Silly Question

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?

Click to expand...

I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
§ 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?

Click to expand...

I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
§ 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.

imported post

Legal or not, a stray dogattacking me or my animals will quietly end up in a deep hole.

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.

Click to expand...

+1, That's what I was just about to point out.

"unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another"

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

skidmark wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?

Click to expand...

I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
§ 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.

Click to expand...

WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE WORDS PRINTED ABOVE!

If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property

Click to expand...

Now, I'm no big fan of the limitations the law puts on pet owners who find their pets under attack off their own property, but the point is you need to start from where the law starts.

It's all good to talk about how you feel, and what you want to do in spite of the limitations the law puts on your scenario, but if you are off your property and shoot the attacking mutt you are in for some problems.

Possibly a good lawyer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could get the Commonwealth Attorney or judge to dismiss the charge(s), and maybe get the civil case thrown out. But then again, maybe the best lawyer out there would strike out in your case.:uhoh:

Big talk is just that. You are better off understanding what the law - and case law - says about the situation than blustering about how you will handle things yourself. Some of you folks are the kinds of bad examples you complain all the time about.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

skidmark wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?

Click to expand...

I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
§ 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.

Click to expand...

WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE WORDS PRINTED ABOVE!

If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property

Click to expand...

Now, I'm no big fan of the limitations the law puts on pet owners who find their pets under attack off their own property, but the point is you need to start from where the law starts.

It's all good to talk about how you feel, and what you want to do in spite of the limitations the law puts on your scenario, but if you are off your property and shoot the attacking mutt you are in for some problems.

Possibly a good lawyer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could get the Commonwealth Attorney or judge to dismiss the charge(s), and maybe get the civil case thrown out. But then again, maybe the best lawyer out there would strike out in your case.:uhoh:

Big talk is just that. You are better off understanding what the law - and case law - says about the situation than blustering about how you will handle things yourself. Some of you folks are the kinds of bad examples you complain all the time about.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Maybe you should learn to read before you go around telling others how f****d up they are. In EVERY paragraph in 3.1-796.122 they use the word "unnecessarily". In every paragraph they go out of their way to give you an out for self defense, even if they don't specifically mention it.

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

skidmark wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

skidmark wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?

Click to expand...

I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
§ 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.

Click to expand...

WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE WORDS PRINTED ABOVE!

If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property

Click to expand...

Now, I'm no big fan of the limitations the law puts on pet owners who find their pets under attack off their own property, but the point is you need to start from where the law starts.

It's all good to talk about how you feel, and what you want to do in spite of the limitations the law puts on your scenario, but if you are off your property and shoot the attacking mutt you are in for some problems.

Possibly a good lawyer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could get the Commonwealth Attorney or judge to dismiss the charge(s), and maybe get the civil case thrown out. But then again, maybe the best lawyer out there would strike out in your case.:uhoh:

Big talk is just that. You are better off understanding what the law - and case law - says about the situation than blustering about how you will handle things yourself. Some of you folks are the kinds of bad examples you complain all the time about.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Maybe you should learn to read before you go around telling others how f****d up they are. In EVERY paragraph in 3.1-796.122 they use the word "unnecessarily". In every paragraph they go out of their way to give you an out for self defense, even if they don't specifically mention it.

Click to expand...

The only place the Code of Virginia grants a pet owner permission to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property. You kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of personal property -- your prescious pet -- anywhere else and you violate 3.1-796.122 . The Code of Virginia is very clear on defining your pet as a piece of property,

see:

§ 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.

An animal control officer or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat, or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such animal pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven days, the animal control officer or other officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner.

The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner, and the animal control officer may take such animal in charge and notify its legal owner to remove it. The legal owner of the animal shall pay a reasonable charge as the local governing body by ordinance shall establish for the keep of such animal while in the possession of the animal control officer.

(1984, c. 492, § 29-213.95; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817.)

and telling you that you cannot kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of property if the attack takes place off your real property. Your recourse under the law is to find the owner of the attacking dog and sue trhem for the value of the property that was damaged or destroyed.

Perchance you would explain to me how killing an attacking dog in defense of your personal property would be "necessary" as regards 3.1-796.122. I would appreciate your including § 3.1-796.93:1and § 3.1-796.116in your treatise, as those sections will also be considered by the Commonwealth Attorney.


BTW, I never told anyone "how f****d up they are." I pointed out that their comments were based on emotion and suggested they read the law which clearly limits their ability to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property, and that in spite of their emotions wishing it were different or saying they would ignore the law was "bluster."

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

The only place the Code of Virginia grants a pet owner permission to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property. You kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of personal property -- your prescious pet -- anywhere else and you violate 3.1-796.122 . The Code of Virginia is very clear on defining your pet as a piece of property,

see:

§ 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.

An animal control officer or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat, or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such animal pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven days, the animal control officer or other officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner.

The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner, and the animal control officer may take such animal in charge and notify its legal owner to remove it. The legal owner of the animal shall pay a reasonable charge as the local governing body by ordinance shall establish for the keep of such animal while in the possession of the animal control officer.

(1984, c. 492, § 29-213.95; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817.)

and telling you that you cannot kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of property if the attack takes place off your real property. Your recourse under the law is to find the owner of the attacking dog and sue trhem for the value of the property that was damaged or destroyed.

Perchance you would explain to me how killing an attacking dog in defense of your personal property would be "necessary" as regards 3.1-796.122. I would appreciate your including § 3.1-796.93:1and § 3.1-796.116in your treatise, as those sections will also be considered by the Commonwealth Attorney.

Click to expand...

Perhaps YOU'D care you actually READ my posts on this thread before you tear them apart, and notice that in EVERY case I was referring to SELF DEFENSE, not defense of an animal.

BTW, I never told anyone "how f****d up they are." I pointed out that their comments were based on emotion and suggested they read the law which clearly limits their ability to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property, and that in spite of their emotions wishing it were different or saying they would ignore the law was "bluster."

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

The hell you didn't. That might not have been your intent, but it was certainly your message.

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

skidmark wrote:

The only place the Code of Virginia grants a pet owner permission to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property. You kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of personal property -- your prescious pet -- anywhere else and you violate 3.1-796.122 . The Code of Virginia is very clear on defining your pet as a piece of property,

see:

§ 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.

An animal control officer or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat, or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such animal pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven days, the animal control officer or other officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner.

The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner, and the animal control officer may take such animal in charge and notify its legal owner to remove it. The legal owner of the animal shall pay a reasonable charge as the local governing body by ordinance shall establish for the keep of such animal while in the possession of the animal control officer.

(1984, c. 492, § 29-213.95; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817.)

and telling you that you cannot kill, attempt to kill, wound or attempt to wound, a dog attacking an object of property if the attack takes place off your real property. Your recourse under the law is to find the owner of the attacking dog and sue trhem for the value of the property that was damaged or destroyed.

Perchance you would explain to me how killing an attacking dog in defense of your personal property would be "necessary" as regards 3.1-796.122. I would appreciate your including § 3.1-796.93:1and § 3.1-796.116in your treatise, as those sections will also be considered by the Commonwealth Attorney.

Click to expand...

Perhaps YOU'D care you actually READ my posts on this thread before you tear them apart, and notice that in EVERY case I was referring to SELF DEFENSE, not defense of an animal.

BTW, I never told anyone "how f****d up they are." I pointed out that their comments were based on emotion and suggested they read the law which clearly limits their ability to use "all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack" is when the attack occurs on the pet owner's property, and that in spite of their emotions wishing it were different or saying they would ignore the law was "bluster."

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

The hell you didn't. That might not have been your intent, but it was certainly your message.

Click to expand...

1. Yes, you referred to self defense. Others have referred to defense of their pet. Sorry you cannot distinguish the singular vs. the plural.

2. Thank you for discerning my intent. Do your psychic powers extend to lottery numbers as well? If so, please tell me trhe winning numbers for next Tuesday.

skidmark

imported post

OK simmer down jentlemen.... This is my thread damn it, no fighting..... LMAO :lol: J/K



Anyways, another question.... If the animal was attacking me I could use self defense even off my property? Just trying to clear this up for myself.....

What happens if my "prescious pet" is being attacked and I try to force the other animal off my dog with out lethal force and it "turns" on me.... Then I would be fearing for my life due to this viscious dog/animal coming after my neck (the storyI would tell the LEO)..... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would then have the right to use lethal force, correct?

Not trying to argue...... Just trying to figure a way around this BS to protect a part of my family (yes,I consider my dog part of the family) for those with out pets you wouldnt understand..... No, I'm not one of thosePETA fools.... I do hunt and kill animals...LOL

imported post

Firefighter194 wrote:

OK simmer down jentlemen.... This is my thread damn it, no fighting..... LMAO :lol: J/K



Anyways, another question.... If the animal was attacking me I could use self defense even off my property? Just trying to clear this up for myself.....

What happens if my "prescious pet" is being attacked and I try to force the other animal off my dog with out lethal force and it "turns" on me.... Then I would be fearing for my life due to this viscious dog/animal coming after my neck (the storyI would tell the LEO)..... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would then have the right to use lethal force, correct?

Not trying to argue...... Just trying to figure a way around this BS to protect a part of my family (yes,I consider my dog part of the family) for those with out pets you wouldnt understand..... No, I'm not one of thosePETA fools.... I do hunt and kill animals...LOL

Click to expand...

Let us go back to

§ 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.
and start from there. Seems that the owner of the dog that attacked you could sue to try and recover damages, but if your story holds up you end up counter-suing him for greater damages (value of his beast vs, your physical & emotional suffering + additional stuf lawyers dream up).

Now, if your actions were ONLY in defense of your self, there should be no problem.

Of course if your pet were injured in any way, you could seek "to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person" as noted above.

AS a side note, my observations are that whenever a dog starts towards another dog which is being walked on a leash by a law-abiding person who did nothing to antagonize the attacking dog, the law-abiding person tends to try and put themself between their pet and the attacking dog. This may be either to shield their pet, or to attempt to control their pet to prevent it from "joining the fray." In either case, it seems that the law-abiding person now becomes the target of the attacking dog, and has every reason to fear imminent grevious/great bodily harm or death from the attacking dog.

Although the attacking dog is merely the personal property of some other person, the law-abiding person would seem reasonable to act to protect themself from the imminent grievious/great bodily harm or death which the attacking dog threatens to inflict. And it would be the case no matter where the law-abiding person was standing - on his own property, in the middle of the street, or in the courthouse!

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Screw the pooch - I can buy another one 'cause it's just personal property, like a spare tire.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

My understanding leads me to this conclusion:

If a sweft kick to the face doesn't dissuade the attack, be it on me or my dog, then I shoot it. My dog is worth buying the asses who let theirs roam free a new dog. Law be damned in this situation. In the case of criminal prosecution, I'll bank on at least one dog owner on the jury seeing things my way: that's all I'd need.

Although, in Alabama, I may be protected under law from prosecution/civil action for killing an attacking dog--I'll have to check the code.

imported post

Although companion animals are considered property in Virginia, this actually may be of benefit:

§ 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.

A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.

C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.

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.

E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-280

imported post

Seems like subsection E might be how they get you? In reference to the earlier referenced codesection.

imported post

vmathis12019 seems to understand it, even if he is from Alabama. The rest of you - I give up. It's not worth the effort to get you to see in Virginia you cannnot use lethal force to protect property.

skidmark

imported post

Post deleted for inapplicable post.