Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Roanoke Intruder Shot and Killed Overnight

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Roanoke Intruder Shot and Killed Overnight

    ROANOKE, Va. - A resident shot and killed a suspected robber at a Roanoke apartment complex Thursday night. ...Police believe the incident started as an attempted home invasion robbery.

    I'll be interested to see what Roanoke police will do to the resident who apparently was forced into a tragic choice by the intruder, given that Roanoke PD hasn't always been particularly friendly to folks who carry and use firearms for defense.


    http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/susp...4/-/index.html

    http://www.wset.com/story/23299317/r...ng-charges-yet

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    I'll be interested to see what Roanoke police will do to the resident who apparently was forced into a tragic choice by the intruder, given that Roanoke PD hasn't always been particularly friendly to folks who carry and use firearms for defense.
    Yep....it needs to be watched closely!

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Indeed and it shall be.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

    But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

    Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

    But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

    Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.
    You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.

    No thank you on open season on trespassers....especially w/o cause.

    David Carradine was not shot and killed. His death was found to be an "accident" - suffocation.
    http://www.people.com/people/article...289267,00.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post

    David Carradine was not shot and killed. His death was found to be an "accident" - suffocation.
    http://www.people.com/people/article...289267,00.html
    But David was previously on drugs, broke into someone's house, cutting himself, and the cops just followed the trail of blood to his house and arrested him.

    Circa 1972...

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Returning to the point of the thread - will be looking for more detail and follow-up information.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.
    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.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    That was User's interpretation several months ago.
    If you have something to counter it....

    CITE it!



  10. #10
    Regular Member half_life1052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    271

    Is this sufficient?

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one
    may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own
    house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists
    in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed.
    1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case. Alexander v.
    Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

    But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

    Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.
    This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.

    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

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    [QUOTE=Grapeshot;1978622]You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.--snipped--QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That was User's interpretation several months ago.
    If you have something to counter it....

    CITE it!
    Quote Originally Posted by half_life1052 View Post
    Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one
    may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own
    house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists
    in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed.
    1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case. Alexander v.
    Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).
    Citizen is gaming me. The condition is well known in Virginia and his been pointed out by User many times.
    Here is a little history though for the less informed: https://www.google.com/search?q=va+s...ient=firefox-a

    I choose to emphasize that if the CA did bring charges that the homeowner would "likely be found to be justified."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

    But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

    Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    --snipped--
    No thank you on open season on trespassers....especially w/o cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.
    stay safe.
    I was perhaps remiss in downplaying the severity of McBeth's remarks with my "No thank you" above.

    Reevaluation, even with tongue in cheek consideration (which was not so shown,) is over the top and cannot be accepted or condoned on OCDO. Words and the impression that they leave are important. We do NOT advocate breaking the law. Period. Exclamation point!
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-30-2013 at 06:49 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I was perhaps remiss in downplaying the severity of McBeth's remarks with my "No thank you" above.

    Reevaluation, even with tongue in cheek consideration (which was not so shown,) is over the top and cannot be accepted or condoned on OCDO. Words and the impression that they leave are important. We do NOT advocate breaking the law. Period. Exclamation point!
    I suggest folks reevaluate the posting ... see the word SHOULD ... expressing a desire as to how the law should be, not is...at least in the state involved.

    Louisiana allows or used to allow just that (have not looked up the law in LA lately) - that a person could shoot someone w/o cause other than just being on their property.

    So its nothing new or novel folks ... Grape had it right the 1st time
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-30-2013 at 07:39 PM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.

    stay safe.
    Just advocating new laws to aid homeowners when they defend their family ... sorry, but your post is the offensive one here.

    Thanks for playing though !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

    ps I'm sure the homeowner would now support such a law ~ he probably has already spent a couple of thousand on lawyers by now
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-30-2013 at 07:48 PM.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I suggest folks reevaluate the posting ... see the word SHOULD ... expressing a desire as to how the law should be, not is...at least in the state involved.

    Louisiana allows or used to allow just that (have not looked up the law in LA lately) - that a person could shoot someone w/o cause other than just being on their property.

    So its nothing new or novel folks ... Grape had it right the 1st time
    No David, he got it right the second time. Killing someone is a pretty serious thing. I get a little disgusted at some here and especially you, who think it's some rite of manhood, or is as simple as a Saturday night barfight.

    When you're not getting all the facts wrong you're quoting some other state's law.

    This is Virginia! Shooting someone just for being on the wrong side of a property line is not OK and hopefully never will be!

    There are some shadowy spots we need to clear up in the Commonwealth but I think we can do it without input from up North.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    No David, he got it right the second time. Killing someone is a pretty serious thing. I get a little disgusted at some here and especially you, who think it's some rite of manhood, or is as simple as a Saturday night barfight.

    When you're not getting all the facts wrong you're quoting some other state's law.

    This is Virginia! Shooting someone just for being on the wrong side of a property line is not OK and hopefully never will be!

    There are some shadowy spots we need to clear up in the Commonwealth but I think we can do it without input from up North.
    Again, I advocate laws to ease the burden of homeowners in defending their family. You find this disgusting, that's fine ~ you are entitled to your opinion. I would have zero issues shooting an intruder in my house ~ I would sleep well and sound. If we had laws like I propose then I assure you, home burglaries would plummet.

    Killing is really not that serious~its defensive ... murder, on the other hand, is quite serious. They are different. You should learn the difference. Especially if you are going to carry a gun around. If you think that you cannot kill then why carry?

    Don't support the right to shoot someone just for being on your land?
    Then why in your house?
    Oh, you have to wait until they cross the threshold of your entry door?
    Or the threshold of the room you are in in the house (because just crossing the threshold may not mean you are in mortal danger ~ you might be 2 floors away)?

    See why the law allowing the shooting of folks on your land is better? Its a line being infinitely thin - a known and well established line.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-30-2013 at 08:19 PM.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Again, I advocate laws to ease the burden of homeowners in defending their family. You find this disgusting, that's fine ~ you are entitled to your opinion. I would have zero issues shooting an intruder in my house ~ I would sleep well and sound. If we had laws like I propose then I assure you, home burglaries would plummet.

    Killing is really not that serious~its defensive ... murder, on the other hand, is quite serious. They are different. You should learn the difference. Especially if you are going to carry a gun around. If you think that you cannot kill then why carry?
    David - unfortuneately the more you say, the worse it gets.

    Primary definition of "should" aux.v. Past tense of shall 1. Used to express obligation or duty. Therefore you were advocating "that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed." Totall unacceptable on OCDO and a violation of the rules.

    Taking another human being's life is extremely serious.

    You obviously do not know Virginia's laws either. Intentionally taking a lfe (homicide) and murder are essentually the same. If charged and prosecuted, there will be no "not guilty" verdict possible. The only decisions favorable to you would be "justified" or "excuseable" homicide.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+or+Excusable+Homicide


    http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    [QUOTE=Grapeshot;1978658]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post

    Citizen is gaming me.

    The condition is well known in Virginia and his been pointed out by User many times.


    Here is a little history though for the less informed: https://www.google.com/search?q=va+s...ient=firefox-a

    Well, Mr. Moderator-Who-Thinks-He's-Above-The-Rules, I've got a newsflash for you. I personally have no information about the presumption of bodily harm after dark angle. So, I would appreciate an actual cite for my own education.

    And, you're way off base with the condition being well-known in VA. I didn't even know about castle doctrine at all before I got connected up with gun rights. Meaning, there may be new readers who view your post and won't know.

    Be that as it may, the forum rules don't say to cite "unless the condition is well known".

    And, your website link sucks. That's not a cite. That's a "find your own cite."

    The fact of the matter is, you can't cite.

    Thanks a lot for the useless, off-base, conclusion-jumping attack, ***hole.
    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.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Can anybody cite case(s) where the judiciary articulated a common-law principle whereby if your home is intruded after dark, the law presumes a threat of bodily harm justifying lethal force without further acts by the intruder?
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-30-2013 at 08:55 PM.
    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.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.
    the law is an ass for providing a distinction between day or night in regards to a break in.
    it hypocritically discriminates by demonstrating a lack of 'tolerance for diversity', and possibly
    violates the spirit of the ADA. a visually impaired person would likely presume an intent of
    bodily harm irregardless if they were eating breakfast or a midnight snack. ;->~

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    [QUOTE=Citizen;1978698]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Well, Mr. Moderator-Who-Thinks-He's-Above-The-Rules, I've got a newsflash for you. I personally have no information about the presumption of bodily harm after dark angle. So, I would appreciate an actual cite for my own education.

    And, you're way off base with the condition being well-known in VA. I didn't even know about castle doctrine at all before I got connected up with gun rights. Meaning, there may be new readers who view your post and won't know.

    Be that as it may, the forum rules don't say to cite "unless the condition is well known".

    And, your website link sucks. That's not a cite. That's a "find your own cite."

    The fact of the matter is, you can't cite.

    Thanks a lot for the useless, off-base, conclusion-jumping attack, ***hole.
    I find that when someone wishes to dig a hole for themselves with personal attacks and smart aleck remarks it can be better to let them rant and watch the hole get deeper.....up to a point. You just used your free pass. Further such will be dealt with differently - you know the drill.

    Specifically what I said was, "You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified." The principal "presumption" is mine (also User's) though I did direct others to where they might research it further if they like. Insofar as "likely found to be justified" that obviously depends on the homeowner being w/o fault. I will continue with that belief.

    For a person who has a decent ability to research, you IMO mitigate your value by behavior such as this. You have made repeated public attacks upon me on OCDO, knowing full well that there is proper way to express any dissatisfaction to that regard. You have expressly been so advised before. Lest you find some pleasure in your attacks, be aware that it does not cause me any concern whatsoever - it simply goes with the territory and falls on the shoulders of those unable to communicate properly..
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Can anybody cite case(s) where the judiciary articulated a common-law principle whereby if your home is intruded after dark, the law presumes a threat of bodily harm justifying lethal force without further acts by the intruder?
    I tried using my Google-fu skills with no success. I am curious about this, too. This is pretty important as where I am moving (hopefully soon) there have been incidents of poaching on the property and encroachment on the home. If a strange fellow were to appear inside the house one night I don't want to be second guessing or have my actions/ reactions hindered by doubt. I guess some might say if you feel the need to defend yourself, then do it, but actual code/cites would be helpful.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by FBrinson View Post
    I tried using my Google-fu skills with no success. I am curious about this, too. This is pretty important as where I am moving (hopefully soon) there have been incidents of poaching on the property and encroachment on the home. If a strange fellow were to appear inside the house one night I don't want to be second guessing or have my actions/ reactions hindered by doubt. I guess some might say if you feel the need to defend yourself, then do it, but actual code/cites would be helpful.
    Com. v. Alexander, 531 SE 2d 567 - Va: Supreme Court 2000

    Here's one ... of course different states have different law

    The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, [25 N.C. 186] 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: "When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies. There is a recklessness — a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one's self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors. You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty." See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-30-2013 at 11:25 PM.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Com. v. Alexander, 531 SE 2d 567 - Va: Supreme Court 2000
    In this appeal, we decide whether a deadly weapon may be brandished in defense of personal property.

    Jon Douglas Alexander was charged with attempted murder in Rockbridge County.   At a preliminary hearing on that charge, the general district court reduced the charge to that of brandishing a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-282 and convicted defendant Alexander of that charge.1
    So, if nothing else, we are off point right out of the starting gate. But let's play just a bit longer.

    The defendant appealed his conviction to the circuit court.   In a jury trial, the defendant tendered, but the court refused to grant, instructions advising the jury that if it found the defendant had brandished the firearm because he reasonably felt that it was necessary to protect his personal property from loss, the jury could find him not guilty.   The jury found the defendant guilty of the crime charged and the circuit court entered judgment on the verdict.

    Upon the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the trial court had erred in refusing the tendered instructions, and it reversed and remanded the case.
    So we kinda-sorta get close to the questioon of it being OK to shoot in defense of property. Let's see where that went.

    Michael T. Eustler, an agent of the lienholder of the defendant's vehicle, sought to repossess the vehicle.   When Eustler arrived at the defendant's home, the defendant agreed to its repossession provided he could remove certain papers and tools valuable to him and having nothing to do with the vehicle being repossessed.   Although Eustler agreed to permit the defendant to retrieve the items, Eustler “jacked up” the vehicle as the defendant was partially in the front seat.   Eustler approached the defendant in a belligerent manner, and demanded the keys to the vehicle.

    Feeling threatened, the defendant entered his house and emerged with the keys as well as an unloaded rifle which he placed in a flower bed that was close to the vehicle.   When Eustler again approached in a belligerent manner, the defendant retrieved the rifle and held it at his side.   The defendant felt compelled to raise the rifle to his shoulder when he thought that Eustler was going to assault him.   However, the defendant did not point the gun at Eustler until Eustler kept coming at him, at which time, Eustler “finally backed off.”
    Oh, dear sweet and fluffy baby zenu - he felt threatened. Because someone approached him in a belligerant manner. Belligerance, remember, is an offering of violence. But what was the specific violence being offered? The defendant then thought the victim was going to assault him. We can overlook that the VASC meant the defendant thought the victim was going to batter him and just press on to asking "assualt" with what?

    But the court goes on to discuss the notion of protecting person and property without informing us as to the means of the "assualt" the defendant feared.

    Although the trial court instructed the jury to find the defendant not guilty if it found that he brandished the rifle in reasonable defense of his person, the court refused to include a similar provision in the instructions if the jury believed that the defendant brandished the rifle in reasonable defense of his property.   The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant's contention that he was entitled to the refused jury instruction.

     We need not resolve the defendant's claim that Eustler's actions were “unwarranted and illegal ․ in attempting, by other than peaceful means, to unlawfully take [defendant's] personal property.”   Even if Eustler's actions were unwarranted or illegal, the defendant, as an owner of personal property, did not have the right to assert or defend his possessory rights thereto by the use of deadly force.   In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 842-43, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900), we said:

    The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, [25 N.C. 186] 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows:  “When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm.   It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies.   There is a recklessness-a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one's self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors.   You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right.   You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.”   See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850.
    I'm now going to skip over a lot of meaty discussion to go directly to David Macbeth's claim of a right to use deadly force in defense against trespass.

    Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon.  Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373.   Indeed, in Montgomery, it was the landowner's brandishing of a sharpened corn-cutter that provoked the defendant's physical assertion of his right of self-defense.  98 Va. at 841-43, 36 S.E. at 372-73.
    Now we come to the piece de resistance - David Macbeth cited this case supposedly in defense of the position he has been advocating. What, pray tell, was the actual decision of the Virginia Supreme Court?

    For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal property.
    If I am not mistaken, that's exactly opposite of what he has been advocating. I'm going to check with my psychotherapist friends to see what precise medical terms they would use to describe someone who does that, just to see how close their terms come to crazy.

    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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