Castle doctorine upheld today!

[Thaglyde]

§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense.

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force...

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.

http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/cas ... rginia.htm

Sent from my battery leaching Thunderbolt using tapatalk.

[allingeneral]

Your link doesn't seem to be working, but good news nonetheless!

[mk4]

@Thaglyde...
which bill are you referring to? HB48, maybe? there have been a bunch this session. some have been incorporated into others, and some have been stricken.

please be very careful what y'all wish for. analysis of these so-called 'castle' law bills shows that they provide less protection than the current castle protections enumerated in case and common law in va.

if you're up for it, have a look at: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... R-VIRGINIA for a long-running discussion. of particular note is the proposed codification of existing case/common law into a real castle doctrine, drafted by 'user' (Dan Hawes). the most current version can be read here: http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/1 ... lation.pdf and is *much* better than all of the proposed/progressing bills put together x 1,000,000!

imho, all of the current bills need to be continued to 2013, at a minimum, to allow for further study and then working a proper bill based largely, if not completely, on user's draft. my reps know where i stand, fwiw.

[allingeneral]

My take on it is this: While the criminal side of Castle Doctrine seems to be fairly well embedded in Common Law and case law - it's the CIVIL side of things that's much more of an unknown. Codification of the CIVIL part is what's really needed, so that a dead felon's family can't come after someone for wrongful death or other civil complaint after death or maiming occurs as a result of a home invasion.

[mk4]

i understand what you're saying regarding the civil codification, my friend. i've also talked w/ user about this and really believe these current bills are being rushed. the work he did on drafting a comprehensive bill/act convince me that the issue is far more complicated than what any of the bills address.

i truly hope that we don't lose protections by near-sighted actions...

[chada]

I am for a properly crafted Castle Doctrine law but I too am unsure that this is an actual improvement over current case law. Also when reading the coverage of the passage of the bill in the Richmond Times Dispatch today I read where the patron told an interesting story on the floor of the House in speaking in support of her bill:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virg ... r-1676703/

That is a link to the story. What I find interesting is that the story that she uses to show that we need the castle doctrine is about a lady who scares off a robber with a gun coming through a window and then takes a shot at him as he is running away. I am not sure that her example is a very good one frankly.

I think that we need a law that makes clear that where ever we are, not just at home, that we have no duty to retreat when threatened. I think that the current bill has a lot of holes in it for me.

[mk4]

just so we're all on the same page, the following are the two house bills that passed today and are now on the way to the senate:

HB14: Persons acting in defense of property; civil immunity provided for an occupant of dwelling, etc.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... 1+sum+HB14
( modifies the civil code of va (title 8.01) )

HB48: Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... 1+sum+HB48
( modifies the criminal code of va (title 18.2) )

[Chasbo00]

... it's the CIVIL side of things that's much more of an unknown. Codification of the CIVIL part is what's really needed, so that a dead felon's family can't come after someone for wrongful death or other civil complaint after death or maiming occurs as a result of a home invasion.

You bet! VCDL and some others need to move out on this and quit making excuses.

[Kreutz]

My take on it is this: While the criminal side of Castle Doctrine seems to be fairly well embedded in Common Law and case law - it's the CIVIL side of things that's much more of an unknown. Codification of the CIVIL part is what's really needed, so that a dead felon's family can't come after someone for wrongful death or other civil complaint after death or maiming occurs as a result of a home invasion.

Truth. Never know when MAIG is gonna pick a martyr.

[Diomed]

HB48: Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... 1+sum+HB48
( modifies the criminal code of va (title 18.2) )

You have to wait for an "overt act" in order to defend yourself. This is more strict than current common law!

Bad, bad bill. This makes us more like the yankee states, not less.

[mk4]

HB48: Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... 1+sum+HB48
( modifies the criminal code of va (title 18.2) )

You have to wait for an "overt act" in order to defend yourself. This is more strict than current common law!

Bad, bad bill. This makes us more like the yankee states, not less.

exactly! that's what a number of us over on ocdo have been trying to communicate.

the last thing we need is less protection than current common/case law. have a look at the pdf i linked earlier in this thread. that's a comprehensive effort to codify 400+ years of common law, done by a real expert jurist, and what any castle bill *should* be.

better to slow down and get it right the first time, but i fear that this session's bills have enough steam up to get to the governor's desk...

[DW44VH]

In HB 14:
Immunity for persons acting in defense of property. Provides civil immunity for an occupant of a dwelling who uses any degree of physical force while engaged in the defense of his dwelling when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling and (ii) the occupant reasonably believes that he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

Who decides what is considered imminent danger?

[dorminWS]

Wouldn't be the first time the General Assembly passed a law without really understanding what its impact would be. I think user's right about this.

[VBshooter]

That thing about dwelling in HB14 needs to be updated to include in defense of ANY property. House,yard,car, wallet, business, etc, etc,etc,

[Irishreign]

Not being the smartest kid in class...I'm reading these posts, and have the same concerns that, it seems, you all have, too. And I would also wish that they would not hurry the wording, but give it good sound consideration, so that it will keep us as citizens and home owners and rentors as well, safe in our homes and secure in the knowledge that we won't be punished for trying to save ourselves and our families.

After reading all the posts, my thought is that in my humble opinion, the fact that someone has broken into my home and is there against my wishes, IS AN OVERT ACT in itself!! Am I really wrong in feeling this way? I surely don't think so.

I am also taking into consideration the elderly woman, living alone, possibly disabled in some way, and arming herself to feel secure. She should certainly be thinking the same way I am...and that goes for elderly men also!!

[VBshooter]

VCDL is doing all it can to rally gun owners to reject the current Castle Doctrine Bill until it gets written correctly to take in all the facts,,, In its current status We could actually lose some protections granted by VA;s common law statutes

[mk4]

the 2 remaining bills, sb4 and hb48, are both on the calendar for 2nd reading in the house and senate, respectively, today. i'm going to be watching the live feeds to follow any debate from the floor. with any luck, neither will pass to engrossment and 3rd reading, but more likely is that at least one of them will end up continuing to a conference committee. so, there are a few more opportunities to put the brakes on the issue for this session.

[zombiekiller57]

I do agree that the House and Senate need to get the language correct before they pass it. An Overt act is left open to interpretation. As a retired LEO I would not be threatened by someone entering and raising a fist to me but someone less experienced might drop them where they stand. Did the homeowner fear for their lives? Only they can tell you that and that should be the standard bearer for the defense. I don't believe however, that you should be able to drop someone just because they broke into your house, but if you feel threatened by physical force by all means let them meet their maker. just my 2 cents.

[Chasbo00]

I don't think VCDL is really interested in a Castle Doctrine for VA. Take a look at this snip from VCDL that is over a year old (From January 11, 2011). As Yogi Berra would say, "It's deja vu all over again."

CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL

I know that having a Castle Doctrine bill is high on the agenda for
many of you. I looked at getting one introduced this year, but in my
discussions with the Senator I was asking to introduce the bill, it was
pointed out to me that there no glaring issue with needing civil
immunity after having to use deadly force to defend yourself in
Virginia.

Virginia case law and common law are already clear that you can stand
your ground anywhere you are, no need to retreat. However, if you are
part of the "problem" (somehow encouraged a confrontation), then you
would need to retreat and could defend yourself if then cornered and
after indicating your intent to give up the fight.

For civil law, you would most likely win in court as well. Lawyers
who would file a suit against someone who defended themselves would
almost always do so on "contingency." That is the lawyer would get paid
only based on him winning the case. Since the odds of winning such a
civil case are almost nil, lawyers don't even take on such cases, since
they know they would never get paid.

Codifying current case law and current common law on self defense
would be tricky. One would have to be careful to not somehow take away
protections we currently enjoy. VCDL may attempt to put in such a bill
at some point, but not this year. That is not to say that someone else
might not put in such a bill this year, since bills will continue to be
introduced for another week or so.

Source: http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadet ... ID=1506113

VCDL has had plenty of time and opportunity to properly word a Castle Doctrine draft bill; yet, they have made no effort to do so. They have pursued other legislation instead. This is in spite of the fact that VCDL knows a large part of it's membership wants a Castle Doctrine. I don't buy VCDL's current spin on this issue.

[mk4]

both houses adjourned early and neither of the castle bills were debated.
onward to monday.