Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Your legal rights during a home invasion

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dinwiddie, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    IMO this is results of a home owner taking responsibility for their own safety. This is evident by the results of having the tool they chose ready at a moments notice. This will be an interesting case to follow.

    The writer of the article is clueless in the fact that locks and alarms only slow criminals down by seconds andkeep the honest folks honest. But, I do agree that in taking a life has a consenquence-you thta you and you alone will have to live or die with your decesion.

    "When it comes down to it, your best defense is a good lock and alarm system because he says, “…at the end of the day, however justified it may have been, it's still taking another life and that is never without consequences.”

    http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=11489144

  2. #2
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    Well they are a good first line of defence. My Glock 30 is my second line. I do agree that my TV may not be worth someone losing their life over it but I do feel that is the responsibility of the one breaking in. Is my TV worth their life? They have a choice.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,438

    Post imported post

    Guys, thi probably isn't a good subject here. We all have a plan to keep ourselves safe. Discussing it on a public forum just gives ammunition to others if an incident does occur.

    Just my opinion.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Part of what I don't like about this article:

    "That's why Virginia Statute clearly states, if you have a reasonable belief that the person breaking into your home intends to hurt you, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or any others you believe are in danger."

    While I understand that they are talking about home invasions, this (if you have a reasonable belief thata person intends to hurt you, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or any others you believe are in danger) applies to whereever you are in VA does it not?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    600

    Post imported post

    Sounds like someone has been watching Brinks home security commercials. As soon as the alarm goes off the criminal always turns tail and runs.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,058

    Post imported post

    The case sounds almost exactly like the Ryan Frederick case, except the intruders were not police officers and it was 7AM, rather than after dark in the evening.

    I don't think it is ever a good idea to shoot through a door that is still closed.

    Here's a link to the coverage of the actual incident:

    http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=11484502

    TFred


  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    7,965

    Post imported post

    If it is ruled a justified/excusable homicide, Shamondray Chavis ought to be looking at a charge of murder in the death of Harry Stevenson. Felony murder rule.

    It's easy to sit in front of the keyboard and remember to shout "Go away! I have a gun!" while they are still trying to crash through your door, and hold off on pulling the trigger until the door caves in and you can finally determinewhether or notyou are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

    But Peter Nap is right - consider, cogitate, mull over, and revise your mental planning based on all the "what-if"-ing you can dream up. Just keep it to yourself.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Last time I checked Krispy Kreme didn't deliver. At 7 AM unless you called ahead of time you better have a daisy of a reason to be knockin on my door, like my house is on fire and you are my neighbor. I'm not shooting through the door unless you are a zombie. Chances are if you really wanted to get in you would go through a window you busted out first, but hey, who am I to argue the fastest way in?

    Though this does highlight the core part of this case - shooting through a door aside - what/when constitutes reasonable fear or threat? If an unknown person chucks a rock through a window, then climbs through it to get into my house at 7 AM; is he free game? Certainly he isn't there to help give me a shave before work. It's definately a threat to my safety and those around me.

    For me the answer is no for a few reasons. Until or whensome or all of those reasons become null and void, I cannot fire. Once they do, I can.


    Ultimately though it will be decide by 12 people who don't know you and weren't thereif you were right or not. While I agree most of your home defense practices/thoughts ought to be kept to oneself, it's also beneficial to point out why some of the statues should be changed. Not everyone trying to break into your domicile is drunk/knocking on the wrong door/down on their luck trying to get out of the weather. Some folks are just evil.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,895

    Post imported post

    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    I don't have to be able to articulate anything, legally, unless I plead guilty to something and have to allocute (sp).

    I'd rather pay a lawyer to articulate for me, if the need ever arose.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,895

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    I don't have to be able to articulate anything, legally, unless I plead guilty to something and have to allocute (sp).

    I'd rather pay a lawyer to articulate for me, if the need ever arose.
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    I don't have to be able to articulate anything, legally, unless I plead guilty to something and have to allocute (sp).

    I'd rather pay a lawyer to articulate for me, if the need ever arose.
    I'm glad we agree.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    7,965

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    I don't have to be able to articulate anything, legally, unless I plead guilty to something and have to allocute (sp).

    I'd rather pay a lawyer to articulate for me, if the need ever arose.
    For those that do not realize it, a defense of self-defense is in fact pleading guilty to homicide. You then are on the hook to present evidence that the homicide was either justifiable or excusable.

    You are going to have to articulate, probably through an attorney's carefully chosen questions, exactly why you felt threatened with imminent death or great bodily injury. Fortunately Virginia does not require you to retreat if you had the legal right to be where you were and you were not a party to an ongoing mutual confrontation. Castle doctrine under English Common Law gives you more protection in regards to a home invasion. But the bottom line is that a defense of "I killed him in self defense" begins with a plea of guilty to a charge of homicide and then proceeds to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that iy was either justified or excusable.

    Personally, I'd rather go bankrupt proving a justified/excusable homicide than sitting in prison for several years. I'd also like to see a civil immunity law passed that would prevent the deceased criminal's estate from suing me over the death he caused by his criminal action(s). For those keeping score, that is a variant of the "standard" civil immunity statute.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,611

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    Just a little reminder. In Virginia, you do not need to be in fear of death, just serious harm before you may used deadly force. Yes I know you used the conjunction "or", but I was just trying to clarify since so many people tend to think that somehow the two concepts are attached to one another. That's all.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,611

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    I don't have to be able to articulate anything, legally, unless I plead guilty to something and have to allocute (sp).

    I'd rather pay a lawyer to articulate for me, if the need ever arose.
    For those that do not realize it, a defense of self-defense is in fact pleading guilty to homicide. You then are on the hook to present evidence that the homicide was either justifiable or excusable.

    You are going to have to articulate, probably through an attorney's carefully chosen questions, exactly why you felt threatened with imminent death or great bodily injury. Fortunately Virginia does not require you to retreat if you had the legal right to be where you were and you were not a party to an ongoing mutual confrontation. Castle doctrine under English Common Law gives you more protection in regards to a home invasion. But the bottom line is that a defense of "I killed him in self defense" begins with a plea of guilty to a charge of homicide and then proceeds to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that iy was either justified or excusable.

    Personally, I'd rather go bankrupt proving a justified/excusable homicide than sitting in prison for several years. I'd also like to see a civil immunity law passed that would prevent the deceased criminal's estate from suing me over the death he caused by his criminal action(s). For those keeping score, that is a variant of the "standard" civil immunity statute.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Yep. It's called an "affirmative defense". You affirm your actions and present evidence accordingly.

    I am 100% in favor of civil immunity where the victim was judged as having committed an excusable homicide.

    I have a question for you. If you are involved in a deadly force incident isn't it true that the police may or may not charge you depending upon what they see at the scene? However, a grand jury may also chose not to indict you as well, right? So assuming both to be the case, if you live in a county where the county prosecutor is notoriously anti-gun, does he have any say in the matter if you have not been charged?


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Yep. It's called an "affirmative defense". You affirm your actions and present evidence accordingly.

    I am 100% in favor of civil immunity where the victim was judged as having committed an excusable homicide.

    I have a question for you. If you are involved in a deadly force incident isn't it true that the police may or may not charge you depending upon what they see at the scene? However, a grand jury may also chose not to indict you as well, right? So assuming both to be the case, if you live in a county where the county prosecutor is notoriously anti-gun, does he have any say in the matter if you have not been charged?
    This is where I think Virginia would bennifit from a Castle Doctrine w/civil immunity over the "common case law."

    With common case law there is a distinct possability you may be arrested, charged, hauled into court which may take months of your life. You'll have to pay for legal representation and while all this is going on you may have lost your job and your ability to support your family.

    With Castle Doctrine it never goes a fraction of that distance. The law is already written and states you cannot be arrested nor chraged for shooting an intruder inside of your home. You don't get hauled to jail, you don't get charged and you still are able to feed and support your family. Civil immunity is the icing on the cake to ensure the family of the hoodrat can't come to you looking for a payday.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,611

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Yep. It's called an "affirmative defense". You affirm your actions and present evidence accordingly.

    I am 100% in favor of civil immunity where the victim was judged as having committed an excusable homicide.

    I have a question for you. If you are involved in a deadly force incident isn't it true that the police may or may not charge you depending upon what they see at the scene? However, a grand jury may also chose not to indict you as well, right? So assuming both to be the case, if you live in a county where the county prosecutor is notoriously anti-gun, does he have any say in the matter if you have not been charged?
    This is where I think Virginia would bennifit from a Castle Doctrine w/civil immunity over the "common case law."

    With common case law there is a distinct possability you may be arrested, charged, hauled into court which may take months of your life. You'll have to pay for legal representation and while all this is going on you may have lost your job and your ability to support your family.

    With Castle Doctrine it never goes a fraction of that distance. The law is already written and states you cannot be arrested nor chraged for shooting an intruder inside of your home. You don't get hauled to jail, you don't get charged and you still are able to feed and support your family. Civil immunity is the icing on the cake to ensure the family of the hoodrat can come to you looking for a payday.
    I certainly can't disagree with any of that. My take is quite simple. If you are forced to use deadly force and it is excusable, you should never see the inside of a court room and it should cost you nothing in legal fees or penalties of any kind.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vinton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Just remember your definitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

    If someone is breaking into your home during the day, it is a misdemeanor; at night, it is a felony. Go figure that one.

    It either case, you can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. You just have to be able to articulate that...

    AND... What Peter Nap said above... have your plan, stick to it, don't talk about it...
    It may not be a B&E...If your door isn't lock it may be "Depriving a home owner's rights." In 1998 I had someone come into my house at 11:20 PM "looking for a cab" what he found was the business end of my S&W 4506...He already had 28 priors, and had a big bottle holding it by the neck like a club with a towel wrapped around it. He was lucky that I grabbed the wrong .45 from the gun cabinet, the one I grabbed was unloaded..:?....Anyway long story short, this happened on a Thursday night, and the trial was the very next Thursday and he only got time served. Judge asked me if I would have really shot him, and I told him in a NY second. The Judge then turned to the BG and told him that maybe he should stay away from there cause he thought that I really meant it.....

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    7,965

    Post imported post

    Let's play "semantics" - one of my favorite games.

    "Castle Doctrine" - either under English Common Law (not case law) or as a specific piece of legislation. Essentially the "Stand Your Ground" statute, with specific definitions of what is allowed, and anything outside of those are not allowed, or the concept that "A man's home is his castle."

    We then go to case law to see how the courts have interpreted either Common Law or the specific statute.

    "Civil Immunity" - specific legislation saying you cannot be sued for defending yourself, so long as the limitations and conditions of the legislation were met. Word it one way or word it another way, you get different results. Need to be very careful in how it is worded so you can guide the judges in interpreting it.

    I cannot call to mind the legal phrase that says a criminal should not be allowed to profit from his crime. It's the set of laws that keep you from inheriting or collecting on the life insurance after you bump off Mom & Dad. It's also the set of laws that prevents you from reaping any income from publishing a book about your criminal exploits. NY State calls theirs the "Son of Sam Law" after David Berkowitz wrote a book about his killing spree. Anyhow, we need that onntop of civil immunity to protect us from the criminal and his heirs/estate after it has been determined he was a criminal and/or that he died in the commission of acts that you proved were justifiable/excusable.

    As ypu can see, just trying to give a quick overview gets confusing and wrapped up in technicalities. Imagine drafting the legislation so a Delegate or Senator can sponsor it and support it through the various committees it will be sent to. I know what I'm trying to say and I get confused. Think what your local GA member will feel like.

    We need a brainstorming session. Who else wants to play?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "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

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,611

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Let's play "semantics" - one of my favorite games.

    "Castle Doctrine" - either under English Common Law (not case law) or as a specific piece of legislation. Essentially the "Stand Your Ground" statute, with specific definitions of what is allowed, and anything outside of those are not allowed, or the concept that "A man's home is his castle."

    We then go to case law to see how the courts have interpreted either Common Law or the specific statute.

    "Civil Immunity" - specific legislation saying you cannot be sued for defending yourself, so long as the limitations and conditions of the legislation were met. Word it one way or word it another way, you get different results. Need to be very careful in how it is worded so you can guide the judges in interpreting it.

    I cannot call to mind the legal phrase that says a criminal should not be allowed to profit from his crime. It's the set of laws that keep you from inheriting or collecting on the life insurance after you bump off Mom & Dad. It's also the set of laws that prevents you from reaping any income from publishing a book about your criminal exploits. NY State calls theirs the "Son of Sam Law" after David Berkowitz wrote a book about his killing spree. Anyhow, we need that onntop of civil immunity to protect us from the criminal and his heirs/estate after it has been determined he was a criminal and/or that he died in the commission of acts that you proved were justifiable/excusable.

    As ypu can see, just trying to give a quick overview gets confusing and wrapped up in technicalities. Imagine drafting the legislation so a Delegate or Senator can sponsor it and support it through the various committees it will be sent to. I know what I'm trying to say and I get confused. Think what your local GA member will feel like.

    We need a brainstorming session. Who else wants to play?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I'm in. This is an area in which I have a good deal of interest. You might wish to get "user" into the fray since he's an attorney and has knowledge of these matters.

    I remember studying the concept of a "thief may not profit from his torts" (I think it was worded something like that). In my business law classes, we would occasionally get off on tangents and discuss such things. They were always very interesting to me.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  21. #21
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Let's play "semantics" - one of my favorite games.

    "Castle Doctrine" - either under English Common Law (not case law) or as a specific piece of legislation. Essentially the "Stand Your Ground" statute, with specific definitions of what is allowed, and anything outside of those are not allowed, or the concept that "A man's home is his castle."

    We then go to case law to see how the courts have interpreted either Common Law or the specific statute.

    "Civil Immunity" - specific legislation saying you cannot be sued for defending yourself, so long as the limitations and conditions of the legislation were met. Word it one way or word it another way, you get different results. Need to be very careful in how it is worded so you can guide the judges in interpreting it.

    I cannot call to mind the legal phrase that says a criminal should not be allowed to profit from his crime. It's the set of laws that keep you from inheriting or collecting on the life insurance after you bump off Mom & Dad. It's also the set of laws that prevents you from reaping any income from publishing a book about your criminal exploits. NY State calls theirs the "Son of Sam Law" after David Berkowitz wrote a book about his killing spree. Anyhow, we need that onntop of civil immunity to protect us from the criminal and his heirs/estate after it has been determined he was a criminal and/or that he died in the commission of acts that you proved were justifiable/excusable.

    As ypu can see, just trying to give a quick overview gets confusing and wrapped up in technicalities. Imagine drafting the legislation so a Delegate or Senator can sponsor it and support it through the various committees it will be sent to. I know what I'm trying to say and I get confused. Think what your local GA member will feel like.

    We need a brainstorming session. Who else wants to play?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    The best thing to do would be to take pre-existing castle doctrine laws as they exsist in other states and modify them to work within Virginia. After reviewing many I find myself very fond of the wording of the Florida.

    Review it here: http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session...36am191782.pdf

    In essence, it establishes without question that if there is an uninvited person inside of your home (robber, rapist, drugged up junkie) the law states that person is inside of your home to kill you; and thus you may defend yourself with deadly force.

    It is applicable inside your home, your business, your car, hotel room, tent, etc.

    It states you cannot be sued in civil court by the badguy's family or ambulance chasers looking for a payday over the death of their little angel.

    the part I really like is where it states" : (1) A person who uses force as described in s.
    776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes wrongfully arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is clear and convincing evidence that the force that was used was unlawful.


    So when it's 2:30AM and I shoot a robber inside of my home, call 911 and have police come out to mop-up. I have a massive adrenalin rush; my head isn't on straight after having to shoot a guy and for my safety and continued protection I shouldn't be chatty with po-po who want answers until I lawyer up. Because I won't answer their questions on the spot, with this version of Castle Doctrine they can't arrest me, they can't detain me or anything. It's giving victim rights back to the real victims.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  22. #22
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,439

    Post imported post

    I also like the FL Castle Doctrine, and I think it might make a good model for VA.

    But I noticed what may be an inconsistency.

    "776.013

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,...

    b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful or forcible entry or unlawful or forcible act had occurred."

    Part B seems to cover the case where a burglar had stolen your (or a family member's)wallet and keys, and used them to effect an unlawful entry, but part A seems to require that entry be both forcible and unlawful. (The theft of the wallet and keys doesn't have to be forceful. They could have been taken because you were careless, e.g. you left themon the bar while you went to the restroom.) If you shoot the guy who used your key, where does that leave you?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  23. #23
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    2a4all wrote:
    I also like the FL Castle Doctrine, and I think it might make a good model for VA.

    But I noticed what may be an inconsistency.

    "776.013

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,...

    b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful or forcible entry or unlawful or forcible act had occurred."

    Part B seems to cover the case where a burglar had stolen your (or a family member's)wallet and keys, and used them to effect an unlawful entry, but part A seems to require that entry be both forcible and unlawful. (The theft of the wallet and keys doesn't have to be forceful. They could have been taken because you were careless, e.g. you left themon the bar while you went to the restroom.) If you shoot the guy who used your key, where does that leave you?
    As a template we could request any abnormalities such as what you discovered would be stricken and crafted to avoid such conflicting situations.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,021

    Post imported post

    1. I don't know what's meant by the phrase, "home invasion" - is that a case of breaking and entering, or is it burglary? The difference is the time of day - if it's after dark, it's burglary. Burglary is one of the five traditional "serious felonies" (rape, robbery, murder, burglary, and arson). Deadly force is lawful to stop a burglary, but not to stop a breaking and entering. An intruder who comes in during the daytime is essentially a trespasser, whom one may not shoot merely to protect property (normal rules of self defense / defense of others applies, of course). BUT:

    2. I take the position that the Castle Doctrine is already good law in the Commonwealth. The recent Supreme Court decision that said that it is not because no statute has been passed was misguided by bad lawyering, in my opinion. There are Virginia Supreme Court decisions stating that the Castle Doctrine does apply. By statute, the Common Law of England as it existed in 1607 (the founding of Jamestown) is the law of Virginia, unless "repugnant" to the general law or Constitution. The last English case that applies on the subject was in 1603.

    The point of the Castle Doctrine was specifically to keep law enforcement from breaking in. By saying that one has a right to defend one's home from intrusion by means of deadly force if necessary, it says that one has the same rights that the local lord or the King has in his castle to defend his home from enemies, even if that enemy is the King.

    I reckon that if you tried to bust into the Governor's Mansion (they don't call it a "palace", anymore, do they?), the State Police wouldn't hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. The Castle Doctrine says you have the same right in your home.

    Conclusion: I don't think any new statute is necessary in Virginia, it couldn't possibly expand the rights we've already got. And I'd be willing to argue that anyone who is charged with a crime for defending his home had a perfect right to do so under Virginia's Castle Doctrine.

    Other wrinkles: "no-knock" warrants are becoming the norm. And this is one of those things where it's pretty easy to be "dead right".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  25. #25
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,058

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    Other wrinkles: "no-knock" warrants are becoming the norm. And this is one of those things where it's pretty easy to be "dead right".
    Yep, as I read each of your points, my head kept interrupting with "unless you're Ryan Frederick"... I hate it when it does that...

    TFred


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
  •