Man convicted of lesser charge for shooting alleged intruder

imported post

C'mon y'all. It really could have been worse.

For starters, this guy committed the grievous error of firing a "warning shot" at a fleeing perp.

Then, he gets off with a fine and a firearms safety course (seems to imply he doesn't become a prohibited person. Anybody know for sure?) without even a trial.

Really, could have been worse. He was smart to take the plea.

Also, I'm glad this man didn't go to jail for a mistake I totally understand, but the self-defense law in Virginia is good.

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

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.

----------

So it looks like protection of property is lawful under some statutes.

Click to expand...

In my read of the posted law it applies to PUBLIC PLACES, SCHOOLS, SCHOOL ZONES, and STREETS.

The first part (A) talks about discharging from any street in any city or town, Public places, or place of PUBLIC gathering--- Don't apply as this was the guy's back yard as in PRIVATE PROPERTY. The second part (B)talks about school grounds and the case presented gives not info about a school grounds being involved. The third part (C) talks about the so called 1000' boundry surrounding school property and again the article posted makes no mention about the proximity of a school. (D) gives some exemptions (E) gives the Commonwealth the option of prosecuting under a different statute of their choise.

So, I don't see how it even applies in this case as originally posted. The guy SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE PLEA!

imported post

An incident like this is just goes to show that if you shoot someone breaking into your home, you only say "he turned at me with an object in his hand and I was in great fear of my life and the safety of my family." Then say nothing else. Let your pro gun lawyer do the rest of your talking. The irony is that there are two shooting standards. One for law enforcement and one for average citizens. The police sometimes shoot people under the same stressful circumstances and get away with it only getting a bad boy letter in their personnel file and that's it. The police sometimes get an internal investigation followed by a "pass" and the average non LEO citizen gets charged criminally. For instance in Fairfax County a few years back a police officer accidentally shot an unarmed gambling suspect to death. The police officer had his hand on the trigger as he was getting out of his car. The car door swung open then jerked back slammed against his hand holding his gun. The slam caused him to pull the trigger and discharge a round into the suspect killing him. The officer had to take an extra police gun safety class. I am sure that police officers are smart enough to have their police union representatives and lawyers at their side doing all the talking.

This court judgment against this poor fellow really stinks.

imported post

Ross was originally charged with malicious wounding:

18.2-51. Shooting, stabbing, etc., with intent to maim, kill, etc.

If any person maliciously shoot, stab, cut, or wound any person or by any means cause him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall, except where it is otherwise provided, be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If such act be done unlawfully but not maliciously, with the intent aforesaid, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Click to expand...

Well, what is malicious with trying to protect your own property?

I suspect Richmond's Commonwealth's Attorney, Michael Herring, is still sore after losing the Baskin-Robbins case. If that's true, then you can expect his office to prosecute most every case in Richmond involving a shooting in defense of property.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Ross was originally charged with malicious wounding:

18.2-51. Shooting, stabbing, etc., with intent to maim, kill, etc.

If any person maliciously shoot, stab, cut, or wound any person or by any means cause him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall, except where it is otherwise provided, be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If such act be done unlawfully but not maliciously, with the intent aforesaid, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Click to expand...

Well, what is malicious with trying to protect your own property?

I suspect Richmond's Commonwealth's Attorney, Michael Herring, is still sore after losing the Baskin-Robbins case. If that's true, then you can expect his office to prosecute most every case in Richmond involving a shooting in defense of property.

Click to expand...

Alright! I read the words in 18.2-280 of the Code of Virginia that say "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."

Now, would someone please explain to me what is considered to be excusable or justifiable protection of property? Case law citations, please? References to Common Law hornbooks?

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Ross was originally charged with malicious wounding:

18.2-51. Shooting, stabbing, etc., with intent to maim, kill, etc.

If any person maliciously shoot, stab, cut, or wound any person or by any means cause him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall, except where it is otherwise provided, be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If such act be done unlawfully but not maliciously, with the intent aforesaid, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Click to expand...

Well, what is malicious with trying to protect your own property?

I suspect Richmond's Commonwealth's Attorney, Michael Herring, is still sore after losing the Baskin-Robbins case. If that's true, then you can expect his office to prosecute most every case in Richmond involving a shooting in defense of property.

Click to expand...

Alright!  I read the words in 18.2-280 of the Code of Virginia that say "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."

Now, would someone please explain to me what is considered to be excusable or justifiable protection of property?  Case law citations, please?  References to Common Law hornbooks?

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Sorry I do not have time right now to go find the case law for you, but the short of this is that the guy shot at someone who was "fleeing" the scene. Only the police can shoot a fleeing person and even then it USUALLY has to be a person fleeing from a felony not a misdemeanor. It would be rare indeed if a case of shooting at a trespasser who was trying to leave di not lead to charges.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer,

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is a citation for "any other person" (obviously LEO have exceptions we ordinary shlubs do not):

1) whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his... property. I cannot fathom the theory behind justifiability or excusability of thewillful discharge of a firearmin theprotection of property under thecase law of Virginia or the Common Law. The closest I can come is shooting an arsonist who is in the act of setting fire to an occupied dwelling - but that actually comes down as justifiabilityin the defense of an innocent other's life. I'm trying to understand a statement in the Code that seems, to me, to be completely contradictory with the existing jurisprudence regarding use of deadly force (the origin of excusability or justifiability).

and separately,

2)or is otherwise specifically authorized by law. What law(s) specifically authorize the use of deadly force in the protection of property? I can usually do quite well without access to stuff like Nexus/Lexis in finding statutaory stuff. My Google-fu in this case is either decrepit or there just is not any legislation "specifically authorizing" the willfull discharge of a firearm in the protection of propertry. Maybe what I'm looking for is someone who can assert with some level of authority that there just is no such authorizing legislation and reassure me that my Google-fu has not deteriorated. (As an aside, presuming that there in fact is no such authorizing legislation, why in the name of $deiety would that clause have been written? Did the General Assembly contemplate a futute act that would authorize the willful discharge of a firearm in the protection of property?)

My head hurts, and for once it's not from :banghead:.

All armchair lawyers (I remind you I am am a proud member of the guild) are invited to weigh in with citations or references.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Hawkflyer,

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is a citation for "any other person" (obviously LEO have exceptions we ordinary shlubs do not):

1) whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his ... property.  I cannot fathom the theory behind justifiability or excusability of the willful discharge of a firearm in the protection of property under the case law of Virginia or the Common Law.  The closest I can come is shooting an arsonist who is in the act of setting fire to an occupied dwelling - but that actually comes down as justifiability in the defense of an innocent other's life.  I'm trying to understand a statement in the Code that seems, to me, to be completely contradictory with the existing jurisprudence regarding use of deadly force (the origin of excusability or justifiability).

and separately,

2) or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.  What law(s) specifically authorize the use of deadly force in the protection of property?  I can usually do quite well without access to stuff like Nexus/Lexis in finding statutaory stuff.  My Google-fu in this case is either decrepit or there just is not any legislation "specifically authorizing" the willfull discharge of a firearm in the protection of propertry.  Maybe what I'm looking for is someone who can assert with some level of authority that there just is no such authorizing legislation and reassure me that my Google-fu has not deteriorated.  (As an aside, presuming that there in fact is no such authorizing legislation, why in the name of $deiety would that clause have been written?  Did the General Assembly contemplate a futute act that would authorize the willful discharge of a firearm in the protection of property?)

My head hurts, and for once it's not from :banghead:.

All armchair lawyers (I remind you I am am a proud member of the guild) are invited to weigh in with citations or references.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Skid -

I think the problem you are having is based in these issues.

In most cases nobody is allowed deadly force for the simple protection of property, including LEOs. This is because property crimes are for the most part misdemeanors. The arson you mention would be a felony in most places. So the authorization you seek would all be part of separate laws covering other violations that may occur at the same time as the property crime. Now there are provision for LEOs to act if a misdemeanor is committed in their presence, but the application of Deadly Force would only be appropriate if the situation escalated in some way where some more serious violation had or was occurring.

You might want to look at the "Fleeing felon" statutes for some of this.

So for example a person sees a guy at night rattling a door knob in a stairwell. He goes to take a look. If our good guy was to shoot the bad guy to prevent him entering the building, it would be a bad shoot. No matter if the guy is a LEO or a regular joe, it would be a bad shoot. Why? Straight property crime, without any threat to life of any kind.

But what if when our hero looks into the stairwell he sees a woman lying on the stairs naked and bleeding. The other guy turns from the door and raises a knife, and our good guy shoots and kills him. Now when this gets to court, did our good guy shoot the bad guy because he was protecting the woman, himself or the building?

AFAIK there is no justification in law for application of deadly force for simple property crimes. What you need to look for is the prohibitions against use of deadly force for that type of crime. In all legitimate cases of property related shootings that I am aware of, there is some kind of included felony, or some escalation of events to the level of a felony.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer.

I agree with you completely. I was just :banghead:and :cussver language in the Code of Virginia that suggested there were specifically authorized exceptions. So much for the maxim that laws mean exactly what they state.

Do not shoot in protection of property. If you can find a convincing argument that there is an ongoing felony, take your chances. If you can show that you can be excused or justified because of a threat to self or an other innocent person, go ahead and then pay the attorney. Got it!

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

-- Deleted --Rules Violation

imported post

EHeiston wrote:

-- Deleted --Rules Violation

Click to expand...

Quoted for further hilarity.

Don't quit your day job, dude.

imported post

vt800c wrote:

I worked hard for all I have, giving up part of my limited lifetime to have something worthwile.

Click to expand...

How much should a possession be worth before you can take a mans life over it? Should it be relative to the # of hours you had to work at the time of purchase to acquire such things? What if it was a gift, and no direct letting of your own sweat was required - can you still kill a man in preservation of it?

imported post

VaLiberty wrote:

vt800c wrote:

I worked hard for all I have, giving up part of my limited lifetime to have something worthwile.

Click to expand...

How much should a possession be worth before you can take a mans life over it? Should it be relative to the # of hours you had to work at the time of purchase to acquire such things? What if it was a gift, and no direct letting of your own sweat was required - can you still kill a man in preservation of it?

Click to expand...

I've seen many such discussions in various threads.

If I lived in a state that allowed such behavior in defense of possessions, I might use my weapon to scare the thief away, but would not kill him over it. Assuming it wasn't a B&E, where I would use all legal force to defend my life.

And also assuming that the thief stopped and/or I lived in an area where police were relatively close.

imported post

I can't believe the lawyering that goes on in cases like this.

imported post

user wrote:

I can't believe the lawyering that goes on in cases like this.

Click to expand...

Hay, we are just "practicing."

Yata hey