Someone explain Virginia " Common Law" to a new resident

user said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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".

user said:

I'll do it anyway, rhetorical or not. .... How y'all like them apples?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

BillB said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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.