Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: HB 251: Self-defense and defense of others

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+sum+HB251

    Full Text

    Self-defense and defense of others. Provides that any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury. The bill also provides that a person who uses justifiable force against an intruder shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person.


  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    This one will get a lot of attention, I'm going to go ahead and post the full text here too...

    TFred

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+ful+HB251

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-91.1 as follows:

    § 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self- defense.

    Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

    Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    And I'll start by asking the first question too...


    What does the phrase "having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling" mean here?

    What does this phrase add to the bill over the next phrase "and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury"?

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure this bill is better than current law.

    This would seem to make it more difficult to shoot a night-time intruder. Currently a night time intruder can be assumed dangerous. This law would apparently mean you'd need some articulated reasoning of what a person was doing threatening other than entering your bedroom at 1am.

    Overall, this bill is poorly written.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I agree this is poorly written, except for the civil immunity part of it. But the rest is of no improvement over current law. Why not just delete the rest, and simplymake it,"Any person lawfully using lethal force is immune from civil liabilty"....?

  6. #6
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    The law as written says "overt act" not "overt violent act."

    It could be very easily argued that the act of breaking into the house is, in and of itself an "overt" act. But for those who would not be satisfied. . .

    Bad guy busts out window in basement.

    Bad guy enters home through said window.

    Bad guy turns corner in home to be lit up by a tac-light attached to a mossy 500.

    Bad guy gets a 000 buck lobotomy.

    Police arrive to find bad guy dead with a kitchen knife at his side; presumably gathered by badguy from the homeowners kitchen during his unlawful entry.

    Homeowner states to police "I was in fear for my life and/or bodily injury seeing a man with my kitchen knife coming towards me; I'll be more than happy to answer further questions after I talk to my lawyer as I'm too frazzled at this time."


    Then they gather for a spot of tea while this all blows over.

    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Herndon, VA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    I am sure the introduced bill will be revised more than a few times.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    I don't care for it. We already have the right to use deadly force in defense of ourselves or others when faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or worse and whether we are in a dwelling or not makes no difference.

    But it's the second paragraph that I really don't care for.. about immunity from civil liability. Why only in a dwelling? Why not wherever we have a right to use deadly force? This doesn't go far enough.

    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.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    I don't care for it. We already have the right to use deadly force in defense of ourselves or others when faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or worse and whether we are in a dwelling or not makes no difference.

    But it's the second paragraph that I really don't care for.. about immunity from civil liability. Why only in a dwelling? Why not wherever we have a right to use deadly force? This doesn't go far enough.
    That is what I posted above. No location, simply whenever lawful lethal force is used, immunity applies.

  10. #10
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    The law as written says "overt act" not "overt violent act."

    It could be very easily argued that the act of breaking into the house is, in and of itself an "overt" act. But for those who would not be satisfied. . .

    Bad guy busts out window in basement.

    Bad guy enters home through said window.

    Bad guy turns corner in home to be lit up by a tac-light attached to a mossy 500.

    Bad guy gets a 000 buck lobotomy.

    Police arrive to find bad guy dead with a kitchen knife at his side; presumably gathered by badguy from the homeowners kitchen during his unlawful entry.

    Homeowner states to police "I was in fear for my life and/or bodily injury seeing a man with my kitchen knife coming towards me; I'll be more than happy to answer further questions after I talk to my lawyer as I'm too frazzled at this time."


    Then they gather for a spot of tea while this all blows over.
    LOL. I DARE you to say "...life and/or bodily..." to the cops.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  11. #11
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    ChinChin wrote:
    The law as written says "overt act" not "overt violent act."

    It could be very easily argued that the act of breaking into the house is, in and of itself an "overt" act. But for those who would not be satisfied. . .

    Bad guy busts out window in basement.

    Bad guy enters home through said window.

    Bad guy turns corner in home to be lit up by a tac-light attached to a mossy 500.

    Bad guy gets a 000 buck lobotomy.

    Police arrive to find bad guy dead with a kitchen knife at his side; presumably gathered by badguy from the homeowners kitchen during his unlawful entry.

    Homeowner states to police "I was in fear for my life and/or bodily injury seeing a man with my kitchen knife coming towards me; I'll be more than happy to answer further questions after I talk to my lawyer as I'm too frazzled at this time."


    Then they gather for a spot of tea while this all blows over.
    LOL. I DARE you to say "...life and/or bodily..." to the cops.
    Have before; would again. No big.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    SNIP Police arrive to find bad guy dead with a kitchen knife at his side; presumably gathered by badguy from the homeowners kitchen during his unlawful entry.
    How did he "gather" the knife from the kitchen while in the basement?

    Did he also fall "up" the basement stairs after he was shot?

    :P
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    ChinChin wrote:
    SNIP Police arrive to find bad guy dead with a kitchen knife at his side; presumably gathered by badguy from the homeowners kitchen during his unlawful entry.
    How did he "gather" the knife from the kitchen while in the basement?

    Did he also fall "up" the basement stairs after he was shot?

    :P
    I bet he also fell onto that kitchen knife three times after falling up the stairs :what:

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    I don't care for it. We already have the right to use deadly force in defense of ourselves or others when faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or worse and whether we are in a dwelling or not makes no difference.

    But it's the second paragraph that I really don't care for.. about immunity from civil liability. Why only in a dwelling? Why not wherever we have a right to use deadly force? This doesn't go far enough.
    That is what I posted above. No location, simply whenever lawful lethal force is used, immunity applies.
    Yes sir. Amen to that.

    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.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •