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

If ANYTHING should happen to an innocent bystander by your actions of SELF-DEFENSE then VA law places the responsibility for their injuries on the perpetrators of the crime, not on you.

If I am in a position to defend my life, then I will. Defense of property limitations do not apply to having property forcibly taken from you.

I agree with Travis on this one (did I just say that?!)

The defense of property issue is more along the lines of watching someone steal your car from the wal-mart parking lot...you can't shoot them in that case. You walk outside and see someone running out of your garage with your prized $400 weed-whacker...can't shoot him. You see a guy stuff his pockets full of M&Ms at the local grocery store and run out the door...can't shoot him.

Now, if the guy running out of your garage with your weed-whacker decides to turn and stand his ground by threatening lethal force (i.e. pointing a gun at you) - shoot him. If he just turns around to stick his tongue out at you and smile...chase him down and kick his ass.

You guys have got me worried about some of you. Somebody posted the following statement from VA case law:

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs [when] a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself. "Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416

The biggest and most important word in that sentence is REASONABLE.

The point I was trying to make before (and still am) was that anytime your actions, belief or perceptions must be REASONABLE, that means someone (like a jury of your peers - which means they won't be no smarter'n you are) just might be coming along behind you, long after the crap stops flyin', and after everybody's had time to lawyer up and craft the best lie they can tell with a straight face, and deciding whether you were REASONABLE in your thoughts, decisions, and actions. That someone won't be staring down the barrel of some drunk's satiddy night special, there won't be blood and snot splattered on him from the guy standing next to him being pistol-whipped, and just maybe there'll be some tight-assed twenty-something yuppie Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney from an Ivy-league law school who's a paid-up member of Handgun Control urging the folks who're judging the reasonablness of your conduct that you were just a wild-ass cowboy looking for an excuse to shoot somebody just so you'd get to watch them die.

REASONABLE IS CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. THE CONTEXT GETS DETERMINED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND WHAT THE FINDER OF FACT DECIDES HAPPENED BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE. THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO WHAT YOU THINK YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HAPPENED.

Any time you pull a gun you run the risk of being "second-guessed". Anybody who decides they can declare open season on somebody else based on some one-sentence simple-minded aphorism is gambling his or her personal freedom. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means you're a murderer/manslaughterer unless you raise AND PROVE the self defense plea. To me, that means that before I pull a gun on anybody under any circumstances I'm gonna be DAMN SURE there is imminent danger to life.

These folks who say stuff like," he's got a gun, he's threatening property, I can shoot him" are likely to buy themselves a raft of trouble. It just ain't that simple.

dorminWS wrote:You guys have got me worried about some of you. Somebody posted the following statement from VA case law:

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs [when] a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself. "Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416

The biggest and most important word in that sentence is REASONABLE.

The point I was trying to make before (and still am) was that anytime your actions, belief or perceptions must be REASONABLE, that means someone (like a jury of your peers - which means they won't be no smarter'n you are) just might be coming along behind you, long after the crap stops flyin', and after everybody's had time to lawyer up and craft the best lie they can tell with a straight face, and deciding whether you were REASONABLE in your thoughts, decisions, and actions. That someone won't be staring down the barrel of some drunk's satiddy night special, there won't be blood and snot splattered on him from the guy standing next to him being pistol-whipped, and just maybe there'll be some tight-assed twenty-something yuppie Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney from an Ivy-league law school who's a paid-up member of Handgun Control urging the folks who're judging the reasonablness of your conduct that you were just a wild-ass cowboy looking for an excuse to shoot somebody just so you'd get to watch them die.

REASONABLE IS CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. THE CONTEXT GETS DETERMINED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND WHAT THE FINDER OF FACT DECIDES HAPPENED BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE. THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO WHAT YOU THINK YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HAPPENED.

Any time you pull a gun you run the risk of being "second-guessed". Anybody who decides they can declare open season on somebody else based on some one-sentence simple-minded aphorism is gambling his or her personal freedom. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means you're a murderer/manslaughterer unless you raise AND PROVE the self defense plea. To me, that means that before I pull a gun on anybody under any circumstances I'm gonna be DAMN SURE there is imminent danger to life.

These folks who say stuff like," he's got a gun, he's threatening property, I can shoot him" are likely to buy themselves a raft of trouble. It just ain't that simple.

I don't disagree with you. Your point is very sound. However, I think the definition of REASONABLE is very dependent upon the amount of adrenaline and split-second decision-making abilities that you have as a lawful citizen carrying a firearm.

I don't think anyone has tried to indicate that it's all cut and dried. There will likely be consequences to deal with whether you decide to shoot or not to shoot.

The main point is that you'd better be damned sure that pulling a firearm from your holster is the absolute last resort to ensure that you and people around you aren't killed.

Amen.

Pass the fried chicken, will ya brother?

With a sixteenth inch of trigger pull between here and eternity, I doubt one could find many that would call a shooting in self defense unreasonable. On the example of the ball peened hammer to the knee...life or limb is fairly clear.

Don't know how many on this board have heard about it, but there was an acquittal for shooting an 80 year old man who was threatening the shooter with a cane.

dorminWS wrote:You guys have got me worried about some of you. Somebody posted the following statement from VA case law:

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs [when] a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself. "Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416

The biggest and most important word in that sentence is REASONABLE.

The point I was trying to make before (and still am) was that anytime your actions, belief or perceptions must be REASONABLE, that means someone (like a jury of your peers - which means they won't be no smarter'n you are) just might be coming along behind you, long after the crap stops flyin', and after everybody's had time to lawyer up and craft the best lie they can tell with a straight face, and deciding whether you were REASONABLE in your thoughts, decisions, and actions. That someone won't be staring down the barrel of some drunk's satiddy night special, there won't be blood and snot splattered on him from the guy standing next to him being pistol-whipped, and just maybe there'll be some tight-assed twenty-something yuppie Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney from an Ivy-league law school who's a paid-up member of Handgun Control urging the folks who're judging the reasonablness of your conduct that you were just a wild-ass cowboy looking for an excuse to shoot somebody just so you'd get to watch them die.

REASONABLE IS CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. THE CONTEXT GETS DETERMINED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND WHAT THE FINDER OF FACT DECIDES HAPPENED BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE. THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO WHAT YOU THINK YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HAPPENED.

Any time you pull a gun you run the risk of being "second-guessed". Anybody who decides they can declare open season on somebody else based on some one-sentence simple-minded aphorism is gambling his or her personal freedom. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means you're a murderer/manslaughterer unless you raise AND PROVE the self defense plea. To me, that means that before I pull a gun on anybody under any circumstances I'm gonna be DAMN SURE there is imminent danger to life.

These folks who say stuff like," he's got a gun, he's threatening property, I can shoot him" are likely to buy themselves a raft of trouble. It just ain't that simple.

@dorwin

It's ok, you can call me out! It was I who posted the case law. I admit that I should have prefaced it with "while not a statute, there is case law on the subject..."

I posted it because Virginia recognizes English Common Law. (As I understand it, that is what this decision was based off of) Many individuals have claimed that this is why Virginia does not need a Castle Doctrine law. Do I agree? NO! I feel that it should be explicitly stated in the state code to provide protection from criminal and civil proceedings.

As I understand it, in VA., you may be cleared criminally yet still face civil action.

@ Rick

I could not agree with you more!

Give up the money. You can always replace cash....life is priceless.

surefire wrote:Give up the money. You can always replace cash....life is priceless.

I agree and disagree. Life is priceless, however if someone is robbing you at gun point and you cooperate then yes they might just grab the cash and walk. Then the only thing you are left with is a potential load in your drawers...AND the thought that you just let a dangerous criminal walk. Will their next victim be so fortunate? If not, I would submit that you are then partly responsible. As gun owners and carriers we should place ourselves beyond thinking about only our own personal safety. That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment is all about...it is about the safety of the Republic and the citizens therein.