paramedic70002
Regular Member
Author of VA's failed Castle Doctrine legislation apparently doesn't understand VA's Common Law that he was trying to Codify.
http://news.fredericksburg.com/news...is-clearly-spelled-out/#.Ufb4DnK--IA.facebook
Mr. Hawes sets him straight in the comments!
http://news.fredericksburg.com/news...is-clearly-spelled-out/#.Ufb4DnK--IA.facebook
Mr. Hawes sets him straight in the comments!
“We do have a duty to retreat in Virginia,” Stuart added. “If you are threatened, and you have the ability to retreat and remove yourself from the threat, then you’ve got a responsibility to do that before you shoot to kill.”
Daniel L. Hawes, Esq. • 17 hours ago
1. "Stand your ground" law is not related to the "castle doctrine"; the former is a rule ancillary to the law of self defense and the latter is about defense of one's habitation and dwelling. So the third paragraph in the article is nonsense.
2. Both "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" are part of Virginia law. The fact that there is no specific statute in the Code regarding these principles is irrelevant, because they are common law precepts, included by reference by Va. Code sections 1-200 and 1-201. Most of the law of Virginia is NOT in the Code. The proposed statutes introduced in 2012 were labelled "castle doctrine" bills but would actually have limited the rights of Virginians drastically; that's why they were not passed.
3. Home defense and self defense are two different areas of law; they do not have the same elements and are not governed by the same principles. Both are more complex than would be suggested by the article, but there is no requirement for a specific threat to life in either. You cannot use deadly force to defend "mere" property; but a dwelling is not "mere" property, and different rules apply to defense of the home than other areas or things in which one may have a property interest. In fact, there is no requirement, in defending one's home, that he have any property interest in the home at all.
4. There is no general duty to retreat in the law of self defense. That duty only arises in the "imperfect" form of the law of self defense, in which the person defending was at fault in initiating the conflict that led to the attack. I summarize the "perfect" form this way: "If a person reasonably believes, based on objective fact, that he or another innocent person, is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then he may use whatever force he believes is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to stop that threat."
Comment by Daniel L. Hawes, Esq. (www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com)