Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Someone explain Virginia " Common Law" to a new resident

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    19

    Someone explain Virginia " Common Law" to a new resident

    I was hoping that HB1415 would pass but it looks like it didnt. I am having a hard time understanding what the law says about lethal force. From what I understand, you have to be able to legally prove you were in fear for your life. IE if someone kicked down my door right now, I would probably not shoot them. But if they presented a knife or firearm, it would then be lethal force justifying lethal? Hope I am NEVER in the situation but want to make sure I can protect my wife and child.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    You may find this class helpful with your questions - http://proactiveshooters.com/general...d-carry-in-va/
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by cjakesnyder1988 View Post
    I was hoping that HB1415 would pass but it looks like it didnt. I am having a hard time understanding what the law says about lethal force. From what I understand, you have to be able to legally prove you were in fear for your life. IE if someone kicked down my door right now, I would probably not shoot them. But if they presented a knife or firearm, it would then be lethal force justifying lethal? Hope I am NEVER in the situation but want to make sure I can protect my wife and child.

    Thanks
    Explaining the difference between HB1415 would take a while and to be honest, it was discussed here last year in depth by Dan Hawes Esquire. He's an expert, I just take notes.

    This years attempt was also a very bad bill and would take much of what we have now, away.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by cjakesnyder1988 View Post
    I was hoping that HB1415 would pass but it looks like it didnt. I am having a hard time understanding what the law says about lethal force. From what I understand, you have to be able to legally prove you were in fear for your life. IE if someone kicked down my door right now, I would probably not shoot them. But if they presented a knife or firearm, it would then be lethal force justifying lethal? Hope I am NEVER in the situation but want to make sure I can protect my wife and child.

    Thanks
    Welcome to Virginia, and welcome to OCDO. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to your question, but I can assure you that it is very complicated, and that it is worth pursuing. I don't have any bookmarks to some of the prior discussions we have had here, but as noted, one of our members is a well-known defense attorney who goes by the name of "user", and his posts are always well worth reading.

    My one comment/question to you is, how could one "prove" that they were in fear for their life? Fear is an emotion, there is simply no way to prove something inside a person's head. The actual justifications are a bit more complex than that, but are also expressed in terms that can actually be grasped by ordinary individuals.

    Someone will come along with a few links, I suspect.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 02-07-2013 at 10:40 PM. Reason: ETF:Grammar

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Welcome to OCDO. Welcome to Virginia. Go join VCDL www.vcdl.org and come out to the Greater Richmond Breakfasts every Saturday and Dinners (usually) the 2nd Tuesday of the month. Announcements are up in the stickies at the top of the Virginia section.

    Without trying to compress 800+ years of legal info into a single sentence, the point is that killing a person can be either excusable (what you and I usually hope for) or justified (usually used for LEOs) because you were believe you are facing imminent death or great/serious bodily injury. You do not have to prove you were going to die - but you do have to convince a jury that they would also have reasonably believed they were facing imminent death or great/serious bodily injury if they did not use deadly force. Not "could be if he takes one more step" or might be "if he points that kitchen knife at me" but right there/right then you were going to die or be maimed if you did not stop him first - and a common result of stopping someone via the use of dealy force is that person ends up dead.

    Having said that, there are 800+ years of Common Law and 250+ years of Virginia law and court decisions that refine that to the point that lawyers need lawyers to explain to them just what it means.

    Most good CHP classes - and ProShooter's is one of the best - have little to do with how to carry discretely but a lot of coverage about not only where and when you can carry discretely along with some overview about the use of deadly force and about Castle Doctrine, which is a subset of Common Law dealing with deadly force when someone comes into your house.

    Hang on, as I'm just about around 3rd base and about to bring this all home for you -

    HB1415 was an attempt to take Castle Doctrine and reduce it to a legal statute. Many folks were and remain opposed to doing that because they believe it will remove many protections offered by Common Law. Others thought that Castle Doctrine really meant civil immunity for the use of deadly force, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

    Should be clear as mud now. My job is done.

    Go pester User about when he is going to hold another Sefl Defense seminar. A CHP class is also worth the investment.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    [QUOTE=TFred;1894661....

    My one comment/question to you is, how could one "prove" that they were in fear for their life? Fear is an emotion, there is simply no way to prove something inside a person's head. The actual justifications are a bit more complex than that, but are also expressed in terms that can actually be grasped by ordinary individuals.

    Someone will come along with a few links, I suspect.

    TFred[/QUOTE]

    TFred - always happy to oblige.

    stay safe.

    http://www.virginia1774.org/Page6.html

    Fear Alone is not Enough



    Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 553 S.E.2d 733 (2001).
    "The principles governing a plea of self-defense are well-established. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder, and in making such a plea, a "defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors." McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). The "bare fear" of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. Stoneman v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 887, 900 (1874). "There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time." Vlastaris v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 647, 652, 178 S.E. 775, 776 (1935). See also Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 975, 234 S.E.2d 286, 290 (1977); Mercer v. Commonwealth, 150 Va. 588, 597, 142 S.E. 369, 371 (1928). In other words, a defendant "must wait till some overt act is done[,] . . . till the danger becomes imminent." Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 652, 178 S.E. at 777. In the context of a self-defense plea, "imminent danger" is defined as "[a]n immediate, real threat to one's safety . . . ." Black's Law Dictionary 399 (7th ed. 1999). "There must be . . . some act menacing present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution." Byrd v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 536, 539, 16 S.E. 727, 729 (1893).
    In holding that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, the Court of Appeals construed the term "imminent" to mean something less than "immediate." Sands, 33 Va. App. at 678, 536 S.E.2d at 465 (quoting Sam v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 312, 325, 411 S.E.2d 832, 839 (1991)). Applying its view of that term, the Court of Appeals concluded that, "[u]nder the facts of this case, the fact finder could reasonably have concluded that [the defendant] was without fault in beginning the altercation, reasonably apprehended she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and, thus, was justified in shooting her husband to prevent him from killing her or further inflicting serious bodily harm upon her." Sands, 33 Va. App. at 679, 536 S.E.2d at 465. We agree that the defendant reasonably believed that she was in danger of serious bodily harm or death. Nevertheless, that reasonable belief is not dispositive of the issue before us in this appeal. The question here is whether the circumstances immediately surrounding the killing, specifically, the actions of the defendant's husband at that time, were sufficient to create a reasonable belief of an imminent danger which had to be met. [emphasis added]
    Go read the rest of it. It's instructive as well aas a good way to learn how to read case law.
    Last edited by skidmark; 02-08-2013 at 02:04 AM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by cjakesnyder1988 View Post
    I was hoping that HB1415 would pass but it looks like it didnt. I am having a hard time understanding what the law says about lethal force. From what I understand, you have to be able to legally prove you were in fear for your life. IE if someone kicked down my door right now, I would probably not shoot them. But if they presented a knife or firearm, it would then be lethal force justifying lethal? Hope I am NEVER in the situation but want to make sure I can protect my wife and child.

    Thanks
    If you kick in my door I'm not waiting to see what weapon you have or don't have, one of us is going down.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Someone explain Virginia " Common Law" to a new resident
    Here's the imprecise explanation.

    Think back to the 900's AD in England. There was no Parliament to pass statutes aka statutory law. There was only legal traditions and practices; and what little written law that existed was probably in Latin. These legal traditions were the common law. As the judiciary evolved, it was their role to say what the law was, based on their understanding of the legal tradition at issue in a particular case. The word jurisdiction is juris + diction. Diction comes from Latin, to speak or say.

    Over time, the judiciary wrote down its decisions, including the legal tradition the decision was based on.

    So, today, the term common law usually means the body of law found in court opinions. For example, "the common law on self-defense is found in court opinions, rather than the VA statutes." And, the other meaning for common law is the ancient legal traditions. For example, "Magna Carta required trial according to the common laws so as to restrict him from arbitrarily passing his own laws."

    Essentially, there's been a millenium long evolution where unwritten law was being learned, interpreted, and written down by the judiciary. Since VA was one of the original thirteen colonies, we inherited that from England. The Jamestown colonists brought it with them in their charter from the king. Says so right in the charter which you can google. And, today, one of VA's statutes ties that law in to our laws--its early on the list of statutes, but I can't remember the statute number. Its in Chapter 1 of the Code. It basically says something along the lines that English law as it stood in fourth year of the reign of James I is embodied in our law (where not repugnant to our constitutions). The fourth year of James I is 1607, which is also the year Jamestown was founded.

    Today, the usual term for law found in court opinions is case law. Its a little tricky. If you are referring to very old case law, or case law that is rooted in very old legal traditions, you might use the term common law. Whereas, if you are referring to law in more recent court opinions or law in a court opinion where the judges interpreted a statute instead of applying an old legal tradition, you would just refer to that law as case law. For example, "What's the case law on driving while intoxicated?" Since the fundamental law on self-defense goes way back in England, we usually refer to it as the common law on self-defense. (But not self-defence. )

    There is an OCDO member who is collecting the VA common law/case law on self-defense. His website is something like VA1774(dot)org. You can read tons of stuff all in one place. If any other readers have that link, please post it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-08-2013 at 09:36 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    You needn't wait until you are in fear of imminent death; imminent danger of serious bodily harm with suffice.

    You would do well to try to take a course/seminar on the use of deadly force in Virginia. I have taken three courses held by user (Dan) and one held by ProShooter. All were well worth the time and small amount of money, and I strongly suggest you do the same at your earliest convenience.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You needn't wait until you are in fear of imminent death; imminent danger of serious bodily harm with suffice.

    You would do well to try to take a course/seminar on the use of deadly force in Virginia. I have taken three courses held by user (Dan) and one held by ProShooter. All were well worth the time and small amount of money, and I strongly suggest you do the same at your earliest convenience.
    Cite, please.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You needn't wait until you are in fear of imminent death; imminent danger of serious bodily harm with suffice.

    You would do well to try to take a course/seminar on the use of deadly force in Virginia. I have taken three courses held by user (Dan) and one held by ProShooter. All were well worth the time and small amount of money, and I strongly suggest you do the same at your earliest convenience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    Here is one of User's more recent posts on the subject.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    When William the Bastard (so called because he was the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy) beat Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and turned himself into William the Conqueror, he took England as his personal property. Not wishing to try to enforce Norman law all over the country all at once with his relatively small band of Norman knights and nobles, he left the local lords in place, some of which were the descendants of prior Danish conquerors, some Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc. England was a hodge-podge of local law administered by local lords and bishops. So when cases bubbled up through the system to the Lord High Chancellor of the Exchequer, they attempted to reconcile all that local stuff in terms of what was generally the average, normal, and "common" law.

    That was in 1066, the date to which Virginia dates its legal system. The reason for that is a pair of statutes, sections 1-200 and 1-201, which essentially say that whatever the law of England was as of the founding of Jamestown, that's what the law of Virginia is today, unless changed by statute or "repugnant" to the Constitution or laws of Virginia. Thus, most of Virginia's law is not in the Code, but in case decisions.

    Here's a little wrinke that's confused people, even the Courts, on occasion. Even though Virginia is a common law jurisdiction, and thus cognate to other common law jurisdictions such as Kenya, India, Ohio, and South Carolina (and alien to foreign law based on the inquisitorial civil law system, such as France, Spain, and Louisianna), we do not have common law courts. The Court of Queen's Bench is free to make up new stuff and thus "discover the common law", the process by which all common law was identified as such. A court in Virginia is a creature of our Constitution which places legislative authority in the General Assembly. So the common law of Virginia is whatever the law of England was in 1607, but it is frozen in time. For example, flogging was an appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor in 1607; Virginia has never explicitly abolished flogging, though there is a statute prescribing other exclusive punishments. England formally abolished flogging in 1811. But if Virginia's statute prescribing other punishments were repealed, then theoretically, Virginia courts could start ordering that misdemeanants be flogged.

    The castle doctrine comes from a case in England in 1603 (four years before the cut off date) and is thus good law in Virginia. Multiple cases in the Virginia Supreme Court have referred to it with approval. But that's generally referred to as "defense of habitation" in the cases. If I can paraphrase, it says that you have the right to meet a home invasion with deadly force if necessary. You don't have the right to kill a "mere trespasser", nor do you have the right to protect other property with deadly force. But the castle doctrine has nothing to do with self defense or defense of other persons, per se. The NRA's ILA proposals persist in confusing defense of habitation with self defense. I can only conclude that (1) they don't have a clue about Virginia law, and (2) they just want to say they got legislation through in order to look good.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    When William the Bastard (so called because he was the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy) beat Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and turned himself into William the Conqueror, he took England as his personal property. Not wishing to try to enforce Norman law all over the country all at once with his relatively small band of Norman knights and nobles, he left the local lords in place, some of which were the descendants of prior Danish conquerors, some Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc. England was a hodge-podge of local law administered by local lords and bishops. So when cases bubbled up through the system to the Lord High Chancellor of the Exchequer, they attempted to reconcile all that local stuff in terms of what was generally the average, normal, and "common" law.

    That was in 1066, the date to which Virginia dates its legal system. The reason for that is a pair of statutes, sections 1-200 and 1-201, which essentially say that whatever the law of England was as of the founding of Jamestown, that's what the law of Virginia is today, unless changed by statute or "repugnant" to the Constitution or laws of Virginia. Thus, most of Virginia's law is not in the Code, but in case decisions.

    Here's a little wrinke that's confused people, even the Courts, on occasion. Even though Virginia is a common law jurisdiction, and thus cognate to other common law jurisdictions such as Kenya, India, Ohio, and South Carolina (and alien to foreign law based on the inquisitorial civil law system, such as France, Spain, and Louisianna), we do not have common law courts. The Court of Queen's Bench is free to make up new stuff and thus "discover the common law", the process by which all common law was identified as such. A court in Virginia is a creature of our Constitution which places legislative authority in the General Assembly. So the common law of Virginia is whatever the law of England was in 1607, but it is frozen in time. For example, flogging was an appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor in 1607; Virginia has never explicitly abolished flogging, though there is a statute prescribing other exclusive punishments. England formally abolished flogging in 1811. But if Virginia's statute prescribing other punishments were repealed, then theoretically, Virginia courts could start ordering that misdemeanants be flogged.

    The castle doctrine comes from a case in England in 1603 (four years before the cut off date) and is thus good law in Virginia. Multiple cases in the Virginia Supreme Court have referred to it with approval. But that's generally referred to as "defense of habitation" in the cases. If I can paraphrase, it says that you have the right to meet a home invasion with deadly force if necessary. You don't have the right to kill a "mere trespasser", nor do you have the right to protect other property with deadly force. But the castle doctrine has nothing to do with self defense or defense of other persons, per se. The NRA's ILA proposals persist in confusing defense of habitation with self defense. I can only conclude that (1) they don't have a clue about Virginia law, and (2) they just want to say they got legislation through in order to look good.
    ....

  14. #14
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    ....
    Some how I actually understand most of it.
    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf_shadow View Post
    Some how I actually understand most of it.
    Me too, but I've heard it before.
    User has a flair for giving the BIG picture!

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You needn't wait until you are in fear of imminent death; imminent danger of serious bodily harm with suffice.

    You would do well to try to take a course/seminar on the use of deadly force in Virginia. I have taken three courses held by user (Dan) and one held by ProShooter. All were well worth the time and small amount of money, and I strongly suggest you do the same at your earliest convenience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    Go read post #6 again and again till it sinks in. "The "bare fear" of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. "There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time."

    Then they discussed the difference between "imminent" and "immediate" - they do not mean the same thing

    Then they came back to the decision that "fear" of imminent death or "fear" of imminent serious bodily injury was just not sufficient to justify killing someone. Their words, not mine.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    Three of user's "Use of Deadly Force" classes.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Go read post #6 again and again till it sinks in. "The "bare fear" of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. "There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time."

    Then they discussed the difference between "imminent" and "immediate" - they do not mean the same thing

    Then they came back to the decision that "fear" of imminent death or "fear" of imminent serious bodily injury was just not sufficient to justify killing someone. Their words, not mine.

    stay safe.
    1. I never mentioned "bare fear", I said "fear".

    2. "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is faced with the imminent (or immediate) threat of serious bodily injury, then you may use whatever force is necessary, up to and including deadly force, to quell the threat." [Dan's words which I have pretty much committed to memory]

    One never knows how a jury is going to rule. This is why I want a darned good lawyer should the event ever arise where I am put in the situation where I need such services.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    1. I never mentioned "bare fear", I said "fear".

    2. "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is faced with the imminent (or immediate) threat of serious bodily injury, then you may use whatever force is necessary, up to and including deadly force, to quell the threat." [Dan's words which I have pretty much committed to memory]

    One never knows how a jury is going to rule. This is why I want a darned good lawyer should the event ever arise where I am put in the situation where I need such services.
    This ^^ is why we have lawyers and courts that hand down opinions. "Bare fear" and mere "fear" - someone tell me what the difference is in the context involved. No, don't actually do that - it's a rhetorical request.

    Adding "(or immediate)" when VASC took the time to discuss the difference between imminent and immediate - why? No, don't answer that - it's a rhetorical question. (Anybody that understands the difference that VASC drew between the two terms may award themselves bonus points.)

    Making your darned good lawyer's job that much more complicated - not a good idea.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This ^^ is why we have lawyers and courts that hand down opinions. "Bare fear" and mere "fear" - someone tell me what the difference is in the context involved. No, don't actually do that - it's a rhetorical request. ...
    I'll do it anyway, rhetorical or not. Bare fear, or fear alone without more, does not justify the use of force at all. It is irrelevant to whether or not force is necessary. A reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, is necessary, and may or may not be held in conjunction with fear. One case says that we don't care how brave or timid the defender may be. So emotional reactions, or voices from the back of one's head, without a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, doesn't create the necessity for self-defense, neither does it obviate that necessity. How y'all like them apples?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I'll do it anyway, rhetorical or not. Bare fear, or fear alone without more, does not justify the use of force at all. It is irrelevant to whether or not force is necessary. A reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, is necessary, and may or may not be held in conjunction with fear. One case says that we don't care how brave or timid the defender may be. So emotional reactions, or voices from the back of one's head, without a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, doesn't create the necessity for self-defense, neither does it obviate that necessity. How y'all like them apples?
    Perhaps you could offer a ridiculous example that would help explain this. Suppose someone had an intense fear of grasshoppers. I'm sure that there have been a handful of people who for one reason or another, have become absolutely, even if irrationally afraid of grasshoppers. Now if someone comes along with a small box full of chirping grasshoppers, and threatens to dump them on the head of this fearful person, there may be all kinds of observable evidence that the person was intensely fearful of the situation. But I don't believe that would give justification to use deadly force to prevent a grasshopper shower, no matter how afraid the person might be.

    User, does that work? Or maybe that just adds unnecessary complications.

    TFred

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Correct; you have learned, Grasshopper. Hence the phrase, "reasonably held". Similarly, a person may have an irrational fear of being touched by others. But Howie Mandel doesn't have the right to shoot someone just because that person maliciously threatens to touch him. On the other hand, if the person is threatening to touch him with the pointy end of a Bowie knife, he does have the right to shoot, because, although afraid, he also has the apprehension of an immediate battery likely to cause serious bodily injury. Now, if we substitute Bruce Lee for Howie Mandel, he might have no fear at all, because he knows he can overcome the attack. But even though he is fearless, he still has the right to overcome the attack by whatever means are reasonably necessary.

    "Fear is not an option." - "True Lies".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I'll do it anyway, rhetorical or not. .... How y'all like them apples?
    Well played. [/golf clap]

    I notice you did elect to take the stroke regarding the difference between imminent and immediate. Discretion is the better part, and all that.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member BillB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    201
    When someone can argue what the meaning of is is, I'm not all that confident that the meaning of reasonable is, eh, reasonably consistent.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by BillB View Post
    When someone can argue what the meaning of is is, I'm not all that confident that the meaning of reasonable is, eh, reasonably consistent.
    "Reasonable" is, like this, see, I see it this way. You know, the way I'm seeing it right now. That's what "reasonable" means.
    Last edited by user; 02-12-2013 at 04:48 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •