imported post
The police have misinformed you on the law in the Commonwealth.There is no duty to retreat if you are free from fault in bringing on thedifficulty.It is only when you have some fault in bringing on the difficulty that you have a duty to retreat, announce a desire for peace, and then use force only out of necessity. Some fault can be something like arguing with someone.
Below is some case law for review. I believe this is really important to know for gun owners in Virginia. Let me know if anyone wants the entire cases, I can post.
From
Gilbert v. Com., 506 S.E.2d 543, 28 Va.App. 466 (Va. App., 1998)
An accused who claims self-defense to a charge of homicide "implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the mind [] of the [trier of fact]."
McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). The Supreme Court summarized the principles of self-defense by noting the following:
The law of self-defense is the law of necessity.... [A] defendant must reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm to himself at the hands of his victim. It is not essential to the right of self-defense that the danger should in fact exist. If it reasonably appears to a defendant that the danger exists, he has the right to defend against it to the same extent, and under the same rules, as would obtain in case the danger is real. A defendant may always act upon reasonable appearance of danger, and whether the danger is reasonably apparent is always to be determined from the viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted. These ancient and well-established principles ... emphasize the subjective nature of the defense, and why it is an affirmative one.
The distinction between justifiable and excusable self-defense claims is well established. "Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs where a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself."
Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96, 104 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1958). When the accused is free from fault in bringing on the fray, the accused "need not [highlight= #b5d0e0]retreat, but is permitted to stand his [or her] ground and repel the attack by force, including deadly force, if it is necessary."
Foote v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 61, 67, 396 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1990).
[28 Va.App. 473] "Excusable homicide in self-defense occurs where the accused, although in some fault in the first instance in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, when attacked retreats as far as possible, announces his desire for peace, and kills his adversary from a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life or save himself from great bodily harm." Bailey, 200 Va. at 96, 104 S.E.2d at 31. If a killing is proved to be either justifiable or excusable, the accused must be acquitted. Id."
From
Foote v. Com., 396 S.E.2d 851, 11 Va.App. 61 (Va. App., 1990)
In Virginia, homicide (or attempted homicide) in self-defense is classified either as justifiable or excusable. Justifiable self-defense arises when the defendant is completely without fault.
Perkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 867, 876, 44 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1947). In such a case, the defendant need not [highlight= #b5d0e0]retreat, but is permitted to stand his ground and repel the attack by force, including deadly force, if it is necessary.
McCoy v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 771, 775, 99 S.E. 644, 645 (1919). Excusable self-defense arises when the defendant, who was at some fault in precipitating the [11 Va.App. 68] difficulty, abandons the fight and retreats as far as he safely can before he attempts to repel the attack. Id. at 776, 99 S.E. at 646.
