• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Your legal rights during a home invasion

Ranger

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
14
Location
, ,
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
 

thnycav

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
305
Location
Windsor VA, ,
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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
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?
 

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
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.:banghead:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
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.
 

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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...
 

Wangmuf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
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.
 

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
:D
 

Wangmuf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
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.
:D
I'm glad we agree. ;)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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?
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

cb5300

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
18
Location
Vinton, Virginia, USA
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.....
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 
Top