• 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.

HB 251: Self-defense and defense of others

TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?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.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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/legp504.exe?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.
​
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
 
P

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
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"....?
 
ChinChin

ChinChin

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

SouthernBoy

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

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
That is what I posted above. No location, simply whenever lawful lethal force is used, immunity applies.
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
Click to expand...
LOL. I DARE you to say "...life and/or bodily..." to the cops.:dude:
 
ChinChin

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
LOL. I DARE you to say "...life and/or bodily..." to the cops.:dude:
Click to expand...
Have before; would again. No big.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
N

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

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

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
That is what I posted above. No location, simply whenever lawful lethal force is used, immunity applies.
Click to expand...
Yes sir. Amen to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top