• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Richmond City Council officially anti-gun

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
It is my understanding that Virginia does not allow the use of deadly force in the protection of property.

TFred
From the thread VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA, which quoted a VCDL VA-ALERT mailing.

Fourth paragraph down in first post of linked thread:

"Virginia is a stand-your-ground state. But not just in your "castle," but EVERYWHERE you might be. As long as you are not "part of the problem," you can stand your ground and defend yourself. If you end up killing your assailant, it is considered a "justifiable homicide." If you are part of the problem, say you yelled an expletive at someone who cut you off in traffic, and you are attacked, then you must retreat as far as you can, indicate you have given up the fight, and only if the assailant keeps up the attack, may you defend yourself. In that case if the assailant dies, it is considered an "excusable homicide." Also, you can only use deadly force to protect yourself or others when you reasonably fear death OR grievous bodily injury. You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property or against a trespasser."

Not saying if VCDL is right or wrong, but that is my cite. ;)

TFred
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I knew there was a swimming pool there, but never have heard of a range - do tell more.

RPD had their range down there. Not sure when it was abandoned, but then my memory is not as good as it used to be.

But T-Dub is showing his lack of "real Richmonder"-ness by calling it Landmark Theater. Everybody knows it is The Mosque.

stay safe.
 

Toad

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
387
Location
, Virginia, USA
I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to find a way to classify air powered 'weapons' as firearms next. One can never trust a politician at any level and should never allow them to act without proper supervision.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to find a way to classify air powered 'weapons' as firearms next. One can never trust a politician at any level and should never allow them to act without proper supervision.

They were until recently. Henrico and Richmond both treated the discharge of air guns the same as firearms and everyone treated airguns as firearms with regard to concealing.

The GA fixed the concealment part a few years ago and the discharge of...session before last.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
The VCDL quote is close. The operative phrase used by the courts is, "mere property". The habitation is a different class of "property" which derives its special status precisely because people live there. So there was a guy who killed a trespasser in his cornfield with a scythe (if I recall correctly), who was found guilty of murder because the cornfield was "mere property". Nobody lives there, it's not a home or curtilage thereof. Similarly, the guy who brandished a firearm at a "repo-man" who was in the process of taking the man's car out of the driveway was also guilty, as he was attempting to use deadly force to protect his interest in his car or its contents. Neither of those cases is applicable if you blow away Badguy The Burglar who's in the process of stealing the television out of your living room at two o'clock a.m.; that's both stopping a serious felony in progress (burglary) as well as defense of habitation. (Make sure it's not the Alzheimer's patient from across the street who's just trying to figure out how to "tune" the digital tv so he can see his "stories".)

All of these principles have different names and different kinds of analysis, and they all get blurred together as people think in terms of the shooting and not the reason for the shooting. "Stand your ground", or as we've always said in Virginia, "the true-man doctrine", does apply everywhere, but not to everybody, and not to every situation. It always applies in the home ("defense of habitation rule") and it does apply to innocent defenders or defenders of innocent others ("perfect self defense rule"), and I think it would always apply when stopping a serious felony in progress, though I don't think there's ever been a case on that issue. As stated, it does not apply when the person being defended (whether self or other) is "not innocent". If you had a hand in starting the ruckus, no matter how trivially, the "imperfect self defense rule" is what you get, which means you have to "retreat to the wall" before you're entitled to turn and become the aggressor.

From the thread VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA, which quoted a VCDL VA-ALERT mailing.

Fourth paragraph down in first post of linked thread:

"Virginia is a stand-your-ground state. But not just in your "castle," but EVERYWHERE you might be. As long as you are not "part of the problem," you can stand your ground and defend yourself. If you end up killing your assailant, it is considered a "justifiable homicide." If you are part of the problem, say you yelled an expletive at someone who cut you off in traffic, and you are attacked, then you must retreat as far as you can, indicate you have given up the fight, and only if the assailant keeps up the attack, may you defend yourself. In that case if the assailant dies, it is considered an "excusable homicide." Also, you can only use deadly force to protect yourself or others when you reasonably fear death OR grievous bodily injury. You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property or against a trespasser."

Not saying if VCDL is right or wrong, but that is my cite. ;)

TFred

In the language quoted, note that not all defense of property is "excusable or justifiable". Some is, some ain't.

Well, it does here "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."
 
Last edited:
Top