Defending property with deadly force?

[Jim]

In reading through the following statute, I noticed the law SEEMS to allow me to use deadly force in protecting my property. Read the key wording I've highlighted in bold. I'd like to get some feedback on this.
18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.

A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.

C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.

D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.

E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.

Do I read this to mean I can use deadly force in a public place to defend my property against robbery?

[gunderwood]

Interesting. I think the key word there is "or," as in life or property, which implies it is ok for exclusive defense of property.

However, the most important phrase is: "This section shall not apply..." Section 18.2-280 covers the "Willfully discharging firearms in public places," not murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. It would seem that if you choose to use lethal force to defend property, you should be safe from a willful discharge in a public place charge, but that section won't protect you against other criminal charges.

[user]

What Gunderwood said: imprimatur, nihil obstat, and right-on.

There are lots and lots of cases that say the use of deadly force is not normally available or excusable in defense of "mere property". There are other cases that say that you can use deadly force to protect your home-and-castle, out as far as the edge of the "curtilage". No telling how today's Supreme Ct. would interpret (or even recognize) those precedents, btw; there's a recent decision that I think is dead-wrong that says "detention" for investigative purposes is not an "arrest" in an appeal from a criminal conviction for assaulting a police officer who was making an unlawful arrest. No telling, as I said, what they'll do in a pinch. We do have some activist judges in Virginia (recent immigrants, mostly, from other foreign places such as Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey) who want to make Virginia conform to where they came from.

Stopping a serious felony in progress excuses the use of deadly force (the five "serious felonies" are: rape, robbery, murder, burglary, and arson).

My favorite illustration of the use of deadly force to protect "mere property" comes from one of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" sequels - he installed an expensive radio in a car, and left the car unlocked. He's having dinner with folks in his (bad neighborhood) apartment building when he hears badguys outside. He checks the window and sees badguys ripping off the stereo. He goes outside and asks them, "What's the problem?"; they respond with something and he asks again, "What's the problem?"
"What's it to you, Suckah?"
"It's my car!"
"Ok, now you gonna die", whereupon badguy pulls out a nasty knife and comes toward Bronson.
Our boy pulls a fairly hefty revolver (not the 4" .38 special from the first movie) and blows 'em both away, goes back inside and finishes dinner.

The point is that he waited until there was "a threat of imminent serious bodily injury." He may have provoked the threat, at least implicitly, but he didn't just shoot 'em for ripping off the stereo. They had to come at him with a display of force sufficient that he "had a reasonable belief, based on objective facts, that he or an innocent third party was faced with the threat of serious bodily injury." That made it excusable homicide, at least in Virginia.

[Vahunter]

I wouldn't shoot anyone stealing outside of my house but once they come inside they are fair game. I had a couple of vehicles broken in to when I lived in Mechanicsville. Deputy told me if I caught the bad guy try to shoot him where he'll get away and die elsewhere. He said a .22 would work wonders. But I'm not about to try it.

[Palladin]

legal advice from deputies....

[Vahunter]

legal advice from deputies....

I thought it was funny too. But then again Iv'e thought some legal advice I have gotten from lawyers in the past was pretty funny too.

[zephyp]

What
My favorite illustration of the use of deadly force to protect "mere property" comes from one of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" sequels - he installed an expensive radio in a car, and left the car unlocked.

My favorite was when he went walking down the street with the camera over his shoulder and the guy grabbed it just before Bronson nailed him with the .45 Automag....

[Jim]

Many years ago, when I was in SC, I took a SC firearms law class. The instructor said that if you face a judge on a firearms violation, he's not going to consult a deputy, a lawyer or Uncle Bill. He's going to read the law and sentence you according to what it says. That is, of coarse, assuming you're found guilty.

[GS78]

......not for nuthin; but someone told me long ago...."you can't give anyone the death penalty for stealing your crap".....

[BlackKnight]

As I understand that section it has two meanings. A person could walk in your front door disconnect your TV and walk out with it and you can not shoot. However lets say that you find someone in the process of setting a fire to your property. It would be legal to shoot the arsonist especially if it is your dwelling. As I understand it you can shoot to prevent the arsonist from setting the fire but once the fire is started you may not shoot.

[kps]

quite some years ago where I used to live a neighbor caught & aprehended some arsonists, caught them inside his home, & they had poured a combustable liquid I dont remember what they used, but was setting it up, but had not lit, well he called police & they raised hell because he didnt kill them. it was a couple of small children. the ring leader was about 12 years old. & they were responsible for at least 5 fires in my neighborhood, plus several others relatively close during a short time period.

yes the police really cussed my neighbor for not shooting the kids. they said it would be easier & better for society to have removed the kids from existence, instead of going through the system.

as it was the kids were from "bad" homes, drugs, & were basically on their own, so they were casing peoples house a couple streets over & burning them down while owners were at work.

Randy

[Jim]

As I understand that section it has two meanings. A person could walk in your front door disconnect your TV and walk out with it and you can not shoot. However lets say that you find someone in the process of setting a fire to your property. It would be legal to shoot the arsonist especially if it is your dwelling. As I understand it you can shoot to prevent the arsonist from setting the fire but once the fire is started you may not shoot.

Well, to start with, if a person walks in my front door, Gretchen is going to reduce him to an emergency room all nighter in short order.

[SgtBill]

quite some years ago where I used to live a neighbor caught & aprehended some arsonists, caught them inside his home, & they had poured a combustable liquid I dont remember what they used, but was setting it up, but had not lit, well he called police & they raised hell because he didnt kill them. it was a couple of small children. the ring leader was about 12 years old. & they were responsible for at least 5 fires in my neighborhood, plus several others relatively close during a short time period.

yes the police really cussed my neighbor for not shooting the kids. they said it would be easier & better for society to have removed the kids from existence, instead of going through the system.

as it was the kids were from "bad" homes, drugs, & were basically on their own, so they were casing peoples house a couple streets over & burning them down while owners were at work.

Randy

Whoever the Cop was is an ass and I hope his so called advice is never followed. For one thing it is not easy to live with the takeing of another's life and I know it would even be harder if the neighbor shot a 12 year old KID he would be reduced to being a monster by both friend's and neighbor's.
You must remember that a house or property is something that can be replaced a life CANNOT be replaced.
Bill

[Jim]

Well said, Sarge. Pulling a trigger is easy. Living with the consequences for the rest of your life is altogether a horse of another color.
As for that LEO, he'll get his. That kind usually self destruct.

[Kreutz]

If I were to come home to my house being burglarized, if I go in guns blazing, the potential for my own bodily harm(since their guns might blaze back more accurately than mine) and financial ruin (due to jail or lawsuits) is something to make want to just let them take my crap.

Also the chance of retaliation by former living crooks friends/gang/family to consider too.

I have insurance, and it'd probably buy nicer stuff than I have now, so the path of least resistance is to just quietly walk back out of my house, call the cops, hope for the best, and pray that I remembered to pay my homeowners insurance premium that month.

IMO I should morally be able to shoot them simply for being there, but in reality there would be consequences for my actions, and they're probably not worth it over "stuff". I would support a property inclusive castle law though so these decisions could be simplified.

Of course if I and my family were home at the time, that's an entirely different situation; shoot first worry about consequences later.

[kps]

Well said, Sarge. Pulling a trigger is easy. Living with the consequences for the rest of your life is altogether a horse of another color.
As for that LEO, he'll get his. That kind usually self destruct.

they hopefully probably already got their due, a few years ago there was a major bust & the sherriff & 12 deputies were arrested. drugs, prostitution, guns, theft. a few more, but the sherriff was in office for around 40 years. I do not know who told my neighbor, or if it was any of the officers involved, but at least a few dishonest cops were removed, & I dont live there anymore, nor does my former neighbor, he got a job promotion that required him to move away. I live 25 miles away in a different county, but I still work in that county.

I know it was bad kids, but they were not doing anything to be shot in my opinion, still children, however mixed up they may be, & as long as they didnt have any weapons. I think my neighbor did right. but I mentioned it because I had never heard of being able to shoot anyone for anything other than life threatening situtations, & the cops reply to my neighbor was unbelieveable.

Randy

[Jim]

I can guarantee you that, if your neighbor HAD shot those children, the sheriff would have vehemently denied ever saying what he did.

[SELFDEFENSE]

Just assume you can't shoot over property (arson against occupied dwellings appears to be a special case, assuming it doesn't fit under immediate mortal danger to the occupants, which it probably does). Although I would be for a small carve-out for when they are stealing your $15 million Ferrari 250 GTO.

[gunderwood]

Just assume you can't shoot over property (arson against occupied dwellings appears to be a special case, assuming it doesn't fit under immediate mortal danger to the occupants, which it probably does). Although I would be for a small carve-out for when they are stealing your $15 million Ferrari 250 GTO.

Yes, but I'm not sure why this is still being debated. It was pointed out by myself and others that the property statue only applies for discharge of a firearm in a public place. Defending property with deadly force is not legal in VA, simple as that...although the Ferrari exemption might be nice.

However, the most important phrase is: "This section shall not apply..." Section 18.2-280 covers the "Willfully discharging firearms in public places," not murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. It would seem that if you choose to use lethal force to defend property, you should be safe from a willful discharge in a public place charge, but that section won't protect you against other criminal charges.