Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

One dead in Chesapeake bar shooting

This is a week old and I just found it.
Is there any more information?
Was the patron that shot the bad guy a CHP holder?
If so, this incident looks to be the first bar carry defensive gun use since the law went into effect. (As far as I know.)

EDIT --- Ok, after I wrote the above I Googled "Chesapeake bar shooting" and found this:
Police identify man killed in Chesapeake bar shooting

Witnesses told WVEC that three people wearing masks entered the business. A customer went to his truck to get his gun and came back inside. WVEC reported that he was the person who shot and killed Davis after he refused to drop his gun.

It looks like things might have gone better if someone's designated driver had been carrying concealed. (Just my 2 cents.)

AlanM wrote: If so, this incident looks to be the first bar carry defensive gun use since the law went into effect. (As far as I know.)

most likely the 'patron' came back in "open carrying" in their hand.

Secondly, and potentially more importantly.... if there was no one in the bar that he had a relationship with that would have provided him with a reason to defend them with deadly force, or a LEO, he may be looking at charges for his use of a firearm.

He left the bar, he was in his truck, there was no longer a threat to his safety. By arming, and re-entering the bar he became the aggressor.

He left the bar, he was in his truck, there was no longer a threat to his safety. By arming, and re-entering the bar he became the aggressor.

Wow - really? I thought use would still be justified if other lives were at stake.

MNewkirk wrote:Wow - really? I thought use would still be justified if other lives were at stake.

IANL...

When there is a relationship between you and the threatened party, and you have an duty to care for that person, the right to 'self' defense is often transferable to that person. This would be a child, a spouse, a parent, and usually extends to a person in your charge ( you take your kid and a neighbors kid out for an ice cream) or anyone else you have a guardianship over, etc..

Even in states were it is permissible, ANY lawyer would advise you that defense of a 3rd party is a very questionable action when you your self are not at risk.

Even in states were it is permissible, ANY lawyer would advise you that defense of a 3rd party is a very questionable action when you your self are not at risk.

So the moral of the story is to 1) Don't drink and 2) don't leave your weapon in the car so the "Stand your ground" clause would apply. The mistake would be leaving the area and then coming back in. Right?

Found this update:
http://www.fox43tv.com/dpps/news/local/ ... dd_4034347

The man known as "Big Rob" chased the first robbery suspect out of the bar. It appears while he was in the parking lot he went to his car and grabbed his gun. Big Rob then re-entered the bar, and ended up shooting Davis, killing him.

Police won't say if the person who shot Davis could possibly face charges.

One customer was shot by Davis. This from another article:

Witnesses told WVEC that the customer who was shot threw pool sticks and billiard balls in an effort to distract the masked men.

I found this which would seem to apply:

Case: Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 531 S.E.2d 567 (2000).

You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty." See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850

MNewkirk wrote:The mistake would be leaving the area and then coming back in. Right?

Right.

Once you have sufficiently disengaged from an encounter that you personally are no longer facing a deadly threat, choosing to re-enter the confrontation makes you an AGGRESSOR. As an aggressor you loose the right of self defense in Virginia.

Trying to find the statue that covers this, but this is from a Lawyer:

http://medvinlaw.com/alexandria-virgini ... f-defense/

Finally we get to defending a third person, whether or not this person is a family member. You first need to understand all of the ramifications above. In Virginia, whether the person you defended is a daughter or a stranger, that person had a right to life and you had the right to defend his or her life. (This doesn’t hold true for all states – many states only allow defense of a third person when that person is a family member.)

Yes he disengaged, but he was defending others when it was clear there were innocent lives at stake. IE, he witnessed the engagement from the start. He did not come into the fight halfway through and not understand who the agressor was.

but he was defending others when it was clear there were innocent lives at stake

I agree; I believe that goes back to the ruling I listed above:

You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime

MNewkirk wrote:

but he was defending others when it was clear there were innocent lives at stake

I agree; I believe that goes back to the ruling I listed above:

You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime

From the original story:

"Everybody was chilling, all the sudden a black guy runs in with a ski mask and shoots in the air," one witness told WAVY.com.

Ummm, guess what shot(s) fired is direct threat to life. Simply possessing a gun during a robbery the robber has committed a felonious act, ie "great crime". A gun pointed at you or someone else is a "threat to life and limb." And then the robber tops it all off by actually discharging the gun. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be that there is a threat to life and limb here.

totes6 wrote:Ummm, guess what shot(s) fired is direct threat to life. Simply possessing a gun during a robbery the robber has committed a felonious act, ie "great crime". A gun pointed at you or someone else is a "threat to life and limb." And then the robber tops it all off by actually discharging the gun. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be that there is a threat to life and limb here.

Had the patron been armed at the beginning of the confrontation, and shot one, or more robbers, this discussion would not be occurring.

The question being asked is can someone leave the area of the threat, arm themselves, return to the fight and defend, total strangers with deadly force?

after taking a good read of:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 614015&hl=

It would appear that defense of a 3rd party is permissible. However as of 1991 when the opinion was written there were at that time ZERO cases in Virginia that addressed 3rd party defense, other than family members. Also note that this was almost 5 years before Virginia became a shall issue CCW state.

Due to the increase in the number of CHP holders, there has been quite a bit of case law that has been made after FOSTER v. COMMONWEALTH, specifically with regard to self defense with deadly, force this opinion might take on slightly different meaning with newer cases to consider.

I'm still not sure the patrons actions were illegal, or of the homicide was excusable, vs justified.

Certainly this will be interesting to see how it plays out and if the local DA decides to file charges.

This hit the appeal section of the Supreme Court of VA and they spelled it out clearly:

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to

appellant, also supported an instruction on defense of others.

"[A] person asserting a claim of defense of

others may do so . . . where the person to

whose aid he or she went would have been

legally entitled to defend himself or

herself." Thus, one may be justified in

using deadly force to defend another person

where he or she reasonably believes that the

person defended faces an imminent threat of

serious bodily harm or death and that such

person was not at fault in bringing about

the necessity to use the deadly force.



Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 353, 499 S.E.2d 1, 9

Review at: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/ ... 564012.txt

Is it a crime for a police officer to arrive at the scene of a crime like this and end up shooting a suspect that refuses to drop their weapon? No! At the very least he would be putting the "robber" under citizens arrest and if the armed robber threatened him or another then clearly use of a firearm is authorized and duly called for. IMHO, this guy should have a parade for being a hero and maybe an accomodation from the local gov't. Not to mention the publics savings on tax money for gas, ammo, flashlight batteries, possible psych help for officers who engaged, as its manditory. I agree with totes6 totally.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

One of our local tv stations did everything they could to make this thug look like a victim. They showed interviews with his grandmother who stated that her baby was" shot down like a dog" and "He was turning his life around and was finding Jesus".

fiasconva wrote:..."He was turning his life around and was finding Jesus".

I'd say he got to meet him in person.

fiasconva wrote:One of our local tv stations did everything they could to make this thug look like a victim. They showed interviews with his grandmother who stated that her baby was" shot down like a dog" and "He was turning his life around and was finding Jesus".

the media will always do this. "He was turning his life around but wanted to do one more robbery". LOL.

fiasconva wrote:One of our local tv stations did everything they could to make this thug look like a victim.

Just wait to see what the civil suit lawyer dredges up.

__THIS__ is why we __NEED__ civil immunity for a lawful use of deadly force in self defense cases.

No crime, no dime.